U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–583 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 111–1189 

HEARING ON THE PRESIDENT’S PROPOSED 

EPA BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 12, 2009 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MAY 12, 2009 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 2 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 3 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 6 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 9 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 9 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 10 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ............................ 11 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 100 

WITNESS 

Jackson, Lisa P., Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .......... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 14 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 29 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 38 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 44 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 70 

(1) 

HEARING ON THE PRESIDENT’S PROPOSED 

EPA BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010 

TUESDAY, MAY 12, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:45 a.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Klobuchar, Lautenberg, Vitter, Barrasso, 

Sanders, Whitehouse, Udall, and Merkley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The Committee will come to order. 

I know Administrator Jackson has a very hectic day, so we have 

accommodated her by starting 15 minutes earlier than normal. But 

we will also try to keep our opening statements to 4 minutes and 

I would start by thanking Administrator Jackson for appearing before the Committee today to discuss the President’s budget for the 

EPA. 

Every year the Committee holds a hearing to examine the budget 

for the EPA and clearly, during the last Administration, there was 

rarely any good news in the budget. For example, the Bush 2009 

budget represented a 26 percent decline in resources over the past 

8 years. And I am pleased to see this budget represents a fresh 

new commitment to safeguarding public health including the 

health of our children, curbing the carbon pollutions that cause 

global warming, and creating clean energy jobs. 

The investments in this budget signal the high priority that the 

President places on the health of the environment and the health 

of the American people. Our States and our cities are faced with 

unprecedented need to invest in drinking water plants and wastewater treatment facilities. These systems help ensure our families 

can safely turn on the tap when they go to work in the morning 

and come home in the evening and they will keep our lakes and 

rivers clean for fishing and swimming. This is so important to all 

of us in our States. 

EPA estimates that our Nation has more than $200 billion in investment needs just for wastewater infrastructure. By 2019, our 

drinking water infrastructure needs could top $100 billion. And I 

think it is important to note that when we do clean these areas up 

and bring them up to speed we create many, many good paying 

jobs. So this budget would provide $3.9 billion for drinking and 
2 

wastewater infrastructure, an increase of more than $2.3 billion. 

This is more than a down payment on protecting public health. 

Again, it will put people to work and rebuild our crucial infrastructure. 

I look forward to our business meeting later this week where we 

plan to move forward to reauthorize and update the Clean Water 

and Safe Drinking Water Revolving Funds. I am pleased we have 

introduced a bipartisan bill. Yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. That reflects our agreement on the importance 

of this issue. And if we do pass this, it is the Revolving Fund that 

deals with rebuilding our sewer infrastructure. I do not think that 

has been authorized in 22 years. Twenty-two years. And we are on 

the verge of breaking that. And then the other, the Drinking Water 

Revolving Fund, is about 13 years. So we are very excited, Administrator Jackson, that with you helping us and guiding us and 

working with us we can make some real bipartisan progress. 

There are important elements in this budget: addressing global 

warming, the Energy Star Program, a national inventory of large 

sources of greenhouse gas emissions which Senator Klobuchar has 

worked so hard on, there is analysis of issues relating to cap-andtrade for controlling the pollution, there is developing vehicle emission reduction technologies to address carbon pollution and help us 

car manufacturers adopt such technologies and become more competitive. 

So this is an historic budget. I will say I have concerns. I am 

worried about the Superfund cleanup piece. And I do not understand why the projected number of completed Superfund cleanups 

is down despite the overall increase in the budget and why diesel 

emissions reduction efforts, which are so important to Senator Carper and so important to protecting children from asthma, why that 

has been cut. I am concerned that the needs of State and local air 

officials do not appear to be adequately reflected. 

So here is where I come out and say I am with most of it. I am 

concerned with a few pieces here. And at the end of the day the 

budget begins the hard work of restoring America’s confidence in 

the EPA. It would make our families healthier, our communities 

safer. 

And I will put the rest of my statement in the record to keep 

with the 4 minutes and under the rules. Thanks to Senator Vitter, 

I am going to call on Senator Klobuchar, then Senator Vitter and 

then Senator Lautenberg. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, 

and thank you, Senator Vitter, for allowing me to go first. I am 

going to another committee hearing to introduce my former professor, Cass Sunnstein, who hopefully will help you get through all 

these regulations so we can get some things done here. 

I want to also tell you how much I appreciate the leadership you 

have shown at the EPA and the integrity you are working to restore to the office. I am looking forward to going through your 

budget and working with you on this budget. 
3 

I also am pleased that there is money set aside for that greenhouse gas registry. I always felt that we are not going to start any 

kind of a greenhouse gas system nationally in terms of reducing 

greenhouse gases if we cannot even count them and this is the very 

important first step that should have been done administratively a 

while back. I always thought it was ironic that we had something 

like 37 States that had started their own greenhouse gas registry 

together because the Federal Government had failed to act. 

I also appreciate as Chair of the Subcommittee on Children’s 

Health and as a fellow parent of a school age child that you have 

instituted a new plan for screening combinations of chemicals, recognizing that people are never exposed to just one chemical alone 

but typically small doses of multiple chemicals in combination. I 

understand that this new method will pay particular attention to 

the way small children are affected disproportionately by toxic 

chemical exposure and may help us realize some of the causes of 

serious medical problems that plague people later in life. 

And I just wanted to mention one thing that we had talked about 

earlier this week: the status of biofuels. I believe that if we are 

going to move to the next stage of ethanol and biofuels, with cellulosic ethanol, with switch grass and prairie grass and corn stover 

and other things that we have to continue to make sure that we 

do not pull the rag out from under our existing bio-fuel business 

which has had to compete tool and nail with these humongous oil 

companies to just get into existence. I know we have talked about 

that. 

I personally believe that, to fulfill some of the national requirements that were included in the Energy Bill, we need to move to 

higher blends of ethanol, E12, E15 and I am hopeful that there will 

be money set aside to get those proceedings moving because we 

have been waiting a long time to do that and biofuels clearly 

should be a part of the work that we do in order to get ourselves 

off of our dependence on foreign oil. 

So, overall, I wanted to thank you for your good work, Administrator Jackson, the work of the EPA, the fact that we are able to 

get information and evidence and things that we need to make 

good decisions. As you know, we have a major bill ahead of us, a 

climate change bill, and we look forward to your leadership and 

working with you to make sure that we have a strong bill that not 

only reverses the trend we have seen across the world with global 

warming but also does it in a way that will make sure that middle 

class people, people who have been harmed in this economy, are 

not hurt by our action. What we want to do is have them helped 

by this action and I believe there is a way that we can do it. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator, very much. Before you 

leave, I want to talk to you about one quick thing. On the way out. 

Senator Vitter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, for 

the opportunity to discuss this proposed budget and delve into 

some of the major items facing the Agency and the Country and 
4 

thank you, Administrator Jackson, for your time here and your 

leadership. 

As we discuss the President’s budget, I think it is important to 

note some broad, conflicting signals given by the Administration 

through the budget. On the one hand, the President touts fiscal responsibility. On the other hand, he proposes major spending increases which result in record deficits and national debt. 

Early on, the Administration asked us to support an $800 billion 

borrowing plan essentially on our kids’ credit card to stimulate the 

economy. And we were told that that $800 billion in added debt 

would create 3.5 million jobs. I hope that gamble pays off. I hope 

it supports and creates those jobs. However, going beyond that, as 

we move from a one time stimulus to a 5- and 10-year budget plan, 

my concern grows when we see that level of spending increase continue and reflected in the budget, including an EPA budget that 

grows 37 percent in 1 year. 

Now, the EPA has a very important responsibility in protecting 

our environment. It also has a responsibility not to regulate our 

economy into a full blown depression and that is my other very serious concern. The most notable decision in this new EPA in that 

regard is the greenhouse gas endangerment finding. It is no secret 

that that decision to attribute climate change to six greenhouse 

gases is intended to pressure Congress into passing comprehensive 

cap-and-trade legislation. Hopefully, EPA recognizes the precarious 

situation this decision places the Agency and the Administration 

in. There exists no legitimate economic argument that regulating 

CO2 would not significantly increase the cost of energy. 

In addition, there is no economic analysis to support the idea 

that increasing the cost of energy would not be a major negative 

impact on low-income families or force some jobs and businesses 

overseas. And that is the great, great risk with the endangerment 

finding. Essentially, it really seems that you are telling Congress 

that, unless we pass legislation that will increase the cost of energy, including on low-income families and businesses and schools, 

then you will be forced, as an agency, to regulate CO2 and unilaterally increase the cost of energy on those same low-income families 

and businesses and schools. 

Now, despite the 37 percent increase in funding at a time of 

record deficits, I do think there is some important and good expenditures within this budget and I want to highlight that. Those 

include funding for the clean water and drinking water infrastructure program which is needed in many areas, certainly including 

rural Louisiana. However, we may also be on the verge of having 

new environmental regulations that could single-handedly cripple 

the economy, also limit property rights and our Country’s ability to 

generate wealth including in those areas. 

