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

95–158 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 111–1200 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF ROBERT 

PERCIASEPE TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR 

OF THE EPA AND CRAIG HOOKS TO BE 

ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, ADMINISTRATION 

AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, OF THE EPA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JULY 8, 2009 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

BETTINA POIRIER, Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

JULY 8, 2009 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 1 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 4 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 6 

WITNESSES 

Perciasepe, Robert, nominee to be Deputy Administrator, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 14 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 14 

Hooks, Craig E., nominee to be Assistant Administrator, Administration and 

Resources Management, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency .................... 16 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 18 

Response to an additional question from Senator Carper ............................ 23 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 23 

(1) 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF ROBERT 

PERCIASEPE TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE EPA AND CRAIG HOOKS 

TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, 

OF THE EPA 

WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2009 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m. in room 

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

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, and Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN [presiding]. Chairman Boxer requested that I 

convene the hearing, start the hearing, of the Environment and 

Public Works Committee. She will be joining us shortly. 

I had anticipated being next to Bob Perciasepe to introduce him, 

and I still will do that in my time on opening statement. Bob hails 

from Baltimore, and it is a pleasure to have him nominated for this 

very important position. 

I also welcome Craig Hooks. 

At this time, I am going to yield to the Ranking Republican on 

the Environment and Public Works Committee for his opening 

statement. 

Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also confided in the 

Chairman that I have worked with Robert Perciasepe over the 

years in many incarnations and have enjoyed that relationship, 

and so I am very supportive of both of these nominees. 

However, I do have an opening statement that I want to put in 

the record that, quite frankly, I regret to say, has nothing, well, no, 

actually, I joyfully say, has nothing to do with you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. From the beginning of the Administration, the 

current Administration, and from the moment that Administrator 

Lisa Jackson became the head of the EPA, we were told that there 

would be an overwhelming transparency in the operation of that 

agency. And we were lectured about the Bush administration’s al-
2 

leged failure to follow sound science. We were told there would be 

a new era with no suppression of discussion, no matter what the 

view is or who conveys it. 

Well, last week we saw the reality behind those words. A 35-year 

veteran EPA employee questioned the science behind the EPA’s 

headlong rush to regulate greenhouse gases. He was told to keep 

quiet about his findings, not once, but four separate times. And his 

work was then buried. This was back in March at the very time 

that we, on this committee, were getting straight-faced assurances 

that there would be, that this would not occur. 

Worse yet, this did not happen with some minor administrator 

or administrative matter. It happened with perhaps the most important public policy issue that we will be dealing with. 

In her first memo to all EPA employees, dated January 23, 2009, 

Administrator Jackson emphasized, and I am quoting now, she said 

science must be the backbone of the EPA programs. When scientific 

judgments are suppressed, misrepresented or distorted by political 

agendas, the American can lose faith in their Government. That is 

all in a quote. 

Then she finished by saying, I pledge that I will not compromise 

the integrity of the EPA’s experts in order to advance a preference 

for a particular regulatory outcome. 

And in her testimony before this very committee, she repeated 

those pledges. 

Now, we have proof that EPA has rejected science, suppressed 

scientific judgment for the critical agenda, and compromised the integrity of EPA’s experts for the sake of a particular regulatory outcome being pushed by the Obama administration. 

That is why last week I demanded an investigation of the suppression of the March 9, 2009, direct report on the endangerment 

of finding for greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act. 

The report warned of several inconsistencies and problems with scientific data behind the Administration’s proposed endangerment 

finding and called on EPA to conduct a serious review of the 

science before making a determination. 

In other words, it called upon the EPA to do the very things that 

Administrator Jackson had stated should be done. 

There is another matter that I need raise. I have asked each of 

the nominees before the committee to respond with equal vigor to 

the requests for information from either side of the aisle. I have 

been repeatedly assured that this will be the case. In fact, back in 

April, Administrator Jackson herself issued a memo to all EPA 

staff directing them to provide Congress with the information we 

need to do our jobs. 

Yet, in the months since the Administration took office, I have 

made several requests for information that have not been received 

fair and equal treatment. When I do get replies to my questions, 

they have sometimes been vague and unresponsive. 

I know other colleagues on this committee have had the same 

problems, the same experiences. This lack of responsiveness is a 

real impediment to us in fulfilling our constitutional duties over 

oversight. 

Now, to the nominees at hand, I have something that you have 

no control over, and that is that I have observed each time we have 
3 

a new nominee, even though I have supported, I think, all of them, 

they are all from the Northeast. I would just hope that you folks 

would look very carefully, as issues come along, and think of the 

entire country, think of our part of the country out in Oklahoma 

and other areas. I know this was nothing intentional, but it turned 

out to be that way. So that is something that I would like to have 

you folks, well, at question time I will probably ask something to 

that effect. 

This is not a one size fits all type of situation. We are dealing 

with issues that affect different parts of the country differently. 

Certainly, in the current debate that we are having on cap-andtrade, the costs are disproportionate. It is the Heartland that is 

paying for the East Coast and the West Coast. And these are 

things that we, I think, should keep in mind. 

Having said that, I look forward to serving with both of these 

nominees and for confirming their nominations. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

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

Madam Chairman, I am pleased to join you today to review the two latest nominees for senior level positions at the Environmental Protection Agency. I congratulate them on their nomination and appreciate their commitment to public service. 

Before I get to them, I have something to say about the administration they wish 

to join. 

