U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

75–209 PDF 2012

REGULATORY REFORM SERIES, PART 7: THE 

EPA’S REGULATORY PLANNING, ANALYSIS, AND 

MAJOR ACTIONS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 

Serial No. 112–87 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

Chairman 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Ranking Member 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(II) 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Cliff Stearns, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 1 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 4 

Hon. Diana DeGette, a Representative in Congress from the State of Colorado, opening statement ...................................................................................... 8 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 9 

Prepared statement ................................................................................................. 11 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 13 

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

Hon. Michael C. Burgess, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas, prepared statement .................................................................................. 17 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Hon. Janice D. Schakowsky, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, opening statement .............................................................................. 25 

WITNESS

Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency ................... 25 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 181 

Additional answers for the record ................................................................... 201 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Report, dated September 2011, ‘‘Anti-Environment Votes in the 112th Congress,’’ by Democratic staffs of Committee on Energy and Commerce and 

Committee on Natural Resources, submitted by Mr. Waxman ........................ 39 

Letter, dated September 20, 2011, from Nicholas A. Brown, President & 

CEO, et al., Southwest Power Pool, Inc., to Ms. Jackson, submitted by 

Mr. Burgess .......................................................................................................... 78 

Letter, dated June 16, 2011, from Mark McPherson, Chief of Staff, Office 

of Administration and Resources Management, Environmental Protection 

Agency, to Amer Al-Mudallal, National Treasury Employee Union Chapter 

280, submitted by Mr. Burgess ........................................................................... 82 

Letter, dated August 11, 2011, from Mike Strain, Commissioner, Louisiana 

Department of Agriculture & Forestry, to Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Environmental 

Protection Agency, submitted by Mr. Scalise .................................................... 87 

Online article excerpt, ‘‘Mercury Emission Control R&D,’’ undated, Fossil 

Energy Office of Communications, Department of Energy, submitted by 

Mr. Griffith ........................................................................................................... 89 

Majority staff slide presentation, submitted by Mr. Stearns ............................... 90 

Report, dated August 2011, ‘‘Improving Our Regulations: Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations,’’ Environmental Protection Agency, submitted by Ms. DeGette ............................................................. 96 

Article, dated August 18, 2011, ‘‘CAP Analysis Disproves Claims About the 

Economic Effects of Strengthened Ozone Protections,’’ by the Center for 

American Progress, at ThinkProgress.org, submitted by Ms. DeGette ........... 158 

Report, undated, ‘‘Catalyzing American Ingenuity: The Role of Government 

in Energy Innovation,’’ American Energy Innovation Council, submitted 

by Ms. DeGette ..................................................................................................... 167 

Page

IV 

Report, dated February 2011, ‘‘New Jobs—Cleaner Air: Employment Effects 

Under Planned Changes to the EPA’s Air Pollution Rules,’’ Ceres and 

the Political Economy Research Institute, submitted by Ms. DeGette ............ 173 

(1) 

REGULATORY REFORM SERIES, PART 7: THE 

EPA’S REGULATORY PLANNING, ANALYSIS, 

AND MAJOR ACTIONS 

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATION, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:07 a.m., in room 

2322 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Cliff Stearns 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Stearns, Murphy, Burgess, 

Blackburn, Myrick, Bilbray, Gingrey, Scalise, Gardner, Griffith, 

Barton, Upton (ex officio), DeGette, Schakowsky, Castor, Markey, 

Christensen, Dingell, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Charlotte Baker, Press Secretary; Jim Barnette, 

General Counsel; Anita Bradley, Senior Policy Advisor to Chairman 

Emeritus; Patrick Currier, Counsel, Energy and Power; Andy 

Duberstein, Special Assistant to Chairman Upton; Todd Harrison, 

Chief Counsel, Oversight; Kirby Howard, Legislative Clerk; Heidi 

King, Chief Economist; Carly McWilliams, Legislative Clerk; Dave 

McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment and Economy; Mary 

Neumayr, Senior Energy Counsel; Krista Rosenthall, Counsel to 

Chairman Emeritus; Alan Slobodin, Deputy Chief Counsel, Oversight; Sam Spector, Counsel, Oversight; Peter Spencer, Professional 

Staff Member, Oversight; Kristin Amerling, Democratic Chief 

Counsel and Oversight Staff Director; Alvin Banks, Democratic Investigator; Brian Cohen, Democratic Investigations Staff Director 

and Senior Policy Advisor; Jacqueline Cohen, Democratic Counsel; 

Greg Dotson, Democratic Energy and Environment Staff Director; 

Kelley Greenman, Democratic Legislative Assistant; Alexandra 

Teitz, Democratic Senior Counsel, Environment and Energy; and 

Anne Tindall, Democratic Counsel. 

Mr. STEARNS. Good morning, everybody. The Subcommittee on 

Oversight and Investigations will come to order, and I will open 

with my opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CLIFF STEARNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

Ladies and gentlemen, this past January, President Obama 

issued Executive Order 13563 to improve regulations and the regulatory review process, noting that our regulatory system ‘‘must protect public health, welfare, safety, and our environment while proVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:26 Jul 30, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\11BF34~1\112-87~1 WAYNE
2 

moting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness, and job creation.’’ 

With job creation and the Nation’s economic recovery the focal 

point, the subcommittee has sought to get a clearer understanding 

of agency regulatory action under this administration. Today, in 

our seventh hearing in this effort, we will examine the EPA’s regulatory planning, analysis, and major actions taken. 

While we agree with the principles outlined in the Executive 

Order, we are disappointed that EPA does not seem to have followed those principles. Time and time again over the last 3 years, 

we have seen the EPA issue oppressive new regulations that have 

dramatically raised the costs of doing business in the United 

States, and, indeed, have driven numerous American companies 

out of business altogether. 

The EPA is unquestionably an important public health regulatory agency, which has contributed to the tremendous improvements in clean air, safe drinking water and environmental quality 

over the past 40 years. It is also an agency that wields tremendous 

influence over the essential ingredients of economic recovery: the 

cost of manufacturing, construction and power production, the reliability of energy, the certainty of future rules and standards in the 

decisions that drive the Nation’s commerce. 

Since the beginning of this administration, EPA has issued or 

proposed a number of large, complex, and expensive rules. The 

pace of these rulemakings is such that it is not always clear EPA 

has fully considered or fully informed the public about the potential 

negative consequences of its actions on the United States economy, 

jobs creation, and our ability to compete with countries around the 

world. 

Now, consider the decision in the first weeks of the administration to pursue an endangerment finding for greenhouse gases. This 

formed the regulatory predicate for setting fuel efficiency standards 

for cars and trucks, at an EPA-estimated cost of about $60 billion. 

The President announced the prospect of this new regulation at a 

Rose Garden ceremony. But there was no public discussion about 

the fact that the new regulation also would have automatically 

triggered new permitting requirements required by the Clean Air 

Act for all stationary sources of greenhouse gas emissions. These 

permitting requirements meant that 82,000 stationary sources annually would need to obtain preconstruction permits. Another 6.1 

million sources would need to obtain operating permits. EPA estimated that, absent a rulemaking to exempt the majority of these 

sources, the permitting costs alone would be $193 billion over just 

a 3-year period. The cost of ceasing operations or not initiating new 

projects was never taken into account. 

To avoid this absurd and self-imposed economic calamity, EPA 

issued ‘‘tailoring’’ rules to exempt most, but not all sources, but left 

open the possibility of sweeping more entities into the new permitting regime at a later date. This affects the entire U.S. economy, 

as the future of greenhouse gas permitting exists under a cloud of 

uncertainty. 

Now, in another case, in January 2010, EPA chose to reconsider 

ground-level ozone standards set just recently in 2008. Although 

the proposed standards would potentially sweep vast areas of the 

3 

Nation into noncompliance and cost upwards of $90 billion per 

year, the agency sought to rush and issue final standards in just 

8 months. The agency missed that deadline but was still promising 

to issue final standards, until the President himself, recognizing 

that issuing such a rule would cause him severe electoral problems 

in the next election, recently requested that the Administrator refrain from issuing the ozone rule at this time. The President is on 

board, however, with issuing onerous new regulations in 2013— 

after the election. 

Just yesterday, this committee reported legislation to provide 

adequate time for EPA to develop standards for hazardous air pollutants for boilers and cement plants, after it became apparent that 

EPA’s complex and admittedly rushed rulemaking results in requirements simply unachievable in the real world. 

Under the Clean Air Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and various other statutes, EPA appears to be rushing forward with rulemakings that just don’t make sense for those who 

know what it takes to implement them and those concerned with 

ensuring we simply have a vital economy. 

It does not appear that the President’s stated priorities for 

thoughtful, transparent and sound rulemaking have taken hold at 

the EPA. I am particularly interested in learning about EPA’s future regulatory plans and how the cumulative impacts of its rules 

inform its planning. Does EPA consult adequately with other agencies? Does EPA operate openly with affected stakeholders, States, 

and the public? These are important questions. I look forward to 

our discussion with the Honorable Lisa Jackson. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Stearns follows:] 

4 


75209.001
5 


75209.002
6 


75209.003
7 


75209.004
8 

Mr. STEARNS. With that, I recognize the distinguished ranking 

member, Diana DeGette. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DIANA DEGETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing. 

I think that oversight directed towards ensuring efficient and effective federal regulation is an important endeavor, and I like to 

work with the majority to have efforts to root out unnecessary and 

wasteful regulations. As a long-time member of this distinguished 

subcommittee, I believe the purpose of this committee is to investigate what can be done, not to forward a political agenda, and so 

I know we are going to have a heated discussion today, but I think 

we should keep it focused on exactly what regulations we are talking about, what the purpose is and in fact they are necessary. 

To that end, I am delighted to welcome our witness today, EPA 

Administrator Lisa Jackson. Administrator Jackson oversees implementation of some of the most important legislation ever passed by 

Congress, and it is my view that she is one of the most gutsy and 

effective members of the administration, so I am glad to have her. 

The main topic of the conversation today will be jobs. I know that 

my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will assert that environmental rules and regulations are stifling jobs and harming economic growth, but this is simply not the case. We need to keep in 

mind the purpose of the Clean Air Act: To protect the health of 

Americans. 

Now, in 2010 alone, the Clean Air Act prevented 160,000 premature deaths, millions of respiratory illnesses, 3 million lost 

school days and 13 million lost workdays. By 2020, the Clean Air 

Act’s total benefit to the economy will reach $2 trillion, outweighing costs more than 30 to one. 

The Clean Air Act and other environmental laws do something 

else: They create millions of jobs and they could create millions 

more jobs if it weren’t for the inaction of this Congress to pass climate change legislation. Compliance with the Clean Air Act generates investment in design, manufacture, installation and operation of equipment to reduce pollution. The environmental technology and services sector has grown steadily since the Act’s adoption, generating $300 billion in revenue and supporting nearly 1.7 

million jobs in 2008 alone. 

Clean Air Act rules recently announced by the EPA will only add 

to this remarkable record. For example, investment spurred by the 

Utility, Toxics and Cross-State Air Pollution Rules will generate 

1.5 million new jobs by 2015. These will be high-paying, skilled, 

professional jobs that cannot be outsourced. 

So Chairman, one of the biggest steps this committee could take 

to boost the economy would be to pass long-overdue legislation to 

combat climate change and usher in an era of clean energy. Now, 

you don’t need to be a Democrat to believe this; you just need to 

live in a science-based world. Two years ago when this committee 

passed landmark climate legislation, we heard from business leaders that there were billions of dollars sitting on the sidelines just 

9 

waiting for clear rules of the road to be drawn up for the Nation’s 

energy future. I just met with the Colorado rural electric folks yesterday, who told me the same thing, and these business leaders 

continue to ask Congress to act. 

Just last week, for example, the America Energy Innovation 

Council led by people like Bill Gates, venture capitalist John Doerr 

and General Electric CEO Jeff Immelt implored the federal government to invest in clean energy technologies. I want to read to you 

from these leaders’ recent report ‘‘Catalyzing Ingenuity:’’ ‘‘Innovation is the core of America’s economic strength and future prosperity. New ideas are the key to fostering sustained economic 

growth, creating jobs in new industries and continuing America’s 

global leadership. Of all the sectors in the economy where innovation has a critical role to play, the energy sector stands out. Ready 

access to reliable, affordable forms of energy is not only vital for 

the functioning of the larger economy, it is also vital to people’s everyday lives. It also significantly impacts the country’s national security, environmental wellbeing and economic competitiveness.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, here is what these business leaders conclude: 

‘‘Unfortunately, the country has yet to embark on a clean energy 

innovation program commensurate with the scale of the national 

priorities that are at stake.’’ 

Mr. Chairman, this committee should listen to these titans of the 

economy. We should be passing legislation to unleash American innovation and create American jobs in the new energy economy. Instead, unfortunately, this Congress is sitting on the sidelines pretending that scientific and economic realities do not exist. In 

March, every single Republican member of this committee voted 

against the overwhelming scientific consensus to deny the very existence of global climate change. Many Republican members are 

using the Solyndra debacle as an excuse to all-out cut energy funding. This denial of reality is bad for the economy and bad for the 

environment. 

So I am glad to have this discussion about the rules and regulatory reform efforts and I hope that we can come together in a 

science-based discussion to talk about new energy and the new 

economy. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady and recognize the chairman 

of the full Energy and Commerce Committee, the distinguished 

gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Throughout this year, this committee has focused its oversight 

and legislation on identifying and mitigating the job-destroying impacts of burdensome regulations, and through its regulatory reform 

hearing series, this subcommittee’s examination of the President’s 

regulatory principles has helped to sharpen our focus on important 

gaps between the administration’s rhetoric and reality. 

The rhetoric, which I agree with, is that we should implement 

reasonable and achievable regs to protect the health, safety and 

well-being of the American people, and we recognize that wellVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:26 Jul 30, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\11BF34~1\112-87~1 WAYNE
10 

being must include ensuring economic growth and healthy job creation. The President has talked about the importance of cost-benefit analysis to ensure that regulations do more good than harm. 

The reality, unfortunately, is a regulatory onslaught from EPA 

that is destroying jobs and stifling economic growth with financial 

burdens and uncertainty, and in some cases, the cost-benefit analysis is completely absent. In other cases, the devastating economic 

consequences of rules are flat-out ignored. 

Over the years, I have seen EPA conduct rulemakings on important Clean Air Act provisions, but I have never seen so many major 

rules from EPA at a pace and complexity as has occurred during 

this administration. These have been complex rules with profound 

impacts on energy production and manufacturing—essential contributors to economic growth in this country. 

In some cases, such as the boiler and cement rules, we have regs 

that are technically unachievable because EPA appears to be doing 

too much too fast. In other cases, the agency lays out rapid and 

changing deadlines and makes alterations to the rulemakings that 

raise questions about regulatory judgment and decision-making in 

the first place. 

We want the EPA and the administration to comply with its own 

principles as outlined in the President’s Executive Order on regulation. Today we are going to hear directly from Administrator Jackson to learn just what steps she plans to take to ensure that these 

actions will begin to match the administration’s regulatory rhetoric. 

I yield to my friend, the chairman emeritus of the committee, Mr. 

Barton. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Upton follows:] 

11 


75209.005
12 


75209.006
13 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome 

again, Madam Administrator. It is good to have you with us. 

There are many things that are ailing our country right now, 

Madam Administrator, and it seems that your agency appears to 

be at ground zero of a fair number of them. Since President Obama 

took office and you became the Administrator at the Environmental 

Protection Agency, the EPA has rushed to issue rules on greenhouse gases, which the Congress rejected in the last Congress; 

ozone, which our President just rejected several weeks ago; coal 

ash, boiler ash and our boiler MACT and cement industries, which 

those industries are strenuously objecting to. 

In my home State of Texas, last year the EPA revoked the flexible air quality permit rules that had been in place for almost 20 

years starting with President Clinton, and just recently the EPA 

announced a Cross-State Air Pollution Rule where Texas, which 

wasn’t even included in the rule 6 months ago, is expected to assume somewhere between 25 and 40 percent of the reductions. This 

is somewhat puzzling since our monitors indicate that we are in 

compliance, and it is an EPA model that seems to indicate that in 

certain States there might be a problem. 

The cost of all these rules is in the billions of dollars annually, 

resulting in thousands of jobs lost. Just last week in my State, in 

my Congressional district, a company that is subject to the CrossState Air Pollution Rule announced the closure of two mines and 

reduction or closure of two power plants that in my district alone 

is probably going to cost in the order of magnitude of 1,000 jobs. 

We have a President who says that we need to create jobs, not 

destroy jobs. We have a President who says we need a regulatory 

environment that has a cost-benefit analysis. And yet your agency, 

the EPA, seems to ignore these admonitions. It is as if there is 

some evil genie at the EPA that is bound and determined to put 

every regulation possible on the books as soon as possible regardless of the economic consequences. 

I hope today, Madam Administrator, that we can get into some 

of these specific rules. We have a number of very specific questions 

that we want to ask, and as always, we look forward to having you 

answer them and tell us where your agency is. 

With that, I yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Barton follows:] 

14 


75209.007
15 


75209.008
16 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman yields back. There are 3 seconds. 

