S. HRG. 113–701 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF GINA 

McCARTHY TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 11, 2013 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys 
HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF GINA McCARTHY TO BE 

ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

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

93–392 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–701 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF GINA 

McCARTHY TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

APRIL 11, 2013 

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

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

ROGER WICKER, Mississippi 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

DEB FISCHER, Nebraska 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

ZAK BAIG, Republican Staff Director 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

APRIL 11, 2013 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana ............................ 35 

Warren, Hon. Elizabeth, U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ........... 38 

Cowan, Hon. William M., U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts .......... 39 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 40 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 42 

Sanders, Hon. Bernard, U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont ....................... 49 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 50 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware ................... 51 

Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska ............................. 54 

Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon ................................ 56 

Wicker, Hon. Roger, U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi ........................ 57 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 59 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama ............................. 61 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ............................ 62 

Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas ......................... 63 

Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten, U.S. Senator from the State of New York .................. 64 

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

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 388 

Crapo, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho, prepared statement . 389 

WITNESS 

McCarthy, Gina, nominated to be Administrator of the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 65 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Vitter ............................................................................................ 72 

Senator Inhofe ........................................................................................... 195 

Senator Barrasso ....................................................................................... 228 

Senator Sessions ........................................................................................ 239 

Senator Crapo ............................................................................................ 259 

Senator Wicker .......................................................................................... 264 

Senator Boozman ....................................................................................... 273 

Senator Fischer ......................................................................................... 276 

Senator Boxer ............................................................................................ 290 

Senator Carper .......................................................................................... 293 

Senator Baucus .......................................................................................... 296 

Senator Merkley ........................................................................................ 298 

Senator Udall ............................................................................................. 300 

Senator Lautenberg ................................................................................... 302 

Senator Gillibrand ..................................................................................... 304 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

March 19, 2009, memorandum to heads of executive departments and agencies from the Office of the Attorney General re: the Freedom of Information 

Act ......................................................................................................................... 391 

Memorandum to heads of executive departments and agencies from President 

Obama re: the Freedom of Information Act ....................................................... 394 
Page

IV 

Memorandum to heads of executive departments and agencies from President 

Obama re: Transparency and Open Government .............................................. 395 

April 23, 2009, memorandum from EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson to all 

EPA employees re: Transparency in EPA’s Operations .................................... 396 

Memorandum from Malcolm D. Jackson, EPA Assistant Administrator and 

Chief Information Officer, to all EPA employees .............................................. 401 

Message from Bob Perciasepe, EPA Acting Administrator, to all EPA employees .......................................................................................................................... 402 

Two slides from a Records and ECMS Briefing for EPA incoming political 

appointees (2009) ................................................................................................. 404 

March 19, 2013, POLITICO Pro Whiteboard article ............................................ 406 

EPA e-mails .............................................................................................................. 407 

Government Accountability Office statement re: National Archives and Selected Agencies Need to Strengthen E-Mail Management ............................... 426 

Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters re: National Archives and Selected Agencies Need to Strengthen E-Mail Management ...................................................................................................................... 429 

March 22, 2010, statement from Attorney-at-Law Eugene M. Trisko to the 

EPA ....................................................................................................................... 503 

January 25, 2013, article, Coal decline hits fuel’s Western stronghold, published by Yahoo! News ......................................................................................... 517 
(1) 

HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF GINA 

McCARTHY TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

THURSDAY, APRIL 11, 2013 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

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

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

Present: Senators Boxer, Vitter, Barrasso, Sanders, Inhofe, Carper, Fischer, Merkley, Wicker, Cardin, Sessions, Udall, Boozman, 

and Gillibrand. 

Also present: Senators Warren and Cowan. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. The Committee will come to order. 

We have members who have other obligations, we have a vote at 

11. The plan is, we are going to start off with opening statements 

from the Chairman, the Ranking Member. Then we are going to 

move to the two people who are introducing Gina McCarthy, then 

we are going to move to colleagues in order of arrival as we usually 

do. 

We are going to have to break, I figure about 11:10, to make it 

to the floor, and then we will reconvene at 11:45. Because I think 

people are going to want to see the outcome of the vote and so on. 

So we will be working as long as we can, then we will reconvene 

at 11:45. 

I will open it up with my statement. Statements are going to be 

at least 6 minutes. 

