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

21–144 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 112–949 

THE CLEAN AIR ACT AND PUBLIC HEALTH 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 15, 2011 

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

( 

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

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH 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 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JUNE 15, 2011 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Inhofe, James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .............................. 2 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 6 

Alexander, Lamar, U.S. Senator from the State of Tennessee ............................ 8 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregen ................................ 9 

Lautenberg, Frank, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ......................... 10 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 11 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 13 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 225 

WITNESSES 

Jackson, Hon. Lisa P., Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency ........................................................................................................... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ................................................................................................... 23 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 27 

Senator Boxer ................................................................................................... 33 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 40 

Bucic, Sarah, RN, MSN, American Nurses Association and Delaware Nurses 

Association ............................................................................................................ 60 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 63 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ................................................................................................... 70 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 72 

Paulson, Jerome A., M.D., FAAP, American Academy of Pediatrics ................... 75 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 77 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ................................................................................................... 94 

Senator Carper ................................................................................................. 95 

Brenner, M. Harvey, Ph.D., Professor, Social and Behavioral Sciences, University of North Texas ......................................................................................... 98 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 100 

Woollums, Cathy S., Senior Vice President and Chief Environmental Counsel, 

Midamerican Energy Holdings Company .......................................................... 191 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 193 

Munzer, Alfred M.D., Pulmonary and Critical Care, Washington Adventist 

Hospital ................................................................................................................. 210 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 212 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE CLEAN AIR 

ACT AND PUBLIC HEALTH 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2011 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

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

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Carper, Lautenberg, 

Whitehouse, Merkley, Vitter, Barrasso, Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning, everybody. The Committee will 

come to order. 

I call this hearing to conduct oversight on one of the most successful and significant public health statutes in our Nation’s history, the Clean Air Act. Before President Richard Nixon signed the 

Clean Air Act into law in 1970, the Nation’s air was heavily polluted in many places in our great Nation. For example, a fog of pollution covered Donora, Pennsylvania, for 5 days in 1948. Records 

indicate that 20 people died, 6,000 people were sickened and hundreds were evacuated as a result of the pollution. 

In another tragic case, the eastern United States was blanketed 

by harmful smog in 1966. Scientists and researchers eventually 

concluded the smog caused the death of 24 people per day over a 

period of 6 days. 

The Clean Air Act, which has deep bipartisan roots, changed 

that. President Richard Nixon said, ‘‘I think that 1970 will be 

known as the year of the beginning, in which we really began to 

move on the problems of clean air for the future generations of 

America.’’ 

When President George Bush signed the Clean Air Act amendments in 1990, he said ‘‘I take great pleasure in signing the legislation as demonstration to the American people of my determination 

that each and every American shall breathe clean air.’’ 

Now, 40 years after the Clean Air Act was created, many of the 

benefits to public health are clear and measurable. Let me show 

you how successful this landmark environmental law has been in 

protecting children and families in my State of California. In 1976, 

and that’s the peak of the line, the red line, there were 166 days 

when health advisories were issued in Southern California to urge 

2 

people with asthma and other people with lung sensitivities to stay 

indoors. 

In 35 years, the number of smog-related health advisories issued 

in southern California dropped from 166 days in 1976 to zero days 

in 2010. And I think that chart, if a picture is 1,000 words, this 

chart says it about the Clean Air Act. Thank you. 

While the Clean Air Act has dramatically improved health safeguards, more work remains to be done. A 2011 report by the American Lung Association shows that 154 million people live in areas 

with levels of toxic soot and smog pollution that current science 

demonstrates is dangerous. Last year the Pittsburgh Post Gazette 

reported on the oily black rain of pollution from an electric utility 

company that coated a local community in 2006. Because of the potential impact of the pollution on public health, local farmers were 

told that livestock should not graze in their fields and families 

were told not to eat fruits and vegetables from their own gardens. 

In 2008, USA Today ran a series on toxic air pollution near our 

Nation’s schools. I remember, it was the first time I really met formally with Lisa Jackson here, as she was coming up for her confirmation hearing. I asked EPA to help monitor for such threats, 

and she said she pledged she would do so. And now the agency is 

focused on addressing sources of toxic air pollution near schools. 

We all know that children are much more sensitive to these dangerous pollutants than adults, given their size. 

The EPA is also helping my constituents in Mecca, California. 

Yes, there is a Mecca, California. There is a horrible odor emanating from a soil recycling plant. It made people very sick. And 

Senator Inhofe, as you know, sometimes we see these issues in the 

local press, well, I saw it in the local press and I looked at it. Everyone was just shrugging their shoulders, what was it? What was 

causing it? These kids were dizzy, they were practically fainting. 

Teachers were being hospitalized. It was just a nightmare. 

And the kids were told they couldn’t go out and play. And you 

tell a little child they can’t go out and play, it is a prison sentence. 

So we got EPA activated, they got involved with the State, with 

the local people. And now they have identified the source of the 

pollution. The point I am making is, we need to enforce this law. 

Under the Clean Air Act, EPA is required to strengthen protections 

if the science indicates that pollution adversely impacts public 

health, again, including children’s health. And recently, EPA proposed much-needed Federal safeguards to reduce toxic air pollution 

from old power plants, by requiring the use of modern pollution 

controls. These proposed safeguards would reduce mercury, lead, 

chromium, which are known to cause cancer and birth defects. 

The point is, this is the Clean Air Act at work. And Administrator Jackson has to do her job. Unless we repeal the Clean Air 

Act or portions thereto, which there are some attempts to do, which 

have failed, Lisa Jackson has to do her job, or there will be lawsuits and she will have to defend why she is doing nothing. So I 

hope colleagues will understand that this is her responsibility. 

When EPA reduces toxic air pollution, it helps families and children. EPA recently conducted a congressionally required peer-reviewed analysis of the Clean Air Act showing overwhelming health 

benefits now and into the future. The annual benefits by 2020, and 

3 

I will show you this, it is a little small printing, but I think colleagues can read it, will include preventing more than 230,000 premature deaths, 200,000 cases of heart attacks, 2.4 million cases of 

asthma attacks, 120,000 emergency room visits and 5.4 million lost 

days at school. 

So in contrast to the unsupported claims by some polluters who 

argue health threats from mercury are exaggerated and other air 

pollutants are exaggerated, we will hear today from Administrator 

Jackson and representatives of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the nurses, the Thoracic Society, who are experts on this issue 

. And these witnesses will describe the critical steps that have been 

taken to reduce dangerous air pollution. 

Again, before I turn to the Ranking Member, to whom I will give 

an extra 2 minutes, I want to thank you personally for your involvement in this Mecca situation. Because I went there, and we 

had a meeting. Everyone was around the table. It was so uplifting 

for the community. It is a poor community. And they really feel 

that their voices have been heard. I know we won’t stop until we 

get this all resolved. I wanted to thank you. 

Now I will turn to my colleague, and I will give you 7 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chair. I think a lot of people don’t realize that what you said about the merits and successes 

of the Clean Air Act, I have said many times, and I agree. In fact, 

one of the things I was going to talk about today, both the EIA and 

the EPA data indicates that since 1970, coal use has increased by 

over 200 percent while SOX and NOX emissions have dropped by 

65 and 85 percent, respectively. It is a success story. 

This is the first time that we have had Administrator Jackson 

here to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency’s air quality 

regulations, so I am very glad you are here and look forward to this 

hearing. 

I would also like to thank the witnesses on our second panel, 

Cathy Woollums. It will be nice to hear how the regulations are affecting the ratepayers. And Dr. Brenner, I think reference was 

made to you last week by Margo Thorning. You have a real interesting testimony. So we can be learning more about how energy 

price increases and unemployment affect public health. There is a 

relationship there that nobody every talks about. So I look forward 

to that. 

There is always the propensity of people who want to over-regulate our lives to try to use such things as health and deaths and 

all that. But we don’t hear the other side of it. So we will hear 

some of it today. 

Over the past 2 years, the Obama EPA has moved forward in an 

unprecedented number of rules that will have enormous consequences on families and businesses and the Nation’s fiscal wellbeing. Take for example the EPA’s new greenhouse gas cap and 

trade regulations. I appreciated your honesty, Administrator Jackson, gosh, it has been months ago, I guess, when I was saying, if 

we were to do something like that, either through regulations or 

through any of the legislation, like the Markey Bill and some of the 

4 

rest of them, would that decrease concentrations. And of course, 

you had stated it would not have an impact on greenhouse gas concentrations, obviously, since we are looking at where the problem 

is is not the United States, but it is countries like China and like 

India and elsewhere. 

I would take it one step further, and I have several times, these 

were not your words, but they were mine, that it could have just 

the opposite effect. Because as we lose our jobs, as hey are out 

seeking power and energy, they have to go to places where the regulations are not nearly as stringent as ours, it could have an increased effect. 

The agency’s voluntary reconsideration of the National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards for ground level ozone, a decision based on 

outdated data, could lead to significant economic constrains in the 

Country. It is another agency action of dubious merit. EPA projects 

costs of this rule to be somewhere around $90 billion. Meanwhile, 

the agency is planning to tighten the standards again in just 2 

years. 

The Obama EPA is aggressively moving forward to regulate 

nearly all aspects of American life. It is now regulating, has regulations to cover dust on farms, in puddles of water along the side of 

the road, and it is businesses and working families who have to 

pay for all this. 

Today we have a witness from the electric power industry with 

us. So let’s focus on the regulations affecting her business for a 

minute. Just last week, in response to EPA’s rules, American Electric Power announced that they would be forced to close nearly 

6,000 megawatts of low cost coal-powered energy. Now, when you 

do the math on that, that works out to about 12 plants. 

As a consequence, the AEP, that is American Electric Power, estimates nearly 600 power plant workers will lose their jobs, totaling nearly $40 million in annual wages. These are good-paying jobs 

in rural areas in Virginia, West Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, and Texas. 

They won’t be easily replaced. 

Of course, the effects to the communities will be far greater than 

these direct job losses alone, as electricity prices increase in nearby 

businesses suffer in the wake of plant closures. A recent report by 

the National Economic Research Association anticipates this will 

be replicated across the Country, with an estimated 48 gigawatts 

in plant closures. This is just from two of the EPA rules. That is 

the AEP tragedy eight times over. 

Before this analysis is criticized, let me say that it is consistent 

with multiple projections, including that of the Obama Department 

of Energy, which estimates that plant closures could be as high as 

70 gigawatts. NERA, that is the National Economic Recovery Associates, goes on to predict that these two rules, Utility MACT and 

the Transport Rule, will cause electricity prices to increase by as 

much as 23 percent. And by 2020, 1.4 million jobs could be lost. 

Now, that comes from the Obama administration, not from some 

other association. 

As I said in last week’s hearing, we all have an interest in dealing with real pollution concerns and protecting public health. We 

also know that President Obama has a cap and trade agenda that 

is specifically designed to raise the prices of energy by forcing coal 

5 

and oil out of the market. That is coal, oil and gas. He couldn’t get 

it passed through the Senate, so now he is trying to do it with the 

EPA doing it for him. 

It is kind of interesting that everyone up here on this panel is 

always talking about great all this stuff is, and global warming is 

coming, we have to do cap and trade. And yet there probably are 

not, at the very most, 30 votes in the U.S. Senate that would support that when it comes down to a vote. So it makes for good conversation, but the votes aren’t there. It is something that no more 

than one-third of this Senate would vote for. 

Today, the Clean Air Act is being implemented in a way that 

bears no resemblance to what Congress intended. I have already 

said that I was a great supporter of the successes of the Clean Air 

Act in the past. Congress didn’t give the EPA the authority to set 

mandates that can’t be achieved. Congress didn’t give the EPA authority to pursue an agenda that hurts the very people that it is 

supposed to be trying to protect. And we all know that Congress 

didn’t give the EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases. But 

here we are. 

So we hear a lot about the Clean Air Act these days, and I will 

be the first to admit that industry and States have done a great 

job of cleaning up air over the past 40 years. But the Clean Air Act 

is in dire need of modernization. It needs to be updated to undo 

years of bureaucratic over-reach and messy court rulings, updated 

to meet the pollution challenges of today, and yes, updated to stop 

politicians from using it to pursue a reckless political agenda. 

I have to say to our first witness, Lisa Jackson, it is nice to have 

you back. I always really sincerely appreciate the fact that you do 

give direct answers, even when it is not popular to give them. So 

I thank you very much for being here. 

And also, I heard from one of the green publications yesterday, 

I was doing an interview. They had gone to your office and said you 

still have a beautiful picture hanging on your wall. I was glad to 

hear that. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

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

FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Madam Chairwoman, I appreciate your having today’s hearing. This is the first 

time this session we’ve had Administrator Jackson here to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) air quality regulations. I’m glad you’re here. I’d 

also like to thank the witnesses on our second panel. Cathy Woollums, I’m anxious 

to hear how EPA’s regulations are affecting your rate payers. Dr. Brenner, I look 

forward to learning more about how energy price increases and unemployment affect public health. I think your testimony will be particularly insightful in light of 

the sweeping job losses we expect from EPA’s rules. 

Over the past 2 years, the Obama EPA has moved forward with an unprecedented 

number of rules that will have enormous consequences for families, businesses, and 

the nation’s fiscal well-being. Take for example, EPA’s new greenhouse gas (GHG) 

cap and trade regulations. Administrator Jackson, you have admitted that regulating GHGs in the U.S. will have no impact on global GHG concentrations, yet your 

rules will come at an estimated cost of $300 to $400 billion annually. The Agency’s 

voluntary reconsideration of the national ambient air quality standards for groundlevel ozone—a decision based on outdated data that could lead to significant economic constraints on the country—is an another Agency action of dubious merit. 

EPA projects the cost of this rule in the order of $90 billion. Meanwhile, the Agency 

is planning to tighten the standards again in just 2 years. 

6 

The Obama EPA is aggressively moving forward to regulate nearly all aspects of 

American life—it now has regulations covering dust on farms and puddles of water 

along the side of road. And it is businesses and working families who will pay the 

price. 

Today we have a witness from the electric power industry with us, so let’s focus 

on the regulations affecting her business for a minute. Just last week, in response 

to EPA’s rules, American Electric Power (AEP) announced they would be forced to 

close nearly 6,000 Megawatts of low cost (coal) power generation. As a consequence, 

AEP estimates nearly 600 power plant workers will lose their jobs, totaling nearly 

$40 million in annual wages. These are good paying jobs in rural areas of Virginia, 

West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana and Texas. These jobs won’t easily be replaced. 

Of course, the effects to the communities will be far greater than these direct job 

losses alone, as electricity prices increase and nearby businesses suffer in the wake 

of plant closures. A recent report by National Economic Research Associates (NERA) 

anticipates this will be replicated across the country, with an estimated 48 

Gigawatts in plant closures. And this is from just two of EPA’s rules. That’s the 

AEP tragedy eight times over. And before this analysis is criticized, let me say that 

it is consistent with multiple projections, including that of Obama’s Department of 

Energy, which estimates that plant closures could be as high as 70 Gigawatts. 

NERA goes on to predict that these two rules—the ‘‘Utility MACT’’ and the ‘‘Transport Rule’’—will cause electricity prices to increase by as much as 23 percent. By 

2020, 1.4 million jobs could be lost. 

As I said at last week’s hearing, we all have an interest in dealing with real pollution concerns and protecting public health. But we also know that President Obama 

has a cap and trade agenda that’s specifically designed to raise energy prices by 

forcing coal and oil out of the market. He couldn’t get it passed the Senate, so now 

he has the EPA doing it for him. This is something that no more than one-third 

of the U.S. Senate would vote for. 

Today, the Clean Air Act is being implemented in a way that bears no resemblance to what Congress intended. Congress didn’t give EPA the authority to set 

mandates that can’t be achieved. Congress didn’t give EPA the authority to pursue 

an agenda that hurts the very people it’s supposedly trying to protect. And we all 

know that Congress didn’t give EPA the authority to regulate greenhouse gasses. 

But here we are. 

We hear a lot about the Clean Air Act these days. And I’ll be the first to admit 

that industry and states have done a great job of cleaning up the air over the past 

40 years. But the Clean Air Act is in dire need of modernization. It needs to be updated to undo years of bureaucratic overreach and messy court rulings; updated to 

meet the pollution challenges of today. And yes, updated to stop politicians from 

using it to pursue a reckless political agenda that hurts working families. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much to my Ranking Member. 

I would say in the order of arrival, on our side, Whitehouse, 

Merkley, Lautenberg, and Alexander on the Republican side. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would respectfully differ with our Ranking Member that we don’t hear 

much from the polluting side. I think we hear relentlessly in this 

building from the polluting side. I think that is one of the reasons 

that we don’t have the votes yet on trying to do something responsible about carbon pollution. 

But I would note that although there is a focus, because the polluting side pays the benefits of cleaner air, pays the costs of getting 

the cleaner air, the value is more widespread, but it is very real. 

According to the Office of Management and Budget, the total economic benefits of the Clean Air Act are estimated to exceed compliance costs anywhere from four to one to eight to one. 

And the health benefits of the Clean Air Act are even larger. The 

direct health benefits of just the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments, 

which included the acid rain program and the program to phaseout 

7 

chemicals that deplete the ozone layer, exceeded the cost of industry compliance by 30 to 1. The upcoming Clean Air Act rules have 

similar benefit to cost ratios. 

EPA will soon finalize the Transport Rule, very important to 

Rhode Island, because we get bombarded with pollution from 

States that we have no control over, creating one of the highest 

rates of asthma around. Eleven percent of children in Rhode Island 

have asthma. And the Transport Rule will help reduce that. In 

doing so, it will serve our economy by avoiding the significant 

health costs. 