I will submit the remainder of my comments for the record but 

again, I want to underscore two key things. One is on the fiscal 

side, a grave concern about this enormous increase in spending and 

with it, deficit and debt, not just again in a one-time stimulus but 

in a game plan for Federal spending for the next 5 and 10 years. 

And second, specific policy, including on the greenhouse gas side, 

that will clearly spell enormous increase in energy costs and negative impact on jobs. 
5 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Vitter follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Madam Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss the EPA’s proposed 

budget and to delve into some of the major items facing the agency. Administrator 

Jackson, your time here today is appreciated. 

As we discuss the President’s budget it is important to note the conflicting signals 

being given by the Administration. On the one hand, the President touts fiscal responsibility and economic growth. On the other, he proposes major spending increases and record deficits and national debt. 

The Administration asked us earlier this year to support borrowing $800 billion 

on our children’s credit card to ‘‘stimulate’’ the economy. In fact, we were told that 

the $800 billion in added debt would create 3.5 million jobs. I am hopeful that the 

gamble against our children’s future will indeed create 3.5 million jobs. However, 

I am not sure, given the stimulus spending, that an additional increase in the EPA’s 

budget by 37 percent is warranted. How can we justify this spending increase? 

EPA has a very important responsibility in protecting our environment. EPA also 

has the responsibility not to regulate our economy into a full blown depression. It 

is possible to abuse environmental laws and issue regulations in a manner that puts 

families out of work and makes doing business in the United States wholly uncompetitive. 

The most notable decision to be issued in these early days from your office is the 

greenhouse gas Endangerment Finding. It is no secret that the decision by EPA to 

attribute climate change to six greenhouse gases is intended to pressure Congress 

into passing comprehensive Cap-and-Trade legislation. Hopefully EPA recognizes 

the precarious situation such a decision places the Agency and Administration in. 

There exists no legitimate economic argument that regulating CO2 would not increase the cost of energy. As well, there is little economic analysis to support the 

idea that increasing the cost of energy would not impact low-income families or force 

some businesses overseas, thus the risk associated with the Endangerment Finding. 

Essentially, it seems you are telling Congress that unless we pass legislation that 

will increase the cost of energy on low-income families, businesses, schools, fire departments, etc., then you will be forced as an agency to regulate CO2 and unilaterally increase the cost of energy on low-income families, businesses, schools, fire departments, etc. 

Despite the 37 percent increase in funding, at a time of record deficits, I do believe there are good expenditures within the budget. Those include increased funding for Clean Water and Drinking Water Infrastructure, which is much needed in 

areas such as rural Louisiana. However, we may also be on the verge of having new 

environmental regulations that could single-handedly cripple the economy while limiting property rights and the country’s ability to generate wealth. Two of those proposals include Cap and Trade legislation and the Clean Water Restoration Act. In 

other words, we have borrowed beyond all imagination, at the rate of nearly 50 

cents on every dollar spent, are still planning on increasing spending without economic analysis to show that such spending is sustainable, and then want to hamstring our economy with regulations that would be stifling at the best of economic 

times. 

If you need evidence of what over regulation and poor economic analysis can do 

to an economy, look no further than the California Air Resources Board (CARB). 

The California Air Resources Board intentionally skewed its analysis of the economic effects of its proposed climate action plan, according to a review by State-commissioned economists and by the non-partisan Legislative Analyst Office. The Air 

Resources Board released the analysis in September, 3 months after it released its 

draft plan for implementing the Global Warming Solutions Act. CARB projected 

that their policies would increase gross State product based on the notion that forcing higher energy into the market place would grow an economy. To come to that 

conclusion requires a blatant disregard for common sense and complete economic illiteracy. 

All six economists selected by the Board to peer review the analysis found CARB’s 

economic analysis deeply flawed. In the words of Harvard Economics Professor Robert N. Stavins, Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government: ‘‘I have come 

to the inescapable conclusion that the economic analysis is terribly deficient in critical ways and should not be used by the State government or the public for the purpose of assessing the likely costs of CARB’s plans.’’ 
6 

Given the President’s and your own promises to ensure that EPA decisions are 

supported by sound science, I am hopeful that similar credence will be given to economic analysis supporting EPA regulation. The economy is flailing and families are 

having a tough time paying their bills, so the last thing we need is to chase jobs 

out of the country with crippling regulation based on flawed economic analysis. 

I am hopeful that somewhere in the 37 percent increase in spending there will 

be moneys directed toward experts that may provide cost-benefit analysis to EPA 

regulation. It is imperative that the economic impact on working Americans be scrutinized just as judiciously as the impact on the environment. We are still a Nation 

of the people, by the people, and for the people. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks. I want to use the 40 seconds that Senator Vitter went over to give myself time to rebut a couple of things 

he said. 

You know, if you are in danger, you are in danger. The Bush administration, we got all their information. They made a very similar endangerment finding. It was only because it was stopped in 

cyberspace that the rest of us did not know about it until we 

sought the documents. 

You know, it is like saying if you go to the doctor and the doctor 

finds you have cancer but he does not want to tell you, he is not 

going to tell you because you are transitioning to a different job. 

That is ridiculous. Either a pollutant is a danger to the planet and 

to the health of our families, or it is not. It is not about whether 

there is a recession or a boom in the economy. It is what it is, as 

my kids always tell me. 

Now, the fact is that when we do this right, we are going to create clean energy jobs that will never go away. We will get off of 

foreign oil and we will have enough money for consumer rebates 

to keep people whole. That is the truth. All of this fear-mongering 

is off base because it is the opposite. We are going to create these 

clean jobs that cannot be taken away from us. We are going to revive our economy and we are going to have enough funds coming 

in the door from the polluters to make people whole during that 

transition. 

So this debate started this morning. I did not bring it up, but it 

was brought up. So I feel, as Chairman of this Committee, that we 

will be reporting out a strong bill. I felt I should respond. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator VITTER. Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Yes? 

Senator VITTER. [Remarks off microphone.] 

Senator BOXER. Well, you spoke 40 seconds overtime and I 

matched you. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Let me pile on first please. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. After Senator Lautenberg, you can have 

time. And then, of course, I will have time and then, of course, we 

will turn to Administrator Jackson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Madam Chairman, thanks for your renewable source of energy and continuing the fight against the foul environment that we have seen. Sometimes these egregious claims 

that are made just challenge logic and thought. 

We have been lucky that in a little more than 100 days, Lisa 

Jackson, with President Obama being a great cheerleader and sup-
7 

porter, since Ms. Jackson has been at the helm EPA has made 

some monumental decisions. It formally declared that carbon dioxide is a pollutant and a threat to the public’s health and welfare. 

It is considering granting the California waiver to allow states like 

New Jersey and California to regulate greenhouse emissions from 

vehicles. And just last week, EPA announced it would revisit two 

rules from the Bush administration that deregulated more than a 

million tons of hazardous waste. 

We are seeing a new era of leadership at EPA. And we are grateful. One special advantage that Ms. Jackson has, she served as a 

DEP Commissioner in New Jersey and that, of course, gave her the 

base of knowledge that helps her handle all of these things so perfectly. And we are grateful. We see new leadership, a new commitment to the Agency’s mission. The budget request shows that commitment by funding the EPA at the highest level in its 39-year history. It gives the Agency the resources it needs to clean up our 

communities and keep our children healthy. 

Now, the Fund programs also are job creating impetuses. They 

are going to help turn our environment into a much cleaner environment and a cleaner energy economy as well. It helps erase the 

neglect we saw under the previous Administration. 

First, the budget adds to the funding provided in the Economic 

Recovery Act for the Nation’s Superfund Program. That program is 

important to me both because it falls under the subcommittee that 

I now chair and, more importantly, because it has such an impact 

on my State, our State of New Jersey. 

Now, New Jersey has more Superfund sites than any State in 

the Country and those sites are decaying, allowing toxins to seep 

into the neighborhoods where our children live, learn and play. By 

funding this Superfund Program, cleaning up these sites will create 

jobs and revitalize local communities that have been crippled by 

the toxic legacy of irresponsible companies. 

And I want to respond to our colleague’s comments. He has every 

right to view things from his perspective, as he does. But I would 

say this. When we talk about budget for EPA, we must look behind 

the numbers, behind the arithmetic, and see what it means. As a 

grandfather of a child with asthma, I must tell you it worries me 

enough to say that if I could only pay more and get that air cleaner 

so I do not have to hear that he was wheezing when he played 

baseball and had to be carried off the field, I would. So let us look 

at this from a practical standpoint. 

When the State of Louisiana was crushed by that terrible hurricane, they asked for more money. They asked for lots of money and 

got lots of money to try to help them out of this abyss that they 

were in. And that is what we are talking about here. And instead 

of sitting here as the auditors, we ought to sit here as the doctors 

and do what we can to protect the health of these families. And 

again, by funding these programs, cleaning up these sites will revitalize local communities that have been crippled by the toxic legacy 

of irresponsible companies. 

