U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

21–350 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1225 

HEARING ON THE PRESIDENT’S PROPOSED 

EPA BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 23, 2010 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

FEBRUARY 23, 2010 

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 .................... 4 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 7 

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................. 8 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 10 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 15 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ............................ 15 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 16 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ................................ 18 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 18 

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 214 

WITNESS 

Jackson, Lisa P., Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .......... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 38 

Senator Baucus .......................................................................................... 42 

Senator Bond ............................................................................................. 48 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 51 

Senator Cardin .......................................................................................... 73 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 86 

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 105 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 109 

Senator Voinovich ..................................................................................... 129 

Senator Whitehouse .................................................................................. 132 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Letter from the Union of Concerned Scientists to Senator Boxer, December 

2, 2009 ................................................................................................................... 215 

(1) 

HEARING ON THE PRESIDENT’S PROPOSED 

EPA BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 2010 

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

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

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

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Cardin, Carper, Bond, 

Whitehouse, Vitter, Merkley, Sanders, Barrasso, and Klobuchar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The hearing will come to order. 

I want to welcome everybody here. Before we get started I want 

to take a moment to express, on behalf of the full committee, our 

sincerest condolences to the family of Fish and Wildlife Service Director Sam Hamilton, who passed away suddenly over the weekend 

at a young age. We were all deeply saddened to learn of his passing, and our hearts go out to his family and his friends. 

Mr. Hamilton brought more than 30 years of experience with the 

Fish and Wildlife Service and a lifelong record as a committed conservationist, and he brought this to his work. His loss will be keenly felt by the dedicated professionals at the Fish and Wildlife Service and frankly by every American who cares about protecting our 

Nation’s wild and natural treasures. 

I know Senator Inhofe had written a beautiful letter, put out a 

beautiful statement, and I think we are certainly united in this 

feeling. 

I also wanted to take a minute, on the public works side, to 

thank the people who voted to move forward with the Highway 

Trust Fund yesterday. We all know we needed that vote badly, and 

I particularly want to thank Senators Voinovich and Bond on this 

committee for voting to move forward with that jobs bill. I think 

that vote was very key, and I am very happy about it. 

So now I am going to start my comments. I told Senator Inhofe 

that if I go over my 5 minutes he will get every second that I take 

up. We have agreed that would be a fair way to proceed. 

Welcome, Administrator Jackson. I appreciate this EPA budget’s 

significant commitment to the Nation’s clean water and drinking 

water, to that infrastructure, and the priority funding for the 

EPA’s Office of Children’s Health. Children are especially vulnerable to pollution, and we must ensure that they are protected. 
2 

I have a couple of concerns about the budget, which I will talk 

to you about in my question time. The Superfund Program, I do not 

think we are going to clean up enough sites, and I am concerned. 

And some of the Clean Air Programs, including the San Joaquin 

and South Coast Air District Emissions Grants, which again I will 

bring up to you in the question time. 

I would like to note that the President’s budget takes important 

steps that are needed to begin to address global warming. We 

know, because you wrote a letter, that you will not be enforcing 

these rules for a year, but you do need to prepare, as the Supreme 

Court has instructed. 

While the world is going green the one place where we cannot 

seem to address climate change directly by legislation is in the 

Senate. For example, in Great Britain both political parties, Labor 

and Conservative, all support strong action on this issue. 

Meanwhile, my good friend and colleague, Senator Inhofe, had a 

great time inviting Al Gore to his very well crafted igloo that he 

made during Washington’s big snowstorm. 

Senator INHOFE. That my grandkids made. 

Senator BOXER. Well, OK, yes, but I think you oversaw. It was 

a very good job. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. And I think there was more than a hint there 

that, because it snowed so much in February in Washington, that 

that proves that the climate is not warming. 

But scientists know that weather and climate are two different 

things. Here is how NASA explains the difference. They say, this 

is NASA; in most places weather can change from minute to 

minute, hour by hour, day to day, and season to season. Climate, 

however, is the average of weather over time and space. 

To illustrate this point, let us look at what happened in other 

parts of the world while the igloo was being built. In Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, record hot temperatures including 3 days in a row of 

over 100 degrees, were responsible for 32 deaths. And we will show 

you a photo of a machine moving snow on grassy Vancouver ski 

slopes. 

[Picture shown.] 

Senator BOXER. Also the same week the igloo was being built the 

organizers of the Winter Olympics were forced to truck in tons of 

snow because slopes that have seen an average of 8 feet of snow 

over the past 4 years had a mere 36 inches. 

Now, I do not claim that any of these weather events proves or 

disproves climate change, not the snow here and not the hot weather there, because that is not a scientific approach to this issue. The 

way to evaluate climate trends is to look at scientific records over 

time. So, let us do that. 

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration tell us 

that the 2000 to 2009 decade is the hottest in the last 130 years 

since records were being kept. And here is some more scientific evidence. We have a chart on the melting ice sheets. 

[Chart shown.] 

Senator BOXER. Every ice front in the southern part of the Antarctic Peninsula has been retreating overall from 1947 to 2009 with 

the most dramatic changes occurring since 1990. That is the U.S. 
3 

Geological Survey, 2010. That just came out. In September 2009 

the northern hemisphere sea ice event was the third lowest since 

satellite records began in 1979. That is also a NOAA report from 

2010. 

So, these are the facts on the ground. This is not speculation. 

Thank you for the chart. Scientists tell us that one of the marks 

of climate change is extreme weather. Let us look at this chart, Extreme Weather in the United States. 

[Chart shown.] 

Senator BOXER. The amount of rain in the heaviest storms has 

increased nearly 20 percent in the last century. By contrast, in 

much of the Southeast and large parts of the West, the frequency 

of drought has increased over the past 50 years. In the West, both 

the frequency of large wildfires and length of the fire season have 

increased substantially in recent decades. And in the last 30 years 

annual sea surface temperatures in the Main Atlantic Hurricane 

Development Region increased 2 degrees Fahrenheit, coinciding 

with an increase in the destructive energy of Atlantic tropical 

storms and hurricanes. 

Now, one of the reasons I am so pleased that EPA is addressing 

climate change is that when we do so we create millions of jobs. 

But as the L.A. Times reports just yesterday, jobs are being lost 

as we allow the rest of the world to surpass us in developing new 

technologies. 

I really urge my colleagues to read this article, Uncertainty Over 

Proposals in Congress Has Firms Holding Off on Investments, this 

is the L.A. Times, at stake for Americans, thousands of jobs from 

low skilled maintenance work to high level engineering that are expected to result as the world transitions away from fossil fuels. At 

a time when the U.S. economy is desperate for jobs and investment 

in future growth a slew of clean energy projects are on hold because of political stalemate in Washington. To spur more private 

investment in job creation the Federal Government must reassure 

Wall Street that the need for clean energy will grow, experts said. 

This is everything that the majority of this committee has been 

saying for about 2 years. So, Administrator Jackson, I want to 

thank you for starting to address the threat of global warming and 

for understanding the need to move to a clean energy economy. 

Again, I know that you are putting off enforcement. We understand that you would prefer a legislative solution here. So, my last 

point is, I am very happy to report that Senators Kerry, Graham 

and Lieberman are making progress in getting to that 60-vote 

threshold we need on a comprehensive approach. And Senator 

Kerry will be briefing you this week on the efforts. 

So, budgets are clear expressions of our priorities and the realities that you face as you protect our people from pollution, and I 

certainly look forward to this hearing. 

And with that, I will give Senator Inhofe an extra 1 minute and 

46 seconds over his 5. 

Senator INHOFE. That is good. 

Senator BOXER. Senator. 
4 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. All right. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

And I thank you, Madam Administrator, for being here. I am 

happy to say, in front of all of these people, I really do like you. 

You know, we have spent time in my office, we have talked about 

our kids and all that, and I just say that from my heart, and I 

want you to know that that is true. 

And I also want to thank you for what you have done, and your 

predecessors have done, to the most devastating Superfund site in 

America, the Tar Creek. And now you have carried the ball 

through and done even more than they did before, actual relocation 

of the residents in completing the work at that site. So, I want to 

thank you very much. That is the good news. 

Now, I want to talk about a different topic. This morning, I am 

releasing an EPW minority report. I think anyone who wants it 

now, as of this moment, can go to their Web site, or go to the Web 

site of Inhofe, what is that Web site? Inhofe.Senate.gov. It is a report on the scandal that has become known as Climategate. 

The minority staff found that some of the world’s leading climate 

scientists engaged in potentially illegal and unethical behaviors. 

Many of these scientists have manipulated data to fit preconceived 

conclusions, obstructed Freedom of Information requests and dissemination of climate data, and colluded to pressure journal editors 

against publishing scientific work contrary to their own. In other 

words, they cooked the science. 

Now, going back to this obstruction of the Freedom of Information Act, that is one that is pretty serious. That was found to be 

true in the U.K., and the only reason they cannot prosecute under 

that is the Statute of Limitations has already run on it. So, the 

U.K. government found that the scientists from the Climate Research Unit, that is the CRU, who are at the center of this scandal, 

violated its Freedom of Information Act. 

And I know that people—I know it is important for people who 

have got 15 years of their lives wrapped up in this hoax to come 

up with, say, well, this is just a miscommunication, or something 

like that. But if you look and you see what is to happen overseas, 

the U.K. Telegraph, one of the largest newspapers over there, said 

this is most significant scientific scandal of our generation. 

Also, the minority report shows that many of the scientists involved in this scandal worked for the U.N.’s IPCC. They helped 

compile the IPCC’s Fourth Assessment Report. Now, that is important because this report is a primary basis for the EPA’s 

endangerment finding for greenhouse gases. The media has uncovered several errors and mistakes in the report which undermine 

the credibility of the IPCC’s science. Let us take a closer look. 

The IPCC said global warming would—now listen to this because 

I am going to cover seven, but I could cover a lot a more than 

this—they said it is going to melt the Himalayas, the Himalayan 

glaciers by 2035. That is not true; it is a lie, it would destroy 40 

percent of the Amazon rainforest; not true; another lie. It would 

melt mountain ice in the Andes, the Alps and Africa; not true. 

Drastically increase the costs of climate related natural disasters; 
5 

not true. Drive 20 to 30 percent of species to extinction; not true. 

Slash crop production by 50 percent in Africa by 2020, just flat not 

true. The Netherlands is 55 percent below sea level; not true. 

The EPA accepted the IPCC’s erroneous claims wholesale without doing its own independent review. So EPA’s endangerment 

finding rests on bad science. 

The EPW minority report provides further proof that the EPA 

needs to scrap the endangerment finding and start over again. But 

that is not what the EPA is doing. We have $43 million in new 

funding to regulate greenhouse gases. This is seed money for the 

most economically destructive regulatory initiative in this Nation’s 

history. The Nation is mired in an unemployment crisis. People 

need jobs. Yet, once this effort commences, those fortunate to work 

will be out of work, and those looking for jobs are not going to find 

them. 

The Obama administration, however, is pressing ahead. We have 

been told that the science still stands. We have been told that the 

IPCC’s mistakes are trivial. We have been told that Climategate is 

just gossipy e-mails between a few scientists. Yet, global warming 

alarmism has been sewed on the very notion that manmade greenhouse gases are causing environmental catastrophes, Himalayan 

glaciers melting and all that stuff. 

But now we know there is no objective basis for these claims that 

I have just talked about. Furthermore, Climategate shows there is 

not consensus. The science is far from settled. The Obama administration, then, is moving ahead with a massive job killing tax for no 

good reason. The minority report shows the world’s leading climate 

scientists acting like political scientists. 

The bottom line is this. We—every effort was made going back 

to even before the McCain-Lieberman bills of 2003, 2005, and then, 

of course, all the rest of them that came along. They did everything 

that they could to try to get a majority, or try to get up to 60 Senators to embrace the idea that manmade anthropogenic gases cause 

global warming. They could not do it. The most votes there are in 

the U.S. Senate today for a cap-and-trade legislation is maybe 20. 

And they need 60 the last time I checked. So, it is not going to happen. 

So, this Administration has said, all right, we could not do it legislatively, so we are going to do it on our own. We are going to do 

the damage, inflict the economic damage to this country that would 

have come under cap-and-trade, the same as if we had been able 

to pass it. Now, I think that is interesting. 

I would like to say this one thing. The Chairman made the statement that the Supreme Court is mandating this stuff. They are not 

mandating a thing. The Supreme Court said you have three 

choices. You can either find an endangerment finding, or not find 

it, or you can say that the science is uncertain. And I think what 

we are going to be asking you to do during this question and answer time is to find that it is not certain. 

