U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

85–229PDF 2014

S. HRG. 112–824 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY FISCAL 

YEAR 2012 BUDGET 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 2, 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 

MARCH 2, 2011 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma ................... 3 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico .......................... 5 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming ........................ 5 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ..................... 6 

Johanns, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska ........................ 7 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ........ 9 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ......... 46 

WITNESS 

Jackson, Hon. Lisa, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ..... 28 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 29 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Articles: 

USA Today, by Doyle Rice, Study debunks ‘‘global cooling’’ concern of 

1970s .............................................................................................................. 12 

American Meteorological Society, by Thomas C. Peterson, William M. 

Connolley and John Fleck, The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling 

Scientific Consensus, September 2008 ........................................................ 15 

Letter from various colleagues, June 6, 2008 ........................................................ 52 

Statement, Tom Curtis, deputy executive director for Government Affairs, 

American Water Works Association ................................................................... 57 

(1) 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

FISCAL YEAR 2012 BUDGET 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 2, 2011 

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

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:30 p.m. in room 406, 

Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of 

the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Lautenberg, Cardin, Sanders, 

Whitehouse, Udall, Barrasso, Johanns, Boozman. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The hearing will come to order. We want to welcome Administrator Jackson to this oversight hearing on the 2012 

budget for the Environmental Protection Agency. 

The mission that EPA undertakes every day is critically important to our children, to our families and to our communities, large 

and small, all across America. It is a mission created with bipartisan support, and every time I talk about the landmark laws that 

are under attack, I point out that the major, major landmark environmental laws were signed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and 

George Herbert Walker Bush. I think it is important to remember 

that until recently we had very strong bipartisan support for these 

laws. Because the initial impetus for them was to keep our families 

healthy, in good shape, and keeping our air and water clean and 

safe. 

The President’s budget recognizes the importance of EPA’s mission and it is true that he reduced the EPA budget by more than 

$1.3 billion. It is a 13 percent reduction. But I respect the President’s effort to cut the deficit during these tough times, but to do 

it responsibly. 

For example, the President’s budget would make vital investments in enforcing our Nation’s public health laws, including an 

agency-wide effort to reduce toxic pollution in at-risk communities, 

such as schools and other places where kids are exposed. I remember USA Today doing a major expose about the problem we are facing with our kids going to school in a situation where they are located near freeways and highways and railroad stops. Their lungs 

are suffering. 

The budget would also assist State and local efforts to reduce 

dangerous air pollution to begin the process of getting the Nation’s 

largest emitters of carbon pollution to reduce their emissions. As 
2 

we know, whether or not the EPA had a right to protect us from 

too much car pollution was decided by the Supreme Court. They 

said once there is an endangerment finding that they have the obligation to do so. That is what Administrator Jackson is planning to 

do. 

So even where the President’s budget proposes to make cuts, 

such as reductions in Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water loan 

programs, it does it, I think, responsibly, after there was an uptick 

in those programs in previous years. But in stark contrast to the 

President’s support for EPA’s essential work to protect our kids 

and families, the recently passed House Continuing Resolution, not 

the short-term 2-week one, which I voted for, but the longer 7- 

month one, actually takes an axe to EPA. The largest cut of any 

agency, EPA gets a 30 percent cut. 

An astounding $2 billion from the Water Infrastructure and 

Water Quality Protection programs. These cuts mean that our 

drinking water has a far greater chance of contamination. These 

cuts means thousands of lost jobs. When I ran this last time, where 

are the jobs, that is all we heard, where are the jobs. I said, I am 

going to come back here and fight for jobs. I am not going to fight 

to see jobs lost. 

We are looking at, in that 7-month CR, a cut to clean up and redevelop brownfields. That law was passed under Republican leadership. It threatens, just that program, 5,000 jobs, just that program. 

The House budget would slash 45 percent from the 2010 enacted 

level for Federal aid to State, local and tribal governments to protect our communities from dangerous pollution. It includes back 

door efforts to undermine EPA authorities that protect the air we 

breathe and the water we drink. There are riders on this. Not only 

do they cut to the heart of EPA, but then they tell Administrator 

Jackson, you can’t cleanup the air, you can’t cleanup soot or smog 

or carbon pollution. So it is legislating on an appropriations bill, it 

is attaching these riders. It is actually quite dangerous for the 

health of our communities. 

I want to close by saying, if you look at the cost benefit ratio of 

the Clean Air Act, it is $30 of benefits for every dollar invested. 

There is just a new report that shows the Clean Air Act prevented 

160,000 cases of premature death, 130,000 heart attacks, 13 million lost work days were prevented, and 1.7 million asthma attacks 

were prevented in 2010 alone. That is from the Clean Air Act 

Amendments signed by George Herbert Walker Bush. 

So, look, we all know we are facing tough economic times. But 

tough times call for intelligent decisionmaking and wisdom, not 

reckless cuts that will do more harm than good. I have talked to 

doctors, I have talked to the American Lung Association. They believe strongly that these if cuts go forward, we are going to see premature death, we are going to see illness. We have to protect the 

health of our children while also building clean technology industries. 

This other point, since we passed the Clean Air Act, the U.S. 

GDP has risen by 207 percent. So there is all this talk that the environment and the economy are clashing. No, they don’t. They work 

hand in glove. I always say if you can’t breathe, you can’t work. 
3 

If you have a great operation but your people can’t come to work 

because they are sick, you don’t do very well. 

We are the world’s largest producer and consumer of environmental technology. That industry has approximately 119,000 firms, 

supports 1.7 million jobs, generates $300 billion in revenues, including $43 billion in exports. Why would we take an axe to these 

industries? That is what we do, that is what the Republicans did 

in the House, I hope we won’t in the Senate, for that 7-month Continuing Resolution. 

So the President’s budget does make tough choices, his 2012 

budget. It is tough to cut, for me, a billion dollars out of EPA. That 

hurts my heart. But I am willing to go down that road, because it 

is a responsible cut. But the $3 billion cut just goes over the line. 

I thank you very much for being here and look forward to hearing 

from you. 

Senator Inhofe. 

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

THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Administrator 

Jackson, nice to have you back, as always. 

I suspect these are tough times at the EPA for a number of reasons, because you are going to have to make some cuts. I think all 

Federal agencies are. 

I have to say this, in all due respect, instead of sacrifice, I am 

afraid the EPA’s budget submission is yet another what I call a fiscal bait and switch. We have seen this before, going back to the 

Bush administration EPA. They propose significant cuts that appear fiscally responsible, but in truth they are cuts that the EPA 

knows that Congress will reinstate or restore. By my calculations, 

83 percent of the EPA-proposed cuts come from three water programs with strong bipartisan support in Congress, including $942 

million from the State Revolving Funds. The Chairman and I have 

been strong supporters of this. These cuts total $1.1 billion. EPA’s 

overall cuts for Fiscal Year 2012 amount to $1.3 billion. 

So it is not hard to see the math here. You can bet these cuts 

will be restored. We have seen this over the years, I have seen it 

in other agencies. On Armed Services, I can remember when we 

were demanding some cuts there, so they said, fine, we will just 

take out the F–22 program and leave us without any fifth generation fighters. 

So that is something that has happened and I kind of call on 

your help to find cuts that are more responsible and more politically realistic. I can think of many programs that don’t deserve the 

funding, certainly at the level, and No. 1 would be, and I am sure 

this is no surprise to you, the amount of money that we are spending on the greenhouse gas regulatory regime. 

I have to say, however, that due to existing greenhouse gas regulations, this is more complicated than it seems. The problem is that 

EPA, States and regulated entities have legal obligations stemming 

from the existing greenhouse gas regulations. We have to ensure, 

therefore, that our cuts don’t have unintended consequences. 

The best way to eliminate EPA’s carbon regime is through an authorization bill. That is why I released, in fact, we are going to be 
4 

introducing it tomorrow, the Upton-Inhofe Bill, the Energy Tax 

Prevention Act of 2011. This bill puts Congress in charge of deciding our Nation’s climate policy, not the EPA. 

So we are going to still continue to try to do that. If we want to 

make strides in improving public health, we won’t do it by regulating carbon dioxide. When it comes to real pollution, such as sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, the EPA’s budget falls short. 

For example, it zeroes out the funding for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act, or DERA. This is a program with bipartisan support 

from me, from Chairman Boxer, from Senator Carper and from 

most of the Committee that we passed last year. It would help to 

reduce real pollutants, but the EPA has decided to spend it elsewhere. This is, in my opinion, irresponsible. 

Madam Administrator, I have said before, though we disagree, 

that I appreciate your leadership of the agency. You may have 

tough decisions ahead on ozone, PM dust, PM 10 dust, the Boiler 

MACT, Utility MACT, greenhouse gases. We put together, on the 

six major types of new regulations, what the cost is and what the 

job loss would be, and this country cannot afford it right now. 

So we will likely disagree on what you decide. But you have always been honest and straightforward with me, and I look forward 

to continuing our relationship through this 112th Congress. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

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

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Administrator Jackson, it is always good to see you. I suspect these are tough 

times at EPA, for a variety of reasons. The most obvious is the Nation’s massive 

deficits and debt. If we want to eliminate them, Federal agencies must make meaningful fiscal sacrifices—and EPA is no exception. 

But Administrator Jackson—and I say this with all due respect—instead of sacrifice, I’m afraid EPA’s budget submission is yet another fiscal bait and switch. 

We’ve seen this before, going back to the Bush administration: EPA proposes significant cuts that appear fiscally responsible—but in truth they are cuts EPA knows 

Congress will readily restore. 

By my calculations, 83 percent of EPA’s proposed cuts come from three water programs with strong bipartisan support in Congress, including $947 million from 

State Revolving Funds (SRF). These cuts total $1.1 billion. EPA’s overall cuts for 

FY 2012 amount to $1.3 billion. So it’s not hard to see the math here. 

You can bet these cuts will be restored, because many of my colleagues believe 

these are worthwhile programs. For example, the SRF supports our Nation’s infrastructure—an area where the Federal Government has a crucial role to play. 

Administrator, I call on you to help us find cuts that are more responsible—and 

more politically realistic. I can think of many programs that don’t deserve funding. 

Item No. 1—and this should be no surprise—is EPA’s greenhouse gas (GHG) regulatory regime. 

I must say, however, that, due to existing GHG regulations, this is more complicated than it seems. The problem is that EPA, states, and regulated entities have 

legal obligations stemming from existing GHG regulations. We have to ensure, 

therefore, that our cuts don’t have unintended consequences. 

The best way to eliminate EPA’s carbon regime is through an authorization bill. 

That’s why I released the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011 with Rep. Fred Upton. 

This bill puts Congress in charge of deciding our Nation’s climate change policy, not 

EPA bureaucrats. It will keep our focus on reducing real pollution, ensure people 

have jobs, and allow our economy to grow. 

If we want to make strides in improving public health, we won’t do it by regulating carbon dioxide. It’s not a pollutant—despite what EPA says. When it comes 

to real pollution, such as sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, EPA’s budget falls 

short. For example, it eliminates funding for the Diesel Emission Reduction Act, or 

DERA. This is a program with bipartisan support—from me, Chairman Boxer, Sen. 

Carper, and others—that we passed last year. It would help reduce real pollutants, 
5 

but EPA has decided to spend elsewhere. This is irresponsible and, if followed, bad 

for public health. 

Administrator, I’ve said this before: though we disagree, I appreciate your leadership at the Agency. You have tough decisions ahead on ozone, on PM dust, on Boiler 

MACT, on Utility MACT, on hydraulic fracturing, and on greenhouse gases. We will 

likely disagree on what you decide. But you have always been honest and straightforward with me. I look forward to continuing our relationship through the 112th 

Congress. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Udall, followed by Senator Barrasso. 

STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your calling this hearing. I thank Administrator Jackson for being here 

today. 

The acts that you administer, the Clean Air Act, Clean Water 

Act, the Safe Water Drinking Act, are really the cornerstones, as 

you know, Administrator Jackson, of America’s public health. Really, when you come before our Committee, you talk over and over 

again about public health. I think that is important, when we talk 

about your budget, that we realize that the public health is impacted when we talk about cutting your budget. 

EPA has a serious responsibility to implement these laws, these 

public health laws. Our Committee has an equally serious responsibility to oversee that implementation. These laws were passed with 

large, bipartisan majorities, and I believe they really have support 

all across America in terms of what you do on water and air and 

drinking water. Air and water pollution know no boundaries. They 

threaten us. When we protect the environment, we take these steps 

to protect ourselves and our children and future generations. 

The Chair has talked a little bit about your report. I am going 

to hopefully ask you, after we get through the opening statements, 

but certainly in questions, about this new report you put out. The 

figures are pretty remarkable in terms of money saved, deaths prevented, pollution abated, all of those kinds of things. So I am going 

to put the rest of my statement in the record, but I very much appreciate your being here and look forward to having you speak very 

soon. 

With that, Madam Chair, I yield back. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Barrasso. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Welcome, Administrator Jackson. 

In an article today in Politico, entitled Does Industry Cry Wolf 

on Regs, you were quoted as saying, ‘‘Today’s forecasts of economic 

doom are nearly identical, almost word for word, to the doomsday 

predictions of the last 40 years.’’ There is a picture of you today in 

Politico. It goes on, you are quoted as saying, ‘‘This broken record 

continues, despite the fact that history has proven the doomsayers 

wrong again and again.’’ 
6 

So I just want to explore that statement, Administrator Jackson. 

Forty years ago, and you talk about 40 years ago, the same scientists that are predicting the end of the world now from global 

warming were predicting the end of the world from global cooling. 

I have with me a number of articles that I collected when I was 

in college, Newsweek Magazine, The Cooling World. New York 

Times, A Major Cooling Widely Considered to be Inevitable. One 

from Time Magazine, Another Ice Age? 

So if we had committed the same amount of taxpayer resources 

and Government manpower that the Administration now wants us 

to commit to prevent global warming, had we done that to prevent 

global cooling, we would not be the most prosperous nation on 

earth. Advances in science and health care, diseases cured, children’s lives saved, would not be the reality that we have had over 

those years. Millions of jobs would have needlessly been lost. 

The fact is that the same doomsday predictions from 40 years 

ago is all we are getting from this agency and this Administration 

today. Only now, the problem, the Administration claims, is manmade global warming, not natural global warming, not mostly natural global warming, we are not quite sure to what extent it is all 

man-made, no, it is all man’s fault. The Administration believes 

that the greatest environmental threat faced by man is ourselves, 

our past economic progress. This Administration intend to issue the 

greatest pile of regulations in the history of the Environmental 

Protection Agency and perhaps the United States to combat that 

threat. 

So as a result, the Administration seems to believe that all these 

new regulations on small and large businesses, during the worst 

economic recession in recent memory, will yield untold numbers of 

jobs and save millions of lives. Well, more regulations may result 

in more Government jobs, but not in more private sector jobs. That 

approach has failed time and time again, all over the world. 

The taxpayer resources that we will commit to regulating small 

and large business owners, based on these predictions of future impacts on land, water and air for global warming will harm businesses all across our country. This may be a regulator’s dream, but 

it is a small business owner’s nightmare. The small business owners can’t question the predictions of those at the EPA on what will 

happen to their businesses in five or ten or 20 years from now, because by that time, by the time we reach the future 40 years from 

now, as you were quoting about 40 years in the past, and billions 

of taxpayer resources will have been spent, jobs will have been lost. 

This Administration will be long gone, having failed to focus on 

finding the right balance, the balance we need of energy security, 

environmental stewardship and economic growth. 

I look forward to the questions. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so very much. 

Now we will go to Senator Sanders. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Madam Chair, and Administrator 

Jackson, thanks for being with us. 
7 

This is a critical time for the United States in so many ways, economically, our national debt, and environmentally. A sensible people and a sensible Government understand that we have to grow 

jobs in our economy. One way we do it is transforming our energy 

system. A sensible Government understands that we need to move 

our government toward a balanced budget, but not on the backs of 

children’s health or the needs of working people at a time when the 

wealthiest people in this country have become wealthier and have 

received huge tax breaks. 

A sensible government understands that while Rush Limbaugh 

and Glenn Beck may have an opinion on global warming, that is 

not what the scientific community agrees with. The overwhelming 

consensus of the scientific community is in fact that global warming is real and in fact, that global warming is likely man-made. 

Now, I am concerned that the House Republican bill, recently 

produced, would allow big polluters, some of the biggest polluters 

in America, to spew more carbon pollution and thousands of additional tons of hazardous toxins, such as mercury, into our air and 

our water. This is despite the fact that the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention have said that mercury pollution harms 

children through ‘‘brain damage, blindness, seizures, inability to 

speak and kidney damage.’’ Is that really the direction that we 

want to take America in the year 2011? 

The American Lung Association said the House Bill ‘‘would result in millions of Americans being forced to breathe air that is 

unhealthy’’ and that includes more than 12,000 children in 

Vermont with asthma. I go to schools in the State of Vermont. 

When you ever walk into a school, go to a nurse’s office and they 

will talk to you about the number of kids in our State that are 

breathing crap in the air that is contributing to asthma. Do we 

really want to accelerate that problem? 

The Republicans like to talk about jobs and deficit, but their votes show what their true priorities are. The House Bill cuts $1.4 

billion from State Clean Water funds at a time when the American 

Society of Civil Engineers has graded our drinking water and our 

wastewater infrastructure as a D minus. You can’t get much worse 

than that. If we cut fund to improve our wastewater situation and 

our clean water situation, we are making a very bad situation 

worse. 

Here in the Senate, I think we have to make sure that we develop a sensible policy, that we do not sacrifice the health of our 

children and our families by excessive and unnecessary and unwise 

cuts to the EPA. So I have a lot of questions to ask you, Ms. Jackson, and I look forward to the question and answer period. Thank 

you for the work that you are doing. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Johanns, followed by Senator Whitehouse. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE JOHANNS, U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Senator JOHANNS. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I have listened to all the comments, and I just wonder, Madam 

Administrator, what you think as this goes back and forth from 

this standpoint. I don’t know of another piece of the Federal Gov-
8 

ernment that is having a more difficult time at the moment than 

your operation. You can see the divide. 

I ran a very complex Federal department, 110,000 employees 

scattered all over the world. I always thought it was my responsible as Cabinet member to work with Democrats, work with Republicans, work with Independents. I will just tell you that sometimes when I was invited to a House member’s office, or if I didn’t 

know the House member and I didn’t check to see which party they 

were, if they had a problem, I wanted to try to help them work 

through the problem. 

Recently, I asked for a list of EPA regulatory efforts, EPA items 

that applied to agriculture that were an ongoing challenge for agriculture. I have in front of me three pages, mostly single-spaced. 

The start of that, at the top it says, this summary is only an indication. It was not meant to be exhaustive. For everybody out there 

in EPA land who might by chance be listening to my comments, 

this is devastating. 