From the beginning of the Obama administration, and from the first moment Administrator Lisa Jackson became head of EPA, we were told there would be ‘‘overwhelming transparency’’ in the operation of that agency. We were lectured about the 

Bush administration’s alleged failure to follow ‘‘sound science.’’ We were told there 

would be a new era, with no suppression of discussion, no matter what the view 

is or who conveys it. 

Well, last week we saw the reality behind those words. A 38-year veteran EPA 

employee questioned the science behind EPA’s headlong rush to regulate greenhouse 

gases. He was told to keep quiet about his findings, not once, but four separate 

times, and his work was then buried. This was back in March, at the very time we 

on this committee were getting straight-faced assurances that this would not occur. 

Worse yet, this didn’t happen with some minor administrative matter that doesn’t 

really make a difference—it happened with what is perhaps the most important 

public policy issue of our time. 

In her very first memo to all EPA employees, dated January 23 of this year, Administrator Jackson emphasized, ‘‘Science must be the backbone for EPA programs.’’ 

She added, ‘‘When scientific judgments are suppressed, misrepresented or distorted 

by political agendas, Americans can lose faith in their government.’’ Then she added 

the kicker: ‘‘I pledge that I will not compromise the integrity of EPA’s experts in 

order to advance a preference for a particular regulatory outcome.’’ 

And in her testimony before this very committee, she has repeated those pledges. 

Now, we have proof that EPA has rejected science, suppressed scientific judgment 

for a political agenda, and compromised the integrity of EPA’s experts for the sake 

of a particular regulatory outcome being pushed by the Obama administration. 

That is why last week I demanded an investigation of the suppression of the 

March 9 draft report on the endangerment finding for greenhouse gas emissions 

under the Clean Air Act. The report warned of several inconsistencies and problems 

with the scientific data behind the Administration’s proposed endangerment finding 

and called on EPA to conduct a ‘‘serious review of the science’’ before making a determination. In other words, it called on EPA to do the very things Administrator 

Jackson has said she is committed to doing. 

There is another matter I need to raise. I have asked each of the nominees before 

us to commit to responding with equal vigor to the requests for information from 

either side of the aisle. I have been repeatedly assured this will be the case. In fact, 

back in April, Administrator Jackson herself issued a memo to all EPA staff directing them to provide Congress with the information we need to do our jobs. Yet in 

the months since this Administration took office, I have made several requests for 

information that have not received fair and equal treatment. When I do get replies 
4 

to my questions, they have sometimes been vague and unresponsive. I know other 

colleagues on this committee have had the same experience. This lack of responsiveness is a real impediment to us in fulfilling our constitutional duties of oversight. 

Now to the nominees at hand. I’ve have had a chance to speak to each of these 

gentlemen. I have nothing against them personally, and I wish them success in 

their service to our Nation. I note, however, a trend I’ve pointed out before. Each 

of these senior level nominees either comes from or has spent the better part of his 

life out East. 

Mr. Perciasepe has had two tours of duty at EPA, both times at headquarters, 

and he has worked in or near Washington for his entire career. Mr. Hooks is also 

a veteran EPA headquarters staff member, although at least he got his education 

from schools in Florida and Texas. 

I have nothing against those who choose to work in one part of the country or 

another. But when virtually the entire leadership of a key Federal agency is from 

one area, in this case the Northeast, and the agency’s mission is to address national 

issues, it raises concerns for those of us from other regions. The Nation’s environmental challenges are not one-size-fits-all. We suffer from policy decisions that do 

not take into account their effect on the rest of the country. I saw that time and 

again during my time as mayor of Tulsa, and I keep seeing it in the regulations 

coming out of Washington even now. It is said that personnel is policy, and if we 

fill senior positions with persons of one mindset, we will see policies that reflect that 

mindset. 

Madam Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony today and asking a 

few follow up questions. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe. 

Let me point out that, in regards to the specific concern that you 

expressed, the individual at the EPA is an economist, and it is our 

understanding that his findings were attached to the documents 

that are being transmitted. 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, well I have heard her response on that. 

However, that does not respond to all of the particular investigative questions that we had offered. In fact, at question and answer 

time, I will be a little bit more specific and ask the two of you to 

perhaps jointly join in on an investigation of some specific things 

that affect your area of expertise. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Let me first welcome our two nominees, Robert 

Perciasepe, nominated to be the Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and Craig Hooks, nominated to be 

the Assistant Administrator, Administration and Resources Management, Environmental Protection Agency. 

I had asked Chairman Boxer if I could be permitted to introduce 

Bob Perciasepe. I do that because he hails from Baltimore. His first 

major public responsibility was working for the city of Baltimore 

under Mayor William Donald Schaefer, revitalizing the city’s Inner 

Harbor into a world class destination. We very much appreciate his 

public service then and his career in helping at all levels of government. 

He knows about State issues. In State government, he served as 

a Cabinet Secretary for the State of Maryland, overseeing the 

State’s environmental programs. He knows about regional cooperation. He served as Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Program’s Principle Staff Committee where he coordinated efforts among the 

States of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania, as well as the District of Columbia, to restore the Chesapeake Bay. 
5 

And he knows about national issues. He already has served in 

two major leadership positions with the EPA, first as the Director 

of Water and later as the Director of the Air Program. He knows 

about working outside of government, too. For the last 8 years, he 

has worked in a senior leadership position in one of America’s oldest and most respected national natural resource advocacy groups, 

the National Audubon Society. 

Bob Perciasepe brings to this position a record of excellence in 

the areas of responsibility that would fall under this new responsibility once he is confirmed in the position in the Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

So, I thank President Obama for making this appointment, and 

I hope that we would quickly confirm his nomination. 