You can have an endangerment finding. That can change. Because you did not know at the time that you were basing this on 

the IPCC flawed science, that the science was flawed. You did not 

believe that. But nonetheless, that is where we are today. 
6 

So, we are going to be making the request, Madam Chairman, 

that we go back, re-look at this, and also that the EPA have their 

IG look into this just the same as all the other nations are doing 

at this time all throughout Europe. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

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

Madam Chairman, thank you for calling this hearing today to discuss the EPA’s 

fiscal year 2011 budget. I also thank Administrator Jackson for appearing before us 

today. 

I also want to thank Administrator Jackson for working with me to address the 

Tar Creek Superfund Site in Oklahoma. The relocation of the residents is complete, 

and we are continuing work on water quality issues as well as selling and removing 

the chat. I commend your dedication to this important issue and the important work 

of our friend, Sam Coleman, in the EPA Dallas Office. 

Now I want to turn to a different topic. This morning I am releasing an EPW minority report on the scandal known as ‘‘Climategate.’’ The minority staff found that 

some of the world’s leading climate scientists engaged in unethical behavior and 

possibly violated Federal laws. 

Many of these scientists appear to have: 

• Manipulated data to fit preconceived conclusions; • Obstructed freedom-of-information requests and dissemination of climate data; 

and • Colluded to pressure journal editors against publishing scientific work contrary 

to their own. 

The UK government has already found that scientists from the Climatic Research 

Unit, or CRU, who are the center of this scandal, violated its Freedom of Information Act. 

Also, the minority report shows many of the scientists involved in this scandal 

worked for the UN’s IPCC. They helped compile the IPCC’s 2007 Fourth Assessment 

Report. That’s important because this report is a primary basis for the EPA’s 

endangerment finding for greenhouse gases. The media has uncovered several errors 

and mistakes in the report, which undermine the credibility of the IPCC’s science. 

Let’s take a closer look. The IPCC said that global warming would: 

• Melt the Himalayan glaciers by 2035—it’s not true; 

• Destroy 40 percent of the Amazon rainforest—it’s not true; 

• Melt mountain ice in the Andes, Alps, and Africa—it’s not true; 

• Drastically increase the cost of climate related natural disasters—it’s not true; 

• Drive 20 to 30 percent of species to extinction—it’s not true; and 

• Slash crop production by 50 percent in Africa by 2020—it’s not true. 

And yes, the IPCC said the Netherlands is 55 percent below sea level—that’s not 

true either. There’s more, but I think I’ve made my point. 

EPA accepted the IPCC’s erroneous claims wholesale without doing its own independent review. So EPA’s endangerment finding rests on bad science. The EPW minority report provides further proof that EPA needs to scrap the endangerment finding and start over again. 

But that’s not what EPA is doing. It wants $43.5 million in new funding to regulate greenhouse gases. This is seed money for the most economically destructive regulatory initiative in this Nation’s history. The Nation is mired in an unemployment 

crisis; people need jobs. Yet once this effort commences those fortunate to work will 

be out of work, and those looking for jobs won’t find them. 

The Obama administration, however, is pressing ahead. We’ve been told that the 

science still stands; we’ve been told that the IPCC’s mistakes are ‘‘trivial’’; we’ve 

been told that Climategate is just gossipy e-mails between a few scientists. Yet global warming alarmism has been sold on the very notion that manmade greenhouse 

gases are causing environmental catastrophes—Himalayan glaciers melting, the 

Amazon disappearing, polar bears becoming extinct. But now we know there’s no 

objective basis for these claims. Furthermore, Climategate shows there’s no ‘‘consensus’’; the science is far from settled. The Obama administration, then, is moving 

ahead with a massive job killing tax for no good reason. 

This minority report shows the world’s leading climate scientists acting like political scientists with an agenda disconnected from the principles of good science. It 

shows that the only consensus we have is that there’s a lot we don’t know. It’s time 

for the Obama administration to recognize this and abandon a policy that will mean 

fewer jobs, higher taxes and economic decline. 
7 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. I think that Senator Cardin might have been 

here before me. 

Senator BOXER. I am so sorry. Senator Cardin. You are correct. 

Senator CARPER. That is OK. A lot of people mistake us for one 

another. 

[Laughter.] 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. First, Madam Chair, thank you very much. 

And to Administrator Jackson, thank you for your strong leadership at the Environmental Protection Agency. We very much see 

your influence on the budget that the President has submitted, and 

we are very pleased to see that this budget advances the priorities 

that are important for EPA in dealing with the threats of climate 

change, protecting our great water bodies and in investing in our 

Nation’s water infrastructure. 

The President’s budget includes three funding streams dealing 

with climate change, taking action now as required by the Supreme 

Court on regulatory programs to stem the flow of greenhouse gas 

pollutants, an investment of $25 million to help our State environmental agencies develop capacity to deal with GHG pollutants, and 

the further investment of $21 million to support the greenhouse 

gas reporting rules which will ensure collection of high quality 

data. 

Let me just point out the scientific information concerning global 

climate change is, I think, pretty convincing. But we can also just 

take a look at the facts of what is happening around the world. 

A third of the perennial arctic ice has melted in the last 30 years. 

That is a fact. We have lost an area of sea ice equal to the entire 

United States east of the Mississippi. That is a fact. This past decade was the hottest ever, according to NOAA. That is a fact. And 

just this month, the Defense Department called climate change an 

accelerant of instability that could have significant geopolitical impact that may spark or exaggerate future conflicts. 

That is where we are today. So, global climate change is real. 

And I am pleased to see that the Administration’s budget reflects 

a common sense investment in protecting us from greenhouse gas 

pollutants. 

I am also pleased to see the investment the agency plans to protect and restore our great water bodies. Thank you for that. The 

EPA proposes an additional $300 million in its continuing investment in Great Lakes protection. The Great Lakes are the largest 

source of fresh water on the planet, and we need concerted longterm investment in restoring this critical ecosystem. And we will 

have a hearing tomorrow that will deal with the Great Lakes. 

Similarly, the agency is proposing a $17 million investment in 

targeting non-point source pollutants in the Mississippi River 

Basin in an effort to protect the Gulf of Mexico. And most important of all, as I know the Administrator will recognize, your investment in the Chesapeake Bay, a record $63 million to help implement President Obama’s Executive Order on this national treasure. 
8 

As your testimony notes the centerpiece of your Chesapeake Bay 

efforts is the implementation of the Nation’s largest and most complex total maximum daily load program. It is a clean up plan to 

deal with the cumulative impact of more than 17 million people, 

88,000 farms, 483 large wastewater treatment plants, thousands of 

smaller facilities, and many other sources in the 64,000-squaremile watershed. As you know, I have introduced legislation along 

with my co-sponsor, Senator Carper, to restore the Chesapeake Bay 

to its rightful status as a national treasure. 

This budget request is a good step. But I will be working with 

my colleagues on the committee in the coming weeks to give you 

new authority and funding authorization to really get the job done. 

And finally, let me take note of the request that you have made 

in regards to water infrastructure, $2 billion for the Clean Water 

State Revolving Fund, $1.3 million for the Drinking Water State 

Revolving Fund. These are—based upon recent history, these are 

large increases from prior budgets that have been submitted by the 

previous Administration, and we appreciate the continued commitment that the Administration is making. 

I think we could even do better than the Administration’s request. A number of my colleagues, including many sitting on this 

committee, are supporting a request of $5.4 billion in water infrastructure funding for fiscal year 2011. And we look forward to 

working with you to see whether we cannot get that number even 

higher than you have submitted, knowing the backlog, knowing 

how much we need to do in protecting our Nation’s water and helping our local subdivisions. But I do compliment this Administration 

for its continuing commitment to water infrastructure projects. 

So, for the climate change, for the great water bodies, for our Nation’s water infrastructure, I think the budget that you have submitted sets the right priorities. I look forward to working with you 

to make sure the budget that passes the Congress carries out these 

commitments. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Let me read the list. On the Republican side, it is Bond, Vitter; 

on our side it is Carper, Whitehouse, Udall and Merkley. OK? Oh. 

Hi, Bernie. I did not see you come in. And Sanders. 

So, Senator Bond. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Welcome, Madam Administrator. 

I appreciate those kind words from my good friend, Senator 

Cardin. I happen to live in Maryland. I am glad that he could get 

in today because I was 15 minutes late getting around the mountain of snow that I have never seen before in Maryland to get in. 

And I realize that a heavy snowfall that canceled one of our global 

warming hearings is not, in itself, any evidence that, there is some 

uncertainty in climate change. 

Senator CARDIN. If you need constituent service, please let me 

know. 
9 

Senator BOND. If you would, bring a snow shovel down. My wife 

broke her snow shovel in this third snowstorm. 

[Laugher.] 

Senator BOXER. Send it up to Vancouver. They need it up there. 

[Laugher.] 

Senator BOND. The one thing that does concern me a little bit is 

when Dr. Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit, told 

the BBC on February 13th there has been ‘‘no statistically significant warming over the last 15 years,’’ and I think that is something 

that may warrant some discussion. But let me get onto the bipartisan concern over back door EPA carbon regulations to circumvent 

the stalled cap-and-trade in the Senate. 

On February 19th eight Democratic Senators wrote to you, 

Madam Administrator, with their serious concerns. These are Senators from West Virginia, Alaska, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Montana and Pennsylvania. They expressed their ‘‘serious economic 

and energy security concerns.’’ They wrote that ‘‘ill-timed or imprudent regulation’’—and this was of greenhouse gases—may squander critical opportunities for our Nation, impeding the investment 

necessary to create jobs. 

They are ‘‘concerned about the possible impact on American 

workers and businesses in a number of industrial sectors, along 

with farmers, miners and small business owners.’’ They feel ‘‘they 

have a responsibility, the workers in the industries’’ of their States 

to question their plans, and so do I. And that is the big concern. 

During consideration of legislation we learned it would kill millions of jobs, raise energy prices for everyday necessities like heating, power and gasoline, and collect trillions of dollars from American families, farmers and workers for new Big Government programs. And we have seen that some of these programs, wind and 

solar, are not created, they are bought. And too often they are 

bought in Asia. They are not bought in the United States to build 

this equipment. 

In many ways back door EPA carbon regulations will be worse 

because whatever flexibility and cost savings could come from a 

market-based program would be replaced by Government command 

and control. 

The author—the Democratic author of the Clean Air Act—himself said it was never meant to cover carbon dioxide emissions. He 

may have realized then, as now, that carbon regulations would 

eventually drown farms, bakeries, restaurants, schools, churches, 

hospitals and apartments in expensive and burdensome red tape. 

We all know the EPA’s vain attempts to make up new law and 

tailor the Clean Air Act to exempt small emitters will be swept 

away in the first court challenge. We also know that any legislation 

to codify a tailoring rule, along with back door EPA regulations, 

will result in millions of lost jobs and higher energy taxes. It is not 

a question of if but when. 

Madam Administrator, your letter yesterday announcing your decision to implement the rules in 2011 instead of 2010 can be seen 

as recognition of these concerns, or some have said that it may be 

a cynical ploy to delay the job killing until after the fall elections. 

But certainly anyone who supports your proposal is merely saying 
10 

they want to start killing jobs and raising energy taxes in 2011 instead of 2010. 

Ironically, we do not even need back door EPA regulations. We 

can get reduction from cars and trucks through congressional and 

DOT action on CAFE auto efficiency. And the back door EPA carbon regulations will have no effect on the ‘‘endangerment’’ some 

perceive. Cap-and-trade, without similar actions here, without 

similar actions by China and India, will have no measurable impact. That provides pain without a purpose. 

We have better ways to cut carbon emissions, zero carbon nuclear power, low carbon biofuels, clean coal technology, clean burning natural gas, hybrid and all electric vehicle technology, energy 

efficiency, and other steps which make economic sense. This is a 

bipartisan agenda that will create jobs and not hurt families and 

workers. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Madam Chairman. 

Let me just say, on the heels of what we have heard from Senator Bond, I am a major proponent of expanding our dependence 

on nuclear power. I believe in a country where we have more coal 

than Saudi Arabia has oil that maybe it does make sense—well, it 

does make sense, to be able to utilize those resources. 

I believe that one of the best ways to help fund the expansion 

of nuclear power and frankly to help fund expanded use of coal but 

doing it in a way that is clean, is through putting in place a market 

based system not unlike that which we put in place when George 

Herbert Walker Bush was President, with respect to sulfur dioxide. 