Now, nobody here is saying, let’s not have clean water or clean 

air. But there has to be some common sense and sensibility about 

how we are going about this. That is why you are having problems 

with your budget. That is why the EPA is being targeted. 

Now, there are a number of strategies I would respectfully suggest that you can follow. One strategy is just to keep your head 

down and straight ahead and see who wins at the end of the day. 

I think that is the wrong strategy and it is the wrong strategy for 

our country. These regulations, I read through them before I came 

over here today, affect real people trying to make a living in my 

State and in other States in the country. Yet, I did nine town hall 

meetings last week with businesses, with farmers, with ranchers. 

It takes about 5 minutes for the EPA to come up. It is not humorous. These people are really struggling to try to figure out how 

to deal with you folks. I think that is a failure of the Department. 

If the USDA would have been in those conditions when I was running it, I think I would have been hauled up here and torn apart 

by all sides, Democrats and Republicans. 

So I offer that because, quite honestly, I am just so frustrated 

with where the EPA is at and what they are trying to do. The final 

thing I would mention, although this is just so characteristic of this 

Administration, it is like everybody got instructions, push your authorities to the limit and beyond, and see if they can stop us. That 

should be no way to work with Congress. But we see it in the EPA, 

we see it in the FCC, we just see it across the board, like we are 

absolutely irrelevant over here. That, I think, again, is just the 

wrong way to try to run a Federal operation. 

With that, I am anxious to hear your justification for your budget. But I will tell you, the problem with your budget, you are losing 

support over here. It won’t be long until it will be a bipartisan loss. 

It won’t be just somebody on one side of the table who is picking 

on this area of the Federal Government. It will be a bipartisan loss. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

I ask unanimous consent to place in the record a letter I received 

from the American Lung Association. You know, they don’t see it 

the way Senator Johanns sees it at all. As a matter of fact, the 
9 

good news for you, Madam Administrator, is that they just did a 

bipartisan poll, let me tell you what it says, and then I will yield 

to Senator Whitehouse. 

The public expects EPA to implement the Clean Air Act, specifically, the EPA to implement the Clean Air Act and strongly opposes congressional interference in the law’s implementation. In 

February, the bipartisan public poll showed 69 percent of voters 

support EPA updating the Clean Air Act standards on air pollution; 79 percent of voters support stricter limits on mercury; 77 

percent support stricter limits on smog; 74 percent support stricter 

limits on carbon; and 74 percent tougher fuel efficiency standards 

for heavy duty trucks. 

I put this in the record because maybe there are some politicians 

who don’t want you to do your job. The people who we are responsible to want you to do the job. We will put this in the record, and 

we will call on Senator Whitehouse. 

[The referenced information was not available at time of print.] 

Senator JOHANNS. Madam Chair, since you have directly challenged me, do I have an opportunity to respond? 

Senator BOXER. Yes, after Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator JOHANNS. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. I want to thank 

the Administrator for being here, and I want to assure her that I 

am firmly on the side of those who think that you should enforce 

the Clean Air Act as the law requires. There was considerable debate over the law. It was settled all the way up to the U.S. Supreme Court. It is now crystal clear. I very much urge that you go 

forward. 

In the history of regulation of polluters, the story from the polluters has always been the same: don’t make us do it, it will cause 

terrible consequences, we will all lose money, it is unreasonable. 

We have heard so often that you can practically recite it in your 

sleep. It happened when the Clean Air Act was originally enacted, 

it has happened through the amendments, it has been consistent 

across the board. 

The fact of the matter is, when you look at the data, the reports 

have shown that the Clean Air Act saves about 160,000 lives a 

year. The biggest thing that we have in Rhode Island is the 

Dunkin’ Donuts Center, it seats 14,500 people. You could fill it 11 

times with people whose lives are saved by enforcement of the 

Clean Air Act. That is a pretty big number of folks, that is a lot 

of families that don’t have to go through a funeral. That is a lot 

of grieving that is forestalled. 

In terms of the finances, studies have shown that Clean Air Act 

enforcement has cost about $65 billion to the economy and saved 

about $2 trillion. Because wise enforcement diminishes the collateral costs that polluters love to push out onto the rest of the public. 

We wouldn’t be having this discussion at all if the cost of pollution 

went back onto the polluters. Then they would put the money in 

to fix it. But they don’t want to do that. That is why they fought 
10 

so hard against cap-and-trade, and that is why we are where we 

are now. 

But I do think that it would be fair for you in your comments 

to react to the comments that were made recently that as soon as 

you got here, EPA went berserk. It looks to me like the exact opposite happened, that during the Bush administration, EPA was 

choked down, stepped on and shut up in every way that the White 

House could dictate. There were emails that the White House refused to open, so it wouldn’t trigger administrative procedures. 

The Administrator was called up to the White House when the 

EPA was recommending action, and told to snuff it, and he went 

back down and he did snuff it out. The White House censored CDC 

documents when they were going to be released related to this. 

Vice President Cheney tried to get the lawsuits that EPA was 

bringing against the polluters in the Midwest stopped. 

So what has happened isn’t that the EPA has suddenly gotten 

hyperactive. What has happened is that the tight leash, the muzzle 

that the Bush administration improperly put on the EPA for years 

has been released, because it was wrong to have it there in the 

first place, and now all that pent-up work needs to be done for the 

sake of the American public and for the sake of all of our health. 

When I mentioned the Midwest power plants, the coal-burning 

plants, that is a particular reason why it is important for EPA to 

be active. Rhode Island has 10 percent asthma. You can get up on 

a bright, clear summer morning in Rhode Island and driving into 

work, you hear the warning that this is not a safe air day. That 

if you are old, if you are an infant, if you have breathing difficulties, you need to stay home in the air conditioning. It is not because of anything that is happening in Rhode Island. It is ozone 

that is being brought in from out of State. 

Rhode Island DEM can regulate and can fuss over Clean Air 

standards until it is blue in the face. But the transport rule, the 

Federal transport rule is the one thing that is our protection in 

Rhode Island, the protection of our kids’ lungs, of our seniors’ 

lungs, of our grandparents’ lungs, against the pollution that is 

being coughed up out of the Midwest, largely from coal, and that 

then lands on us. 

So I want to strongly urge you to obviously, you have been at 

this game a long time. You know what is fair, you know what is 

right. Don’t let people mischaracterize what you are doing. Go forward, do your job, protect our health. History will judge you well. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Johanns, I will give you a minute to respond to my reading of the letter from the Lung Association. 

Senator JOHANNS. That is very much appreciated. 

Here is my point. There is nothing in anything I said that says, 

don’t enforce the law. Nothing. What I am saying is this: you are 

having a hard time in the EPA with budget issues and other 

issues, because I believe fairly strongly, very strongly, that confidence is slipping away in what you are doing. When I asked for 

regulations on agriculture, and I see three pages, and they are only 

giving me an idea of what is going on, I wonder what is going on. 

One of the things I did as Secretary of Agriculture, I went out 

and did listening sessions across the United States. Not pre- 
11 

scripted. Anybody could walk in and tell me what they liked or 

didn’t like, and I learned a lot. It helped me do my job. 

The point is, common sense goes a long way. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. I don’t know how—— 

Senator UDALL. Madam Chair? 

Senator BOXER. Yes? Yes, go ahead. 

Senator UDALL. I just want to offer something into the record. 

Senator BOXER. Sure. 

Senator UDALL. The statement was made here that there was 

this great consensus in 1970 about global cooling. There is an article from 2008, USA Today, reviewed all the literature. The supposed global cooling consensus among scientists in the 1970’s is a 

myth, and I would just offer that for the record. 

Senator BOXER. Would you put that in the record, then? 

Senator UDALL. Yes. I will. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
12 

Study debunks 'global cooling' concern of 70s 

By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY 

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-coolingN.htm 

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s - frequently offered by global-warming 

skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds - is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific 

literature of the era. 

The '70s was an unusually cold decade. Newsweek, Time, The New Yolk Times and National Geographic published 

articles at the time speculating on the causes of the unusual cold and about the possibility of a new ice age. 

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 

1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 

others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends. 

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice 

age. 

"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' 

thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales." 

"I was surprised that global warming was so dominant in the peer-reviewed literature of the time," says Peterson, who 

was also a contributor to the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2007 report. 

Scientific reports in the past decade, most notably the U.N. panel's Nobel Prize-winning efforts, have warned that 

human activities are warming the planet by increasing the release of heat-trapping "greenhouse" gases into the 

atmosphere. 

SkeptiCS have argued that climate change is cyclical, not fueled by the burning of fossil fuels - coal, oil and natural 

gas. Peterson notes in the study that concerns over the frigid 1970s subsequently became representative of scientific 

division over global warming. 

That was an unusually cold decade, espeCially the later years, across the Northern Hemisphere. In the USA, the 

winters of 1977-79 were three of the 11 coldest since the recording of temperatures began in the 1890s, according to 

climate center data. The winter of 1978-79 remains the coldest on record in the USA. 

Just as it's hard for people today to think much about global warming in the dead of winter, it was also hard for the 

public - and the media - to focus on a warming world, while at the same time enduring some of the coldest winters 

on record. 

However, as Peterson notes in the paper, "even cursory review of the news media coverage of the issue reveals that, 

just as there was no consensus at the time among scientists, so was there also no consensus among journalists." 

Some have doubts about the new survey. "The paper does not place the late '70s in its climatic context," says Pat 

Michaels, a senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C. 

"The temperature records we had at the time showed a very sharp cooling from the mid-'40s to the mid-'70s," 

Michaels says. "And scientists attempted to explain that as a consequence of the pollution that was preventing solar 

radiation from reaching the surface. 
13 

"At the time, scientists thought the cooling effect of pollution was greater than the warming effect of carbon dioxide," 

Michaels adds. "They were attempting to explain the dramatic cooling of the '70s." 

But Robert Henson, a writer at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and author of The Rough Guide to 

Climate Change, says: "This is an important part of science history, and Peterson and his co-authors have done a 

great job of excavating it. 

"People have long claimed that scientists in the 1970s were convinced a new ice age was imminent. But in fact, many 

researchers at the time were already more concerned about the long-term risks of global warming." 

Along with Peterson, the study was also authored written by William Connolly of the British Antarctic Survey and John 

Fleck of The Albuquerque Journal. The research will be published in the Buffetin of the American Meteorological 

Society. 
14 

Senator BOXER. I say, Senator Johanns, I thought that was very 

good advice to an Administrator who of course has to know the best 

way to implement the laws. But that is not the impression that I 

got from you. So let me just say, in going back to this poll one more 

minute, I said it was bipartisan. I asked my staff, who did the poll. 

So listen to who did the poll. 

It was the Democratic polling firm, Greenberg, Quinlan, Rossner 

Research and the Republican firm, Ayres, McHenry and Associates. 

There was no divide. Everybody supports the EPA doing its job. 

Now, if what Senator Johanns is saying, do it in the best way, 

of course, we are all there. But that is not the sense I had from 

it, and I am glad that he clarified it. Because you don’t have a 

choice. The law is the law is the law. You have to implement it. 

Well, let’s get started and listen to you. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, wait a minute. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, go ahead. 

Senator INHOFE. We have a jump ball here. 

Senator BOXER. Well, go ahead, I will give you 2 minutes. 

Senator INHOFE. I will ask the Senator, Senator Udall, are you 

saying they are now disavowing what they said about the cooling 

spell, another ice age coming? Because I have not heard that. That 

is the first time I have heard that. 

Senator UDALL. No, they actually, let me just, this is an article 

that reviewed the scientific literature, the Climatic Data Center 

surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 

1975, and found that only 7 supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. So the whole idea, if we are going to make the 

statement that the same scientists concluded global cooling that 

are now concluding global warming, I don’t think that that is an 

accurate scientific summary of what was going on in the 1970’s. 

Senator INHOFE. That is really interesting, because I have never 

heard that before. I do have some things I want to submit to the 

record, because I remember so well what Senator Barrasso was 

talking about. In fact, I have a chart I sent for, they are looking 

for it right now, taking the same magazines that were quoting the 

same scientists way back in 1976, and then again in 2006. 

Senator SANDERS. If I may—— 

Senator BOXER. Can I just say, last comment, 30 seconds, Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. I think what Senator Inhofe is saying in a 

sense is correct, there were articles, you have front pages of magazines making the point. But what Senator Udall is saying, yes, 

there were magazines, but that was not reflecting the scientific 

opinion, the opinion of the scientific community. So there may have 

been stories. 

Senator INHOFE. I know what he is saying. However, these stories had the names of scientists in it. I will go ahead and get these 

and submit them for the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
15 

THE MYTH OF THE 1970s 

GLOBAL COOLING SCIENTIFIC 

CONSENSUS 

BY THOMAS C. PETERSON, WILLIAM M. CONNOLlEY, AND JOHN FLECK 

no scientific in the 19705 that the was headed into an 

imminent Indeed, the possibility of anthropogenic warming dominated 

the peer-Teviewed 

T

HE MYTH. When climate researcher Reid 

Bryson stood before the members of the 

American Association for the Advancement of 

Science in December 1972, his description of the 

state of scientists'understanding ofc1imate change 

sounded very much like the old story about the 

group of blind men trying to describe an elephant. 

The integrated enterprise of climate science as we 

know it today was in its infancy, with different 

groups of scientists feeling blindly around their 

AMERICAN METEOROLOCICN. SOCIE TY 

piece of the lumbering climate beast. Rigorous 

measurements of increasing atmospheric carbon 

dioxide were available for the first time, along with 

modeling results suggesting that global warming 

would be a clear consequence. Meanwhile, newly 

created global temperature series showed cooling 

since the 19405, and other scientists were looking 

to aerosols to explain the change. The mystery of 

waxing and ice ages had long entranced 

and a explanation in terms 

solar forcing was beginning to emerge, 

Undedying this discussion was a realization that 

climate could change on time scales with the potential for significant effects on human societies, and 

that human activities could trigger such changes 

(Bryson 1974), 

Bryson laid out the following four questions that 

still stand today as being central to the climate science 

enterprise: 

i) How large must a climate change be to be important? 

Ii) How fast can the climate change? 

iii) What are the causal parameters, and why do they 

change? 

IV) How sensitive is the climate to small changes in 

the causal parameters? 

SEpTEMBER 2008 BAn" 11m 
16 

woven 1ll\\i the integrated 

ba~js for climate science as 

RECOGNITION OF A PROBLEM: THE 

POTENTiAL FOR WARMING. In 1965, when 

to 1979 shows this m.yth to be false, rhe myth's basic, us Presidenl lyndon Johnson askt'd the membt'rs of 

,'ach group of f('se;u(!1l'rs pursuing their own set ut 

1116 i RAnT 

hi~ (PSAC) 

risks "ssociatl?d 

with pesticides puhlic di$ct)ur~e about 

h\1manity's impact on the environment. However, in 

a 23-page appendix, WblCh 
17 

before. The first up-to¥datcglobal tClllpcralure re<Oll¥ 

structions had recently become available, allowing 

them to consider the twentieth century's wmcwhat 

confusing temperature trends (Somerville et al. 2007). 

More important Jy. they had access to carbon dioxide 

data lhat Charles David Keeling and his colleagues 

had been collecting since 1957 on Mauna Loa, Hawaii, 

and In Antarctica (Pales and Keeling 1965; Brown and 

Keeling 1965). The data showed "dearly and concbsively," in the panel's words, that atmospheric carbon 

dioxide was rising as a result of fossil fuel buming. 

Human activilies, the panel cuncluded, were suffi· 

cient in scale to impact not just the immediate vicinity 

where those activities were taking place. Indus1:fial 

activities had become a global, geophysical force to 

be recognized and wilh which to be reckoned. With 

estimated recoverable fossil fuel reserves sufficient to 

triple atmospheriC carbon dioxide, the pand wrote, 

"!o,1an is unwittingly conducting a vast geophy-sical 

experiment." With the emission of just a fraction 

thereof, emissions by theyeaT 2000 could be suffJCient 

to cause "measurable and perhaps marked" climate 

change, the panel concluded (Revelle et at 1965). 

THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE RECORDS: 

A COOLING TREND. Efforts to accumulate 

and organize global temperature records began in 

the 1870:; (Somerville ct a1. 2007). The first analysis 

to show long term warming trend~ was published 

in 1938. However, snch analyses ·were oot updated 

very often. Indeed, the Earth appeared to have been 

cooling for more than 2 decades when scientists first 

took note of the change m trend m the 1%05. The 

seminal work was done by J. Murray J\-1I.tt:hell, who, 

in 1963, presented the first up·to·date temperature 

reconstruction showmg that a global cooling trend 

had begun in the 1940s. Mitchell u:;ed daLa from 

nearly 200 weather ~tatjons, collected by the World 

Weather Records pro,iect under the auspices of the 

'World Meleorological Organization, to calculate 

latitudinal average temperature. His analysis showed 

that global temperatures had increased fairly steadily 

frcm.1 the 18805, the start of his record. antiI about 

1910, before the start of a stead), multidecade cooli ng 

(Mitchell 1963). 

By the early 1970s, when Mitchell updated his work 

(!-1itchell1972), the notion of a global cooling trend 

was Widely a,c~ptcd, albeil poorly undt:rstond. The 

first satellite records showed increasing snow and ice 

cover across the Northern Hemisphere from the late 

1960s to the early 19705. This trend was capped by 

llnusnallr severe winters in Asia and parts of North 

America in 1972 and 1973 (Kukla and Kukla 1974), 

.... MER1CAN METFOROlX,JCA_ SOC'lrY 

which pushed the issue into the public consciousness 

(Gribbin 1975). The new dara about global tempera· 

tures came amid growing concerns about \\.orld food 

supplies, triggering tears that a planetary cooling 

trend might threaten humanily's ability to feed i~self 

(Thompson 1975). It was not long, however, before 

scientists teasing apart the details of Mitchell's trend 

found that it was not Il{.u'Ssarily a global phenomenon. 

Yes, globaJly averaged temperatures were cooling, 

but this was largely dae to changes in the Northern 

Hemi&phere. A closer examinatlOn of Southern 

Hemisphere data revealed thermometers heading ill 

the opposite directon (Damon and Kunen 1976). 

NEW REVELATIONS ABOUT THE ICE 

AGES. \Vhile meteorologists were collecting. 

analyzing, and trying to explain the tempera· 

ture records, a largel,' separate group of scien· 

tists was attacking the problem from a paleoclimate perspective, assembling the first detailed 

underslanding of ~he Earth's ice age history. The 

fact that parts of the ~orthern Hemisphere had once 

been covered in ice was one of the great rea.l!7...ations 

of ninetccnth-;::cnturygcology. Even morcn:markahle 

was the realization that the scars on the landscape 

had been left by not one but several ice a.ges. Climate 

clearly was capable of remarkable variability, beyond 

anything humanity had experienced in recorded 

histofr· 

It was nol until the mid-twentieth century that 

scientists tlnally assembled the details of the corning 

and going of the last ice ages. The geologists' classic 

story had suggested four short ice ages over the 

Quaternary, with long warm periods between them. 