Today, I welcome the President’s nominee for Administrator at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, Gina McCarthy. Gina, you 

are one of the best qualified nominees ever to come before this 

Committee. Your combination of experience, intelligence, energy, 

expertise and integrity will make you a most effective EPA Administrator. 

Now, this is the second time you have been nominated for a top 

position at EPA. Previously, you were confirmed by the Senate 

without a recorded ‘‘no’’ vote. 

Why do I believe this nominee is the right person to take the 

helm at EPA? She has over three decades of public service at the 

local, State, and Federal levels. At a time when there can be a bit-
2 

ter divide in Washington, she has shown a strong bipartisan spirit. 

She has worked for both Republicans and Democrats: Republican 

Governor of Connecticut, Jodi Rell, three Republican Governors of 

Massachusetts, Paul Cellucci, Jane Swift, and Mitt Romney; and a 

Democratic President, Barack Obama. 

Because of her common-sense approach to protecting public 

health, Gina McCarthy has received support from businesses, 

health officials, environmental organizations, and scientists. I 

would ask unanimous consent to place into the record the letters 

and statements of support for Gina. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
3 
4 
5 
6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 

Senator BOXER. I strongly believe that Gina McCarthy’s nomination should enjoy smooth sailing through this Committee and on 

the Senate floor. 

Now, a few of my Republican colleagues have asked some questions. It is their utter right to do so. I am glad they did so. But 

it is my fervent hope that those issues will be resolved quickly. 

One of the questions they have raised is the use of secondary 

work email accounts at EPA. It is important to note that this method of answering email was initiated by Republican EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and was used by Republican EPA 

Administrator Stephen Johnson and Acting Administrator 

Marianne Horinko. 

Secondary emails have been used because top officials at the 

EPA have too many messages through their primary email account 

to be manageable. For example, Administrator Jackson received 1.5 

million emails a year, more than 41,000 a day. 

For her secondary work email account, Administrator Jackson 

used the name ‘‘Richard Windsor,’’ Administrator Whitman used 

‘‘ToWhit,’’ Administrator Johnson used ‘‘ToCarter,’’ Acting Administrator Horinko used ‘‘ToDuke,’’ and Deputy Administrator Peacock 

used the name ‘‘Tofu@epa.gov.’’ 

Republican members of this Committee wrote to Gina McCarthy 

just yesterday, just yesterday, with a number of new questions generally focusing on past EPA practices. EPA has provided extensive 

information and intends to continue to work with the Republican 

members on these issues. 

I totally disagree that EPA has been ‘‘wholly unresponsive’’—that 

is what our colleagues on the Republican side said—to the majority 

of issues raised in this letter. I am so hopeful that all outstanding 

issues can be addressed promptly and will not stop this most qualified candidate from moving forward. 

Look, EPA has a critical mission: to protect human health. Laws 

like the Clean Air Act have a great history. I remember a time not 

so long ago when the air was so dirty in Los Angeles it was hard 

to see out the window. Because of the EPA, there has been a dramatic improvement in air quality. 

I have a chart to prove what I have just said. In 1976, there were 

166 air health alerts in Southern California. In 2012, there were 

zero air alerts. This demonstrates remarkable progress that must 

be continued throughout the Country. Because if you care about 

this economy, there is one basic fact. If you can’t breathe, you can’t 

work. So we have to make sure people can breathe and be healthy. 

Compare this Clean Air Act success story to China. Some of my 

colleagues say, don’t do anything, take the lead of China on climate 

change. Take a look at this. This is kind of a clear day in China. 

I was there for several days with colleagues on a trip. And this was 

considered a clear day. 

The American people get this. In January 2013, a bipartisan poll 

found that 78 percent of voters believe that clean air is extremely 

important, with 69 percent of voters favoring even stricter limits on 

air pollution. So the results are clear: the American people support 

the EPA, they support our landmark environmental and public 

health laws. And I am sure they also support transparency, which 
35 

is something my colleagues insist on. And I agree with them completely. 

Gina McCarthy’s service as Assistant Administrator over the 

past 4 years has led to something really good to share with you: 

reductions in mercury, arsenic, lead, and other toxic pollutants in 

our air. It is clear we are moving forward and people are healthier. 

I am confident that Gina McCarthy, after we hear her today, I 

think it will underscore how fair she is, how trustworthy she is, 

and I believe how she understands the law and the science. 