I have, Madam Chairman—let me just ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record a statement from the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Those are the folks who 

publish the Journal of Science. I will just read the first sentence, 

if I may. The American Association for the Advancement of Science 

has reaffirmed the position of the Board of Directors and the leaders of 18 respected organizations who concluded, based on multiple 

lines of scientific evidence, that global climate change caused by 

human activities is now underway and it is a growing threat to society. 

And it is not just a question of whether or not our planet is growing warmer. Some parts are growing warmer, some less so. But 

what we are seeing is a distortion of our weather patterns made 

perfectly clear by the enormous snows that we have had here in 

the mid-Atlantic and the dearth of snow that they have had in 

Vancouver where the Winter Olympics are being held. 

Senator BOXER. We will put that in the record. 

Senator CARPER. Thanks very much. 

Administrator Jackson, thanks very much for joining us today. 

Thank you for your stewardship. Thank you for the Administration’s budget proposals. As I understand it you have actually come 

with a budget that is a little bit under the current budget, the 
11 

budget proposal is a little bit under, and you have indicated an interest or willingness or desire to increase funding for portions of 

the budget that I am especially interested in, and that is how do 

we clean up our air, how do we provide for healthy air for people 

in this country. You make, I think, some very good investments in 

State and local governments to help clean up dirty diesel emissions 

and to reduce greenhouse gas pollution. 

I just want to make one other comment, if I could. We have had 

testimony before this committee of very smart people, very smart 

investors. And the guy that always comes to mind is John Doerr, 

who made a fortune investing in Internet businesses and technology businesses in the 1990s. And he said before this committee, 

and he said in any other number of audiences that I have been a 

part of, if we really want to unleash an economic tsunami of jobs 

and economic opportunity, new jobs and employment in this country, what we need to do is put a price on carbon. He did not say 

that we needed to put a tax on carbon. He did not say that we had 

to put in place a market-based system like we did with sulfur dioxide. He said we need to put a price on carbon. 

And my preference is to do that, do legislation as opposed to 

doing it through regulation. But one of the advantages of having 

the price for the regulation is to encourage the Congress to do what 

it needs to do, and that is to pass legislation. 

Thank you very much for your testimony today. 

[The referenced letter follows:] 
12 
13 
14 
15 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Vitter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, 

Madam Administrator, for being here and for all of your work. 

I am happy that at least the great focus and subject of this discussion so far is the uncertainty in the debate about climate change 

and in particular the recent revelations which are very significant 

in my mind in terms of questioning the basis of the science. And 

in that regard I want to underscore two things. 

First, you know, we all talk about the science and the facts. Well, 

it is beyond dispute that the EPA, in reaching its endangerment 

finding, relied first and foremost and primarily on the IPCC work. 

And it is also beyond dispute that these recent revelations of the 

last year raise very serious and very legitimate questions about 

that IPCC work. 

We can cite many things. I will just mention one quote from the 

Climategate e-mails where one of the parties involved stated, ‘‘I 

cannot see either of these papers as being in the next IPCC report,’’ 

talking about papers that are inconsistent with the conclusion they 

want to reach, ‘‘Kevin and I will keep them out somehow, even if 

we have to redefine what the peer review literature is.’’ 

Now, I think there is a legitimate spectrum of opinion about 

what the significance of these revelations is. I think that is still developing, and Climategate is still developing. But I believe this notion that we can simply ignore it, forge ahead simply like it never 

happened, is not within that reasonable spectrum of opinion. And 

unfortunately that is the position that I hear from the Administration and too many folks in Congress. Just forge ahead, ignore it 

like it never happened. It is significant. And I hope, as a first, primary duty of this committee we look hard, and we look long and 

do the due diligence about these significant recent findings. 

I certainly want to echo a concern from a host of members, bipartisan, about the Administration forging ahead administratively 

with the endangerment finding. I welcome any delay, and so to 

that extent I welcome your Monday announcement. But I am completely opposed to forgoing ahead on that administratively. I do believe the only proper route for that policy is through Congress and 

encourage the Administration to focus on that route exclusively. 

I look forward to following up on all of these issues both today 

and in the future. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Udall. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair, and I really appreciate your holding this hearing. 

You know, some of the Senators here today have been very critical of the U.N. climate program. I just want to remind them that 
16 

the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico has done two 

of the four key models used by the U.S. climate program. 

These models use the same supercomputers we use to secure our 

nuclear stockpile. And when we say secure our nuclear stockpile, 

every year it has to be certified to the President that the nuclear 

stockpile is safe, secure and reliable. And it is done with these 

same supercomputers, and I can tell you that there is very, very 

extensive scrutiny of these kinds of models, and I believe we should 

have confidence in them. 

Administrator Jackson, reducing pollution—and I know you 

know this—reducing pollution and protecting public health is one 

of the key and best investments governments make. And clearly 

these investments are sorely needed. For example, the budget’s $3 

billion in Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Act Revolving 

Funds is only a small portion of the great need in our Nation. And 

I think we clearly need to do more on that front. 

I am personally familiar with many of the rural and tribal communities in New Mexico with aging or incomplete clean water infrastructure. I commend the President and the Administrator for 

dedicating relatively small but significant resources to EPA’s climate related activities. 

Global warming pollution is also one of the greatest threats to 

public health and the environment, and our reliance on foreign oils 

is one of the greatest threats to our national security. Any EPA action should be targeted, transparent, and allow for a smooth transition to a lower carbon economy. 

Administration Jackson’s recent public description of the agency’s planned course of action was very helpful, and I look forward 

to working with the EPA in the coming year. I do not think we 

should forget that the place we are in America right now, looking 

in terms of the world, is we are all looking at what is going to be 

the second industrial revolution. And the competition is going to be 

for clean energy jobs in this industrial revolution. And the way to 

get there, as Senator Carper and the Chairman and others have 

said, is to put a price on carbon and carbon dioxide emissions. That 

will move us in the right direction. 

So, we need to be cognizant of where we are in the world in 

terms of the kind of competition that is out there. We have countries like China which do not have to go through the democratic 

processes that we do, that order factories to move to deal with their 

air pollution. And it happens in a very short period of time. 

And so we need to act quickly here; we need to act with deliberation. But we also, I think, need to be careful, and Madam Administrator, I think you showed that in your letter in your approach to 

this. 

So with that, Madam Chair, I would yield back. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator Barrasso, welcome. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

And thank you, Administrator Jackson, for being with us today. 
17 

Under the President’s proposed Environmental Protection Agency 

budget the EPA will continue its unprecedented high funding levels. According to the White House the EPA will receive $10 billion 

of U.S. taxpayer dollars this year, a substantially higher amount 

than requested under any previous Administration. The Administration states that this amount will strengthen the EPA’s program 

implementation, research, regulation and comprehensive enforcement activities. 

Well, in a time where funding is scarce and other Federal agencies are taking a hit it is clear that the EPA will continue its unprecedented growth. I believe this is a clear signal where this Administration’s priorities are as stated on their Web site. The funding goes to the ramp up of EPA’s regulatory and enforcement efforts. 

The President has always made it clear that expanding environmental regulation is a priority. With this funding EPA will be able 

to expand its regulations and red tape on small and large businesses, rural and urban towns, hospitals, nursing homes and 

schools all across America. 

These are job killing regulations. They will cost millions of Americans their jobs. It is an Administrative priority, it is the majority’s 

priority, and it is a special interests’ priority. Unfortunately it is 

not an American priority. 

Creating jobs is America’s No. 1 priority. Unemployment is now 

at 9.7 percent nationally. Regionally many States have a much 

higher rate. This does not factor in the unemployed who have simply given up on trying to find a job. 

We need jobs. Not just green jobs, but red, white and blue jobs. 

Unfortunately, the EPA’s budget creates jobs on K Street while 

wiping them out on Main Street. The biggest example is the Environmental Protection Agency’s endangerment finding, which starts 

the process of taxing everything Americans do, from driving their 

cars to heating their homes to powering their small businesses. 

Small business is the key to economic growth and job creation in 

this country. In the past 15 years small business owners have been 

responsible for 64 percent of all job created in America. 

I just returned from a week in Wyoming meeting with small 

business owners throughout the State. They are concerned about 

the reach of Washington, and most especially the EPA, into their 

lives. They are afraid of what is going on in Washington, that what 

is going on in Washington will ruin their livelihoods. The EPA’s 

budget says it all. They are right. The only people who are going 

to benefit from many of these policies are the Washington environmental special interests and their lobbyists, not the American people. 

I believe we can protect the environment while still providing for 

economic growth, the kind of growth that creates the green jobs 

and the red, white and blue jobs all across the Main Streets of all 

of this great Nation. 

So, let us get this right and get our priorities straight. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator Barrasso. 

Senator Merkley. 
18 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Senator MERKLEY. Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

As I am listening to this conversation I am reflecting back on 

how every single time in this Nation when we have confronted 

great damage to our air or to our water it is always the same 

mantra: it will kill jobs. And every single time, when we look back 

10 years later or 20 years later, we are so thankful that we actually created jobs by cleaning up our waterways, we created jobs by 

cleaning our air. And we are going to create jobs by cleaning up 

carbon dioxide pollution as well. 

I can tell you it absolutely infuriates me that we are spending $1 billion a day on oil from the Middle East and countries like Venezuela that do not share our interests. Now, I just came back 

through Kuwait. And they are building gorgeous towers with our 

American money. And if you want our dollars to go out of this 

country and build towers in Kuwait then go on fighting for that 

policy. 

But if you want to create jobs in America let us keep that money 

here. Let us create red, white and blue jobs in America, creating 

renewable energy, and keep those dollars in our economy rather 

than sending them overseas so that dictators in faraway countries 

can build shiny new towers. 

I think we need to have a direct conversation about the damage 

to our national security of dependence on oil overseas. We need to 

have an honest conversation about the hemorrhaging of our dollars 

going overseas rather than creating jobs here in America. And we 

need to have an honest conversation about the impact of carbon dioxide pollution. And the EPA is right in the middle of that conversation. 

And thank you for putting together a budget that presents a responsible and honest and straightforward approach to taking on 

this challenge and the challenge of creating jobs here in America. 

We can create jobs as we work to change the use of carbon dioxide 

being produced by our vehicles. We can take and produce a tremendous number of jobs as we pursue energy saving retrofits in our 

buildings. We absolutely have the chance to take and develop energy here so that we are making our energy payments to Americans, not to Kuwaitis. 

So, I look forward to your presentation, and let us get on with 

it. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Sanders. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Madam Chair, and let me concur 

with Senator Merkley. 

We have the potential to create millions of good paying jobs in 

energy efficiency, in wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, when we 

find we have the courage to say there is something absurd about 

bringing into this country $350 billion worth of foreign oil every 

single year, which makes us vulnerable from a geopolitical point of 
19 

view, does not give us energy independence, and as Senator 

Merkley said makes the Saudi Royal Family—one of the richest 

families in the world—even richer. 

But I want to get on to another issue. Madam Chair, this country 

faces many, many problems, not the least of which is we have national leaders who are rejecting basic science. China is growing engineers and scientists, India is growing by the tens of thousands 

scientists and engineers, and we have national leaders who are rejecting basic scientific work. 

I find it incredible, I really do, that in the year 2010 on this committee there are people who are saying there is a doubt about global warming. There is no doubt about global warming. The scientific 

community is almost overwhelmingly united in saying that global 

warming is real. In fact, our own National Academies of Science 

joined with academies in all G8 countries to issue a statement in 

2009 that ‘‘climate change is happening even faster than previously 

estimated.’’ 

The U.S. Global Change Research Program, led by top scientists 

and Federal agencies, has stated that ‘‘global warming is unequivocal and primarily human induced.’’ An MIT report in 2009 showed 

that we face an increase of up to 11 degrees Fahrenheit in global 

average temperature this century, worse than what was predicted 

only a few years ago. 

Yes, among many, many thousands of scientists working on it, 

people made mistakes. Well, you know what? Sometimes even my 

Republican colleagues make mistakes. I have heard Republican colleagues, for example, say that the stimulus package created no 

jobs. That is a mistake, among many other mistakes that my Republican colleagues make. But it is dangerous to reject scientists. 

Now, I want to mention, in the State of Oklahoma, I do not know 

much about Oklahoma, but the Oklahoma Climatological Survey, 

Oklahoma’s State Climate Office published an official statement on 

climate change in the winter of 2007–2008. This is what they said. 

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident 

from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice, and rising global 

average sea level. 