I also want to take this time to talk about the two nominees together. Management of our Federal agencies often gets insufficient 

attention. But we provide these Federal managers with large budgets, large staffs and broad ranging responsibility. The American 

people deserve strong stewardship of their tax dollars and management of these agencies. 

These two nominees are competent managers who give us confidence that the Environmental Protection Agency will be in good 

hands. 

We look forward to their testimony and we look forward to their 

prompt consideration by this committee and the U.S. Senate. 

And with that, I will turn it over first to Mr. Perciasepe. I would 

ask that you would first introduce members of your family that 

may be here so that we might have a chance to meet them. And 

the same thing with Mr. Hooks. And then we will be glad to hear 

from you. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator CARDIN. Just a side conversation about Mayor Schaefer. 

Once you meet Mayor Schaefer, you always know Mayor Schaefer. 

He is still around. 

Senator INHOFE. And I have to say this. You do not look old 

enough to have worked with him because I was there in Tulsa 

when he was mayor of Baltimore. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, it was a pleasurable time of my life, working for a can do kind of person. So, I appreciate those comments 

very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those introductions and for all of 

the work that both of you do on this Senate committee and the 

leadership that you show for the country. 

I want to, as you suggested, introduce my family who are here 

today. First, Lee Palmer, who is my wife, my youngest daughter, 

Julia, right behind me here, and my older daughter, Laura, who is 

right there. I am glad they were able to be here today. They may 

not know it, but they give me inspiration every day. 

The other thing I want to mention, by introduction. Shall I just 

go with my introduction? 

Senator CARDIN. Yes. Well, Mr. Hooks, would you like to introduce your family. That way we will know who is looking at us here. 

Mr. HOOKS. I would love to do that. Thank you. I have with me 

my father, Perry Hooks, Dorothea Hooks, his wife, my youngest 
6 

daughter, Kyla, my wife, Austria, my best friend, Louis Castro, a 

wonderful family friend, Ramona Morano, my middle daughter, 

Brianna, my oldest daughter Zoraya, and my cousin Bridgette. I 

think that is it. 

Senator INHOFE. I would observe that with that crowd here it 

would be awfully hard not to be nice to you. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARDIN. Well, we thank your families because we know 

the sacrifices they make for your service, for your public service, 

and we know that the challenges of the offices that you are seeking 

are going to be long hours. It is a sacrifice of not only yourselves 

but your families, and we appreciate that very much. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. We have now been joined by our Chairman. 

Senator BOXER [presiding]. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for chairing this. Feel free to continue 

to chair it or, if you need to go, I will take the gavel. But I am not 

going to give it to Senator Inhofe because I do not want him to get 

any ideas about the future here. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. Even though I know he has a lot of good ideas 

about the future. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. I would like to begin today’s hearing by welcoming Mr. Perciasepe and Mr. Hooks. You each have been nominated to fill essential positions within the EPA at a pivotal point 

in the Agency’s history. You each bring a wealth of experience and 

a record of dedication to achieving EPA’s mission of protecting public health and the environment. 

The Deputy Administrator assists the EPA Administrator in implementing the President’s policies. The Deputy Administrator also 

helps to provide leadership to EPA’s programs and activities and 

keeps the Agency focused on safeguarding the air we breathe, the 

water we drink, and the land that sustains our Nation. 

Mr. Perciasepe, the Agency has a full agenda as it moves the 

country toward a clean energy future while also implementing and 

strengthening public health and environmental protections. Administrator Jackson, in my opinion, is doing an excellent job and, with 

more help, the EPA can accomplish even more for the American 

people. As her right hand, you will fill a critical role at the Agency. 

Mr. Hooks, your decades of experience working in different parts 

of the EPA are a great fit for the Office of Administration and Resource Management. That office helps to manage all of the other 

parts of the Agency, and it increases or shifts resources to where 

they are most needed. 

This office also works with State and local governments that rely 

on Federal resources to implement public health safeguards. And 

it plays a central role in working with other agencies to reduce pollution and increase the sustainability of their operations. 

Mr. Hooks, your background at EPA and your clear commitment 

to public service will ensure that you make a valuable contribution 

to the Agency’s work. 
7 

I look forward to hearing both of your testimony. 

At this time, did you speak already, Senator? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, we did that already. 

Senator CARDIN. We are ready for Mr. Perciasepe’s opening comments. 

STATEMENT OF ROBERT PERCIASEPE, NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. OK, I will try to be actually brief because I 

think that you probably have all seen my statement. 

First, thanks again, Madam Chairwoman. I mentioned before, 

and I want to mention again while you are here, my appreciation 

to the full committee and yourself, in particular, for the leadership 

that you have been showing on the environment and public health 

in the United States. It is going to be a pleasure to be working 

with all of you if I am confirmed. 

I want to start by simply saying how humbled and honored I am 

that the President of the United States has nominated me to this 

position. And also, I want to express my thanks and appreciation 

to Administrator Jackson who has the confidence in me also to help 

on some of those minor details that the Chair was just talking 

about. 

Senator Cardin, you mentioned quite a bit of my public service 

background so I am not going to reiterate that too much, just to 

make a couple of key points. Public service is a very important 

thing to me. It is something that is a calling that I think many of 

us have. I think that, what I want to emphasize about those parts 

of my career that bring me to this point, is that diversity of experience and how I think that is going to be able to help EPA. 

This city experience you mentioned, part of my job, in addition 

to working on the Harbor and the Chesapeake Bay there, I also 

helped the city to manage its construction budget and the water 

and sewer systems. So, I had a lot of experience which much aligns 

with what EPA works on with local governments. 