She has a deep understanding that the health and safety of the 

American people and a growing economy depend on clean air and 

safe drinking water. So I believe she will lead in the right direction 

in a bipartisan manner. 

Gina McCarthy, I strongly support your nomination. I am very 

excited about it. I hope, I really hope, that our colleagues will support you. 

With that, I turn to my Ranking Member, Senator Vitter. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Senator VITTER. Thank you very much, Chair Boxer, for convening today’s hearing. And certainly, the EPA plays a critical role, 

not only in protecting our environment and health, but also impacting our economic competitiveness. 

I am concerned, as you know, that the central functions of the 

agency, quite frankly, have been obfuscated by ideology, frustrated 

by, yes, a severe lack of transparency, undermined by non-peer reviewed science that the agency often keeps hidden and implemented without regard to economic consequences. That is why, 

along with my Republican colleagues, I made those five specific requests, all related to transparency, which you underscore that you 

certainly support. 

I just want to correct for the record: those requests were not 

made yesterday. They were made public yesterday in writing. Exactly the same requests were made over 3 weeks ago in my one on 

one meeting with the nominee. To date, the EPA has chosen to 

completely ignore three and three-quarters of those requests. 

Although much-needed reforms in the Freedom of Information 

Act process seems to be moving forward, that is the one point 

where I think we have made real progress since that face to face 

meeting. The record there is really troublesome. And the proof will 

be in the pudding in terms of the EPA really implementing a new 

day. Because that FOIA process is broken and has been abused. 

Now, the agency was comfortable releasing personal and private 

information of small businesses and private citizens last month. 

But the EPA continues to abuse the exemptions under FOIA for 

the agency’s own work. 

Now, the nominee recently stated that information is power. Apparently she also believes that withholding information is power. 

That is how the EPA has been acting. Since 1997, Congress has 

questioned the validity of and asked for the release of the underlying data for studies upon which the agency bases health benefits 

when issuing air-related rules. That is another one of our five 

points. And that wasn’t yesterday. In fact, that wasn’t even 3 
36 

weeks ago. That is a request that has been made by various people 

for years. The agency continues to hide this 30-year-old data, which 

the National Academy of Sciences stated should have little use for 

decisionmaking. 

I also think that the EPA eschews all cost-economic modeling 

that would verify the true impacts of the regulatory agenda that 

now provides this Country with the lowest work force participation 

rate since the Carter administration. In this regard, I think costbenefit analyses are key, and more importantly, they are required 

under law, under executive orders and by the Clean Air Act, Section 321(a). But they are ignored as EPA remains intransigent in 

its opposition to having a full and transparent economic analysis 

process. 

Another big area of concern, which is another one of our five 

points, as you know, Madam Chairman, is backroom ‘‘sue and settle’’ deals, made with allies in the environmental community. It is 

perhaps one of the best, meaning worst, example of the agency’s 

true aversion to sunlight. 

Now, the nominee before us today echoed her predecessor’s sentiment, Lisa Jackson, during her own 2000 nomination hearing, 

when she said, and this is the nominee speaking about Administrator Jackson, ‘‘Administrator Jackson made a promise that her 

EPA will be transparent in its decisionmaking. And that is what 

I will deliver. Transparency is more than sharing what the science 

and law is telling us, and it is more than making clear decisions 

that can stand the test of time, which we all know is of paramount 

importance.’’ Unfortunately, I think it is clear in the last 4 years 

that the EPA has failed to keep those transparency promises. 

The real economic harm of the rules put forward during the last 

4 years, most of which were crafted or signed off on by the nominee, and those in the coming 4, is quite frankly kept secret by a 

complex process of circumventing FOIA requests and congressional 

inquiries, by conducting official businesses using, yes, aliases, and 

also private email accounts. Private accounts are completely contrary to stated EPA policy. And by hiding and cherry-picking scientific data, by negotiating backroom sue and settle deals, and by 

the manipulation of cost-benefit numbers. 

Let me give some specific examples of what this produces. In 

2010, the infamous former EPA Region 6 administrator, Al 

Armandariz, became the poster child for EPA’s efforts to try and 

shut down hydraulic fracturing by coordinating a public attack on 

range resources in Parker County, Texas, based on fabricated 

science. The EPA failed in their efforts in Parker County, once it 

became crystal clear about the lack of science. But Armanderes 

made clear he believed that new regs being developed by today’s 

nominee and her office would be the ‘‘icing on the cake’’ for killing 

many of those energy jobs. 