The Transport Rule has a predicted benefit to cost ratio of anywhere from 55 to 1 to 145 to 1. What we hear from more than any 

place else is the one. 

EPA is also finally taking steps to control toxic air pollution from 

power plants. The agency is moving in response to longstanding 

peer-reviewed, scientific evidence that establishes the health 

threats of mercury, dioxin, acid gases and other toxic air pollution. 

The new Toxic Air Standards have a predicted benefit to cost ratio 

of anywhere from five to one to 13 to one. Again, we hear a lot from 

the one. 

The arguments against, I think, are very often not particularly 

well-founded. There was a Wall Street Journal op-ed recently entitled The Myth of Killer Mercury. It was written by a consultant of 

the George C. Marshall Fund, whose role in fixing the science 

against the public health is chronicled pretty effectively in a book 

called Merchants of Doubt. I won’t go into it any further, but I 

think General Marshall is probably horrified that his name has 

been associated with this fund. 

The other author is a senior fellow at an Exxon-funded think 

tank and a former principal of an energy public relations firm. Up 

against that, you have the fact that every single one of our 50 

States has put out mercury advisories, warning pregnant women 

and children not to eat certain kinds of fish for fear of causing permanent neurological damage. Every one of our 50 States has that 

out. 

With respect to the AEP shut-downs, I take a bit of an interest 

in that, because years ago as attorney general of Rhode Island, I 

participated in a lawsuit that has provoked a lot of these shutdowns for the very health reasons that I have just described. Rhode 

Island was getting bombarded. Just the other day, when we were 

here a week ago, it was a bad air day in Rhode Island. Nothing 

we could do about it. Pollution from Midwestern power plants 

turns into ozone, and we get notices in drive time radio in Rhode 

Island saying, if you have infants, elderly, people with respiratory 

conditions should stay inside today, because the air is not safe to 

breathe. That is a cost when you have to stay inside because the 

air is not safe to breathe because of a downwind power plant. 

Forty-five hundred out of the 5,500 megawatts that are being 

taken offline are being taken offline because of that lawsuit. Not 

because of what it threatened, but because of what they did and 

the fact that it was wrong and the fact that they settled that case. 

And in that case, just by the way, on this question of cost benefit, 

the cleanup costs for AEP and for the defendants involved were 

$4.6 billion, and the savings in health and other benefits on the 

8 

other side were estimated to be $30 billion, not once, but annually 

thereafter. Four point six billion dollar investment to save $30 billion in health and other costs annually thereafter. I think that is 

pretty good business for the United States of America to be involved in. 

And I thank the Chairman for the hearing and the Administrator 

for her hard work. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator Alexander. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Administrator Jackson, welcome. Good to see you. 

When the Nissan plant was thinking about locating in the 

United States 30 years ago, it thought of Tennessee. And the first 

thing the officials did was to go down to the State air quality board 

and get an air quality permit for their paint plant. Because the air 

was clean enough for them to get it, Nissan located there. And 

today, a State that had almost no auto jobs has about a third of 

its manufacturing jobs in the auto business. In other words, clean 

air for us means good jobs. 

Across the State of Tennessee, we have a lot of county officials 

who are struggling to meet the National Ambient Air Standards. 

They would like to get the next Volkswagen supplier. They want 

to be able to get their air quality permits. And they won’t be able 

to get it unless we have a strong national Clean Air law, which is 

why I have joined with Senator Carper for the last 6 years in introducing a law that regulated sulfur, nitrogen and mercury, and saying while we argue about carbon, let’s go ahead and do the other 

three and do it right. 

I am also interested in the health effects, which have been talked 

about. And I am also interested, because we like to see the Great 

Smoky Mountains, and visitors don’t come there to see the smog, 

they come to see the blue haze that the Cherokees sang about. And 

it is the most polluted national park in America, because dirty air 

blows in from all over the Country, not just from TVA. 

That is why I support the Tennessee Valley Authority’s recent 

decision on coal, to either close its coal plants or put pollution control equipment on all of its plants by 2020. That is the right thing 

to do. It will make it easier for us to attract auto jobs. It will help 

our health and it will attract tourism jobs and give us a chance to 

see the mountains. 

It also means we will be able to use coal. Thirty-five percent of 

our electricity will be made by coal, more or less, by the year 2020. 

And if we can figure out a way to deal with carbon from coal 

plants, more of it will be from coal. 

So there are some things I like about the EPA’s rules, and there 

are some things I don’t like. The Clean Air Transport Rule is very 

much like the law that I wish we had passed in the last Congress 

on SOX and on NOX. It doesn’t have enough flexibility, as much 

as we did. I think you still have authority to grant more flexibility 

in dealing with sulfur and nitrogen. And I hope you consider that. 

I will be asking about that during my question time. 

9 

As far as mercury and the other pollutants, I believe coal plants 

should get rid of mercury up to 90 percent. The technology is there 

to do it. Mercury is dangerous. It comes down near the coal plants, 

shouldn’t be traded, I agree with all of that. But I want to make 

sure that when we lump all the other pollutants with mercury, I 

think it suddenly runs the cost up and takes it into an unrealistic 

range. So my question would be, wouldn’t it be better if we gave 

you the authority only to deal with mercury, which is what Senator 

Carper’s bill and I did. 

Finally, on the Boiler MACT provision, I think that rule belongs 

on another planet somewhere. It is completely unrealistic. It is not 

based on real world achievability. It may be the most expensive 

such rule ever proposed. And I don’t believe it can be fixed by the 

Environmental Protection Agency without some congressional action. The EPA admitted, when it petitioned the court 15 months 

ago, that it was having a hard time with it. You have been forced 

to come up with a rule faster than you should. So today, I am going 

to be asking two questions of the Administrator. And if I have time 

to do it in my question time, I will do it then. And if not, I would 

appreciate very much a written response to the questions. 

One would be, do you have the legal authority to make the necessary changes to the solid waste portion of the rules affecting industrial boilers? That is my first question. My second question 

would be, do you have the time to fix the rule considering the fact 

that courts have already forced you to move faster than EPA originally wanted and your administrative stay is already being challenged by a new lawsuit? 

And when the time comes, I will ask a third question about your 

mercury rule. Wouldn’t it be better if we gave you the authority 

only to deal with mercury, as Senator Carper and I proposed in our 

bill, rather than lump mercury in with other pollutants, which will 

cause utilities to have to spend too much money to deal with those 

pollutants. Having low-cost electricity is an important part of making it easier and cheaper to create good new jobs in this Country. 

I believe we can do that with rules on sulfur and nitrogen and 

mercury over a reasonable period of time. But the Boiler MACT 

and the other pollutants send the cost into the stratosphere. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. And hopefully you can stay 

for questions. But I will make sure, and I know that Administrator 

Jackson will make sure to answer you in writing, if you can’t stay 

in time to get all those questions. 

Senator ALEXANDER. Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Merkley. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Welcome, Administrator Jackson. 

I had a recent experience that reminded me of how important 

clean air is, in that the Senate had a bipartisan delegation to 

China. And everywhere we went, we were told it was the best air 

day they had had in the year, or possibly the previous 2 years. And 

we couldn’t see buildings 100 yards away. We were told by the emVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:35 Jan 17, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\21144.TXT VERN
10 

bassy personnel that they were thinking that they should keep 

family members no more than 2 years in China because of the 

moral implications of exposure to family members in regard to 

health. We heard about the China cough syndrome, and heard it 

as well, and so on and so forth. 

It took me back to when, in my earlier days in Oregon, we used 

to have bad air quality days much more routinely. Nothing like 

L.A., we were happy to acknowledge, but certainly still were affected. And so when I look at how the Nation’s health, and really 

its whole quality of life has been impacted by the Clean Air Act, 

it is a tremendous success. The statistics on 2010 alone, preventing 

160,000 cases of premature mortality, reducing heart attacks by 

more than 100,000, reducing lost work days by 13 million, reducing 

asthma attacks by nearly 2 million in a single year, and those projections continue. 

So I know it is often popular to attack the Clean Air Act on the 

basis that it will cripple our economy, cripple our industry or bring 

down our businesses. But the fact is that that has never been the 

case. It has always been the argument and it has never been the 

case. And indeed, there are costs of compliance, but those costs are 

outweighed by about a 30 to 1 factor in terms of reduction in 

health care expenses. And behind those health care expenses is not 

just an issue of the wallet, it is an issue of our daily quality of life. 

So I look forward to your testimony as we work to sustain and 

improve our air quality in America. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks, Madam Chairman. Welcome, Administrator Jackson. 

I always feel that the air is made lighter when I see you and 

know what you are doing for us. I congratulate you and urge you, 

don’t quit. That is what you have to do. Continue to enforce the 

rules. Continue to care about what the net gain is for America. Because costs are discussed here as if that is the ultimate goal. 

But we know darned well, that is not the goal. That is not the 

goal of those of us who think that we ought to be investing and 

protecting the health and well-being of our kids at stages of life 

when clean air is so important, living in a country where Code Orange days say, children, the elderly, stay indoors. Stay indoors? Is 

that what we want to tell our children? I don’t think so. 

I don’t want to surprise people here, but I am a senior citizen. 

And I am told, get out here, no matter what the weather is. But 

that is a political thing. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Anyway, this year we have also experienced Code Red, where even healthy adults are advised to limit 

their outdoor activity. The alarm is ringing and those on the other 

side just don’t see the urgency. They are good people and I know 

they care about their children and their families. But their priority 

would result in protecting the polluting companies that are causing 

11 

the problems. Not long ago that kind of thinking was the exception, 

not the rule. 

In 1990, both parties came together to strengthen the Clean Air 

Act, protect our Country from dangerous air toxics. But the big polluters put their lawyers and lobbyists to work, spent millions of 

dollars to prevent EPA from implementing the law, setting rules 

that cleaned up the largest sources of deadly emissions. The 

Obama administration is trying to fix this, by putting limits on the 

largest sources of air toxics. But the other side attacks these new 

rules as too costly. How costly is it when life is at risk? We have 

to be clear. These rules now are more than a decade overdue. While 

industry and their allies in Congress keep stalling, Americans are 

paying a price that in many ways is irrecoverable. 

We know that dirty air causes asthma attacks, heart attacks, 

strokes, cancer. And on a personal side, my oldest grandchild, who 

is only 17, has asthma. And my daughter, when he goes out to play 

sports, first checks to see where the nearest emergency clinic is, so 

that if he starts to wheeze, she gets him there in a hurry. 

So when we look at things as dreadful and deadly as mercury, 

essentially brain poison for children, can damage a child’s kidneys, 

liver, nervous system and permanently a lower a child’s i.q., what 

is the cost? What is the cost there? In emotional and human terms, 

the cost is inconceivable that it would continue to be, that people 

would continue to be exposed there, as opposed to reducing health 

care costs and seeing children happy and able to go outside and do 

what kids normally do. 

So Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous that my full statement 

be included in the record. And I commend you for your pursuit of 

better health for our families, our children, and we all have to keep 

that in mind. I want to say this to my colleagues on the other side. 

I know that you are concerned about the health and well-being of 

children. But I would ask, if you could only at least consider that 

the primary cost of what we are trying to do is not the dollars involved, but rather the results that we can get if we implement the 

rule as they are. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Senator BARRASSO. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

For 2 years, Madam Chairman, this Administration has had an 

economic policy that has not rescued our economy and has not created jobs. In fact, this Administration’s policies have done just the 

opposite. They have made it worse. 

I believe in fostering economic growth through innovation, low 

taxes and less regulation. This will spur the private sector to create 

the jobs al across this great Country. This Administration has been 

picking winners and losers. It is attempting to create a green economy where you regulate one sector of the economy out of business 

and subsidize the other sectors to clean up the mess with taxpayer 

money. 

12 

For the last 2 years, this Administration and this EPA have pursued their green wins while red, white and blue energy loses. That 

is the economic policy that they have been pursuing, and the result 

is 9.1 percent unemployment. 

Lisa Jackson, who is before us today, was quoted as saying recently that ‘‘We want to make environmental protection and environmental technology a central piece of our effort to win the future.’’ Along with some very difficult spending cuts, she says the 

President is calling for investments in our schools and our teachers, our innovators and small businesses, and the infrastructure 

that keeps our economy running. She calls this essential ingredients to a robust green economy. 

Where can we look, Madam Chairman, to see where these green 

economy policies have been in effect? Well, in September 2009, at 

the Second Annual Governors Global Climate Summit, Jackson 

stated ‘‘California has been out front on energy efficiency, greenhouse gas reduction, transportation innovation and so much more.’’ 

She goes on to say ‘‘In many ways the Country is once again catching up with what is happening here.’’ She is referring to California. 

Two years since that statement, 2 years since that statement was 

made, the unemployment rate in California is 11.9 percent, well 

above the national average. If that is how an only green economy 

works, the 9.1 percent of the Country looking for jobs aren’t interested. Even green American businesses that are receiving Government support are finding it hard to compete. As President Obama 

touted the success of LED light bulb manufacturers in North Carolina, he failed to mention that one of the companies he toured was 

having significant financial difficulty, and their stock value was cut 

in half over the last year. This was despite the company receiving 

a $39 million tax credit through the Obama so-called stimulus law. 

Explaining this phenomenon was Jeffrey Bencik, a green technology analyst for the New York investment banking firm, who 

stated that U.S. makers of LED products, energy-efficient light 

emitting diodes, will have a hard time competing unless anyone 

can get their costs down to compete with the Chinese companies. 

Wishful thinking and the political ideology of this Administration 

and this EPA simply fail to account for the economic realities of the 

global marketplace. 

This Administration’s steadfast vocal support of green energy initiatives and a green economy doesn’t make American companies 

more innovative at home or more competitive abroad. At some 

point, I would like to see this Administration’s policy dreams of tomorrow actually acknowledge the economic reality of today. The 

economic reality is millions of Americans still unemployed, looking 

for work to provide for their families. Many families with children 

are sliding into poverty as the bills pile up. 

This Administration can’t continue to pick the winners and losers 

in America’s energy debate. We need it all, green, red, white and 

blue energy jobs I believe our job is to make sure that things don’t 

get any worse and create an economic environment where things 

can actually get better. 

During the testimony of Dr. Margaret Thorning during last 

week’s Clean Energy Subcommittee hearing, she quoted Professor 

Brenner of Johns Hopkins University, who is scheduled to testify 

13 

today, whose research showed that economic growth leads to actually the lowering of mortality rates, including child mortality. In 

addition, according to the National Center for Health Statistics, 

American children in poverty are 3.6 times more likely than nonpoor children to have poor health and five times more likely to die 

from an infectious disease. 

That is the concern I have regarding the economy, Madam Chairman. It is our responsibility to make America’s air as clean as we 

can as fast as we can. And let us do it in a way that doesn’t hurt 

American families during this economic crisis. Costly job-crushing 

regulations, heavy tax burdens, and investment in non-competitive 

industries does not foster economic growth, does not create jobs, 

does not promote commerce and does not make the public 

healthier. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman, and I look forward to the testimony. 

Senator BOXER. I am sure you do. 

Senator VITTER. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for this hearing. 

I will submit my full statement for the record, but I did want to 

make a few comments. 

Certainly this hearing is timely, in my opinion, particularly since 

over the last 6 months or so EPA, I believe, has lost enormous 

credibility in terms of the core fundamental issue of the soundness 

of its science and its scientific reviews. We have seen this in a 

number of instances, I have been particularly involved in one 

where I was pushing for an independent review and study by the 

National Academy of Sciences. We finally got that, and quite frankly, it confirmed my concerns about the validity and soundness of 

the science work going on for EPA. 

I think that is a very important backdrop to all of these discussions. And I agree with the call for everything to be based on sound 

science. I think we have a lot of work to do to ensure that that is 

happening under this Administration. 

So I will submit the rest of my comments for the record. But that 

is the fundamental backdrop and concern I have. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Vitter follows:] 

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

FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Thank you Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe for holding this hearing 

today on EPA regulation under the Clean Air Act and public health. 

If anything this hearing is timely. Over the last sixth months or so EPA has lost 

credibility as an agency capable of handling scientific reviews in an unbiased manner. EPA has lost credibility as an agency capable of doing comprehensive economic 

analysis on the impacts of the suite of new regulations it wants to impose on American businesses. EPA has also lost credibility with the courts as an agency capable 

of operating within its statutory authority. All of which has led to the EPA being 

apply nicknamed the ‘‘Employment Prevention Agency.’’ 

For the several years leading to 2011 this committee was holding regular hearings 

on why we needed Cap and Trade to create jobs and spur economic growth. As those 

arguments collapsed under further scrutiny we were told Cap and Trade was needed 

to protect public health. Fortunately, republicans saw through the disingenuous arguments and were able to thwart that legislative effort. Had we not prevented Cap 

14 

and Trade from becoming law it clearly would have exacerbated the 9 percent unemployment rate we see today as well as the soaring energy prices American consumers and businesses are suffering through this summer. 

Unfortunately, the Obama administration and the EPA see a litany of new regulations as a consolation prize to Cap and Trade, and are aggressively hoping to implement what is both scientifically dubious and economically unsound. 

The National Academies reported about a month ago on the scientific review process being done at EPA at both Administrator Jackson’s and my request. Administrator Jackson and I negotiated aggressively to have that work done by the NAS. 

Their findings in April confirmed what many intuitively knew. The report confirmed 

that EPA has very serious and chronic flaws in scientific work being conducted, and 

in particular the methodologies and lack of weighting scientific evidence, which in 

turn leads to routinely biased conclusions. 