However, analysis of coral, cores from ice caps and 

the ocean floor, along wlth the applicat10n of newly 

developed rauiometric tcchmqu(..'S, forced a radical 

reevaluation. Climate was far more variable, with 

long ice ages punctuated by short interglacial periods 

(Hroccker et al. ]968; Emilian! 1972). The new work 

went beyond flllingin gaps in sckntists'knowlcdgeof 

the past. It laid the foundation of an explanation for 

why ice age cycles occurred. Bu.ilding on earlier work 

(e.g., Adhemar 1842; Croll 1875), Serbian engineer 

and geophysIcist Milutin Milankovitch calculated 

that highly regular changes in the tilt of Earlh's 

axis and the e.::centricity of its orbit around the sun 

would change the distribution of sunlight hitting the 

Earth's surface, leading to the waxing and waning of 

ice ages (Milanko\"Uch 1930). Milankovitch's work 

won few convert." in part becaullc it ,hd not match 

geologists 'understanding of the history of the ice ages. 

However, the new dating of the ice's ebbs and flows led 

SEPTEMBER 2028 BAn, I 1m 
18 

to new interest in Milankovitch '$ ideas (e.g., Ericson 

el al. 1964; Dam()n 1965). "The often~discredited 

hypothesis of Milankovitch must be recognized as the 

number-one contender in the climatic sweepstakes," 

Wallace Broecker wrote (Broecker et al. 1968). It took 

the rest of the science world a while to (at(h up with 

Broeckt'r, but by the late 1!;l70s they had (Hays et a1. 

1976; Kerr 1978; Weart 2003). 

Because NlHankO\·itch's astronomical metronome 

was predictable over thollsands of years, climate 

scienti1>tll coulu now begin talking about predicting 

the onset of the next ice age. And they did, Members 

of the Climate: Long-range Investigation, Mapping 

and Prediction (CLIMAP) project lived up to thelr 

project's name with a "prediction" of sorts; in the 

ab5ence of p05sible anthropogenic warming, "the 

long-term trend over the next several thousand years 

is toward extensive Korthern Hemisphere glaciation" 

(Hays et aL 1976). 

CARBON DIOXIDE. Mid-nineteenth-century 

British naturalist John Tyndall was fascinated by the 

new emergmg evidence of past ice ages, and believed 

he had found a possible explanation for such dramatic 

changes in Earth's climate: changes in the composi" 

tion of the atmosphere. Some molecules, he realized, 

could absorb thermal radiation, and as such could be 

the cause for "all the mutations of climate which the 

researches of geologists reveal" (Weart2003; Tyndall 

1861; Somerville et al. 2007). III 1896 Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius calculated that a doubling of 

atmospheric carbon dioxide would raise globallem. 

pcralures 50 _6°C. However, he figured it would take 

3,000 yr of fos,<;il fuel hurning to do it (Weart 2003). 

Thus continued what would be a century of scientific 

debate and uncertainty, both about the effect of such 

so-calk-d "greenhouse gases" and the possibility that 

the burning of fossil fuels could contribure 5uhstantially to their wncentration (I.andsbcrg 1970). It y·/as 

not until the second half of the twentieth century that 

scientist:; finally had the tools to begin measuring the 

concentrations of those greenhouse gases in sufficient 

detail to begin evaluating their effects. 

USlllg funtlingavailable through the International 

Geophysical Year, Charles David Keeling was able to 

overcome problems of local interference in carbon 

dioxide measurements in 1957 by establi:;;hing 

stations in Antarctica and atop Mauna Loa. By 1965, 

his data were sufficient to show an unambiguous 

trend. Keel1ng's observation also showed that atmospheric carbon dioxide was increasing far faster than 

Arrhen:us's 70~yr-old estima.te. That was enough for 

members of the U.S. President's Scientific Advisory 

I l2S I SAnt SE'PTFMBFR. 2m3 

Committee to pronounce the po:,sibility that 

increasing carbon dioxide could "modify the heat 

balance of the atmosphere to such dn extent that 

marked changes in climate, not controllable through 

local or even national efforts, could occur" {Revelle 

('taL 1965). 

The PSAC scientists had a new tool for understand· 

ing the implications-the first preliminary results of 

newly developing climate models. The same year the 

PSAC report came out, Syukuro Manabe and Richard 

Wetherald developed the fir",t true three-dimensional 

climate modeL The results were raw at the time the 

P$AC report was wfItten, bnt Within 2 yr, the first 

seminal modeling results from the Geophysical 

Fluid Dynamics Laboratory team were published. 

Given their simplifying constraints, they found that 

a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide would railOC 

g~obal temperature 2°C (Manabe and Wetherald 1967). 

Within a d("Cade, the models'sophistication had grown 

dramatically, enough for :"vfanabe and ,"Vetherald 

to conclude that high lati-::udes were likely to see 

greater war:ning in a doubled-COl world, and that the 

intensity of the hydrologic L __ yde could be expected to 

increase Significantly (Mullabe and Wether-ald 1975). 

The accumul..1.ting evidence of the new carbon dioxiue record and the modeling results was enough for 

Wallace Broecker to ask in 1975, "Are we on the brink 

of a pronounced global warming?" Broecker's answer 

was a resounding "yes" (Broecker 1975). 

AEROSOLS.ln Decembec- 1968. a group of scienlIsts convened in Dallas, Texas, for a "Symposium on 

Global Effects of Euvirolllr.elltal Pollution" (Singer 

1'::170). Reid Bryson showed the panel a remarkable 

graph illw;tratingthe correlation between risingJevels 

of dust in the Caucasus and the rising output of lhc 

Russian economy over the previous three decades. 

It wa,~ the foundation for an argument leading 

from human aclivities LO dU5t lo changing climate. 

Atmospheric pollution caused by human,", wa,", sufficent, Bryson argued, to explain thedecline in global 

temperatures identified eurlier in the decade by J. 

Murray Mitchell (Bryson and Wendland 1970) 

Alsn on the symposium panel was Mitchell 

himself, and he disagreed. Mitchell's calculations 

suggested that particulates added to the atmosphere 

were insufficicnt to cxpill.b the cooling seen in his 

temperature re<:ords. However, he raised the possibility that, over time, cooling caused by particulates 

could overtake warming caused by what ht: .;aIled the 

"the COl effect" (Mitchell 1970). 

Tn 19'11, S. Tchtiaque Rasool and Stephen Schneider 

wrote whal may be the most miSinterpreted and mis-
19 

lhiln lh¢ compkxity of ,\ nuanced dis.:llSsion 

within the scientific communi:y {H.eyKin 200'1), 

W0111d lead to warrnll1g rather than cooJmg ~Reck Juring lht 1970:, was 

1975; Idw ami Brat.d 1977). 

It W<t:> James! Lm$t'l1 ,md his (olJeagut'\~ .vhf) ~(JHnd 

what seemed to be the :::ghl baJa:J(:c th~ SURVEY OF THE PEER-REVIEWED 

two competing forces by modeling the' a('rosoJ~ from LITERATURE. On.;> way to determine what 

had hemmethedoTI1inantf()f{']ng (Rmscnel al. jY/E; 

\\'eun2003), 

the 
20 

sus is typically described as the 1970s, the literature 

search was limited to the period from 1965 

1979. While no search can be 100% complete, 

methodology offers a reasonable test of the hypothesis that there was a scientific consensus in the 1970s 

regarding the prospect of imminent global cooling. 

Such a consensus would be easily shown by both the 

presence of many articles describing global cooling 

projections and the absence of articles projecting 

global warming. 

One measure of the relevance of a paper to a developing scientific consensus is the number of citations 

it receives. For that reason, a citation analysis of the 

papers found in our survey was undertaken. Not 

all of the citations may be supportive of the paper 

in question, but they do help indicate which papers 

dominated the thinking of the day. Because the period 

assessed ended in 1979 and it takes time for citations 

to start appearing, the citation count was extended 

1110 I BAn, sePTeMBER 2008 

through 1983. The gray literature of conference proceedings were not authoritative enough to be included 

in the literature search. However, a few prestigious 

reports that may not have been peer reviewed have 

been included in this literature survey because they 

clearly represent the science of their day. 

Our literature survey was limited to those papers 

projecting climate change on, or even just discussing 

an aspect of climate forcing relevant to, time scales 

from decades to a century. While some of these 

articles make clear predictions of global surface 

temperature change by the year 2000, most of these 

articles do not. Many of the articles simply exam ined 

some aspect of climate forcing. However, it was generaUy accepted that both CO2 and anthropogenic aerosols were increasing. Therefore, for example, articles 

that estimated temperature increases resulting from 

doubling CO2 or temperature decreases resulting 

from anthropogenic aerosols would be listed in 
21 

Table 1 as warming or cooling articles, respectively. getting the wrong sign of the response to the forcing 

The Table 1 includes papers that they considered-one cooling (Bryson and Dittberner 

project no change, discuss both warming and 

cooling influences without indicating 

which are likely to be dominant, or 

climate impacts of factors that did not have a clear 

expectation of imminent change, such as increases 

in volcanic eruptions or the creation of large fleets 

AMf:RICAN f'1ETEOROLOGICAL SOClfTY BAnt jllli 
22 

end ., leading into the next glad<ll age" (Schlesinger 

2003), The quote repeatedly appeared other places in 

the political debate over chmalc change. mduding :hc 

floor of the U.S. Senate where Inhofe (2003) followed 

"Thatwasthesame-llmeframe 

ence at the time, as descnbed earher. Tht: words not 

extracted by Schlesinger and l.:1hofe are hjghlighted 

\vlthitalks: 

an end, til be foI/owed E'ya lcmg period of cOIlsiderably 

wider h>mpcmtrlT<' le-adingfo the- next gladal age mme 

1m I Bkm- S::PTEl'·EEP,2.00S 

II-idespread defofCJtatwl1 in recer.t centuries. especially 

ill EI,I'OPt' (lf1d Norfh Aml'll(4, trlgnher with blCreased 

atmo.lf'heru. vpun!yJul.' /0 '!lIlri-mad!..' dust storms and 

industrial Ihl.;tes. shOUld have increa~c.i the 1::.arth's 

lead to a tempermurc lflcreasc by a~s(l1ptl(ln ufinfrard 

radiation front the E1I"th'; surface. I-Fhel! Ihese irumiJfl 

,fu(/or; arradded to SllCh olher mltlJralfactors as voltame eJ"upI1.01t;, ella/:gfs in solar actl1·jty. mul rcsonanws 

witilm the IIY,1lo atr>11uphere, rlwir ellect call olliy be 

estmJatl'd 111 term, (~rr1;re<!iOn, rW!oja!'lOunt (National 

Sciem:e Board 1972). 
23 

FIG. I. The number of papers classified as predicting, implying, or 

providing supporting evidence for future global cooling, warming, 

and neutral categories as defined in the text and listed In Table I. 

During the period from 1965 through 1979, our literature survey 

found 7 cooling, 20 neutral, and 44 warming papers. 

As the various threads of climate 

research came together in the late 

1970.<: into a unified field of study 

ice ages, aerosols, greenhouse forcing, 

and the globullempcral ure lrendgreenhouRc forcing \vas coming to be 

recognized as the dominant term in 

the climate change equation~ for time 

scales from decades to centuries. 

That was the message from E, John 

Mason of the Bri:l.sh Meteorological 

Office when he stood before mem 

bt'!n of the Royal Society 1TI London 

0:1 27 April 1978 to deliver a review 

lecture on the state of the sciem::e. 

Taking his audience through the 

details of how the new computer climale models worked and what the)' 

showed, Mawn ticked off the followUnderlying the selective quotation of the past literature is an example of ",ihat pulitical scientist Daniel 

Sarewitz calls "SClentlzatlOn" of political dehate. the 

selective empha.sis on particular scientific '·tacts" to 

advance a particular set of politkal values (Sarcwltz 

2004). In this cast', the primary use orthe myth is 

in the contt'xt of attempting to undermine public 

bdh::[ in and support for the wntemporary scicnt,[lC 

consensus a.bout anthropogenic climate change by 

appeal to a past "consensus" on adose!y related topic 

thal is alleged tu have been wrong (sc..: "Perpcluatmg 

the myth" .sideba:-). 

INTEGRATING CLIMATE SCIENCE IN THE 

LATE 19705. When James 11. Hays and colleagues 

pt;:blished their landmark 1976 paper linking varia· 

tiom in the Earth's orbillo the Ice 

ing now·tamiliar list of climate variables: variations 

in the Earth's orbit, aerosoh" and the rapid increase in 

greenhousf' gases. The effect oithe latter, he said, was 

by far the largest, and more detJiled study of the issue 

"now deserves high prionLy" (Mason 197ilh). 

In luly 1979 in \"V"oods Hole, Massachusetts, Jule 

Charney, one of the piolleers of climate modding, 

brought together a panel of expert~ under the U.S. 

Natio:lal Research Council to sort out the state of 

the science. The panel's work has become icOHa .. as a 

foundation for the enterpri!>e of climate change study 

that followed (Somerville et at. 2007). Such reports 

arc a traditional approach Within the l..'nited States 

for eliciting expert \'iews on scientific questions ot 

political and ?ublic policy importance (\Vearl 2003). 

In this case, the panel concluded that the potentIal 

ages, they offered the following two 

c.aveat~: 

r---------.-------_._------------------, 2500 

Su(;h fon:(.:a"to mu,t be qualified 

in two way,: rirst, they ..lpply 

onlytothenalufa] comp(lIlf'ntof 

fuhue clIHHlti .... lrt"nds--3wJ llut 

to anthropogenic cffects such as 

those due to the burning off\1~si] 

fuels. Seco:1d, they desCl ibe only 

\h~ long-l(:oH In:mh, bnau:,c 

they are linked to orbital variatJ(m~ with periods of20,OOOyt'<1l"S 

and longer ChmatlC oSCllIatwns 

at hip:hcrfrcquendes are not predicted (llays et;11 1'176) 

N1En.I:::AN t<[TCORmOGIOL SOCl[TY 

1500 

500 

o 

FIG. 2. The number of citations for the articles shown in Fig. I and 

listed in Table I. The citation counts were from the publication date 

through 1983 and are graphed on theyear the article was published. 

The cooling papers received a total ofllS citations, neutrai42". and 

warming 2,043. 
24 

damage from greenhouse gases was real and should 

not be ignored. The potential for cooling, the threat 

of aerosols, or the possibility of an ice age shows 

up nowhere in the report. Warming from doubled 

CO, of IS-4SC was possible, the panel reported. 

While there were huge uncertainties, Verner Suomi, 

chairman of the National Research Council's Climate 

Research Board, wrote in the report's foreword that he 

believed there was enough evidence to support action: 

"A wail-and-see policy may mean waiting until it is 

too late" (Charney et aL 1979). Clearly, if a national 

report in the 1970s advocates urgent action to address 

global warming, then the scientific consensus of the 

1970s was not global cooling. 

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS, We appreciate Byron 

Gleason for his detailed review of the article; librarian Mara 

Sprain for her invaluable assistance; Andre Berger, Spencer 

Wear!, and Neville Nicholls for providing valuable insights 

and additional references; Mike Wallace for his cogent 

review, which precipitated considerable additional and 

much needed work; and two anonymous reviewers whose 

comments improved the paper. This project prompted us 

to reread many articles by the great climatologists of past 

decades such as Mikhail Budyko, Charles David Keeling, 

Helmut Landsberg, Syukuro Manabe, B. John Mason, 

and J, Murray Mitchell, which made us realize the debt of 

gratitude we owe to these pioneers. 

Adhemar, J, A., 1842: Revolutions de la Mer: Deluges Periodiques. Carilian-Goeury et V Dalmont, l84 pp. 

Balling, It, c., Jr., 1992: The Heated Debate: Greenhouse 

Predictioll versus Climate Reality. Pacific Research 

Institute for Public Policy, 195 pp. 

Barrett, E. W., 1971: Depletion of short~wave irradiance 

at the ground by particles suspended in the atmosphere. Sol. Energy, 13, 323-337. 

Benton, G. S., 1970: Carbon dioxide and its role in climate change. Pmc. Natl. Acad. Sci., 67) 898. 

Berger, A., 1979: Spectrum of climatic variations 

and their causal mechanisms. Geophys. Surv., 3~ 

351-402. 

Bertram, D., 2006: More than just one inconvenient 

truth. The Australian, 14 September. [Available online at www.news.com.au/story/0.23599.20407484-

5007146,00.html.] 

Bray, A. j., 1991: The lee Age cometh. Policy Review, 

No. 58, 82-84. 

Broecker, W. S., 1975: Climate change: Are we on the 

brink of a pronounced global warming? Science, 

189, 460-463. 

1114 I BAn, SEPTEMBER 2008 

-, D. 1. Thurber, J. Goddard, 1'.-1. Ku, R. K. 

Matthews, and K. J. i\'fesolella, 1968: Milankovitch 

hypothesis supported by precise dating of coral reefs 

and deep-sea sediments. Science, 159,297-300. 

Brown, C \V., and C. D. Keeling, 1965: The concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide in Antarctica. 1. 

Geophys. Res., 70,6077-6085. 

Bryson, R. A., 1974: A perspective on climatic change. 

Science, 184,753-760. 

-, and W. M. Wendland, 1970: Climatic effects of 

atmospheric pollution. Global Effects of EtJvironmental PollutiotJ, S. F. Singer, Ed., Springer-Verlag/D. 

Reidel, 130-138. 

-, and G. J. Dittoerner, 1976: A non-equilibrium 

model of hemispheric mean surface temperature. 1. 

Almas. Sci., 33, 2094-2106. 

-, and 1977: Reply.l. Almas. Sci., 34, 182l-l824. 

-, and 1'. r. Murray, 1977: Climates of Hunger: Mankind and the World's Changing Weather. American 

University Publishers Group, 171 pp. 

Budyko, M. L, 1972: The future climate, Eos, Trans. 

Amer. Geophys. Union, 53,868-874. 

-, and K. Y. Vinnikov, 1976: Global warming. SOy. 

Meteor. Hydrol., 7, 12-20. 

--, -, O. A. Drozdov, and N. A. Yefimova, 1978; 

I mpcnding climatic change (in Russian). [zv. Acad. 

Sci., USSR, Ser. Geogr., 6, 5-20; English translation: 

1979, Sov. Geogr., 7,395-411. 

Calder, N., 1974: The Weather Machine. BBC, 143 pp. 

Charlson, R. J.) H. Harrison, and G. Witt, 1972: Aerosol 

concentrations: Effects on planetary temperatures. 