The budget also proposes that we restore the Superfund polluter 

pays principle to make sure that polluters, not taxpayers, are footing the bill for these cleanups. Later this year, I am going to introduce legislation to accomplish this goal. And I look forward to 
8 

working with the Administration to make sure that bill becomes 

law. 

According to EPA, we will be able to raise $1 billion each year 

starting in 2011 and as much as $2 billion annually by 2019. The 

budget request makes a crucial and necessary investment in our 

water infrastructure and this budget proposes $3.9 billion to provide loans to States to build and repair our crumbling water system. It creates thousands of technical and construction jobs, making our economy and communities healthier. 

Madam Chairman, forgive the overrun here. This budget provides the resources to protect our environment and grow our economy at the same time. And I applaud the Administration and Administrator Jackson’s efforts and I look forward to hearing more 

about EPA’s progress. Damn the torpedoes, plow on ahead. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Dr. Lautenberg. You are not an auditor, you are a doctor. I love that analogy. I think it is right on target. 

So we are going to go a little bit different here. We are going to 

give Senator Vitter a chance. One minute. Then we are going to go 

to Senator Sanders and then Senator Barrasso. 

Senator VITTER. Thanks, Madam Chair. 

Just quickly, I just wanted to add that you and I are obviously 

going to disagree about the fundamentals of climate change and 

that is fine. But I hope that as we go through the debate we can 

have a full, honest debate and I just do not think it is part of that 

full, honest debate to suggest that these very dramatic measures 

we are talking about are going to grow the economy, create more 

jobs, have an overall positive economic impact and not have an 

enormous economic cost. 

It really reminds me of something going on in your State, which 

is the actions of the California Air Resources Board. They intentionally skewed their analysis of economic effects of their proposed 

climate action plan and made these same arguments that it would 

actually increase the gross State product based on these new green 

jobs. The problem is, they had six economists peer review that 

analysis and all six of those economists—it was not some conservative think tank—all six of those economists chosen to peer review 

that analysis said it was deeply, deeply flawed. In the words of 

Harvard Economics Professor Robert Stavins, who is an Albert 

Pratt Professor of Business and Government, we have come to the 

inescapable conclusion that the economic analysis is terribly deficient in critical ways and cannot be used by the State government. 

So, I just think we need to have—— 

Senator BOXER. Well, trust me, you are going to have as much 

time as you want. And I am going to have as much time as I want 

to debate that. 

Senator VITTER. Great. 

Senator BOXER. And I would tell you that you do not know my 

State. If my State had not passed this cutting edge global warming 

bill, we would be in far worse shape. We have seen the development of 400, that is 400, new solar energy companies. People are 

installing weatherization, solar rooftops. 
9 

The party of no. That is what we are facing here folks, the party 

of no versus the party of the future. 

Please, Senator Sanders. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

First of all, welcome, Ms. Jackson. 

We lived through 8 years of an Administration that in many 

ways did not even believe in science let alone the reality of global 

warming, let alone the need to protect our air, our water, our food 

and I am delighted that we now have an Administration that understands that you do not have a choice. As Senator Lautenberg 

mentioned a moment ago, we do not have options about whether 

we keep our children healthy, about whether or not the air we 

breathe is clean, whether the food we eat is safe. That is not an 

option. That is a sacred obligation that the Government has in 

terms of protecting its people. 

I think what this budget reflects is an understanding that we 

have neglected the EPA for many years, that we want the EPA 

there to vigorously protect our environment, the health and wellbeing of our people, that we must address the crisis of global 

warming and that, as the Chairwoman just indicated, the reality 

is, and the President has made this clear and I agree with him, 

that one of the key issues of our generation, it may be the defining 

issue of our generation, is whether or not we finally break our dependence on fossil fuel, move to energy efficiency, move to sustainable energy and in the process over a period of years create millions of good-paying jobs. 

I know some of my friends on the other side do not believe it. 

They are wrong. The reality is that we have the potential to transform our economy and our energy system and the EPA is going to 

play an important role in that. So, I applaud the President for understanding that reality, for beginning the process of putting the 

necessary funds into that struggle and we certainly are confident 

that Administrator Jackson is going to be a great leader in that effort. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Sanders, thank you. 

Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Madam Chairman, I come from a State that is blessed with 

many natural resources and our State is a leader in energy production. Wyoming has what the Country needs. We have it all. We 

have wind, natural gas, coal, oil, uranium. We have it all. And it 

is imperative that the Administration propose a budget that ensures we use all sources of American energy. This is not just for 

the benefit of Wyoming; it is for the benefit of the entire Nation. 

America needs an all of the above energy strategy. No resources 

should be excluded for politically correct reasons. I sincerely believe 
10 

that we should make America’s energy as clean as we can, as fast 

as we can, without raising prices for American families. This budget works against that goal. 

I am concerned that the bloated budget that we have before us 

today will feed a growing regulatory monster. It is the most expensive budget in the EPA’s 39 year history. Its size and scope signals 

the coming storm of regulations that will cripple energy production 

in America. The vast array of new rules, mandates and regulations 

that the Administration plans to impose are staggering. 

The new influx of taxpayer money will likely go to EPA to ramp 

up permit processing for all the predicted 1.2 million new entities 

that will be captured under the new Clean Air Act rules. These are 

the rules that will be forthcoming under the EPA’s endangerment 

finding. Among these entities are schools, farms, hospitals, nursing 

homes, small businesses and other commercial entities. The permits take an average 866 hours of work to process at a cost of 

$125,000 to the permittee. 

If passed, more taxpayer money will also go to implement the 

Clean Water Restoration Act. The Act would capture all wet areas 

of a State under EPA’s control. More Government workers will also 

need to be hired at EPA to process all the Clean Water Restoration 

Act permits required of farmers, ranchers, and small and large 

towns across America. 

Attorneys from across America will be hired by the EPA to enforce new regulations on energy producers, farmers, small businesses, and ordinary communities. With attorneys comes support 

staff: secretaries, clerks, tech people, and administrative assistants. 

The green job bonanza for the EPA will not be all across America. 

It will be right here in Washington, DC. 

Washington is quick to pass new environmental Federal mandates on our States. It is less likely to provide funding to those 

States. Wyoming, like our other States, needs assistance to implement many of our environmental laws. New permitting requirements under the Clean Air Act could overwhelm the States. Ranchers, farmers, small business owners will bear the brunt of these 

new permits. If the Agencies are going to mandate new requirements, then Washington needs to pay for them. 

The bottom line is this budget is not an investment in America’s 

future. It is an investment in Washington’s future. Given the economic times we live in, Americans deserve better. 

I look forward to the testimony of the Administrator. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. And we turn to Senator 

Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Welcome, Administrator. The debate, just in the opening statements, is already lively. 

It is interesting you are appearing before a Committee of the 

U.S. Senate which I think, at this point, is one of the very last 

places in America where the voices of the polluters and the polluting industries still prevail on the question of climate change. 

You can even go to the board rooms of our major electric utilities 
11 

and they seem to have gotten it. Certainly, there is an enormous 

amount of American industry that has gotten it. The insurance industry has gotten it, at least the property/casualty side. You can 

go to churches and hunting groups and fishing groups and people 

who live with it, and they get it. But somehow, in this U.S. Senate, 

the polluting industries and their political heft, still promises to 

carry the day in opposition to climate change. 

So, my urge to you is that, well within the law and well within 

the support of the administrative record that has been developed 

on climate change, on carbon regulation and on auto tailpipe emissions, you administrate and you make decisions and your Agency 

makes decisions that are as strong as they can be. And that, I believe, is the one thing that can change the present dynamic so that 

people come to the Senate and say, OK, we are here to actually 

solve this problem. Otherwise, this is an industry that will duck 

this problem endlessly and, if they get to a situation in which they 

think they can get a good deal out of EPA and they do not have 

to come to the Senate and they can use their influence here to keep 

us from being effective on climate change, I think you have a worst 

case scenario. 

We need strong, lawful, fact-based regulation out of EPA which 

is not only your proper legal duty but also, I think, will have enormous beneficial effects in terms of the atmosphere that surrounds 

climate change legislation here in the Senate. I honestly believe at 

this point without that we do not have a chance of passing a significant climate change bill here. There is simply too much influence by the polluters who do not want to pay for the pollution that 

they cause. Simple prospect: polluter pays. But the polluters obviously do not like that prospect and so here we are stuck. 

So, I encourage you, with the budget that you have before you, 

to be diligent, to be strong and to go exactly where the facts and 

the evidence lead you. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Senator Udall. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

I would just prefer to put my testimony in the record and proceed 

with the Administrator and ask questions as we go along. 

Thank you. 

[The referenced material was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. You are so unlike the rest of us who have really gotten into the debate already. 