Dr. Burgess, do you want to take 5, 10 seconds? 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, let me just submit my entire opening statement for the record, but I do want to remind the Administrator, as 

we have had to remind every Cabinet Secretary, every head of the 

federal agencies, that although you work for the Executive Branch, 

Congress is a coequal branch of government. When we ask for 

stuff, you need to produce it. We have been stonewalled in this 

committee over and over again, and those days have to stop because the American people are asking serious questions. They want 

answers, and it is up to this committee to get those answers for 

them, and I will yield back. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Burgess follows:] 

17 


75209.009
18 


75209.010
19 


75209.011
20 


75209.012
21 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman, and now we recognize 

the—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, before you recognize me, I would 

like to ask the gentleman from Texas to provide for us examples 

of where you think EPA has stonewalled, not now but for the 

record, because this statement has been made and I would like to 

see verification. 

Mr. BURGESS. And in particular dealing with Title 42 regulations, and I have asked these questions—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. I would like to see documentary information. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman from California is recognized for 

his opening statement for 5 minutes. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This hearing is our seventh hearing on regulatory reform, and we 

will be told by our colleagues across the aisle that EPA needs to 

do a better job. We will hear them say they need to better analyze 

regulations before finalizing them, they need to listen to concerns 

about their proposals before acting. 

But this hearing isn’t really about regulatory reform. It is just 

a continuation of a long series of attacks on our environment and 

public health. This is the most anti-environment House of Representatives in history. So far this Congress, the House of Representatives has voted again and again to block action to address 

climate change, to halt efforts to reduce air and water pollution, to 

undermine protections for public lands and coastal areas, and to 

weaken the protection of the environment in other ways. 

Mr. Chairman, my staff prepared a database last month on every 

anti-environmental vote taken in this Congress. The tally was 125. 

One hundred and twenty-five votes to weaken the Clean Air Act 

and the Clean Water Act; to make our drinking water less safe; to 

weaken environmental standards in dozens of different ways. This 

is an appalling and dangerous environmental record. And it should 

come as no surprise that this record of anti-environmental votes 

shows little concern for crafting well-analyzed policy that takes the 

views of all stakeholders into account. 

Today, the House will begin consideration of the TRAIN Act, a 

bill whose passage will block actions to clean up smog, soot and 

toxic air pollution from the Nation’s power plants. When this bill 

is considered, we will vote on amendments offered by Chairman 

Whitfield and Representative Latta. The Whitfield amendment will 

eviscerate the law’s ability to require power plants to install modern pollution controls. The Latta amendment will reverse 40 years 

of clean air policy, allowing our national goals for clean air to be 

determined by corporate profits, not public health. They will not 

agree that we need to have a hearing on the Latta amendment before reversing 40 years of success with the Clean Air Act. The Republicans will not clarify the bill on industrial boilers to prevent 

years and years of litigation and delay. 

We should hear from States, industry, public health groups, 

clean air advocates and other stakeholders before voting on these 

22 

radical clean air amendments. These amendments are being considered through an egregiously flawed process, a stark change from 

the way this Committee has traditionally handled important clean 

air legislation. We should at least understand what they do before 

voting on them. 

And we are sitting here criticizing the EPA for all the work they 

put into their regulations before they issue them, and yet we are 

going to pass laws, at least pass it through the House, without a 

single moment of hearings just because some representatives want 

to and maybe the Republican party wants to respond to big business and forget about the safety and the wellbeing and the health 

of the American people. 

Well, today’s hearing will provide an opportunity to hear from 

the Administrator of the EPA, and I am pleased to welcome Lisa 

Jackson. This is not the first time. I don’t know how many times 

she has had to appear before this committee. I don’t think she has 

time to do all the dreadful things the Republicans are accusing her 

of doing because she is spending most of her time here to listen to 

complaints from the Republicans about regulations, some of which 

they haven’t even proposed and the Republicans want to repeal it. 

I will ask the Administrator about the Whitfield and Latta 

amendments and how dangerous they are to the American people. 

That will serve as some opportunity to examine these issues, and 

it will give us an opportunity to hear from the EPA Administrator 

about the impacts of the entire Republican anti-environment agenda. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a minute left if any of my Democratic colleagues—Ms. Schakowsky, I yield the balance of my time to you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Waxman follows:] 

23 


75209.013
24 


75209.014
25 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Well, here we are again, and I want to reiterate just a bit what Representative Waxman has said. Clearly, we 

are witnessing the most anti-environment House of Representatives in American history. 

My colleague from Texas, the former chairman of this committee, 

was citing some of the things that have happened in Texas as a 

reason to undo some of the regulations that you proposed, but I 

just wanted to point out that under Governor Rick Perry’s tenure, 

Texas has become far and away the Nation’s largest CO2 emitter. 

If Texas were its own country, as Mr. Perry has advocated in the 

past, it would be the eighth biggest polluter in the world. 

So it is high time that the Environmental Protection Agency continued in what has been a bipartisan tradition of protecting our environment, of protecting the health of Americans, and by the way, 

not destroying jobs in any way but creating an opportunity for new 

21st century clean jobs, and I yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentlelady yields back. Time has expired—— 

Mr. BARTON. Would the gentlelady yield to the former chairman? 

Mr. STEARNS. All her time is expired, so we are going to move 

now to swear in Madam Administrator. 

Madam Administrator, you are aware that the committee is holding an investigative hearing, and when doing so has had the practice of taking testimony under oath. Do you have any objection to 

testifying under oath? 

Ms. JACKSON. No. 

Mr. STEARNS. The chair then advises you that under the rules of 

the House and the rules of the committee, you are entitled to be 

advised by counsel. Do you desire to be advised by counsel during 

your testimony today? 

Ms. JACKSON. No. 

Mr. STEARNS. In that case, if you would please rise and raise 

your right hand, I will swear you in. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Mr. STEARNS. You are now under oath and subject to the penalties set forth in Title XVIII, Section 1001 of the United States 

Code. You may now give a 5-minute summary of your written 

statement. Please begin. 

TESTIMONY OF LISA JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. Chairman Stearns, Ranking Member 

DeGette and members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today to testify on the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s regulatory process. It is a priority of the EPA and of this 

administration to ensure that our regulatory system is guided by 

science and that it protects human health and the environment in 

a pragmatic and cost-effective manner. 

One means by which this administration has made this priority 

clear is through Executive Order 13563, which includes a directive 

for federal agencies to develop a regulatory retrospective plan for 

periodic review of existing significant regulations. Under that direcVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:26 Jul 30, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\11BF34~1\112-87~1 WAYNE
26 

tive, EPA has developed a plan which includes 35 priority regulatory reviews. Recent reforms already finalized or formally proposed are estimated to save up to $1.5 billion over the next 5 years. 

But let me clear: the core mission of the EPA is protection of 

public health and the environment. That mission was established 

in recognition of a fundamental fact of American life: regulations 

can and do improve the lives of people. We need these rules to hold 

polluters accountable and keep us safe. For more than 40 years, 

the agency has carried out its mission and established a proven 

track record that a healthy environment and economic growth are 

not mutually exclusive. 

The Clean Air Act is one of the most successful environmental 

laws in American history and provides an illustrative example of 

this point. For 40 years, the Nation’s Clean Air Act has made 

steady progress in reducing the threats posed by pollution and allowing us to breathe easier. In the last year alone, programs implemented pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 are estimated to have saved over 160,000 lives, spared Americans more 

than 100,000 hospital visits and prevented millions of cases of respiratory problems including bronchitis and asthma. 

Few of the regulations that gave us these huge gains in public 

health were uncontroversial at the time they were developed. Most 

major rules have been adopted amidst claims that they would be 

bad for the economy and bad for employment. In contrast to doomsday predictions, history has shown again and again that we can 

clean up pollution, create jobs and grow our economy all at the 

same time. Over the same 40 years since the Clean Air Act was 

passed, the gross domestic product of the United States grew by 

more than 200 percent. 

Some would have us believe that job killing describes EPA’s regulations. It is misleading to say that enforcement of our Nation’s 

environmental laws is bad for the economy and employment; it 

isn’t. Families should never have to choose between a job and a 

healthy environment; they are entitled to both. 

We must regulate sensibly in a manner that does not create 

undue burdens and that carefully considers both the benefits and 

the costs. However, in doing so, we must not lose sight of the reasons for implementation of environmental regulations. These regulations are necessary to ensure that Americans have clean air to 

breathe and clean water to drink. Americans are no less entitled 

to a safe, clean environment during difficult economic times than 

they are in a more prosperous economy. 

As President Obama recently stated in his joint address to Congress, what we can’t do is let this economic crisis be used as an excuse to wipe out the basic protections that Americans have counted 

on for decades. We shouldn’t be in a race to the bottom where we 

try to offer the worst pollution standards. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:] 

27 


75209.015
28 


75209.016
29 


75209.017
30 

Mr. STEARNS. Thank you, Madam Administrator. I will open with 

my questions. 

I think as you can see from opening statements from our side 

and the other side, this is a question of promoting economic 

growth, innovation, competition and job creation. Is that your understanding of the principles that the agency must keep in mind 

when you make regulations? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Yes or no. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, but we must also implement the laws. 

Mr. STEARNS. On the first day of the administration, you were 

directed to comply with a similar Executive Order 12866 in a memo 

from the White House. Is that true? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe that is right, sir. 

Mr. STEARNS. Do you agree that the regulatory system must promote predictability and reduce uncertainty? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think that is the advantage of the regulatory system. 

Mr. STEARNS. In the case of ground-level ozone standards that 

you proposed in January 2010, were there discussions with the 

White House about the impact of reconsidering this rule prior to 

submitting a draft final rule to the White House? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am sorry. I didn’t understand the question. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. In January 2010, when ground-level ozone 

standards were proposed, was there discussion between you and 

the White House about simply the impact of what these would be 

on this country? 

Ms. JACKSON. The proposal went through White House and interagency review. 

Mr. STEARNS. Did you meet and participate in discussions with 

the White House on those ozone standards? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am sure that staff in preparation of interagency 

review did. 

Mr. STEARNS. Did you personally meet with the White House? 

Ms. JACKSON. On the proposed package in January of 2010, not 

to my recollection, sir. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. If you recollect differently, if you would be 

kind enough to submit to this committee who participated in those 

discussions, that would be helpful. 

Was there any reaction from the White House on the proposed 

ozone standards that were being proposed in January of 2010? Do 

you recollect what the reaction was in the White House? 

Ms. JACKSON. The fact that the proposal went out shows that it 

cleared interagency review and was signed by me for public review. 

Mr. STEARNS. So you assumed the White House was on board 

fully? 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t assume anything, sir. I am giving you the 

facts as I know them. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. So you are saying the White House reactions, 

as much as you know them, were supportive? 

Ms. JACKSON. The agency exercised its discretion to make rulemaking after an interagency review that was conducted and led by 

the White House. 

31 

Mr. STEARNS. I think there is a chief of staff memo which you 

cited yourself in the proposed ozone reconsideration as rationale for 

that reconsideration that was ultimately done. It did not direct any 

agency to reconsider the regulations that were being finalized, published. Did you consult with the White House before you decided 

to reconsider the 2008 ozone standard? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is the same question you asked before about 

the proposal, sir. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. 

Ms. JACKSON. No, my answer is the same. 

Mr. STEARNS. Three weeks ago, the White House requested that 

you reconsider issuing the Ozone Rule, noting that the rule would 

not comport with the President’s Executive Order and that our regulatory system must promote predictability and reduce uncertainty. 

Did you agree with the White House decision? 

Ms. JACKSON. I respect the decision and I implemented it. 

Mr. STEARNS. Did you personally agree with it? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I don’t think it is a secret that we—that the 

recommendation we sent over and the package that we sent over 

was something different. 

Mr. STEARNS. Yes, and the reason why you disagreed with the 

White House is because you felt, was it that the standards you 

thought were imperative to be implemented? Can you give us your 

rationale why you still feel strongly that the ozone standards 

should be—— 

Ms. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, you are putting words in my mouth 

about what I feel, and my feelings—— 

Mr. STEARNS. I am helping you out. 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Aren’t actually germane here. 

Mr. STEARNS. OK. What changed between the time you proposed 

regulations in January 2010 and September 2, 2011, to warrant reconsideration in your mind if you went along with it? I mean, you 

are the Administrator. You have strong feelings on this. You don’t 

agree with the President. You are going ahead with it. Can you 

make some kind of rationale why you are going ahead with it now? 

I am trying to understand it. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, the facts are that in between those two time 

periods, the President requested that we reconsider and do the reconsideration in light of new data that will come out such that that 

reconsideration will happen in 2013. 

Mr. STEARNS. And what is that new data? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is new public health data that will look at 

the connection between smog, ozone pollution and asthma and 

other health indicators. 

Mr. STEARNS. Do you think this goes back to what I asked you 

when I began my questions? Your idea, my idea is the agency has 

the responsibility to promote economic growth, innovation, competition and job creation? Do you think that was part of the reasons 

why the President relaxed the standard on ozone standards? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, both the letter from Cass Sunstein and the 

President’s statement explain his rationale and they speak for 

themselves. 

Mr. STEARNS. Did the White House propose this to you any other 

time than just recently? 

32 

Ms. JACKSON. Propose what, sir? 

Mr. STEARNS. Relaxation of the ozone standards. 

Ms. JACKSON. No, the—— 

Mr. STEARNS. That was the first time they came to you? 

Ms. JACKSON. That was the first time they came to me? The 

President’s actions and his statement and the letter from Mr. 

Sunstein was the official record of what happened with respect to 

that package. 

Mr. STEARNS. All right. My time is expired. 

The gentlelady is recognized, Ms. DeGette. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Jackson, let me try to clear up some of the questioning about the new ozone standards that the chairman was pursuing. On September 1st, the administration announced that the 

EPA would not be revising the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for ozone. Is that right? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And this decision, as you know, was controversial. 

It created a number of extremely important new questions about 

how we are going to handle the ozone standards going forward. So 

I am wondering if you can tell us now sitting here today about the 

next steps you are going to be taking to ensure that States and localities have clear direction on what they should be doing with regard to ozone standards. I think it is important you clarify what 

you are going to be doing next. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, ma’am. So we are going to proceed with the 

regular review in 2013 but simultaneously we are legally required 

to implement the standard that is on the books. The standard that 

is on the books now is the 2008 standard. It is 75 parts per billion, 

and EPA will be notifying States in the days ahead of the path forward in implementing that standard. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So what you are saying is that the intention going 

forward that the EPA will enforce a 75 parts per billion standard, 

the same as the Bush administration 2008 standard. Is that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right. That is the legal standard on the 

books. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. And can you assure us that States and localities will have sufficient time to meet those 2008 standards? 

Ms. JACKSON. We will do it in a commonsense way, minimizing 

the burden on State and local governments. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. Now, Administrator Jackson, the 

chairman was asking you about what the process is within the 

EPA about promulgating rules, and the EPA considers not just the 

effect on human health but also the economic effect per the Executive Order that he was talking about, correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right. Our rules have always, at least as 

long as I have been there, considered costs and benefits of rules. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So, you know, one of the things that frustrates me 

and others is this sort of Sophie’s choice that has been articulated 

that I don’t think is true, that you either have to have jobs or high 

environmental standards, and I want to talk about the Clean Air 

Act since we are talking about the Clean Air Act as an example. 

Since the Clean Air Act was signed in 1970, toxic air pollutants 

33 

have gone down by 60 percent and saved hundreds of lives, and so 

that is the main goal of the Clean Air Act, correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. The Clean Air Act’s goal is to clean up the air and 

therefore make people healthier. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Right, but in addition, the economy has grown 

since the Clean Air Act was promulgated. Is that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right. GDP has grown over 200 percent. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So GDP has grown over 200 percent since the 

Clean Air Act’s passage, correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Also, can you talk to us about the effect of the 

Clean Air Act on job creation? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly. There have been numerous studies that 

show that the Clean Air Act has actually helped foster and growth 

a pollution control industry in this country that actually exports its 

innovations and technologies and of course puts them to work here 

on the ground. When we ask someone to spend money, millions or 

even billions, on pollution control, those are jobs that are generally 

produced here, everything from engineers to designers to welders 

to boilermakers. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And in fact, I read a study that said just in 2008 all of those things generated $300 billion in revenue and supported 

nearly 1.7 million jobs. I talked about that in my opening. Are you 

aware of that study as well? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now, I also read a study from the University of 

Massachusetts that estimated that EPA’s Utility, Toxics and CrossState Air Pollution Rules would generate 1.5 million new jobs by 

2015. Are you familiar with that study? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, generally. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. And what kind of jobs will compliance with 

those regulations create? 

Ms. JACKSON. Those regulations require companies to invest in 

pollution controls, scrubbers or selective catalytic reducers. They 

are everything from working with steelworkers or pipe fitters or 

engineers, designers, those who actually install and operate pollution control equipment or those who retrofit equipment, and their 

jobs, because it is the utility industry, it is the energy industry, it 

has to be done here. It is something that we have to do here to invest in ourselves and—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Here in the United States? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you. 

Madam Administrator, in your opening statement, you said that 

the role of the EPA is to make sure that polluters are accountable. 

Do you consider an industry that is in compliance with EPA regulation to be a polluter? 

Ms. JACKSON. An industry can have a permit and be in compliance with the permit and still be emitting pollution, yes. 

34 

Mr. BARTON. But in your definition of a polluter, if an industry 

is actually complying, then why would you continue to call them a 

polluter as if they weren’t complying? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, it is important for people to understand that 

in order to operate, there is an assumption that some amount of 

pollution into our air and water may have to happen. What we do, 

what our laws require EPA and States to do in their stead is to 

ratchet down that pollution in the interests of the public health. 

Mr. BARTON. So would it be fair to say that in your definition, 

the only industry that would not be a polluter would be an industry 

that has no emissions at all, in other words, it was shut down? 