Additionally, EPA seems bent on ignoring the economic realities of today and routinely fails to produce even semi-respectable economic analysis on the impacts of the 

Agency’s decisions. As well, EPA routinely ignores requirements under section 

321(a) of the Clean Air Act. We see this in particular in EPA’s ongoing saga in regulating commercial, institutional and industrial boilers. In fact, EPA’s economic analysis was so bad that the Department of Commerce had to get involved with their 

own analysis, which reportedly showed far worse an impact than EPA had concluded. EPA officials have since been forced to acknowledge their failure to ‘‘calculate standards that fully reflected operational reality.’’ 

Confounding these problems EPA has aggressively taken steps to exceed its statutory authority. Just last month Judge Richard Leon of the Federal district court for 

the District of Columbia found that EPA’s use of the Environmental Appeals Board 

to extend review periods for permits under the Clean Air Act was in contradiction 

to clear statutory authority. Quite similar to the Interior Department, EPA has a 

permitting problem. And unfortunately for the American worker and businesses, the 

permits these agencies are mismanaging are the permits companies need to create 

jobs. In the words of Judge Leon ‘‘how absurd.’’ 

In opposition to a free market economy crony capitalism has been given new life 

in the Obama administration. It’s become this simple: If you are not a favored industry you are going to have trouble getting your permits. If you are a favored industry and endorse the Administration’s agenda you will not only be more likely to 

get your permits, but you may even get Federal financing and there is a good chance 

you will be appointed as an economic advisor to the President. Jeff Immelt and John 

Bryson can attest to this fact. 

Finally, there exist two very serious public health problems ongoing in the U.S. 

today. They are unemployment and poverty, both of which are being exacerbated by 

a dysfunctional Environmental Protection Agency. Unfortunately, the prescription 

this administration is prescribing is a combination of crony capitalism, agency overreach, biased science, poor economic analysis and selective permitting. That is not 

an elixir that will cure what ails our economy. And the unemployment perpetuated 

by this strategy will continue to be the single greatest public health issue facing the 

United States. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks. I am just going to address a couple of 

comments. 

Senator Barrasso’s comments, and it will go off my time, don’t 

worry about it, Senator Barrasso’s comments lead me to believe he 

lives in an alternate universe. Red, white and blue, he says, about 

the energy supports, like oil that we import from countries who 

want to do us in. Really, that is not red, white and blue. It is the 

opposite. We have to get off of that. And harness the energies here 

in our Country and do it in a smart way, which, I think with the 

Clean Air Act help, we have shown we can do it. 

Senator Inhofe proved that when he talked about how we have 

had an expansion, for example, in coal. But because of the Clean 

Air Act and its work, we have managed not to lose control of the 

quality of the air. 

Then, and this is supposed to be a hearing on the Clean Air Act, 

he attacks the President on job creation. Again, an alternate universe. When President Obama took the oath of office, we were 

bleeding 800,000 jobs a month. The auto industry was on the brink. 

15 

So let’s talk about the facts. Let’s not get so emotional about our 

political wishes for the next election that we lose site of what we 

are doing. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, let me respond also. 

Senator BOXER. You can respond on your time, just like I have 

responded. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, let me go ahead and respond to this, because I think—— 

Senator BOXER. No. No. You are out of order. 

Senator INHOFE. We are not going to have enough time as it is. 

Senator BOXER. You are out of order. I am going to get to my 

questions. 

Senator INHOFE. With 9.1 percent unemployment, that is not 

what I call successful. 

Senator BOXER. When somebody stands here in this Committee 

and attacks the President of the United States for not doing 

enough on jobs when he took over and there was a bleeding loss 

of 800,000 a month, I am going to respond. Now there is free 

speech around here, and everybody has it, everybody can say what 

you want. But that doesn’t mean it isn’t responded to, and my 

friend can respond to me in his time. 

Senator INHOFE. In all respect, Madam Chairman—— 

Senator BOXER. You can respond to me on your time. The Committee will come to order. I will add time to your opportunity to 

respond to me. 

Now, another myth around here is that greenhouse gas emissions 

are not covered in the Clean Air ct. It was repeated by my friend, 

the Ranking Member. I would tell him to look at te Supreme Court 

decision, which says because—this was a decision that was made 

when the Bush administration said exactly what my friend said, 

greenhouse gas emissions are not included in the Clean Air Act. 

This is what the Supreme Court said. ‘‘Because greenhouse gases 

fit well within the Clean Air Act’s capacious definition of air pollutant, we hold that EPA has the statutory authority to regulate the 

emissions of such gases.’’ 

So let’s not make things up. Let’s deal with it. Now, people didn’t 

like it, on the other side of the aisle. That was this Supreme Court 

in a five-four ruling. 

So the other thing my colleague said, and this is my question to 

you, Administrator Jackson, my friend said, my friend Senator 

Inhofe said that the Clean Air Act is being implemented ‘‘in a way 

Congress never intended.’’ And I don’t, he was not that specific 

about it. Could you respond to that charge? Are you doing anything 

that is out of the ordinary in terms of implementing this? Or are 

you following what the law says? 

Ms. JACKSON. To the contrary, all of our rules are authorized by 

the Clean Air Act. The mercury standards are authorized by the 

Toxics Rules, Chairman, and the standards for soot, the standards 

for smog, the standards that are designed to fight asthma, bronchitis, heart disease and premature deaths are all specifically 

called out in the Clean Air Act. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I just realized that you didn’t give your testimony. My friend was right. 

16 

So what I will do is, at this point I will stop and turn it over to 

Senator Inhofe for 5 minutes to respond to me, and then we will 

get to you. I apologize. 

Senator INHOFE. Oh, all right. Well, I will make it short. 

First of all, because of the length of this thing and I see the participation that will be here, I will have to leave a little bit before 

12 o’clock. So I am really concerned about the second panel. 

I would just say this. When our friend, Senator Barrasso, talked 

about the red, white and blue and about all of the above, it is so 

frustrating when we sit here and we look at the CRA that came 

out less than a year ago and it documented that we have the largest recoverable reserves in coal, oil and gas in the United States 

of America, and we could be completely weaned off of all Middle 

Eastern oil, if we would only develop our own resources. It is so 

ridiculous to even suggest that somehow if we restrict our recovery 

of coal, oil and gas, that somehow, somewhere down the road, that 

is going to reduce our reliance on the Middle East. 

Just the opposite is true. I go back to Oklahoma and I talk to 

people and they say, how can they possibly come up with that? I 

say, well, only in Washington will they do that. 

So I would say that we have those resources. We are going to be 

able to supply the energy for this Country. I think during the question and answer time, we will be able to pursue this whole idea of 

what we are talking about in terms of the health situation. We 

have an excellent witness on the second panel, I just wish I could 

be here for that. 

The last thing I would say, yes, you are right in terms of what 

you read in terms of the court decision, the five-four decision. It 

says, you have the authority if you want to do it, it does not mandate that you do it. I think you all understand. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I promise I am not going to rebut you on 

this, but I will do it later. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. I am very pleased to call on Hon. Lisa Jackson 

for her time to talk to us. And bring us all together. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Madam Chairman. That is a big order. 

It is good to see you and the Ranking Member and the other members of this Committee. Thank you for inviting me to testify about 

EPA’s ongoing efforts to protect our health by reducing the air pollution that affects millions of Americans. 

I know this subject very personally, because my son is one of the 

more than 25 million Americans battling asthma. Let me begin my 

testimony with a matter of fact. Pollution, pollution like mercury 

and particulate matter shortens and reduces the quality of Americans’ lives, and puts at risk the health and the development of future generations. 

We know mercury is a toxin, a toxin that causes neurological 

damage to adults, children and developing fetuses. We know mercury causes neurological damage, including lost i.q. points in children. And we know particulate matter can lead to respiratory disVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:35 Jan 17, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\21144.TXT VERN
17 

ease, decreased lung function and even premature death. These 

pollutants and others, including arsenic, chromium and acid gases, 

come from power plants. These are simple facts that should not be 

up for debate. 

However, Madam Chairman, while Americans across the Country suffer from this pollution, special interests who are trying to 

gut longstanding public health protections are now going so far as 

to claim that these pollutants aren’t even harmful. These myths 

are being perpetrated by some of the same lobbyists who have in 

the past testified before Congress about the importance of reducing 

mercury and particulate matter. Now, on behalf of their clients, 

these lobbyists are saying the exact opposite. 

The good news is that to address this pollution problem in 1970, 

Congress passed the Clean Air Act, which was signed into law by 

a Republican President and then strengthened in 1990 under another Republican Administration. Last year alone, the Clean Air 

Act is estimated to have saved 160,000 lives and prevented more 

than 100,000 hospital visits. Simply put, protecting public health 

and the environment should not be an historically has not been a 

partisan issue. 

Despite all the distractions, let me assure you that EPA will continue to base all of our public health protections on two key principles: the law and the best science. Allow me to focus on two of 

our current activities. 

On March 16th, after 20 years in the making, EPA proposed the 

first ever national standards for mercury and other toxic air pollution from power plants. While many power plants already comply, 

the standards will level the playing field by requiring additional 

power plants to install widely available proven pollution control 

technologies. Deployment of these technologies will prevent an estimated 17,000 premature deaths, 11,000 heart attacks, 120,000 

cases of childhood asthma symptoms, 11,000 cases of acute bronchitis among children, 12,000 emergency room visits and hospital 

admissions, 850,000 days of work missed due to illness. 

This proposed rule, which is going through a public comment 

process, is the product of significant outreach to industry and other 

stakeholders. 

As we work at EPA to cut down on mercury and other toxins 

from power plants, we are also trying to reduce sulfur dioxide and 

nitrogen oxide through the Clean Air Transport Rule we proposed 

last year. This rule requires 31 States and the District of Columbia 

to reduce their emissions of these two pollutants which contribute 

to ozone and fine particle pollution across State lines, thereby significantly improving air quality in cities across the United States. 

Utilities can achieve these reductions by investing in widely available technology. Once finalized, this rule will result in more than 

$120 billion in health benefits each year. 

EPA estimates this rule will protect public health by avoiding 

14,000 to 36,000 premature deaths, avoiding 21,000 cases of acute 

bronchitis, avoiding 23,000 non-fatal heart attacks, avoiding 

240,000 cases of aggravated asthma, avoiding 440,000 cases of 

upper and lower respiratory symptoms, avoiding 26,000 hospital 

and emergency room visits, and 1.9 million days of work or school 

missed due to illness. 

18 

These numbers represent a major improvement in the quality of 

life for literally millions of people throughout the Country, especially working families, children and older Americans. While some 

argue that public health protections are too costly, history has repeatedly shown that we can cleanup pollution, create jobs and grow 

our economy all at the same time. Over the 40 years since the 

Clean Air Act was passed, the U.S. gross domestic product grew, 

grew by more than 200 percent. In fact, some economic analysis 

suggest that the economy is billions of dollars larger today than it 

would have been without the Act. 

Simply put the Clean Air Act saves lives and strengthens the 

American work force. As a result, the economic value of clean air 

far exceeds the cost. Expressed on dollar terms, the benefits of the 

Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 alone are projected to reach approximately $2 trillion in 2020, with an estimated cost of $65 billion in that same year, a benefit to cost ratio of more than 30 to 

1. 

With legislation pending in Congress to weaken and gut this 

proven public health protection law, I urge this Committee to stand 

up for the hundreds of millions of Americans who are directly or 

indirectly affected by air pollution. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:] 

19 


21144.001
20 


21144.002
21 


21144.003
22 


21144.004
23 


21144.005
24 


21144.006
25 


21144.007
26 


21144.008
27 


21144.009
28 


21144.010
29 


21144.011
30 


21144.012
31 


21144.013
32 


21144.014
33 


21144.015
34 


21144.016
35 


21144.017
36 


21144.018
37 


21144.019
38 


21144.020
39 


21144.021
40 


21144.022
41 


21144.023
42 


21144.024
43 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Because I already asked one of my questions, I am going to give 

my turn over to Senator lautenberg, and I will ask last. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I listen carefully to what our colleagues say. And I must say, I 

have to scratch my head in wonderment. When I hear that President Obama, such an ogre, that he wants to prevent everybody 

from exercising their free will to poison the atmosphere, to use material that we know is dangerous to the human race, and when I 

look and I hear that, and I think, I ask myself, and forgive me, I 

am asking my first question of me, if you don’t mind, and that 

is—— 

Senator CARPER. Who is going to answer? 

Senator LAUTENBERG. You are listening? Senator Carper is listening. 

When do we hear about the courageous decision that President 

Obama made to take a huge risk to eliminate a giant terrorist 

threat to our people, and the post-mortem shows that they had 

more plans to kill our people and disrupt our functioning? So 

frankly, I have to tell you, I don’t get it. And I know that o the 

other side, they read the same papers and everything else. But the 

interpretation is quite different. 

What is the cost of having a healthy child, of having a child that 

doesn’t need constant medical attention? What about the financial 

side of that, that drains family incomes and doesn’t permit them 

to think about positive things and how to have their families 

progress, but they have to take care of that sick child, they have 

to make sure that the environment is right? 

So things sound a little backward to me, I must tell you. And I 

hope that the American people understand that cut, cut, cut, cutting brings wounds, often, and wounds that are lethal in their final 

outcome. 

Thanks, Administrator Jackson, for those wonderful comments. 

Our planet has warmed at an unprecedented rate since we began 

burning fossil fuels for energy on a massive scale. What is the effect of these warmer temperatures on air quality, public health? 

Ms. JACKSON. EPA’s endangerment finding includes information 

that shows that as the climate changes in those areas that become 

noticeably warmer, that exacerbates what we talked about earlier, 

ozone alert days. Certain types of pollution in warmer temperatures actually combine to form ground level ozone, which is smog, 

which is one of the major triggers for asthma, bronchitis, respiratory problems in our children and in the elderly. But also, as 

you noted, in some healthy adults who are particularly susceptible 

to ozone. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Madam Chairman, since I have very little 

time, I have to ask myself another question. And that is, do we 

look at the President and understand some of the things that are 

so positive, rescued the automobile industry, which was an American finding, and going down the tubes, and people are back to 

work and the companies are competing, jobs exist there. 

So the easiest thing to do, and we saw it the other night in the 

Republican debate, almost to a person, the only thing they could 

do was talk about how bad President Obama is, not offering any 

44 

solutions that are positive. And that is what we get to see here as 

well, I am sorry to say, is that we hear about jobs that are lost, 

because we don’t permit pollution to take place. You are darned 

right, that is what we are going to keep on doing. 

Madam Chairman, I have exhausted my questions of me. Thank 

you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I thought your questions and the answers 

that you gave to them were excellent. But I know there is some division about that on the panel here. 

So we will go to our first Republican here, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Administrator Jackson, I would like to highlight a letter that was 

sent on June 10th to you by Congressman John Dingle and by 26 

other House Democrats. As you know, former Chairman Dingle is 

one of the architects of the Clean Air Act. The letter states, and 

I have a copy of the letter, I don’t know if you have had a chance 

to read it yet, this letter, signed by Congressman Dingle as the 

first signator and then 26 others. 

The letter states that the Utility MACT rule is ‘‘unparalleled in 

its size and scope for maximum achievable control technology rule, 

presents a set of new regulations with possible wide-reaching impacts on the way our Country generates and consumes electricity.’’ 

The letter goes on, he says ‘‘We must be mindful of the economic 

impact new regulations could have, especially with the complexity 

and breadth of applicability for this rule being so significant.’’ 

The letter continues: ‘‘By the EPA’s own analysis, this proposed 

rule will cost nearly $11 billion per year with retail electricity rates 

increasing.’’ The letter also highlights errors in calculations that 

have come to light since your rule was proposed. The letter asks 

for extension of the public comment period for this rule. Given that 

one of the authors of the Clean Air act is asking for an extension, 

will you grant the extension of the public comment period? 

Ms. JACKSON. EPA has not responded to the letter. I am certainly aware of it, Senator, and we will be responding shortly. We 

have made no determination yet. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, I am not a signator of the letter. But 

I am a member of this panel. Do you intend to expand the time 

for which comment can be made? 

Ms. JACKSON. As soon as we have a decision, I am happy to give 

it to you, sir. 

Senator BARRASSO. OK. Let me ask you a question about particulate matter. It is a revision that the EPA is currently undergoing. 

The particulate matter revisions include what we in the west call 

farm dust. You have said it is a myth that you intend to regulate 

farm dust. But yet you set the standard and the States have to implement that standard. 

So isn’t it true that one of the recommendations that your staff 

has made was to lower the standard for farm dust in the final policy assessment that came out earlier this year? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. The staff recommended either lowering it or 

retaining the current standard. 

Senator BARRASSO. So I want to give you an opportunity to clear 

this up right now. Just, if you could please, tell rural America right 

45 

now that you plan to retain the current standard and reject the 

recommendation of lowering the standard. 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, I know you are not asking me to, but to 

answer your question today would be to violate the administrative 

procedures that require us to propose, take public comment and 

then finalize a new National Ambient Air Quality Standard. So we 

have, and I have said several times, that we will propose that 

standard some time this summer. My words to rural America are, 

and I have said it myself as I have gone out to Iowa, to California, 

and will continue to go out and speak directly to people in rural 

America, is that we are concerned about your health, but we also 

are pragmatic and practical people. And our standards and proposal will reflect that. 

Senator BARRASSO. You have already said it is a myth that you 

intend to regulate farm dust. So what—— 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir, it is a myth for people to promulgate and 

continue to say that we are planning to do it. Because we have 

made no proposal. And so you cannot characterize our actions when 

there is no proposal for the American people to comment on. 

Senator BARRASSO. Respectfully, it just sounds like a lot of bureaucratic response to some legitimate questions that a lot of people around the Country have. So I look forward to the response 

coming out of the agency. 

Ms. JACKSON. I have to say that if someone says that we are 

doing something we are not doing, that is a myth. And we have not 

made a proposal to change the coarse particulate standard. We are 

required by law every 5 years to review the science, ensure that 

people in this Country are protected, including in rural America. I 

take very seriously that obligation. 