Can you imagine when we start making up that bill? That is going 

to be hot. It is going to make global warming look cool. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. All right, we are ready to go. Administrator 

Jackson, you have the floor. Do you want 7 minutes to open or 

something like that? 

Ms. JACKSON. I do not think I will need the whole 7 minutes. 

Senator BOXER. Well, we will give you 7 and you take what you 

need. 
12 

STATEMENT OF LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you so much, Madam Chairman. Thank you 

for your leadership. Thank you to the members of the Committee 

for inviting me to appear before you today to discuss the proposed 

fiscal year 2010 budget request for the Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

We believe this budget is carefully designed to address our environmental challenges and contribute to the Country’s economic recovery. I am happy to have the chance to share my thoughts with 

you today. The President requests $10.5 billion for fiscal year 2010 to carry 

out EPA’s mission to protect human health and the environment. 

That request reflects both the challenges and promise we face in 

an era of high energy costs, global climate change and economic crisis. 

For far too long the American people have been offered a false 

choice: economic prosperity or environmental protection. We believe 

we can do better. In fact, we believe that clean energy, clean air 

and water and a healthy environment have powerful economic potential. You will see that in this budget. Economic recovery and environmental protections go hand in hand here. 

The President’s budget starts the work needed to transform our 

economy. It includes investments in cutting edge green technologies, repairs to crumbling infrastructure and stronger regulatory and scientific capabilities to make the Nation’s water, air 

and land cleaner for our communities, families and children. These 

investments put Americans back to work while at the same time 

helping our communities, our children and our health. 

It also provides a substantial increase in support to address public health and environmental challenges that can no longer be postponed. Water infrastructure, fresh water resources, climate change, 

critical research and chemical management all require urgent action. In short, the budget reflects President Obama’s commitment 

to usher in a new era of environmental stewardship and put us on 

a clear path to a cleaner and safer planet. 

The most significant investment in the Fiscal Year 2010 budget is $3.9 billion for Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving 

Funds. Those funds support water infrastructure projects for 

States, tribes and territories. These investments will prepare us to 

match the success we had in the 1970s and 1980s when EPA construction grants helped build much of the infrastructure that dramatically increased our Nation’s water quality and its safety. 

We estimate that this 157 percent funding increase in the State 

Revolving Funds will finance 1,000 clean water and 700 drinking 

water projects across America; projects that will upgrade the Nation’s aging water infrastructure, assure safe drinking water and 

create well paying American jobs. 

EPA’s fiscal year 2010 budget also supports efforts to develop a 

comprehensive energy and climate change policy with measures to 

increase energy independence, move into a low carbon economy and 

reduce greenhouse gas emissions. This comes in the form of a $19 

million increase to help EPA, among other things, implement the 

greenhouse gas inventory so we can take the very important step 
13 

of measuring our progress in reducing emissions. That will also ensure that we are targeting major sources of emissions without overburdening small business and others. 

Just as we need to address climate change, we also need to manage the risks associated with the chemicals that we use. The fiscal 

year 2010 budget requests $55 million, an increase of $8 million 

over fiscal year 2009 levels, to fund an enhanced toxic program to 

screen, assess and reduce chemical risk. This 17 percent increase 

will help EPA complete screening level hazard and 

mischaracterization and initiate action as needed on more than 

6,750 organic U.S. chemicals. The President’s budget also contains an increase of $24 million 

for the Superfund program. That investment will enhance enforcement and removal work and support the broader Superfund program. The budget also includes a proposal to reinstate the Superfund Fee that expired in 1995. Beginning in fiscal year 2011, the 

so-called polluter pays measure would generate $1 billion a year, 

rising to $2 billion a year by 2019. Those are extremely important 

resources needed to fund cleanups of contaminated sites across 

America. 

Along with increases in Superfund, the budget provides a total of $177 million for the Brownfields program, a $5 million increase 

from 2009. The Brownfields program is designed to help States, 

tribes, local communities and other stake holders in economic redevelopment to work together to assess, safely cleanup and reuse 

brown fields. Revitalizing these once productive properties helps 

communities by removing blight, satisfying the growing demand for 

land, helping limit urban sprawl, enabling economic development 

and developing quality of life. These protection efforts focus on ensuring that contaminated sites are ready to be returned to beneficial use by our communities, putting both people and property to 

work. 

Madam Chairman and members of the Committee, the fiscal 

year 2010 budget request sets EPA on a clear path to addressing 

the pressing environmental challenges that face our Nation. It enables us to accomplish important work that American support and 

has clear benefits to the economic, environmental and human 

health of our communities. 

Thank you again for your time and I am happy to answer any 

questions this Committee might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:] 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. We will each take 4 minutes. 

Administrator Jackson, the Energy Star Program has been extremely successful in increasing energy efficiencies in appliances. 

EPA estimates that the program helped people save more than $19 

million in utility bills and to prevent the equivalent of more than 

43 million metric tons of greenhouse gases in 2008. This is a win/ 

win. Your budget asked for a $1 million increase in the Energy 

Star Program. Can you describe how you think the program is 

functioning and whether it can be made even more effective? 

Ms. JACKSON. I could not agree more, Madam Chair, that the Energy Star Program is a success. It is a win/win. It has been a voluntary program and about giving the Americans the information 

they need to make educated choices. Probably the flagship is in the 

appliances that we buy. You can go to a store, look at an appliance 

and make a determination. If you see the Energy Star Seal, you 

know you are getting an appliance with energy efficiency. 

The additional money will help us to continue that program, to 

continue to update it to make sure that we stay on the front edge 

of technology which is evolving so that Americans can continue to 

have trust in the Energy Star label. Additionally, it would allow us 

to move into home improvement and energy efficiency on the building side because, as we see massive amounts of money being 

poured into energy efficiency on the building side, we want to give 

Americans information there as well. 

Senator BOXER. Good. Good. Well, I am very supportive of you. 

Now, I want to ask a question about the Superfund sites and I 

know Senator Lautenberg shares this concern. We were discussing 

it yesterday. I do not have to tell you that they are the most contaminated toxic waste sites in the Country with arsenic, benzene 

and lead, which is known to cause cancer and damage human development. So I am perplexed that EPA has revised its expected 

number of cleanups from 35 under George Bush’s estimates to 20. 

And the Agency only anticipates cleaning up 22 sites next year. 

This is down significantly from the average annual pace of cleanups during the Clinton administration. They were way up then. I 

think there were 80 sites per year. So, obviously, I am not happy 

about this and I know others are not. 

So, I am going to ask you two questions. One, what accounts for 

the decline in cleanups? And also, I am concerned about the diesel 

emissions reduction work. You are cutting a lot of the funds there. 

Last year, we had $15 million for diesel emissions reduction work 

in San Joaquin and South Coast Air Quality Management Districts 

in the State of California. Again, diesel emissions cause, or contribute to, heart disease and premature deaths. So, I am going to 

work to reinstate the funding. 

But I am perplexed. Could you explain to me the Administration’s reason for cutting those funds and for cutting the number of 

Superfund cleanups? Those are the two areas that concern me. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I will do the Superfund first. I share your concern and I respect 

it. Obviously, more money, one would hope, would result in, at the 

end of the pipelines, the cleanups, which everyone looks forward to 

speeding up. I think there are numerous factors and I think it 

bears further investigation. 
84 

So, I will give you an answer for now, if you will, because I know 

that you and Senator Lautenberg will demand it, as well you 

should, which is that we have certainly done a lot of the easier 

sites. So there is some argument to be made that some of the lowhanging, easier to clean up sites have passed through the system. 

You might also be aware that the front end of the pipeline, the 

listing and assessment of sites on the Superfund list has drastically 

been curtailed in recent years. As a result, you do not see the number of sites and variety of sites coming out. So, easy sites are not 

going on the list. We are not seeing cleanups. We will certainly 

spend all the money allotted to us and we will spend it early. 

So my concern is not that we are somehow being slackers with 

respect to getting that money out on the street, creating jobs and 

doing cleanups. What that argues is that the sites are more complex and they take longer to clean up. We probably need to look 

at the Superfund pipeline and I probably need to get back to you 

and agree to work with you and this Committee and certainly Senator Lautenberg on that particular issue. 

I do applaud my staff for being honest and giving us a real number so that we can ask hard questions. 

On the DERA funding, the overall amount for the Country is $60 

million. I know you know that, Madam Chair. The specific earmarks that have been made for California diesel emission reduction 

grants are not there. Obviously, the President’s budget does not 

continue this earmark as well as any others and so, while it is almost certainly, like other diesel emission grants, a very noble program and in keeping with the President’s commitment to cut earmarks that is what—— 

Senator BOXER. Well, let me just follow up and say this. I could 

not disagree more with the President on calling it an earmark to 

put money into the places that have the worst air quality in the 

Nation. I mean, that is ridiculous. You know, I think it is good government to go put the money where it is. So, I am hopeful that we 

can get some language in here that we can agree on short of an 

earmark that says we intend for the money to go to the places 

where people are suffering the most. So, we will work together on 

this. 