At the State government, as you know, working with the Chesapeake Bay Program, some of the interstate issues with the States 

around, and also agriculture, quite a bit of time with agricultural 

interests on the DelMarVa peninsula and in other parts of the 

State. 

At EPA, with the air and the water programs, I think I bring 

some experience to EPA of having at least managed some of those 

larger programs. Certainly not all of them, but some of them. 

And finally, at the National Audubon Society, I have been the 

Chief Operating Officer for the last 5 years of service there. In that 

time, I have managed budget planning, annual performance planning, all of the other kinds of management issues that you really 

need to bring to bear to a well managed institution, including a 

Federal agency. 

I feel very confident that those experiences are really going to 

serve me well to help the President and Administrator Jackson 

with the tasks at hand. 
8 

I want to just quickly say something about, well, I will just wait 

for the questions on the East Coast and the rest of the things. I 

have some thoughts on that. 

But I will just end right now by simply saying that we do have 

a set of core values that have been laid out by the Administrator, 

and I want to reiterate my support for those core values of strong 

science, transparency and the rule of law in terms of how EPA conducts its business. 

Also, I have to say, and Craig will be involved with these as well, 

that we are stewards of public funds, and we have a responsibility 

to make sure that they are used in a wise and effective way, and 

that is another thing that I am really going to pay attention to if 

you all confirm me to this job. 

We also need a strong and empowered work force. Our work 

force is, you know, 90 percent of what EPA’s strength is are the 

people that work there. I want support them and make sure that 

they have the resources that they need to get their work done. 

So, if confirmed, I will put all of my skills, and all of my energy, 

into this task and working closely with Administrator Jackson to 

achieve these goals. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Perciasepe follows:] 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you. 

Mr. Hooks. 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG E. HOOKS, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT 

ADMINISTRATOR, ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Mr. HOOKS. Thank you. 

I would first like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude 

to Chairman Boxer and to Ranking Member Inhofe for holding this 

hearing. 

I am deeply honored to have been nominated by President 

Obama to serve as Assistant Administration for the Office of Administration and Resources Management, OARM, at EPA. It is a 

privilege to work with Administrator Jackson and, if confirmed, I 

look forward to becoming a member of her team, as well as working 

closely with this committee and Congress to continue to improvement management and performance at EPA. 

OARM’s role within EPA is to provide national leadership, policy, 

and management of many essential support functions for the agency, including human resources management, acquisition activities, 

grants management, and management and protection of our facilities and other critical assets nationwide. 

In over two decades of experience in public service, I have held 

a variety of both programmatic and administrative positions in the 

Federal Government. After beginning my career at the National 

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, I joined EPA in 1988. 

Most recently, as EPA’s Acting Assistance Administrator for 

OARM, I also serve as the agency’s Senior Resource Official for the 

Recovery Act activities. In this role, I have focused my efforts on 

rewarding funds in a prompt, fair and reasonable manner, while 

also ensuring transparency and accountability in an effort to 

achieve both economic and environmental results. At this time, 

over 62 percent of EPA’s Recovery Act funds have been awarded. 

Prior to my current position as Acting Assistant Administrator 

for OARM, I served as the Director of EPA’s Office of Wetlands, 

Oceans, and Watersheds, or OWOW. OWOW promotes a watershed 

approach to manage, protect and restore water resources and 

aquatic ecosystems of the Nation’s marine and fresh waters. I have 

also served as Director of the Federal Facilities Enforcement Office, 

which ensures that Federal agencies meet multi-billion dollar clean 

up commitments and comply with environmental law. 

As Associate Director of the Administration and Resources Management Support Staff within that office, I was also responsible for 

guiding annual resource requests, managing mission contracts, and 

supporting information technology, personnel and facilities activities. 

President Obama and Administrator Jackson have made clear 

the three core values they expect EPA to uphold: scientific integrity, the rule of law, and transparency in our actions. If confirmed, 

I am committed to keeping these values at the center of everything 

I do. 

I welcome the opportunity to focus on workplace issues emphasized by Administrator Jackson: labor management relations, work 

force planning, work force development, diversity, and work-life 
17 

amenities. I believe that by creating an atmosphere of mutual trust 

and respect, we can work with our unions to identify and solve 

workplace issues. 

I would proactively focus on our future work force needs, as EPA 

faces the retirement of one-third of our employees over the next 10 

years. I would continue the Agency’s efforts to create a work force 

that is representative of America by providing opportunities to all 

employees. And, I would continue EPA’s focus on work-life balance 

in order to maintain a motivated and engaged work force. 

As the next generation of environmental professionals enters the 

work force, we will continue to create a workplace that attracts the 

best talents and fosters their development and ensures that EPA 

continues to fulfill its mission in the future. 

In terms of facilities management, my priorities would be to ensure employee health and safety, as well as managing EPA’s environmental footprint. To ensure that EPA’s buildings and practices 

reflect our mission, the Agency implements a range of strategies to 

reduce the environmental impact of its facilities and operations, 

from building new, environmentally sustainable structures to improving the energy efficiency of our older buildings. 

If confirmed, I pledge to ensure that EPA’s contracts and grants 

management processes are run according to the laws and regulations governing Federal procurement, to ensure that Federal funds 

are used responsibly to deliver meaningful environmental results. 

In conclusion, if confirmed, I pledge to uphold the laws by EPA 

is directed, to implement the priorities of the President and Administrator Jackson, to conduct agency business in a transparent manner, to be responsive to the inquiries of this committee and Congress, and to uphold the mission of the EPA. 