Ms. JACKSON. If you don’t emit pollution, then you are not a polluter. That is not to say that the emission of some amount of pollution is not permitted. That is the regulatory process. 

Mr. BARTON. Let me rephrase the question, Madam. Is it the goal 

of the EPA to get to zero emissions, i.e., basically shut down the 

U.S. economy? 

Ms. JACKSON. Of course not, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. That is the right answer. 

You have appeared before this subcommittee and the full committee a number of times this year, and in at least two of those 

instances I have asked you to document some of these health benefits that EPA spokespersons and yourself continue to allude to as 

a reason for these new regulations. Unless your agency supplied 

them to my office last night or this morning, we have yet to receive 

them. Could you encourage them to actually give us the documents 

that document these repeatedly referred to health benefits? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, sir, I will say that the regulatory packages 

that we prepare include significant documentation of both the benefits and the costs of—— 

Mr. BARTON. You are not answering my question. I don’t think 

they exist. 

Ms. JACKSON. You don’t think health benefits of clean air exist? 

Mr. BARTON. No, I think health benefits from clean air do exist. 

I don’t think some of these documents that you refer to exist or you 

would have complied with the request to submit them. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I will check on any requests for outstanding 

documentation but I would also refer you to the packages—— 

Mr. BARTON. I am giving you a request right now. I have given 

you respectful requests almost every time you have appeared before 

the subcommittee or the full committee, and you know, when you 

look in the footnotes of some these proposed regulations, they refer 

to studies that are 10 to 15 years old, usually very small studies, 

usually studies that are independent with no real peer-reviewed 

verification, and then we get these, you know, these huge cost-benefit comparison, and in true science, you actually document what 

is going on. That does not appear to be the case at your EPA. And 

if they exist, then send them to us. 

Ms. JACKSON. I disagree, but I will check again to see what else 

may be outstanding from your requests, respectfully. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. BARTON. All right. Let me make a comment on what Chairman Waxman said in his opening statement, that we have voted 

125 times to weaken environmental regulation in this Congress. 

35 

That is not true. There is a difference between voting to actually 

change or reduce an existing standard and voting to delay or slow 

down our at least review a proposed standard. This Congress has 

asked and voted to delay, review, go back and check on regulations 

but I am not aware that we have voted to actually change or weaken any standard that is already in effect, and I think that is a distinction that is worth nothing. 

The regional administrator in Texas, Dr. Armand Davis, in an 

op-ed in the Dallas Morning News earlier this week expressed surprise that Texas industry in attempting to comply with this crossstate air pollution regulation actually beginning to shut down 

power plants and coalmines. He said in his op-ed that the EPA had 

reached out numerous times and tried to consult with and interact 

with the affected industries. Could you provide logs of those meetings, emails and telephone conversations to actually document the 

regional administrator’s assertation that he had been trying to 

work with the industries in Texas? Because when I checked with 

the industry, they say that they have had almost no interaction 

and were absolutely blindsided by the inclusion of Texas in the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule at the very last moment with no 

ability to impact the regulation. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I am happy to provide it. I would also just 

point you to the record of the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule where 

EPA specifically took comment and received comment and received 

comment from Texas industries and Texas regulators about Texas’s 

inclusion in both the—— 

Mr. BARTON. After the fact. After the fact. 

Ms. JACKSON. No, no, sir, during the public comment period. 

Mr. BARTON. You couldn’t have, because Texas wasn’t included 

in the rule. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, Texas—— 

Mr. BARTON. There is a one-paragraph mention of Texas possibly 

including at some future point. They were put into the rule at the 

last moment. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, Texas has been complying with the CAIR rule 

that the Bush administration put in place. The cross-state rule is 

a replacement for that rule. We specifically took comment—— 

Mr. BARTON. I am very aware of that. 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. And put Texas on notice that besides 

NOx, ozone, smog requirements, we took comment on what would 

happen if they weren’t in and what would happen if they were. So 

we have information submitted by Texas regulators and Texas companies—— 

Mr. BARTON. Well, if you will just comply with my—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired and the gentleman from California, the ranking member, Mr. Waxman, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

When you propose a rule, you have to establish a record of the 

scientific basis for your findings. Isn’t that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And that relies on work that has been done by scientists, often, maybe always, peer reviewed. Is that correct? 

36 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right. That work goes through peer review 

before we put it in the record for our rules. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And so if Mr. Barton wants to get the scientific 

backing for your rules, he can just simply look at the record? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, yes, although of course if there is additional 

information we owe him, I will look to ensure he gets it. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Well, I have talked to Mr. Barton, and as I understand it, there is a lot of scientific research that has been peer reviewed on the question of the impact of carbon emissions, global 

warming, climate change, and yet Mr. Barton doesn’t believe in the 

science, nor does anybody else on the other side of the aisle. They 

have all voted that they reject the idea that science has come up 

with this conclusion and they reject the science as well. 

We hear about job-killing regulations, and I haven’t seen anybody substantiate the job-killing part of the regulations, but we 

know that a lot of this pollution kills people, and we have that well 

documented. Isn’t that an accurate statement? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is accurate, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I would like to ask you about the TRAIN Act, 

which will soon be debated on the House Floor, as a matter of fact, 

today. 

Mr. BARTON. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. WAXMAN. No, I won’t. I only have a limited time. 

Mr. BARTON. I would like to see—— 

Mr. WAXMAN. The bill reported from the committee—— 

Mr. BARTON [continuing]. One document—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Regular order. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, regular order. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman is recognized. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I want to ask you about the amendment that is 

going to be offered by Mr. Whitfield. The reported from the committee would indefinitely delay critical public health protections to 

reduce soot, smog, mercury and other toxic air pollution from 

power plants but the Whitfield Floor amendment goes much further. It would nullify EPA’s final Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 

and proposed Mercury Air Toxics Rule and it requires EPA to start 

from scratch on both rules, which have already been years in the 

making. 

Administrator Jackson, how long have we been waiting for old, 

uncontrolled power plants to finally clean up and how do these 

power plants compare with other sources of pollution? 

Ms. JACKSON. The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air Act first 

called for power plant—toxics from power plants to be addressed. 

The Good Neighbor provisions in the rule I believe were added then 

as well, which is the basis for the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. 

Power plants are the largest emitters in our country of soot and 

smog and mercury, and for that reason, the prior administration, 

the Bush administration, tried to address through the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule and the Clean Air Mercury Rule, rules that were 

later overturned in court because they did not comply with the law 

and did not do an adequate job. 

Mr. WAXMAN. The Whitfield amendment would ensure that 

power plants would not have to control toxic air pollution for at 

least 7 years or reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide for at 

37 

least 8 years, and those are minimum delays because the amendment would eliminate all Clean Air Act deadlines for the rules. In 

addition to these delays, the Whitfield amendment changes the underlying Clean Air Act authorities for the rules. I am concerned 

that these changes would block EPA from ever reissuing the rules 

for air toxics. The Whitfield amendment replaces the Clean Air 

Act’s proven standard-setting criteria with an entirely new approach for power plants that appears to be completely unworkable. 

It requires EPA to set standards based on the 12 percent of power 

plants that are best performing in the aggregate for all toxic pollutants. Administrator Jackson, this would require you to decide 

whether a plant that emits more neurotoxins but less carcinogens 

is better or worse performing than a plant that emits more carcinogens but less neurotoxins. Is there any scientific basis for you to 

make such a decision and how is such a decision likely to fare in 

the courts? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, sir, I think it would weaken and possibly destroy our ability to ever address those toxins, toxic pollutants because that is not the way they work in our body. You know, those 

pollutants all act together and we have good science that documents the health effects of mercury and arsenic and lead and hydrochloric acid but to try to pick between one or the other, I fear 

would simply make the rules subject to being overturned and we 

would not get those protections. 

Mr. WAXMAN. This amendment would change the criteria for addressing pollution that is generated in one State but is blown by 

the wind and causes unhealthy air quality in a downwind State. 

States can’t require polluters in upwind States to clean up so the 

Clean Air Act includes a Good Neighbor provision directing EPA to 

ensure that upwind States clean up pollution that causes 

unhealthy air beyond their State boundaries. The Whitfield amendment includes an amazing provision that prohibits the EPA from 

relying on modeling for any rule to address cross-state pollution. 

Administrator Jackson, if EPA can’t rely on modeling, what effect 

would this have on the agency’s ability to issue another cross-state 

pollution rule to address ozone and particulate problems in downwind States? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, if we are required to only use monitoring data, 

which of course we use, but without the modeling to go along with 

it, I don’t believe we will be able to issue a regional cross-state rule 

in the future ever because we simply have to be able to use scientific modeling to address upwind sources of pollution. 

Mr. WAXMAN. And how are these rules that the Whitfield amendment would strike, how are these rules—why are they so important 

to public health? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I think looking at the mercury rule, for example, we talk about 6,800 to 17,000 avoided premature deaths a 

year once implemented, 120,000 avoided asthma attacks per year. 

The cross-state air pollution, $120 billion to $280 billion in benefits, 

which represent 13,000 to 34.000 avoided premature deaths and 

400,000 avoided asthma attacks every year. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that Mr. Barton characterized the report. I would like to offer my report to be in the 

38 

record, and that is the 125 in our tally votes to weaken the Clean 

Air Act. 

Mr. STEARNS. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

39 


75209.018
40 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized, 

Mr. Murphy, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you very much, and welcome here, Administrator Jackson. 

On this discussion of premature deaths, et cetera, I am trying to 

get some accuracy of this from a scientific standpoint. Now, EPA 

is responsible for setting the National Ambient Air Quality Standard at a level to protect public health including sensitive subgroups 

with an adequate margin of safety. Am I correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. 

Mr. MURPHY. And the current annual standard for fine particulate matter is 15 micrograms per cubic meter? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. 

Mr. MURPHY. Recent review suggests EPA might consider lowering it further to a level of 11. Am I correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, we have not made any regulatory determination. That science is ongoing. 

Mr. MURPHY. Are you considering a level of 11? 

Ms. JACKSON. We are required by law to review that level every 

5 years. 

Mr. MURPHY. And these standards are based on review of 

science. Am I correct in that too? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. MURPHY. Are external science advisors involved in that or is 

it all within the agency? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. Congress mandated that there be an external 

advisory board, the Clean Air Science Advisory Board, I believe is 

their name. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. In EPA’s recent regulatory impact 

analyses for Utility MACT, Boiler MACT and Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, most of the deaths the EPA says are caused by particulate matter are at air quality levels much cleaner than the air 

standards require. So I would like to show you a chart with some 

EPA estimates, a bar chart of estimate in mortality by air quality, 

if we could have that show up on the screen. We have marked the 

level of the current particulate matter standard, and as you see, 

most of the estimated mortality is below the protective standards, 

to the left of that line. 

Now, let me look at the next slide. To make this easier, here is 

another bar chart. The tall bar represents EPA’s estimate of deaths 

from all causes occurring where the air is cleaner than the current 

ambient air quality standard, and the short bar represents EPA’s 

estimate of the deaths from all causes occurring at levels less clean 

than the ambient air quality standards. 

So a couple questions on that, Ms. Jackson. EPA’s own documents raise an interesting question. Is it true that when you estimate the benefit of your regulations, you are assuming that clean 

air also kills people? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, the whole point of the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards is to define what is clean air. People deserve to 

know what level of air will actually make them less sick and avoid 

those premature deaths. 

Mr. MURPHY. And I am just trying to get to the science because 

it looks like clean air also is in the category of what has happened 

41 

to this definition. So the EPA always in the particulate matter risk 

assessment report that ‘‘We do not have information characterizing’’ deaths for people whose air was determined to be clean by 

national standards. So reading EPA’s own document, it sounds like 

that there is not evidence that clean air is associated with deaths. 

So could you please share with the committee any studies that 

show a causal or associative relationship between fine particulate 

matter and deaths at levels below what EPA calls lowest measured 

level? Is that something you could provide for us? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am happy to provide whatever science we have 

that shows the correlation, which is quite clear. It is not an assumed correlation between soot and death. When people breathe in 

high levels of soot or even moderate levels, that is why we are looking at the National Ambient Air Quality Standard. It causes premature death. People die before they should. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. Now, in the past I believe EPA has 

said that they don’t necessarily take into account the regulations’ 

economic impact or job impact but you waxed extensively on the 

issue of jobs created by pollution control industry. You said we export and growth pollution control industry, welders, designers, boilermakers. I might add that my boilermakers would like to be putting some cleaner power plants here in the United States. And also 

it was brought up that the GDP has grown 200 percent since passage. Is this the cause and effect that by passing the Clean Air Act, 

we have caused a 200 percent growth in our economy? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir, that wasn’t my point. My point was, in 

contrast to people who say that the Clean Air Act is a job killer, 

the Clean Air Act has been around for 40 years and our economy 

has been fine. 

Mr. MURPHY. But is it cause and effect? Are we causing—because 

here is my question. In the last 10 years, we have lost 2.8 million 

jobs to China, and I think we would all agree, I mean, 16 of the 

20 most polluted cities in the world are in China, and we have lost 

a lot of jobs to China, and I think we would agree, their air quality 

standards are not good, and my concern also is, a lot of our manufacturers and others who find it cheaper for lots of reasons, not just 

air quality, I would put that in part of the mix of the issues along 

with currency manipulation, reverse engineering, cheating, et 

cetera. That may be one of the factors involved with costs of energy 

and compliance in this country. So my concern is, instead of just 

looking at the aspect of jobs being created related to the pollution 

control industry, which I think is important, I also want to make 

sure we are evaluating jobs lost if companies are leaving the Nation, going there and then not only reimporting products but reimporting pollution. Is that something that your agency can give us 

some information on? 

Ms. JACKSON. We do look at jobs impacts, especially for the rules 

that have been under discussion so far this morning. Let me also 

say that there are studies by economists that show that the cost 

of environmental regulation, the kinds of things we are talking 

about, are not really determinative of a company’s decision. Labor 

costs, currency costs, some of the things you mentioned, are much 

more important. These are very, very small—— 

42 

Mr. MURPHY. I just want to make sure we are also looking at 

the—I mean, it was somewhere in the last century, someone referred to Pittsburgh as Hell with the lid off because of levels of pollution, and pretty nasty pollution. It is now quite a remarkably 

clean city. Unfortunately, that also means we don’t have a steel 

mill in Pittsburgh at all anymore too. But if you could provide that 

information? 

One other thing in my remaining time. Last March when you 

were here, I asked you on a different topic related to our natural 

gas industry in Pennsylvania if you could provide us some information, recommendations and evaluation if you think Pennsylvania’s 

laws regarding natural gas are not adequate or if the enforcement 

is not adequate. I am still waiting for that document. If you would 

be so kind as to give me information, I would like to advance it to 

Pennsylvania with some recommendations, or I would be glad to 

talk to you about that further later on. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The gentlelady, Ms. Schakowsky, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would just like to suggest that the gentleman from Pennsylvania I think made a very good argument that when we negotiate 

trade agreements, that environmental concerns ought to be part of 

that, that we want to make sure that not only are we looking at 

the benefits or detriment to commerce but that the world environment is also in those trade agreements. 

I wanted to get back to the mercury and air toxic rules that actually are being considered for overturning essentially or at least diminishing on the floor today, and there were actually, my understanding is, 800,000 comments in favor of those rules that were 

submitted and wondered if you could respond to the reaction to the 

rules that were offered. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, I can’t confirm the exact number for you, 

ma’am, but, you know, the idea of cutting mercury pollution is very 

popular with the American people, and most Americans are 

shocked when they find that power plants are allowed to emit unlimited amounts of mercury and other toxics like arsenic and lead 

into their communities. They want the power, of course, but they 

have even said that they understand that we need to invest to ensure we have clean power in our communities because they don’t 

want their children exposed to toxic mercury, they don’t want those 

impacts on their neurological development. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And that is what I wanted to ask you about. 

If you could describe for us what are the public health consequences of what we are seeing today, the Republican efforts to 

kill this rule? 

Ms. JACKSON. Without a doubt, if this rule is delayed or, God forbid, killed in any way, there will be more premature deaths, more 

hospital admissions, more people getting sick because of increased 

levels of everything from mercury to soot, as we heard earlier, to 

arsenic, to lead, to hydrochloric acid to hydrofluoric acid. In the 

case of the cross-state air pollution, the entire third of the country, 

which is quite populated—I think it is a third or more of our population will be subject to air pollution that they can do nothing 

43 

about because EPA’s hands are tied and cannot stop upwind 

sources from affecting people, especially our children and our elderly, who are more susceptible to those premature deaths and those 

asthma and bronchitis attacks. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. We will also see adverse effects to wildlife as 

well, right? So there is—— 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. I don’t mean to minimize it, but the environment from the loads of those pollutants is harmed. Of course, the 

example most Americans know is acid rain, the idea that the SOx 

pollution, the SO2 goes into our atmosphere, comes down in the 

form of rain that is acidic and it changes the chemistry of our lakes 

and harms our forests and our plants and wildlife. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I also wanted to reemphasize something I 

heard you say earlier, that there was actually a Congressional 

mandate in 1990 to do this. 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And so we have failed for 21 years to actually 

live up to that mandate? 