The Oklahoma Climatological Survey has been mandated by the 

Oklahoma legislature to provide climate information and expertise 

which could be of value to the public as well as the State policy 

and decisionmakers. That is what the Oklahoma legislature has 

mandated. 

I frankly think that when we are debating the reality of an issue 

that can bring devastatingly negative impact to this entire planet 

we become laughingstocks of the entire world. That is what we become. And I think using, for political reasons, the fact that there 

are a few mistakes among thousands of scientists, and distorting 

reality, do this country and the world no good. 

If you want to protect the oil interests get up there and say we 

are protecting the oil interests. You want to protect coal, protect 

coal. That is not a problem. We understand a lot of campaign contributions come in here. Fine. But let us not argue about what the 

overwhelming majority of scientists in this country agree on, and 

let us, in my view, go forward to a clean energy future. 
20 

Now, I would say to Lisa Jackson, keep up the very, very good 

work. Our children and our grandchildren depend on the transformation of this energy system away from fossil fuel, and we have 

the potential to make huge changes to grow the kinds of millions 

of jobs that we desperately need if we are prepared to listen to scientists and go forward, I think, on energy efficiency and sustainable energy. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The referenced statement follows:] 
21 
22 
23 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

I believe we have gone through our list of Senators. So, Administrator Jackson, you have been very patient. We welcome you, and 

the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Chairman Boxer. Greetings to you, 

greetings to Ranking Member Inhofe. I would greet Senator Vitter 

with a hearty Who Dat, but he stepped out for a second. And 

please convey, through the Chair, my well wishes to my home 

State Senator, Frank Lautenberg. 

Senator BOXER. I will. 

Ms. JACKSON. I always miss his presence and certainly miss him 

today. 

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you to discuss 

EPA’s budget for fiscal year 2011. To members of this committee, 

I heard all of your opening statements, and I appreciate the opportunity to present a budget that fully reflects President Obama’s 

and my commitment to environmental protection and to ensuring 

that all families across the country have access to clean air, clean 

water, clean land. 

Much work has gone into this budget over the last year, and I 

am proud that it supports my key goals for the Agency. Specifically, this budget is a framework to address climate change, to improve air quality, to assure the safety of chemicals, to clean up our 

communities, to protect America’s waters, to expand the conversation on environmentalism and work for environmental justice, and 

to continue to build strong State and tribal partnerships. 

Let me touch on some of the highlights of this budget that will 

protect human health and the environment and lay a new foundation for our prosperity. 

Let me begin by being direct. The science behind climate change 

is settled, and human activity is responsible for global warming. 

Not only have America’s top scientific institutions come to that conclusion, but so have numerous other industrialized countries. 

That conclusion is not a partisan one. The Senate has twice 

passed, on a bipartisan basis, a resolution finding that greenhouse 

gas accumulation from human activity poses a substantial risk of 

increased frequency and severity of floods and droughts. Many on 

this committee, including from the minority, supported that resolution. 

This budget reflects the science and positions EPA to address 

this issue in a way that will not cause an adverse impact to the 

economy. The budget includes a requested increase of more than 

$43 million for efforts aimed at taking action on climate change. 

The bulk of this funding, fully $25 million, is for States, specifically 

for State grants focused on developing the technical capacity to address greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. 

It also includes $13.5 million in funding for implementing new 

emission standards that will reduce greenhouse gas emissions from 

mobile sources such as passenger cars, light duty trucks and medium duty passenger vehicles, a rule that I’m pleased was supported by the States, the auto industry and by many stakeholders. 
24 

This budget also requests an additional $3.1 million to promote 

work on current and future carbon capture and sequestration 

projects. 

While addressing global warming the budget also takes steps to 

ensure that the local air quality is also good for all, including those 

with respiratory problems. To improve air quality EPA will continue our support of enhanced monitoring and enforcement efforts. 

This budget requests $60 million for State grants to address new 

and expanded national ambient air quality standards as well as air 

monitoring requirements. Also, this budget provides $6 million to 

improve air toxics monitoring capabilities and address compliance 

and enforcement issues in local communities. 

But toxins are found in not only our air emissions but in many 

of the common chemicals that we use every day, and we have an 

obligation to the American people to ensure these chemicals are 

safe. At the end of 2009 EPA released the first ever chemical action 

plans for four groups of substances, and more plans are in the pipeline for 2010. 

In this budget EPA proposes $56 million for chemical assessment 

and risk review, including continued development of chemical management plans to ensure that no unreasonable risks are posed by 

new or existing chemicals. 

This budget also promotes new and innovative strategies for 

cleaning up communities to protect sensitive populations such as 

children, the elderly, and individuals with chronic diseases. This 

budget proposes $215 million for brownfields, an increase of $42 

million, to support planning, clean up, job training and redevelopment of brownfields properties, especially in underserved and disadvantaged communities. In addition this budget proposes $1.3 billion for Superfund clean 

up efforts across the country. Clean up of contaminated properties 

takes pollution out of communities and puts economic opportunity, 

jobs, back in. 

Protecting America’s waters is a top priority for EPA due to the 

tremendous impacts water quality has on human health, environmental health and economic health. For 2011 this budget reflects 

EPA’s commitment to upgrading drinking water and wastewater 

infrastructure with a substantial investment of $2 billion for Clean 

Water State Revolving Fund and $1.3 billion for the Drinking 

Water Fund. That will initiate approximately 800 clean water and 

500 drinking water projects across America. 

Also the fiscal year 2011 budget request supports numerous national ecosystem efforts, $300 million for the Great Lakes, $63 million for the Chesapeake Bay Program. These programs will address 

critical issues such as contaminated sediments and toxics, nonpoint 

source pollution, habitat degradation and loss, and invasive species, including the Asian carp. 

We have also begun a new era of outreach and protection for 

communities historically under-represented in environmental decisionmaking. We are building strong working relationships with 

tribes and communities of color, economically distressed cities, 

towns, young people and others. 

But this is just a start. We must bolster our relationships with 

our State and tribal partners. These are areas that call for innova-
25 

tion and bold thinking, and I am challenging all of our EPA employees to bring vision and creativity to our programs. 

Thank you very much for allowing me to briefly go through these 

highlights. I am happy to answer any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:] 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

I wish that Senator Vitter was here because he said he was very 

pleased, and I am quoting him, that we focused on ‘‘the uncertainty 

over climate change.’’ His words. And I just want to make it clear 

for the record that ‘‘uncertainty about climate change’’ is coming 

from some colleagues on the Republican side, and not one colleague 

on the Democratic side has expressed in any way any feeling of uncertainty. On the contrary they feel very certain about it. And we 

have voted out a very strong bill on this committee which I am 

very proud of. 

And I want to say to Senator Inhofe, who is very eloquent in his 

denying global warming is happening, that in my opening statement I did not quote one international scientist or IPCC. I quoted 

the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA, I 

quoted NASA, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, 

I think they know what they are talking about, and the AAA, in 

this case the American Association of the Advancement of Science. 

And of course in the past we continue to quote the defense establishment, the CIA, the DOD and many retired military people who 

tell us that this is a great threat. 

I want to really point that out. I think it is very fair that we disagree on whether or not there is climate change. That is fair. But 

the facts are the facts. I am quoting American scientists, No. 1. No. 

2, I also quoted what is happening on the ground, and that is crucial. I mean we have been keeping records for 130 years, and we 

have had the longest decade in that time. And we can track the ice. 

So, I think there are two things I wanted to dispel. We are 

quoting the American scientific community here, and we are talking about facts on the ground, what has been observed over the last 

decade, because climate change is about decade to decade, not day 

to day. 

I appreciated this opportunity on both sides to express our views. 

But let me be very clear. The majority of this committee, in strong 

numbers, believes that we must act, and in fact we have acted. 

I also want to say how much I miss Senator Lautenberg being 

here. I know he is on the mend, and I know that I speak to everyone in sending him our very, very best. 

Administrator Jackson, the San Joaquin and South Coast Air 

Quality Management Districts in California have some of the most 

polluted air in the Nation. I believe you know that. And this pollution worsens asthma attacks, cardiovascular diseases and other illnesses, and our children are especially vulnerable. 

EPA cut funding for Federal grants to reduce pollution in these 

areas. Has anything changed with pollution levels in these areas 

that it should not be treated as a top priority? 

Ms. JACKSON. The air pollution in those areas, Chairman, is certainly a priority as reflected in the work that has gone on. There 

have been changes, there has been good work funded by previous 

earmarked grants for those air districts, and yes, you certainly are 

right in noting that this budget does not propose to continue those 

earmarks. 

Senator BOXER. Well, but there are earmarks for other areas, 

and they are pointed out here. For example, Alaskan native villages. There are a number of earmarks in here. Can I just further 
142 

this conversation and write to you about this? Because we are worried. There is infrastructure assistance for the Mexico border, there 

are certain areas that are named. And this area, because it is a 

valley, is really hit hard. And I am disturbed. 

Now, I want to ask you about the Superfund. We are going from 

22 clean ups to 25 clean ups, and I am a little concerned that we 

are not being aggressive enough. Can you explain to me why that 

is the case here? We are only going from 22 to 25 clean ups. 

Ms. JACKSON. The additional money provided to the Superfund 

program, in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the 

stimulus funding, as well as the straight line funding that we see 

in this proposed budget, does not allow for a huge increase in the 

number of Superfund sites that will be completed. 

I share your concern, Chairman, that what this program needs 

is money. This is certainly a year of tough choices, however, and 

in working with the White House to craft this budget what we did 

was try to find a level of funding that allowed the program’s clean 

ups to continue, realizing that certainly more money would be 

great. But we had tough choices to make. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, let me say I am going to be talking 

with you about some of those choices. And another one I have been 

working with you on, and I appreciate your staff, is that we have 

got arsenic that has been found in the water in some of our poorest 

communities in California. And my concern is while they get ready 

to do a regional water quality control and all the rest of it we are 

just not helping these communities right now. They cannot drink 

the water. It is 100 percent more arsenic, doubling of the allowable 

amount. 

So, can we continue to work together to see if we can find a solution while we clean up the source and the problem? We need clean 

water for these kids to drink, and these are our poor communities. 

Can we work together on that and—— 

Ms. JACKSON. Chairman, I would look forward to working with 

you on that. 

Senator BOXER. I know other communities may have this as well. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I have sat here 

for years now listening to this, and I know the distinguished Senator from Vermont wants so badly to believe that the science is settled and that anthropogenic gases cause global warming, and the 

science is not settled. 

I mean, Phil Jones is the scientist at IPCC. He is the top guy. 

He was the one at East Anglia, it is kind of the clearinghouse for 

all of the scientists. He is the one who is under investigation right 

now. And he said 2 weeks ago, ‘‘I do not believe the vast majority 

of the climate scientists think the debate is over.’’ This is a clear 

statement by the guy that is in charge of all of this stuff. So, you 

know, you can want to believe something so badly that you just go 

ahead and believe it. And I guess that is all right. 

Now, because of the short time, I am going to ask two questions 

that require just a yes or no answer or I do not know or I do not 

want to answer. I do not care, either way. One of your quotes, 

Madam Administrator, was the EPA’s view that ‘‘the scientific assessments of the IPCC represent the best reference material for de-
143 

termining the general state of knowledge on the scientific and technical issues of climate science.’’ Do you still agree with that statement? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think it is out of context, Senator. The IPCC is 

certainly important. It represents multiple lines of evidence and 

much data. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, well, this was a statement. I want to ask 

you one other question. Over the past several weeks, as I have 

noted in my opening statement, the media has uncovered significant errors and non-peer reviewed material in the IPCC’s Fourth 

Assessment Report including mistakenly claiming that global 

warming would melt the Himalayan glaciers by 2035, endanger 40 

percent of the Amazon rainforest, slash crop production by 50 percent and others that are on this that I used in my opening statement. 

Now, do you still believe, as you have stated before, that the 

IPCC is the gold standard for climate change science? 

Ms. JACKSON. The primary focus of the endangerment finding 

was on climate threat risk in this country. I notice that all of the 

things listed on that sign are international events. So, the information on the glaciers and other things does not weaken or undermine the science that EPA reviewed to look at the endangerment 

to human health and welfare—— 

Senator INHOFE. OK. Administrator Jackson, many in the media, 

and the media has been by and large almost entirely on their side 

of this issue all the time because that is where they can sell the 

stuff, but the media and the scientific community have called on 

the IPCC to launch a full investigation or to institute reforms on 

how it reviews scientific work. 