Science, 175,95-96. 

Charney, J. G., and Coauthors, 1979: Carbon Dioxide and 

Climate: A ScientIfic Assessment. National Academy 

of Science, 22 pp. 

Choudhury, B., and G. Kukla, 1979: Impact of CO, on 

cooling of snow and water surfaces. Nature, 280, 

668-671. 

Chylek, P., and J. A. Coakley Jr., 1974: Aerosols and 

climate. Science, 183,75-77. 

Colligan, D., 1973: Brace yourself for another icc age. 

Sci. Digest, 73 (2), 57-61. 

Cooper, C. F., 1978: vVhat might man-induced climate 

change mean? Foreign Affairs, 56, 500-520. 

Crichton, M., 2004: State oJFear. Avon Books, 672 pp. 

Croll, J., 1875: Climate and Time in Their Geological 

Relations. Appleton, 186 pp. 

Damon, P. E., 1965: Pleistocene time scales. Science, 

148,1037-1039. 

-, and S, M. Kunen, 1976: Global cooling? Science, 

193,447-453. 

Douglas, J. H., 1975: Climate changes: Chillingpossibilities. Sciulce News, 107, 138-140. 
25 

Emiliani, c., 1972: Quaternary pateotemperalure~ 

and the duration ufthe high"temperature intervals. 

Science, 178,398-401, 

Ericson, D. B., M. Ewing. and G. Wollin, 1964: The 

Pleistocene Epoch in deep~sea scdimt!nts. Science, 

146,723-732. 

Federal COl1ncil for Science and Technology, Interdepartmental Committee fur Atmospherk Sciences, 

1974: Report of the Ad Hoc Panel on tile Pre~eltt 

Interglacial. 22 pp. 

l;lohn, H., 1977: Climate and energy: A s{.Cnarioto a 21st 

century problem. Climatic Chm1-ge, 1.5 "20. 

Giddins., A., 1999; Runaway Wo1'ld. BHe Reith Lectures. 

: Available onl inc at hUp;,'! news.bbc .co.uk/hllenglishf 

stOllkJcvents/reith_99!week2/week2.htm./ 

Gilchrist,A., 1978: Numerical !amulation ofclirnale and 

climatic change. Nature, 276, 342-245. 

Gflbbin, To, 1975: Cause and effects ot global cooling. 

_,,"'ature, 254, 14. 

-, 1978a: Tht· Ciimalir; nrcat: Wfl!lt's Wrong with 

Our Weather? Fontana, 206 rr -, 1978b: CJimatic .. hins. j\Tatun:, 271, 785. 

Gwynne, P., 1975' The cooling ·world. Newsweek, 28 

April. 

Halacy, D. S., 1978: I~-e or Fife? Suniving Ciimatic 

Change. Harper and Row, 212 pp 

Hamilton, W. L., and T. A. Seliga. 1972: Alrnusphenc 

turbidity and $urfm.e temperature on the polar ice 

sheets, Nature, 235, 320-322 

Hansen, f. E., W.-c. Wang. and A. A. Lacis, 1978: Mount 

Agung eruption provides test of" global climatic 

perturbation, Science, 199, lOriS-lOnB, doi:IO.l126/ 

lickncc.199.4333,I065. 

Hays, J D.,]. Imbrie, and N. J. Shackleton, 1976: Variations in the Earth'.~ orbit; Pacemaker of the Ice ages. 

Science, 194, 1121-il32. 

lierman, n. \1., S. A. Twomey, and D. O. Staley, 197ft 

Atrnosphcnc du.)t: Climatological consequenCeS. 

Science, 201, 378. 

Hobbs, P. v., H, Harrison, and E. Robinson, 1974: Almo 

spheric effects of poHutant~. Science, 183,909-915. 

Hornl.'r, C. C .. 2007: Th~ Polilically Incorn:ct Guide 10 

Global Warming and EnvirDllm£l1tallsm. Regnery 

Publishing, 350 pp. 

Houghton, J. T, 1979: Greenhouse effects of some atmospheric constituents. Phi/os. Trans. Roy, Soc. London, 

Math. Phys. Sd., 290A. 515-521 

Bo}'t. D. Y. 1979: An empirical ~ietermination of the 

heating of the Earth by the carbon dioxide greenhouse effect. Nature, 282. 388-390. 

Idso, S. B., and A. J. Hralei, 1977: Planetary radiatlon 

balan;:e as a function of atmosphenc dust; Climatologieal cO~lseq,lences, Science, 198.731-733. 

!\MER CAN METECROLOGIC/',," SOCIETy 

-, anc.I-, 1978: Atmospheric dust: Climatological 

consequences_ Science, 201,378-379. 

Inhuft·, J., cited 2003: Science of climate change 

Congressional Record, No. 149, SlO0l2-SJO023. 

[i\vaJable online at wais.acccss.gP() gOY.] 

Kellogg, W. \y" 1979: Prediction of a global cooling. 

Nature, 280, 615. 

-- ~,and S. H. Schneider, 1974: Climate stabilization: 

~or better or for worse? Science, 186, 1163-1172. 

Kerr, R. A., 1978: Climate cOlllrol: How large a role for 

orbital variations? Science, 201, 144-116. 

Kukla, G./.,and H, r.Kukla, 1974: Increased surface albt.'tlo 

in the 010rthcrn Hemisphere. Seience, 183,709-714. 

Landsberg, II. E,. 1970: Man-made climatic changes, 

Science, 170, 1265-1274. 

-, 1976: \v-hencc global dimate: Hot or cold? An essay 

review. Bull. Amer. Meteor. So(., 57, 441-441 

r.ee, P. S., and f'. ,Yf. Snell, 1977: An annual zonally avcraged global climate model with diffuse cloudiness 

feedback. j, Atmo.;. Sci., 3·1, 847-853, 

Lowry, W. P., 1972: Atmospheric pollution and global 

dimatlc change. Ecology, 53, 90B-914 

Machta, L., 1972: Y1auna Loa and global trends in air 

quality. Bul/, Amer. Meteor. Soc., 53, 402-420, 

Manabe, S., and R. T. Weatherald, 1967: Thermal equ!~ 

librium of the atmosphere with a given dlstribution 

of rdative humidity. J. Armos. Sci" 24, 241-259. 

-, and -, 1975: The effects of doubling the CO, 

concentration on the climate of a general ci.rculatiQ~ 

modeL J. :Hmos. Sci., 32, 3-15 

Mason, B, J., 1978a: The World Climate Programme. 

Nature, 276, 339-342. 

-, 1978b: Review lecture: Recent advances in the 

numerical prediction of """father and climate. Proc. 

Roy. Soc London, Math. Phys. Sd" 363A, 297-.'33. 

~'Iathews, S. W., 1976: What's happening to ol:rdimate? 

Nat/. Geogr. ,\-fag.. 150, .'>76-615. 

McCormick. R. A" and 1. H. Ludwig. 1967: Climate 

modi1:'ication by atmosphenc aerosols. Science, 156, 

US8 1359. 

Mercer,]. H., 1978: West Antarctic ice ,~heet and CO, 

greenhouse effect: A threat of disaster. Nature, 271, 

321-325. 

Michaels, P. J., 2004: Meltdown: The Prediclable Dis!or· 

tion oj Global Warming by Scientists, Politici(HiS, and 

tlte Media. Cato Instltute, 271 pp. 

Milankovitch, M., 1930; lvralhemati~che Klimalchrc und 

A.stronomische The.orie. der Klimaschwankungetl. 

Vol. I, Part A,Hamlbucltder KIimalu/ogie, W. Koppen 

and R. Geiger, Eds., Gebruder Borntoager, 176 pp. 

Miles, M. K" 1978: Predicting temperatu,e trend ill 

the Northern Hemisphere to the year .,woo. ]..,'alure, 

276,356 

SEPTEMBER. 20GB BAnS- i ms 
26 

Mitchell, 1. M., Jr., 1963: On the world·wide pattern of 

~ccuiar temperalure change. Changes of Climate: 

Proceedings of fhe Rome Symposium Orgallized by 

UNf:SCO and the World Meteorological Organiza. 

fiori, UNESCO. 161-18L 

-, 1970: A preliminary evaluation of atmospheric 

pollution ali a <:al.:.~c n[ the ginbal temperature flue· 

tuation of the past ceotur): Global Effects of Environ· 

mental POl1Utio/l, S. F. Singer, Ed.,Springer.VerlaglD. 

Reidel, 139-155. 

~, 1971: The effects ofatmospherk aerosols on climate with special reference to temperature near the 

Earth's surface. J .• 4ppl. Meteor., 10,703-714. 

~, 1972: The natural breakdown of the present interglacial and its possible intervention by human 

adlYitie~. Quart. Res., 2, 436-445. 

~, 1976: An overview of c1b::ntic variability and its 

causal mechanisms. Quat. Ues., 6,481-494. 

National Academy of Sciences, 1975: Understanding 

Climatic Change. U.S. Committee for the Global 

Atmospheric. Re.~earch Program, National Academy 

Prcl>s, 239 pp. 

~, 1977: Climate, Climatic Change, mId Water Supply. 

Panel on Water and Climate of the National Research 

Council, 132 pp. 

National Defence Univl.'fsity, Research Directoratr, 197R: 

Climate Change to the Year 2000: A Surveyo/Exper! 

Opinion. U.S. Government Printing Office. 109 pp. 

Kational Science Hoard, 1972: Patterns and Per.>pedives 

hI EnvironmentalSclCl'ce. National 5dcnce Foundation, 426 pp. 

Nordhans, \'>1. D., 19i7: Economic growth and climate: 

The caronn dioxide problem. Amer. Ewn. Rey., 67, 

. '141--346 

Ohring, G., and S. Adler, 1978: Someexper~mcnts with 

a zonally averaged ciimate model ]. Atmos. Sci., 35, 

lBn-20S. 

Pales. J. c., and C. D. Keeling, 1965: The concentration 

of atmospheric carbon dioxide in Hawaii.]. Geophys. 

Res., 70, 6053-6076. 

Panel on Energy and Climate, 1977: Energy and Climate. 

National Re6carch Council, National Academy of 

Sciences. 158 pp 

Ponte. L.. 1976: The Cooling Prentice.-Hall, 30ti pp. 

Ran:anathan, V., J975: Greenhouse effect due lo chlo· 

wflnrocarbons: Climatic implications. Science, 190, 

5052. 

-, and J- A. Coakley Jr., 1978: Climate modeling 

through radiative cOllvective models. Rev. Geophys. 

Space Phys., 16.465-489. 

Ra~ool, S. L, and S. H. SchneIder, 1971: Atmospheric 

carbon dioxide and aerosols; Effects of large increases 

011 global climate. ScierJce, 173, 138-·141. 

13]6 I BAf1~ SEPTEMBER 2008 

• and - ~, 1972: Aerosol concentrations: Effect on 

planetary h:mperaturcs. Swmce, 175,96. 

Reck. R. A., 1975: Aerosols and polar temperature 

change. Science, IR8, 728-730. 

Report of the Study of Critical Environmental Problems, 1970: Man's impact on the GlolMI Environment. Massachuselts Institute of Technology Press, 

319pp. 

Reveile, R., W. Broecker, H. Craig, C. D. Kneeling, and 

f. Smagorinsky, 1965: Restoring the Quality of Our 

Environment; Report of the Ellvironmelltal Pollution 

Pa/tel. President's Science AdvisoryCommlttee, The 

While House, 317 pp. 

Revkin, A. C., 2005; The daily planet: Why the media 

stumble over the enviromnent. A FJeld G.lide for Sn· 

cnce Wrilers, D.BlUlJ1, M. Knudson, and R. M. Henig, 

Eels., Oxford University Press. 222-228. 

Rotty, R. ;\1., 1971): Atmospheric CO2 consequences of 

hea\'Y dependence on coal. Etl dnm. Health Pe,.spect., 

33,273-283. 

Sagan, c., O. B. Toon. anu i. B. Pollack, 1979: Anthro· 

pogenie albedo changes and the Earth's climate 

S'nence, 206, 1363-1368. 

Sarewllz, D., 2004: How science makes ellvironmen 

tal controversies worst'. Ellviron. Sci. Policy, 7, 

3RS-4(J3. 

Sawyer. r. 5., 1972: Man-made carbon dioxide and the 

~greenhoust''' effect. Nature, 239, 23-26. 

Schlesinger, J., 2003~ Climate change: The SCience isn't 

settled. Washington Post, 7 fuly, A17. 

Schneider, S. II., 1975: On the carbon dioxide-climate 

confusion.]. Atmos. Sci., 32, 2060-2066. 

~, 1976: The GUJCsis Strategy; Climate and Global 

SurvivaL Plenum Press, 419 pp . 

-, and C. Mass, 1975; Volcanic dust. sunspots, and 

temperature trends. Science, ]90,741-746. 

Sellers, W. D., 1969: A global dima:k model based on 

the energy halance ofthe earth-atmosphere system. 

J. Appr. Meteor., S, 392-400. 

-,1973: A new glohaldimatic model.]. Appl. Meteor., 

12,241-254. 

~,1974: A reassessmelltofthe effect of CO, variation 

on a simple global climatic modeL /. Appi. Meteor., 

13,831-833. 

Shaw, G, E., 1976: Properties of the background global 

aerosol and their effects on climate. Sciel1ce, 192, 

1334-1336. 

Shutts, G. T., and 1. 5. A. Green, 1978: Mechanisms and 

models of climatic change. Nature, 276,339-342. 

Singer, S. F, Ed., 1970: Global Effects of Ellviro'1m<:ntal 

Pollution. SpringerNerJ.aglD. Reidel, 218 pp. 

--- , 1998: Scientists add to heat over global wanning. 

Washington TU1lCS, 5 May. 
27 

-, and p, T. Avery, 2007: Unstoppable Global 

l'i'anning E~'ely 1,500 Years. Rowman and Littlefield, 

260pp. 

Somerville, R., II. Le Treut, U. Cuba sen, Y. Ding, 

C. :\1auntzen, A. Mokssit, T. Pelerson, and M 

Prather, 2007: Historical overview of dim ate change, 

Ciimate Change 200?: The Physical Sciel1ce Rluls, 

S, Solomon et aI., Eds., Cambridge University Press, 

93-127. 

Stniver, M., 1978: Atmospheric carbon dioxide and 

carbon reSl..'nolt changes. Science, 199,253 -258. 

SLtlliva!l., W .. 1975,,: Scientists ask why world climate is 

changing; maJor cooling may be ahead. New York 

Times, 21 May. 

~-, 1975b;Warmingtrendseenindimate;twoartides 

counter view that cold per!od is due .. ~·ew York Times, 

14 August. 

Thompson, L M .• 1975: Weather variabllity, climate 

change, and grain production. Sciem .. e, 188,535-541. 

TIme Magazwe, 1974: Auother ice age? 24 rune. 

[Availabk oejine at www.time.com/time/magazinel 

a rticle/O,9171, 944914,OO.html.] 

Twomey, 5., 1977: The influence of pollution on the 

shortwave albedo of cloud:;. J. Atmos. Sci., 34, 

1149-]152. 

T~lldal:, f" 1861: On the absorption and radiation of 

heat hy gases and vapour~, and on the phy~lcal con· 

ncction. Philos. Mag., 22, 277-302. 

'Wang, V·l. C., Y. 1. Yung, A. A. Lads, T. ,'0.10, and 

J. E. Hansen. 1976: Greenhous.: effects due to mallmade pt,<rturbations of trace gases. Science, 194, 

685-690 

Weare, H. c., R. L Temkin, and F. M. Snell, 1974: 

Aef(lsols and climate: Some further considemtions 

Scilwce, 186.827-328. 

Weart, S., cited 2003: The Dl!>Covcry of Global' Warming. 

[Available onlbe at wwwaip.org/historyiclim.ate.l 

Wigley. T. M. 1., 1978: ClimatIc chang!.:. NulUrc, 272, 

788. 

Wilcox, H. A., 1975: Hothouse Earth. Pracgcr Publishers. 

181 pp 

Will, G. F., 2004; Global warming? HOi air. W(/~hington 

Post, 23 Decemher. 

-,2008: March ofthc polar bears. Washmgton Post, 

22~ay. 

Willett, H. c., 1974: Do recent dimatic fluctuationsportend an imminent kc age? Gf!ojis. Jnt., 14.265-302. 

Woronko, S. F.. 1977; Comments on "A non-equilibrium 

model ofhemisrherk mean surface temperature." f. 

lUmos. So., 34, 1820-182L 

SEPTEMBE~. 20eB BAMt jlB1 
28 

Senator BOXER. I tell you what let’s do. We will put, I ask unanimous consent that colleagues have a couple of days to get this in 

the record. We are going to move on and hear from Hon. Lisa Jackson right now. You can use that when you get to your question 

time. 

Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Madam Chair, Ranking Member 

Inhofe, and members of the Committee. Thank you for inviting me 

to testify about President Obama’s Fiscal Year 2012 budget request 

for the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Congress enacted the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and 

America’s other bedrock environmental protection laws on a broadly bipartisan basis. It did so to protect American children and 

adults from pollution that otherwise would make their lives shorter, less healthy and less prosperous. It did so to make the air and 

drinking water in America’s communities clean enough to attract 

new employers. 

It did so to enable America’s local governments to revitalize 

abandoned and polluted industrial sites. It did so to safeguard the 

pastime of America’s 40 million anglers. It did so to protect the 

farms whose irrigation makes up a third of America’s surface freshwater withdrawals. It did so to preserve the livelihoods of fishermen in American great waters, such as the Chesapeake Bay and 

the Gulf of Mexico. 

Congress gave EPA the responsibility of implementing and enforcing those laws, and each year, Congress appropriates the 

money that makes EPA’s implementation and enforcement work 

possible. As head of the EPA, I am accountable for ensuring that 

we squeeze every drop of public health protection out of every dollar we get. 

So I support the tough cuts in the President’s proposed budget. 

But I am equally accountable for pointing out where cuts become 

detrimental to public health. Without adequate funding, EPA 

would be unable to implement or enforce the laws that protect 

Americans’ health, livelihoods and pastimes. Big polluters would 

flout legal restrictions on dumping contaminants into the air, into 

rivers and onto the ground. Toxic plumes already underground 

would reach drinking water supplies, because ongoing work to contain them would stop. There would be no EPA grant money to fix 

or replace broken water systems, and the standards that EPA has 

set to establish for harmful air pollution from smokestacks and 

tailpipes would remain missing from a population of sources that 

is not static, but growing. 