Ms. JACKSON. We have not until this point been able to make 

rules that have survived court challenge, and every one of those 

years of delay is more mercury. Mercury accumulates in the environment, so once it is there, it is deposited and stays. The way you 

are exposed to mercury is, you eat fish, and the way it gets there 

is that it comes out of the air, it deposits into our lakes and 

streams. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I wanted to also ask you about the Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule. Why did the EPA find it necessary to act to 

ameliorate cross-state air pollution? What would be the impact of 

the Republican efforts to repeal this rule? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, as I mentioned, first we were compelled to 

do so by the courts. The courts overturned the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule, which was promulgated in the last administration, in the 

Bush administration, and in remanding it gave it back to EPA and 

said I will let this rule stand because I don’t want to lose the 

health benefits of this rule such that they are and the market because it is a marked-based program while EPA fixes it. The CrossState Air Pollution Rule is the replacement for that rule, and the 

reason it is important is because of the 13,000 to 34,000 premature 

deaths avoided and the 400,000 avoided asthma attacks. Those are 

just two of the significant and severe public health impacts that 

will be lost if we lose or delay those rules. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I thank you, and I thank you for the work that 

you are doing. 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady, and the gentlelady from 

Tennessee, Ms. Blackburn, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Madam Administrator, thank you for being with us this morning. 

There has been some discussion about the generalities, and I 

want to talk with you about the specifics. I think we have had 

some discussion of where does the rubber meet the road and how 

do these rules and regulations affect companies and affect employees, and I have got an example. This is the labeling requirements 

for EPA container rules that went into effect on August 27, 2011. 

It is, I think, a great example of the negative impact that the reguVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:26 Jul 30, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\11BF34~1\112-87~1 WAYNE
44 

lations are having on our economy and specifically Buckman Labs, 

which is an international chemical company located in Tennessee. 

To be compliant with these new labeling regulations from the EPA 

container rule, Buckman Labs had to change all of their targeted 

micro—their labels and send them to the EPA for approval. Not 

surprisingly, EPA did not send some of the new labels back to 

Buckman until just one week before the new regulation went into 

effect and then Buckman Labs had to rush the EPA-approved labels to their clients for approval as well as 50 States where the 

product is sold just so that they could continue to maintain existing 

business. This was not for new business, this was for existing business. And to put this into perspective, we aren’t talking about just 

a small handful of labels, we are talking about 4,000 labels that 

had to be reviewed and had to be changed to meet compliance, requiring the hiring of temporary employees whose sole job is to work 

on compliance for this one rule. 

So did this new labeling rule actually change the contents of the 

product? 

Ms. JACKSON. I would have to look into the specifics, but I assume it is a pesticide labeling rule, so I would look but I would 

suppose not. Perhaps you know. 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. You are correct. It did not. It didn’t. Was there 

any type of economic impact study conducted before this new rule 

went into effect and how many jobs it was protected to create or 

projected to create? 

Ms. JACKSON. I can get you specifics on the rule. I don’t have 

them in front of me. It sounds like some people got hired, though, 

which is a good thing. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Well, I think that what we are seeing is that 

the cost of compliance goes up, which means that these companies 

are not hiring new workers. The cost of 4,000 labels, the slowing 

of the process of business—Buckman Labs and the microbicides 

issue and the re-labeling issue is a perfect example of how this 

slows the wheels of commerce and how it is added cost and an 

added expense for these companies, who are trying to create jobs, 

and, you know, this is money that could have been spent for R&D. 

It is money that could have been spent for additional employees in 

this process, but yet they had to go through this compliance. 

Now, yesterday they received notice that five more chemical 

product labels must be altered to meet the EPA label language 

changes that will require them that they are going to have to spend 

more time and more money to go through the process again. Can 

you see how the uncertainty or do you have an understanding of 

how the uncertainty that your agency is causing is affecting the 

businesses that are in my State? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly, I would not argue that regulations and 

standard setting for safety and health don’t have impacts on business, but we are happy to look at the specific issue, but remember 

that the pesticide laws and regulations are for the safety of the 

users of those pesticides so whatever is being—— 

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Ms. Jackson, we are all for clean air, clean 

water and a safe environment. There is no argument about that. 

What we are looking at is the cost-benefit analysis of this. We are 

45 

looking at the added burden, which indicates to Buckman Labs it 

didn’t change what the composition is. It didn’t change any of the 

content. It was an added regulation. This is specifically the point. 

You know, you can’t argue about the fact that we are all for 

clean air, clean water and a clean environment. What we are saying is the manner in which all of these new regulations, you have 

put over nearly 1,000 new regulations since you all went in at the 

EPA. The cost to our small businesses now, Chamber of Commerce 

says, is about $10,000 per employee. The cost to families who are 

losing their jobs—we started our job creator listening sessions the 

first of the year and working with our small businesses and our 

employers in our district, the overreach of the EPA comes up regularly, and it is of concern to us. I yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. Dr. Christensen is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Administrator Jackson. 

Let me just say before I ask my question that as a representative 

of a district with one of the highest concentrations of greenhouse 

gases, I really thank EPA for its continued support and help to people of the Virgin Islands, and also as a member of a racial minority 

whose communities are often where some of the most polluting industries are placed, we thank you for your commitment to environmental justice. And I have had the opportunity to see you work and 

see how you always work toward solutions to protect health and 

safety while still ensuring and even stimulating economic growth 

in communities across the country, and the Congressional Black 

Caucus looks forward to recognizing your work this weekend. 

Ms. JACKSON. It is quite an honor. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. So despite, you know, the agency’s tremendous record when it comes to producing sensible regulations that 

protect the environment while stimulating innovation that drives 

economic growth, that is not what we are hearing from the other 

side of the aisle. Republicans on the committee and in the House 

appear to be living in an alternate reality when it comes to environmental regulation. For example, in a markup of legislation last 

week that would stymie your agency’s efforts to protect the air we 

breathe and bring regulations implementing Clean Air Act into 

compliance with the finally after all this time, Representative Burgess suggested that EPA’S Boiler MACT Rule, and I am quoting 

here ‘‘would not provide one scintilla of improvement in the air we 

breathe.’’ 

Ms. Jackson, your agency’s rulemaking process for Boiler MACT 

Rule was extensive and issued a 232-page impact analysis. Is Mr. 

Burgess correct that the Boiler MACT Rule you promulgated would 

not improve air quality one scintilla? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, that is not correct. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. OK. Would you care to elaborate? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sure. EPA estimates show that for every $5 spent 

on reducing pollution on pollution control, there are $12 worth of 

public health benefits. That is in reduced mercury, soot and other 

toxic pollutants. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And, you know, he is not alone in his refusal 

to accept scientific facts supporting EPA regulatory action. At a 

hearing in this committee earlier this year, former Chairman BarVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:26 Jul 30, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\11BF34~1\112-87~1 WAYNE
46 

ton spoke strongly against Clean Air Act regulations that would 

address dangerous emissions from power plants, and in opposing 

these regulations he suggested that mercury emissions, which you 

have heard a lot about this morning, cause no threat to human 

health. You have spoken generally about the mercury, the impact 

of mercury and the fact that it is cumulative in the environment. 

Would you say something about the impact, especially on the 

health of children? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly. Mercury, as I noted, is a neurotoxin. It 

affects developing brain cells and it can affect those cells whether 

a child has been born or is still in the womb, and lowered IQ points 

are generally the way that mercury impacts are measured. Recently, EPA Science Advisory Board peer-reviewed data to show 

that those impacts are real. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, Administrator Jackson. I believe 

it is our fundamental duty to protect our children against these 

dangers, and the only way to argue otherwise is really to ignore 

decades of science on mercury emissions. 

Unfortunately, denying basic scientific facts seems to have become a requirement for the other side of the aisle serving on the 

committee. I don’t have to remind you that in March of this year, 

every single Republican member of this committee voted to deny 

the very existence of global warming. So Administrator Jackson, is 

there any legitimate scientific debate about the existence of global 

warming? 

Ms. JACKSON. Climate change, global warming has been reviewed 

by numerous scientific panels and the results remain the same, 

which is that the climate is changing and that human activities 

and particularly emissions of global-warming gases or climate-forcing gases are a primary cause. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. And as you stated, you know, according to a 

study conducted by the National Academy of Sciences, 97 percent 

of scientists believe not simply that climate change exists but that 

humans are causing it. Notwithstanding that overwhelming scientific consensus, my colleagues on the other side are throwing in 

their lot with a handful of radical outliers in order to block meaningful governmental action to protect our children from rising temperatures, rising tides and the devastating consequences. So denying the problem exists is not a way to solve it. 

Let me ask one more question. Would reducing or terminating 

the ‘‘lowest priority programs’’ in accordance with the Accountable 

Government Initiative result in cost savings significant enough to 

justify the termination of those programs? 

Ms. JACKSON. I would have to ask you to be a little bit more specific. We are certainly committed to making sure that we are as efficient as possible with our budget, and our budget is such that we 

can’t fund every single program that we are actually required by 

law to implement, so we are making those kinds of hard choices 

right now. 

Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you, and thank you for your testimony 

and thank you for being here. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

47 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

So much has been said on the other side that I need to refute 

and yet there are some things that I need to get out here. First off, 

it would be of great help to me if you would provide us the actuarial data that you are using to support the statement that 34,000 

lives would be lost if your regulations do not go forward and then 

I would further ask the question, I am sure you made the President aware of this, does the President not care about the health of 

Americans by delaying the Ozone Rule? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, the President can speak for himself, but I 

think his statement makes clear why he made the decision he 

made. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, you know, that is part of the point. Of 

course, there was a recent Nobel scientist who resigned from America’s membership in the American Physical Society because of the 

position that that society took on global warming, and I think paraphrasing his statement, we can sit around for hours and argue 

about the constant mass of a proton but we are not able to discuss 

whether or not the validity of the science on climate change is valid 

or not. And, you know, people of good will and good intention can 

disagree about things. Chairman Waxman—ranking member—said 

that we don’t believe in the science. Well, yes, that is right. I mean, 

I believe in God. The science actually should be proven, and if it 

is true science, it should be provable and that is what the argument is about. 

Now, let me ask you this because it is important on this CrossState Air Pollution Rule because it does affect Texas in a big way. 

We were faced with the possibility of rolling blackouts this last August because of the electricity usage during the month of August 

and now we are told that with the introduction of the Cross-State 

Air Pollution Rule in the time frame as provided by the rulemaking 

at the EPA that eight to 18 power plants may be shuttered on January 1st, and that will put obviously a significant restriction on the 

ability to deliver electricity in the State of Texas, and I would 

argue that that is going to have a significant impact on public 

health because as we all know, people can die in the cold but they 

really can die in large numbers in un-air-conditioned homes during 

the hot summer months. 

Did you coordinate, the EPA, did you coordinate with FERC as 

to the implementation of this rule as the discussions were going 

forward? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, in looking at our—EPA did a reliability analysis and asked FERC and the Department of Energy to review 

that. 

Mr. BURGESS. How did you coordinate the information that was 

provided? 

Ms. JACKSON. As EPA did its analysis, we asked for review and 

comment on the analysis that we did. 

Mr. BURGESS. And did we just ignore FERC’s recommendations? 

Because they don’t seem to be completely coincident with the decisions that you made. 

Ms. JACKSON. No, not at all, sir. In fact, in my own personal conversations with Chairman Wellinghoff and others at DOE, what we 

have assured them is that we would work with States and others 

48 

to ensure the Clean Air Act’s perfect record of never having caused 

a reliability incident in its 40-year history. 

Mr. BURGESS. Let me ask you this. Will you provide for this committee all of the relevant memos, communications, letters, emails 

that are available? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly, sir. 

Mr. BURGESS. And what time frame might we expect those? 

Ms. JACKSON. As soon as we can, sir. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. BURGESS. I might suggest that there is a time frame that 

could be suggested to you but I will leave that up to the chairman. 

Now, I have here a letter to you from the Southwest Power Pool, 

a regional transmission organization, on electrical reliability, and 

the Southwestern Power Pool supports a more flexible approach to 

meeting the emission requirements under CSAPR and they cite 

several operators who are of similar opinion. They go on to say that 

EPA must be provide time to allow the industry to plan an approach to comply with its rules in a reliable and reasonable fashion. As it stands now, the southwest pool and its members may be 

placed in the untenable position of deciding which agency’s rules to 

violate, EPA or the FERC’s. Putting an industry with a critical infrastructure in the position of choosing which agency’s rules to violate is bad public policy. Editorial comment: I agree. They also suggest that the EPA delay CSAPR’s effective date by at least a year 

to allow for investigating, planning and developing solutions. What 

would be the problem with delaying for a year? 

Ms. JACKSON. The rule is flexible enough. Because it is a marketbased program that is intended to replace a rule that was remanded to EPA by the courts, we are under obligation to—— 

Mr. BURGESS. I am running out of time. With all due respect, 

people in the industry do not agree with you. I am not sure FERC 

agrees with you. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, in 40 years, the Clean Air Act has never 

caused a reliability problem. I am confident that this rule can be 

implemented in a way that lets businesses make the decisions they 

need but doesn’t sacrifice public health. 

Mr. BURGESS. And what if you are wrong? Are you infallible? 

Ms. JACKSON. Of course I am not, but the 40-year history 

shouldn’t be ignored, sir, just because of doomsday scenarios by 

those who want to stop the public health protections in this rule. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, and I disagree that they want to stop the 

public health protections, and that is the overreach of which the 

agency is guilty, but will you provide us the response to the letter 

to the Southwestern Power Pool that they have posed to you? 

Ms. JACKSON. If they were submitted during the public comment 

period, we may already have it, but I am happy to give you a response if it exists. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Michigan, the chairman emeritus of the full 

committee, Mr. Dingell, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy. 

Ms. Jackson, welcome. I want to thank you for your visit to 

southeast Michigan last month and your tour of the Detroit River 

49 

International Refuge, of which you know I am very interested. I 

have a number of questions to which I would hope you would answer yes or no. 

One, does EPA take public comments into consideration during 

its rulemaking? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Does EPA allow industry representatives to provide comments during the rulemaking process? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. Does EPA take into account during the rulemaking 

process a cost analysis of the proposed rule’s effect on industry and 

the costs of that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, as I remember the writing of the legislation, 

the EPA is required to in writing these rules to come first to its 

decisions on the basis of health, and then to come to further decisions on how the rule will be implemented on the basis of other 

things as well, in other words, cost and impact on industry and 

things of that kind. Is that right? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is generally correct, sir, yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. And so if I am correct, then the TRAIN Act would 

change the sequence of those things. The first decision would be 

cost of the rule and the second decision would then be how the 

health of people is going to be affected by the different circumstances in which the rule is directed. Is that right? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe that is right, or it may be the Latta 

amendment that would amend the TRAIN Act to do that. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, would you briefly state what effect you think 

there would be if the cost basis analysis is done before the scientific 

health benefit analysis? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think it would require the American people to be 

kept in the dark about what is happening to their health and about 

what is clean air. It is analogous to a doctor not giving a diagnosis 

to a patient because the patient might not be able to afford the 

treatment. The American people have the right to know whether 

the air they breathe is healthy or unhealthy. 

Mr. DINGELL. Well, now, how are you going to assess the costs 

if you don’t know what the problem you are addressing might be? 

I am trying to understand. We are going to have a big proceeding 

to define cost and then after we have defined the cost we are going 

to decide about the health and what we are going to do. I find this 

rather curious. How are we going to be able to assess the cost if 

we don’t know what is going to be required to be done? 

Ms. JACKSON. I see. I am not sure, sir. I haven’t—I don’t know 

what the thinking is. 

Mr. DINGELL. Just for my own curiosity, there have been a lot 

of major changes proposed to the Clean Air Act, and I am sure you 

will remember that over the years I have not been entirely happy 

about either the Clean Air Act or the administration of it by EPA. 

But how many times have you been called upon by the Congress 

to testify on these proposed changes? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe it is approaching a dozen, sir, but we can 

get you the exact number. 

50 

Mr. DINGELL. Please, if you would. Now, as I mentioned, my colleagues on the committee know I have had some very major disagreements with EPA over the rules, and there are a lot of serious 

issues that need to be addressed in the Clean Air Act and other 

policies, and from time to time I have been worried that the industry will bear an undue burden as a result of EPA rules. Those concerns still exist today in places. 

I have to say that I am disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that this 

committee has decided not to address these issues head on through 

legislation. Instead, we have been running around following false 

paper trails, taking issues out of context, ignoring policies already 

in place instead of finding legitimate and balanced solutions to protect the economy and the environment and having hearings in 

which we address the concerns of industry to find what the specific 

concerns are and what the particular actions of this committee 

should be to address those concerns and see to it that we are addressing with proper focus and diligence the questions of protecting 

the economy, jobs and at the same time addressing the problems 

in the environment. 

I note that my time is up and I thank you for your courtesy, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. STEARNS. Dr. Gingrey is recognized for 5 minutes, the gentleman from Georgia. 

Mr. GINGREY. Madam Administrator, thank you for appearing 

before the committee. Your response to the gentleman from Michigan in regard to what comes first in consideration of the EPA rulemaking and your response was health and protecting the health of 

the American people comes first, and I think your response also to 

what comes second was other things including cost. Is that correct? 

Was that essentially your response to the gentleman from Michigan’s line of questioning? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, with respect to the National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards and the Clean Air Act. 

Mr. DINGELL. If the gentleman would yield, that is required in 

the statute and something that caused me a lot of trouble. 

Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time, and I appreciate that, but the 

EPA—and this is the reason I bring this up—the EPA counts benefits from protecting people from clean air. They don’t actually believe there is a risk at those levels but they are counting the benefits so we are concerned about overstating the benefits in regard 

to health and understating the risks to the economy. Yes or no, is 

it true that the Administrator of EPA, yourself, has the responsibility to set ambient air quality standards to protect the public 

health including sensitive subgroups with an adequate margin of 

safety? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GINGREY. And again, yes or no, is it true that the Administrator, yourself, considers advice from EPA staff and also advice 

from the science advisors on the Clean Air Act Science Advisory 

Committee in setting those standards? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GINGREY. Now, EPA staff and their particulate matter report 

say that there is no evidence of health effects at levels much lower 

51 

than the EPA calls the ‘‘lowest measured level.’’ Is that your understanding? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, that wouldn’t make sense to me, that below 

the lowest measured level there be no effects or effects that would 

be hard to attribute because you couldn’t measure the pollutant. 

Mr. GINGREY. Right. So the answer is yes, and I thank you for 

that. 

Now, according to the most recent particulate matter risk assessment, EPA estimates, and I quote that ‘‘total particulate matter 2.5 

micron related premature mortality ranges from 63,000 and 88,000 

each year above the lowest measured level.’’ Of course, that is a 

large number. Would you agree, 63,000 to 88,000? 

Ms. JACKSON. It is a lot of premature deaths. 

Mr. GINGREY. It represents in fact, Madam Administrator, between 3 and 4 percent of all deaths in the United States annually. 

But now I turn to the recent Transport Rule which of course we 

have concerns over and to its estimates of benefits which involve 

almost all particulate matter and note that the benefit ranged between 130,000 and 320,000 deaths per year. That is quite different 

from EPA’s own integrated science assessment. So how do you explain that? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am sorry. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, let me say it again. The most recent Transport Rule and to its estimate of benefits, which involve all particulate matter, and note that the benefits range between 130,000 and 

320,000 deaths per year. As I said, that is quite different from 

63,000 to 88,000 from EPA’s own integrated science assessment. 

How do you explain that delta? 

Ms. JACKSON. The number I have, sir, is 13,000 to 34,000 avoided premature deaths under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. Perhaps our numbers should be reconciled, but that is what I have 

and I believe that is directly from the rule and their regulatory impact analysis. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, I would like, Madam Administrator, for you 

to clarify that for me and I would appreciate that very much, because the question becomes—and as I said at the outset—is the 

EPA modifying the numbers to exaggerate the benefits? Is the EPA 

claiming benefits below the level where the data support such 

claims? How can EPA promulgate rules and put out numbers that 

represent two- and threefold increases over the agency’s own scientific assessment? Will you agree, Madam Administrator, that 

this does raise legitimate questions about overestimating the 

health benefits? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, respectfully, because I don’t believe I agree 

with your numbers, sir, so I can’t agree with your premise. 

Mr. GINGREY. Well—— 

Ms. JACKSON. You know, it was briefed not long ago by scientists 

who said simply—these are scientists who study fine particle pollution—that if you could reduce the levels down to levels that would 

be considered doable technologically, you could have an impact on 

public health—— 

Mr. GINGREY. Well, let me interrupt you just for a second, 

Madam Administrator, with all due respect, and I do respect you— 

I have only got—in fact, in fact, I am a little bit over time, but it 

52 

is really, it is kind of like this business of the stimulus bill saving 

jobs. It didn’t grow jobs but of saving jobs, and you put out numbers in regard to saving lives. That is much more important, and 

that has to be accurate. 

So thank you for getting that information to me in a timely manner, and I know I have gone over so I yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

I recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor. I welcome 

her to the hearing. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Madam 

Administrator. 

You know, coming from Florida, we really appreciate our clean 

water and clean air because jobs and the economy are directly tied 

to having clean air and clean water, and I just have to—you know, 

this past week on Monday was the 1-year anniversary of finally 

sealing, closing off the BP Deepwater Horizon well, and there is no 

better example to explain why rational regulations need to be in 

place to protect not just the environment but when the environment is tied to the economy and jobs, and I know of the last 30 

years even, we have seen a very predictable pattern of when the 

EPA goes to carry out the direction of the Congress under the law 

and the will of the American people, there is this typical tug of war 

that then ensues. You will propose a regulation and then certain 

industries will weigh in, local citizens, maybe the heart and lung 

associations, and I think this is very healthy. I think a robust exchange of ideas and looking at all of these regulations is essential 

to getting to the right result. It can be messy and it can be very 

contentious sometimes and sometimes folks here in Washington 

have very high-paid lobbyists that can weigh in, and it is important 

to have a balance when people at home that oftentimes don’t have 

the same voice. But I think if EPA sticks to the science and if you 

fairly consider all industry points of view and you consider rational 

alternatives, is there a less costly alternative, I think if we follow 

the science, we will get to the right point. And I have a couple of 

examples. When EPA announced plans to control benzene emissions from chemical production plants, you know, remember that 

industry claimed pollution controls would cost over $350,000 per 

plant, but instead, technological innovation led to replacement of 

benzene with other chemicals and the compliance costs turned out 

to be zero. 

Administrator Jackson, is this the sort of innovation—is this sort 

of innovation unusual in the face of new environmental regulation? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, and indeed, to the contrary, it is the pattern. 

For example, the industry overstated the per-ton cost of the acidrain trading program by a factor of four, and what happens is that 

once industry puts its mind to complying instead of fighting, they 

learn to do it in a way that is more cost-effective than the current 

technology and we get both cleaner air and water and jobs as well. 

Ms. CASTOR. Then there is a great example just in the home district from decades ago. We had a coal-fired power plant by the local 

electric company. They were in litigation, and you know, rather 

than proceed down litigation, the business took a hard look at the 

new technologies available to clean the air and to settle that they 

invested in the new technology on scrubbers, and this has been the 

53 

best business decision for them. Not only has it earned them great 

PR but has cleaned the air. It is right on Tampa Bay. The health 

of Tampa Bay has improved. We don’t have as much atmospheric 

deposition coming on to the water, and I think oftentimes the 

science and technology proves out to be the best business decision. 

Another example, when EPA announced limits on 

chlorofluorocarbons in vehicle air conditioners, the auto industry 

insisted they would add up to $1,200 to the price of every car, but 

the real cost turned out to be as low as $40. So in that case, did 

the benefits to eliminating chlorofluorocarbons outweigh this $40 

cost, in your opinion? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, I am sure they did, although I don’t know the 

exact ratio, but because the cost was so much less—they already 

had weighed it when we posed the rule but the happy coincident 

of innovation is that it is much cheaper than we expected. 

Ms. CASTOR. Why do you think this is the case? Why do affected 

industries and their high-paid lobbyists up here, why do they so 

often overestimate the costs? 

Ms. JACKSON. You know, there has become this dance that is 

done inside Washington where we propose public health protections 

in accordance with the law and then the costs are overstated, and 

even though the history shows that that is not the impact, it seems 

to me to be devoid of concern for the real people who would be most 

affected, and that is the American people who want clean air and 

clean water, and of course they want jobs as well, and I believe we 

can have all three. 

Ms. CASTOR. I agree. I don’t think they are mutually exclusive, 

and a lot of these examples prove that out. 

Thank you very much. I yield back. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from California, Mr. Bilbray, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Administrator Jackson, has there been an air district anywhere in the country, not in the world, that has reduced 

its total emissions more than the South Coast Air Basin in Los Angeles? 

Ms. JACKSON. I can double-check that but they have made significant reductions, sir. They still have significant challenges but 

they have made reductions. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Right. The question is, is there another nonattainment area anywhere in the country that has more regulatory control over emissions than Los Angeles, the South Coast Air Basin? 

Ms. JACKSON. California, because of their specific challenges, I 

think has older and probably more well-established air pollution 

regulations in general. 

Mr. BILBRAY. And are you aware also too that California and the 

Air Resources Board and the air districts have been the leader not 

just nationally but worldwide in air pollution reduction and technology? 

Ms. JACKSON. And technology and moving forward on trying to 

address public health issues. 

Mr. BILBRAY. And you are aware that we have one of the highest, 

second only to Nevada, unemployment right now, 12-point plus? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am sorry, sir. 

54 

Mr. BILBRAY. OK. Look, both sides can talk about denial of impacts, health-wise, economic. Let us be upfront. Anybody that 

straight-faced says we can do these regulations and they will help 

the environment and drive the economy is still playing in our 1970 

illusion that there isn’t an impact on both sides, and I don’t think 

either side should be in denial that there is a cost to the economy 

and a benefit to the environment, and if you retreat on some of 

these environmental issues, there is going to be an impact on the 

environment and health and a benefit to the economy. It goes back 

and forth. The concept that we can pull this off, we have been playing this game in California long enough. We have tried to do—we 

have done extraordinary things in California to try to make both 

work out. There is a cost, and there is a cost both ways, and I 

think that seriously we need to address that. 

Now, let me ask you—and that is why the dialog here gets polarized. I want to bring this back to, there is cost and benefit. Don’t 

deny the cost; don’t deny the benefit. Now, my question is, in the 

1970s, isn’t it true that through environmental regs and fuel efficiency regs, the federal government drove the private sector towards diesel operation for about 5 to 6 years? They converted their 

fleet largely over to diesel? 

Ms. JACKSON. I can’t confirm that, sir. 

Mr. BILBRAY. OK. Well, I will confirm it for you because I think 

those of us that are old enough to remember that will remember 

that hideous experiment. That was an environmental regulation 

that drove the private sector to diesel, which you and I know is a 

very, very toxic emission, a very big health issue, and it was a 

major economic and environmental mistake that we made, and 

there are impacts of that. 

I would like to shift over from the other side as somebody who 

has been on the rulemaking, actually been in the regulations. What 

is the responsibility or what is the participation of local and State 

and county government operations in the implementation of these 

rules, and I will point that out. You are the Environmental Protection Agency. You are not the EDA. You are not the Economic Destruction Agency. What is the local and State responsibility in addressing air pollution and toxic emissions and what is their major 

goal in participation in this project? And please make it short. 

Ms. JACKSON. OK. At a minimum, State governments are primarily responsible for implementation of most aspects of the federal Clean Air Act. Some States have their own laws, and in the 

case of California, local and county governments do—— 

Mr. BILBRAY. How much reduction have we had in government 

operations and procedures in emissions in a nonattainment area 

like the L.A. Air Basin in comparison to the private sector reduction? Wouldn’t you agree that probably overwhelmingly in the 90 

percent that the private sector has reduced their emissions proportionally that the reduction has been in the private sector and the 

public sector has been less than very aggressive at reducing our 

emissions and our operations to reduce our footprint? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I am not sure I understand the question, but 

the private sector has not done it voluntarily. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Let me give you this. The EPA had a scientist coming out of Kansas that could tell you that you could reduce the 

55 

emissions from autos by 20 percent with a single regulation. Don’t 

you think the EPA would be very interested in looking at implementing those rules? 

Ms. JACKSON. Of course. We are always looking for ways—— 

Mr. BILBRAY. What are you doing about indirect—the mobile 

sources caused by inappropriate traffic control by city, county and 

local and State government? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, we are implementing the Clean Air Act and 

we allow States to come up with implementation plans to determine how best to reduce most forms of air pollution. The mercury 

and air toxic standards are different because they are under a different section of the Clean Air Act. 

Mr. BILBRAY. I move right back over. In other words, local governments, State government get to—our job is to make the private 

sector clean up their act where you can get identified single mobile 

source that government controls that we have done nothing as a 

comprehensive approach to reduce it because we focus on cracking 

down on the private sector, who are the job generators, while we 

are given a free ride. 

And Mr. Chairman, I point this out because that 20 percent that 

we could reduce in government is 20 percent that the private sector 

wouldn’t have to do while they are laying off employees, and that 

is the kind of responsible environmental strategy I would like to 

see both sides of the aisle finally be brave enough to approach. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The gentleman from Massachusetts is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This week, the Republicans have stepped up their assault on 

clean air and clean energy. Both this committee and the full House 

have begun a legislative repeal-a-thon that denies the science, 

delays the regulations and deters efforts to protect the health and 

security of millions of Americans. Take today’s Floor action. We are 

having 100-year floods every few years. We have had tornados rip 

through the country, killing people and destroying property. Hurricanes have caused floods, massive power outages and deaths. Texas 

is on fire. Forty-eight states have made emergency declarations so 

far this year. Now, we have set all-time records of 83 major disasters declared this year with 3 months of the year still left to go. 

The planet is warming and the weather is worsening. We see it 

here with our hurricanes, floods, fires and tornados. We see it overseas where famine in Somalia threatens civil war, and how does 

the tea party respond? ‘‘Maybe we can find the money,’’ they say, 

for disaster relief for people who are suffering, for people who are 

desperate, for people who have lives who have been altered permanently by these disasters, but we are going to make the taxpayer 

pay. Do the Republicans say we are going to pay by cutting the 

hundreds of billions of dollars we spend on our nuclear weapons 

program because we all know we don’t need to build any more nuclear weapons? Oh, no. They wouldn’t do that. Are we going to cut 

the tens of billions of dollars in subsidies we give to Big Oil and 

Coal as they report record profits? Oh, no, we can’t touch those, 

they say. We can’t even talk about cutting those programs. What 

can we talk about? We can talk about, they say, cutting the clean 

car factory funds. We can talk about cutting the incentives to make 

56 

super-efficient cars that don’t need the oil sold by potentates in 

Saudi Arabia and CEOs in Texas. We can talk about cutting the 

program that could remove the need for the very same oil that creates the greenhouse gases that are warming up the planet and 

causing the disasters that cost more and more money to remedy as 

each year goes by. 

And as if all this wasn’t enough, the Republicans are also waging 

an all-out war on the Clean Air Act. This committee and the House 

has already passed legislation to prevent the EPA from doing anything to reduce the amount of oil used by our cars and trucks. And 

this week in this committee and on the floor, we are considering 

bills to require endless study of the cumulative impacts of all EPA 

air regulations on all industries, and then just for good measure, 

we are going to pass legislation that repeals the regulations that 

have already been set, extend the deadlines for implementation of 

the rest and weaken the very underpinnings of the Clean Air Act. 

The Republicans are providing the American people with a false 

choice. We do not have to choose between air quality and air conditioning. We do not have to choose between concrete and cancer. We 

do not have to choose between manufacturing and mercury poisoning or asthma or cardiac arrest. We do not have to choose. In 

their insistence that we consider the cumulative impacts of all 

these regulations, there are some other cumulative impacts of their 

actions that Republicans refuse to acknowledge. 

Administrator Jackson, Republicans are cutting programs to 

incentivize the development of advanced technology vehicles that 

could run without using a single drop of oil. They also passed legislation preventing EPA from moving forward to require a 54.5- 

miles-per-gallon fuel economy standard by 2025. When you look at 

this cumulatively as Republicans say we must, do you think these 

actions would help or hurt our efforts to reduce our dependence on 

foreign oil and back out that which we take from OPEC and funds 

those countries’ governments? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think efforts to make us more dependent on gasoline hurt our Nation’s energy independence, sir. 

Mr. MARKEY. Cumulatively, what are the benefits of cleaning up 

particulate matter? Does that help or hurt our efforts to battle cancer, to battle the impact that it has upon the health of people in 

our country? 

Ms. JACKSON. Particulate matter causes premature deaths. It 

doesn’t make you sick. It is directly causal to dying sooner than 

you should. So the impacts of delaying efforts, cost-effective efforts, 

I might add, to address particulate matter are more people dying 

sooner than they should. 

Mr. MARKEY. How would you compare it to the fight against cancer, reducing particulate matter? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, I was briefed not long ago. If we could reduce 

particulate matter to healthy levels, it would have the same impact 

as finding a cure for cancer in our country. 

Mr. MARKEY. Can you say that sentence one more time? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. If we could reduce particulate matter to 

levels that are healthy, we would have an identical impact to finding a cure for cancer. 

Mr. MARKEY. That is a pretty good cumulative impact. 

57 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, and the difference is, we know how to do 

that. 

Mr. MARKEY. And the Republicans are also proposing to delay 

and weaken standards that would remove toxic chemicals like mercury, benzene, cancer-causing dioxin and lead from industrial polluters. Your regulations clean up cement plants. When you look at 

these health effects cumulatively as Republicans insist we must 

and the tea party insists we must, would we be avoiding the thousands of deaths that would otherwise occur—— 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Ms. JACKSON. And that is $2 trillion in health benefits a year beginning in 2020, sir, and that is just some of the rules. 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. I am glad he finally got to 

his question. 

Mr. MARKEY. Well, I was asking—well, let just say this for the 

sake of the discussion. Mr. Bilbray did not ask his question until 

1:05 after the time, and Mr. Gingrey did not ask his question until 

26 seconds after his time. 

Mr. STEARNS. I am glad you noticed. 

Mr. MARKEY. But if you would have notified them as well, then 

I think I probably would have understood what the rules were. 

Mr. STEARNS. And there are no rules. You can do what you want 

on your 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARKEY. I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Griffith from Virginia is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. 

When you say reduce particulate matter to levels that are 

healthy, what is that level? 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t have it in my head right now but we will 

get it to you, sir. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And can you tell me when you are getting that information at what point in history we were at that level? Because 

isn’t it not true that a lot of particulate matter exists from natural 

causes? 

Ms. JACKSON. Some amount of fine particulate matter, but most 

of the natural causes of particulate matter are coarser and, you 

know, so dust, when you hear about dust storms. There is some 

particulate matter, of course, that is emitted naturally. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. So if you could give me a date as to when the 

earth achieved that maximum healthy level, I would appreciate 

that, at some point back in the past. I am sure your scientists can 

help you with that. 