Once again, thank you for this opportunity. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hooks follows:] 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 

Senator CARDIN. Well, let me thank both you for your testimonies. I am going to have to leave in a moment, but I just want 

to ask one question related to the interagency issues. 

Mr. Perciasepe, we had a chance to talk yesterday about the 

challenges of the different Federal agencies that you have to work 

with. I must tell you, I have been pleased this year to see EPA and 

DOD working together on clean up issues in my own State, both 

at Fort Meade and Fort Detrick, where we have made significant 

progress. But is it not easy working with other Federal agencies. 

So, I want to ask you a question about OMB, which does not always see eye to eye with EPA on budget requests. This committee 

is very interested in the State Revolving Fund and the Drinking 

Water Revolving Fund. We have legislation pending to try to increase the authorized amount. 

As Deputy Administrator, if confirmed, you will be responsible to 

try to deal with OMB in getting the appropriate funding levels so 

that we can move forward with our water infrastructure in this 

country. And these are programs that are critically important. 

I just want to know how you would see your role in working with 

OMB to make sure that we get the appropriate resources in this 

country to rebuild the infrastructure and the needs in our communities. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Thank you, Senator. In my past time at EPA, 

I spent quite a bit of my time working with the different agencies 

and, in particular, with the Office of Management and Budget. I 

have a great appreciation in the role that they play in managing 

the entire Federal Government. They certainly have their own set 

of challenges. 

I think it is, well, this may sound almost like diplomacy and I 

do not mean it to sound that way, but in recognizing where each 

agency is coming from in terms of its perspective and in terms of 

its charge that Congress has given to them in many cases, for instance, the Department of Agriculture or the Department of Transportation or the Department of Defense. It really is important that 

people at EPA in the responsible positions, you know, can communicate in a way of mutual respect and find the right way to proceed. 

And I think that I have quite a bit of experience and success in 

that area. I have a lot of respect for my colleagues that are in those 

other agencies. I have not had the opportunity yet, because I have 

not yet been confirmed, to really get to know them in detail. But 

I certainly will approach that interagency area of work with that 

kind of attitude, but also one that is aimed toward solving the 

problems and moving the ball forward. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, the Congress, in a bipartisan manner, has 

added funds to these accounts over the President’s budget because 

of the importance that we place on moving forward and modernizing our infrastructure. I give the examples frequently in Maryland where River Road became a river and downtown Baltimore 

was flooded out and the trains could not run. The funding of these 

programs is very important and I am pleased to hear that you will 

be fighting within the Administration so that perhaps we will have 

an easier lift in Congress in passing budgets that are adequate in 

this area. 
27 

Madam Chair, thank you, I am going to turn it over to Senator 

Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, first of all, I ask both of you the same question. If you are 

confirmed, which you will be confirmed, will you commit to answering requests for information and documents from the minority and 

respond the same as you would those requests coming from the majority? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes, Senator, I would. 

Mr. HOOKS. Yes, sir. 

Senator INHOFE. OK, thank you. 

Mr. Perciasepe, first of all, I have always enjoyed working with 

you, as I said earlier, in the past, and I look forward to it again. 

You heard us taking about the alleged suppression of the information that went into the endangerment decision and the fact that 

the information was not used. We have requested an investigation 

of that. 

Let me just ask you, since you will be coming in to the second 

position. Will you make your own independent, go in with a fresh 

look and make it an investigation and share with us what your 

feelings are as to the accuracy of the accusations that have been 

made? Would you do that for me and get back in a timely fashion? 

It does not have to be formalized or anything. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. You know, I am not familiar, other than what 

I read in the press about this. 

Senator INHOFE. And that is dangerous. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. And I do know that the Administrator, I was 

watching the hearing yesterday on television, and I know that the 

Administrator responded, I thought, with some specificity. So, I 

would want to work with the Administrator on whatever reviews 

that they are doing and to make sure that information is available. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, if you would rather not do it independently, I can understand that, but would you go back, if we gave you 

some of the specifics we would like addressed, and try to help us 

with that? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Any information that you provide I will certainly make sure that it gets to the right people at EPA. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. You have been watching what we are 

doing now with this Clean Water Restoration Act. We are all familiar with this. We remember the background, where it started, we 

are familiar with the two court decisions and then, of course, what 

this would attempt to do would to be put all, in my opinion, my 

interpretation of the Act, would be to put all waters under Federal 

jurisdiction. How far do you think that should go? Are their exceptions to the Federal jurisdiction? 

All right, let me ask you more specifically. A farm pond that is 

unconnected to any other body of water, should that be Federal jurisdiction? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, it is hard to answer in the abstract of a 

particular pond or a particular water body. Let me just say, step 

back for just a moment on this. Based on my own past experiences, 

and what I have watched unfold over the last number of years with 

certain Supreme Court decisions, is that one of the things that is 

really clear to me is that there needs to be some work on this by 
28 

the Congress to help create certainty in the current situation. Because for both people who might have a farm pond, and people who 

are worried about wetlands restoration and preservation, all of 

them have, you know, whatever perspective you are bringing to 

that issue, there is a degree of uncertainty right now. 

I think that the Administration did lay out some broad principles 

on this, and what I can say to you is that I would pledge to make 

sure that I would work with this committee in any way that you 

see your needs, so that we can find the kind of common sense approach that we need to take under those principles that the Administration had laid out. 