So if Congress slashed EPA’s funding, concentrations of harmful 

pollution would increase from current levels in the places Americans live, work, go to school, fish, hike and hunt. The result would 

be more asthma attacks, more missed school and work days, more 

heart attacks, more cancer cases, more premature deaths and more 

polluted waters. Needless to say, then, I fervently request and 

deeply appreciate continued bipartisan support in Congress for 

funding the essential work that keeps American children and 
29 

adults safe from uncontrolled amounts of harmful pollution being 

dumped into the water they drink and the air they breathe. 

President Obama believes that our Federal Government must 

spend less money. Decreasing Federal spending is no longer just a 

prudent choice, it is now an unavoidable necessity. Accordingly, the 

President has proposed to cut EPA’s annual budget nearly 13 percent from its current level. That cut goes beyond eliminating 

redundancies. We have made difficult, even painful choices. We 

have done so, however, in a careful way that preserves EPA’s ability to carry out its core responsibilities to protect the health and 

well-being of America’s children, adults and communities. 

You have been reviewing the budget request for more than 2 

weeks now, so I will not march through all its details. Rather, I 

will provide just a few examples of the difficult choices we have 

made while preserving fundamental safeguards. This request provides $2.5 billion, a decrease of $947 million, for the Clean Water 

and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. Future year budgets 

for the SRFs will adjust, taking into account repayments. 

EPA, the States and community water systems will build on past 

successes, while working toward the Fiscal Year 2012 goal of ensuring that over 90 percent of the populations served by community water systems receive drinking water that meets all applicable 

health standards. 

This budget requests an additional $6.4 million to conduct integrated pilot projects in several communities, including disadvantaged ones, to evaluate and reduce risks from toxic air pollution 

through regulatory enforcement and voluntary efforts. An additional $3.7 million will improve our monitoring of toxic air pollution, and our dissemination of that data to State, local and tribal 

governments and to the public. The budget contains $350 million for programs and projects strategically chosen to target the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem. That represents a cut of $125 

million from Fiscal Year 2010, which was the first year of the initiative. We will implement the most important projects for the 

Great Lakes and its restoration and achieve visible results. 

With this budget’s $16 million investment in enhancing chemical 

safety, we will take action to reduce chemical risks, increase the 

pace of chemical hazard assessments and provide the public with 

greater access to information on toxic chemicals. We will use the 

funds to implement chemical risk reduction steps that address impacts on children’s health and on disadvantaged, low income and 

indigenous populations. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I look forward to the Committee’s 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:] 

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

PROTECTION AGENCY

Madame Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Members of the Committee, thank 

you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss the Environmental Protection Agency’s proposed budget. In the State of the Union—as President Obama laid 

out a plan to win the future—he made clear that we ‘‘will not hesitate to create or 

enforce common-sense safeguards to protect the American people,’’ and explained 

that these safeguards are ‘‘why our food is safe to eat, our water is safe to drink, 

and our air is safe to breathe.’’ 
30 

These are the services EPA provides. EPA’s activities prevent thousands of illnesses such as asthma, cancer and other diseases. They help keep students and 

workers healthy so they can be more productive. They save lives. Preliminary estimates show that last year, the Clean Air Act alone is estimated to have saved 

160,000 lives and prevented more than 100,000 hospital visits. 

President Obama also understands, however, that as millions of families are cutting back and making sacrifices, they expect the same level of good fiscal sense out 

of their government. 

This budget reflects that good fiscal sense, and makes many tough choices. FY 

2010’s budget of $10.3 billion was EPA’s highest funding level since its creation. 

This FY 2010 budget request, while a deep cut resulting in a total budget of $8.973 

billion, will allow EPA to carry out its core mission and fund the most critical efforts 

to protect the health of American families. 

The choices in this budget reflect EPA’s commitment to core regulatory work and 

preserving the hard-won progress made over the last 40 years in protecting and restoring the quality of our air, water, and land; ensuring the safety of our chemicals; 

and providing strong enforcement of environmental laws and regulations. 

At the same time, we have heeded the President’s call for deficit reduction and 

made some painful choices to reduce funding for important programs. As it does 

every year, EPA has worked to find efficiencies within our programs and in some 

cases made reductions trusting that further efficiencies can be found. The $8.973 

billion proposed for EPA in the FY 2012 President’s Budget will allow the Agency 

to maintain its core programs while investing in areas of urgent need and will support key priorities during this time of fiscal challenges. 

This budget represents a nearly 13 percent reduction over the DFY 2010 budget 

and reflects our priorities: supporting action on climate change and improving air 

quality; protecting America’s waters; building strong State and tribal partnerships; 

strengthening enforcement and compliance; enhancing chemical safety; supporting 

healthy communities; and maintaining a strong science foundation. Because of the 

constrained fiscal environment, the Budget decreases the State Revolving Funds 

(SRFs) by nearly $950 million while supporting a long-term goal of providing about 

5 percent of total water infrastructure spending and spurring more efficient systemwide planning. The Budget also reduces the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative by 

$125 million, eliminates about $160 million in targeted water infrastructure earmarks, and eliminates $60 million for clean diesel grants. 

Our priorities are aligned with the governmentwide effort to identify near-term 

high priority performance goals. For EPA, our goals include reducing greenhouse 

gas emissions, improving water quality, and delivering improved environmental 

health and protection to our communities. EPA will work toward meeting these 

goals over the next 18 to 24 months. 

Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, let me touch on some of the highlights of this budget, both the painful choices and the targeted investments that will 

protect our health and the environment. 

SUPPORTING ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE AND IMPROVING AIR QUALITY

We are committed to meeting EPA’s obligations under the Clean Air Act, the 

landmark law that all American children and adults rely on to protect them from 

harmful air pollution. We will continue to take meaningful, common sense steps to 

address climate change and improve air quality. Making the right choices now will 

allow the Agency to improve health, drive technology innovation, and protect the environment; all without placing an undue burden on the nation’s economy. Indeed, 

EPA’s implementation of the Clean Air Act has saved millions of lives and avoided 

hospital visits; enhanced American productivity by preventing millions of lost workdays and growing the clean energy sector; and kept American children healthy and 

in school. 

Our budget requests $46 million for additional regulatory efforts aimed to reduce 

greenhouse gas emissions and address the Climate and Clean Energy Challenge. 

This includes $30 million in State grants and support for permitting, which will ensure that our State partners develop the technical capacity to address greenhouse 

gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. Also included is $6.0 million in additional 

funding for the development and implementation of new emission standards that 

will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from mobile sources such as passenger cars, 

light-duty trucks, and medium-duty passenger vehicles. These funds also will support EPA’s assessment and potential development, in response to legal obligations, 

of standards for other mobile sources. Also included is $7.5 million for the assessment and potential development of New Source Performance Standards for several 

categories of major stationary sources through means that are flexible and manage-
31 

able for business. Finally, this amount includes an additional $2.5 million for priority measurement, reporting and verification activities related to implementing the 

GHG Reporting Rule, to ensure the collection of high quality data. 

Our air toxics strategy prioritizes standards that provide the greatest opportunity 

for cost-effective emissions reductions. This budget requests an additional $6.4 million to conduct integrated pilots in several communities, including disadvantaged 

communities, to systemically evaluate and reduce risks from toxic air pollutants 

through regulatory, enforcement, and voluntary efforts. An additional $3.7 million 

will improve air toxic monitoring capabilities and dissemination of information between and among the EPA offices, the state, local and tribal governments, and the 

public. 

We anticipate a more than four-fold increase in the number of vehicle and engine 

certificates EPA issues. In addition, as a result of diverse and sophisticated technologies, we anticipate more challenging oversight requirements for both the vehicle/engine compliance program and fuels. We will upgrade vehicle, engine, and fuel 

testing capabilities through a $6.2 million investment in the National Vehicle and 

Fuel Emissions Laboratory. 

PROTECTING AMERICA’S WATERS

By leveraging partnerships and traditional and innovative strategies, we will continue to sustain and improve water infrastructure and clean-up America’s great 

waterbodies. EPA, the states, and community water systems will build on past successes while working toward the FY 2012 goal of assuring that 91 percent of the 

population served by community water systems receives drinking water that meets 

all applicable health based standards. 

The Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) provide grants to states, which use the funds to make affordable loans to local communities for public drinking water and wastewater infrastructure projects. The President’s Budget requests $1.55 billion for the Clean Water 

SRF and $990 million for the Drinking Water SRF. This request level reduces funding for State Revolving Funds by $947 million from FY 2010 levels. As part of the 

Administration’s long-term strategy, EPA is implementing a Sustainable Water Infrastructure Policy that focuses on working with states and communities to enhance 

technical, managerial, and financial capacity. Important to the technical capacity 

will be enhancing alternatives analysis to expand ‘‘green infrastructure’’ options and 

their multiple benefits. Future year budgets for the SRFs gradually adjust, taking 

into account repayments, through 2016 with the goal of providing, on average, about 

5 percent of water infrastructure spending annually. Federal dollars provided 

through the SRFs will serve as a catalyst for efficient system-wide planning and ongoing management of sustainable water infrastructure. 

We will also leverage our partnership with states and tribes through an additional 

$21 million in Water Pollution Control (Sec. 106) grants to enhance water quality 

and to provide additional resources to address Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), 

nutrient, and wet weather issues. An additional $4 million is requested for Public 

Water Systems Supervision grants to support management of State and drinking 

water system data, improve data quality, and allow the public access to compliance 

monitoring data not previously available. This will improve transparency and efficiency and reduce the need for State resources to maintain individual compliance 

databases. 

This budget supports EPA’s continued efforts to clean up America’s great 

waterbodies. It includes $67.4 million for the Chesapeake Bay program, a $17.4 million increase, which will allow EPA to continue to implement the President’s Executive Order on Chesapeake Bay Protection and Restoration. The increased funding 

will support Bay watershed States as they implement their plans to reduce nutrient 

and sediment pollution in an unprecedented effort to restore this economically important ecosystem. 

This budget has $350 million included for programs and projects strategically chosen to target the most significant environmental problems in the Great Lakes ecosystem, a $125 million decrease from FY 2010, the first year of the initiative. Led 

by EPA, and engaging the capabilities of a number of Federal agencies, the initiative will implement the most important projects for Great Lakes Restoration and 

achieve visible results. 

The Administration is committed to restoring and protecting the Gulf Coast ecosystem following decades of environmental harm, including the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. As Chair of the Gulf Coast Ecosystem Restoration Task Force, established by Executive Order 13554, I will work with the Federal and State Task Force 

members to lead environmental recovery efforts in the region. EPA is also working 
32 

to support the Federal and State Trustees on the Deepwater Horizon Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Trustee Council as they develop a restoration plan to restore the region’s natural resources to pre-spill conditions. As a 

complement to these efforts, EPA’s request of $6.6 million for the Mississippi River 

Basin program will address excessive nutrient loadings that contribute to water 

quality impairments in the basin and, ultimately, to hypoxic conditions in the Gulf 

of Mexico. 

BUILDING STRONG STATE AND TRIBAL PARTNERSHIPS

Strong partnerships and accountability are vital to the implementation of environmental programs, and we are committed to strengthening State and tribal capacity. 

This budget includes $1.2 billion for State and tribal grants which is an overall increase of $84.9 million over FY 2010 within this amount is a reduction to Nonpoint 

Source (Sec. 319) Grants and Local Government Climate Change Grants. This request will provide critical support to State and local governments who are working 

diligently to implement new and expanded requirements under the Clean Air Act 

and Clean Water Act. 

These include implementation of updated National Ambient Air Quality Standards and addressing complex water quality issues such as nutrient pollution, which 

I discussed earlier. 

To help tribes strengthen environmental protection capacity and move forward 

with implementation of environmental programs, an $8.5 million increase is included for Tribal General Assistance Program grants and $20 million is budgeted 

for the competitive Tribal Multi-media Implementation grant program. 

STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT AND COMPLIANCE

Regulated entities, Federal agencies, and the public benefit from easy access to 

tools that help them understand environmental laws and find efficient, cost-effective 

means for putting them into practice. This budget includes a request of $27.5 million for the Regaining Ground in Compliance Initiative. Through this initiative, EPA 

will begin to harness the tools of modern technology to address some of these areas 

and make EPA’s Enforcement and Compliance Assurance program more efficient 

and effective. We also will increase the number of inspections at high risk facilities 

regulated under the Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasures (SPCC) and the 

Facility Response Plan (FRP) regulations. 

By increasing the use of electronic reporting, monitoring tools, and market-based 

approaches, we will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of our limited resources, 

and ensure a level playing field for American businesses. By maximizing the use 

of advanced data and monitoring tools, we can focus our limited inspection and enforcement resources and focus our attention on identifying where the most significant vulnerabilities exist. 

ENHANCING CHEMICAL SAFETY

America’s citizens deserve to know the products they use are safe. One of my 

highest priorities is making significant and long overdue progress in assuring the 

safety of chemicals. We are taking immediate and lasting actions to eliminate or reduce identified chemical risks and develop proven alternatives. 

FY 2010 represents a crucial stage in our approach for ensuring chemical safety. 

The program has attained its ‘‘zero tolerance’’ goal in preventing the introduction 

of unsafe new chemicals into commerce. However, many ‘‘pre-TSCA’’ chemicals already in commerce remain un-assessed. 

With the $16 million investment for the Enhancing Chemical Safety initiative included in this budget, we will increase the pace of chemical hazard and risk assessments, strengthen chemical information management and transparency, and take 

action to address identified chemical risks including careful consideration of the impact of chemicals on children’s health and on disadvantaged, low-income, and indigenous populations. The additional funding will help to close knowledge and risk 

management gaps for thousands of chemicals already in commerce through actions 

that will decrease potential impacts to human health and the environment. We also 

will continue promoting use of proven safer chemicals, chemical management practices, and technologies to enable the transition away from existing chemicals that 

present significant risks. 

SUPPORTING HEALTHY COMMUNITIES

We are committed to protecting, sustaining or restoring the health of communities 

and ecosystems by bringing together a variety of programs, tools, approaches and 
33 

resources directed to the local level. Partnerships with international, Federal, state, 

tribal, local governments, and non-governmental organizations have long been a 

common thread across EPA’s programs. This diversity of perspectives and experiences brings a wider range of ideas and approaches, and creates opportunities for 

innovations. 

The budget includes a $20.4 million multidisciplinary initiative for Healthy Communities. It supports states and communities in promoting healthier school environments by increasing technical assistance on school siting, environmental health 

guidelines, and Integrated Pest Management in schools. It also provides resources 

to address air toxics within at-risk communities, and to enhance the important joint 

DOT/HUD/EPA outreach and related efforts with communities on sustainable development. 

We proudly support the America’s Great Outdoors initiative to develop a community-based 21st century conservation agenda that can also spur job creation in the 

tourism and recreation industries. Leveraging support across the Federal Government, EPA will join the Department of the Interior, the Department of Agriculture, 

and the Council on Environmental Quality to lead the coordinated effort to protect 

and restore our outdoor legacy. The area-wide planning and community support 

focus of existing EPA programs and initiatives like Urban Waters and Brownfields 

programs align well with the goals and objectives of this new initiative. 

MAINTAINING A STRONG SCIENCE FOUNDATION

To develop a deeper understanding of our environmental challenges and inform sustainable solutions, we are requesting a science and technology budget of $826 

million, $22 million lower than our FY 2010 enacted funding level, reflecting both 

efficiencies and difficult choices in order to ensure support for the highest priority 

science needs. We will strengthen planning and delivery of science through an integrated research approach, which will help us more deeply examine our environmental and public health challenges. By looking at problems from a systems perspective, this new approach will create synergy and produce more timely and comprehensive results beyond those possible from approaches that are more narrowly 

targeted to single chemicals or problem areas. Within the request, we are including 

increases for research on endocrine disrupting chemicals, green infrastructure, air 

quality monitoring, e-waste and e-design, green chemistry, and the potential effects 

of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. 

To make progress on these research priorities and leverage the expertise of the 

academic research community, funding redirections will support additional Science 

to Achieve Results (STAR) grants and fellowships. This budget also supports the 

study of computational toxicology, and other priority research efforts with a focus 

on advancing the design of sustainable solutions for reducing risks associated with 

environmentally hazardous substances. Two million dollars is also included to conduct a long-term review of EPA’s laboratory network. These increases are offset by 

redirections from other areas, such as human health and ecosystems, biofuels, 

homeland security, mercury, and groundwater remediation. 

We look forward to working with the Congress to cut spending and cut the deficit. 

But to win the future, we cannot cut in a way that will undermine our ability to 

win the future and out-educate, out-innovate, and out-build our economic competitors. The budget that the President announced is a responsible plan that shows how 

we can live within our means and invest in the future. It makes tough choices to 

cut spending and cut the deficit. It includes a 5-year non-security discretionary 

freeze, saving more than $400 billion over the decade and reducing non-security discretionary spending to its lowest level as a share of the economy since President 

Eisenhower, and the Budget reduces the deficit by more than $1 trillion, putting us 

on a path to fiscal sustainability. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify today, and I look forward to answering 

your questions. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

As you know, there are many efforts going on in the short term 

for the 7-month 2011 budget to not only cut huge amounts from 

EPA, but also to prohibit EPA, there are riders on there, which we 

are going to fight hard against any riders, because a lot of us don’t 

believe that this is the proper place, on a budget, to essentially 

weaken the Clean Air Act. People want to repeal the Clean Air Act, 

just bring it to the floor, we will debate that, and oh, boy, will the 

American people weigh in. 
34 

But instead of doing that, they do these cuts by a thousand 

deaths. We heard about bills to prohibit you from enforcing, stopping pollution or cutting it down from boilers or cement plants. So 

I want to ask you to put it so the American people understand 

what this is. What kind of pollution comes out of cement plants 

and boilers? Let’s take those two as an example. 

Ms. JACKSON. Both have some pollutants in common. Mercury is 

a big problem, and other metals, sometimes arsenic or chromium. 

Senator BOXER. OK, let’s stop there a minute. What is the impact of mercury? 

Ms. JACKSON. Mercury is a neurotoxin. 

Senator BOXER. Explain that. What do you mean by that? 

Ms. JACKSON. It is toxic to our nervous system, our brains. It is 

particularly toxic to the development of brains in young children. 

Senator BOXER. So the goal is to reduce this mercury, so that we 

don’t harm our children and the most vulnerable people. 

What about arsenic? From my recollection, arsenic can kill. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. Arsenic is a carcinogen. It is a naturally occurring metal, but it is also in water, can be carcinogenic. We have 

communities across the country that still are struggling to meet 

Federal standards for clean drinking water for arsenic. 

Senator BOXER. What pollution is in particulate matter, those 

small pieces of pollution that get in our air? 

Ms. JACKSON. Tiny pieces or particles, maybe you can call them 

soot, coarse particles, are a little bit bigger, are killers. They actually, they don’t make you sick, they contribute to premature 

deaths. So that is actually a causal relationship. It is not speculative, and it is the basis, oftentimes, for the estimates of lives, premature deaths avoided are generally due to soot pollution. 