Now, I would think at least we would agree that if everyone else 

in the country, and the magazines like Time Magazine, Newsweek, 

New York Times, Chicago Tribune, the Financial Times and almost 

all publications in Europe, are calling on investigations and are 

doing investigations. Would you be willing to ask your—the EPA 

IG, to investigate the IPCC science? 

Ms. JACKSON. The investigations that are ongoing mirror reviews 

that EPA scientists did in making the endangerment finding. It is 

incumbent on me as Administrator to review any new information 

as it comes out, and if anything changes the multiple lines of evidence from many, many sources, Senator, not just the IPCC, then 

certainly I would call for a review of the finding. But I have not 

seen that. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I would say that no, I do not think that 

is totally accurate. The statement that you said in response to me 

in a letter, and this was, I do not have the date on it but it was 

just a short while ago, where’s the chart? Hold that chart up. That 

one. 

[Chart shown.] 

Senator INHOFE. This is the chart where we were showing during 

the last hearing or one of the last hearings, we had about 40 hearings on this, that U.S. action alone will not impact the CO2 levels. 

Your quote was, I believe, that central parts of the EPA chart, this 

chart right here, are that the U.S. action alone will not impact 

world CO2 levels. 
144 

Now, that is a statement that I think we all agree on, and it 

complicates this. Because when you talk to normal people, now I 

am talking about people outside of Washington, and you point out 

to them that even if we were willing to have passed some kind of 

cap-and-trade legislation or do it legislatively or do it through the 

Administration, that it is going to cost all the jobs, and you know 

people will deny this on the other side, but MIT, the Wharton 

School, CRA, all of them agree that this would constitute something like a $300 billion to $400 billion tax increase on the American people, that it would destroy our economy. 

And with all of that in mind I would just say this. Now I am 

going to save this for the second round of questions, but I want you 

to be thinking about it. How in the world can we justify doing 

something administratively that the Congress overwhelmingly rejected, the U.S. Senate did, and saying defiantly, we do not care 

what you say, Congress, we are going to go ahead and do it under 

the Clean Air Act, we are going to make the endangerment finding 

in spite of the fact that the endangerment finding by your own admission is due to the science from the IPCC. Now that is what I 

am going to be talking about in the next round of questions. 

Ms. JACKSON. Do you want me to answer now or wait for the 

next round? 

Senator INHOFE. Sure. 

Senator BOXER. Go ahead. 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator—— 

Senator BOXER. I think you should answer the question. 

Ms. JACKSON. I will be brief, and we will talk about it in the next 

round, Senator. But just to be clear, the Supreme Court, the law 

of the land, found that greenhouse gases are pollutant. They ordered EPA to make a determination as to—— 

Senator INHOFE. They did not order. They said you have three 

choices. Is that not correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. They said that EPA can, must make a determination whether or not—— 

Senator INHOFE. Can. You said it right the first time. 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Must make a determination whether 

or not greenhouse gases endanger human health and welfare, and 

rather than ignore that obligation I chose as Administrator, and I 

believe I had no choice but to follow the law. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, the three choices they gave you were to 

go ahead and find an endangerment, do not find an endangerment, 

or review the science. And that, obviously, well, those were the 

three choices that were there. 

Ms. JACKSON. And I believe we reviewed the science, Senator. We 

do not agree on what the science says, but in my mind, the conclusions we have drawn are based on the best science we have and 

are backed up by numerous bodies that are a lot smarter on these 

things than I am. 

My favorite quote on this is actually by Senator Alexander who, 

sadly, is not here. He said 11 academies in industrialized countries 

say that climate change is real and humans have caused most of 

the recent warming. If fire chiefs of the same reputation told me 

my house was about to burn down I would buy some fire insurance. 
145 

Senator INHOFE. And that is the debate that has been going on 

here for 7 years now. I recognize that it was 7 years ago that I 

made the statement that the idea that the anthropogenic gases are 

causing catastrophic global warming is probably the greatest hoax 

ever perpetrated on the American people. I think that is proven to 

be true today. 

Senator BOXER. OK, we clearly have given you extra time. 

Senator INHOFE. I appreciate it. 

Senator BOXER. And it is interesting that you still hold to your 

greatest hoax ever perpetrated, because I would like to hear you 

debate it with NASA and NOAA and all of these scientists. I think 

it is incredible. 

I would like to call on Senator Cardin now. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Administrator Jackson, one of the things that might be helpful 

in this debate is the cost-benefit analysis because we can argue as 

to the science on climate change, I think it is pretty clear, but one 

point is indisputable, and that is investing in clean energy in ways 

that will reduce greenhouse gases is going to be good for economy 

and create jobs. 

The No. 1 issue right now facing the American people, the American economy, is creating jobs. There was an article in today’s 

paper that showed that the United States is falling well behind 

China, for example, in green technologies and green jobs. This will 

not only help us with energy independence, it will not only help us 

with dealing with the issue that you must deal with, greenhouse 

gas emission reductions, but will also help us create jobs in America, which I think we all want to do. 

So, I think the cost-benefit analysis is something that is going to 

be very helpful for us. But I hope you do it in a broad context as 

to if we do this right. And that is what the Chairman has been 

working on very strongly with other members of the U.S. Senate, 

developing legislation that is done right that will create jobs in this 

country, put America back to work and at the same time be responsible as far as our greenhouse gas climate change commitments are 

concerned. 

I want to just at least get on the record the water infrastructure 

budget which I think is very important to our commitment. I just 

really want to get the numbers out. The budget requests would actually be a slight reduction over the current year from $3.5 billion 

to $3.3 billion in the two programs, but it is significantly greater, 

in fact, it still more than doubles what the program received in fiscal year 2009. 

And as I think the Administration has pointed out there has 

been $6 billion made available in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. 

So, I just want to get your reaction to the importance to continue 

our investment in the water infrastructure projects. We have a bipartisan bill that has been reported out of this committee that 

would reauthorize these programs at the higher levels. I think 

there is strong bipartisan support. We understand the importance 

for investment in America’s future and how we need to make sure 

we have proper wastewater treatment as well as safe drinking 

water. 
146 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. Maybe I will let the States’ actions speak for themselves. The recent $6 billion in the Recovery 

Act had to be under contract by February 17th of this year. And 

I am proud to report, as you already know, that 100 percent of the 

States and territories made it. Not one dime of the $6 billion that 

went for drinking water and sewage infrastructure had to be reallocated. That is because there is such a need out there. 

And States did it different ways, whether it was to help rural 

communities where a couple of hundred thousand dollars makes all 

the difference or large cities that are facing ongoing concerns about 

antiquated sewer systems or drinking water systems. The money 

is there, the need continues to be real, and I was never so proud 

of our partners in the States and also our own staff in making sure 

that money, along with the money we get in this year’s budget, 

heads out the door. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you. And that is good work. And 

you are absolutely right. If we had more money in the ARRA we 

would have gotten more money out there. Believe me, the demand 

is there and we need to move forward. It also helps us, of course, 

in so many different areas including, by the way, in cleaning up 

the Chesapeake Bay with the wastewater treatment moneys that 

are being used. 

I want to get on the record one other issue here which is similar 

to the debate on greenhouse gas emissions which the Supreme 

Court ruled on. The TMDL Program for the Chesapeake Bay is as 

a result of a court case in 1999, and the dates are coming pretty 

soon that these programs must be implemented under current law. 

The legislation that Senator Carper and I have introduced is an 

effort to give additional tools so that it makes it a little bit easier 

to accomplish these goals and sets up an orderly process. But could 

you just review for us why the TMDL is being implemented now 

in reaction to the 1999 court case? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, you know, we could talk lofty regulatory action, but I think the truth of the matter is that both popular media 

and scientists have reported that the Bay, while some strides have 

been made, really is not being cleaned up at the rate that Congress 

foresaw when we first started paying attention to the Chesapeake 

Bay Program. That is why President Obama issued an Executive 

Order for the Chesapeake Bay. It is why that order fully contemplates that EPA will remain steadfast in promulgation and finalization of the TMDL as well. And we simply must restore that 

national treasure. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Administrator Jackson, you made the newspaper today. This was 

the Washington Post, Tuesday, February 23rd, EPA Chief Lays 

Out Timetable for Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Last 

year, in California, you spoke at the California Governor’s Global 

Climate Summit in Los Angeles. You stated, in regards to your proposed Tailoring Rule, you said, by using the power and authority 

of the Clean Air Act, we can begin reducing emissions from the Na-
147 

tion’s largest greenhouse gas emitting facilities without placing an 

undue burden on the businesses that make up the vast majority of 

our economy. 

You went on to say this is a common sense rule that is carefully 

tailored to apply to only the largest sources, those from sectors responsible for nearly 70 percent of the U.S. greenhouse gas emission 

sources. 

This—now you say the EPA does not intend to subject the smallest sources to Clean Air Act permitting for greenhouse gas emissions any sooner than 2016. Well, is there a discrepancy here? Are 

small emitters such as hospitals, schools, nursing homes, other 

small businesses going to be captured after all in just a few short 

years by going beyond your tailoring rule to now incorporating this 

and capturing others? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am not sure I understand the question, Senator, 

but I will try. Let me know if I do not get your question, if I do 

not understand the gist of it. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, the gist of it is that in the past you said 

we are only going after the big emitters, we are not going after the 

small emitters, we are just going after the big guys because that 

is 70 percent of the problem. And now it seems that you are saying 

well, we are only going to go after the big guys now, but come 2016 

we are going after everybody. 

Ms. JACKSON. I see. I would refer you, Senator, to the rule proposal, the actual tailoring rule proposal, which talks about phasing 

in, about moving toward large sources at first and then phasing in 

the implementation of the Clean Air Act. 

I think that a very important thing to remember is that the U.S. 

Supreme Court told us that we had to follow the law under Mass. 

v. EPA, specifically the Clean Air Act. I acknowledge that we have 

to do that. 

The other thing is to recognize that one of the things that has 

happened as a result of public comment is we have received very 

good and numerous comments, especially from the States who 

would have to implement the Clean Air Act, States who frankly 

want to implement the Clean Air Act for greenhouse gases, about 

how administratively they would do it, how much time they need, 

and how to avoid an absurd result. All of those things are reflected 

in the information I included in the letter yesterday, and of course 

will be reflected in the final rule when—— 

Senator BARRASSO. So, I take it as a yes that you do plan to then 

go after small emitters after 2016—— 

Ms. JACKSON. What we plan is to use the Clean Air Act in a reasonable and step-wise approach with lots of time so people will 

know it is coming—— 

Senator BARRASSO. So it is still a yes, though? It is still a yes. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well—— 

Senator BARRASSO. I have got to get onto another question. That 

is how I am hearing your answer. 

We have heard from the Chairman about how you used NOAA 

and NASA to provide justification for taking regulatory action to 

address climate change. I wonder if you are aware of a report released in January entitled Surface Temperature Records, Policy 

Driven Deception by the Science in Public Policy Institute. The re-
148 

port says that the U.S. Government scientists have skewed global 

temperature trends by ignoring readings from thousands of local 

weather stations around the world, particularly those in colder altitudes and more northerly latitudes such as Canada. 

The study alleges that NOAA systematically eliminated 75 percent of the world stations with a clear bias toward removing higher 

latitude, high altitude and rural locations, all of which have a tendency to be cooler. This includes temperature stations in the United 

States, Russia and China. 

The report states that the remaining temperature monitoring 

stations have been impacted by contamination of urbanization, 

changes in land use, improper siting and inadequately calibrated 

instrument upgrades which have further overstated global warming over the last two decades. The result has been a global surface 

temperature record that is warmer than truthful. 

I want to know if your department has reviewed this data, and 

if not would you be willing to review the study and consider it in 

making any future decisions based on climate change? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe, Senator, that my colleagues at NOAA 

and NASA have received this study. I certainly heard about in the 

press and am planning to respond to it. We will certainly work 

with them as we have as part of the U.S. Global Change Research 

Program to ensure that the data upon which our endangerment 

finding is based remain valid. That is my obligation as EPA Administrator. 

Senator BARRASSO. I believe you would not tolerate it if scientists 

within the agency released scientific data to the public and to the 

Congress which was suppressed data, suppressed data that contradicted their study and their conclusions, that intentionally included 

false scientific data, intentionally included unpublished and nonpeer reviewed work in a finished work product, and I am not going 

to ask you yes or no on that. 

I think that you are looking for scientific integrity, and I am 

going to just submit a couple of additional studies and questions 

as well to make sure that we really are basing this on sound 

science and not on what has been more agenda driven that scientific reality driven. 

Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator Barrasso. 

Next is Senator Carper. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I just want to say to my colleagues, whether you buy the science 

or not, I think we are all agreed—what can we agree on? I think 

we can agree on the idea that we have this huge dependence on 

fossil fuels, and it is not a good thing for our country. I think we 

can agree on the idea that we use all of this petroleum from other 

countries, they use our money to hurt us in many cases, and that 

is not a good thing for our country. I think the idea that we are 

not energy independent, not even close to it, in fact we are going 

the wrong way, is not a good thing for our country. 

And let us see if we can figure out, set aside all this other discussion, and just figure out what we can agree on to reduce our de-
149 

pendence on foreign oil, reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, create a lot of new jobs, technologies and innovation. Let us see if we 

could figure out how to do that. That would be a wonderful thing. 

And I think the people in this country would find it heartening. 

Administrator, thanks again for being with us today. In this 

year’s budget I was happy to see additional money to help States 

and local air control programs meet new, stronger air pollution 

standards. 

As you may recall Senators Alexander, Klobuchar and I, along 

with about nine other colleagues, have recently introduced multipollutant legislation that provides aggressive targets for sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and mercury emission for our Nation’s fossil 

fuel powered plants. Our bill will save, we are told, over 215,000 

jobs, save over $2 trillion in health care costs, and help States to 

meet new air quality standards, largely from air that blows to 

them from other States where they are putting all kinds of pollution up into the air. 

So, I want to know if you have taken a look at our legislation 

and have any preliminary thoughts you could share with us today. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thanks, Senator. The agency has not finished its 

full review of the legislation. But I can say that I share your desire 

to significantly reduce emissions of SO2, NOx, mercury and other 

pollutants from power plants. I also respect, frankly, your ability 

to work with various stakeholders to bring them and keep them at 

the table and realize that this is a threat to our health and our 

children’s health that is not going to go away. So, thank you. 

Senator CARPER. Give us a time line, if you will please, just a 

rough time line, I understand that you have begun a review and 

will that end this year? Will they end next year? 

Ms. JACKSON. This year? I think I feel comfortable with this 

year, but how about if I get back to you with a complete time line? 

Senator CARPER. Would you? I will look forward to that. Thank 

you. 

In your experience, does legislation provide more legal certainty 

than rulemaking with regards to emissions from these utility 

plants? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I believe we can, and I think history shows 

that we have achieved real meaningful reductions through our regulatory efforts. I have to admit that legislation certainly adds some 

certainty to the process. That is true of climate; it is true of any 

pollutant. 

Senator CARPER. Good. I would agree. 

Next question. In the budget, there is $13.5 million to help implement the new mobile source emission standards for greenhouse 

gases. That should be finalized, I think, by March. These new 

standards are supported by our Nation’s car companies and are 

stronger than the CAFE standards that Congress put into place in 

2007. Is that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right, yes. 

Senator CARPER. Without the greenhouse gas endangerment 

finding can the EPA implement this new mobile source rule? Let 

me say that again. Without the greenhouse gas endangerment finding can the EPA implement this new mobile source rule? 
150 

Ms. JACKSON. The answer is no, Senator. The endangerment 

finding is predicated, the actual rules are predicated on a finding 

of endangerment. That is the way the Clean Air Act is written. 

Senator CARPER. If the mobile source rule cannot be implemented does that mean that the California waiver will go forward? 

And I believe that since the waiver only applies to manufacturers 

that sell a certain threshold of cars in California, most American 

manufacturers would be required to meet emission standards in 

certain States. But the waiver would exempt some manufacturers 

outside this country. Is that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. That sounds correct to me as well, Senator. 

Senator CARPER. Do you have concerns about that? 

Ms. JACKSON. I have great concerns about losing the deal that 

everyone embraced around cars including a road map for automobile manufacturing for this country that takes us through the 

year 2016. And I do have great concerns about competitiveness and 

about regulatory certainty at a time when that industry continues 

to need as much certainty as it can as it attempts to rebound and 

grow. 

Senator CARPER. OK. The last thing, I understand that in the President’s budget there is $60 million for the Diesel Emission Reduction Act. We thank you for that, I believe. The funding for this 

program has been very successful. We are told that for every dollar 

that we spend we get $13 in benefits. And I have heard that there 

is a $1 billion backlog on applications for the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act. 

I just want to know, why does the Administration not provide additional funding for this successful program? And having said that, 

I would say the stimulus package provided a lot. Go ahead. 

Ms. JACKSON. It did, sir, and I do not disagree with any of the 

numbers you cite. It is a wonderful program. It has bipartisan support. The amount in the budget is simply again a reflection of the 

tough choices that have to be made in terms of where we spend our 

hard-earned environmental dollars. 

Senator CARPER. Good. Thanks so much. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Just because we have got people coming in 

and out, I want to see if this is OK. Sanders, Whitehouse, 

Klobuchar. Is that all right? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I would yield to Senator Klobuchar since 

I just got here 2 seconds ago. 

Senator BOXER. All right. We will reverse it. That is fine. 

Senator Sanders, you can have 5 minutes. Please go ahead. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you. 

Let me begin by reading an editorial in not one of my favorite 

papers, a paper with a very conservative editorial page, and that 

is the Washington Post. This is what is says. This is yesterday, 

February 22nd. The Earth is warming. The chief cause is the increase in greenhouse gases accumulating in the atmosphere. Humans are at least in part responsible because the oil, gas and coal 

that we burn release these gases. If current trends persist, it is 

likely that in the coming decades the globe’s climate will change 

with potentially devastating effects for billions of people. 

Contrary to what you may have heard lately there are few reputable scientists who would disagree with anything in the first 
151 

paragraph. Yet suddenly we are hearing that climate change is in 

doubt and that action to combat it is unlikely. What is going on? 

And there is another paragraph that is interesting, let me get to 

the last part, that is what I want to read. Politicians, nonetheless, 

have seized on both the trivial mistakes, trivial mistakes, and the 

complexity of the science, to cast doubt on the underlying and 

unrefuted truth of human caused greenhouse gas accumulation. In 

many cases it is hard to know whether they are being obtuse or 

dishonest and hard to know which would be worse. End of quote. 

The reason that this debate is so important is that it reminds me 

in some ways of the debate taking place in this country and around 

the world in the late 1930s. And during that period with Nazism 

and Fascism growing, a real danger to the United States and 

democratic countries all over the world, there were people in this 

Congress, in the British Parliament, saying do not worry, Hitler is 

not real. It will disappear. We do not have to be prepared to take 

it on. 

Fortunately there were other people in this country, Roosevelt 

Republicans, who said, you know, we are going to have to be prepared for a war. Winston Churchill in England led the effort there. 

But because we were as slow as we were millions of people probably died unnecessarily. 

Global warming is real. If we do not get our act together there 

will be devastating impacts for our kids and our grandchildren, 

causing among other things trillions of dollars in order to repair 

that damage if it is repairable at all. And the longer we delay, the 

longer we have this senseless debate, the less prepared we will be. 

From an economic perspective China is not delaying. They are 

going forward in wind, they are going forward in solar. Spain is— 

countries all over the world are investing heavily in energy efficiency and in sustainable energies and creating, in the process, millions of jobs. And I suggest that if we do not act and act boldly it 

will be harmful for our people and our kids and harmful for our 

economy as well. 

Having said that, let me just ask the Administrator about an 

issue which is of real concern in the State of Vermont. We are 

downstream, so to speak, from the coal burning plants in the Midwest which emit a lot of very harmful pollutants. And our kids in 

Vermont and in other States in New England are coming down 

with asthma and other health problems. What are you going to do 

about that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, Senator, I am going to continue to keep up 

the work we are doing to put in place a replacement rule for the 

Bush administration version of the CAIR Program, the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule, overturned by the courts during the Bush administration. 

So, in essence while we have been operating with a holdover 

CAIR Rule much of the pollution—ozone pollution in places like 

Vermont—is from out of State. It is interstate transport. And 

EPA—the court found that EPA had not put forth a rule that 

would really protect people on the downwind end of that kind of 

pollution. 

Senator SANDERS. All right. All I can tell you is when I go into 

schools and I speak to school nurses they take out inhalators be-
152 

cause a lot of our kids—and I suspect it is not different in New Jersey and in many parts of this country, and I would urge you to do 

everything that you can to help us clean up our air and prevent 

our kids from getting asthma and other very serious diseases. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Senator. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Good to see you again, Administrator Jackson. I first want to 

thank you for the work that you are doing on the Renewable Fuel 

Standard. You know that this has taken a lot of modifications 

based on science, and we have worked very hard on it. I truly believe, as I know Secretary Chu does, that while we are in the infancy for biofuels that there is a lot more to be done here in terms 

of where we can go with this. And we do not want to pull the rug 

out from under this developing industry. 

I wanted to actually—after touring my State last week and talking to a lot of local municipalities I talked a little bit about water 

infrastructure, something that Senator Whitehouse and I have both 

focused on in the past. And we are facing an investment gap. The 

President’s budget requests $3.3 billion for Clean Drinking and 

Water State Revolving Funds. Could you talk about how this investment will narrow our current water infrastructure investment 

gap? 

We have been having some issues in our State where the EPA 

has told very small towns that they had to get a new water treatment plant, and then the Congress did not authorize the money. 

Or we authorized the money, but then the money was never paid 

out. And it is becoming very difficult for them, very small communities, 5,000 people, to pay for these water treatment plants to 

comply with the mandates from the EPA. 

So, I can show you some of these specific examples, but could you 

talk about what you see as the future of the water infrastructure 

investment? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly. The estimated need for water infrastructure investment really has not decreased. We are chipping away at 

a pretty big mountain. Our needs survey for both clean water and 

drinking water infrastructure indicated needs at over $500 billion; 

others have estimated $500 billion to $600 billion depending on 

who is conducting the analysis. 

So, although we are seeing substantial amounts of money this 

past fiscal year, because of the way the budget works we spent well 

over $10 billion on water infrastructure between AARA and our appropriations. And yet when you are looking at hundreds and hundreds of billions of dollars’ worth of need you are still chipping 

away. 

I do want to point out is that one of the things AARA did, and 

what we saw in money last year, was increased loan forgiveness for 

small communities on the clean water side, the sewage side, following the model of the Drinking Water Program. 

So, although there is not enough money to help all the small 

communities in your State—or any State, Senator, the idea being 

that for those where there really is an inability to pay, there are 
153 

opportunities for States to decide how to give out this money, to 

really provide assistance to small communities, and that money can 

be in the form of grants, essentially, rather than loans. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Well, we will continue to work, and we 

have some specific projects that I am concerned about. 

I am also glad to see your announcement of the Great Lakes Restoration Action Plan this last weekend. I am a co-sponsor of the 

Great Lakes Legacy Act, and it would focus on clean up and removal of contaminated sediments in the Great Lakes. 

Could you talk about how EPA is going to address these concerns 

and maybe also mention what is happening with Asian carp? 

Ms. JACKSON. I would be happy to. On the toxics area first, one 

of the things the President asked us to focus on in forming the 

Great Lakes Initiative in last year’s budget was on toxics in the 

legacy contamination that serves as a continuing source of pollution. Even if you stop everything new there is still pollution in the 

Lakes. 

So, with this money we focused on actions, not more studies, and 

we estimate that we will be able to clean up four or five toxic hot 

spots completely just with the initial round of money and projects 

that we are looking at. Those are the kind of action oriented outcomes that the President is demanding from our investment in the 

Great Lakes, and I think we will be able to deliver, and we intend 

to ensure that we do. 

Carp and invasive species more generally are covered as part of 

the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, and certainly we would like 

to see a decline in the increase of invasive species and eventually 

reverse that trend. And as you know EPA has taken about $58 million of money from the Great Lakes Restoration money, $475 million, to put specifically toward items to address the Asian carp 

issue which is more immediate. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Yesterday, a report was released highlighting the rapidly growing problem of discarded electronics common known as e-waste. Senator Gillibrand and I have a bill that 

lays out some groundwork for research in this area. It is, you 

know, billions and billions of new products have been bought that 

have advanced our lives, but so many of them are difficult to recycle or they are not being recycled. 

So, part of this is—like our home town company Best Buy is 

doing encouraging creating incentives to have customers bring in 

their old recycled products. But the other piece of this is getting 

that research going so that we can develop products that will have 

less environmental hazards when they are put into landfills or 

when they are discarded. 