So, I will just conclude by saying you know, you are, if I might 

just say, a breath of fresh air and your honest answers are really 

appreciated. We are going to have our disagreements. We know 

that. I am going to fight hard for more Superfund funding. Because 

that is the same answer the Bush administration gave us and I do 

not buy it because, frankly, they put a lot of money in to spend, 

to go cleanup sites, and nobody said oh, well, it is a waste of money 

there. So, I just do not understand it. I just do not get it. 

But we will work with you very openly. We will work with your 

staff. We will work with Senator Lautenberg. Hopefully, we can 

push hard to get more attention paid to these Superfund sites. 

These sites are hanging out there, they are a drag on the economy, 

and they are a danger to our kids. 

On the diesel, again, maybe there is some way we can, without 

using the exact place that these funds should go, I just want to be 

sure, as the Chairman here, that if the worst sites for these diesel 
85 

emission problems is New Jersey, I do not care where it is, I want 

it to go to those sites. We will work together. 

All right. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I appreciated Senator Whitehouse’s comments that we need lawful, fact-based regulation. I appreciate Ms. Jackson’s comments 

that she wanted to make sure that we did this without overburdening small businesses and others. 

That brings me to my concern and the question, Ms. Jackson, 

about the EPA’s recent proposal finding greenhouse gases, as you 

said, are a danger to the public health and welfare. It really appears to me that that decision was based more on political calculation than on scientific ones. 

In a memo that I received this morning, and it is marked Deliberative Attorney-Client Privilege, nine pages, you are mentioned on 

every page of this memo. It is a White House memo. Counsel in 

this Administration repeatedly, repeatedly, questions the lack of 

scientific support that you have for this proposed finding. It is here. 

Nine pages. This is a smoking gun, saying that your findings were 

political, not scientific. Here, page two: ‘‘There is concern that the 

EPA is making a finding based on harm from substances that have 

no demonstrated direct health effects such as respiratory or toxic 

effects.’’ 

You then talk about regulating greenhouse gases and the economy. Dow Jones Newswire this morning said U.S. regulation of 

greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide ‘‘is likely to have serious 

economic consequences for businesses small and large across the 

economy.’’ That is what a White House memo warned the Environmental Protection Agency earlier this year. Here it is: ‘‘Making the 

decision to regulate carbon dioxide under the Clean Air Act for the 

first time is likely to have serious economic consequences for regulated entities throughout the U.S. economy, including small businesses and small communities.’’ 

How do you square that when you say I do not want any overriding effect on the economy of small businesses, when this internal 

document, marked Deliberative Attorney-Client Privilege, says everything you are proposing is going to have serious economic consequences for our businesses in this Nation? 

Charlie Munger, who is Warren Buffett’s partner at Berkshire 

Hathaway, was recently on CNBC. He said an artificial market in 

government-mandated carbon credits would be ‘‘monstrously stupid 

to do right now.’’ He added that the move is almost demented considering other nations’ intention to continue industrial development, emitting vast amounts of greenhouse gases. 

I could go on, but I am fascinated to see what you have been saying and yet to see what the White House has been writing where 

you are on every page. Would you like to comment? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly I would like to comment, Senator. I do 

not have that document in front of me so I will comment generally 

on many of the issues you bring up. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Madam Chair, may I just inquire if the 

Senator intends to make that document a matter of record and if 

so, I ask unanimous consent—— 
86 

Senator BARRASSO. Madam Chairman, I would be happy to do 

that. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. That way, we would know what we are 

talking about. I appreciate it. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection that will be in the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 

Ms. JACKSON. I will answer briefly, Senator, because I suspect we 

will have this discussion many times. 

I disagree with several of the characterizations. The first is that 

the endangerment finding is a scientific finding, mandated by law. 

Mandated by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled 2 years 

ago that EPA owed the American people a determination as to 

whether greenhouse gases, either in whole or individually, endanger public health and welfare. That analysis had been done really 

before I took the oath of office. 

We did review it, as I promised to do at my confirmation hearing. 

We reviewed the science of it; we went through interagency review 

through the White House. Again, I am not sure what that document may say. It is deliberative so obviously it is people’s opinions. 

It does not mean regulation. 

I have said, over and over, as has the President, that we do understand that there are costs to the economy of addressing global 

warming emissions and that the best way to address them is 

through a gradual move to a market-based program like cap-andtrade. There is a difference between a cap-and-trade program 

which can be authorized by legislation and is being discussed, and 

a regulatory program. 

With respect to EPA’s regulatory authority, it is true that if the 

endangerment finding is finalized, EPA would have authority to 

regulate greenhouse gas emissions. What I have said in that regard 

is that we would be judicious, we would be deliberative, we would 

follow science, and we would follow the law. 

I would call your attention to our greenhouse gas registry rule, 

where we particularly did not look for small businesses to register 

or have to report emissions. If you want an indication of where we 

know the significant sources of greenhouse gases are, they are in 

transportation and the utilities sector. 

Senator BARRASSO. One last quick question, Madam Chairman, 

if I could. 

Could you please explain then by what authority can the EPA 

decide to not include all of these other emitters of carbon dioxide 

who do reach the emission thresholds set out in the Clean Air Act? 

I mean, how can anyone in your Administration decide where to 

draw that line? The law, as you just said, is clear. So how do you 

not go after everyone or expose yourself to lawsuits for all of those 

others? 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, thanks. I know this has been an issue 

that we have gone back and forth on. It is one I look forward to 

having continued dialog on. 

If it comes to that point where we are into a regulatory mode on 

greenhouse gas emissions, I will say only the following two things. 

I am not prepared here to outline the legal strategies. Certainly it 

would be one of the things we would propose as part of a regulatory agenda. 

The second thing I would say is to remind you that we, under 

the Clean Air Act, have the potential to regulate all those sources 

you talk about now for other contaminants, schools, hospitals, 

farms and Dunkin Donuts. We do not, because we make regulations smartly to address the threats in the best way possible and 

with an eye toward understanding that we do not want to unduly 
97 

affect those who can least afford to pay. So, I do believe that the 

regulatory process allows us the opportunity to make those decisions and to do it but we are not at that point yet. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Madam 

Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. Senator, I just want to 

point out to you that they are under court-ordered act and this is 

a Nation of laws and the endangerment finding that was made is 

strikingly similar to that was made by the Bush administration because the science is so obvious and the attack on the EPA is, I 

think, just not necessary right now. They are just saying that they 

have the ability to act. We have the ability to act in a cap-andtrade system which will give us the revenues to keep small businesses whole, to keep consumers whole. So you are fighting against 

something that is not there. But, in any case, we will get on with 

this. 

I just wanted to say for the record that Senator Lautenberg and 

I asked the GAO to investigate EPA’s management of the Superfund Program and the pace of the cleanups. We expect the results 

later this year. We will make them public and, at that point, we 

will see what an objective source says about the pace of the cleanups. This is going to be an ongoing issue for us. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Madam Chairman. We continue 

with this ping-pong game with one side saying listen, we have got 

to protect the health and well-being of our families. We have enormous costs for doing that because, under the previous Administration, health programs were starved but the budget deficit grew fat, 

lazy and indifferent. Now we have to dig our way out of the hole 

that was created by that. 

Those who have a budgetary concern should express that. But I 

would ask a question of those who called upon the Federal Government, and again I use the case of Katrina, come in, bring us 

money, we do not give a darn where you get that money, you have 

got to save our communities. They did not say, but wait a second, 

look at what we are going to do to the budget if we do that. It was 

just get us into the condition that we ought to be in. 

There are several questions, Madam Chairman, that I intend to 

submit to Ms. Jackson. But I will tell you something. I get compliments regularly for the work that I do to protect the environment and the health of children. It is a major focus of mine. 

When we look at what was done in these past years, and we use 

corporate responsibility then as it existed by looking at ExxonMobil 

who, 15 years ago roughly, had the spill up in Alaska, and paid 

fines. They were fined additionally $5 billion and rather than pay 

the fine, which would be, to use the expression, a spit in the ocean 

compared to $10 billion worth of earnings and profit, and they employed lawyers year after year after year and finally they have got 

that fine now reduced to a half a billion dollars. So, it shows what 

the enemies of good thought in terms of health and well-being of 

our children look like. 