Senator BOXER. So when you work on cleaning up the air, do you 

take into account the benefits that people have, and does the law 

require you to do that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Absolutely. This is beyond common sense, as the 

Senator asked, and I certainly support. This is about being able to 

show tremendous benefits, sometimes on the order of 30 to 40 dollars in benefits, health benefits, for every dollar spent by a polluter 

or an industry to control its pollution. 

Senator BOXER. OK. In your report of March 2011, was this report required by Congress? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, it was. 

Senator BOXER. The benefits and costs of the Clean Air Act. 

Could you tell me if I am right in saying these things, that in the 

year 2010, the particulate matter, the fact that you were able to 

go after this, resulted in 160,000 lives saved in 2010? 

Ms. JACKSON. Right, 160,000 incidences of premature mortality. 

Senator BOXER. Were prevented? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. Let’s go to infant mortality in the year 2010. Infant mortality, which by the way, we are slipping on that front. So 

how many premature deaths of infants were there in 2010? 

Ms. JACKSON. Madam Chair, do you have the number? 

Senator BOXER. Well, I show 230, I just wanted to make sure 

that I am reading it correctly. 
35 

Ms. JACKSON. We will confirm that number, but that sounds 

right. 

Senator BOXER. OK. It shows here that ozone mortality, 4,300 

lives saved there. It shows cases of chronic bronchitis, 54,000 prevented. So asthma, you call it—explain that word—exacerbation, is 

that? So explain to me what that means, those cases of asthma 

that didn’t get worse because you cleaned up the air? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is absolutely right. That is absolutely right. 

Asthma attacks avoided, cases that didn’t proceed because of better 

air, cleaner air. 

Senator BOXER. You show here 86,000 hospital admissions that 

didn’t occur in 2010 alone. Isn’t there a cost to hospital admissions? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly. 

Senator BOXER. The person going in, we know about our health 

care costs. School days, this is unbelievable, school days lost, prevented 3,200,000 school days lost. That is an enormous number. 

Here is the other one. I want my colleagues to understand this, 

when I say you can’t breathe, you can’t work, 13 million lost work 

days prevented. So give me a break. When you say that you are 

stopping the EPA from doing their job under the Clean Air Act, you 

are costing people. You are giving a sentence to people to have 

worse asthma, worse bronchitis, possibly premature death, losing 

an infant. Give me a break. 

I am just going to say right here and now, because I think that 

Senator Johanns, he is very strong on his side of things, and I 

greatly respect him, we are going to be just as strong. There is not 

a day that goes by that I am not going to be talking with, not a 

day, physicians and people who are respected, the American Lung 

Association, they don’t have any dog in the fight. They want to do 

what is right for the ountry. 

So I just want to say to you, first of all, I think that your budget 

is a tough budget. You are cutting. But what is going on around 

this place is going against the American people. I will tell you that 

our side of the aisle here, because unfortunately it is shaping up 

to be a partisan battle. That is a shame. Senator Inhofe and I, 

when it comes to infrastructure, we are working hand in glove. We 

are not working together on this. He has a bill that is going to stop 

you from doing your job. I am going to take it to the American people, and he will as well. It is just the way it is, we just don’t have 

agreement on this. 

That makes me really sad. Sad for the people who, if they get 

their way, are going to get sick and die prematurely. That is the 

fact. We asked you to do this study and you did it. You have quantified the benefits, and they are tremendous. 

So I know we are divided on this, it is painful for me. I don’t 

enjoy that, it is tough for me, because I want us to work together. 

We are friends. But this is one area where it is going to be tough. 

But each side is going to make its strongest case. All I ask you 

to do is tell the truth and follow the law. That is all I ask. I don’t 

want you to exaggerate any benefit, I don’t want you to play politics. You never do, you are always just very, you sit there and you 

just tell it like it is. I am encouraging you to do that. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. All right, thank you, Madam Chairman. 
36 

Hold up those charts, will you? I had a lot of thunder with these 

on the floor some time ago, but that was before you had your job, 

I say, Madam Administrator. I want to make sure you don’t miss 

this. 

Senator Barrasso mentioned some of these articles and some of 

them go way back. There are many, many more that he did. That 

was a consensus at that time. So there we have, 1974, Another Ice 

Age is Coming, and it quotes all the scientists down here. This is 

the prevailing thought at that time. There is not a person in this 

room that doesn’t remember that. Remember, we are all going to 

die because of the ice age. 

Now, the same magazine, Time Magazine, that is the same magazine and this is back in, I think, 2007, of the last polar bear 

standing on the last cube of ice. These things sell. There is no question about that. As long as you can convince people the world is 

coming to an end, you get their attention. 

I don’t know where, I think you were probably in New Jersey at 

the time, during the Bush administration, when they had the Clear 

Skies Act, isn’t that correct? At that time, that would have been, 

if we had passed that, the largest reduction in emissions of SOx, 

NOx and mercury of any president, any administration in the history of this country. But it was held hostage, because they didn’t 

have the CO2 in there. 

So it is kind of perplexing. You think all that poison is floating 

around in there, and we can bring it down, but unless you let us 

have our favorite ‘‘pollution,’’ which I still don’t think it is, then you 

are not going to be able to do it. So that was one of the problems 

we had. 

Now, I have to say this also. If it is so certain that this problem 

exists, and that man-made anthropogenic gases are causing catastrophic global warming, why is it that the majority, the vast majority have not just, this is the current legislature, I am talking 

about the last legislature where the Democrats had large majorities 

in both the House and the Senate, that they weren’t able to get— 

the most Senate votes that were out there to have some type of a 

cap-and-trade, which is essentially what you are trying to do, not 

you, but the Administration through regulation, the same time that 

that was going on, it was just, it was something that the most 

votes they could get in the U.S. Senate were about 32 votes. 

We have actually had test votes. So we ran through the McCainLieberman legislation of 2003, the McCain-Lieberman of 2005, the 

Warner-Lieberman, the Boxer-Sanders, at one time we had that 

bill, Markey-Waxman, all those bills were just about the same. Yet 

they could never get above about 32 members of the U.S. Senate. 

Though the reason it is being pushed off on you is because they 

couldn’t do it legislatively. We all understand that. 

So you can sit around here and use these forums, these meetings, 

to talk about whether or not catastrophic global warming is due to 

man-made gases, but that doesn’t really address what we are trying to do here. Yes, it does indirectly, because I said in my opening 

statement that one of the largest expenses that your department 

has is that regulation, which at the last hearing I think we determined it was not mandated by the courts, but it was offered as an 

option by the courts. 
37 

Let me just ask you something specific. On the Executive Order 

on improving regulations and the regulatory process, when the Administrator or the President said this, in his Executive Order, I 

thought it was really pretty good. Because we are really concerned 

as to what the costs are going to be. The Executive Order states 

that regulations should consider ‘‘the cost of cumulative regulations.’’ Now, what does that mean to you, Madam Administrator? 

Ms. JACKSON. The plain language of it is that we should look at 

regulations that might hit a sector, might accumulate. 

Senator INHOFE. I would agree with that. So if you just look at 

some of them that we have talked about, the boiler MACT, the 

study there shows about probably 800,000 jobs at risk. The United 

Steelworkers Union, they did a study on this. It was said they will 

be sufficient to imperil the operating status of many industrial 

plants. In the Union’s view, tens of thousands of jobs would be imperiled. 

The ozone regulations, and my city of Tulsa, it would be one of 

those counties, I think, that if we were to adopt these standards, 

would be out of attainment. I know a little bit about how tough it 

is to be out of attainment, because that happened to us back when 

I was mayor of a major city, Tulsa, OK. 

You can go on down this thing. The PM dust. The PM dust, this 

is farm dust. I had kind of an interesting news conference in southern Oklahoma, right when they came out with the idea that we 

might do the PM–10 dust. We had a lot of people there, a lot of 

cameras from around the country. I said, all right, folks, do you see 

what this is right down here, that is cotton. Down below it, that 

is dirt. This up here, that is wind. Now, are there any questions? 

We don’t have technology to do many of the things that we are 

talking about in all these MACTs that we have, whether it is refinery MACT or it is Boiler MACT or any of the rest of them. Utility 

MACT, the same thing is true. The Unions for Jobs and Environment, which includes many unions, including the Teamsters and 

the Mine Workers, they talk about the hundreds of thousands of 

jobs that are going to be lost. 

Then of course one of them that I probably shouldn’t bring up at 

this time, but there seems to be this commitment to try to do something about the process called hydraulic fracturing. I think we 

know that as of a study just in the last 12 months, we have the 

largest recoverable reserves in coal oil and gas of any of the countries out there. In fact, in gas, we have enough to run our country 

for 110 years. 

Now, this is the problem that we have. Right now, look at what 

is happening in the Middle East. I don’t want to go into all this 

thing, but we really do need to look at these regulations and see 

what the cumulative effect is. So what I would like to do is have 

you and your staff look at these things and perhaps we can just 

take maybe those six regulations and report to us, in your opinion, 

what types of jobs, the number of jobs it would lose and the 

amount of money that it would cost, which I think would be a reasonable expectation. 

One last thing. You went over 2 minutes, so I will. 

The question came up by the Senator, I can’t remember who it 

was, as to whether or not, they were talking about was there really 
38 

a threat of an ice age at one time. I would like to read you, from 

Dr. John P. Holdren, who was Assistant to the President for 

Science and Technology and Director of the White House Office on 

Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President’s Council of 

Advisors, what he had written was, below is a direct scan of pages 

76 and 77 of his book. He said, ‘‘The effect of a new ice age on agriculture and the supportability of large human populations scarcely 

need elaboration here. Even more dramatic results are possible. 

However, for instance, a sudden outward slumping in the Arctic ice 

cap induced by added weight,’’ this is another ice age coming, 

‘‘could generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.’’ 

So you have even the President’s people who agree with me, 

Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Oh, yes, and I think that this article that Senator Udall put in acknowledges that there were scientists who did 

call for the ice age, but that most of them did not. So why don’t 

we just let people read this for themselves and decide. 

I would ask if you would amend your request to not only include 

how many jobs and all of those things, but also how many days lost 

of work would be prevented, how many cases of asthma and premature mortality. If she is going to do that kind of thing. 

Senator INHOFE. What I would like to do is go ahead and press 

mine, then if you can do yours. Because if we incorporate the two, 

it would be some time in 2014 before we get any kind of a reply. 

Senator BOXER. I don’t think so, because they have this. But OK, 

I will make a separate request, that if you were to back off and not 

do your job, which by the way, you have to do unless they change 

the law, but if you were to back off on all of these areas, and that 

is why I asked about mercury, arsenic and all these areas, if you 

could give us a notion of how many days we would lose on work 

and how many more hospital admissions and all of those breakdowns, if you could take the 2010 numbers and look at them going 

forward. 

OK, now Senator Sanders, you are next. 

Senator SANDERS. Ms. Jackson, I am sorry I didn’t get a chance 

to hear all of your testimony. I heard about half of it. 

The point that you were making in your testimony is that in fact, 

enforcing the Clean Air Act vigorously not only saves lives but it 

also saves money. Everybody in this room is concerned about the 

escalating cost of health care in this country. We are concerned 

about asthma, we are concerned about cancer, we are concerned 

about many, many illnesses which cause human suffering, as well 

as great expense to our system. 

One of the funny things about Government, as everybody here 

knows, we could zero out your budget tomorrow and the end result 

would be that health care costs would explode. Or we can make 

sure you do your job well, and yet Medicare and Medicaid costs 

might go down. 

Could you give us some examples of how investing in protecting 

our environment, whether it is clean air or clean water, ends up 

saving taxpayers money by preventing illness? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, Senator. Probably the biggest example is that 

air pollution is down over the 40 years of the Clean Air Act by I 
39 

think 60 percent, almost 60 percent, while our GDP has gone up 

207 percent. So what we have seen in economic studies, and not 

long ago we released some additional economic figures, is that the 

investment, and there are investments in pollution control technologies, whether it is air pollution or water pollution, not only 

those investments create jobs, because someone has to build that 

air pollution equipment or that water pollution equipment, but the 

savings in the health care arena are always greater when it comes 

to the Clean Air Act. Two to one is small. Usually we are talking 

20 to 1, 30 to 1, we have seen as high as 40 to 1, $40 of health 

benefit for every $1 spent on emissions control. 

Senator SANDERS. So what you are arguing is that at a time 

when we worry about escalating health care costs, investing in 

clean air and clean water not only keeps people healthy, but it 

saves us health care dollars down the road. 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, I am simply saying it is preventive medicine. 

Senator SANDERS. Right. I would agree with that strongly. 

Let me ask you a very simple but important question. We have 

heard today, and we hear repeatedly that global warming or the 

belief in global warming is kind of a fad, 40 years ago people were 

talking about global cooling, and there are differences of opinion, 

et cetera. Can you kind of bluntly share with us your assessment 

on where we stand in terms of the scientific community? I understand there are some differences of opinion. But in general, what 

is, to the best of your understanding, the scientific community saying about global warming? 

Ms. JACKSON. My understanding is that there is overwhelming 

consensus amongst the scientific community that the climate is 

changing, and that it is caused, that man-made emissions of climate forcers, climate-changing gases, CO2, methane and other 

gases, are contributing significantly to the change in our climate. 

Senator SANDERS. We talk in this Committee not only about environmental issues, but the impact of environmental regulation on 

the economy. It is an important issue. Some of my friends think 

that some of the regulations which you are obliged to enforce are 

‘‘job-killing’’ or ‘‘job-crushing.’’ Can you say a few words about the 

economic benefits, economic benefits? I asked you a moment ago 

about the benefits in terms of trying to help us keep people healthy 

and raise the cost of health care. Talk for a moment about the economic benefits of the Clean Air Act, including innovation, manufacturing and export opportunities for American businesses. 

Ms. JACKSON. The Clean Air Act, one of the unintended consequences is the growth of the American air pollution control industry. It is an American industry; we are the leaders in the world. 

It is a growing industry. Air pollution control equipment alone generated revenues of more than $18 billion in 2007. It contributes to 

our trade surplus, because we export more of it than we need, so 

it contributes positively to our trade balance. 

Our exports of environmental technology to China grew by 125 

percent in the 2 years between 2002 and 2004. I can give you examples of individual rules. There is a recent study by Ceres and 

the University of Massachusetts that found that two of the updated 

Clean Air Act standards that EPA needs to establish for mercury 
40 

and soot and smog will generate nearly $1.5 million jobs over 5 

years. Because that is investment in our domestic economy. We are 

investing in clean air here at home to make our citizens healthier, 

and it creates jobs. 

Senator SANDERS. So the bottom line is that investing in maintaining clean air and water creates jobs? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir, just like investing in a road does. You are 

just investing in clean air and public health. 

Senator SANDERS. OK. Madam Chair, thanks very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thanks, Senator Sanders. 

Senator Johanns. 

Senator JOHANNS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Administrator, recently the President, President Obama, with 

some degree of fanfare, announced a regulatory review process or 

framework that he was putting in place, I think in response to concerns by many in the business community about the over-regulation in the Administration. Are you subject to that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Senator JOHANNS. Tell me in what regard you would be subject 

to that. Is there a document you could give to the Committee that 

would show us what the new regimen will be at EPA? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, sir, there are two things. We are conducting 

a retrospective, a look-back review of our regulations. I don’t have 

a document to give you yet. We are in the process of putting the 

work plan together for that at the request of the President and the 

White House. We will be producing that. 

Every regulation that we do is reviewed by us and then subsequently, by the White House Office of Management and Budget for 

compliance with the President’s Executive Order. 

Senator JOHANNS. But let me ask, for example, the work you are 

doing on the climate change issues, would that now be reviewed? 

Are you going back to review all of that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Our work plan is not done on the retrospective review. But we need to look at regulations that have been promulgated in the past by EPA. That is just what the Executive Order 

says, sir. 

Senator JOHANNS. So if somebody asks me, a constituent writes 

me a letter, I can quote you then in responding and saying that all 

regulations at the EPA are now under review, under the Presidential directive? 

Ms. JACKSON. We are going to comply with the Executive Order 

in reviewing our regulations. 

Senator JOHANNS. OK. Just to get some numbers in the record, 

the House Bill, which has not been adopted on the Senate side, 

how much would that have reduced spending in the EPA? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe it is just over $3 billion, sir. 

Senator JOHANNS. Could you convert that to a percentage for me? 

Ms. JACKSON. It is about 30 percent. 

Senator JOHANNS. About 30 percent. Now, would it be your testimony today that if that were adopted that more people would have 

health problems, more people would die, is that the case you are 

making to this Committee today? 

Ms. JACKSON. My testimony today is about the President’s budget and the need to make thoughtful cuts that still preserve public 
41 

health. The CR itself has many provisions, including many riders, 

on EPA’s authority as well. So I am not here to offer a detailed 

analysis of the CR, but rather, to explain the President’s budget 

proposal. 

Senator JOHANNS. OK, but what I am trying to get to is, we have 

to decide. We have to make a thoughtful decision about what every 

budget should be. What I am trying to get a better understanding 

is, what is your testimony, if your budget is cut 25 percent, does 

that have health risks to it? Will more people die? What exactly are 

you trying to tell us? 

Ms. JACKSON. My testimony, sir, is that the President’s proposed 

budget does make cuts, but it makes them with a thoughtfulness 

that is intended to ensure that we preserve the fundamental core 

programs that ensure clean air and clean water for Americans. So 

for example, we increase categorical grants to the States, out of 

recognition, as a former State commissioner, that State programs 

are 90 percent of the permitting and enforcement, the implementation of our Nation’s environmental laws. We do not cut those programs. 

So there are many examples. But what I can talk about is the 

management recommendations we’re making that I believe are 

quite thoughtful. They are not painless, they are cuts. But they 

are, in my opinion, thoughtful cuts. 

Senator JOHANNS. You talked about the increased costs relative 

to a hospital stay, and gosh, we all agree, if you go to a hospital, 

that costs money. The regulations that I have looked at, and I will 

just give you the regulatory effort, relative to farm dust, there is 

this regulation out there that we are trying to get changed that 

would cause containment for milk, which I think is just one of the 

most remarkable ones. I am saying that as gently as I can. It 

doesn’t make any sense. 

But those cost money too, don’t they? 

Ms. JACKSON. We actually have an exemption proposed for milk 

containers. There is no regulation for farm dust. So yes, if there 

were regulations, I guess there would be. But we are in agreement 

that we don’t need to regulate milk. 

Senator JOHANNS. Were you slamming the gavel? 

Senator BOXER. I think we are going to the next person. You can 

have another round. We are going to Senator Cardin. We only have 

5 minutes each to go. 

Senator JOHANNS. Madam Chair, I don’t mind that at all, as long 

as we all live by the same rule. If we are not living by the same 

rule, then an individual member is going to feel like they are being 

treated unfairly. 