But I also am a practical woman who will look at how that plays 

out on the ground. Our staff have had listening sessions in rural 

America to do just that. 

Senator BARRASSO. We appreciate that approach. 

My final question, according to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, out of all the other agencies that regulate food safety and 

animal health, your agency is responsible for 65 percent of the regulations that they face. These regulations are affecting the smallest 

producers around the Country, who can’t afford the number of regulations coming at them. 

What I hear from our members of the Cattlemen’s Beef Association, is this proportional? Have you done any kind of a cost estimate on the impact that this has on smaller operations and how 

they may end up having to consolidate and move to bigger companies? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly our regulations do impact some, some of 

the cattlemen and ranchers and members of that organization. We 

work quite closely with them and will continue to do so. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. My time has 

expired. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I show up and I immediately get called on. 

How fortunate. My timing is right. 

Senator BOXER. Well, you were here, the first person here. 

46 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We have had a lot of discussion around 

the Clean Air Act on the costs of compliance with the Clean Air 

Act. And in my opening statement, I mentioned the cost benefit 

comparisons. Clearly there is a cost here. There is also a benefit. 

And they were as low as four to one, benefit exceeding cost by four 

to one, and as high as 145 to one, potentially, for the Transport 

Rule. 

I have a particular interest in the AEP situation, because of the 

claims that they are shutting down because of something that you 

are doing. I thought it was that they were shutting down because 

it was something that a number of us did many years ago. I gather 

that the vast majority of that megawattage that is going, being 

taken offline is going to, is being done in compliance with that settlement from years ago. And my recollection of that settlement is 

that release that went out that AEP itself I don’t believe objected 

to was that they would have to pay $4.6 billion to clean up to comply, but that the EPA indicated the savings to the Country from 

that cleanup would be not just one time $30 billion, but $30 billion 

plus every year. 

Could you tell us a little bit about the methodology and the rigor 

by which EPA and in some cases I guess OMB go about creating 

those cost comparisons? Are they fictional? Are they fancy? Are 

they well-founded in science and data? How do you do them? 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, both our cost analysis as well as our estimate of benefits are done by economists and by specialists in the 

field who have literally decades of experience in understanding the 

Clean Air Act rules. In general, our costs are an over-estimate and 

our benefits are accurate. We know that because there have been 

peer-reviewed studies and peer-reviewed economics which we cite 

in our analyses that have confirmed the numbers we have. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. You have been doing this for a long time, 

it has been subject to criticism, critique and review. 

Ms. JACKSON. We have heard doomsday stories—— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And in response to those criticisms, critique and review, it has held up. 

Ms. JACKSON. Excuse me, Senator. Yes. Yes, it is not, it is common practice for industry to make doomsday claims about the cost 

and the impact of EPA regulations. It is why we have an entire 

Center for Environmental Economics to estimate costs. Because we 

do agree that those are critical in making decisions about the costs 

and benefits of rules. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And of course, on the health side, some 

things are hard to cost. 

Ms. JACKSON. I think that is right. I think every equation has 

two sides. One side is cost, but the benefits side, the things we can 

cost, we already know the benefits far outweigh the costs. But one 

of the more odd discussions we had early on is what is the value 

of a human life. And we actually have to value it, but of course, 

that doesn’t value all the pain and suffering that goes along with 

illness and chronic disease. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. We had a witness from Rhode Island at 

that table a week ago describing the asthma problem in Rhode Island. Again, completely caused by out of State pollution sources, 

like the AEP plants that are being taken offline, thankfully, for 

47 

Rhode Island’s sake. And that the average length of stay in the 

hospital for a child who gets admitted to the hospital for an asthma 

attack is 2 days. As a parent, you think, if your child is in the hospital for 2 days, those aren’t two regular days for you as a parent. 

Those aren’t days when, particularly if you are a single parent, 

those aren’t 2 days when you are going to work. If you are paid 

by the hour, those aren’t 2 days when you are getting a pay check. 

Those are 2 days you are probably going to have to cover for later 

on. 

And is that the kind of cost that is hard to catch, and therefore 

you often underState the true cost? 

Ms. JACKSON. We can calculate days away. But the cost to the 

economy, the cost to that employer who now has to make do, if she 

or he is compassionate, with one less employee for the day. But let 

me just say, as someone who has done that 2-day stint, I think it 

was a 3-day stint, I will never forget being under an oxygen tent 

with my less than a year old son, hoping he could breathe. 

And children do die. I received a letter last week from a mother 

in Philly, her 17 year old son died of asthma. My son is 14, my 

other son is 16. It really hit home for me. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And that whole cost of worry and concern 

is completely not counted in the industry equations, correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think it is probably underestimated. We can 

count days, but we can’t count everything that it means to a family, and their own economics, if they lose a job because they are not 

there. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I am just going 

to cover two things real quick here. 

First of all, a lot of us contend that the EPA doesn’t really need 

the Air Toxics rule to regulate utility emissions. The EPA already 

has the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for PM 2.5 and 

a variety of other regulations, to make sure that these standards 

are met. The regulatory impact analysis, that is yours, that is the 

EPA, for the MACT rule estimates that the rule would create some 

30,000 construction jobs during the compliance period and perhaps 

another 9,000 that would be more permanent jobs in the electric 

sector. 

However, it also states, and I am going to quote from it now, it 

says, ‘‘Industries that use electricity will face higher electricity 

prices as a result of the Toxic Rule, reduce output and demand less 

labor. We do not currently have sufficient information to quantify 

these as a potential employment gains or losses.’’ 

We talked about for quite some time trying to be able to determine the cumulative effect of all these things. You have heard this 

so many times from me and from others of what all these things 

are actually costing in terms of jobs, in terms of money. And we 

have heard from a lot of the labor unions that have been testifying. 

But anyway, I have on the floor right now, the bill that I have, 

I have turned into an amendment that would go on the EDA that 

I am going to try to offer that would provide in advance the cumulative effect, financial effect of all these regulations. Would you 

48 

support that? I am talking about looking forward, not looking back. 

Because you were just talking about this, and you were kind of 

analyzing what has that cost. I am talking about in anticipation of 

new rules would you support what we—— 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, I believe that the economic analysis that 

EPA does is it proposes the rule. You cited one of our regulatory 

impact analyses. It is thorough, it is complete and goes very far in 

estimating what the real impacts of a rule will be. 

Senator INHOFE. My problem with that is, that is one rule at a 

time. I am talking about the cumulative effect. Right now there are 

some six different rules. And the cumulative effect is what really 

concerns me and what affects jobs. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, two points, sir, and I am happy to take a 

look at your legislation. Does it include benefits? Does it look at the 

cumulative benefits on American health? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, at the net. 

Ms. JACKSON. And so how is it—I would wonder about the difference in the OMB peer-reviewed report that shows that EPA’s 

regulations have benefits that are literally an order of magnitude 

more than their cost. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. In the benefits and costs of the Clean 

Air Act from 1990 to 2020, that is a 30-year period, and it is your 

report, it makes some claims, the benefits of about $2 trillion a 

year and possibly as high as $5.5 trillion a year. And your statement to Congress and to the public led many to believe that this 

$2 trillion in benefits means the economy will be $2 trillion larger. 

Do you expect, or let me ask you three questions real quick here. Do you expect the $2 trillion in benefits would result in higher 

economy growth as measured by GDP by 2020? And will the $2 

trillion that is referred to in estimated benefits result in any additional tax revenues at the Federal or State level in 2020? And do 

you think benefit would result in any way in higher wages, personal or household income for the American public? 

Ms. JACKSON. OK, let me first—— 

Senator INHOFE. They are all the same question. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, let me give you a couple of facts that may answer those three questions. First, over the 40-year history of the 

Clean Air Act, our GDP has grown 200 percent. So if history is any 

guide, we can do this. We can have safer, healthier air, and have 

a growing economy. 

No. 2, the study you referenced is a peer-reviewed study. So although it is an EPA work, it has been reviewed by others who look 

independently at real benefits. And in my testimony, I noted that 

some say our GDP would be even larger. I don’t think dollar for 

dollar, I am not an economist, I am not claiming that there would 

be $2 trillion more in our GDP. But those are health care costs 

avoided in many cases. That means more money for someone to 

buy groceries, some money to pay bills that they would not otherwise have. And those things are all part of the—— 

Senator INHOFE. My time has almost expired. But the study suggests that the effect of Clean Air regulations from 1990 to 2010 will 

lower GDP by over .5 percent in 2020 and lower overall economic 

welfare by .3 percent. It is important to note that these are, that 

even these estimates don’t reflect over $1 trillion of new costs. 

49 

Let me make one comment about the farm dust thing, because 

it was kind of funny, when I go back to Oklahoma, they say, they 

are talking about regulation of farm dust, and there is no technology there. So I had a news conference. And a lot of people had, 

we two people that had never been west of the Mississippi before. 

So we are down in Southwestern Oklahoma. I said, this brown 

stuff down here, it is dirt. Now, that round green thing, that is cotton. This up here is wind. Now, are there any questions? 

How do I tell these people that there is some kind of a technology 

up there that is going to allow them, in States like Oklahoma, 

States out west, that there is any kind of technology that is going 

to allow us to regulate farm dust? 

Ms. JACKSON. Two things, Senator. First off, farm dust is already 

regulated under the coarse particle standards of the Clean Air Act. 

It is done because health studies show that by minimizing that you 

protect the health of people in rural America. It is done oftentimes 

by States who work very closely with conservationists at ways to 

try to keep the dirt on the farm, which I now know from my trips 

to rural America is a very good thing for farmers. They want their 

dirt on their farm. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, they do. 

Ms. JACKSON. So again, I would ask you to tell your constituents 

for me, until I can see them myself, that the EPA is mindful of the 

limits of practicality in trying to protect their health. But I don’t 

think we want to turn our back on it. 

Senator INHOFE. All right, and I appreciate that. Because they 

contend that with everything they have and the technology available, they have reached that limit. And they look forward and say, 

what are we going to do? 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Thank you so much. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. 

Ms. Jackson, great to see you. Let me just say, from the outset, 

you have been before us any number of times. We have had a 

whole lot of other administrators, your predecessors who have been 

before us, and many other witnesses, as you know. It is a joy to 

watch you do your job before this panel. Never lose your cool, always good with your answers. Just a great way about you. Don’t 

change. 

I have just come from addressing the folks from the Ozone 

Transport Commission here on the East Coast from I guess Maine 

down to Virginia. I apologize for being late. One of the things I said 

to them I just want to mention here at the outset. I have worked 

with them and with a number of folks here on this Committee for 

almost a decade to try to reduce harmful emissions into our air. 

And by doing so, we sought to provide greater certainty to industry, 

some predictability and to States about the time tables, about the 

reductions that need to occur in the next decade. 

Ultimately, we have not been successful enacting legislation, to 

my disappointment. So it falls, my colleagues, it falls on EPA to do 

the job for us, to ensure we continue to clean our air and to 

strengthen at the same time our economy. And I contend that we 

can do both. 

50 

I just want to go on record here today to say, I can do everything 

in my power to work with the Administration, to work with my colleagues, Democrat and Republicans, to protect the Clean Air Act. 

And the reason why is I am convinced that by doing so, we will 

go a long way toward ensuring that our children will have a chance 

to live longer lives, healthier lives, more productive lives and 

happier lives. So I just wanted to start off with that. 

I always like to quote different people of note. I like to quote 

Harry Truman. And one of my favorite Harry Truman quotes is, 

the only thing that is new in the world is the history that we forgot 

or never learned. That is a paraphrase. But if you go back to 1970, 

the guy who signed into law the Clean Air Act was not a Democrat, 

he was a Republican, as I recall. 

The other thing that I recall, I was over in Southeast Asia at the 

time as a naval flight officer in the Vietnam War when he signed 

this. But as I recall, there was a lot of naysayers who said, you 

know, it is going to kill the economy. And, why are we doing this? 

And it didn’t kill the economy. We did clean the air, we saved a 

lot of lives, and we did it in a way that was actually good for the 

economy. 

In 1990, another Republican comes along, George Herbert Walker Bush. And what does he do? He signs the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, and some of the naysayers said at the same time, 

same thing, history repeats itself here, said, you know, this is going 

to kill the economy. Well, it didn’t. It did clean the air, and we did 

it in a way that, tried to enact the legislation and implement it in 

a way that actually strengthen the economy. And ultimately, it did. 

And here we are again, 20 years later, and people are saying, you 

know, we have not done our job here. We should have passed the 

legislation. God knows some of us tried. But we have not done our 

job. And now it falls on you to make sure that we actually comply 

with the Clean Air Act. 

And folks are again saying, well, we can’t do that because it is 

going to kill the economy. There is a lot of, room for a lot of empirical data to say that is not the case. 

The other thing I want to say, I just want to get this off my 

chest. I live in the State of Delaware. I used to work very closely 

with Christine Whitman, when she was Governor of your State, 

and later when she was EPA Administrator, we were part of the 

National Governors Association. Very active players in the National Governors Association. And it burned the heck out of us that 

in our States we had, I could literally close down my State. I could 

have closed down the highways, I could have closed down our 

plants, and we still would have been out of compliance for attainment for a number of Clean Air, dirty air emissions. We could have 

put our States out of business. 

It is not fair. I would just State to my friends that don’t have 

to face this problem, there is a moral imperative here. In terms of 

the equity of the issue, that why should some States have to suffer, 

not from bad stuff that we put into the air, but the bad stuff that 

others do? It is like Sheldon was saying, it is just not fair. We need 

to level the playing field for all of us. Part of what we are doing 

here is to try to be fair. 

51 

Here is my question. It deals with mercury. It is my understanding that we have a whole lot of scientific knowledge on the 

health effects of mercury. We have talked about it here before. 

Since the late 1990’s, the EPA has found that mercury emissions 

from uncontrolled and from coal-fired plants are a health hazard 

to our kids. Is that correct, and can you take just a minute or so 

and give us a little more detail on what we know about mercury 

exposure and developing children’s health? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly, Senator, and thank you for your kind 

words. 

Mercury is inhaled and can cause serious neurological toxicity, 

pre-natal toxicity and toxicity in young children. So the concern 

then becomes reproductive or developmental defects as a result of 

exposure to mercury. Power plants are still overwhelmingly the No. 

1 source of mercury in the air. And localized pollution from power 

plants that emit mercury end up in water bodies and can have significant impacts, well over 50 percent of the impact. Because there 

is some global transport of mercury. But there is still a significant 

localized problem around those plants that emit it. 

Senator CARPER. If I could just ask a quick followup to that, 

Madam Chair? Could you just give us a snapshot of what it is like 

for folks who are, particularly young people, to inhale, whether it 

is mercury or other toxics like dioxin, what is it actually like? What 

does it do to their health, if they live near one of those uncontrolled 

coal-fired plants? Are the health benefits from reducing these pollutants in EPA’s cost benefit analysis of the air toxic regulation? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, absolutely. For mercury, because of its neurological impacts, the end points are things like lost i.q. points. Very 

measurable and in children who are exposed before birth, we see 

impacts on thinking, cognitive thinking and memory and attention 

and language development and fine and visual motor skills. In addressing mercury, there are also other metals. You heard me speak 

about arsenic and cadmium. There are acid gases, hydrochloric acid 

and other acids that are emitted and are also toxins and are being 

addressed by this rule. 

Senator CARPER. All right. I just would close with this. To my 

colleagues, I would say, we are in a battle, an economic battle with 

the rest of the world. Competition is a lot tougher than it was 

when some of us were born. And we need to be on our A game. And 

we need to be not taking away i.q. points, we need to be adding 

them if we are going to have a work force that is going to be able 

to compete. 

And with a health care system whose costs don’t crush us, as 

they are today. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, 

Madam Administrator. 

Madam Administrator, a lot of the discussion has been, and I 

think properly so, about science at EPA being fully objective, being 

sound science. And just as a comment, I think a lot of our disagreement and a lot of our debate is the fact that this side of the podium, certainly myself included, doesn’t have that confidence on a 

52 

regular, ongoing basis, that decisions are based on rigorous, sound 

science. 

I truly feel, I know you are going to disagree, but forget about 

our disagreement, I am just trying to communicate a problem that 

is objective, it exists. I feel that there is a lot coming out of EPA 

based on ideology and not objective, sound science. I mentioned a 

particular experience we have had together regarding formaldehyde. I pushed for and eventually got a National Academy of 

Sciences panel to work on that. 

Do you agree that as an organization, National Academy of 

Sciences has with good reason a lot of credibility in terms of scientific assessment? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator VITTER. And so I assume you would agree it is not some 

industry-captured group? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir. They ensure that they are, do conflict of 

interest and rigorous review on their panels. 

Senator VITTER. Right. Well, as you know, there has been a lot 

of concern in general about the IRIS process across the board before that. And that National Academy of Science formaldehyde 

study was about the IRIS process. And they found that the risk assessment policies and practices of the IRIS office fell well short of 

meeting the benchmarks of objectivity and scientific accuracy and 

transparency in a number of significant ways. 

So my question in light of that is simple. What specific changes, 

reforms to the IRIS office and process overall have been made as 

a result of that report? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, thank you. First, let me just acknowledge 

that there were changes to the IRIS process prior to the report. Because upon becoming Administrator and Dr. Paul Anastas, as he 

came in as head of the Office of Research and Development, after 

he was confirmed, agreed and believed that there needed to be 

more transparency in the process, there needed to be peer review, 

there needed to be opportunities that brought the process out publicly, but also brought it to a close. Because we have so many IRIS 

assessments that because we haven’t closed them, we are not able 

to say to the American people what risks they may or may not face. 

So that was done before the study. I have since charged Dr. 