Could you talk about any e-waste solutions coming out of EPA 

or any research going on there? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am happy to. Obviously there is a domestic issue, 

and there is also the international issue. There are also States that 

are increasingly taking matters into their own hands. And so I 

think industry is seeing this sort of patchwork of different ideas for 

how to deal with a problem that no one denies, which is the problem with disposal. There are an increasing number of devices. They 

pose a serious risk. 
154 

The fiscal year 2011 budget includes $1 million for a new research effort to do some fundamental redesign of electronic devices 

to try to get at the pollution prevention side of this problem, and 

we will continue to do that research. And I will continue to work 

with my solid waste and hazardous waste regulatory arm to see 

where we can help to guide the industry to follow smart companies, 

companies that have already stepped up to really steward their 

electronic waste. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you very 

much for holding this hearing. 

Administrator Jackson, thank you for your important work. I 

hope that you do not take away from this particular room any new 

doubts about the quality of the science that supports, I think, highly legitimate concerns about climate change. When organizations 

such as NOAA and NASA and our entire intelligence community 

and our U.S. Department of Defense all are aligned I think it is 

pretty safe to say that that is pretty mainstream science. 

I will not do it again, because I have done it repeatedly, but 

there is also a letter from all of America’s major scientific organizations, the vast majority of them anyway, laying out very clearly 

that the science on this is essentially undisputed, and it is their 

uniform view of this. 

Set against that science, unfortunately, is an industry. There was 

a book called Merchants of Doubt written about the public relations 

and propaganda effort to raise doubt in order to create political maneuvering room for these industries. And I think very much that 

that is what we are seeing in the specter of doubt that some are 

attempting to raise about the validity of science that, unless you 

want to throw out scientific method entirely, it is just about as 

solid as it gets. 

With respect to my learned colleague’s comparison to the 1930s, 

I think Neville Chamberlain’s Willful Blindness has justly earned 

the opprobrium of history. But nobody accused him of having an ulterior motive. And I think the judgment of history about efforts to 

derail what needs to be done in the face of this threat may be 

harsher because of the special interest overlay of the industries 

that have made themselves merchants of doubt when the science 

is actually very secure. 

One of the problems that we face in Rhode Island on a bright 

clear summer day is that the radio, in the morning as people drive 

into work, will announce that this is a bad air day for Rhode Island 

and that the elderly, people with breathing difficulties, young children, infants, should be kept indoors. 

If you look at the source of it, it is not from within Rhode Island. 

There is not much we can do about it in the State. It is coming 

from other States. It is coming from the Midwest. One of the sort 

of starkest admissions of this problem is the height of some of the 

smokestacks that have been built in other States in order to take 

the effluent from those smokestacks and get it high enough into 

the air column that it will not land in their State any longer, that 
155 

it will be transported. And it comes down in Rhode Island in the 

form of these bad air quality days where warnings are required. 

I would urge you to be as energetic as you possibly can in enforcement in those areas because by exporting the pollution to 

other States these companies have taken themselves out of the loop 

of local consequence. Some of them actually have better air quality 

nearby the smokestacks that we do in Rhode Island because they 

are sending it up to land on us. 

So, we really depend on our Federal agencies where there are 

these interstate pollution export, if you will, problems, to defend 

us. I would like to ask you to say a few works about that problem 

and your role and what we can expect. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Senator. I will just repeat my commitment to seeing a proposed Clean Air Interstate Rule promulgated 

and then eventually finalized this year, hopefully in the coming 

months, earlier in the year, not later in the year, because we are 

without a way to protect against interstate transport. The previous 

rules were, frankly, found to be illegal. 

Also, I think you know we have out a proposal now to lower the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard for ozone. That was not a 

happy day to admit to the American people that the science as we 

know it says that even lower levels of ozone are unsafe. And we 

have to start by being honest with the American people and telling 

it like it is even when we know that means it is going to be even 

harder to get to. 

But in my opinion the Clean Air Act remains one of the greatest 

success stories out there, internationally, when it comes to fighting 

pollution. And although we have challenges we also know the lesson of the Clean Air Act is if we squarely face those challenges, 

technology intervenes, and we find cost effective, job creating ways 

to address them. So, we will continue to do our job with respect to 

air pollution, sir. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

I am going to build the case that this endangerment finding that 

you have made was built on the findings and the work of the Bush 

administration. And I am going to read you some evidence of that 

and ask if in fact you did build on a lot of their work. 

And I am going to put into the record, without objection, a letter 

sent to us by Jason Burnett, who was the Associate Deputy Administrator of the EPA under George W. Bush, and he made his—his 

department made the endangerment finding that is being so attacked. And he sent it to the White House. 

He received a call, and this is directly from his letter, asking us 

‘‘not to send the finding.’’ When we explained the document had 

been sent, he says, I was asked to send a follow up note saying the 

e-mail had been sent in error. I explained I could not do this because it would not be true. I want to put this letter into the record. 

So, that is clear that they made the endangerment finding. 

And then I am going to ask to put into the record a couple of 

pages of Julie Gerberding, she was the head of the CDC, the Center for Disease Control, under George W. Bush. And her testimony 

to this committee was redacted in part, and I am going to read 

from the redacted part because we got this from a whistle blower, 

and I am assuming you got this document. 
156 

She said scientific evidence supports the view that the Earth’s 

climate is changing. A broad array of organizations, she talks about 

Federal, State, local, multilateral, faith-based, private and nongovernmental, is working to address it. Despite this extensive activity the public health effects remain unaddressed. CDC considers 

climate change a serious public concern. 

And she goes on, Julie Gerberding, George W. Bush, CDC. Direct 

effects of heat, health effects related to extreme weather, air pollution, which Senator Whitehouse has talked about, allergic diseases, 

water- and food-borne infectious diseases, vector-borne diseases, 

food and water scarcity, mental health problems and long-term impacts of climate disease. 

So, I am going to put those two pages into the record. And I am 

going to ask you if in fact your endangerment built on the work of 

the former Administration and perhaps other Administrations before that. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, Chairman, it did. The endangerment finding 

was done in large part when I walked in the door at EPA. A draft, 

the one you referenced, we did update it. We did review the 

science. We did broaden the finding to include human health and 

welfare. But we relied essentially on the same science moving forward. 

And I do believe it is incumbent to constantly be looking at the 

science at is evolves. Science changes, but as someone said earlier, 

I think you have to look at the mountain of evidence that says that 

the climate is changing and that there are manmade causes and 

realize the every time one of these issues comes up we owe it to 

the American people to say we will look at it and then—— 

Senator BOXER. Sure, yes. 

Ms. JACKSON. And then reach a conclusion. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. And that is essential. So, as we said, there 

has not been one agency in America, NOAA, NASA, DOD, CIA that 

to my knowledge has backed off their views. 

I would like to put into the record an article that appeared in a 

British newspaper called the Independent, Think-tanks take oil 

money and use it to fund climate deniers. It says Exxon Mobil cash 

supported a concerted campaign to undermine case for manmade 

warming. An orchestrated campaign is being waged against climate 

change science to undermine public acceptance of manmade global 

warming, environmental experts claimed last night. And this goes 

on. It is a very succinct article. 

And last I want to put in the record three studies that were 

made on job creation if we move forward with climate change legislation. The Clean Energy Economy in America by Pew predicts millions of jobs in the Nation. The Pew Charitable Trusts did a study 

in California where the clean energy jobs are the only sector that 

have been growing and providing jobs in my State through this recession, and a University of California study also the same conclusion. 

I want to ask you about the brownfields funding because I am 

very pleased with it. You are requesting an additional $41 million. 

And a lot of us worked to pass that law. I think Senator Inhofe 

may have worked with us as well. Can you describe the kind of job 
157 

creation benefits and leveraging of resources EPA expects from the 

brownfields program under your budget? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. History has shown that brownfields money is 

heavily leveraged with private sector money. Oftentimes 

brownfields money is the way to start the engine economically 

around a particular site or in a particular community. The increased funding is a reflection of our recognition of that simple fact 

and the fact that not all communities are dealing with one big 

Superfund site. Oftentimes it is smaller sites that are holding back 

economic growth. 

So, the money will be used to assess sites, to actually do the testing and assessment to determine the nature of the problem, to do 

clean up on sites, including underground storage tank sites, to do 

job training. The EPA Brownfields Job Training Program is one of 

those little gems that uses communities that have been impacted 

by pollution, trains them to get good paying jobs in cleaning up pollution, an industry that sadly will probably never be without a 

need for well trained workers. 

And I am very proud of the fact that we were able to squeeze 

a little bit more money into this budget for brownfields. 

Senator BOXER. OK, my time is up, so I am going to put a question in the record because I am very pleased with the increase in 

funding for the Office of Children’s Health, and I wanted you to 

write to me and describe some of the new initiatives you plan to 

take. 

Ms. JACKSON. I would be happy to. 

[The information follows:] 

OFFICE OF CHILDREN’S HEALTH—NEW INITIATIVES

The Office of Children’s Health Protection (OCHP) will oversee implementation of 

the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA), providing technical assistance to States and communities on implementation of voluntary school siting 

and environmental health guidelines to incorporate greater consideration of environmental health issues in schools. 

Using authority provided by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, 

EPA will establish a State grants program to support States and communities in 

the implementation of strategies to create healthy school facilities. 

EPA will also provide increased and focused outreach and technical assistance to 

school districts to assist with implementation of the guidelines and increase adoption of EPA’s programmatic school environmental health tools (e.g. IAQ Tools for 

Schools, School Chemical Cleanout Campaign, Integrated Pest Management). Activities will include: 

• Increased coordination with States, tribes, local communities, schools and the 

general public by supporting a strong communications and outreach effort to share 

information and provide technical assistance, tools and materials. 

• Expanded outreach through conferences, meetings, training events, Webinars, 

and other outreach mechanisms. 

• Targeted efforts in underserved communities, such as urban, tribal and other 

underserved areas. 

OCHP will co-lead an inter-agency effort with the Department of Education and 

the Department of Health and Human Services to improve Federal Governmentwide support of clean, green and healthy schools, implementing legislative mandates 

and coordinating outreach and technical assistance. 

Senator BOXER. If you would do that, please. 

Senator Inhofe. 

[The referenced documents follow:] 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Let me respond to a couple of things that have been said by some 

of my good Democrat friends. 

First of all Senator Merkley talked about reducing our dependence on foreign oil to run this machine called America. We can do 

it. We can do it overnight. Right now we are the largest—we have 

the largest recoverable reserves of coal, natural gas and oil of any 

country out there including China, including Russia. The problem 

is political. We are the only country in the world whose Congress 

will not allow us to explore our own resources. That could be done. 

That is an easy thing. 

And I would say to my good friend Senator Whitehouse, you were 

not in here when we were talking about the science initially. And 

I would only say we can argue about this as long as you want to 

argue about it, and people who have said the science is settled, the 

science is settled, the science is settled, and they say it over and 

over again hoping that if they say it enough times they will believe 

it. 

Yet the guy who is in charge of all of the science with IPCC is 

Dr. Phil Jones. Dr. Phil Jones says, I do not believe the vast majority of climate scientists think the debate is over. That is a very 

simple thing. That is the guy who is charge of the IPCC. 

Now, since it was said trivial mistakes, I think it was Senators 

made that comment, we may think it is trivial here but if you look 

overseas at what is happening, the Financial Times has called for 

an independent investigation of the IPCC report, the Atlantic Magazine, The Stink of Intellectual Corruption is Overpowering, the 

Daily Telegraph, this scandal is the greatest scientific scandal of 

our generations. 

Our magazines over here, the Chicago Tribune editorial, Global 

Doubting, the U.N.’s credibility on climate change is in tatters and 

what is going to affect the debate. The Atlantic says that the stink 

of intellectual corruption is overpowering. The Guardian, and they 

were on the other side of this issue, said I was too trusting of some 

of those who provided the evidence I championed. I would have 

been a better journalist if I had investigated their claims more 

closely. 

The same thing is true of the Washington Post, Newsweek, there 

is not time to go over that, but I will have those submitted into the 

record. 

Now, one of the things that has been said over and over again 

is the question that it is not really just the IPCC. Well, I read Administrator Jackson’s report saying for the proposal the agency relied in large part on the assessment reports developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I believe that. I know that 

is true. 