In regard to mercury, we have heard a lot about mercury today 

but the Department of Energy says when it goes back and looks at 

mercury, and this was just found on the Department of Energy’s 

Web site, that even in 1995, coal-fired power plants in the United 

States contributed less than 1 percent of the world’s mercury in the 

air, and that since that time we have actually dropped, and I guess 

my question is, because we hear this all the time in this committee, 

that we must be against clean air, that we must be—you know, because we don’t support all the EPA proposals that we must be for 

dirty air. In fact, I believe Chairman Emeritus Waxman said yesterday this was Dirty Air Week, the Republicans had declared this 

58 

Dirty Air Week in the legislature. And so I guess I have to ask, 

even though I know the answer in advance, you would not submit 

that being opposed to some of your regulations means that you are 

against clean air, would you? 

Ms. JACKSON. It certainly depends on the regulation, sir. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. You would not submit that the President is 

against clean air because he opposed your proposed Ozone Rule, 

would you? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. I wouldn’t think so. Or clean water. Wouldn’t that 

be correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. No. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. And so when people make blanket statements that because they oppose an EPA—some of us oppose an 

EPA regulation, that doesn’t mean that we are necessarily in favor 

of dirty air, does it? 

Ms. JACKSON. It depends on the regulation, sir. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. Clearly, on ozone, we wouldn’t have been 

in that category. 

And in regard also, there was a comment earlier that somebody 

wanted to know, you know, we call these job-killing regulations, 

they want to know where the jobs are, and I can submit to you 

some jobs from the 9th district of Virginia that have been lost by 

virtue of some proposed regulations if they go into full effect, but 

isn’t it true that your own analysis shows that the boiler MACT 

and cement MACT proposals will in fact cost jobs. Is that not correct? They create some clean energy jobs but they also have a certain—— 

Ms. JACKSON. That is not entirely correct, sir. The jobs analysis 

for the boiler MACT—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Well, either people are going to lose jobs or they 

aren’t. Do they lose jobs or not? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, sir, we do an analysis. There is a range, and 

it ranges from a gain of 6,500 jobs to a loss of 3,100. It is not a 

perfect science to look at this, but jobs analysis that we do, we try 

to be as precise as we can. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. But you are aware that in regard to some of your 

rules that various power plants across the country have already announced shutdowns of power plants and a net loss of jobs? You are 

aware of that, are you not? 

Ms. JACKSON. Many of those plants are making business decisions. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Are you aware that they are laying off people? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am aware of the fact that plants need to make 

business decisions so that they can stop polluting the air. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Can I then assume that you are not—I mean, I am 

just asking a simple question. Either you are aware of—— 

Ms. JACKSON. I am aware of the announcements. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. You are aware of the announcements. Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t necessarily believe their announcements 

are always fair or accurate. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. But you are aware that they have announced 

layoffs and communities are concerned about the layoffs of highVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:26 Jul 30, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\11BF34~1\112-87~1 WAYNE
59 

paying jobs in my district, rural areas where high-paying jobs are 

not common? You would agree with that? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am aware of their announcements, and I know 

that some of what is in their announcements isn’t accurate or fair. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Do you think that the Department of Energy is accurate and fair when it says that only 1 percent of the mercury in 

the world’s atmosphere is coming from coal-fired power plants in 

the United States of America? Are you aware of that? 

Ms. JACKSON. I heard you say it. I would like to see their Web 

site before I agreed to it. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. But do you all have data that indicates 

similarly that since 1995 without these regulations going into effect 

the amounts of mercury in the air in the United States has actually diminished, and some other regulations—— 

Ms. JACKSON. It is a good point, sir. Almost half of the power 

plants in this country currently comply with the regulations that 

we are scheduled to adopt in November, so it can be done. It can 

be done cost-effectively. It is actually a matter of fairness. Some 

plants are emitting mercury and others have already addressed 

that pollution. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And in fairness, some of that deals with municipal 

waste incinerators, because I have never been one of those who 

says that the EPA doesn’t have a purpose or does some good and 

that that is part of the reason that mercury has dropped in this 

country, but we are already at fairly low levels and the balance 

that we have to make as policymakers, as your President made on 

the Ozone Rule, is between deciding whether the gain is worth the 

cost and when the cost is people not having jobs and being in poverty as we have seen that rise in this country, you can understand 

why many of us are concerned about the rising poverty. You can 

agree that that is a negative, would you not? 

Ms. JACKSON. In your considerations, I would ask you to look at 

benefits that are between $59 billion and $140 billion for a rule 

that costs $10 billion in the year 2016. That is what the benefits 

of the Mercury and Air Toxics Rules are estimated to be. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Administrator Jackson. 

Ms. JACKSON. What did you do to your leg? 

Mr. SCALISE. I tore my ACL playing basketball last week. 

Ms. JACKSON. Did you kick the TV when the Saints lost to the 

Packers? 

Mr. SCALISE. The Packers game was a little rough, but we had 

redemption against the Bears and we are going to do well this 

weekend too. 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right. 

Mr. SCALISE. I am glad we can agree on that. We definitely do. 

I wanted to ask you, you know, we have been talking about clean 

air, clean water, and all of us, I think it has been laid out very 

clearly, all of us support clean air and clean water. I think what 

we are trying to get at here is where is that balance and has there 

been a crossing of that balance as it relates to some of the rules 

60 

and regulations we have seen coming out of EPA. I know I am 

equally concerned about clean air and clean water. I am also concerned about jobs, and during the break, a lot of us went back 

home, got to meet with a lot of our small business owners, talking 

to people who are there on the front line of job creation, and there 

was a recurring theme I heard from every single small business 

owner I talked to and, you know, you ask them, what kinds of 

things need to happen, what can we do to help you create jobs, and 

surprisingly, the recurring theme was, they said the regulations 

and laws coming out of Washington and this administration are 

their biggest impediment to creating jobs, and so I think it is very 

important that we look at these regulations that are coming out 

and saying, you know, what is the justification. And it seems that 

a lot of times these numbers are attached and, you know, each rule 

and regulation is going to save lives and each rule and regulation 

is going to stop people from being sick, you know, and those are 

all lofty goals, but unfortunately, it seems like they are numbers 

that are being arbitrarily thrown out just to justify a radical regulation that really has nothing to do with improving health and 

safety and, you know, I will start with the ozone ruling. What were 

the justifications that you made when you came out and proposed 

that rule? How many lives was that going to save? How many sick 

days was that going to prevent? 

Ms. JACKSON. The National Ambient Air Quality Standards are 

based on peer-reviewed data that look at the health impacts, so it 

is made based on determining what constitutes a safe level—— 

Mr. SCALISE. So for that ruling, did you have numbers assessed 

to how many, whether it was lives saved? Did you say how many 

people were not going to have to go to the emergency room? Did 

you have numbers like that for that rule? 

Ms. JACKSON. As I recall, sir, but we will double-check and get 

you that data, what we look at trying to assess where, whether the 

number 75, 70, what have you, where in that spectrum you protect 

human health with an adequate margin of safety, so—— 

Mr. SCALISE. I would imagine when you came out with that rule 

and you proposed that rule, you said this is going to do some things 

to protect public health, right? 

Ms. JACKSON. It is the implementation of the standards over 

time. So as we heard earlier, you pick the health-based standard 

and then over time you implement the standard to achieve that 

level. 

Mr. SCALISE. And so I am using that as an example because, you 

know, for those of us that agree with it, before the President made 

his decision and came out with his Executive Order saying we are 

not going to go forward with that, there would have been people 

on the other side who said, oh, you know, you all just don’t care 

about public health, look at all those lives we would have saved, 

you know, and you all are trying to block that rule from coming 

out, and then all of a sudden the President even says you went too 

far. That rule, that regulation would not have done those things. 

I have got to imagine—I am not going to speak for the President 

and you are not either, but I have got to imagine that the President had to disagree with your assessment that that would have 

saved lives or improved health because he wouldn’t have rejected 

61 

that rule if he thought rejecting that rule would make people more 

sick. 

And so I would just hope as the tone goes forward that as we 

are looking at these rules and regulations that we know are killing 

jobs, our job creators out there across the country are telling us 

how many jobs in each of their businesses these rules are killing. 

You know, you want to talk about health and safety, these are people that don’t have jobs, they don’t have health insurance, they 

don’t have a lot of things because they don’t have that job, and 

then you look at the assessments that are made by EPA, and even 

the President acknowledged clearly that the things that you are 

saying weren’t accurate at least to his belief, our belief because he 

rescinded the rule. He wouldn’t have rescinded the rule if he 

thought that was going to do something to improve health. 

So I hope as we are looking at these rules we can at least have 

an understanding that all these things should be put on the table, 

and just because somebody comes out and says we are going to 

save 20,000 hospital visits, that doesn’t mean you are going to save 

20,000 hospital visits. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SCALISE. You said that about other things. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Would the gentleman yield? 

Mr. SCALISE. I would be happy to. 

Mr. BILBRAY. I think in all fairness, though, the President is saying, wouldn’t you agree, that really was right now with the way the 

economy is, the way the jobs are, now is not the time to implement 

this, and in all fairness, he is not saying somewhere in the future 

you might—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Well, and I will reclaim my time, because what the 

President is saying, if the President really thought that implementing that rule would save lives or improve people’s health and 

stop people from going to the emergency room, I really don’t think 

he would have gone forward with it, you know, and he can correct 

me, you can correct me if you have heard differently. 

Ms. JACKSON. I am not going to speak for the country. I will simply say that not every deregulatory push works out well for the 

country or the environment. In 2009, a company called another federal agency’s rules an unnecessary burden. That agency wasn’t 

EPA, it was the Minerals Management Service, and that company 

was Transocean, and we know what happened there. 

Mr. SCALISE. We saw that they cut corners, and that had nothing 

to do with—— 

Ms. JACKSON. No, they—— 

Mr. SCALISE. They actually—— 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Protesting regulation of their work. 

Mr. SCALISE. And there are companies that we all know have 

played by all of the rules and they are being shut down today even 

though they didn’t do anything wrong. And so while you may want 

to carry out your agenda, even the President has acknowledged 

that you have gone too far, and we have got to be concerned about 

jobs. 

I just want to put this into the record and ask a final question 

as my time is running out, specifically to talk about the Spill Prevention Containment and Countermeasure Rule that has been exVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:26 Jul 30, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\11BF34~1\112-87~1 WAYNE
62 

tended to farms, and then your agency—it was going to be a 5-year 

implementation. Your agency rolled that back or expedited and 

said in 2 years they have got to comply, meaning November of this 

year. Our small farmers out there are going to have put containment. They don’t even know how much it is going to cost them, 

containment measures. Our Commissioner of Agriculture has asked 

your agency over a month ago if you would review—the Commissioner sent you a letter—if you would review either rescinding the 

rule or giving them an extension. They haven’t heard back. I would 

hope you would look at that, and I would be happy to get you a 

copy of the letter, but look at the rule in general, what this is going 

to do, what kind of impact that regulation is going to do to our 

local farmers. 

Ms. JACKSON. I am happy to do that, and the reason that I think 

we are looking at it very hard is because with the flooding in the 

Midwest and in other parts of the country, a lot of folks have not 

had time to comply with it. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

But it is an oil spill prevention rule as well, so—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Right, but in a lot of—— 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. SCALISE. The States do their own containment, and I would 

hope you would look at that letter, and I am sure others are out 

there too, and look at extending that or just rescinding it altogether. 

I appreciate it, and I yield back my time. 

Mr. STEARNS. We will put your document in. I think the minority 

would like to look at your document first before we ask unanimous 

consent to do so. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Reserving the right to object. 

Mr. STEARNS. Madam Administrator, we are going to do a second 

round. You have been kind enough to be here—oh, Mr. Gardner, 

the gentleman from Colorado—I thought you had spoken, I am 

sorry—is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Administrator Jackson, for your time today. 

I have been told that EPA’s Office of Compliance and Enforcement Assurance is verbally asking active hard-rock mines to voluntarily grant blanket access to EPA personnel to conduct site investigations under CERCLA. They have been described—representatives of EPA have described the proposed inspections as part of an 

ongoing national enforcement initiative focused on hard-rock mining. Are these inspections related to EPA’s stated intention under 

CERCLA 108(b) to promulgate a rule imposing additional financial 

assurance requirements in hard-rock mines? 

Ms. JACKSON. Not by your description, sir. It sounds more like 

this is as a result of a national enforcement initiative to reduce pollution from mineral processing, but I can double-check that for you. 

Mr. GARDNER. So they are not a part of the financial assurance? 

Ms. JACKSON. Not to my knowledge but I can certainly confirm 

that for you. 

Mr. GARDNER. And then could you clear up confusion about the 

reason for these inspections? Are they part of the national enforceVerDate Aug 31 2005 14:26 Jul 30, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\11BF34~1\112-87~1 WAYNE
63 

ment initiative or are they to support EPA’s CERCLA 108(b) rulemaking? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe they are the former, sir, but I will confirm that. 

Mr. GARDNER. Is there any link between the two? 

Ms. JACKSON. Not to my knowledge, sir, but I am happy to check 

on that for you. 

Mr. GARDNER. I would appreciate that. How do these inspections 

relate to EPA’s CERCLA Section 108(b) rulemaking? 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t believe they are related, but I will doublecheck that for you. 

Mr. GARDNER. And would you provide for the record copies of 

policies, guidance or other documents or records related to development by EPA of any program or initiative to identify hard-rock 

mining or mineral process sites that may be inspected or visited by 

EPA representatives and/or any contractors of the EPA under 

CERCLA Section 104(b) or as part of development of a rule pursuant to CERCLA that would impose financial assurance requirements on facilities in the hard-rock mining industry? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly, sir. 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you. And do you happen to have any of 

that material with you today? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir. 

Mr. GARDNER. And I know the committee had called the office 

and warned that this question was coming. Will any of the data or 

information gathered during these inspections be used in the rulemaking process under CERCLA Section 108(b)? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am sorry. Could you repeat the question? 

Mr. GARDNER. Will any of the data or information that is gathered during these inspections be used in the rulemaking process 

under CERCLA Section 108(b)? 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t believe so but that is the same question. I 

will double-check. 

Mr. GARDNER. OK. And then how much money right now has 

been budgeted for this national hard-rock mining enforcement initiative for fiscal year 2012? 

Ms. JACKSON. Let us see if I have it in any of the background 

I have. I don’t know that I have a line item for that. If it is possible 

to get it, we are happy to get it for you. It is budged under our Office of Enforcement. 

Mr. GARDNER. If you could get that, that would be great. And do 

you have any idea what is budgeted for CERCLA 108(b) rulemaking? 

Ms. JACKSON. We will get you that as well. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you. And I have been told as well that 

these companies obviously may be facing some costs of these inspections and the companies inspected will spend considerable time 

working with EPA, their contractors and others showing them onsite resources necessary to gather the information, reports, meetings, EPA personnel et cetera, and will these inspected companies 

be expected to bear any of the costs, the direct costs for EPA personnel and EPA contractors to visit the sites inspected under this 

initiative? 

64 

Ms. JACKSON. Enforcement cases are generally brought for violations of the law, and when they are, the penalties are generally assessed as penalties but not necessarily unless there are court cases 

is reimbursement sought. 

Mr. GARDNER. So these just seem to be inspections. Are you 

aware of this initiative at all? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly, generally, every year the EPA acknowledges what its federal priorities are for reducing pollution and for 

enforcement, and this is one of our priorities. 

Mr. GARDNER. So is this just an inspection or an enforcement action? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, you do an inspection, and if nothing is 

wrong, there is no need for enforcement. 

Mr. GARDNER. So is this a plan then to go into a number of these 

mines in different regions just to go in and inspect? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly. Part of our authority allows us to go in 

and determine compliance with federal laws. 

Mr. GARDNER. And is this part of CERCLA? This initiative, is it 

part of your CERCLA efforts? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe they would look for violations of all environmental laws including potentially violations of CERCLA law, 

but it would not be limited necessarily to that. It could be the 

Clean Water Act, it could be the Clean Air Act. 

Mr. GARDNER. So are these—do you have a listing of the mines 

that you intend to inspect? 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t know if such a list exists, but if it does, it 

may well be enforcement confidential since telling someone you are 

coming is a good way of assuring that you may not get a true picture of what they are really doing. 

Mr. GARDNER. And then just a couple questions on energy prices. 

Do your regulations have an impact on electricity price? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GARDNER. What is an acceptable price increase for electricity? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, what we generally do is look at a price increase to determine impacts on the economy and also on reliability 

issues, and so what we know—I can’t answer your question, but 

what we know is that the rules that have been discussed this 

morning, both final and proposed, have very low impacts on electricity prices. 

Mr. GARDNER. But when a rule increases electricity prices 5 percent, would that be acceptable? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, it would depend on the rule. We look at costs 

and benefits and we also look at how those costs and benefits roll 

out over time, and often—— 

Mr. GARDNER. So it might be acceptable? A 5 percent increase 

might be acceptable? 

Ms. JACKSON. It could potentially be. 

Mr. GARDNER. What about 10 percent? Could a 10 percent price 

increase be acceptable? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is a hypothetical that I simply cannot answer. 

Mr. GARDNER. Who bears the burden most in our society with increased electricity prices? 

65 

Ms. JACKSON. Who bears the burden? 

Mr. GARDNER. Yes, who do you think it hurts the most? 

Ms. JACKSON. The ratepayers pay for electricity. 