But it is hard to say—— 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, but—— 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Can I just finish? It is hard to say, like a particular pond, you would have to know what the—— 

Senator INHOFE. Well, what about water that collected in a 

ditch? You see, this is what I am really concerned about—— 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes, I understand—— 

Senator INHOFE. That it would go so far and, quite frankly, if you 

feel, if you do not feel, that the Federal jurisdiction should come 

to these areas, that is a great concern. It is not going to affect your 

confirmation. But it is going to put me in a position where if I talk 

to the ag people and say that this Administration is not even going 

to say that you are exempt if you have water in ditch or in your 

farm pond that is unconnected, that is of concern to me. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, I do not think that anybody wants, I can 

say this categorically, but not being involved with the current discussions even on the legislation, but nobody wants some impractical jurisdictional determination that gets into rain puddles and 

things of this nature that you hear about. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. Let me do this a different way then. I am 

going to run down a list of six bodies of water. And all I am going 

to ask you do to do is say should the Federal Government have a 

jurisdiction over these. If you do not say yes or no, just say it depends or something. I just want to get you on record, so that if I 

have to go to someone and say, even water collecting in a ditch is 

one that might be subject to it, then that at least gives me something specific. These are my concerns. 

So, we have an intermittent stream that has no flowing water in 

past year. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I do not know the answer—— 

Senator INHOFE. All right. And a farm pond, unconnected, as I 

mentioned before, to any other body of water. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. A farm pond? Is this a farm pond that was 

made by the farmer or was this—— 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. We do this in Oklahoma. You build a little 

dam and you build a farm pond, and that is where the cows go to 

keep cool. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I am going to probably, for all of these, just to 

give you a heads up, I’m probably going to say I do not know because, you know—— 

Senator INHOFE. That is fine. I do not know will suffice. 

Water that collects in a ditch? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I do not know. 
29 

Senator INHOFE. A wetland that is not connected to a stream or 

river? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, wetlands are connected hydrologic, by the 

full hydrologic cycle. But again, it takes a scientific discussion and 

knowledge of this particular water body to be able to answer that. 

But I am going to say that I do not know again. 

Senator INHOFE. A prairie pothole? And I do not know, is that 

OK? And a body of water that migratory birds happen to land 

upon? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. A migratory bird now? 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. There is a court decision on that, you might 

know. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I think the Supreme Court mentioned something about migratory birds and using them exclusively for, this I 

do know, and obviously there would have to be other factors involved. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, OK, I did not mean to take that much 

time. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, I am not saying—— 

Senator INHOFE. I just really want to be able to say, to my people 

in Oklahoma, how far this thing really could go. You have been 

helpful. And you have been very honest in your response. 

This issue that you are aware of on the startup and shut down, 

a maintenance issue. As you know, since 1994, the EPA has given 

plants and refineries and manufacturers exemptions on their strict 

emissions standards on startup and shut down. The concern I have 

here is that, if these are discontinued, you would have a situation 

where people would either not even start up again, or, you know, 

well, is your feeling that there should be some exemptions on startup and shut down? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, startup and shut down of major facilities 

of any kind clearly are a moment in time where conditions are different than ongoing operations. I have to tell you that I am familiar with this concept, but I am no familiar with the current states 

of affairs with whatever rulemaking EPA is looking at. 

I can say that there are conditions at that particular moment 

that are unique, but I do not know the state of play of the regulation. I would be happy to look into that and get back to you. 

Senator INHOFE. That is fine. Do I have time to go ahead? 

Senator BOXER. You can do whatever you want. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, that is—— 

[Laugher.] 

Senator BOXER. Within reason. 

Senator INHOFE. I noticed that you are on the One Thousand 

Friends of Maryland Board having to do with smart growth. This 

is an issue that, way back, many years ago, about the time that 

Schaefer was mayor and I was mayor of Tulsa, we dealt with a lot 

of the insiders coming in and trying to tell us how to handle our 

property rights in the city of Tulsa and these things, where we 

could grow and these things. 

Because of your previous association, just as a general question, 

do think that sometimes, sometimes, not always, but sometimes, 
30 

that Washington knows more about, and should be involved in, 

land use in a Tulsa, Oklahoma, than people who live in Tulsa? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Well, the one thing I can say is, if the Department of Transportation funds a highway project in Tulsa, Oklahoma, they are going to be involved with land use, one way or the 

other because it is going to stimulate growth, or it is going to direct 

growth to a certain area. And I think there is a need for collaboration on these kinds of matters when Federal funds are used. 

Senator INHOFE. Absolutely. I understand that. In my experience, 

do you remember the name of Dr. Robert Froehlich out in San 

Diego? He was the one who was making the circuit at that one 

time talking about zoning. This had nothing to do with the highways and with Federal funding. I agree with you there, that is not 

a problem. But just on land use, and it gets a bit down to property 

rights, where he had used the circles around a city and said that 

certainly zoning could take place in some places and could not in 

other places. 

Is your feeling that even outside of the area where there are Federal funds that we should take a more aggressive stand in Washington in terms of zoning and land use throughout the country? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. I really think that zoning, and specific kinds of 

land use decisions that you are talking about, are the purview of 

States and local government. It is the partnership between the 

Federal Government and the investments that we make, good or 

bad, that can disrupt those. So, we need to work on this together. 

The Federal Government has a role, to cooperate. 

Senator INHOFE. One last question to Mr. Hooks. 

Senator BOXER. Yes. 