Second, EPA Administrator Region 8 James Martin resigned 

after lying to a Federal court, and after EPA lied that he was not 

using private email account to conduct official business and hide official business. Third, States are clearly, under Federal law, supposed to regulate regional haze. However, EPA, through one of 

these ‘‘sue and settle’’ agreements, has completely usurped State 

control of the program in an attempt to shut down coal-fired power 
37 

plants. It has done this with the affected parties on the other side, 

like the States, having no role in the process, no say, no input, no 

seat at the table. 

So those are my concerns, and those are our concerns, the realworld impacts. That is why we continue to make these clear transparency demands, which I will be following up on, both here today 

and after today, before we vote. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Vitter follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Thank you, Chairman Boxer, for convening today’s hearing. The EPA plays a critical role in the status of not only our environment but our economic competitiveness. 

I am concerned that the central functions of the Agency have been obfuscated by 

ideology, frustrated by a severe lack of transparency, undermined by science the 

Agency keeps hidden, and implemented without regard for economic consequences. 

Along with my Republican colleagues, I have made five specific requests related 

to transparency at the agency. The requests were made 3 weeks ago privately, and 

were outlined in a letter to the nominee yesterday that was provided to the public. 

To date, EPA has chosen to ignore three and three-quarters of those requests. 

Although much needed reforms in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) process 

seem to be moving forward, there is little doubt the process is broken and has been 

abused for some time. While the agency was comfortable releasing personal and private information of small businesses and private citizens last month, the EPA continues to abuse the exemptions under FOIA for the Agency’s own work. 

The nominee recently stated that ‘‘information is power.’’ Apparently, she also believes that withholding information is power: Since 1997, Congress has questioned 

the validity of and asked for the release of the underlying data for studies upon 

which the Agency bases health benefits when issuing air related rules. The Agency 

continues to hide this 30-year-old data which the National Academy of Sciences stated should have little use for decisionmaking. 

The EPA eschews at all costs economic modeling that would verify the true impacts of the regulatory agenda that now provides this Country with the lowest workforce participation rate since the Carter administration. Cost/benefit analyses as required under various executive orders and as required by the CAA, Section 321(a), 

yet EPA remains intransigent in its opposition to having a transparent economic 

analysis process. 

The backroom ‘‘sue and settle’’ deals made with allies in the environmental community represent perhaps one of the best examples of the Agency’s true aversion 

to sunlight. Rather than providing a process where impacted businesses could intervene in an otherwise closed-door negotiation, EPA objects to the idea of allowing 

anyone in the room that may not be like-minded in the settlement agreement. 

When the President took office in 2009, he promised that his Administration 

would be the most transparent in history, asserting, ‘‘Information maintained by the 

Federal Government is a national asset. My Administration will take appropriate 

action, consistent with law and policy, to disclose information rapidly in forms that 

the public can readily find and use.’’ The nominee before us today echoed her predecessor’s sentiment during her own 2009 nomination hearing when she said, ‘‘Administrator Jackson made a promise that her EPA will be transparent in it decisionmaking, and that is . . . what I will deliver . . . transparency is more than sharing 

what the science and the law is telling us, and it is more than making clear decisions that can stand the test of time, which we all know is of paramount importance.’’ EPA has failed to keep the promises of the President, the former Administrator, Lisa Jackson, and the nominee sitting before this committee today. 

This Agency as a whole, and the Office of Air and Radiation in particular, suppresses the consequences of its actions from the public; the real economic harm of 

the rules put forward during the last 4 years—most of which were crafted or signed 

off by the nominee—and those in the coming 4 is kept secret by a complex process 

of circumventing FOIA requests and congressional inquiries, conducting official 

business using alias and private email accounts, hiding and cherry-picking scientific 

data, negotiating backroom deals, and the manipulation of cost/benefit numbers. 

Let me provide some specific examples of the reasons for my concern: 

• In 2010, infamous former EPA Region 6 Administrator Al Armendariz became 

the poster child for EPA’s efforts to try and shut down hydraulic fracturing by coordinating a public attack on Range Resources in Parker County, Texas, based on 
38 

fabricated science. In that same year, the appointee of President Obama let slip that 

EPA’s ‘‘general philosophy’’ is to ‘‘crucify’’ and ‘‘make examples’’ of oil and gas companies regardless of guilt or wrongdoing. The EPA failed in their efforts in Parker 

County, but Armendariz made clear he believed that new regulations being developed by today’s nominee and her office would be the ‘‘icing on the cake’’ for killing 

energy jobs. 