Anastas, although he didn’t need me to do it, but he has been 

charged with giving us further recommendations to respond to any 

unmet suggestions and recommendations made by the National 

Academies. Because I do agree with, I think your point, which is 

their review on formaldehyde made broader recommendations 

about EPA’s process. 

Senator VITTER. Correct. 

Ms. JACKSON. And I am committed to ensuring that each and 

every one of them is implemented to get the most robust risk assessment process we can have. 

Senator VITTER. Well, first of all, in terms of any changes prior 

to the report, I just point out that you and EPA fought like the 

dickens to avoid the NAS report. And you were basically, in that 

formaldehyde case, absolutely defending the IRIS process as fully 

competent and fully adequate. So to say that—— 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I would say—— 

53 

Senator VITTER [continuing]. already making changes to that 

process that produced that flawed analysis seems to me completely 

inconsistent with that. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, let me just respond, because I would say 

that, fraud is not a word I would like to use in a U.S. Senator. But 

I disagreed strongly with your hold on Dr. Anastas’ confirmation. 

Because I believe strongly that someone of his caliber and integrity 

was essential to ensuring we got the best science at EPA, which 

I am very much committed to. 

The formaldehyde assessment has indeed come out since that 

time. Just recently the National Toxicology Program listed formaldehyde as a carcinogen. And formaldehyde, as we both know, 

being from Louisiana, is an interest of primary importance to residents down there who feel that they were poisoned by FEMA trailers that included high levels and emissions of formaldehyde. So it 

is an emotional issue and one which I could not agree with you 

more, we need to bring the best science to bear on. 

Senator VITTER. Two quick questions. And I will close. Would the 

NAS report have happened without the hold? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir, not at all. 

Senator VITTER. Just point that out for the record. 

Ms. JACKSON. Absolutely. 

Senator VITTER. Second, go back to my original question. What 

specific reforms, what specific changes to IRIS after the NAS report 

have been made? 

Ms. JACKSON. Why don’t I get you, in writing, exactly what we 

are doing to change the IRIS process? All I would say is that the 

changes, if they were done before the report I would think we could 

both applaud. Because if they are responsive to the report and we 

have already instituted the changes, they will happen. And probably sooner than the report came out. 

Senator VITTER. Well, you can include that, but I would like to 

specifically know what changes and reforms have been made after 

the report, responding to what I think are clearly significant findings of the report that go to the broader integrity of the broader 

IRIS process. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

I am going to put in the record the Department of Commerce report that since the Clean Air Act was passed and signed into law 

by Richard Nixon, we have seen a 210 percent increase in gross domestic product. And you mentioned that, but I think it is important. Because what we are seeing here is hostile questions, in my 

opinion, this is the eye of the beholder, you may not feel that way, 

but I feel they are hostile questions from the other side of the aisle, 

the Republican side of the aisle, during this entire hearing. And in 

general, whenever we have a hearing on the environment. And 

they have every right to be hostile about it or feel, not support it. 

But I think it is important that we understand that the support 

among the American people for the work you do and your predecessors did and those who will follow you is huge. We have a chart, 

69 percent of the people, and this was just done February this year, 

69 percent think EPA should update the Clean Air Act standards 

54 

with stricter air pollution limits. Stricter air pollution limits. Sixtyeight percent, this is a national poll, 68 percent believe that Congress should not stop EPA from enforcing Clean Air Act standards 

and 69 percent believe that EPA scientists, not Congress, should 

set pollution standards. And this was a poll done by a Democratic 

and a Republican polling firms, and their source here on the chart. 

Now, I would say, rhetorically speaking, again, probably asking 

myself a question, as Senator Lautenberg was asking himself, why 

on earth can’t we come together on something that almost 70 percent of the people agree with is important to protect their health, 

protect their safety, and support the laws that are the foundation 

for a healthy America and sound economic growth? And I answer 

it, I don’t understand why we can’t come together. And I will keep 

trying to do that, as Chairman of this Committee. 

But again, respectful of a counter view, there are 33 percent of 

the people who don’t believe that. So I guess they are represented 

very well over here. Thank you. 

And I want to probe a little bit about these economic advantages. 

We know from this study, from 1970 to 2010, we saw an annual, 

annual prevention of more than 160,000 premature deaths. I hope 

the press hears this. Not just over the period of time, that would 

be terrific, if every year an average 160,000 premature deaths are 

avoided. 

So when my friends talk about the economic costs of regulation, 

let me ask you, just as a human being, and a family member, in 

your family, if the bread winner dies 10 years early and doesn’t 

work, isn’t that a cost to the family? Let the record show he is nodding his head yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. It is a horrific situation. If you suffer in your 

family a premature death because of the air pollution, if your child, 

as you mentioned, this horrible experience that you had, and it is 

so graphic, it just gives me the chills, as a mother and a grandmother, to think about what you went through, seeing a person you 

love more than yourself under an oxygen tent, struggling, and that 

little tiny body, to breathe. And I know what that is like. I had two 

premature babies. Just watching them gasping and trying to get 

the air, the fact that we can do something about that ought to 

bring us together, not having us interrupting each other and arguing. 

What a wonderful moment this is today, to look back at this. 

How good you must feel to head an agency that has that type of 

record. I don’t know of any other agency I don’t know any other 

agency, State or Federal, that could say that, in the first 40 years 

of this Act, we prevented in every year 160,000 premature deaths. 

And that is why Richard Nixon lauded it. And that is why George 

Bush lauded it. This was brought to us by Republican Presidents, 

and now we struggle with our Republican colleagues who say, you 

can’t, you shouldn’t be doing anything about carbon pollution, you 

shouldn’t, you know, you have to do what Congress said you ought 

to do, when that is exactly what you are doing. 

Let me talk about dust. My home base, my home is in a desert. 

And it is called Riverside County. And it has a tough air pollution 

problems, by the way, one of the worst in the Country. One of the 

55 

reasons is, we have a huge amount, not surprising, of dust. And 

that dust carries problems with it. And what we do in our State, 

it is a combination of Federal, I am not talking about farms here, 

it is a combination of Federal and State law, there are very simple 

rules so we can mitigate that problem. They are dampened down, 

if you pass by a constructionsite, those trucks are going back and 

forth with recycled water, making sure that that dust stays down. 

Sometimes if an area is going to be vacant, they will put, they will 

plant it. They are doing that in Mecca, putting some of those, that 

greenery on top, so that we control it. 

So there are so many ways that we can move forward to protect 

the health and safety. And when that child was, your child, was 

struggling for life, for air, and you were there, you weren’t working, 

as Senator Whitehouse eloquently said. And you were missing your 

work. Or you were missing doing things that you needed to do for 

your family obligations. 

And so to me, it is so clear. And that is why almost 70 percent 

of the people want you to do your job, no matter what other people 

are saying. 

And I will close and ask you this. We saw the GDP growth. But 

here is the other thing that is overlooked. We are the largest producer, American is, of environmental technology, goods and services that are going to the rest of the world. I too was in that bipartisan trip to China, never saw the sun. Was there 9 days. And they 

were bragging 1 day, you barely saw it, barely saw it behind the 

clouds. They said, oh, what a great day. Meanwhile, everybody is 

thinking, I can’t wait to go home and see a blue sky. We never saw 

that. We take that for granted. 

That didn’t happen because we sat back. It happened because we 

put our environment and the quality of life of our families and 

their health and yes, economics, we put that into the mix. So what 

we see here in this sector is $300 billion in revenues coming from 

the environmental technology, goods and services, supports 1.7 million jobs. With small to medium size companies making up 99 percent. 

So I would ask you, in addition to the GDP growth, do you not 

see this as an economic benefit that is often overlooked in our 

Country? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly. Even aside from the public health benefit and the money saved for American families, there have been 

estimates now on the benefits of the Clean Air Act alone with respect to the pollution control industry. The Economic Policy Institute just recently released a study saying that the Air Toxics rule 

would have a modest net impact on overall employment, likely creating 28,000 to 158,000 jobs between now and 2015. The University 

of Massachusetts and CERES released a study not long ago estimating that the standards, just two of our standards for mercury, 

for soot and smog, in addition to being lifesaving standards, will 

create nearly 1.5 million jobs over the next 5 years. 

So these are jobs that would be created in the next 5 years at 

a time when our economy is certainly, and our President is working 

to bring jobs to our economy. So it is not our primary job, but one 

of the happy, I guess outcomes, of an American public and a Congress who have always supported protecting clean air and our 

56 

health, is that we have created an entire industry of Americans 

who lead the world in knowing how to do it. 

Senator BOXER. I want to thank you very much, Administrator 

Jackson. You have been very forthcoming. You had some softball 

questions and some hardball questions, which is good. And I just 

want to put in the record a letter signed by various members of the 

utility industry, including Austin Energy, Grid USA, PG&E, 

Calpine, defending the EPA. It was a letter in the Wall Street 

Journal. We are OK with the EPA’s new air quality regulations, 

have you seen that? I think that is a testament to you, the way 

you handle yourself, the way you reach out to people. And I just 

want to say, every member here has a right to ask you tough questions and so on and so forth. 

But I just want you to know, I believe, my personal view, the 

American people are on the side of clean air and what you are 

doing. And I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your work 

and we say goodbye to you, and we call up our panel. 

Sarah Bucic, American Nurses Association, Jerome Paulson, Dr. 

Paulson, American Academy of Pediatrics, Dr. Harvey Brenner, 

Ph.D., Professor at the University of North Texas, Cathy Woollums, 

Senior Vice President and Chief Environmental Counsel, 

MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company, Dr. Alfred Munzer, Pulmonary and Critical Care at Washington Adventist Hospital. 

We are so pleased to have you here. We are sorry we ran late, 

but it just shows you the importance of this issue. And many Senators feeling very strongly about it. 

Senator INHOFE. Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. I would like to ask if it would be permissible, 

you just took 8 minutes, I would like to have 8 minutes, which I 

am sure you will give me, but I would like to ask my questions 

first. As you know, I have to leave at 5 minutes til. If I could have 

my 8 minutes of questions, it would be primarily for Dr. Brenner 

and for Cathy Woollums. 

Senator BOXER. So you are going to ask—— 

Senator INHOFE. Before their opening statements. 

Senator BOXER. You want to ask your questions and get answers 

to your questions before the opening statement? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Well, that would be highly unusual. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I am highly unusual. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I want to accommodate you. So this is 

what I am going to recommend. Let’s just start the opening statements and we will stop in time for 8 minutes—— 

Senator INHOFE. That won’t work with me, as you know. 

Senator BOXER. You have to leave at noon? 

Senator INHOFE. No, I have to leave at five til. And right now 

we are looking at—— 

Senator BOXER. Fine. At five to, we will stop and we will turn 

to you for questions. 

Senator INHOFE. No, no. I have to leave—— 

[remarks off microphone]. I just request that I could go ahead 

and ask my questions now and get answers since I have to leave 

57 

at 5 minutes til, and I appreciate the fact that Senator Barrasso 

is back. 

Senator BOXER. Well, go ahead. It is very unusual and I don’t 

like this. But because I am so fond of you as a human being, I will 

say yes. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. I will always remember the first thing I said 

after the 2010 elections, when it came in, I said, I just want you 

to know I am going to be just as nice to you 2 years from now as 

you are to me. So here we go. 

Dr. Brenner, my understanding is that a typical regulatory impact analysis for the rule proposed doesn’t attempt to quantify the 

adverse health effects of negative economic impacts. Now, given 

your work in this area, and by the way, we had some comments 

about you from our witness last week, do you believe that we would 

obtain a better understanding of the total impact of EPA’s proposals if the agency quantified the adverse health effects of negative economic impacts? 

Mr. BRENNER. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. What we have been 

missing, I think, in the entire conversation over the impact on 

health of environmental regulations is the fact that we treat these 

pieces of legislation as either yes or no, either we have clean air 

or we do not have clean air. There is no one that I have ever heard 

of who is not in favor of clean air. 

The question is in terms of regulations, how much. Not whether 

or not. The issue of adverse health effects pertain not just to the 

quality of air and water and soil, they pertain to the implications 

for changes in the structure of the economy that would be brought 

about by changes in regulations generally. The most important implications are in income and employment. GDP is the single most 

important factor in the health of countries. There is nothing, there 

is no single factor of greater importance to life expectancy across 

the world or in industrialized countries or in our Country than the 

GDP, national income and wealth. 

Additional to that, and related to that, is the economic position 

of individuals, which of course is heavily influenced by their employment rate. Studies going back to those of the Joint Economy 

Committee of Congress back in 1976 and 1984, under the Humphrey-Hawkins legislation, which were fundamentally much of the 

basis of the Humphrey-Hawkins legislation, which I was responsible for, studies of this kind, demonstrated clearly, measurably an 

impact over between six and 10 years of the loss of employment to 

increases in morality from cardiovascular diseases, suicide, homicide, cirrhosis, diabetes and so on. 

So there is another entire side of the equation which the discussion legislatively has not been taking into account. The problem 

can be resolved mathematically. What it requires is a balanced 

model in which we estimate the implications of regulations for 

health, which we have begun to do, and we have heard a bit about 

that so far in the last discussion. But what has been missing from 

the entire discussion, and what needs to be placed forward, are the 

implications for health of any change in the economy, especially income and employment. 

58 

Just to point out the general statement, in all of epidemiology, 

that has to do with the health of national populations, there is no 

single factor in industrialized countries that is more important 

than economic status. 

Senator INHOFE. For health? 

Mr. BRENNER. For health. 

Senator INHOFE. And the reason I wanted to hear this is that is 

because that is all we hear up here, it is so easy to talk about bad 

health and we must like kids and all this stuff. But the effects of 

the economy, I spent a lot of time in Africa. That is where it is evident, when they go in there and they say, we are going to have restrictions on emissions there, which would just have a devastating 

effect on them, because it is related directly to their ability to live, 

to eat, to survive. 

So I appreciate that. So I would just say, in your opinion, would 

significantly higher energy costs carry with it an adverse public 

health consequence and would be the leading indicator, is that correct? 

Mr. BRENNER. To the extent that such higher energy costs affect 

the rate of inflation, that is, increase the rate of inflation, or reduce 

income per capita, or increase the unemployment rate, they would 

have measurable substantial damaging effects on health. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciated that very much. 

Ms. Woollums, according to the United Mine Workers of America, 

EPA’s new regulations will force American energy companies to lay 

off over 250,000 workers. National Economic Research Associates 

estimates that the new regulations will cost the American economy 

almost 1.5 million jobs. Is the MidAmerican Energy Holdings concerned the impact of the EPA’s actions on the company’s employees? Are these job losses even more troubling in light of Dr. Brenner’s testimony on the impacts of economic decline and public 

health? 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. Certainly, Senator. Any time we talk about massive changes in employment within our industry, certainly there 

are concerns there. We have 1,200 people who work in the generating facilities around our company. The average level of income 

for those employees among those 1,200 is $70,000 a year. Those are 

pretty high-paid, high-skilled jobs to lose, given a fundamental 

shift in the method of generation. 

Senator INHOFE. Were you here during my opening statement? 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. I was, indeed. 

Senator INHOFE. I talked at that time, and since that time I had 

an occasion to talk to Stuart Solomon, who is the President of the 

Public Service Company of Oklahoma, which is a subsidiary of the 

American Electric Power. He said, due to the EPA rejecting Oklahoma’s regional haze SIP, and imposing the Federal FIP, it will 

cost PSO, that is in Oklahoma, $800 million in the installation of 

scrubbers at two units over a 3-year timeframe, which cannot be 

met. It is just kind of like the dust regulations, the technology is 

not there, it can’t be done. 

Further, another Oklahoma electric company, our other big one, the OG&E, must install scrubbers at four units, costing $1.2 billion. That is $2 billion in increased electricity bills for Oklahomans 

instead of the EPA working with the State to develop a plan conVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:35 Jan 17, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\21144.TXT VERN
59 

sistent with the Clean Air Act to provide the utilities fuel flexibility 

and realistic timeframe to implement the new emissions limits. 

Do you pretty much agree with these figures? Is Stuart pretty 

much on target on these? 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. I can’t speak specifically to the individual company costs. What I can tell you, however, is that one of our utilities, PacifiCorp, who has been similarly preparing for the regional 

haze requirements, and from whom we have gotten an indication 

by EPA that our plan is not acceptable, in terms of the emission 

reductions. But we currently have a plan that includes $1.3 billion 

of expenditures to comply with those requirements. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, things are always of most concern when 

you hear the figures back home. So I appreciate that very much, 

and thank you, Madam Chairman, for that opportunity. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks. 

So what I am going to do in my first round is to just, before you 

each speak, I am going to ask the two witnesses some questions 

also. 

Well, Mr. Brenner, you should have been heartened by the fact 

that since the Clean Air Act was signed into law by Richard Nixon, 

our Nation’s GDP has increased by 210 percent, No. 1. No. 2, I 

think rhetorically we all know if someone dies, the breadwinner in 

the family dies because they keel over and have a heart attack, and 

we know that in 2010 alone, is that correct, that 160,000 lives were 

spared, because of the work of the Clean Air Act, clearly you ought 

to put that into your little diagrams. Because if somebody is unable 

to work, their income goes way down. 

So I just would hope you would do that. 

And then I wanted to ask you, Ms. Woollums, do you agree with 

this following statement: Scientists generally believe that fossil fuel 

combustion and other human activities are the primary reason for 

an increased carbon dioxide concentration in the earth’s atmosphere. 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. As a general proposition, Madam Chair, yes. 

Senator BOXER. OK, good. I am very glad to hear that. And we 

will put in the record that MidAmerican Energy Holdings representative agreed that fossil fuel combustion and other human activities are the primary reason for an increased carbon dioxide in 

the earth’s atmosphere. 