We cannot be dissuaded from our mission that is to protect the 

well-being of our families. When I looked at these things, Ms. Jackson, the budget proposed a significant funding increase for pro-
98 

grams to help keep the public safe from dangerous chemicals. I applaud the increase. But I am concerned that the EPA may not have 

the legal authority necessary to fully address the risks posed by industrial chemicals. Do you believe that the Toxic Substances Control Act needs to be reformed? 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, I do agree that at this time there is a 

need to look at our authorities and to seriously consider revising 

and updating that law. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. So we have things that we have to do to 

catch up with our allowable activities. According to several studies, 

enforcement of environmental laws by EPA fell significantly over 

the last 8 years. There is additional funding provided in the budget. Will that be able to increase the enforcement and to be able to 

challenge the polluters that there are consequences for their actions? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, Senator, I am glad to know that there is an 

increase that allows us to add about 30 FTEs to our enforcement 

program. There is $600 million available in the enforcement budget. You know I am a long-time believer in the importance of enforcement. It levels the playing field for companies across our 

Country and it acts as a deterrent for future bad behavior. I think 

that those are important roles that EPA has to play. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Madam Administrator, in light of the Appeals Court decision involving the New Source Review regulations, will you recommend 

that the Agency permanently return to the old rules from prior decades or will you support a new attempt at reforming those rules? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. We are in the process of reviewing many NSR rule changes that came about. We have already 

indicated our agreement to re-look at the aggregation rule and I believe that we have indicated that we intend to look at other rules 

and their practices as well. 

Senator VITTER. What would you say is a general timeframe for 

that? 

Ms. JACKSON. I could not give you a deadline, sir, but I would 

say that review is ongoing and we are aware of the fact that there 

is a need for some regulatory certainty and so I would hope that 

we would look to complete that review in months, not years. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Are there any areas of that New Source Review landscape where you are definitely not going to explore that 

but just revert, essentially permanently, to the old rules? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am sure there are, Senator, but I could not enumerate them. What we have said is that we are going to look at 

the rules as a whole. There were several rule changes made, especially toward the end of the last Administration, that we were 

bound to reconsider. The NSR enforcement program in my mind remains an important one. It is based on a simple idea and one that 

has become complex, I think, the rulemaking. So I do believe there 

may be a need for changes. I am also sure that there are some aspects that will not change. 
99 

Senator VITTER. OK. Second topic. Do you think Federal jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act should extend beyond navigable 

waters and, if so, how or to what extent? 

Ms. JACKSON. I have been on record, Senator, as saying that I 

believe we are in such a murky, forgive the bad pun, area with respect to Clean Water Act jurisdiction that the best and easiest 

thing to do would be to have Congress clarify that jurisdiction. 

Through Supreme Court determinations, we find ourselves spending a majority of our resources looking at whether we have jurisdiction over a water body or a wetland rather than on the permitting 

or enforcement in those water bodies or wetlands. I am well aware, 

that—— 

Senator VITTER. One way to do that is with the term navigable 

which is, and can be, clearly defined. Is that where you would draw 

the line or where would you draw the line and how would you define that jurisdiction? 

Ms. JACKSON. I have no final position on that issue. I am well 

aware that is something that is being discussed in this Committee 

and elsewhere and I would look forward to having those discussions. 

Senator VITTER. OK. I think we all agree on the need for certainty and predictability and the benefit of that. I would just suggest the law uses a word that is certain and can be predictable, at 

least if we clear up court cases with reference to it, and that is navigable waters. So, getting clarity is one thing. Significantly expanding jurisdiction is something different. I look forward to continuing 

that discussion. 

I applaud you and the Administration for setting out as a stated 

goal transparency in all sorts of ways. There are a few things the 

EPA has been doing in the last few years that I think were positive 

in that regard. One was holding regular management conversations 

between senior leaders and staff that were often broadcast on desktop computers for the whole Agency. Another was a report on the 

website regarding specific goals and action items and accomplishments or lack thereof under those goals. Do you plan on continuing 

those specific things? Or what specific things with regard to the 

goal of transparency would you set out? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think those are both good management practice, 

Senator, and as soon as we have more time you will see us continuing those and expanding. We have already put out what is 

commonly referred to as our version of the Fishbowl Memo which 

is considered the gold standard based on Administrator 

Ruckelhaus’ idea that EPA should operate in a fishbowl. We have 

endorsed that idea. My schedule is now up on the Internet so that 

people can see where I am and who I am meeting with. I have encouraged and actually insisted that my senior staff do the same. I 

like your ideas and I think that I would happily embrace them and 

others. 

Senator VITTER. Great. Well, I point out those two specific ideas 

and ask if you can follow up with us on that. Also, with regard to 

your schedule, sometimes there are items like staff briefing with no 

subject matter or meeting with Administration officials with no 

topic or list of participants and I suggest that does not particularly 

say anything. So, if you all could put a level of detail there that 
100 

says something meaningful, I think that would round out that initiative. 

Finally, I just ask unanimous consent to submit Senator Inhofe’s 

opening statement for the record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Madam Chairman, I look forward to today’s hearing and the chance to discuss 

EPA’s priorities for the coming year. 

Before I begin, though, I want to discuss Administrator Jackson’s recent efforts 

to promote openness and transparency at EPA. I applaud Administrator Jackson for 

establishing clear, precise guidelines on transparency. According to the Administrator’s April 23rd memo, the Agency will ‘‘reach out as broadly as possible for the 

views of interested parties’’ when developing regulations. I trust the Administrator 

and her staff will honor this principle, especially as the agency considers regulating 

greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. We don’t agree on this issue—I am 

strongly opposed to carbon regulation under the Clean Air Act and I will try to stop 

it—but at least we can agree that EPA should remain open to a wide variety of 

viewpoints. 

Also, I was pleased that Administrator Jackson recognized the importance of congressional oversight. Already I have submitted requests for information on many 

issues, and I will continue to seek information on issues before the Agency. Thus 

far, from my standpoint, the record of the Agency has been mixed. I hope that with 

future requests, on a more consistent basis, I can receive answers to questions in 

a timely and substantive manner. I look forward to working with the Administrator 

and her staff on this. 

Now, on to the budget. Permit me to put this year’s EPA budget request in context. 

Since January 20, the day President Obama took office, over 2 million Americans 

have lost their jobs and 1 million families have lost their homes to foreclosure. 

From January to March of this year, the Nation’s Gross Domestic Product 

dropped by a larger than expected 6.1 percent. 

And yet, since January 20, we have spent $787 billion in an economic stimulus 

package and increased the public debt by $558 billion. 

Now, in spite of these massive spending increases and economic problems, the 

President proposes what I can only call a stunning increase in Federal spending: 

a total of $3.4 trillion. This is more than the Nation has ever spent under any other 

President. It will also create a $1.8 trillion Federal deficit—the highest ever. 

The President also proposes some budget cuts, to the tune of $17 billion. Half of 

those will come from defense spending. So, according to the President’s budget, and 

during a time of war no less, we are being asked to cut a number of next-generation 

weapons systems for our war fighters. Yet there seems to be enough money to increase EPA’s budget by a staggering 37 percent. 

Now don’t get me wrong: there are legitimate areas of EPA’s budget that deserve 

funding increases. The Clean Water State Revolving Loan Funds are a good example. But we must remember the proper balance between environmental protection 

and economic growth. We will not end this recession, or attain a cleaner, healthier 

environment, by enlarging EPA’s bureaucracy with taxpayer dollars. 

The President made a point of saying recently that he wants his Cabinet to identify $100 million in cuts out of his multi-trillion dollar budget. I think he can find 

that extra $100 million in EPA’s bloated budget request alone. 

The President’s EPA budget in many respects fuels a growing bureaucracy and 

encourages more misguided regulation, both of which threaten jobs, our energy security, and our economic competitiveness, not to mention our citizens’ freedoms. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. If I might say, Senator Vitter, the Clean Water 

Restoration Act that you asked about, the Rapanos decision, Senator Feingold has written a bill. I am a co-sponsor of it. A couple 

of members on my side would like to amend that and I know some 

members on your side would as well. We are working hard with 

Senator Feingold and CEQ to see what we can come up with. 
101 

So I want to assure you that we are going to have a bill up for 

markup in the near future on that because I think everyone agrees 

we need clarification. Your idea of how to clarify and mine will no 

doubt be different but we will debate that at the time. But that will 

be coming in the next several weeks. 

I believe Senator Whitehouse is next. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

One point and one question. The point follows up a little bit on 

my opening statement. 

For as long as there has been pollution, there has been a constant battle with polluters who do not want to pay the costs of 

their pollution, either preventing it or cleaning it up. They would 

like to just dump it and have it been somebody else’s problem. 

There is absolutely nothing new about that. Polluters do not want 

to pay. What is new is our understanding of what the costs are of 

carbon pollution: economic costs, environmental costs, wildlife and 

habitat costs, and, as we have discovered, very significant national 

security costs. 

In the context of that battle, of the polluters not wanting to pay, 

I would like to ask for unanimous consent to add to the record of 

this hearing an article entitled Lobbying: Energy Companies’ Utilities Spent Nearly $80 Million in First Quarter. Some of the highlights of this are that all environmental groups combined in the 

first quarter spent a grand total of $4.7 million on lobbying. The 

Nature Conservancy was the top environmental group and it spent 

$850,000 thus far. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
102 
103 
104 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. By comparison, ExxonMobil Corporation alone in the first quarter has spent more than $9.3 million, Chevron Corporation $6.8 million, Conoco-Phillips $6 million, BP $3.6 

million, Marathon Oil $3.4 million. Just from big oil, I add that up 

to a total of $29.1 million. The total of all oil and gas companies 

is roughly $44.6 million just in this first quarter. 