Mr. GARDNER. Does it hurt poor more than a disproportionate 

share of our population? 

Ms. JACKSON. Of course, for people for whom energy is a large 

section of what they spend, then—— 

Mr. GARDNER. The answer is yes, increased electricity prices impact poor more than—— 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. GARDNER [continguing]. The rest of the population. 

Mr. STEARNS. You are welcome to answer that. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, it can if a greater portion of their disposable 

income is used for energy, then they can be hurt more, certainly. 

Mr. STEARNS. We are now finished the first round. We are going 

to have another round. As you can see, there are fewer members 

so it will go quicker, and I will start with my questions. 

A small businessperson came up to me and talked to me about 

the EPA rule called the mud rule. I am not sure you or anybody 

else knows about it. In the event of construction of a site, there is 

stormwater that washes off or may wash off. EPA has stipulated 

exactly how construction of the site including the layout of the mud 

has to be, and of course, this increases the cost of construction and 

creates liability, particularly in light of the fact that EPA says if 

you don’t comply, it is $37,500 every day for every infraction. Don’t 

you think those kind of penalties are deterring business operations 

and it is important with a struggling economy that you don’t put 

that fear that you could have $37,000, almost $40,000-a-day fee for 

how you structure mud when you are doing construction for a 

stormwater washout that may or may not occur? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, the majority of water pollution in this country 

is caused by stormwater runoff and so the Nation’s Clean Water 

Act asked EPA to develop national standards. It is important to 

note a couple of things—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Do you know about the mud rule? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I know that States implement stormwater 

rules—— 

Mr. STEARNS. I mean, if you don’t—I would be surprised if you 

do know about it. Do you know about it? 

Ms. JACKSON. Of course I know about stormwater regulations. 

Mr. STEARNS. No, no, about the mud rule. Have you ever heard 

of it? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, he may call it the mud rule but—— 

Mr. STEARNS. But you think it is stormwater rule? OK. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sure, because when you mix water with dirt, some 

people call that mud, I guess. 

Mr. STEARNS. But in light of the fact you just said yourself here 

that we have had 40 years of impact of the clean air bill and it has 

worked pretty good, and yet you seem to be pretty strong on increasing more regulation even with your own admission that the 

Clean Air Act has been working for over 40 years. I mean, it is 

just—but I am trying to give you an example, a specific example 

where the stormwater act is really creating problems and scary for 

small people that are in construction. 

66 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, and the $37,000 or whatever figure he cited 

per day, sir, I would be happy to talk to him, but those are probably the statutory maximum penalties under the Clean Water Act, 

and I am not aware of any specific incident where that has been 

levied and certainly I am happy to look into your constituents’ concerns. 

Mr. STEARNS. How many employees do you have? 

Ms. JACKSON. We have somewhere over 17,000. I think we may 

be as high as 18,000. 

Mr. STEARNS. I think it is almost 18,000. And what is your yearly budget? 

Ms. JACKSON. It depends on you, but I believe our budget this 

year is $8.4 billion or $8.5 billion. 

Mr. STEARNS. In those 18,000 employees, do you do town meetings? Do you ever get around to see those 18,000 employees? I 

mean, do you have a strong feeling that those 18,000 people are 

needed? I mean, we just had an admission that the Clean Air Act 

is working, it has worked over 40 years. Do you think we need to 

continue to have 18,000 employees at the EPA? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think we should operate as a—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Do you think you should have more? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir, I am not advocating for more employees, 

and in fact, I am sure as you will see in budget discussions, EPA 

has been losing employees. 

Mr. STEARNS. Would you agree that the EPA has a responsibility 

to communicate with the appropriate experts when assessing the 

impact of its rules? I think you would agree with that. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STEARNS. Would you agree that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, is the authority on electric reliability in 

the federal government? Would you agree with that? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think that is a fair statement. 

Mr. STEARNS. Do you believe that the EPA with respect to electric reliability has the same level of expertise, engineering skills 

and knowledge of electricity markets and systems as FERC staff? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, but I do think we know our rules better than 

FERC staff, so it requires us to work together to look at—— 

Mr. STEARNS. So you don’t think FERC knows the rules better 

than you do? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, no, I said our rules. I think they know their 

rules and I think we know our rules and I think we have to work 

together to—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Well, what about with respect to electric reliability? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, that is their domain and so—— 

Mr. STEARNS. And so you would agree. I think we have a slide 

here. I think it is slide number 5. If you look at the estimates— 

do you have a copy there? She does. I think we just gave you a 

copy. Look at the estimates from FERC assessing the cumulative 

impacts of the EPA Power Sector Rules compared to EPA’s analysis. Which should the public trust? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, sir, I am familiar with that particular FERC 

study and I know that the chairman has already testified that it 

is based on bad information. It looks at proposed rules that were 

67 

never adopted and it looks at worst-case scenarios that aren’t accurate, so I don’t think that it should look at this data as being as 

accurate as EPA’s in this case. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman, where did this chart come from? 

It doesn’t have an attribution. 

Mr. STEARNS. Is there an attribution for the chart? I think it is 

FERC staff that gave us this. 

Let me just, before I finish here, just make an observation. On 

this side of the aisle, the Democrats keep saying the Republicans 

don’t care about clean air and clean water because we oppose some 

EPA regulations, but I have given you the mud rule, for example, 

where the Republicans do object to that. You know, but the President himself has come out against these proposed ozone rules, and 

could you say under that scenario what the Democrats are saying, 

just because the President came out against the ozone rules that 

the President is against clean air? Is the President against clean 

water? Of course not. Of course not. So I think it is hyperboloid for 

the Democrats here to indicate that the Republicans don’t care 

about clean air. 

But the question is, that the President and I think that the Republicans agree, is the continued fading in this country that EPA 

regulations are continuing to hurt this economy and costing us jobs 

and there has to be a balance, and I think the Republicans drink 

the same water, we breathe the same air as Democrats, and so 

does the President. We don’t accuse him of the things that the 

Democrats are accusing us of, and frankly, the President recognizes 

as Republicans do that we need to throttle some of these regulations so we can get this economy going again, and with that, my 

time is expired. 

Ms. JACKSON. Mr. Chairman, the President supports the mercury 

and air toxic standards and he supports the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule strongly. 

Mr. STEARNS. Well, I understand, but this Ozone Rule that you 

wanted to propose, which he has asked you to stop, is an indication 

to me that he can’t be—because of this, you can’t accuse him of 

being against clean air or clean water is what my point is, and the 

Democrats are just saying because we are against some of these 

regulations including something like the mud rule that, you 

know—I mean, it just doesn’t make sense. 

With that, I recognize the gentlelady from Colorado. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Sorry, Mr. Chairman, we are trying to figure out 

the genesis of these slides that you guys have been using today. We 

will keep working on that. 

Mr. STEARNS. I think there is attribution in all of them. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Well, no, there is not, but we will figure it out. 

Mr. STEARNS. Well, most of them. 

Ms. DEGETTE. I don’t want to take my time to niggle about the 

slides. 

I want to ask you, Ms. Jackson, my friend from northern Colorado was asking you about, do utility rates, if they go up, do they 

disproportionately affect the poor, and obviously that is true if they 

are paying a larger percent of their income. I wonder if you could 

talk very briefly about the effect of pollution on the health of poor 

68 

people. Does in particular particulate pollution but other types of 

pollution disproportionately affect the poor, and if so, why? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, you mean their budgets, of course, and so for 

the same reason for those who are poor who don’t have as much 

money to spend on health care, on either prevention or dealing 

with the health effects of pollution—asthma, bronchitis, of course 

premature death. It has a huge toll in lives and in sickness and 

in missed days of work, missed days of school, missed opportunities 

to learn. 

Ms. DEGETTE. But also, as you know, I represent a very urban 

district, and there are large pockets of poor people in my district 

and I see numerous studies over the year that indicate poor people 

are disproportionately affected by pollution because they live in 

areas that tend to have more factories. In fact, we have several 

Superfund sites in my district, neighborhoods that have been contaminated by factories, and the children have higher incidences of 

asthma and other kinds of illnesses because they are closer to industrial areas. Are you aware of those studies, Ms. Jackson? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am, and I agree that they show that poor people 

are disproportionately impacted by pollution because of where they 

live and because of sources of pollution in their communities. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now, Mr. Gingrey had asked you—I have noticed 

a trend today of sort of the seminal question gets asked after the 

time has expired, thereby limiting your response to that question, 

and Mr. Gingrey asked you a question about the health effects of 

particulate pollution but then he didn’t let you answer the question. So I want to ask you if you can tell us right now what your 

answer to that question is about the health effects of lowering the 

amount of particulates in the air? 

Ms. JACKSON. Without a doubt, it is a fact. It has been proven 

by independent peer-reviewed science that particulate pollution 

kills. It causes premature death, and that has been—that is not 

EPA scientists, those are independent scientists. It is subject to 

peer review, which is the standard by which good science is judged 

and it is backed up by public health officials. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now, when your agency promulgates rules, do you 

make up the scientific studies to support those rules or do you rely 

in promulgating rules on independent scientific analyses? 

Ms. JACKSON. We rely on independent, peer-reviewed, often rereviewed scientific analysis. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And in my initial set of questions, I think I asked 

you, you also do make a cost-benefit analysis, correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right. All of our rules go with information 

on costs and benefits, and we are very proud of the fact that under 

this administration, we also do jobs analysis. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now, the rules that you have promulgated, do the 

cost-benefit analyses seem to indicate that a large number, many 

more jobs would be lost than the health benefits to Americans? 

Ms. JACKSON. No. In fact, the job losses when they occur or estimated in these rules are minimal, and in some cases, for example, 

the mercury rule, the proposal, there was a 31,000 short-term construction job estimate and a 9,000 net long-term utility job increases, so those are actual job increases. 

69 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now, when you do these cost-benefit analyses, do 

you also account for the number of jobs that would be created in 

the industries that develop and manufacture the technologies to 

comply with the rules or are those just additional jobs that come 

outside of that cost-benefit analysis? 

Ms. JACKSON. No. When we do the jobs analysis, we look at that, 

but in the benefits analysis, I don’t believe we look at jobs benefits. 

We look at public health benefits in our benefits. I will doublecheck that. 

Ms. DEGETTE. That would be helpful. 

One last question. Mr. Bilbray seemed to imply that because unemployment is high in California right now, it is because of the environmental standards that were enacted by the State of California 

some 20 or 30 years ago. Has the EPA seen any connection to current unemployment in California to the California environmental 

standards? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am unaware of any—I am not aware of any economic study or any economist who is trying to link the current unemployment status in California or anywhere in this country to 

EPA regulatory action. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, and thank Madam Administrator for 

still being here. We appreciate that. 

I want to rephrase a question that I asked you in the first round. 

In your opinion, is it better to have a plant in compliance with existing regulations continue to operate or to shut that plant down 

because it cannot comply because of the cost of a proposed regulation? 

Ms. JACKSON. In my opinion, that is rarely a choice that needs 

to be made either with time or through a market-based mechanism. 

Mr. BARTON. Well, answer the question. Which is better? Because that is the question that hundreds, if not thousands, of individuals in the private sector are going to be deciding in the coming 

years if all these proposed EPA regulations go into effect. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, our job analysis doesn’t show that, sir. I 

mean, that—— 

Mr. BARTON. Well, in my home State of Texas just last week, one 

company, one company announced the closure of two lignite 

coalmines and probably two coal-fired power plants in or near my 

Congressional district just last week. 

Ms. JACKSON. I realize that and I realize what the company said, 

and I know the company is Luminant and, you know, I would quote 

the headline from the Houston Chronicle which says ‘‘Don’t blame 

EPA over Luminant woes.’’ Luminant has financial issues that date 

back far beyond the EPA public health standards. 

Mr. BARTON. That is the $64 question, Madam Administrator. Is 

there any evidence of any criteria pollutant that is currently regulated by the Clean Air Act that is increasing in frequency in the 

United States? 

70 

Ms. JACKSON. Is there any—could you—I am sorry. Could you repeat it? 

Mr. BARTON. Is there any evidence, monitored data evidence, of 

any criteria pollutant under the Clean Air Act that is increasing 

in density, in other words, that the air is getting dirtier anywhere 

in the United States? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, but there are—— 

Mr. BARTON. No. 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Places where—— 

Mr. BARTON. No. 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. There is nonattainment with criteria 

pollutant standards in the United States, Houston being a great example, Dallas another one, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. In both of those cases, if the EPA had not strengthened the ozone standard in the last several years, those would be 

in compliance, and in any event, they are coming into compliance. 

So, you know, this Republican initiative in this Congress is not to 

roll back regulation. We are not lowering standards. We are not reducing standards. We are basically saying let us take a timeout 

until the economy can regain its footing, and that is what the 

President acknowledged when he pulled back on the ozone standard that you had announced. On that standard, Madam Administrator, did you support the President’s decision to pull it back or 

did you oppose it? 

Ms. JACKSON. I respected the decision when he made it, and we 

are implementing—— 

Mr. BARTON. I know that, but before it was made, you had some 

input into his decision. Did you support him rolling it back or did 

you oppose him rolling it back? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is not the accurate question. 

Mr. BARTON. It is the question I am asking. 

Ms. JACKSON. I recommended something differently. He made a 

decision. I respect his decision. 

Mr. BARTON. So you opposed his decision? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, no, no. That is not right. I am implementing 

the decision the President made. 

Mr. BARTON. I understand that. Your job is to implement—— 

Ms. JACKSON. I made a different recommendation. That is no secret. But I am implementing it. 

Mr. BARTON. What was your recommendation? 

Ms. JACKSON. I recommended a level lower than the current level 

of 75, sir, and it was—— 

Mr. BARTON. I am sorry? 

Ms. JACKSON. It was 70. 

Mr. BARTON. You recommended a different level? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. Now, I want to comment on something that Chairman Waxman said about the amendment, the Whitfield amendment. We have a requirement in that that as regulations are proposed, they use monitored data when available. Why would you oppose using monitored data when it is available as opposed to modeled data, which is not based on the real world? 

71 

Ms. JACKSON. It is not whether I oppose it if it is available. It 

is saying only monitoring data. In that case, you set a standard for 

rulemaking—— 

Mr. BARTON. Well, you have—— 

Ms. JACKSON. Let me just answer the question, Mr. Barton. That 

is impossible to meet and so you would forego all the health benefits—— 

Mr. BARTON. That is not true. 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. For the eastern third of the country. 

You would indeed. 

Mr. BARTON. There is not a power plant—— 

Ms. JACKSON. It is my expert belief—— 

Mr. BARTON [continuing]. Or a chemical plant—— 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. As head of the EPA is that you—— 

Mr. BARTON [continuing]. In this country that—— 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Would not have a cross-state rule. 

Mr. BARTON [continuing]. Isn’t monitored 24/7. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, but to determine whether or not the sulfur dioxide emissions coming from plants in Texas are affecting Illinois 

or affecting Louisiana, we do modeling, and that modeling is reviewed—— 

Mr. BARTON. That is not what the amendment says. You can use 

a model but you input monitored data. You input real data into the 

model. You don’t use modeled data. That is what we are trying to 

get at. And in the case of this Cross-State Air Pollution Rule for 

Texas, it is the EPA modeled data, not the monitored data in the 

State of Texas or in Illinois or Michigan. The monitored data says 

they are in compliance. The EPA modeled data says in two cases 

they may not be. 

Ms. JACKSON. The modeled data show that the transport from 

the plants in Texas are affecting and causing, will cause noncompliance downwind. Air blows across the country from west to 

east and the emissions in Texas, the second highest source of SO2 

in the country—— 

Mr. BARTON. And most of the time—— 

Ms. JACKSON [continuing]. Affect places other than Texas. 

Mr. BARTON. Most of the time in Texas, the prevailing winds are 

from the north to the south, Madam Administrator, not from the 

south to the north. 

Ms. JACKSON. OK. Then you take my home area of New Orleans. 

I mean, yes, but it does blow. The wind blows pollution across and 

around the country. 

Mr. BARTON. My time is expired. 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentleman. 

The gentlelady from Illinois, Ms. Schakowsky, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I wanted first to correct what I think was implicit, Mr. Chairman, in what you were saying, that somehow 

FERC opposed the rules that are affecting power plants, and I just 

want to quote some of the testimony at a September 14th hearing 

of our Energy and Commerce Committee. The experts did set the 

record straight. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission chairman, Jon Wellinghoff, told the committee: ‘‘We do not need to stop 

these rules from going forward. I think these rules are appropriate. 

72 

These rules in fact do what needs to be done in this country.’’ And 

FERC Commissioner John Norris testified: ‘‘I believe that the EPA 

has adequately addressed reliability concerns and its statutory obligations with the rules established to date and I have no reason to 

believe that it cannot continue to so as it finalizes proposed rules.’’ 

We had former DOE Assistant Secretary for Policy saying there is 

no reason to delay the implementation of the Clean Air Transport 

Rule or Utility Toxics Rule. So we had actually heard testimony 

that I think counters the implication that you were making. 

But here is what I want to ask you, Madam Administrator. You 

identified 35 regulations that will be subject to a near-term review 

process designed to streamline and update the rules administered 

by the EPA. Is that right? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And I am wondering if you might be able to 

highlight a few of the rules that you intend to update. 