And also, would you say that MidAmerican’s expenses incurred 

by its reducing emissions of toxic air pollution are prudently incurred costs? 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Good. So it is important that your organization 

believes that any expenses dealing with reduction of emissions of 

toxic air pollution are prudently incurred costs. And that really 

makes me happy, and I wish Senator Inhofe was here to hear that. 

Yes, sir? 

Mr. BRENNER. May I respond to your question, Senator Boxer? 

Senator BOXER. Yes. Well, you already responded to it. But do 

you disagree with my point that—— 

Mr. BRENNER. Yes, I disagree, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. You disagree that GDP went up 210 percent? 

60 

Mr. BRENNER. No, I disagree with the implications of causality. 

It is a little like saying, anything that goes up with GDP is a cause 

of increase in GDP, or that the GDP is responsible for it. There is 

no necessary relationship between those two things. 

Senator BOXER. Well, there is a relationship when people say the 

opposite, that you had said, that our GDP will suffer because of 

these rules and regs. Then it seems to me there is a way to disprove or prove your point. And your point is disproven. 

Mr. BRENNER. I did not say that the regulations would necessarily disrupt the GDP. That is a function of other studies. My 

studies are on health. What they demonstrate is that increases in 

GDP are the fundamental basis for increase in life expectancy. The 

idea that two factors move together through time has no implication for causation. It would be a little like saying, because our 

health care expenditures in the United State have gone up astronomically, that has been good for GDP. It has been horrible for 

GDP, and it is a fundamental debate in our Country. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, well, here is what I find so interesting about 

you. You are here to make a point. And I thought your point was 

that GDP is a very important part of any country’s quality of life, 

right? 

Mr. BRENNER. Essential. 

Senator BOXER. We agree so strongly. Economic growth is critical. And I believe, and this is where we may or may not agree, 

that if you can’t breathe, you can’t work. And the GDP is a result 

of people working. And if you can’t function, and if you’re in the 

hospital with a heart attack premature, it is a problem. 

So I think if I take your very interesting comments, I just think 

the whole notion that cleaning up the environment harms our economic growth is a myth that has been with us since the time I first 

got elected to office. I hate to tell you when it was. But the first 

time I got elected—I won’t tell you—no, it was 1976. I was an environmentalist then, and that was the first argument that you got. 

And here is the beauty. All these years have gone by and we see 

the proof. That in fact, we see an industry developing clean energy 

technology. There are only a couple of industries in America that 

actually export product here to the tune that we do with our clean 

energy. The other happens to be the entertainment industry. That 

is a different hat that I wear in another day. 

But thank you both. Now we are going to go back to regular 

order and call on our representative from the American Nurses Association, Sarah Bucic. 

STATEMENT OF SARAH BUCIC, RN, MSN, AMERICAN NURSES 

ASSOCIATION AND DELAWARE NURSES ASSOCIATION 

Ms. BUCIC. Good morning, Chairman Boxer, members of the 

Committee, congressional staff and guests. My name is Sarah 

Bucic, I am a registered nurse with a master’s degree in psychiatric 

mental health. I am currently pursuing a master’s in environmental health and will be a clinical instructor in the fall. 

I have been a registered nurse for 10 years, practicing in a variety of settings, including inpatient and outpatient mental health, 

research and geriatrics. It is a privilege to appear before you today 

on behalf of the American Nurses Association and the Delaware 

61 

Nurses Association to discuss the importance of the Clean Air Act, 

the positive impact it has had on our Nation and the fundamental 

importance of continuing to support the Act that protects public 

health. 

The ANA is the only full service professional organization representing the interests of the Nation’s 3.1 million registered nurses 

through its State nurses associations, including the Delaware State 

Nurses Association. Nurses constitute the single largest group of 

health care workers. And the ANA clearly recognizes the fundamental tie between the quality of our environment and the health 

of the Nation. 

Since the early years of the nursing profession, nursing leaders 

such as Florence Nightingale and Lillian Wald have recognized the 

role of nurses in controlling the influence of environmental factors 

on health. Florence Nightingale herself sated, ‘‘Keep the air within 

as pure as the air without.’’ I too now understand the connection 

between the environment of our health, having been diagnosed 

with cancer shortly after the birth of my daughter. Since its initial 

enactment and subsequent amendments, the Clean Air Act has had 

a proven track record of success, cost effectively cutting dangerous 

pollution and positively impacting our environment and health. 

The American Lung Association’s 2011 State of the Air report 

shows, despite the Clean Air Act Amendment’s successes, we have 

a long way to go. The American Lung Association’s State of the Air 

report looked at levels of ozone and particulate matter, types of pollution with the most significant known health impacts at monitoring sites across the Country from 2007 to 2009, and it revealed 

some startling facts. 

While the study identified clear improvement in both categories 

over past years, serious problems remain. More than 154 million 

people, that is just over half the Nation, endure pollution levels 

that make the simple act of breathing hazardous to their health. 

For nurses, these are our patients. They receive Albuterol treatments in the ER, they stay to rest sometimes in the hospital for 

several days. This is an avoidable consequence of pollution that has 

a direct impact on people’s lives and on our Country’s health care 

costs. 

The negative effects of exposure to pollutants are premature 

death, increased mortality, exacerbation of asthma and more. Approximately 1.2 million children and 3.8 million adults with asthma live in areas with high levels of short-term particulate matter 

pollution. A bad air day for them isn’t just an inconvenience when 

they have to wait until late at night to go get their gas. A bad air 

day can mean life or death. A bad air day can keep people from 

living their lives. 

I have a straw here. This is the size when you have an asthma 

attack. Your throat gets smaller than that. During nursing school, 

we did an experiment, when we were nursing students. We had to 

breathe through it and hold our nose for about 30 seconds or a 

minute, and imagine trying to do any productivity during that. It 

is very difficult. And I have heard by people with asthma that it 

is even worse than this, because you actually have less profusion. 

Your airway is much smaller than this during an asthma attack. 

I want to make it clear that asthma isn’t a condition where you get 

62 

your medication and move on . It can be deadly. According to the 

National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and the National Institutes of Health, each day 11 Americans die from asthma. That is 

4,000 Americans each year. In addition, individuals need to be seen 

in the emergency room. 

A friend of mine, while driving her son to the emergency room 

during an asthma attack, had to answer the following question: 

Mommy, am I going to die? Imagine having to answer and say, no, 

you can’t die from asthma, but in truth, you don’t really know. Because this is the reality for asthma patients. 

According to the EPA, by 2016, cleaning up toxic emissions from 

power plants will save 17,000 lives each year, prevent 11,000 heart 

attacks each year, prevent 110,000 asthma attacks each year, 

eliminate 12,200 hospitalizations and emergency room visits each 

year, add 850,000 days when people don’t miss work each year. 

Healthy people means more work days, more productivity. 

Human health is linked to our environment. We are all in this 

together. As nurses, we encourage our patients to make responsible, healthy choices. But this personal responsibility alone only 

goes so far. We need to have discharge instructions for industry to 

be as clean as possible. Investments in clean air benefits all of us 

and will pay dividends in lower health care costs. 

The bottom line is pollution creates more patients. We owe it to 

ourselves and our children to build on the success of the Clean Air 

Act by supporting life-saving standards under this landmark public 

heath law. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Bucic follows:] 

63 


21144.025
64 


21144.026
65 


21144.027
66 


21144.028
67 


21144.029
68 


21144.030
69 


21144.031
70 


21144.032
71 


21144.033
72 


21144.034
73 


21144.035
74 


21144.036
75 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. 

Dr. Paulson, welcome. American Academy of Pediatrics. 

STATEMENT OF JEROME A. PAULSON, M.D., FAAP, AMERICAN 

ACADEMY OF PEDIATRICS 

Dr. PAULSON. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and 

members of the Committee. 

I am Jerome Paulson, and I am proud to represent the American 

Academy of Pediatrics at this hearing regarding the Clean Air Act 

and public health. 

In the last 40 years, the Clean Air Act has led to incredible improvements in the environment, in the health of infants and children and in the quality of life for all Americans. However, the impacts of the Clean Air Act have not been uniform across the Country. Millions of Americans still live in areas where monitored air 

fails to meet EPA standards for at least one of six criteria pollutants and in some areas, air quality has actually decreased. 

Since the Clean Air Act was enacted, scientific research on air 

pollution has shown that the serious health effects of air pollutants 

are experienced at levels much lower than were previously considered safe, and has consistently proven that reducing exposure to 

air pollution leads to healthier individuals. The American Academy 

of Pediatrics believes it is necessary for Congress to strengthen the 

Clean Air Act, and the EPA’s authority to set, implement and enforce Clean Air Act regulations throughout the Country. 

As a pediatrician who has cared for children suffering from the 

health impacts of air pollution, I am incredibly concerned about potential threats to clean air and the effects of air pollution on children’s heath. Children are disproportionately vulnerable to all environmental exposures. But as it relates to the air, they breathe 

more air in and out of their lungs every minute. They have higher 

levels of physical activity. They spend more time outdoors, and 

they also have proportionately greater skin surface exposed to the 

environment. 

Children are also more impacted by air pollution due to their extensive lung growth and development after birth. Eighty percent of 

the air sacs in the lung where oxygen is absorbed and carbon dioxide is released are formed after birth. And changes in the lungs 

continue through adolescence until children reach their adult 

height. Air pollution is associated with impaired lung growth that 

may have permanent, lifelong impacts on an individual’s ability to 

breathe. 

Ambient air pollution has also been linked to sudden infant 

death syndrome, and mortality due to respiratory disease in normal birth weight infants. Children with underlying or chronic respiratory disease are even more susceptible to the adverse effects of 

air pollution. For children with asthma, the most common chronic 

disease in childhood, ozone levels below current EPA standards are 

associated with increased respiratory symptoms and the need for 

rescue medication. 

According to the EPA’s recent report, the benefits and costs of 

the Clean Air Act from 1990 to 2020, the Clean Air Act requirements will cost about $65 billion per year, but the benefits are projected at $2 trillion per year, most of which is saved through reVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:35 Jan 17, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\21144.TXT VERN
76 

duced morbidity and mortality. As a pediatrician, the Clean Air Act 

is a tremendous cost savings representing not just economics, they 

represent children, fewer children suffering from asthma attacks, 

fewer hospitalizations, less respiratory tract illness, improved lung 

capacity and function for growing children and healthier infants 

and newborns. Treating chronic conditions that are created or exacerbated by air pollution is currently expensive to our public and 

private health sectors. And the costs continue to increase. 

At a time when lawmakers and we as a Nation are focused on 

trying to control costs, controlling air pollution may be part of the 

answer to that problem. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends in the strongest terms that the Clean Air Act should not 

be weakened in any way that decreases the protection of children’s 

health. Weakening standards now will almost certainly result in 

increased emergency room visits and hospital admissions, increased 

direct costs and increased indirect costs. Air quality standards 

should ensure the most vulnerable groups are protected, potential 

effects of air pollution on the fetus, infant and child should be evaluated and all standards should include a margin of safety for protection of children. 

If we fail to protect children against air pollution, we accept the 

cost of living with and treating preventable birth defects, chronic 

diseases and disability among our Nation’s infants and children. 

In conclusion, the American Academy of Pediatrics commends 

you, Madam Chairwoman, for holding this hearing today to call attention to the public health impacts of the Clean Air Act. We look 

forward to working with you to continue to improve air quality and 

children’s health throughout the Country. I appreciate this opportunity to testify and I will be pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Paulson follows:] 

77 


21144.037
78 


21144.038
79 


21144.039
80 


21144.040
81 


21144.041
82 


21144.042
83 


21144.043
84 


21144.044
85 


21144.045
86 


21144.046
87 


21144.047
88 


21144.048
89 


21144.049
90 


21144.050
91 


21144.051
92 


21144.052
93 


21144.053
94 


21144.054
95 


21144.055
96 


21144.056
97 


21144.057
98 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Doctor. 

Next we will hear from, again, Dr. Harvey Brenner, his opening 

statement. 

STATEMENT OF M. HARVEY BRENNER, PH.D., PROFESSOR, SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH 

TEXAS 

Mr. BRENNER. Again, thank you, Madam Chairman. It is truly 

a great honor to be in this house and to be addressed by you. 

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you. 

Mr. BRENNER. Epidemiological studies on the effect of environment and occupational toxins on health have been done for a long 

time. As we have heard testimony and as is well known in the 

field, there are certainly significant health effects, particularly in 

areas of lung disease and cardiopulmonary effects and asthma. 

But we have had no estimates on the potential effect on health 

of highly stringent regulation or on losses of income and employment in the industries affected. Interestingly, as I will show, we do 

have studies at the national level on the effect of income loss and 

unemployment on health, but almost none for environmental risks. 

In a word, we do not know at this point what the effect of environmental risks are at the national level. 

In fact, income per capita for a society is the single most important factor influencing mortality throughout the world and especially in industrialized countries like the United States. In industrialized countries, we know that the higher the level of income of 

individuals, the lower the illness and morality rates attributed to 

the great majority of infections, chronic diseases and mental disturbances. 

Moving from the individual to the National level, however, real 

GDP per capita indicates the availability of basic goods and services, nutrition, potable water, sanitary engineering, housing and 

other means of climate control, transportation and primary care. At 

the national level, real GDP per capita, especially for industrialized 

societies, also conveys the capacity of the society to invest in the 

development of science and technology, improved working conditions at higher technological levels of safety and health, financing 

of education at all levels, stabilization of the income of individuals 

and small businesses, and the many types of social protection, unemployment insurance, active labor market policies, health insurance, disability issuance, social welfare payments, to impoverishment and frail populations and children, social security and retirement benefits. 

To the point, again, Madam Chairman, that you raised on the relation between economic growth and cleaner air, there is a real relationship, as you say, there is no disagreement on the relationship 

in our Country in particular between economic growth and cleaner 

air. The question is, why is that true? It is true because that GDP 

allows us to invest in the technology which provides the clean air. 

So in the first instance, it is the bolstering of the GDP that allows 

any of this to happen, and of course, allows implementation of the 

regulations put forward. 

Second, the unemployment rate is well established as a risk factor for elevated illness and mortality rates in epidemiological studVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:35 Jan 17, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\21144.TXT VERN
99 

ies performed since the 1980’s. In addition to influences on mental 

disorders, suicide and alcohol abuse and alcoholism, unemployment 

is also an important risk factor in cardiovascular disease and overall decreases in life expectancy. 

Subsequent studies of historical change in unemployment and 

mortality rates, especially cardiovascular in other European and 

western countries supported the early United States and British 

studies. These countries included France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, 

Netherlands, Finland, Sweden, Japan, Australia and New Zealand. 

At this point, I would like to just make reference to the chart 

over there. This is a study during the year 2005. You can see in 

two-letter acronyms the relationship between mortality rates, 

which are at the very top, as you see, this little RU for Russia, and 

close to the bottom we see Japan with the highest life expectancy 

in the world. The Untied States is somewhere close to Japan. I 

wish it were a little closer. 

But in any case, the two major predictors of life expectancy here 

are the gross domestic product and employment, especially labor 

force participation. 

Next slide, please. 

[Slide shown.] 

Dr. BRENNER. This is the same picture, but now I have these little circles, where you can see the Roman numerals I, II and III. 

The countries in the III level are the countries with the lowest 

level of income. And we have Russia, Moldavia, Ukraine. And down 

at the bottom, we have the western countries with the highest levels of income in the world with the highest level of expectancy in 

the world. 

Next slide, please. 

[Slide shown.] 

Dr. BRENNER. This is the same sort of picture. This time we have 

40 countries. And this is the year 2008. This is the year of the 

great recession, the initial year. And you can see the connection between the two, the lineup of the countries along a 45 degree line 

is very, very tight. This means a very, very high degree of predictability. In fact, we can account for over 90 percent of life expectancy among all of our different countries in the western world and 

in Europe, based largely on GDP and factors like employment. 

The final implications, the conclusion of this is, there is no doubt 

in anyone’s mind that regulation of the environment is fundamental to health. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind. The question 

only is the degree to which the regulations should be ahead of or 

behind the level of technology and income that the society holds. 

I think you were perfectly right in your initial comments of the 

need to bring the two sides together. When we have the research 

that will concentrate on the income and employment side, I think 

we can actually do that and do not just cost benefit analyses but 

cost effective analyses as we taught them where the ultimate objective is health. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Brenner follows:] 

100 


21144.058
101 


21144.059
102 


21144.060
103 


21144.061
104 


21144.062
105 


21144.063
106 


21144.064
107 


21144.065
108 


21144.066
109 


21144.067
110 


21144.068
111 


21144.069
112 


21144.070
113 


21144.071
114 


21144.072
115 


21144.090
116 


21144.091
117 


21144.092
118 


21144.093
119 


21144.094
120 


21144.095
121 


21144.096
122 


21144.097
123 


21144.098
124 


21144.099
125 


21144.100
126 


21144.101
127 


21144.102
128 


21144.103
129 


21144.104
130 


21144.105
131 


21144.106
132 


21144.107
133 


21144.108
134 


21144.109
135 


21144.110
136 


21144.111
137 


21144.112
138 


21144.113
139 


21144.114
140 


21144.115
141 


21144.116
142 


21144.117
143 


21144.118
144 


21144.119
145 


21144.120
146 


21144.121
147 


21144.122
148 


21144.123
149 


21144.124
150 


21144.125
151 


21144.126
152 


21144.127
153 


21144.128
154 


21144.133
155 


21144.134
156 


21144.135
157 


21144.136
158 


21144.137
159 


21144.138
160 


21144.139
161 


21144.140
162 


21144.141
163 


21144.142
164 


21144.143
165 


21144.144
166 


21144.145
167 


21144.146
168 


21144.147
169 


21144.148
170 


21144.149
171 


21144.150
172 


21144.151
173 


21144.152
174 


21144.153
175 


21144.154
176 


21144.155
177 


21144.156
178 


21144.157
179 


21144.158
180 


21144.159
181 


21144.160
182 


21144.161
183 


21144.162
184 


21144.163
185 


21144.164
186 


21144.165
187 


21144.166
188 


21144.167
189 


21144.168
190 


21144.169
191 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. I think this was terrific, and I feel 

better about what you said before. 