• EPA Region 8 Administrator James Martin resigned after lying to a Federal 

court, and after EPA lied that he was not using his private email account to conduct 

official business in violation of the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act. 

• EPA also tried to shut down a hydraulic fracturing project in Dimock, PA based 

on a faulty study, but failed to produce any real evidence of water contamination. 

• EPA usurped cooperative federalism with the Cross State Air Pollution Rule 

(CSAPR) to force Federal Implementation Plans to reduce SOx and NOx emissions 

in 27 States. Compliance would have led to closures of facilities and mining operations and an estimated increase of $514 million in consumer power prices. The 

D.C. Circuit shot down the rule in part due to EPA’s overreach in the area of State 

authority . . . and the courts continue to batter multiple Agency decisions, particularly under the Clean Water Act. 

It is expected that in 2013 EPA will propose revisions to the Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), which, by their estimates, could potentially 

cost $19 billion to $90 billion annually and would likely find 85 percent of U.S. 

counties designated in nonattainment. The cumulative impacts on jobs, U.S. competitiveness, power prices, fuel use, and electricity reliability of the new Ozone 

NAAQS as well as other EPA rules to be issued remain unknown. 

My question then is: Why should the underlying science and true economic impacts behind EPA’s air regulations not be made available to the public? Why—if ‘‘information is power’’—is EPA so afraid of making public the underlying data that 

the Agency claims justifies the supposed benefits? 

For the last 3 weeks I have heard nothing but excuses from the EPA: 

• Excuses for not complying with the Freedom of Information Act; 

• Excuses as to why they won’t share emails related to senior officials’ work that 

Congress is entitled to; 

• Excuses for why they need to exclude those affected by and hide the contents 

of settlement agreements from the public; and 

• Excuses for not being able to share the underlying science for their air rules 

with the public. 

I look forward to further discussing these issues with the nominee today. My hope 

is that the nominee has come prepared to provide something more substantive than 

excuses. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. We are going to try to keep 

to the time schedule, if we can. What we are going to do, I think 

we can get to a lot of colleagues, so I hope you will stay. 

We are going to hear from our two Senators who are visiting us 

to introduce Gina McCarthy. Then we are going to go to, in this 

order: Whitehouse, Barrasso, Sanders, Inhofe if he is here, Carper, 

Fischer, Wicker. We are going to try to get this done before the 

vote starts at 11, 11:10, 11:15. 

So which one of you would like to begin? Senator Warren. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ELIZABETH WARREN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator WARREN. Thank you, Madam Chairman. It is an honor 

to be here with Senator Cowan to introduce the President’s outstanding nominee for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Gina McCarthy. Gina has dedicated her professional 

life to the protection of our public health and to the stewardship 

of our environment. I know she will fill this post with great distinction. 

I am especially proud that Gina is from Massachusetts. She was 

born in Brighton. She holds degrees from the University of Massa-
39 

chusetts Boston and from Tufts University. And she began her career in Canton. 

After more than 25 years in public service at the State and local 

level, Gina’s track record is well-known in Massachusetts. She 

served in numerous environmental posts in the administrations of 

no fewer than five Governors, from Mike Dukakis to Mitt Romney. 

Those of you who are familiar with Massachusetts politics will recognize this as a noteworthy achievement in and of itself. 

I could go into detail about the quality of Gina’s work, her 

groundbreaking efforts to develop the first mercury and air toxics 

standards for power plants, her work on a science-based review of 

how climate change is putting human health at risk, or her careful 

management of fisheries, parks and forests. I could speak to the 

depth and breadth of her public service, that she understands what 

it takes for this agency to function effectively, because she has 

worked at so many levels of its operation. 

But what I find to be most compelling about her as a public 

health advocate and environmental steward is the approach she 

brings to her work. Gina is driven by a deep concern for the health 

and well-being of each of us, and her people-oriented approach has 

always informed her decisionmaking about how best to protect the 

air we breathe, the water we drink, and the outdoor spaces that 

we cherish. 