Senator INHOFE. Mr. Hooks, you are probably aware, in fact I 

know that you are, that I have a kind of long standing interest in 

maintaining the integrity of the grant system at the Environmental 

Protection Agency. We have set up some restrictions, some guidelines. I think we are making great headway. It was not too long 

ago, though, that they moved the attorneys that were supposed to 

be making some of the interpretations to another building. This 

concerned me. 

I would like to know what your feelings are in terms of my past 

efforts and concerns about grants management and the kind of reforms, whether you agree to some of the reforms or not that I was 

trying to do and could continue with those reforms. I am very, very, 

I have always been very concerned about the way that grants are 

handled. 

Mr. HOOKS. I am actually very pleased with some of the reforms 

that have taken place over the last few years. For a grants program, it is very important to further the agency’s mission. I think 

one of the key factors in terms of some of the results that we have 

achieved over the last few years is that we have really advanced 

the ball in terms of achieving environmental results. 

However, it is going to be important for us to ensure that we 

monitor our policies and procedures, to offer improvements when 

necessary, and also maintain a high quality grants management 

work force to keep them in place. 
31 

One of the things that I really want to focus on is leveraging 

technology to ensure that we can use that for decisionmaking and 

also increase transparency. 

In terms of the attorneys that were co-located in the same office, 

I believe those were attorneys that were associated with the contracts office and that is another issue that I actually want to look 

at. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, let me look into that because that may be 

true. That was not my understanding but you are probably right 

in this case. So we will look at that. 

But I am concerned, and pleased that you are concerned, with 

the integrity of the grants system and the improvements that we 

have made. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. 

To both our nominees, we have a question that we have to ask 

all nominees, so I will just ask you to answer yes or no. 

Do you agree, if confirmed by the Senate, to appear before this 

committee or designated members of this committee and other appropriate committees of the Congress, and provide information, 

subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, with respect to your responsibilities at the Environmental Protection 

Agency? 

Mr. Perciasepe, please, you go first. Answer yes or no. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes, I will. 

Mr. HOOKS. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. And do you agree, we will do the same order, to 

ensure that testimony, briefings, documents, electronic and other 

forms of communication are provided to this committee and its 

staff, and other appropriate committees, in a timely fashion? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes, I do. 

Mr. HOOKS. Yes. I do as well. 

Senator BOXER. And the last question of this. Do you know of 

any matters which you may or may not have disclosed that might 

place you in any conflict of interest if you are confirmed? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. None other than I may have already disclosed 

in the information packet that I have given to the committee. 

Senator BOXER. All right. 

Mr. HOOKS. No, I do not. 

Senator BOXER. All right. 

I just want to give, of course, a little bit of a different view on 

the clean water issues. I have no intention of putting a pothole 

under the Federal Government’s jurisdiction. And I also agree with 

my colleague, coming from local government, I was a county supervisor, and I agree with you, Robert, that zoning and land use are 

a matter of the locals. But when we do inject Federal funds in 

there, there needs to be a partnership discussion and we need to 

respect each other and make that work. So, thank you for that answer. 

I would say, coming from a State that has lost 95 percent of its 

wetlands, that I do believe whether a wetland drains into a stream 

or a river, that is a different issue for me. Because I have seen 

areas that flooded over because everyone thought that the wetland 

was a swamp, everyone thought the wetlands were a ditch. And all 
32 

through my early years in government, I took a great interest in 

restoring wetlands. 

I just want to make the point that wetlands, if they truly are 

wetlands, and that is why I think your answer is right, Robert, I 

mean it is so site specific. One person looks at something and says, 

that is a ditch. It is not worth anything, fill it up. Another person, 

perhaps a scientists, might say well wait a minute, do you know 

this is part of the ecological chain and the food chain and what is 

going on in here, do you know it is cleaning the air, and do you 

know it is providing the areas with flood control? All you have to 

do is look at New Orleans to see how desperate both our colleagues 

are to restore wetlands. 

So, I just want to make the point that we are, Senator Inhofe 

and I do have a disagreement over this, but we do also have some 

agreements on zoning and respecting the power of local government. 

I guess I would like to ask you both this question. Do you not 

view it this way, whether it is this contentious issue after Rapanos 

that we are trying to resolve which our colleagues on the other side 

feel that we overstepped, and I completely respect that, but we 

passed this out. I am not asking your opinion. But is it not true 

that, whatever the law is, it is your job, whether you agree with 

it or not, to implement it. Is that right? If it is the law? Go, go. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. The Congress has had—— 

Senator BOXER. And the President. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. The executive branch obviously has the role of 

implementing those laws. 

Senator BOXER. Well, the President has to sign it for it to become 

a law or we have to override a veto. So, I think putting you on the 

spot, either of you, and we did not really see that happening to you, 

Mr. Hooks, I am sure you are grateful, is just not fair. Because it 

is up to us to write the laws. You know, if you are sitting up here 

and I am sitting there, then I have to say, well, regardless of my 

opinion, you write the laws. But you gave a truthful answer on 

what you think, and you have done that and I just appreciate it. 

There are contentious issues here. I think you are right on the 

point about certainty. 

I want to talk about the stimulus bill, otherwise known as the 

Economic Recovery Act, Mr. Hooks. You said that 62 percent of the 

awards have been made. Out of that, how many have really started 

the groundbreaking? Do you know? 

Mr. HOOKS. Well, you can look at it in two different ways. You 

can look at it in terms of obligation rate, and I think we are doing 

a pretty terrific job in terms of getting the money out of the door. 

The majority of our money goes in the form of clean water and 

drinking water SRF loans. 

Senator BOXER. Right. 