Senator BOXER. Sometimes the Ranking Member and the Chair 

take a little bit more time. But generally we try to stick to it. I 

made a mistake, I didn’t notice that Senator Whitehouse came 

back. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. 

Administrator Jackson, I am a little bit concerned about the proposed budget effects on the State Revolving Funds, which look like 

they are up for drinking water and wastewater cuts of nearly a billion dollars. This is obviously an area in which we are way behind 

the curve. I think EPA has reported that we are $600 billion in in-
42 

frastructure deficit for clean water and wastewater treatment. In 

Rhode Island, our list of water infrastructure projects is over $1.5 

billion and our Clean Water Finance Agency in 2010 had a lending 

capacity of just $88 million. 

We do take the support that we get to the State Revolving Fund, 

and we do leverage it with private borrowing. Tony Simeone, who 

runs the Rhode Island Clean Water Finance Agency, is kind of a 

magician at making more work and water infrastructure and jobs 

and clean effects out of the money that he gets. I would just urge 

you to reconsider the value, particularly the leverage value, of 

these investments. 

I understand that some of my colleagues take exception to our 

use of the term investment, and they just think that everything is 

spending, spending, spending. But it is pretty clear that our clean 

water infrastructure and our wastewater infrastructure is vitally 

important to all of us. When we are this far behind in terms of 

where we should be, I think this particular definition of infrastructure is pretty hard to debate. This goes back to the Romans. 

So I would hope that as we go forward, you might be willing to 

reconsider that, based on the leverage and jobs effects, in addition 

to the health effects of having better clean water and wastewater 

infrastructure. Perhaps you would like to respond. 

Ms. JACKSON. My only response, sir, is that yes, it was a tough 

choice to look at the revolving funds and propose a cut there. The 

only solace we had was that we had put and seen a lot of money 

hit the streets through the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act. There was $6 billion there in total, I believe, for water and 

wastewater. And 99 percent of it is obligated. I think a large percentage of it has already been spent. But there is a significant percentage that hasn’t. So one of the things we thought was that we 

would certainly like to spend money there, but that we could spend 

what we had. 

I just want to point out, I know the Ranking Member has left, but the last Bush SRF was $1.5 billion. This is $2.5 billion proposed. So it is not all the needs, certainly, but also remember, that 

this is a revolving fund, so money does come back as it is paid back 

into the fund. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I would love to get an update from you 

also on the transport rule. Rhode Island is a very important beneficiary of that rule. We are a non-attainment State. It is not because of Rhode Island release that we are not an attainment State, 

it is because we are downwind of other States that decided that it 

was really good public policy on their part to build really high 

smokestacks, inject their pollution up into the high atmosphere, 

and let it rain down on my Rhode Island constituents. 

There is not much I can do about it. As the Attorney General, 

I sued them. That lawsuit is still kicking around, as best I can tell. 

But you have the ability, with the regulatory point of view, to force 

the protection of far-away little lungs and older lungs, when the 

local economy thinks it is a really good idea to keep burning coal, 

project the waste up so it doesn’t—actually, there are places where 

they are burning this stuff that are in attainment, because they 

have done such a good job of putting it up, so that it falls downwind onto Rhode Island. 
43 

But I very much hope that we come to a day soon when on a 

bright, clear, summer day, we are not hearing on the radio that 

today is a bad air day in Rhode Island, and infants and seniors 

should stay home. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. It is projected for finalization in June, 

Senator. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Great, thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Now we go to Senator Boozman. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

Thank you for being here, Ms. Jackson. There is concern about 

statements that have been made about using the Chesapeake Bay 

TMDL and the Florida numeric nutrient criteria in other areas of 

the country. Both of those decisions are under fierce scrutiny. The 

numeric nutrient criteria in Florida, some ecologists believe that 

perhaps there is actually harm being done to the ecosystem as a 

result of that. 

In the budget, you are requesting $6.6 million to address nutrient loading in the Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico, specifically 

targeting non-point pollution. I also understand that you have a request for a computer model of loadings for the Mississippi River. 

I guess the question is, are we laying the groundwork, are you 

laying the groundwork for a Gulf of Mexico TMDL with these actions? 

Ms. JACKSON. The TMDL for the Chesapeake was a result of litigation. The work in Florida was the result of litigation, actually decided initially by the Bush administration before they left. The 

work in the Mississippi River Basin, which of course is huge, spans 

dozens of States, is work to address hypoxia in a cooperative manner through working with the States. Those are State programs for 

the most part, and I firmly believe that States are in the best position to address phosphorus and nitrogen pollution. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So there is not current litigation going on in 

that regard, in that area? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir, there isn’t. 

Senator BOOZMAN. So it is correct to say, then, that you are not 

pursuing TMDL in that area? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think as a statement of fact, we do not have, I 

will double check it, but I want to make sure I give you an accurate 

answer, Senator. But I don’t believe we are planning to do a TMDL 

specifically in the Mississippi watershed in the near future. But I 

will double check that for the record. 

Senator BOOZMAN. That would be very helpful. These are important issues. The cost is tremendous. Much of it seems to be an unfunded mandate. It really does impact on the people near the systems. In that area, with it being such a huge area, would impact 

a tremendous area. So thank you very much. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. Just to point out, I do want to make 

clear that TMDLs or standards can be set by the States, and in fact 

are required by the Clean Water Act. 

Senator BOOZMAN. They can be, and yet I know in Arkansas, we 

have instances where the State of Arkansas has wished for a certain standard, along with the State of Missouri. They were in complete agreement. You have chosen to overrule that and put your 
44 

particular standard in. So they can do that, but you all appear to 

overrule that all the time. So essentially, it is your standard. 

Ms. JACKSON. I will check on the particulars, sir. Obviously, 

water flows. So what we are trying to do down in the Gulf of Mexico, by the time the water even reaches your State, but goes further 

down into the watershed, to assure that there is fairness, that no 

one has to bear the burden of someone upstream sending their pollution down and then it affecting users further downstream, who 

essentially don’t have any headroom, because the water that 

reaches them already has a tremendous load. 

So there is a role, in my mind, for the EPA to play because it 

is a regional issue. But we have to lean heavily on the experts at 

the State. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Thank you for that question, because 

I thought that was important and I learned a lot. So thank you. 

Now we are going to turn to Senator Cardin. If there is no Republican coming back, we will go then to Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator CARDIN. I am going to followup on this exchange, because I really do think that the House-passed budget is providing 

unfunded requirements on our States by repealing the Federal 

Government’s support for programs that we were participating 

with the States. 

So I want to go through this a little bit further, because in regard to the Chesapeake Bay, the TMDL of course is established 

under court, and the States are going to still be going forward with 

their TMDLs regardless of what the House bill provides, if it were 

to become law. The only thing the States are going to lose is your 

help. Am I reading that right? 

Ms. JACKSON. Our help, because of the cuts to the categorical 

grants, I think they lose a lot of resources as well. 

Senator CARDIN. That is a good point. Because we look at the 

EPA budget, and we say, gee, OK, we are going to cut these Federal programs. I started in a State, and I really do believe in federalism. Can you just go into a little more detail as to a 30 percent 

cut, and I know you are here to talk about the President’s numbers, and not what the House budget is all about . But if there is 

a 30 percent cut, it is going to affect moneys coming to our States. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. I am trying to get—the categorical grants 

are cut by, I think, $1 billion it looks like. Is that right? 

Ms. BENNETT. No, that is what is proposed. 

Ms. JACKSON. Excuse me. Yes, so I have the numbers somewhere, I will get them for you. But there is a significant cut to the 

State categorical grant programs, more than we are certainly proposing to increase them in 2012. 

Senator CARDIN. Just so we understand what we are doing here, 

can you tell us the type of programs, the type of grants that the 

States are going to lose, or could lose as a result of the cut? That 

type of a cut, if it were implemented by Congress. 

Ms. JACKSON. These are the grants that most States use to pay 

the salaries of the people who write air permits and water permits, 

who enforce the Clean Air Act, who enforce the Clean Water Act, 

who enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act. They are on the front 
45 

lines of implementing those laws, making those laws more than 

words on paper. 

Senator CARDIN. Of course those laws are important, I am not 

going to back over the exchange you have had with other Committee members for public health and for clean air and clean water 

and all the above. The States are still going to be on the hook to 

get it done. They are just going to have to pay for it with their 

dime without having the Federal Government participate. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir, there just won’t be as much support to enforce and implement our Nation’s environmental laws. I think 

probably common sense would say they won’t be able to do as 

much. 

Senator CARDIN. So they will get sued, and the courts will be active again. The point that my colleague just mentioned, the States 

are going to be in the worst position here, because they are going 

to be, we look to the States for their plans. They are going to be 

held accountable under the laws that we passed, as they should be, 

because we want to protect our water. We want to make sure our 

communities don’t have streams that catch on fire, or we don’t 

want to live in neighborhoods where we have high cancer rates, because of the pollutants that are being put into the water. 

But other than, I am always amazed at my friends who talk 

about unfunded mandates. But then when it comes to budgets for 

the Federal Government to live up to its part of the deal, they seem 

to lose their passion for the Federal Government living up to its 

share. 

Ms. JACKSON. The only other thing I would offer, sir, is that 

these are incredibly successful programs. We still have environmental challenges in this country. We have heard about many of 

them today during the hearing. But these are effective programs. 

The Clean Air Act, again, 30 to 40 to 1, the Clean Water Act has 

made numerous streams fishable or swimmable again. The work 

and investments in the Chesapeake Bay are—— 

Senator CARDIN. I was hoping you were going to mention the 

Chesapeake Bay. I was getting a little anxious there. 

But you have a modest increase in the Chesapeake Bay program, 

I think you take it up to $60 million or something, no, $65 million. 

Your budget takes the Chesapeake Bay program up to $65 million. 

The House-passed budget would reduce that by about $25 million. Now, I can tell you what is going to happen. That means that 

the grants that go to the six States will be reduced. The grants 

that go to the organizations, the private organizations that are 

partners with us in cleaning up the Bay, that do the shoreline erosion protection programs, that do the school programs where school 

children literally go out there and not only cleanup the Bay, but 

understand what it is all about. It is those programs that we are 

going to lose. It is going to be more difficult for us to meet the 

TMDLs that have been established by the courts if we don’t have 

the resources coming in in partnership with the State and private 

sector. It is just going to make it more difficult for us to meet those 

standards. 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right, Senator. Remember, some of that 

goes to, it is leveraged by work and money with USDA to help the 

agricultural sector, who are vital partners in this work. 
46 

Senator CARDIN. The bottom line, to the people of Maryland and 

the surrounding States, means that there is a greater risk that will 

go back to restrictions on the rockfish, greater likelihood we will 

have continued problems with oysters. It will hurt our economy. It 

will hurt the beach communities, where we have to close beaches 

on more and more days. That is what is at stake here. So that is 

why we do get a little bit emotional about what is being done in 

the other body. 

I thank you very much for your commitment to this area. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thanks very much, Madam Chairman, 

and welcome, Administrator Jackson. 

I just want to make a short statement, if I may, Madam Chair, 

including my time. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Politicians talk a lot about how Congress 

should be more like the everyday Americans, who sit at their kitchen tables and try to plan their household budgets, and crunching 

the numbers, see what they can and can’t afford. But no American 

would try to balance their family’s budget by cutting out money for 

batteries for a hallway smoke detector, or putting off a set of new 

brakes for the family car. 

It would be just as reckless for Congress to sacrifice the public’s 

health and safety in the name of fiscal austerity. Yet this is precisely what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have proposed. The House Republicans want to slash funding for environmental protection by nearly one-third, stripping this vital agency of 

its ability to enforce laws and keep the air our children breathe 

and the water they drink clean. 

If we really want to reduce the tax burden on hard-working 

Americans, we ought to make the polluting industries pay to clean 

up the messes they make. That was the standard that was in play 

a few years ago, right? It worked well. Right now, taxpayers spend 

more than a billion dollars every year to clean up neighborhoods 

made toxic by irresponsible industries. It is not fair. 

So today, I, with several of my colleagues as co-sponsors, Senators Whitehouse, Cardin, Menendez, Feinstein, Murray and Senator Merkley, this legislation would reinstate the fee on chemical 

and oil companies to bond the cleanup of Superfund sites. I am 

pleased that President Obama included polluter pays in his proposed EPA budget. 

But the House Republicans would rather let polluters off the 

hook altogether. I don’t know how conscience permits one to say, 

well, we can’t afford clean air, we can’t afford clean water. Look at 

their children in the face and say, oh, I am sorry, I would like for 

you to be able to drink that water, but maybe if you do it with a 

sieve or something like that, you will be all right. That is how nonsensical that sound to me. 

So for example, the House Republicans proposed subverting the 

EPA’s ability to carry out the Clean Air Act. Since it has become 
47 

law in 1970, the Clean Air Act has protected our health and the 

environment from dangerous, toxic air pollution. In 2010, it prevented more than 160,000 premature deaths and more than 1.7 

million child respiratory illnesses. It is fantastic. The Clean Air 

Act’s economic benefits are also clear. When air pollution is severe, 

health care costs soar and productivity plunges. Businesses know 

employees who can’t breathe are employees who can’t work. 

So gutting the Clean Air Act will do nothing to help our economic 

recovery, and nothing to close our budget deficit. I agree, we have 

to fix the Nation’s budget challenges. But no American would try 

to balance their household budget by skimping on their kids’ safety. 

Just the same, Congress should not be putting austerity above public health. 

I will make a comment about the budgetary situation that we 

find ourselves in. Every financial statement has two elements. One, 

there are costs. There are costs for operating, for material. The 

other is revenues. I for one would have to pay more tax if we eliminated the tax cuts that were done in the Bush years and have continued. I will tell you, if I could put another firehouse in my neighborhood or another Clean Water standard that my kids can’t drink 

now from the fountain, we buy bottled water like so many people, 

if we could do that, I would gladly pay the tax. That is like an investment. When I ran a business, we put more money out at times 

than we had in hand. But we knew that we were doing the right 

thing. 

That is one thing, I wish, Madam Chairman, I know how desperately you want to do the right thing and how stymying it is to 

hear, oh, we can’t afford it. We can’t afford the toll on our children 

that it will take if we don’t get on with this. I think those who created the pollution should pay for it. Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you for your statement. 

Senator Boozman, do you want to make your concluding remarks, and then I will see if the Senator wants a second round. 

I know Senator Carper has sent me some questions I am going to 

ask you as well. 

Senator BOOZMAN. No. I have a question that I would like to submit for the record, and if you would respond, that would be good. 

We appreciate you, Ms. Jackson, and Ms. Bennett being here. We 

appreciate your testimony. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator Whitehouse, why don’t you take your time, and then I 

will do some questions from Senator Carper. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thanks. I just wanted to add one thing, 

because in this room, in particular, we hear a lot of things said 

about the extent and the effect of carbon pollution in our environment. It is sort of an odd chamber to be in, because you can get 

into utility boardrooms, and they get it. You can go to the American people, they clearly get it. You can go to the scientific community, and they are appalled that we haven’t taken action more 

readily, because the scientific record is so compelling. 

Yet, other than the ExxonMobil boardroom, I can’t think of a 

place other than this building in Washington where we get more 

confusion sown about where we are. Some of the stuff just, as I understand it, just isn’t very debatable or negotiable. 
48 

Over the last 800,000 years, 8,000 centuries, the atmosphere has 

varied fairly steadily between containing 170 and 300 parts per 

mission of carbon dioxide. That is not theory, that is measurement. 

So I don’t think there is any responsible debate about that point. 

In 1863, the Irish scientist John Tyndall determined that carbon 

dioxide in the atmosphere traps more heat as the concentration 

goes up. That is textbook science, it has been textbook science for 

a century. That is not in dispute either. 

Since the Industrial Revolution, industrialized societies have 

been pumping carbon into the atmosphere at astonishing rates. We 

are up to seven to eight gigatons in the last decade annually. A 

gigaton is a billion tons. I don’t think that figure is in any serious 

dispute. 

So the conclusion that when you release multiple gigatons of carbon into the atmosphere every year, it is going to go up, is not a 

very challenging theory to take on board. Put more in, find more 

there. It is really not that complicated. You draw conclusions from 

that, when you are adding a lot more, the concentration would go 

up. That is something that we also don’t theorize about, we go out 

and we measure it. The measure now is that we are over 390 parts 

per million, which is outside of a bandwidth that we have lived in 

for 8,000 centuries. 

That is a pretty big chatter strip to go driving across and pretend 

that everything is going to be just OK and you don’t have to worry. 

It is pretty easy to do trajectories, too, that is not complicated. We 

do trajectories all the time. You can plot where we are going on a 

graph and it takes you to 688 parts per million in the year 2095 

and over 1,000 parts per million in the year 2195. Because some 

of this is irrecoverable once it gets started, that is a matter of some 

concern for us now, because those are boundaries we haven’t been 

outside, not in 800,000 years, but in millions and millions of years. 

We are taking a huge bet on what happens to our species and 

to our planet. Very cool-headed industries, like the property casualty insurance industry are making huge bets based on this 

science every day. 

So I just want to try to kind of bring a moment of reality to this 

extraordinarily peculiar room in which this remains the subject of 

debate. I know that there are big industries out there that don’t 

want to hear it. I know that big industries can have a lot of sway 

in this particular institution. I think with some of the people 

around here, frankly, Galileo would not have a shot. He had a similar predicament. He had science and he had pressure. He yielded 

to pressure, although he is alleged to have whispered ‘‘I recant, but 

the plants stay their courses.’’ 

I don’t know whether that is true or not, but don’t recant. Because the planets will stay their courses. These rules are not rules 

that we have made up. They are laws of science, they are the rules 

by which our world operates. There comes a point where denying 

them is more than just irresponsible. 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, can I just respond a bit, maybe to give 

you a little bit of comfort? I know you mentioned ExxonMobil, but 

I saw a piece of good news yesterday. Even Rupert Murdock and 

his news corps, they own Fox News, they own, I believe, the Wall 

Street Journal and others, entities that sometimes have a field day 
49 

with my agency or the issue of climate change. He put out an announcement that they have become carbon-neutral across their 

global operations, and that their projects pay for themselves in less 

than 2 years on average, that they are lighting retrofits and PC 

shutdowns to systemic changes like moving to video-conferencing 

and carbon foot-printing. 

So I do believe, that as you mentioned, this is good for business, 

good for our future, and very much doable through a simple desire 

to do it. So thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Indeed, it is actually an economic win, because it allows us to compete effectively in hugely developing, rapidly growing industries that we would otherwise fall behind in and 

lose jobs and economic position to. So thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Just tagging on to that thought, isn’t it true—thank you, Senator 

Whitehouse—that carbon pollution comes out of the same stack as 

other forms of air pollution? So when you go to reduce carbon, you 

are also reducing smog-forming pollution, toxic soot? My understanding is, contaminants such as mercury will be reduced, lead 

and other heavy metals. We know those pollutants harm the development of the nervous system, including the development of the 

brain. Infants and children are especially at risk. 