Gina’s commitment to this cause is evident not only in the quality of her work but in the 12-hour days, the late nights the colleagues at the EPA have described as part of her regular routine. 

I believe that Gina’s approach to her work is what has enabled her 

to work so effectively across party lines. It is a key part of what 

makes her a pragmatic policymaker and a tough but fair regulator. 

I know that Gina will be able to work constructively and openly 

with industry leaders, without compromising the EPA’s commitment to public health and preserving our natural environment. 

The environmental policies and public health rules that we craft 

today will have a profound impact on the world we leave to our 

children and grandchildren. The EPA will continue to play a crucial role in assuring a safe and healthy world for future generations. I can think of no one better to lead that work than Gina. I 

am proud to bring you a talented, hard-working daughter of Massachusetts here to serve her Country. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Senator Cowan, we are delighted to have you. Please proceed. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. WILLIAM M. COWAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator COWAN. Chair Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter and members of this Committee, I am honored to join Senator Warren to express my strong support for the nomination of Gina McCarthy. 

Gina has dedicated her life to public service. She has fought to 

protect our public health, conserve our natural resources, develop 

new policies and manage Federal programs and State agencies. 

Gina’s success is a reflection of her ability to bring together diverse 

and opposing stakeholders and work with both sides to fairly re-
40 

solve their differences and achieve meaningful environmental protections. 

Her success is also a reflection of her understanding that environmental protection and economic growth go hand in hand and 

can be mutually reinforcing. Gina started her career in 1980 as the 

first health agent in Canton, Massachusetts. Early on, she established herself as someone who can and will work with all parties. 

She is also someone who will tell you when there is no need for 

Government intervention. While she was always ready to push for 

action when needed, she was also the first person to put her foot 

down when it was clear that no action was necessary. 

Since her time in Canton, Gina has more than 25 years of experience working on environmental issues at the State level, working 

for both Democratic and Republican administrations. As many people have said, the great thing about Gina McCarthy is that what 

you see is what you get. 

Over the last 4 years, she has brought the same pragmatism to 

her work for the Federal Government. She has been a leading advocate for balanced, common-sense strategies to protect public 

health and our environment. I believe Gina McCarthy has the 

background, the experience and judgment to be a terrific Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I hope this Committee will give her nomination its full consideration. I look forward to supporting her on the floor. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senators, thank you. You are free to go, because 

I know you have hectic schedules. With that, we are going to move 

to Senator Whitehouse, and then to Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. I am delighted to 

consider Assistant Administrator McCarthy’s nomination to serve 

as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Four years ago, when EPW assembled for Lisa Jackson’s nomination hearing, I expressed my frustration that the EPA, during the 

Bush administration, had become a poster child of the opaque Federal agency pandering to special interests, rather than one that 

based its decisions on the best available science and on the public 

interest. 

As the Assistant Administrator of one of EPA’s most active divisions, Air and Radiation, Ms. McCarthy has played an instrumental role in helping to turn the EPA around. During her exemplary career in public service, she has designed and implemented 

policies that have saved countless lives and billions of dollars in 

health care costs. Ms. McCarthy began her career as a health agent 

for the town of Canton, Massachusetts, in 1980 and has worked her 

way up ever since. During 33 years of public service, she has also 

been Deputy Secretary of Policy for the Massachusetts Office for 

Commonwealth Development and Commissioner for the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection. She served both 

Democratic and Republican Governors, including Mitt Romney and 

Jodi Rell. 
41 

One of her many accomplishments in New England is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, RGGI, the first of its kind market-based effort to reduce greenhouse gas emission in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic. Currently RGGI has nine member States 

with a combined population of 41 million Americans. RGGI has 

been credited with boosting local economies by sparking further investment in energy efficiency programs and renewable energy development. 

She brings New England values of plain-spokenness, independence and practicality. And her local experience makes her well 

aware of how Federal policy affects local stakeholders. 

As Assistant Administrator, Ms. McCarthy crafted several key 

health standards, including the first-ever mercury standard for 

power plants. The Mercury and Air Toxics Standard set long-overdue standards on mercury, arsenic, chromium, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and other dangerous air pollutants. MATS, as it is 

called, is projected to prevent up to 11,000 premature deaths, 4,700 

heart attacks, 130,000 asthma attacks, and to provide as much as 

$90 billion in health benefits each year. That is $3 to $9 in health 

benefits for every dollar spent to meet the standard, a huge economic win. 