So, if we wonder why the Senate is the last place in America that 

still does not get it, that climate change is a real problem for our 

people and that carbon pollution is something that people should 

pay for when the emit it, big utilities, big industry, gee, connect the 

dots. 

The question that I have has to do with the Clean Water Restoration Act. I have heard, over and over again, about the farmer 

with the pond who is going to water his cattle in the pond and now 

there is going to be an EPA agent staked out by the pond so that 

before any cow walks into the pond and muddies those waters they 

will need a permit. It seems a little improbable. It is sort of one 

of those urban myths that has developed. Can you tell us a little 

bit about what your strategy will be for farms that have ponds for 

watering cattle and horses and livestock? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thanks, Senator. The sponsors, Congressman 

Oberstar and Senator Feingold, have already had lots of dialog 

with the Farm Bureau and with the farming community members 

to assure them that their goal in trying to clarify jurisdiction is not 

to snare agriculture and farmers in a whole new set of regulations 

but to use common sense. 

It is not our intention to worry about the whereabouts of every 

single cow. There is lots of precedent that exempts farm operations 

and, in fact, the plain language already developed would make it 

clear that this imposes no new requirements on farm operations. 

There are certainly requirements now on farm operations, on agribusiness, as you know. So that is not an issue. It has been used, 

in my mind, as a distraction to lobby against the very real need 

for clarification of jurisdiction. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. The family farmer with the cattle pond 

can rest assured. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, please, help me assure them. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Udall. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Administrator Jackson, I would like to draw your attention to a 

very important EPA project that affects New Mexico, Arizona and 

the Navajo Nation. The EPA sponsored a cleanup of contaminated 

sites in the Navajo Nation due to uranium mining. This is a multiregion project with significant EPA funding so it is important for 

us that EPA headquarters is supportive. EPA is responsible for 

cleaning contaminated homes, water sources, abandoned mines on 

the Navajo Nation. 

It is absolutely critical that EPA see this site through because recently there has been discussion about starting uranium mining, 

restarting uranium mining, in the West. It would be tragic, I think, 

to start creating new environmental issues on the Navajo Nation 

in the 21st century before we uphold our commitments to clean up 
105 

the legacy from the 20th century. Will you commit to continuing 

the EPA cleanup of uranium sites on the Navajo Nation until the 

job is complete? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, Senator, we will stay the course and finish the job. As you know, there is an additional $7.8 million for the 

Superfund Removal Program to clean up high priority abandoned 

uranium mines, waste piles and home sites and to sample irrigation and livestock wells on the Navajo Nation. 

EPA has already assessed more than 100 structures. We will 

work with the Navajo Nation to screen an additional 100 mines. 

We have already assessed 200 wells. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. The budget that you have presented 

has significant increases for the Clean Water State Revolving Fund 

and also the Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. But if you 

go out into the future and you look at the needs, you know, your 

Agency has done an assessment of the overall needs, and the 

needs, the long-term needs assessment is a lot higher than the 

money that we are putting toward this. I applaud the Administration and you for increasing those budgets, but what do you think 

the strategy should be down the road to deal with those huge needs 

that do not appear to be met on a yearly basis of the budgets we 

have right now? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I think that we have sort of a two-pronged 

strategy at EPA. The first is to show and to demonstrate that the 

Recovery Act money, that $6 billion amount, plus now this amount 

of money in the President’s budget, that we can spend it wisely, 

that we can help to move communities across the country, and 

rural communities particularly who have affordability problems 

with trying to fund this work on their own, with getting this 

money. 

I do think we need to look, going forward, at the size of the need, 

and recognize that oftentimes it is rural communities that cannot 

come up with the ability to make a loan so they need additional 

help from the Federal Government. It is something that came up 

in my confirmation hearing. I think it is an unanswered question, 

one I would like to work on with you and other members of this 

Committee. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you. I very much appreciate your looking 

out for those small rural communities because they really do have 

a hard time, whether it comes to water quality of wastewater infrastructure. I mean, they are the ones that are really struggling. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I am back. Administrator Jackson, it is 

good to see you. 

The 2007 Energy Independence and Security Act mandates the 

production of $36 billion of biofuels by 2022. Last year, ethanol was 

used to displace over 9 billion gallons of gasoline in our Nation’s 

transportation system. So cellulosic ethanol, as we have discussed 

before, could raise per-acre ethanol yields to more than 1,000 gallons, significantly reducing the land requirements. 

I see cellulosic as the future of biofuels. But we still have to 

move from small scale to large scale production. Ms. Jackson, how 

important of a role do you see for biofuels in the overall effort to 
106 

reduce global warming emissions from gasoline and other fossilbased transportation fuels? 

Ms. JACKSON. Biofuels play an important and critical role, Senator. They have the potential, as long as we follow the science and 

do it right, to literally have the impact of removing millions of cars 

off of our highways, of addressing not only global warming pollution but other pollutants as well. 

As the President has said, those private investors and entrepreneurs who took the risk of investing in ethanol when the country asked them to, should be there and their infrastructure needs 

to remain so that it is there to support the next generation 

biofuels. Most of that infrastructure can be retrofitted with support. EPA’s role in that process is to speak honestly and in a 

science-based way to make sure we are moving to the right fuels 

and, at the same time, protecting, if you will, the current infrastructure. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. As you know, the 

EPA allows ethanol blends in gasoline of up to 10 percent by volume. Under the current renewable fuel standard, we are likely to 

hit the so-called blend wall in the near future. The blend wall, as 

you know, is the maximum possible volume of ethanol that can be 

blended into motor gasoline at a 10 percent concentration. The 

EPA and the Department of Energy are currently conducting tests 

on E15 and E20, allowing up to 15 percent and 20 percent ethanol 

in a gallon of gas by volume. Results will be published by the end 

of the year. 

Meanwhile, a group of those pushing for increased biofuels filed 

a petition with the EPA in March 2009 requesting an increase in 

the ethanol blend from 10 to 15 percent. This process is likely to 

take as long as 270 days to move through the regulatory process. 

Would you consider recommending a short-term increase in the 

level of ethanol blends to say E11 or E12 to help prevent this technology from hitting a ceiling before a decision is made on E15? 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, the EPA is currently in the middle of a 

request for information and comment on the growth energy petition 

for an increase in the blend up to 15 percent. Ethanol in gasoline, 

we are eagerly looking forward to data that comes in domestically 

and from abroad on whether those materials up to 15 percent can 

be blended, whether ethanol can be blended at some level above its 

current 10 percent. It would be wrong of me to prejudge that process. The most important thing is to follow the data. 

I also want to call your attention to the President’s recent development of a biofuels task force. It includes Secretary Vilsack, Secretary Chu, myself and the President’s applied recognition that 

there are more issues than what the actual blend number is. There 

are distribution issues, there are warranty issues, and there are 

consumer education issues that all need to be addressed in order 

to make sure that this fuel that we are producing has an outlet. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. I appreciate that because you can have a 

fuel but then if you do not have the vehicles that are compatible 

with that fuel there is an issue. Then if you do not have the pumps, 

that is another one. 

Senator Boxer, do you mind if I do one other? 

Senator BOXER. No, go ahead. 
107 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Administrator Jackson, last week your 

Agency released a proposed rule for implementing the renewable 

fuel standard as part of the Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007. The rule deals with all aspects of RFS implementation including greenhouse gas emissions for all fuels covered by the RFS. 

One area of particular concern in my State is the issue of life 

cycle greenhouse gas emissions. I understand the EPA is looking 

at both direct greenhouse gas emissions and indirect emissions 

from land use changes. It is a proposal to measure indirect emissions that is causing concern. 

I know you believe in basing things on science. We are concerned 

that this is speculative to look at this and would be very difficult 

to do on an evidence based method. I would just like you to look 

carefully at this analysis and that you will not include indirect land 

use calculations if the analysis shows that such a calculation is 

speculative and is not evidence based. 

Ms. JACKSON. Absolutely, Senator. In fact in releasing the rule 

for comment, we also initiated a peer review science process of specifically those issues regarding indirect land use and international 

impacts. I look forward to results of that review as well as the public comment period. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. All right. I am sure we will be talking more 

about this in the future. 

Ms. JACKSON. No doubt. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Administrator, I have three brief questions but they are important. Then I am going to ask Senator Merkley, would you come and 

sit up here because I am going to have you complete the hearing. 

What is your timeframe, Administrator? Did you need to leave? 

Because I know you are under pressure. 

Ms. JACKSON. I never know where I am supposed to be. What 

time do we have to get out of here? I think I have to be in Mount 

Vernon at noon time. 

Senator BOXER. So that means you need to get out now. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, we will work with you, Madam Chair, whatever you decide. 