So it isn’t as if, if we are going after carbon pollution and we are 

doing it in the right way and we are bringing it down, aren’t we 

also making people healthier, because of all those co-pollutants 

that are in the air with the carbon? 

Ms. JACKSON. Many of the same sources, whether it is dirty vehicles, which we are working to clean up under the President’s Clean 

Car program, or power plants emit carbon pollution, but they also 

emit smog, soot, mercury. 

Senator BOXER. I think that is really important. It is one of the 

reasons, just in my home State, I will tell on my friend, we had 

a really interesting referendum in California, Prop 23. It said very 

simply, we should delay our carbon pollution reduction effort until 

our economy improves. We have 12.4 percent unemployment. Now, 

this, California is considered a blue State, it is really a purple 

State. We have less than 50 percent Democrats, less than 50 percent Republicans. We have a lot of Independent voters. 

The oil companies, Texas oil companies, came in and they spent 

millions of dollars, versus the American Lung Association, basically 

that is what it was. It was the most extraordinary thing, it was 60– 

40, actually 61 percent said let’s not delay. Now, mind you, all it 

said was, delay until the unemployment rate goes down to 5 percent. So it is not that they canceled it, they couldn’t win. 

So I think the issue that I am trying to say to my friends, and 

I respect each and every one of them, if you look at the American 

Lung Association’s nationwide polling, done by a Republican and 

Democratic polling firm, we should be united in this. I am not saying we should agree with every single comma and quotation mark. 

But in general, we should be united, if we represent the American 

people. 

I also wanted to correct something Senator Inhofe said, and put 

into the record the actual vote on the Lieberman-Warner. He said 

it got 30 some votes. It actually—we were 6 votes short of 60. We 
50 

had, I forget exactly how many were there—48 were there, and we 

had letters from the others, like Senator McCain, who was out 

campaigning, that they would have voted for cloture. 

So the high water mark was 54 votes. Not enough. We had nine 

Republicans say at that time they were for a climate change bill. 

Now, it has eroded, there is no doubt about it, there is no question about it. But that doesn’t change what you need to do, Madam 

Administrator. You need to follow the law. I hope we will support 

you. 

I wanted to just pose these questions, very important questions, 

and I agree with the thrust of these comments, from Senator Carper. He says—can you please keep your answers concise? First, he 

says, it is his understanding that the diesel engine standards 

adopted by the agency in 2007 only affect new engines, and they 

have no impact on the existing fleet. Is that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is correct. 

Senator BOXER. Then he says, I understand that there are about 

11 million of existing diesel engines in use, like in the school buses 

that take our kids to schools. Some of these engines and vehicles 

can last for decades. Is he correct in that understanding as well? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is correct. 

Senator BOXER. He says, his understanding is that dirty diesel 

exhaust is deadly. In fact, a person in this country is more likely 

to be killed by diesel soot than by a firearm or a drunk driver. It 

is also his understanding that we have American technology that 

can retrofit or replace dirty diesel engines. That technology reduces 

diesel emissions by 90 percent. Is he correct on the diesel technology and the diesel public health concerns? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, Chairman. I can’t confirm the comparison, but 

certainly they are deadly emissions, and they do kill. 

Senator BOXER. He says, finally, Administrator Jackson, if there 

are millions of existing diesel engines not affected by the 2007 rule, 

these engines can last for decades, spewing deadly emissions. 

Would you agree with me that there are tremendous remaining opportunities to provide for diesel emission reductions under DERA? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, there are tremendous opportunities remaining. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I ask unanimous consent to enter into the 

record a letter from 15 organizations representing local water agencies, State officials, conservation and environmental organizations, 

as well as organizations representing the construction and engineering trades, that call on Congress to reject drastic spending cuts 

to EPA wastewater and water quality programs that were included 

in H.R. 1, which is the House Continuing Resolution that we are 

looking at at the moment. I wanted to make sure we got those into 

the record. Without objection, Water Environment Foundation, the 

National Association of Clean Water Agencies, Associated General 

Contractors of America, American Public Works Association, National Association of Clean Water Agencies, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, President of American Rivers, President 

and CEO of CMAA, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vice 

President, Industry and Government Affairs at the Vinyl Institute, 

American Sports Fishing Association, California Association of 

Sanitation Agencies, Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Association of 
51 

California Water Agencies, Association of State Drinking Water 

Administrators, Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities. 

[The referenced information was not available at time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. That is a very powerful endorsement of your 

work. I wanted to include it. 

Anything else, Senator Boozman? 

Senator BOOZMAN. Yes, ma’am. The only thing I would like to do 

is enter a letter to you from 10 of your colleagues that was dated 

June 6th, concerning some of their concerns. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
52 

The! lonmabk I lurry Reid 

J\lajllrity Lemkr 

l !nited States S~na(e 

S-221. the Capitol 

Washini!!(JIl. D.C. 20) 10 

The Ilo!1urahlc Barbam Box..:!' 

June 6. :W()g 

('hairman. ('ommilll'e on Envir0nll1enl and Publk Works 

-156 Dirksen Senate OllieI.' Building 

\Vushingtol1. D.C. 10510 

Dear I'dI' L..:ader and Chairman Boxer: 

.'\$ Democrats IhH11 regions oflhe country that will he most immediately arkctcd by dimak 

kgislatinn. WI.: \v;lllt to share our concerns with 11K: bill thaI is currently bd()n: the Sc:nalc. \\\' 

cOI1l111cml your ll.:ackrship in ,ttt~mrtil1g to addressollc or th(.· most signilicant thrcm, HI lhis and 

Iltt\ll'c g.enerations: howe",!'. we (,mnol support linal passage or the Boxer Substilutc in its 

Cl1rr~llt Conn. 

We hdicVt: a Icdcml cap and tnldc progmm !11t!~( !lot only signilil'antly r~dllce greenlwusc 

gas emissions hur also ensure that consumers and workers in all regitll1s Oflhc l.:.S. arc protected 

1i"c>Jll undue hardship. !\ l"".!era! cap and (radl: program is perhaps thc most signifil:anl cndeavor 

lInderwken by Congress in 01'<:1' 7() years and mllst bi.' done with great can). To thal point wc 

hal'<: laid <lut the 1()lloIVing principks and COllCt.!!'I1S that must be considered and fully addressed 

in un}' linal icgislmion. 

• Contain Costs and J'rcnnt Harm to the tl.S. Ec(momy: \V" Iwpe that you rewgnizc. 

as \\"c' do. the inherellt uncertainty in predicting Ihe costs of achieving the emission cups 

Sc·t 1(mh ill this or an, \:Iil11<1l<: legislation. Whik pla<.:ing a <.:o,t on ",arbon is imp"rtul11. 

\\1.' believe that there Illllst hI! a balan~e and a short-term clishion when l1e\\ tcdl!lologics 

!1la~ not be availahle as hoped for ()I" arc' I110Te cxpcnsiw {hun assumed. !"hcrc an: m<lny 

,)plions to deal with the issue ami all should he up for discussion in "reler to med Olll 

envirnnl11t!l1tal and economk goals. Ultimat"'y. we must strive to form a partnership 

"illl rcgulatt:eI industries to help th.:m n:dt!~e emissions as they transitionli'om an old 

energy C~onOll1y to a new energy economy whit:h will proted both our cnvir0I1111ent and 

ollreeollolllY 

• Inves! Aggressively in New Tcchnulogics and [)cplo),lI1cnf of Existing Technologics; 

TIl"re is no dllubt thaI W~ nced U lcdmological n:vllfutiolllO enter illto a 101\ carbo!) 
53 

eC(JnllITly. It is ~riljc,ll thaI we design effecti\c mechanisms tu augment and accekrate 

government-sponsored technology R&D programs and incentives Ihat will motivate rapid 

deployment of those technologies wilholl! picking winners und losers. We also want to 

il1l:ludc proposals to provide funding for clou'bon capture und storage and other critical low 

carbon technologies in advance of rcsources heing available through the auction ur 

emission allow,mccs. \\le also ne~d to aggrcssively deploy existing energy enicieney 

technologies now to relfolill11i!!ions or homes. buildings and manufacturing facilities In 

reduce ckctricily costs for everyone. 

Trellt Stlltcs ~~qUjtllbly: JUSl as some groups of consumers will he mort: severely 

aflc<':kll by the CO~1 or ,ompli;mce, ~ot(lO \\ ill our states. The tltlocatioll strudure of it 

cllp-and-tralle hi II must be designed to balance these burdens across states and rcgiom 

and be :;llffi<.:icl1tly transparent to l><: understood. 

• PI-otcct America's Working Families: Any legislation must recognize IhM working 

rnmilics UTC going tn be significantly affected by any cap and trade legislation. Price 

rdiet' I()l' these families must be includt:d in allY federal eap and trade program. b.)r 

instance, one way 10 provjde some relief would be to provide additional allowances to 

utilities whusc electricity prices arc n:gulaled, which woulu help III keep electricity prkes 

low. 

• Protert (7.S. Manufllcturing .Jobs lind Strengthen International Competitiveness: 

TIll: l.ieb~rn1iIl1-WmT1"r bill conl,lins ,I mcchnnism w protect C.S. lllHI1UitlCll1rCrs from 

internatiunal competitors that do not face the same carbon ennstmints, Iflhis :nedl:.lnism 

docs not work. or is found to be tloll(;olllplianl with the World Trade Org,ll1iZl1lion, then 

the program needs to be modified Qr suspended. The linal bill must include enhanced 

safi!guards to ensure a truly equitable and elTective global errorlthat minimizes harm 10 

the U.S. economy and protects American jobs. Furthermore, we musl adequately help 

manuliteturcrs transition to a low carbon economy to maintain dOlllestic johs and 

production. 

• Fully Hccognizc Agriculture lind Forestry's Role: Agriculture and lor~$try 'lrc' not 

rcguh.ted under the bill bUlthcy ~un c()nlribut~ to reducing emissions by ovcr JO'v" 

domestically FUftilcnnofc. international dcforcstmi()ll cOlltributt!s to 20% of global 

gn.~el1hOllSC gas emissions. Strong, aggressive and verifiable oflkt polidcs ,an fltlly 

utili'l.': the capabilities of our ramlers and [()fests. i\ strong onset policy can also reduce 

the .;,)sts of (I cap and trude program while muintaining QUT slrong environmental goab. 

• Clarify Federal/Statc Authority: Congress should adopt a mandatory li!dcral cup-,llldtrade program that will be the single rcgulmory regime jor controlling, greenhouse gas 

emissiolls. Existing Slnte !;IWS und initiatives should b.: integf<lt.:d into th~ federul capltlld-trndt.' progrul11 Wh ... l\' the policies do not conl1ict. Federal uniformity in this area 

should be made ckar ill the statutory languagt.' to prevent conniet in regulation, pr.:scrvc 

o\'<:rall cnidcncy. and ensure harnlOnizatiol1 (If regulations. Where a conniel exists, 

teder,,J 1;1\\ m:t.'ds l\> ckurly prevail. 

:2 
54 

I'rovide Accountability for Consumer Uollars: lllC cap and trade program devcloped in 

the Lichennan-Wul1lcr bill has the potential to mise over $7 trillion. Much ofthcsc limds 

will be indirectly paid li)r by consumers through increased energy prices. The federal 

govcl1lment has a fundamental obligation to ensure these funds arc hcing spent in u 

rcspollsih!e and wise manner. The development of any cap and trade program must 

recognize the sensitivity of this obligation and eliminate all possibility of waste. fraud or 

ahuse. 

We look t'()rwltI'U to working with you to ensure that any linal bill will address the problems 

or climate clUUlgC without imposing undue hardship on (lUI' Slates. key industrial s<!ctors and 

consumers. 

Sincerely. 

John D. Rockefeller IV 

Carll.evin 

;).;J. ( 

-=_:--:,.,--;-;._''-,.;;...._. ~':: £A~ __ ~._. 

Blanche Lincoln 

,Jim Webb 

L~f) 

EvaI1B;Vh~~ _i_ 

Sherrod 

.' 
55 

Senator BOOZMAN. The other thing is, you mentioned the referendum that you had concerning that. I think that is the correct 

way to do things. We can debate the merits of climate change and 

things like that. But my concern and the concern of many others 

is that the agency, this agency, other agencies, are trying to do 

things that they don’t have the statutory authority to do. It has 

been pretty clear, I think, serving in the House and now over here, 

that in the past, the cap-and-trade legislation, the rewrite of the 

Clean Water Act, it has been pretty clear that Congress, the majority of Congress has not gone along with that. 

I would say that if we try and do that through a regulatory approach that that is wrong. I think most Members of Congress 

would agree with that. 

Senator BOXER. Well, Senator, let me respond to you, because 

you are right in the way you are representing the views of the current Senate. There is no question that the stated view is, Congress 

should act on a specific bill on carbon pollution. Here is the problem. The same people who say Congress should act to control carbon won’t support any bill to do it. 

So we are left with the Clean Air Act. Now, as you well know, 

I am sure, because you were over there in the House, the Bush administration stopped any and all forward motion on carbon pollution reduction for the entire time they were there. A lawsuit that 

was filed wound its way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme 

Court decided the issue. The Bush administration argued carbon 

pollution is not covered under the Clean Air Act. 

In a very clear-cut decision, and the words of which are seared 

in my memory, they state, that is absolutely untrue, that in fact, 

and you can just read the Clean Air Act yourself and see it, it says 

that the agency, they can act to protect the public from all pollution, and these are the words in the Clean Air Act, including pollution related to climate change. 

So I wasn’t surprised that the Supreme Court found in favor of 

that. So your role is to follow the law. 

So let me just get this on the record. I think the Senator is being 

very straightforward. There are people who think EPA is not following the law. So I want to get you on the record. My interpretation of what the Supreme Court said, in a very clear decision, is 

once an endangerment finding is made, and that finding was made, 

based on most of the work done in the Bush administration, once 

the endangerment finding was made and the decision was made 

that carbon pollution is dangerous to the public, do you not have 

the responsibility to act to reduce carbon pollution? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, Chairman. Once an endangerment finding is 

made, EPA must, must, the statute is clear, the word is must. Just 

to go one step further, for the Ranking Member, the decision also 

said that EPA could not simply choose not to deal with the issue 

of endangerment, that we couldn’t be arbitrary and put the issue 

to the side. We had to make a scientific finding one way on the 

issue of that of greenhouse gas pollution. So that is the 

endangerment finding. 

We are not alone in this. There was some interesting correspondence that came out from the past Administration, the person who 

had my job before me, who reached the same scientific conclusion 
56 

and said that there was simply no way to deny the fact that greenhouse gases endanger public health and welfare. 

Senator BOXER. I would ask unanimous consent to place into the 

record the exact words of the Court. They said, ‘‘Because greenhouses 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 emission of such gases.’’ 

So all I ask is that you follow the law. I think that there will 

be attempts to tie your hands. It is very open, it is not, you know, 

in every way. To me, to me, it is a nightmare. Because there are 

real life consequences of these things. All you have to do is read 

the endangerment finding. Put that aside, all you have to do is 

read what happens when our kids in utero get exposed to mercury, 

or when our elderly and all of our families get exposed to the fine 

particulate matter. This is serious business. 

That is why 70 percent of the people or more support the EPA. 

That is what the question was: do you support the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s role in going after this pollution. It was done 

in a fair and square way, and 70 percent. 

So again, it hurts my heart that we have to have these arguments every time. But that doesn’t dissuade me, as Chairman of 

this Committee, we are going to keep on doing it. 

I just want to say thank you to you, Administrator Jackson. You 

are patient, you are caring, you are very forthcoming to both sides. 

I just think you are a terrific Administrator. Frankly, I think most 

of us agree with that, regardless of our party. 

So thank you so much for this. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 
57 

The Authoritative Resource on Safe Water SM 

March 2, 2011 

The Honorable Barbara Boxer 

Chair, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

The Honorable James M. Inhofe 

Ranking Member, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works 

The Honorable Benjamin L. Cardin 

Chair, Senate Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife 

The Honorable Jeff Sessions 

Ranking Member, Senate Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife 

Dear Senators, 

As the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works takes up the difficult work of 

guiding the 2012 budget of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the American Water 

Works Association (AWWA) urges the committee to weigh certain key factors in budgeting the 

state revolving loan fund program for drinking water. 

We realize that under the current budget climate every federal program may have to carry its 

fair share of belt-tightening. We ask, though, that the committee and the Congress remember 

that reliable water systems are necessary for a community's public health, fire protection and 

economic viability. Further, the U.S. Conference of Mayors has estimated that one dollar 

invested in water and wastewater infrastructure increases private output in the gross domestic 

product by $6.35 in the long term. The U.S. Department of Commerce has stated that adding 

one new job in local water and wastewater creates 3.68 jobs in the national economy. 

The need to repair, replace and overhaul the nation's water systems is immense. While more 

than 90 percent of water/wastewater infrastructure is funded locally, EPA's own "Drinking Water 

Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment" shows that the nation's drinking water utilities will 

need $334.8 billion in infrastructure investments over the next 20 years. Much of the nation's 

water infrastructure was built more than 100 years ago and is aging rapidly. 

Customer rates and other local charges are and will remain the primary means of paying for 

water service and infrastructure, but the scope of needs in many communities requires 

additional assistance. In addition to demonstrating leadership by encouraging good asset 

management and appropriate rate setting, the federal government can also increase access to 

capital while limiting the cost to the federal government. This requires continued investrnent in 

the SRF programs for drinking water and clean water. 

AWWA is the world's largest educational and scientific organization dedicated to the promotion 

of safe drinking water. Our 60,000 members work as community water providers, federal and 

state regulators, environmentalists, academics and scientists, and reside in all 50 states. Our 

utility members serve 80 percent of the U.S. population. 
58 

Æ 

While the United States has long enjoyed safe, reliable drinking water, we must maintain and 

upgrade our drinking water infrastructure to keep that water safe and reliable for the future. 

Since its creation in 1996, the drinking water SRF program has become one of the most 

important tools available to communities seeking to improve their drinking water systems. 

Further, as a revolving loan program, the SRF will provide funding for additional water 

infrastructure projects down the road. 

We look forward to continuing to work with the Committee on this and other issues. 

Sincerely, 

Tom Curtis 

Deputy Executive Director for Government Affairs 

Headquarters Office: 

6666 W. Quincy Avenue, Denver CO 80235 

T 303.794.7711 II F 303.3470804 

www.a'MNa.org 

Government Affairs Office: 

1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 701W 

Washington, DC 20005 

T 202.6288303 II F 202. 628.2846