I am from the Ocean State. I know that cleaning up smokestack 

emissions is one of the most important things to do to reduce toxic 

mercury compounds that build up in our fish and enter our food. 

Rhode Island and other States along the Eastern Seaboard are also 

downwind States, downwind of tall smokestacks spewing pollution. 

As of 2010, 284 tall smokestacks, stacks over 500 feet, were operating in the United States, needles injecting poison into the atmosphere and contributing significantly to pollution in my home State. 

The air pollution from these tall stacks went largely unchecked 

until Ms. McCarthy came along to clean them up. These same 

smokestacks have been unloading their soot pollution on Rhode Island for decades. Last December, EPA adopted a stricter limit on 

soot, or as it calls it, fine particulate matter. When we breathe it 

in, soot increases the risk of asthma attacks and lung cancer. The 

smallest particles pass into the bloodstream and cause heart disease, stroke and reproductive complications. 

Restrictions on particulate matter are expected to prevent as 

many as 35,000 premature deaths every year, 1.4 million asthma 

attacks, 2.7 million days of missed work or school and save between $2 billion and $6 billion in avoided health care costs. Another huge economic win, if you are not the polluter, of course. And 

yes, you do have to clean up your mess. 

The costs of air pollution are paid in premature deaths and reduced quality of life, higher medical bills, strained public health 

services and missed days of work and school. Asthma is the No. 1 

health reason for missed school days and the fourth leading cause 

of missed adult work days. My downwind home State of Rhode Island has the sixth highest rate of asthma in the Country. More 

than 11 percent of the people in my State suffer from this chronic 

disease. In 2009, 1,750 Rhode Islanders were hospitalized for asthma, hospital stays that cost about $8 million, not counting medication and missed days of work and school. 
42 

So the return on investment, from EPA’s air standards, would 

make a hedge fund proud. And I am proud to thank Ms. McCarthy 

for these successes, and to support her candidacy as Administrator 

of the Environmental Protection Administration. Thank you very 

much, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I am not sure whether the nominee before us today is personally 

aware of so many folks who have actually lost their jobs because 

of the EPA, and a role that I believe is taking now, which is failing 

our Country, people in places like Wyoming, Montana, Kentucky, 

Ohio and West Virginia. 

And let me just read you a story that ran in the front page of 

the Casper Star Tribune, Wyoming’s statewide newspaper, dated 

January 28th of this year, 2013. It is entitled Coal’s Decline Hits: 

Depressed Domestic Market Means Laid-Off Wyomingites. The article references Mike Cooley and his family. Here he is with his 2- 

year-old son and his wife. The article says that Mike has become 

one of several hundred mining family mine workers to lose their 

jobs in the past year in the region as a dispute over West Coast 

ports hobbles the industry’s ability to reach booming markets in 

Asia, people who want to buy American products. 

But yet, your extreme emission rules that you have imposed on 

U.S. power stations are forcing coal companies to make up for lost 

domestic customers by exporting more to countries in Asia. Yet the 

EPA has written a letter to the Army Corps of Engineers, I would 

ask, Madam Chairman, to make a copy of this letter part of the 

record. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, it will be done. 

[The referenced letter was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Your EPA has written the Army Corps of Engineers encouraging 

them to look at the greenhouse gas impacts of allowing coal to be 

shipped overseas through these West Coast ports. 

So not only do you block the use of coal in power plants domestically, you now are recommending that coal not be shipped, that an 

American product not be able to be shipped and sold overseas. This 

gentleman goes on, he says, I have never been laid off, I have always worked since I was a teenager. Now his family is relying on 

his wife’s income as a grocery store cashier until he finds a job. 

That is not just Wyoming. The Bluefield Daily Telegraph, a West 

Virginia paper, ran a story about a veteran coal miner, their concerns about the Administration’s war on coal. This miner, named 

Al Palmer, and Madam Chairman, I would like to make that story 

a part of the record as well. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
43 
44 

Senator BARRASSO. He says, ‘‘Coal miners used to be heroes. But 

now many of my brothers and sisters in the coal industry fear for 

their families’ livelihood.’’ The article mentions Al’s father, who 

worked as a coal miner, as did both of his grandfathers. Now his 

son works in the same mine with him. He stated in the article, 

‘‘Coal has powered this Nation for years. Please don’t throw us 

away.’’ 