Mr. HOOKS. In terms of the outlays, it is actually fairly small. We 

are only about $22 million. I think, at this point in time, the States 

have had those contracts out for bid. Right now, all that is starting 

to come to fruition. At this point in time, I expect that the outlays 

should start to jump up. 
33 

Senator BOXER. Good. I mean I have a serious concern out this, 

across the board. I think you are doing great getting 62 percent. 

When do you think you will have 90 percent? 

Mr. HOOKS. I suspect within the next 100 days, I would put us 

at 90 percent of the funds being obligated. 

Senator BOXER. OK. Well, I want to urge you, I do not want you 

to make mistakes on this. God knows, we do not want that. But 

I would urge you to do your best with your staff, because this recession is very prolonged, it started in 2007, it still is very tough 

out there, and we need to make sure that these grants are not only 

awarded, but the moneys are obligated. Do you stay in touch to 

make sure these are obligated? Is there a certain rule that they are 

going to lose the funds if they do not spend it by x time? 

Mr. HOOKS. In the context of clean water and drinking water, 

yes, there is. 

Senator BOXER. Good. 

Mr. HOOKS. There is a 1-year, actually, timeframe to have all 

drinking water and clean water SRF loans made within 1 year 

from enactment. So, by February 2010, all those contracts have to 

be under contract or construction. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I would urge the Administration to do 

whatever they can to stay on top of it and let people now they are 

under contract to get this done within a year because we need the 

jobs and we need the work done. And the SRF is a great program. 

As a matter of fact, if Senator Inhofe were here, he and I would 

be singing out of the same book. We very strongly support that 

fund and also, by the way, making sure that the formulas are fair. 

We are working hard on that. If we get that done, it will be the 

first time in 22 years that the SRF for clean water would be done 

and the other one was how many years? Thirteen years for the 

drinking water. So, we are really working hard. 

So, I guess I have a couple of other questions. Can you take a 

couple of more questions? 

Mr. HOOKS. Absolutely. 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. We are here at your pleasure. 

Senator BOXER. Good. Oh, and I am having such a good time. 

Let me see. Mr. Perciasepe, earlier this year, Administrator 

Jackson ended EPA’s voluntary performance track program, which 

was criticized for giving companies good PR despite poor environmental performance. The Administrator has asked an EPA Federal 

Advisory Committee to review the agency’s voluntary program, and 

to recommend potential changes. 

If confirmed, do you commit to work to ensure that EPA’s voluntary programs reward the best companies, those leaders who go 

beyond what is required and demonstrate what is possible? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Of course. I think voluntary programs have a 

role in the overall scheme, and we need to make sure that they accomplish some goals of improving compliance and getting people 

ahead of the curve, providing those proper incentives. So, yes, absolutely and I am looking forward to seeing that. 

Senator BOXER. The private sector can do so much and we ought 

to just save the rewards for those that really take that extra step. 

Also for you, the 2007 energy bill required EPA, in consultation 

with the Secretary of Education and Health, to develop voluntary 
34 

school siting guidelines by June 30, 2009. I understand the Administration is working to catch up on this issue which, in my view, 

was not given enough attention in the past. 

If confirmed, do you agree to provide my staff with a status update and time line for EPA’s issuance of these guidelines? 

Mr. PERCIASEPE. Yes, yes I will. I do not know the particulars 

right now, but I will look into it and get back to you. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, please do. If you could get us an answer in 

writing ASAP on that one. Just get back to us. 

And Mr. Hooks, EPA unions have called for the agency to do a 

workload and work force analysis which enables EPA to identify 

the skills needed to accomplish the agency goals and to address 

any gaps or surpluses in skills. 

If confirmed, do you commit to consider working with EPA’s 

unions to determine the need to conduct such an analysis and complete it if such analysis is needed, in your opinion? 

Mr. HOOKS. Yes, I will. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Hooks, in January 2009, EPA’s inspector 

general found that the agency could more quickly make unexpended funds available for use in other programs and activities in 

a process called de-obligating funds. The report made recommendations to help ensure that money was more quickly used where it 

was needed. 

If you are confirmed, would you please provide my staff with an 

update on the status of EPA’s implementation of that report’s recommendations? 

Mr. HOOKS. Yes, I will. 

Senator BOXER. Good, because we, at this point when we have 

such a need for these funds to be used, we do not want them just 

wasting away or sitting there because somebody did not get their 

act together. 

Mr. Hooks, an April 2009 inspector general report found that the 

agency had not fully documented their implementation of five prior 

recommendations concerning grant disbursements. And I think 

that is a little bit to what my colleague is talking about. 

If confirmed, do you commit to report back to my staff on the status of EPA’s implementations of these recommendations? 

Mr. HOOKS. Yes, I will. 

Senator BOXER. Well, thank you very much, both of you. I am 

very grateful to you for undertaking these new responsibilities. I 

think it is an exciting time. It is a time of change. We have a big 

job to do. These are also very tough times. You are in a position, 

by doing your work well, by really focusing, to make things happen 

on the ground. 

A lot of people are hurting out there. It does not do us any good 

if stimulus funds are sitting somewhere, right, on the shelf. It does 

not do us any good if there are programs that have unobligated 

moneys, and we all think that it was a great grant and then it does 

not happen and it does not do us any good. 

And it does not do us any good when EPA does not conduct itself 

in accordance with science and the law, and I am very convinced 

that that will happen. 

So, congratulations to both of you. To your families, we really 

thank you. There will be long nights and hard work, but you will 
35 

be part of this process of change by virtue of your standing behind 

your loved one. So thank you. 

We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

Æ