However, if you look at the various statements that are made, 

no, this is NOAA saying this, the Defense Department is saying 

this, the Lawrence Livermore National Lab and all that, this is the 

thing that is kind of interesting. In the TSD report, that is the 

technical support document of the endangerment finding, this refers to 67 different documentations from science, of which 47 are 

the IPCC. Now, some of the others that are reported, the other 20, 

those people also are IPCC, but they are not identified as that. 
210 

For example, Dr. Benjamin Santer, who is the current Research 

Scientist, Program for Climate Model Diagnosis, this is Lawrence 

Livermore, but he is also an author of the IPCC. Gavin Schmidt, 

that is NASA, when it is talking about no, NASA came through 

with this, well, NASA did, but this guy is also a reviewer for the 

IPCC assessments. Dr. Susan Solomon, that is NOAA, she also is 

one of the authors of this report. 

So, when it gets down to it the bottom line is that the science 

came from the IPCC. That was the collection point. All of the scientists were there. 

And my concern still goes back to this. I fought for years on the 

floor of the U.S. Senate to keep us from going down the road of financial destruction in having a cap-and-trade type of approach. 

And I am talking about the McCain-Lieberman bill in 2003, the 

McCain-Lieberman bill of 2005, the Warner-Lieberman bills, the 

Boxer-Sanders bill, all of these. The one thing they had in common 

is it was cap-and-trade, which is essentially what we would be 

doing, even though it is being denied, it would be doing it through 

regulations. 

Now, what is the cost of that? I am not, you know, I do not claim 

to be the economist. But I know that MIT, the Wharton School, 

CRA and all of the rest of them said somewhere in the range of 

$300 billion to $400 billion a year. That would be the largest tax 

increase on the American people. And by the admission of the Administrator Jackson this would not reduce CO2 if we pass any of 

these bills. And the same is true, I would have to say, with doing 

the same thing through regulations. 

So, here we have an endangerment report that is based on the 

science from the IPCC which has been totally discredited. And I 

think somebody has to say this because, when the hard times come, 

when the increases, when the overregulation, hits the American 

people for no useful purposes, because it is not going to reduce CO2, 

then someone is going to have to stand up and say, we knew all 

the time that the science was cooked. 

That is my question. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. JACKSON. I have a two-word answer. I disagree. But just let 

me respond to three things, Senator. And I am happy to do additional things for the record if that is necessary. 

I do not agree that the IPCC has been totally discredited in any 

way. In fact, I think it is important to understand that the IPCC 

is a body that follows impartial and open and objective assessments. Yes, they have had concerns about e-mail. I do not defend 

the conduct of those who sent those e-mails. There is peer review, 

which is part of the IPCC process, there are numerous, numerous 

groups of teams and independent researchers all a part of coming 

up with IPCC findings such that even the IPCC has said, while we 

need to investigate and ensure that our scientists are held to a 

standard of scientific conduct that we can be proud of, we stand behind our findings. And so I cannot agree with you there. And I am 

sure that you are not surprised. 

I do not agree with you on the job killing. I actually believe, as 

the President does, that we have to have a foundation for growth 

in this country and that Americans want clean energy and see the 
211 

value of investing in a future for generations to come. And if we 

want to make that investment we have to change from being totally dependent on fossil-based power without controls for carbon, 

without a price for carbon, and we have to do that. 

And I have to tell you that it strikes me, when I hear about these 

doom and gloom forecasts for economic ruin, that, you know, the 

Clean Air Act amendments predicted a quiet death for business 

across the country. That is what we were told. A cap-and-trade program, or a program to reduce pollution through market incentives, 

and what really happened is that the U.S. economy grew by 64 percent, even as acid rain pollution was cut by 50 percent. 

There are ways to make smart environmental investments and 

policy. I commit to you, sir, that I would do nothing less as I sit 

in this chair. It is too important to our country, economically but 

also environmentally. But to sit here and say that these policies 

and a move toward clean energy will not be good for jobs in this 

country, I simply cannot—— 

Senator INHOFE. You know, I would appreciate that if I were the 

one who was saying this. This was MIT, this was the Wharton 

School. They talk about the economic destruction of our country. 

And then, of course, the comment you made, I do appreciate, except 

that is the reason that I quoted all the—the Atlantic, the Guardian, all of these newspapers, all of these publications who are now 

saying that the science was not right. 

So it is not me saying it. I am quoting others. Because I do not 

have the credibility. I understand that. But certainly, when the 

whole Nation turns around and people say this should be a wakeup 

call, we are basing this major step, this endangerment, on science 

that we know now is flawed. And that is the reason that I quote 

other sources, so that I do not have to quote myself. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I think we have to quote sources like the National Academies of Science. I think we have to talk about the—— 

Senator INHOFE. Well, how about the IPCC? Is that not a pretty 

good source? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, we just talked about the IPCC and said that 

I absolutely agree, that you can look into e-mails and any allegations that come up, but that, you know, science can be a bit messy. 

The dust will settle. But I have not at this point seen anything that 

changes my belief that the endangerment finding is not only on 

sound ground but will stand up to scrutiny and challenge. 

Senator INHOFE. And the IPCC said the science is not settled. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Senator. I am going to take the 4 minutes extra 

that I gave you at the end. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Oh, I am sorry. Well, I think that Senator 

Inhofe is absolutely right about one thing and that is that history 

will be our judge. I just disagree with him on the judgment of history over this time. I think if we do not take action the judgment 

of history will be extremely harsh. 

I think that the combination of willful blindness and corporate 

special interests creates a unique risk. And I think it is very important that we stand true to the basic principles of scientific method 
212 

and recognize that doubt is a product that is sowed on purpose in 

this debate. 

I cannot think of an area in my personal life where I would 

refuse to act until 100 percent certainty was achieved. If I heard 

an alarm in the night, sure there is a chance that the alarm has 

malfunctioned. But I still wake up the kids. If there is a gas leak 

in the house, well sure there is a chance that it will never go off 

or it will solve itself. But you take reasonable, thoughtful measures. 

And with the scale of the problem that we are potentially facing 

I would encourage you, Madam Administrator, to hold firm to the 

science and to what you are doing. I think most people who have 

looked at this get very clearly where we need to be, and as challenging as these moments in this rather special chamber might be 

for you, hold on for the judgment of history. 

Thank you for your efforts. 

Senator BOXER. Well, we are, thankfully for you, Administrator 

Jackson, bringing our hearing to a close. 

This has been an important debate because, frankly, I think we 

have reached a new point in this debate. And the debate is shifting. 

My Republican friends have shifted from attacking the international scientific panels to attacking the most respected organizations right here in America. From NOAA, the Oceanic Administration, to NASA, the Space Administration, to the CIA, to the DOD, 

to the CDC, DOT, meaning the Department of Transportation, the 

CDC, the Center for Disease Control, we are talking about attacks 

on the Department of Agriculture that is very involved in helping 

us with this, the Interior Department. We are now seeing colleagues attack American’s most respected institutions. 

This reminds me of some other times that we had where people 

turned on our most admired institutions. I mean, they are attacking groups like the American Association for the Advancement of 

Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Society of Plant Biologists, the Association of Ecosystem Research Centers, the American Chemical Society, the American Institute of Biological Scientists, the American 

Society of Agronomy, the American Statistical Association, the Botanical Society of America, the Crop Science Society of America, the 

Ecological Society of America, the Organization of Biological Field 

Stations, the Natural Science Collections Alliance, the Society for 

Industrial Applied Mathematics, the Society of Systemic Biologists, 

the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research and the Soil 

Science of America, who wrote to us and said to us, observations 

throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. 

Now, look. There has been a shift today. This is big news. We 

are now seeing the other side attack our own people, in America, 

who are not political, who care about this country, who love this 

country, who have dedicated themselves to making sure that we 

get the facts. Now our job, as Senator Inhofe says, is to get the 

facts and make the policy. We are not scientists. 
213 

Now, I have other information that the organization cited by 

Senator Barrasso is funded through Exxon Mobil. So, we will put 

that in the record. 

So, I guess you have to ask the question, whose side are we on? 

And I come down on the side of America’s leading scientists, of the 

credible people here in this country who want us to succeed, who 

want us to do the right thing. And of course the good news that 

we have is if we do the right thing, we are going to create millions 

and millions of job. 

I so appreciate, Administrator Jackson, your being here today 

and in your very calm way telling us the truth about what you 

know, what you have learned, how you have built on the Bush administration scientists and leaders. And this debate, to me, as I 

said, has been a turning point. And the vast majority of this committee, we are just going to continue to do our work based on the 

facts. 

The last point I would make is that we all know that we are entitled to our opinions but not to the facts. And I just ask Jason— 

is he here? To hold up, there is one chart I just want to look at, 

the one that talks about what has already happened, not speculation, to the climate in the last decade. We do not have that one up 

here? Well, then we will just go with these. 

[Charts shown.] 

Senator BOXER. The extreme weather. This is not conjecture. 

Amount of rain in the heaviest storms has increased nearly 20 percent in the past century. By contrast, in much of the Southeast and 

large parts of the West, the frequency of droughts has increased 

over the past 50 years. In the West, both the frequency of large 

wildfires and length of the fire season have increased substantially 

in recent decades. And in the last 30 years annual sea surface temperatures have increased 2 degrees, coinciding with an increase in 

the destructive energy of Atlantic tropical storms and hurricanes. 

And we have the facts on the melting ice sheets. We know about 

the temperatures. We know all these things. They have already 

happened. The last decade was the hottest ever recorded. So, these 

are the facts. No one can dispute this. Senator Inhofe cannot dispute these facts. This has already happened. 

So where we are now is, as legislators we need to make policy 

based on the science. And we intend to do this. We have great respect, the majority of this committee, for NASA and NOAA and the 

CIA, and the DOD, and all the departments at the EPA. Nobody 

is perfect here. We know that nobody is perfect. But we see the 

trends. 

And again the good news is when we act and we do the right 

thing we are going to lead this world in these technologies, and we 

are going to create these jobs. 

So, the challenge stands before us. I appreciate, Administrator 

Jackson, your testimony. Thank you very much. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the full committee was adjourned.] 

[An additional statement submitted for the record follows:] 
214 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Madam Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing on the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget request. 

One of the most important things this request does is to give the EPA the resources it needs to fight global warming pollution. Some of our colleagues on this 

committee would have us believe that the science about global warming is in dispute, and we lack the proof to act. They are trying to use a few stolen e-mails and 

minor errors out of thousands of scientific papers to suggest that global warming 

is no longer a serious threat to our well-being. But that is contrary to overwhelming 

scientific consensus and common sense. 

The world’s leading scientific organizations continue to agree that global warming 

is a scientific reality. In fact, even the Bush administration agreed that climate 

change is a threat to our environment, health and national security. 

When there’s a fire, firefighters do not sit on their hands and wait for it to get 

worse. They run to put it out. 

We have a fire burning—and that fire is climate change. We can sit here and 

argue about whether it’s a three-alarm or four-alarm fire, or we can act to put it 

out and protect our planet. That spirit of action is at the heart of President Obama’s 

budget request for the Environmental Protection Agency. 

While I would like to see more funding for the EPA, this budget makes the investments necessary to address the critical problems facing the health of our environment and our children. 

This budget, for example, requests $56 million—including $43 million in new 

funding—for the EPA and States to address climate change by controlling greenhouse gas emissions. 

Beyond climate change, this budget makes serious investments in areas we can 

all agree on: cleaning up pollution in the air to protect our children, reducing our 

dependence on oil to improve our national security, and creating clean energy jobs 

so that America can lead the 21st century economy. 

The budget request also includes a 9.5 percent increase for the development of 

21st century testing of chemicals. The EPA understands, as I do, that far too many 

unsafe chemicals are winding up in the products we use every day. 

That’s why I will soon introduce a bill that will overhaul our Nation’s chemical 

laws. My safer chemicals bill will have a simple goal: force chemical makers to prove 

that their products are safe before they end up in a store, in our homes, or in our 

bodies. I look forward to working with the EPA on this common sense legislation. 

Finally, Madam Chairman, I look forward to working with the Administration and 

EPA on one of my concerns with this budget: inadequate funding for the Superfund 

Program. 

This program is one of the Federal Government’s most important tools for keeping 

our communities clean and safe. New Jersey has more Superfund sites than any 

other State in the Nation, but the Superfund program was gutted during the Bush 

years. It’s critical we fully fund this program. We cannot leave toxins sitting in communities where our children live. 

We also need to hold polluters accountable for the destruction they cause. I am 

pleased that this budget request calls for the reinstatement of the Superfund polluter pays tax, and I will work with the Administration to make that a reality. 

I look forward to continuing to work with our friend from New Jersey, EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, to protect our planet and our children’s health. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
215 

Æ