Ms. JACKSON. We have 16 short-term reviews that we are taking 

work on this calendar year, 2011. Those include equipment leak detection and repair rules to reduce the burden; that suggestion came 

from API, the American Petroleum Institute; increasing regulatory 

certainty for farmers, that is working with USDA and States; electronic reporting, which I believe came in from the regulated sector 

under a variety of statutes, vehicle regulations, harmonizing requirements and the list goes on. I could certainly submit it. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. And actually, I would like to make sure that 

part of the record does include, Mr. Chairman, a list of the 35 regulations that will be subject to near-term review. 

Mr. STEARNS. Does the gentlelady have a copy of those? 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Can we get those? 

Ms. JACKSON. I can certainly—can I just keep them until the 

hearing is over and give them to you? 

Mr. STEARNS. Sure. You can certainly send them in to us. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So I guess the point I wanted to make is that 

regulatory efficiency and effectiveness is a part of your agency’s 

processes, always has been, if I am right, a part of your processes. 

Is that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. It has been, but we are also complying with the 

President’s order to do a retrospective look back and that will be 

done every 5 years. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So can you discuss how that retrospective 

makes the regulatory process more efficient? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, as the President said, regulations are on the 

books and it makes good sense for agencies to constantly be scrubbing through them to ensure that as technology changes, as we 

moved into a computer age, for example, or as a great example, 

cars that now have secondary vapor recovery on their gas tank, 

having it on the actual pump, it just becomes redundant. So there 

is clearly opportunities which we found in our 20 public meetings 

and two public comment periods for places to make our rules more 

efficient and less burdensome. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. So there was some question about whether industry has that kind of input, and you actually went out and solicited that not just in the comment periods but beforehand? 

73 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, we had 20 different meetings around the 

country to solicit input. We also had a Web site that went up very 

early on and we had two public comment periods. 

Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I also just wanted to point out that in your 

testimony, you report that agency reforms proposed or finalized 

prior to the President’s Executive Order are going to save $1.5 billion over the next 5 years. So I want to congratulate you on an impressive record, and again, any implication that the EPA is looking 

just to maintain in place or even propose regulations that are redundant and any way not necessary to your mission is just not 

true. Thank you very much. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Texas, Dr. Burgess, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, Administrator Jackson, let me thank you for your indulging us a second 

round of questions today. 

You may be familiar that members of the Texas delegation on a 

bipartisan basis on this committee met with Mr. Sunstein of Office 

of Management and Budget right before the August recess concerning the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule and the seeming insensitivity to the problems that are going to exist in our State, so have 

you communicated with Mr. Sunstein in the Office of Management 

and Budget about these regulations and the burden that they impose? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am aware that the meeting happened and I believe we had staff from the relevant program at the meeting. 

Mr. BURGESS. And so what should members of the Texas delegation expect as a result of your discussions with Mr. Sunstein? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, we have also, not me personally but my deputy met with, I believe, members of the delegation, I believe that 

is right, last week but I know he also met with TCQ, ERCOT. We 

have several meetings, I have been in two, with Luminant itself, 

and we also of course have companies like NRG in Texas who say 

they can comply. So we are in discussions with a number of entities 

in Texas on that—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Will you provide us, the committee staff, with the 

minutes and memos and emails concerning those meetings between 

yourself and the Office of Management and Budget? 

Ms. JACKSON. I didn’t say I had—personal meeting? I did not 

have any, but is there anything with my staff, absolutely. 

Mr. BURGESS. But your staff has, the agency has, and can we 

have the access to that information, the committee staff here? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe so, as long as it exists, we can get it to 

you. 

Mr. BURGESS. Let me—you testified in response to an earlier 

question about, I think Mr. Stearns asked you about—— 

Ms. JACKSON. Oh, and to be clear, you mean minutes of the 

meeting with the Texas delegation? 

Mr. BURGESS. No, minutes of meetings or communications between—— 

Ms. JACKSON. Oh, between us and the White House? That I am 

not sure we can provide, but we can certainly look and see. If we 

get a request—— 

74 

Mr. BURGESS. I mean, it seems that if the White House is serious 

about regulatory reform, this is something where all parties should 

be anxious to work together, and it shouldn’t be this adversarial relationship to try to get a problem solved. So people ask us to work 

together. I am asking you if we can work together to get this information so we can see how to solve a problem that is going to exist 

in my State. We were faced with several afternoons of possible 

blackouts last month. I don’t want us to face real blackouts next 

summer because of the closure of coal-fired power plants to comply 

with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. Does that seem unreasonable? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, not at all, sir. 

Mr. BURGESS. Very well. 

Ms. JACKSON. But I cannot promise you documents that may 

exist that are White House documents. They may be privileged. We 

can get you information regarding meetings we have had with delegation, ERCOT, TCQ and the company to the extent they are not 

privileged because we are in negotiations with them. 

Mr. BURGESS. I would appreciate that. Of course, the White 

House should be anxious be they are the ones who issued the rules 

for regulatory relief earlier this year. So it seems like they should 

be anxious to work with us. 

Now, you testified in answer to Chairman Stearns’ question 

about the number of employees at EPA, and I believe the number 

is somewhere between 17,000 and 18,000. Can you tell us how 

many employees have been hired under Title 42 provisions? 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t have the number directly with me but we 

will get it to you. I think we already have gotten it to you before, 

so—— 

Mr. BURGESS. Will you provide us that information? Actually, the 

information was provided to a member of the National Treasury 

Union in response to a Freedom of Information Act request. 

The follow-up question to that is, can you provide us with a forward-looking statement as to how many Title 42 employees you are 

going to require in the future? How many do you anticipate having 

to hire within the next fiscal year? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, some of that will depend on, you know, when 

people decide to leave, which we can’t know until they make those 

announcements. But from a general standpoint, Title 42, which allows us to pay certain rates to very highly qualified scientists, is 

very closely controlled in our agency and it goes through a process 

of approval to ensure that we are justified. 

Mr. BURGESS. And we as the Oversight Committee would like to 

ensure that those rules are being—that their compliance is in existence, and some of the job descriptions or job titles don’t suggest 

that they are highly qualified scientists. They may be, forgive me, 

but relatively run-of-the-mill scientists. So if we are paying top dollar for biologists in this employment environment, maybe we ought 

to have an additional look at that. 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask, I have a couple of unanimous 

consent requests. The first is to have the letter from the Southwest 

Power Pool to Administrator Jackson made part of the record. 

75 

Ms. DEGETTE. Mr. Chairman, perhaps Mr. Burgess could provide 

us with copies of those letters to review? And so pending that, I 

will reserve my right to object. 

Mr. BURGESS. Very well. And also, the letter to a member of the 

National Treasury Employee Union, Chapter 280, from the Environmental Protection Agency about the Title 42 question. I would 

also like to have that made—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Once again, I will reserve the right to object. 

Mr. BURGESS. —part of the record. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I 

will reserve the right to submit additional questions in writing, and 

I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. STEARNS. The gentleman yields back. Time is expired. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, is recognized for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Jackson, aren’t you concerned that the EPA rule 

published on March 21, 2011, that defines secondary materials that 

are solid waste rather than fuels when burned is going to create 

a disincentive to burn alternative fuels in boilers or cement kilns? 

Ms. JACKSON. I have had discussions with my staff about potential unintended consequences with that rule, and we are discussing 

it as recently as this week. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And so you would agree that it is probably not the 

best environmental result to suddenly throw lots of landfill material like tires and tons of biomass that could have been used at 

paper mills into the solid waste-system or into the landfills? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, we are still discussing it. I would agree that 

we need to be careful that there are no unintended consequences 

like those you may be describing, but I also want to make sure that 

air pollution—that air quality is protected. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Yes, ma’am. And let me stretch out a little bit and 

let me ask you this. Did the Solyndra plant in California have to 

comply with any EPA regulations that you are aware of? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I am happy to look but I don’t know off the 

top of my head. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. If you would look at that and also look to see if 

there are any delayed implementations or modifications of any EPA 

regulations, I would appreciate that, if you would. 

Ms. JACKSON. I am happy to get that information for you. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And along those lines, were you involved in any 

of the discussions at the White House or the DOE in regard to 

Solyndra prior to 2011? 

Ms. JACKSON. None, sir. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. I appreciate that. And I am just wondering if you had an opportunity to see the Commerce Department’s analysis in regard to some of the EPA rules and regulations 

because while it is not available to the public, apparently there is 

a Commerce Department analysis that is being circulated that 

would indicate, particularly in regard to boiler MACT, that job 

losses could be between 40,000 and 60,000. Have you seen that document? 

Ms. JACKSON. I have seen references to unfounded studies but I 

can tell you, our range is 6,500 jobs created to 3,000 jobs lost. 

76 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And most of the jobs if there is creation of jobs are 

going to be jobs in retrofitting the boilers. They are not going to 

be new manufacturing jobs. Isn’t that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, there are boilermakers, but there could be 

manufacturing of the pollution control equipment, baghouses, 

scrubbers. I actually met yesterday with a company that is building 

a factory. They make baghouses, and that is one of the technologies 

that would be put in place. They are hiring thousands of people I 

think in North Carolina. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And did I gather from your answer earlier that 

you all are still working on the situation with the definition of materials that are solid wastes in regard to boiler MACT and incinerators? 

Ms. JACKSON. I have nothing to tell you today but you asked 

whether I had concern, and we are still continuing those discussions. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. And have you all acquired all the relevant 

data that you need to make those decisions? 

Ms. JACKSON. If you have any, we are happy to take it, sir, especially from you, but I believe the staff have lots of data from the 

industry and have heard their concerns. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. I appreciate that and yield back my 

time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. STEARNS. All right. The gentleman yields back the balance 

of his time. 

I think we have finished. We just have some concluding remarks 

by the ranking member and myself, but we have a number of documents that we want to put in the record by unanimous consent. I 

will allow the gentlelady from Colorado to indicate which ones she 

has approved, and we will put them in by unanimous consent. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to make a record, 

we have got the documents that Mr. Burgess had just referred to. 

One of them is a letter dated September 20, 2011, from the Southwest Power Pool. The other one is a document, Title 42 hiring practices at the U.S. EPA, that was apparently produced as the result 

of a FOIA request. So we won’t object to those documents. There 

is a letter from the Louisiana Department of Agriculture and Forestry dated August 11, 2001, that Mr. Scalise had requested, and 

we don’t object to that. There is, it looks like a page from the DOE 

Web site about mercury emission control R&D. We don’t object to 

that. 

Then we have what appear to be three portions of EPA documents. We have got a cover sheet on each one, and then we have 

got portions of the documents. I must say that I was tempted to 

object to these on the basis that they are just incomplete, they are 

just portions of it, but as long as it is with the caveat that we all 

understand that they are just select portions of these documents, 

I won’t object to those. 

And then finally, we have a little packet that was given to me 

and they are kind of different things, so I am going to reference 

each one. The first one is a chart. It says ‘‘Figure 6–14, Percent of 

Total PM-Related Mortalities Avoided by Baseline Air Quality 

Level.’’ This appears to be one slide—— 

Mr. STEARNS. Is it possible you could approve these without—— 

77 

Ms. DEGETTE. No, sir. 

Mr. STEARNS [continuing]. Giving your interpretation of each 

one? 

Mr. DEGETTE. No, I want to give a record as to what they are 

because some of them are subjective—— 

Mr. STEARNS. I mean, just list them, but you are now giving your 

interpretation of each one. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Well, in that case, I will just object to having it 

put in the record. 

Mr. STEARNS. Well, I don’t see why you would object. These are 

all—— 

Mr. DEGETTE. Because I will tell you why, because they are from 

different places and I don’t want people to give an inaccurate view 

of where they are from. The first document is one slide from a larger document on the EPA. The second page of that is a graph that 

was prepared by the majority committee staff. The third and fourth 

pages of this document are just charts or just quotes taken out of 

other documents prepared by the majority committee staff, and the 

final page 5 of that document is apparently a chart that was provided to the committee by FERC. So they are all from different 

sources. I just want to make that record, and with that caveat, I 

won’t object to those, to that document. 

And then I have got a couple of documents as well. There is the 

document August 2011 by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, ‘‘Improving Our Regulations: Final Plan for Periodic Retrospective Reviews of Existing Regulations.’’ This contains all of the different regulations that someone had asked the Administrator to 

provide to this committee, so I would ask unanimous consent that 

that be placed in the record. 

Mr. STEARNS. By unanimous consent, all the documents you have 

mentioned will be placed into the record. 

[The information follows:] 

78 


75209.019
79 


75209.020
80 


75209.021
81 


75209.022
82 


75209.023
83 


75209.024
84 


75209.025
85 


75209.026
86 


75209.027
87 


75209.028
88 


75209.029
89 


75209.030
90 


75209.031
91 


75209.032
92 


75209.033
93 


75209.034
94 


75209.035
95 


75209.036
96 


75209.037
97 


75209.038
98 


75209.039
99 


75209.040
100 


75209.041
101 


75209.042
102 


75209.043
103 


75209.044
104 


75209.045
105 


75209.046
106 


75209.047
107 


75209.048
108 


75209.049
109 


75209.050
110 


75209.051
111 


75209.052
112 


75209.053
113 


75209.054
114 


75209.055
115 


75209.056
116 


75209.057
117 


75209.058
118 


75209.059
119 


75209.060
120 


75209.061
121 


75209.062
122 


75209.063
123 


75209.064
124 


75209.065
125 


75209.066
126 


75209.067
127 


75209.068
128 


75209.069
129 


75209.070
130 


75209.071
131 


75209.072
132 


75209.073
133 


75209.074
134 


75209.075
135 


75209.076
136 


75209.077
137 


75209.078
138 


75209.079
139 


75209.080
140 


75209.081
141 


75209.082
142 


75209.083
143 


75209.084
144 


75209.085
145 


75209.086
146 


75209.087
147 


75209.088
148 


75209.089
149 


75209.090
150 


75209.091
151 


75209.092
152 


75209.093
153 


75209.094
154 


75209.095
155 


75209.096
156 


75209.097
157 


75209.098
158 


75209.099
159 


75209.100
160 


75209.101
161 


75209.102
162 


75209.103
163 


75209.104
164 


75209.105
165 


75209.106
166 

Ms. DEGETTE. Then I have two final documents, Mr. Chairman. 

These are both the studies that I mentioned in my opening statement about the positive job effect that environmental regulations 

can have, and I would ask—we have showed those to your staff and 

I would ask unanimous consent that those be entered into the 

record. 

Mr. STEARNS. And they all have sources, right? 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. STEARNS. By unanimous consent, so ordered. 

[The information follows:] 

167 


75209.107
168 


75209.108
169 


75209.109
170 


75209.110
171 


75209.111
172 


75209.112
173 


75209.113
174 


75209.114
175 


75209.115
176 


75209.116
177 


75209.117
178 


75209.118
179 


75209.119
180 

Mr. STEARNS. We have concluded our questioning. We are going 

to adjourn shortly. Does the gentlelady from Colorado have any 

concluding remarks? 

Ms. DEGETTE. Yes, sir, I do. I just want to reiterate our thanks 

to the Administrator for coming today, and I would also like to note 

after having sat here for now almost 3 hours, I haven’t heard any 

evidence that the EPA regulations that are being proposed are actually having a detrimental effect on jobs in this country, and in 

fact, as the studies I just entered into the record indicate, thousands of new jobs in the clean energy environment will be created 

in addition to the thousands and thousands of lives that will be 

saved because of better environment, and the millions of people 

whose other respiratory illnesses and so on will be diminished because of these. 

So I just want to say it is easy to talk about regulatory reform, 

and nobody in this room including Administrator Jackson believes 

that we should have overly burdensome regulations. On the other 

hand, we need to look clearly at science when determining what 

those regulations should be and we need to balance in a scientific 

and careful way job creation and the preservation of public health. 

I think that is what the EPA is trying to do. I commend them for 

a very difficult, difficult evaluation and I urge them to keep it up 

because we need to protect the health of Americans while at the 

same time preserving our economy and creating jobs. Thank you. 

Mr. STEARNS. I thank the gentlelady. 

I would just say in conclusion that the fact that the President opposed the EPA’s proposed Ozone Rule would demonstrate that 

what the gentlelady indicated earlier, that the President also is 

worried about over-regulation coming from EPA and he had to step 

in, and I think Republicans are glad that he shares our same opinion. 

I think it was clearly demonstrated by Mr. Barton from Texas 

that the EPA has hurt jobs in Texas. He cited a couple power 

plants. The EPA Administrator thinks that is not true but the evidence is that it has killed two large companies over there and he 

also talked about plants in his Congressional district. 

I think the third point we pointed out is that no one is accusing 

anyone of trying to dirty America, whether it water or air. We are 

all on the same team. But we believe that over-regulation by the 

EPA’s 18,000-plus employees could damage the economy, and obviously the President agrees. What we worry about is the EPA must 

be justifying regulation by claiming benefits much, much larger 

than the science advisors’ estimates of public health risk, and that 

violates the Executive Order and kills jobs. The President issued 

an edict from the White House saying he wants to roll back regulations. EPA is making an effort. I ask them to continue to do so. 

And with that, the subcommittee is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

181 


75209.120
182 


75209.121
183 


75209.122
184 


75209.123
185 


75209.124
186 


75209.125
187 


75209.126
188 


75209.127
189 


75209.128
190 


75209.129
191 


75209.130
192 


75209.131
193 


75209.132
194 


75209.133
195 


75209.134
196 


75209.135
197 


75209.136
198 


75209.137
199 


75209.138
200 


75209.139
201 


75209.140
202 


75209.141
203 


75209.142
204 


75209.143
205 


75209.144
206 


75209.145
207 


75209.146
208 


75209.147
209 


75209.148
210 

Æ 


75209.149