Ms. Cathy Woollums, please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF CATHY S. WOOLLUMS, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT AND CHIEF ENVIRONMENTAL COUNSEL, 

MIDAMERICAN ENERGY HOLDINGS COMPANY 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am Cathy 

Woollums, Senior Vice President and Chief Environmental Counsel 

of MidAmerican Energy Holdings Company. 

We have five U.S. energy platforms, including two utilities, 

MidAmerican Energy Company in the Midwest and PacifiCorp in 

the West and Northwest, which serve retail electric and natural 

gas customers in 10 States. 

Our Midwest utility, MidAmerican Energy, has a resource base 

that is about 52 percent coal, 21 percent natural gas, 7 percent nuclear and 20 percent wind, hydro and biomass. PacifiCorp, which 

operates 78 power plants across the West, has a resource base 

slightly higher in coal, but also 21 percent wind, hydro and geothermal. Indeed, our two utilities are No. 1 and No. 2 respectively 

in the U.S. in ownership of wind-power generation among regulated utilities. We have built over 2,300 megawatts of wind and are 

building nearly 600 this year. So by the end of this year, about 26 

percent of MidAmerican Energy’s generation capacity will come 

from wind. 

Our other three U.S. energy platforms are two interState natural 

gas pipelines and CalEnergy, which operates 10 geothermal plants 

in California. 

You have heard from witnesses this morning about the health 

costs related to the new EPA regulations. I am going to discuss 

briefly the compliance costs of these regulations. Every utility is 

implementing its own unique compliance strategy based on numerous factors that include its resource base, impact on reliability, capital costs, operation and maintenance costs, age of its existing 

power plants, cost of replacement power and projected load growth. 

Section two of my written testimony contains a rule by rule overview and brief explanation of our compliance strategy, including 

EPA’s regional haze rule, which is aimed at visibility improvement, 

not health. 

Many of these regulations are not new. Indeed, we have made 

substantial investments in emissions control equipment over the 

past decade, and have budgeted for additional projects in the next 

10 to 12 years. Through 2010, our two utilities have spent nearly 

$1.6 billion in capital expenditures for required emission control 

equipment under these EPA rules, including mercury. We estimate 

total compliance costs will be about $5.3 billion. 

It is very hard to translate these projected costs into specific percentage rate increases to our customers in all 10 States in which 

our utilities operate. But let me give you two metrics to demonstrate the magnitude of these costs. PacifiCorp’ fossil plants have 

a net value today, after depreciation, of about $3.38 billion. Compare that number to the estimated $1.3 billion that PacifiCorp expects to spend on additional environmental controls between now 

and 2022, and that gives you a relative sense of the cost of these 

192 

pollution control devices to our customers. Our Midwest utility, 

MidAmerican Energy, those figures are $1.1 billion net value today 

after deprecation, compared to an estimated $510 million in expenditures between now and 2020. 

What does all this mean to our customers, the utility industry 

and the economy? First, we are concerned about the cost and timetables for implementation of the rules. These compliance costs will 

increase rates to our customers, just as they are faced with increased rates for other major capital expenditures, including new 

power plants to meet increasing load growth and to further diversify our resource mix, as well as transmission issues. 

Indeed, our PacifiCorp customers are already seeing double digit 

annual rate increases. It is therefore critical to minimize the cost 

impact of these rules. Second, if the implementation time tables remain unchanged, these compliance costs will be shouldered by our 

customers in the form of higher rates and a very narrow window 

from 2013 to 2015. Third, we are concerned about the costs, that 

compliance costs will have a domino effect and may dramatically 

increase production costs for industrial plants and could result in 

job losses. Fourth, coal units premature retired in response to these 

EPA rules will have remaining book value issues to address in the 

form of recovery. 

Last, we are concerned that forcing all U.S. coal plants to comply 

with these rules during such a short timeframe will make it very 

hard to find and train skilled domestic craft labor. We are also concerned that a compressed timeframe will cause a dramatic rise in 

the cost of labor and materials for both retrofits and new generation as demand for skilled labor and pats will greatly outstrip supply. We are already seeing this in the marketplace. For example, 

we just finished negotiating a contract for the installation of scrubbers, bag houses and selective non-catalytic reduction at two of our 

facilities in 2013 and 2014. The costs are about 20 percent higher 

than we anticipated. 

Emission reduction projects are complex, they take years to execute, and we have to work with our State regulators to define the 

technical requirements and then address the rate recovery issues. 

We can’t wait for just in time compliance. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Woollums follows:] 

193 


21144.073
194 


21144.074
195 


21144.075
196 


21144.076
197 


21144.077
198 


21144.078
199 


21144.079
200 


21144.080
201 


21144.081
202 


21144.082
203 


21144.083
204 


21144.084
205 


21144.085
206 


21144.086
207 


21144.087
208 


21144.088
209 


21144.089
210 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Dr. Munzer. 

STATEMENT OF ALFRED MUNZER, M.D., PULMONARY AND 

CRITICAL CARE, WASHINGTON ADVENTIST HOSPITAL 

Dr. MUNZER. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I am Dr. Alfred Munzer, and I am a physician specializing in 

lung disease and practicing at Washington Adventist Hospital in 

Takoma Park, Maryland. I am delighted to appear before the Committee on behalf of the American Thoracic Society. 

I spend my days treating people with serious conditions like 

asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, sarcoidosis, lung 

cancer, and any number of serious respiratory diseases, many of 

which are unknown to the general public. Through a combination 

of medications, interventional procedures and lifestyle modifications, I work with my patients to help control the respiratory diseases. 

There is one thing neither I nor my patients can control, and 

that is air pollution. Air pollution plays a major role in causing and 

exacerbating respiratory illness. From years of clinical experience, 

I know that when the D.C. area has a Code Orange or Code Red 

day, patients will suffer the effects. Those with asthma will experience acute exacerbations of their condition, making every breath 

they take more labored. The emergency room at our hospital will 

be filled with patients with serious respiratory distress. In most of 

these cases, these patients didn’t do anything wrong or different. 

They just happened to be unlucky enough to breathe highly polluted air. 

While I am not an air pollution researcher, my clinical experience of the impact of air pollution on respiratory health is backed 

up by countless peer-reviewed studies in the United States and 

abroad. The science documenting the adverse effects of air pollution 

on human heath is comprehensive, consistent and compelling. Unfortunately, that science is also under attack. 

Industry regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency has 

started a campaign to discredit the research that is used to support 

EPA’s regulations under the Clean Air Act. Some Members of Congress appear to be taking up the mantra of discrediting or openly 

discounting the validity of EPA-sponsored research. This is a mistake and is a distraction from what we all should be focusing on: 

reducing air pollution to improve everyone’s health. 

The EPA’s science is sound, and its methodology is strong in its 

conclusions. But the EPA is not the only source of credible science 

that shows that air pollution matters. Respected scientific agencies 

in the United States and around the globe have documented the 

adverse effects of air pollution. The NIH has supported a number 

of studies that found that air pollution, particularly ozone and particulate matter, is bad for everyone’s health. And this is especially 

true for children. 

Silverman and colleagues demonstrated warm weather patterns 

of ozone and fine particulate matter that disproportionately affects 

children with asthma and appears responsible for severe attacks 

that could have been avoided. More and colleagues in California 

conducted a study that showed that current levels experienced in 

211 

Southern California, ozone contributes to an increased risk of hospitalization for children with asthma. 

In another study by the National Institutes of Heath, Dr. Balmes 

and colleagues demonstrated that traffic-related air pollution lead 

to measurable decrease in lung function. Even the American Petroleum Institute has contributed to the scientific literature. In an 

API-funded study, Dr. Schelegle and his colleagues demonstrated 

that in chamber studies, ozone concentrations below 75 parts per 

billion decreases a key measure of lung function in young, heathy 

adults. 

For the record, I will include a brief list of other important studies that demonstrate that air pollution continues to be an important health issue in the United States. In conclusion, the science 

is consistent and comprehensive and comes from multiple credible 

sources, including the EPA. I hope Congress and the EPA can put 

the questions about the scientific validity of the air pollution studies to rest and start focusing on the real problem: how best to move 

forward with eliminating the threat posed by air pollution. The 

control of air pollution is part and parcel of our national defense. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Munzer follows:] 

212 


21144.129
213 


21144.130
214 


21144.131
215 


21144.132
216 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

I am going to open up the question time and then I am going to 

turn the gavel over to Senator Carper to conclude. 

Thank you all. You are all very straightforward. I appreciate it. 

Dr. Paulson, talk to me about exposure to mercury, either during 

pregnancy, what the impact is on the fetus, and what is the impact 

on a little child who is exposed to mercury? Ms. Woollums complained a lot about the mercury rule. And I am going to get to her. 

Yes, you did, and I am going to ask you some questions. 

Talk to me about what happens when there is too much mercury. 

Dr. PAULSON. Mercury is a neurotoxin. It damages the brain and 

results in decrease in i.q. of children who are exposed. 

The change is particularly important when looked at on a population scale. A shift in i.q. of as little as five points in the population as a whole means a radical decrease in the number of gifted 

and talented individuals in the population, and a marked increase 

in the number of people with intellectual disabilities. So small 

changes in i.q. at the individual level have a major impact at the 

public level. It is very important to decrease the amount of mercury 

that comes out of power plants. 

Senator BOXER. And as you know, there is a rule currently to do 

that. I assume you are supportive of that rule? 

Dr. PAULSON. Yes, ma’am. 

Senator BOXER. OK. And the nurses are as well? The rule on 

mercury? 

Ms. BUCIC. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Is that true for you, Dr. Munzer. 

Dr. MUNZER. Yes, it is. 

Senator BOXER. OK. So I am going to talk to the person here who 

is representing the people who, when they supply us with electricity, have a problem because there is a lot of mercury emissions. 

As I listened to you over and over again, for your entire discussion, 

you mostly talked about this rule and what a problem it is. And 

I need to talk to you about this, because you are the environmental 

counsel. So I am thinking that you would want to see them make 

progress here. And you are asking for delays and all the things, 

and you are saying that there is, this was one thing you said. It 

is hard to find labor? You have got to be kidding. I thought you 

said in your testimony that if we do this, it is hard to find the 

labor. 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. I am sorry, it is hard to find what? 

Senator BOXER. It is hard to find the labor. Yes. You said in your 

testimony it was hard to find labor to do the work. 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. Yes, and with all due respect, I disagree with 

the characterization relative to my statements on mercury. 

Senator BOXER. OK. It is just my subjective listening to it, it 

seemed like a lot of complaining about the mercury rule. But we 

will go back to the statement, see how much of your time you took 

about that. It was a heck of a lot of it. But talk to me. Why would 

you say it is hard to find labor? 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. Because we are talking about, and let me go 

back to the mercury rule, I actually—— 

Senator BOXER. I am asking you, why is it hard to find labor? 

That is my question. 

217 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. Because we are talking about installing a great 

number of pieces of equipment within very short periods of time. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, let me make your life better. We have 

the AFL–CIO telling us there is sufficient labor to cover the needed 

work on the power plant. People want jobs. So I would be glad to, 

there is a high unemployment, we are talking, my Republican 

friends are talking about that. We are saying, yes, we have to do 

more about jobs. So that is just not happening. 

Now, do you feel, just Ms. Woollums, if you saw somebody throw 

a dart and it was meant for the dartboard, but it went over the 

other way and it hit a child, I am assuming you would hold that 

person responsible, would you not, for throwing that dart in an unsafe manner? Yes or no? 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. It depends on the circumstances. 

Senator BOXER. I will say it again. A child is out there, say, 17 

years old, and playing darts, and doesn’t look around, doesn’t check 

to see who is there. There is a bunch of kids standing on either 

side. There is no protection. Throws the dart and it hits somebody 

else. Would you suppose that child has some culpability in what 

happened, or the parent who allowed that to take place? 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. You have changed the dynamic slight, but 

what—— 

Senator BOXER. Yes or no? Yes or no? If someone, let me put it 

this way, if someone hurts someone else, do you think they ought 

to be held responsible? 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. It depends on the cir—— 

Senator BOXER. Oh, really? OK. Well, how about this. Somebody, 

OK, decides to do something in their yard without taking all the 

proper precautions that are listed by the manufacturer of this product. They go out there and they just don’t do anything right, there 

is people nearby and they get hurt. Are they responsible, if they 

knew about this? 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. In that circumstance, I would say yes. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, my belief is, if you know that your 

plant is spewing out this poison, poison that doctors say unequivocally causes brain damage in children, and you complain about this 

or that and the other, and guess what, your poison from the Midwest where you are is going to his State, is going to his State, is 

going to his State. And they are doing everything right. And they 

are just standing by. And their people are going to the emergency 

room. 

So I guess what I want to say to you, after finally getting an answer to my I thought was a simple question of responsibility, is 

that we all have responsibility for what we do, especially if our byproduct of what we do is producing one of the most dangerous toxins. And that is not the only toxin. 

So I would just hope that you would go back to your people and 

tell them, just for me, I don’t speak for a soul else, that I think 

it is time to step up to the plate. The fact is, I have a chart here, 

I ask unanimous consent to put it in the record, of the power 

plants in the Untied States, many of them are super old. They have 

either got to be brought up to code, fixed, with the best available 

technology or close them down. You can’t keep on going. 

218 

As I said, when I went to China, I never saw the sun. And I want 

to tell you, Ms. Woollums, you ought to go to China. Because you 

see the impacts of people, a government who could are less about 

the health of, they don’t give a darn about the people there. All 

they want is, getting to Dr. Brenner’s point, is they should work, 

work, work, work, work, work, work. But they don’t care. And the 

people are suffering because of it. 

So this issue of the mercury rule, today we are talking about the 

Clean Air Act, the mercury rule, the mercury that goes in the air. 

I think as Environmental counsel, I hope you will tell them that 

I hope they will see this as a win-win as they, yes, their consumers 

have to breathe clean air as well as pay their electric bills. 

And if you ask them, because we asked people, 69 percent of 

them want us to do tougher, tougher rules on air. All over the 

Country, I don’t care what State, from Wyoming to California, anywhere. This is a Republican and Democratic poll just done a couple 

of months ago. And I believe it is time for good stewardship here. 

And you are the environmental counsel. And I hope and pray that 

instead of fighting these rules, you will work with us, you will work 

with the EPA. And let’s get some rules out there that work. 

Because I will tell you, I have been hearing Senator Carper for 

more years than I can tell you talking to me about mercury. I am 

in a different position. We don’t have that kind of problem in our 

State. But this is serious stuff. And so I hope you will take that 

message back for me, doesn’t come from anybody else. It is just my 

message, step up to the plate, corporate responsibility, caring about 

people’s health and understanding that if you can’t breathe, you 

can’t work. If your child is brain damaged, your life changes. You 

can’t have a life that is normal. And I hope you will take that back. 

And I thank my colleagues, and I would ask Senator Barrasso to 

take his time, and turn the gavel over to Senator Carper. 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. Madam Chairman, I will take that message 

back to my company. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. One thing I would like to add is MidAmerican 

has already begun the process of being a leader in the mercury 

charge. And as a matter of fact, we were one of the very first companies, back when our plant became operational in 2007, to install 

activated carbon injection for mercury control. 

Senator BOXER. Excellent. Well, it is time to help us with this 

rule and do even more. Because if the technology is there, it helps 

us. Thank you very much. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Dr. Brenner, you said in your testimony that the unemployment 

rate is a well-established risk factor for elevated illness and mortality rates in epidemiological studies performed in the last 30 

years or so. You said the unemployment, which is now 9.1 percent, 

was at 10 percent in spite of all the promises that the President 

made that if we passed his so-called stimulus plan that it wouldn’t 

go above 8 percent, you said that the unemployment rate is also 

an important risk factor in heart disease, overall decreases in life 

expectancy. Could you elaborate a little bit on what the impact to 

children is with regard to parents who are unemployed, and how 

219 

unemployment affects a child’s health in terms of a household with 

unemployment? 

Mr. BRENNER. The most thorough studies that we have indicate 

that the employment status of the breadwinner is crucial for the 

entire family. So one interesting study published in 1982, I believe, 

in the Journal of the Lancet, the major international medical journal, demonstrated that when the head of household is unemployed, 

within 10 years there is an increase in the mortality rate of the 

spouse, even though the spouse will not have experienced any employment changes. 

There are numerous studies on the effect of unemployment on 

the socio-economic status of the family. When the effect of lowering 

the status of the family occurs to pregnant women, to children, to 

families where there are children in the one to 4 years of age, the 

studies indicate that as long as 40 to 50 years later, there are elevated levels of mortality, particularly cardiovascular mortality. 

So it is a phenomenon that sweeps through time, even though we 

think of it normally as occurring in a very discrete way, here it is 

and it is gone tomorrow. In our current economy, for instance, 

which is just before us, obviously, we not only have relatively high 

unemployment rate, we have one that is very long. We have one 

of the longest periods of lengthy unemployment again in our history, since the Second World War. Those effects are much, much 

larger, because they have effects into the next period of employment. 

The reason for that is that once people lose work, for a long period of time, they tend to lose their skills. And if they are employed 

again at all, it is a much lower wage level typically. They lose seniority, they lose retirement rights and the rest of it, we are familiar with. So this is a lifelong situation that goes on that characterize the unemployment rate. 