Senator BOXER. Let me just ask these three questions and then 

Senator Merkley will close it. I also have other questions for the 

record. Administrator Jackson, I will ask you all three so just take 

some copious notes on this. 

Chromium 6 is a heavy metal that has contaminated drinking 

water supplies in California. Erin Brockovich fought for people who 

drank water contaminated with Chromium 6. A 2008 study shows 

that Chromium 6 can cause cancer when ingested. In 2002, EPA 

had delayed deciding whether to toughen chromium’s drinking 

water standard. Could you tell me the status of EPA’s effort to revise the drinking water status for chromium? 

My second question is toxic air in schools. You are my heroine 

because you made a promise that you are going to begin to collect 

monitoring data. I wanted to ask you, what do you anticipate accomplishing in the monitoring program during 2010? What is your 

goal? 
108 

On coal ash, at your confirmation we discussed the need for EPA 

to address the threat posed by coal combustion waste disposal practices. The TVA’s devastating coal ash spill is one of the biggest examples of the risk posed by this coal waste. EPA recently announced it was reviewing the safety of ash impoundments and considering regulating ash disposal. Can you tell me the status of 

EPA’s efforts on regulating coal ash disposal, determining the safety of coal waste impoundments, and cleaning up the TVA’s coal ash 

spill? 

Ms. JACKSON. Madam Chair, I will start with the last first but 

I do have notes on all. 

On coal ash, I have promised proposed regulations by the end of 

the calendar year and we are on track to meet that goal. In fact, 

our announcement just yesterday that we were inserting ourselves 

into the TVA cleanup I think will give us important information 

that can be used in that rulemaking for coal ash impoundments 

across the country. 

We also, as you know, have sent out a request for information 

to utilities to find where, as you had put it earlier, the ticking time 

bombs might be. We found some. Not only that, but we identified 

some additional ones that the utilities identified, so we are still 

gathering information there. 

Senator BOXER. When will you announce the results of your investigation? 

Ms. JACKSON. I do not have a date but I will get that back to 

you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. But you are saying by the end of the year you 

will have recommendations? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, we will have a regulatory proposal. 

Senator BOXER. You will? So I am assuming that by the end of 

the year you will also have made the assessment of what a big 

problem this might be. 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly. Hopefully before that. 

Senator BOXER. Very good. Just so you know, the Committee is 

doing its own investigation on this matter. We will let you know 

of our discoveries as well. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, that would be very helpful. Obviously, we 

would love to share information there. 

On the schools monitoring initiative, you know that we are already monitoring at 62 schools in 22 States. We are requesting $3.3 

million and 5 FTE in this fiscal year 2010 budget. There is about 

a 60-day window so we are actually getting to the end where we 

will start to get some results. We promise as quick a turnaround 

as we can and I am happy to share those results with the Committee as we get them. Obviously, also most important, is to share 

them with the parents and the school administrators who are eagerly waiting. 

Senator BOXER. Please. I think it is really important. I would not 

wait for an artificial date. Administrator, if I can say this: if it was 

the FDA, if you were the FDA, and you found out that there was 

a prescription drug out there that was harming people, you would 

not wait until you figured it all, you know, finish the whole study. 

You immediately, ethically, have to say, if you find that there is a 
109 

school that is dangerous and you know it now, please, I think that 

it is key to take action. Can I count on you to do that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Absolutely. 

Senator BOXER. Excellent. Chromium 6? 

Ms. JACKSON. Chromium 6, EPA is still reviewing its data. It is 

coordinating with California EPA, with my former home at the 

New Jersey DEP and with DCD and HCSDR. I do not have a date 

for you, Madam Chair, but I will push to get one to your staff. 

Senator BOXER. Please do. We will send the rest of our questions 

in. 

Senator Merkley, I am going to ask you to chair the rest of the 

hearing and if anybody comes in, call on them. Otherwise, you can 

close it down when you are done without a time limit. 

Senator MERKLEY [presiding]. Thank you very much, Madam 

Chair. I am pleased to do so. I thank you very much for joining us 

today and for doing so much in a very short period of time to take 

on such important environmental issues. 

I wanted to simply ask, in the context of questions that have preceded me today, how important is it that we, as a Nation, really 

dive in and tackle carbon dioxide and other global warming gases? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, as the endangerment finding proposal says, 

CO2 and the other five gases we evaluated pose a threat to this 

generation and to future generations. There is an urgent need to 

get into this game in a big way as a country, to address it and to 

do it a way that is also mindful of our economy, our current economic situation, but also for selfish reasons. The race for clean energy is on. If we do not jump in in a big way, and climate change 

is certainly part of the equation, we are going to be passed by by 

others in the world that are jumping on before us. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
110 
111 

Senator MERKLEY. Some have said that given the Nation’s economy right now, that we should delay our work. But it sounds to me 

like you are saying we will miss a critical opportunity to strengthen our economy. 

Ms. JACKSON. Absolutely. The race to the clean energy future is 

on. I have heard Secretary Chu at the Department of Energy liken 

it to the Internet boom of the last decade. If we are not in it in 

a big way, and we are not bringing American innovation and willingness to roll up our sleeves and get it done to bear, I worry that 

we are going to miss a tremendous opportunity. 

Senator MERKLEY. I want to try to understand the most cost effective way, because we want to get as much done as possible at 

the least cost and strengthen our economy. Is it more effective for 

us to simply pass rules that restrain every single source of carbon 

dioxide of at least all of the major sources of carbon dioxide? Or is 

more cost effective to allow one producer to say, hey, it costs me, 

if you will, $1 million to reduce quantity x but someone else a quarter of a million dollars and we should work to create a market so 

that we can get more done for less? 

Ms. JACKSON. A market-based mechanism is more effective. It is 

not only more economically effective, it can be more environmentally effective because it quickly puts a price on carbon that 

business can assess and make a determination of how best to adjust. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. I want to turn to, and I appreciate 

your bringing that to our attention, I believe that the market-based 

approach is not a completely new invention. We have used it with 

some effectiveness on sulfur dioxide and acid rain. Do we have 

some experience with that? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right. EPA certainly has quite a bit of national experience in its SO2 program, its acid rain program. That 

program was found to be a very cost effective way, much cheaper 

than estimates and much cheaper than industry forecasts, by the 

way, of reducing SO2 pollution and having a dramatic impact on 

acid rain and on the health of our forests in the Central and Eastern part of the United States. 

Senator MERKLEY. I do recognize that carbon dioxide and methane gas is a more complicated picture than sulfur dioxide but despite that greater complexity this tool would be suitable for use? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, absolutely, Senator. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

One important issue to Oregon, as it is to many States, is the 

Superfund Program and the program has a modest increase in your 

budget. The Portland Harbor is one example of a major, major 

Superfund cleanup. There have been times when folks working on 

that project in Oregon have been somewhat frustrated. 

For example, one company received an 82 question information 

request asking it to identify potentially responsible parties with 

questions going back to 1937. The company has spent $100,000 responding and expects their final response to total more than 1 million pages. This is a company that has already identified itself as 

being involved in a positive way with the cleanup. 

Are there ways that we can reduce the paperwork and increase 

the action on the Superfund site itself? 
112 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly. I do believe that there are opportunities 

for us always to make sure that we are moving as quickly on the 

cleanup front as we are on the enforcement front. I am happy to 

look into that particular matter for you, Senator. It sounds a bit 

as though we are trying to find additional people to help pay for 

the cleanup, which is a good thing, but we need to balance that 

against actually getting the cleanup done. So I am happy to look 

into that for you. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much. There are some recent 

Supreme Court decisions that have affected the scope of the Clean 

Water Act’s jurisdiction, making the jurisdiction a little bit murky. 

That would affect a number of important rivers and streams in Oregon with the potential loss of Clean Water Act protections. Is this 

situation one which your Agency is familiar with and is working 

on? Is there a way to dive in in terms of implementation activities, 

enforcement activities, how will the work of your Agency be affected? 

Ms. JACKSON. The current situation has us spending more of our 

time trying to determine whether we have jurisdiction than we do 

working on actual permits or enforcement cases. So the administrative burden is quite high. I have said before, and I said before you 

joined us, that I believe that the most efficient solution would be 

a legislative one, a statutory one, since we have landed where we 

are through a series of two Supreme Court decisions which were, 

in and of themselves, somewhat murky because they split decisions. So we are operating on fairly shaky ground. It would be very 

helpful to have legislative clarification on jurisdictional issues. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
113 
114 
115 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, thank you very much. It is a pleasure 

to have you, Administrator Jackson, and the work you are doing 

and I certainly look forward to working with you and all the work 

that you are doing on green energy and the economy. 

I do ask for the unanimous consent of the Committee to enter 

into the record the document that Senator Whitehouse discussed 

earlier in the hearing. Hearing no objections, so ordered. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you all very much and we will bring this 

Committee hearing to a close. 

[Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

Æ