Senator BARRASSO. So then your opinion would be that the more 

we could do to actually get people working again, in terms of actually being things for the general overall health of all these very 

skilled physicians and their patients, one of the best things we 

could do is actually improve the economy, get people back to work, 

raise the gross domestic product, raise that, lower the unemployment rate, and we ought to be focusing on the economy. 

Mr. BRENNER. It is the very best thing we can do, without any 

question. 

Senator BARRASSO. All right. Ms. Woollums, going through your 

testimony, if it does seem that all these additional rules and regulations and red tape coming out of Washington, and specifically the 

Environmental Protection Agency, and we did hear testimony that 

there have been incredible improvements in air quality in this 

Country over the last 40 years, but that these additional costs are 

going to be borne by families who are already having a hard time 

making ends meet, and that these rules and regulations are going 

to make things worse. Is that your impression of what you are seeing across the Country? 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. Yes, and as a matter of fact, Senator, in your 

home State, our most recent rate case asked for approximately a 

20 percent increase, part of which reflects the increasing regulation, primarily driven by the regional haze regulations. 

220 

Senator BARRASSO. And I am sorry that Senator Boxer has left, 

Mr. Chairman, as she kind of ran over a while. I would like to use 

a little bit of additional time. I know I have a couple of minutes 

left, maybe if I can go another two or three beyond that? 

Senator CARPER. [Presiding] No way. The Chair will be generous but not foolish. 

I am supposed to be somewhere else right now, but just go ahead. 

Senator BARRASSO. If you could just talk a little about the mercury rule, I think there were some things you were trying to get 

out and weren’t able to. I would be happy to continue as Chairman 

if you need to leave in an expeditious manner. 

Senator CARPER. I have got all day. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Please. There were some things you didn’t get 

a chance to say. 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. Certainly. We support moving forward with the 

mercury rule. That is not the primary piece of our objection and 

concern. It is, as a general proposition, fairly straightforward to 

control mercury. The issue is largely attributable to the hydrochloric gas and other non-mercury metals that are the basis of the 

rule that we have concerns about. As I referenced, our newest facility that already controls mercury, we have actual operating experience. And that operating experience also suggests that the stringency of the standard will be extremely challenged on a brand new 

facility with a full suite of controls. 

Senator BARRASSO. The Chairman had mentioned the AFL–CIO 

and some of the apparent people that are available to work. But 

I understand that some unions have actually come out opposing a 

number of the regulations from the Environmental Protection 

Agency, saying if you shut down coal-fired coal plants, that a number of additional jobs, union and non-union, will be lost. I don’t 

know that that applies specifically to your company, but I think 

you have a general overview of what is happening nationally. 

Could you comment on that, please? 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. As a general proposition, any time that there is 

a loss in an industry such as ours, where you have highly skilled 

individuals, but they are not necessarily highly educated individuals, it is very difficult to retrain them to go into other types of industries. This is what they have done their entire lives. And as Dr. 

Brenner referenced, employed individuals tend to contribute greatly to society. 

Senator BARRASSO. Dr. Brenner, yes, sir? 

Mr. BRENNER. Forgive me, I think there is an essential point 

that somehow I wasn’t able to make clearly. If we want to be very 

stringent with regulations, let us say we all agree that that is a 

great thing to do, even if we wish to do that, without the investment capital from industry, it cannot happen. 

As the Chairman pointed out, with the best available technology. 

The point is, to have the best available technology or even moderately good technology, you need investment. If the GDP is 

harmed, if firms are harmed, they cannot make the investment. 

Therefore, the primary focus needs to be on sustaining the firms 

before they can take action that could actually support that kind 

of legislation. 

221 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARPER. You are quite welcome. 

To our witnesses, I just thank you so much for joining us today. 

Some of you have been with us before, and it is great to see you 

again. I am especially grateful to Ms. Bucic. Has anybody ever mispronounced your name? Has anybody ever pronounced it correctly? 

Senator Whitehouse, why don’t you go ahead and ask your questions. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you very much. 

I am interested in the, I don’t know, what you might call kind 

of the misallocation problem and where we go with that. There are 

two issues. One is that you have polluting industries, let’s say, the 

power industries. And the cost of compliance is 100 percent on 

them. But the benefit is societal. It is in the health care system, 

it is in the education system, it is in other people’s salaries and 

jobs. It is in, and it is hard to put the number together. 

I could see the argument, let me go back to the AEP case that 

Rhode Island and other States filed many years ago. When that 

was resolved, my recollection is that AEP had to spend $4.6 billion 

to clean up its act. But that the societal savings, the benefit of that 

cleanup, was $30 billion, not just that year, but going forward. 

So if I were a private investor, and somebody said, if you invest $4.6 billion in this project, it will pay you $30 billion a year, that 

is a no-brainer. And we have this battle because there is a dislocation between the utility that has to pay the $4.6 billion and the 

Country at large, or the State at large or the region at large that 

gets the benefit of the cleaner air. I am wondering, and clearly if it was $4.6 billion in and $4.6 billion out, I think there would be a pretty good case to be made, why 

undertake the effort? It turns out into a net wash. 

But let me ask Ms. Woollums first. Isn’t there a point at which 

the societal benefit justifies the emitter having to spend money in 

order to protect, in order to be able to take advantage of that benefit? And I am wondering at what point you think it begins to 

make sense? Is it one to one, is it four to one, is it five to one? We 

have some information that on the Transport rule, it might be as 

much as 145 to 1, which is clearly a payback anybody in their right 

mind would leap at. At what point do you think it makes sense for 

the industry to be a little bit more cooperative about accepting that 

this is an important responsibility for the Country? Again, one to 

one, two to one, five to one, ten to one? Where do you think that 

falls? 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. Senator, with all due respect, I am not an economist. And I don’t know that I can approach the question from the 

perspective you have asked me to. My role frankly is very akin to 

Lisa Jackson’s. My role is to follow the law. My role is to ensure 

compliance with the regulations. And whatever regulation is 

passed, my company will comply with. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. But clearly, there are two roles you have. 

You have a role to comply with the law, you also have a role to 

advocate as to what the law should be. You are here representing 

this company in that role, you are not here in your compliance role, 

you are here in your advocacy rule. It is a legitimate role, this is 

the United States of America, you get to do that. My point is, in 

222 

your advocacy role, is there a point where the payback becomes 

enough that the company, instead of sending people to challenge 

the rule says, you know what, that is sensible, we should do that, 

it is good for the community, it is good for the State it is good for 

the Country, the payback is huge, we get it. We collect our revenues through rates that are approved and we can ordinarily collect 

these costs any way. We will just go for it and not kick up a fuss. 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. And I am probably not going to answer your 

question, but I don’t view my role as being an advocate. I view my 

role as being an educator to tell you what the costs of compliance 

are going to be. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And so you just, if it were 50 to 1, you 

would still be here educating us in favor of not going forward with 

these? 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. I am not educating you in terms of not going forward with the regulations. I have not said that we should not move 

forward with the regulations. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. So you are fine with going forward 

with the regulations? 

Ms. WOOLLUMS. We will comply with whatever regulations Congress passes or EPA implements. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Got you. The other issue is the cross-State 

misallocation, a State like Missouri, for instance, does 100 percent 

of its power with coal or pretty close to 100 percent of its power 

with coal, and we are downwind of a lot of it. If you look at some 

of the maps, you can actually see the power plants along the Ohio 

River Valley. And they point right at New England. 

So if the wind is coming across them, it is picking up not the load 

of one power plant or two or three or four, but one after another. 

And many of them have built high stacks, whose purpose appears 

to be inject that effluent up high enough that it falls on my State 

instead of on theirs. And indeed if I am not mistaken, Senator Carper has made this point very passionately and eloquently earlier, 

if I am not mistaken, there are some States that are actually in 

attainment, even though they are emitters, because the dump it up 

into the atmosphere and it falls on my State, which like Delaware, 

is not an attainment State, could never be an attainment State because of the pollution that is raining down on us from other States. 

I don’t have any political say in what those States do. My only hope 

is EPA. 

So if EPA gets wounded in its ability to protect the Clean Air 

Act, I have a real problem on my hands, because there is nobody 

looking out for Rhode Island’s interest in Missouri. That is my 

guess, anyway. 

Anyway, I see my time is expired. I apologize. 

Senator CARPER. It kind of makes you wonder if people aren’t 

just picking on the little States. What do you think? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Maybe older States. 

Senator CARPER. Maybe that is better. 

I want to ask, first of all, a question of Sarah Bucic. I just would 

say, we talked earlier, Senator Whitehouse and I have spoken 

many times here about the idea that other States get cheap energy, 

they don’t cleanup their emissions. They get cheaper energy, they 

have reasonably clean air and we ended up with more expensive 

223 

energy and dirty air. We concluded a long time ago that Federal 

standards are the best way to ensure consistent air pollution reductions occur around our Country, whether they happen to be little 

States, old States, big States, young States. 

Your thoughts about whether Federal standards are the best way 

to ensure consistent air pollution reductions, please? 

Ms. BUCIC. I think Federal standards are integral, because of 

what you just stated. Small States can do all that they can and my 

county that I live in is in non-attainment for particulate matter 2.5 

and ozone. And like you said earlier, we could close down all of the 

industry in our State, and it still wouldn’t put us in attainment. 

That is the air we breathe. 

We give our patients these directions as nurses, to do these specific things, these are your discharge instructions, do this. It is interesting that other industries don’t have those kinds of prescriptions. As a hospital, if you threw all your syringes out, people 

would find that to be problematic. You were asking earlier about, 

Senator Whitehouse, about at what point does something become 

important to do. Well, that would be a good example. If I threw all 

my trash into my neighbor’s yard, that would be bad. 

So I think at some point, Federal regulations are the only thing 

that can protect States, all the States. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. A question, if I could, for Dr. Munzer. 

I would ask Dr. Paulson and Ms. Bucic to take a shot at this one 

as well. 

As some of my colleagues know, I like to run. Last couple of 

weeks have been very special, because our oldest son is home. He 

is 22 years old, he is a tri-athlete. I get to run with him maybe 

once a week. He runs me into the ground. And it is a humbling experience, but we all need to be humbled. 

I remember some times in Delaware running, especially in the 

summer, when I wondered whether I was doing more harm than 

good for my body because of the air quality. I know plenty of times, 

I was a naval flight officer for many years and got to serve all over 

the world. I can remember being in some places and running when 

I knew I was doing more harm than good. 

In Delaware during the summer, we oftentimes have what we 

call Code Orange days, worrying about the high levels of ozone for 

a particular day. I would just ask the three of you if you could 

maybe take a minute or two to describe how high levels of ozone 

actually damage my lungs, my son’s lungs, other people’s lungs, if 

we take a long run on a Code Orange day. If I do this kind of thing 

often, I run a couple of days a week, but if we do this kind of thing 

often, could we permanently scar or damage our lungs? Do you 

want to start off, Dr. Munzer? 

Dr. MUNZER. Thank you very much. Ozone is a very, very powerful irritant to the respiratory tract. It causes swelling, inflammation of the air passages. As they swell, it becomes more and more 

difficult to have air pass through the air passages, go through the 

air passages, making breathing much more labored. 

In addition to that, ozone is also a cellular poison. So it interferes 

with the lung’s ability to cleanse itself of bacteria and viruses, 

making us much more susceptible to respiratory infections. 

224 

Now, when a person runs, a healthy person, the amount of air 

that the move in and out of their lungs increases easily ten-fold, 

which means that they increase their exposure to air pollution tenfold as well. So even for healthy individuals, it is not wise to be 

exercising outdoors when the air is polluted, like a Code Orange 

day. 

Senator CARPER. Ms. Bucic. 

Ms. BUCIC. Ozone is obviously something good that should be in 

the upper atmosphere. But when it is in the lower atmosphere, it 

is a very bad chemical. It reacts, we have these high ozone days. 

And if you have more than nine, you go into non-attainment. I believe in Delaware we are close to seven or eight already, Code Orange days. These are things that aren’t supposed to be in the lower 

atmosphere. They are not supposed to be on the ground. So any 

kind of extended exposure to them is very bad for you. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks. 

Dr. Paulson, again, the question, can you just describe for us how 

high levels of ozone can actually damage our lungs if we are out 

there running long distances on one of these Code Orange days? 

Dr. PAULSON. Yes, Senator Carper, thank you for the question. 

I want to talk about two particular sets of research, one that 

comes out of Southern California that shows that children growing 

up in more polluted areas, include ozone particulate, SOx and NOx, 

have smaller lungs when they are 18 or 20 than kids who grow up 

in less polluted areas. Not so much that they are symptomatic at 

that point in time. But I do really worry what happens to somebody 

at 20 if they have less lung reserve than somebody else when they 

get to be 60, 70 or 80. So that is one set of research that gives me 

concern. 

Another set of researchers, if you look at varsity athletes, and I 

certainly was not a varsity athlete in high school, but if you look 

at people who are in three varsity sports, the fittest of the fit, I 

can’t imagine one varsity sport, so I certainly can’t imagine three, 

but the fittest of the fit, now, when do we send our high school athletes out to practice? Late in the afternoon. When is pollution 

worse? Late in the afternoon. 

Those kids who are the fittest of the fit who practice outside have 

three times the risk of developing asthma compared to children 

who are in varsity sports that don’t practice outside. 

So we are harming, we are demonstrably harming our children 

by sending them outside to practice their athletics. 

Senator CARPER. That was sobering. That was a sobering note to 

close this hearing on. I want to thank, again, we want to thank, 

on behalf of Senator Barrasso and myself, we want to thank each 

of you for coming today and for sharing your thoughts with us and 

responding to our questions. 

I think there is a moral imperative at work here. About 24 hours 

from now, the Chaplain of the U.S. Senate will be holding forth in 

a Bible study group with a number of our colleagues. One of the 

things that, as Senator Barrasso know, one of the things that the 

Chaplain is always imploring us to do is use the Golden Rule. He 

calls it the Cliff Notes of the New Testament. And to treat other 

people the way we want to be treated. 

225 

1http://www.crs.gov/Products/R/PDF/R41062.pdf 

I think that is good guidance for almost everything that we do 

in our lives, especially good for those of us who are in the business 

of creating energy or electricity, and in some cases, creating emissions and pollution because of that. Just to keep in mind that we 

have, I think, a moral obligation to do our best in a cost-effective 

way to reduce those emissions and reduce that chance of harm. 

There is a way that we can do it, and I think EPA is trying to do 

that with respect to the mercury rule. And I think we have heard 

that here today and in other places. We need to do it in a cost effective way that does not impede our economic recovery. There is a 

way to do it, and a not very smart way. 

I hope that we continue to do it in a way that I think is well informed. Again, our thanks, Senator Barrasso and myself, our 

thanks to all of you. Colleagues have 2 weeks to submit their questions to you if they are not here. Please respond to those questions. 

Thank you so much. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, U.S. SENATOR

FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA

Administrator Jackson, thank you for coming before our committee today. Let me 

begin by saying that I am very concerned with the state of our economy. Look at 

the numbers: 

9.1; percent of the workforce currently unemployed. 

22,462,000; Number of workers currently unemployed and underemployed. 

We need to find ways to get this economy going forward again. Yet, it seems to 

me that EPA is systematically going about regulating the American economy in a 

manner that is not justified. 

Here are some more numbers: 

30; Number of major new rules that EPA is developing or has finalized. 

170; Number of major policy revisions that EPA is undertaking. 

11; Number of greenhouse gas regulations promulgated by EPA in 2010. 

I only have time to focus on one issue today. 

Administrator Jackson, you are familiar with your agency’s plans to change the 

standards for ground level ozone. This is really among the most concerning proposals to come out of your agency. 

Listen to these numbers: 

125 parts per billion; EPA’s ozone standard in the 1970s. 

85 ppb; the ozone standard in the 1990s. 

75 ppb; the ozone standard adopted by EPA in 2008, just 3 years ago. EPA believed in 2008 that this standard was sufficient but not more stringent than necessary, to protect public health. 

60 ppb; the ozone standard that EPA has proposed. 

The congressional Research Service recently stated: ′′At [60 parts per billion], 650 

counties——virtually every county with a monitor——exceeding the proposed standard.′′1 That would be an increase from 85 countries today. Why is that significant? 

An ozone standard that results in ′′non-attainment′′ for that many areas will curtail 

economic growth around the country. 

Let me give an example, In 2007, Thyssenkrupp Steel selected Calvert, Alabama 

as the home of their new state-of-the-art carbon steel processing facilities. At the 

time, it was one of the largest economic development projects of the entire country. 

Since 2007, ’TK Steel ’ has hired approximately 2,000 workers; paid over $100 million in wages; created over 9,000 construction jobs; and generated millions in state 

and local tax revenue. Why do I mention this project? 

That area of my state (without considering TK Steel) would very likely be considered non-attainment if EPA adopts the 60 ppb standard. When asked about this 

possibility, and official with the state air regulation department was quoted in the 

Mobile Press-Register newspaper as saying: ′′It would be very difficult to locate another ThyssenKrupp plant in Mobile if [zone] non-attainment was determined. ′′This 

226 

2http://businessroundtable.org/uploads/studies-reports/dowloads/2011—04—National—Ambient—Air—Quality—Standard—for—Ozone.pdf 3http://www.mapi.net/MediaCenter/news/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=189 

is not just Alabama problem. According to the Business Roundtable, the ′′proposed 

new ozone regulations... would cost nearly $90 billion dollars per year by 2020... ′′2

Another economic analysis by the MAPI Manufacturers Alliance similarly concluded 

that the economic impact of the tighter ozone standards would be in the range of 

$1 trillion from 2020-2030.3 Those are staggering figures. 

I look forward to asking you a few questions about this issue. 

Thank you. 

Æ