My questions are, are coal miners like Al and his son no longer 

heroes to the nominee and to the EPA? The EPA is making it impossible for coal miners like Mike Cooley in Wyoming and Al Palmer in West Virginia to feed their families. How many more times, 

if confirmed, will this EPA director pull the regulatory lever and 

allow another mining family to fall through the EPA’s trap door to 

joblessness, to poverty and to poor health? These people are heroes, 

and they deserve better than what they are getting from the EPA. 

The nominee before this Committee is a senior EPA official, reporting to the Administrator and to some extent, she owes the 

American people an explanation and a vision today for what the 

EPA, under her, would look like. Will anything change? Anything 

from the course that we have been on for the last 4 years? The 

nominee today has testified at her confirmation hearing 4 years 

ago that she would ‘‘speak plainly and truthfully about the lives 

being lost, the responsibilities we face, the challenges ahead, the 

options we have and the opportunities we can realize as we face 

the future together.’’ 

I haven’t heard yet any plain statements from EPA and hopefully 

I will today from this nominee about the negative health impacts 

and lives lost from chronic unemployment caused by the EPA policies. Regulations and proposed rules on greenhouses gases, coal as, 

mercury emissions and industrial boilers have led to the closing of 

dozens of power plants in the U.S., costing our Country thousands 

of jobs. Folks who now have no job, no money, no prospect for a 

job in their communities, and they are experiencing serious health 

risks as a result of that. 

Studies show that children from unemployed parents suffer significant negative health effects. The National Center for Health 

Statistics said children in poor families, people out of work, are 

four times as likely to be in fair or poor health as children in families who are not poor. This is a serious health epidemic and it 

seems to go unnoticed by the EPA. So we need a nominee who has 

the power to not just listen to stakeholders, but to keep his or her 

promises, someone who is truly committed to the reform that we 

need to keep America working. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent to place 

into the record a document that shows that over the last 40 years, 

our national GDP has risen by 207 percent since passage of the 

Clean Air Act, 40 times the cost of regulations. So I am going to 

put that into the record. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 

Senator BOXER. And I am going to also state, I couldn’t agree 

more with my friend on the problems of unemployment, absolutely. 

And I hope we can work together on that. 

OK, Senator Sanders. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BERNARD SANDERS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Madam Chair. I rise in support of 

the candidacy of Gina McCarthy to be our next EPA Administrator. 

I want to thank Senator Barrasso, because he made it very clear 

what this whole discussion is about. I think we have heard from 

previous speakers about the qualifications of Gina McCarthy, but 

really this is not a debate about Gina McCarthy. Senator Barrasso 

made it very clear what the debate is about. And it is a debate 

about global warming and whether or not we are going to listen to 

the leading scientists of this Country who are telling us that global 

warming is the most serious planetary crisis that we and the global 

community face, and whether we are going to address that crisis 

in a serious manner. 

And in essence, what Senator Barrasso has just said is, no. He 

does not want the EPA to do that. He does not want the EPA to 

listen to science. What he wants is us to continue doing as little 

as possible as we see extreme weather disturbances, drought, floods 

and heat waves all over the world take place. So let me go on 

record as saying I want the EPA to be vigorous in protecting our 

children and future generations from the horrendous crisis that we 

face from global warming. 

According to the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 2012 was the warmest year ever recorded for the continental United States, and over 24,000 new record highs were set 

in the U.S. alone. It was the hottest year in recorded history, in 

New York, Washington, DC, Louisville, Kentucky, even my home 

city of Burlington, Vermont and other cities across the Country. 

Last year’s drought, affecting two-thirds of the United States, 

was the worst in half a century, contributing to extraordinary 

wildfires, burning more than 9 million acres of land, reported the 

National Interagency Fire Center. Heat waves and droughts are 

not limited to the U.S. Australia, for instance, just experienced a 

4-month heat wave with severe wildfires, record-setting temperatures and torrential rains and flooding, causing $2.4 billion in damages, according to the New York Times. 

We also know that global warming is causing heat waves and 

drought. But it is also resulting in extreme weather disturbances 

of all kinds. NOAA’s Climate Extreme Index, which tracks extreme 

temperatures, drought, precipitation and tropical storms, tells us 

that 2012 set yet another distressing record, the most extreme climate conditions recorded. Ronald Prinn, the Director of MIT’s Center for Global Change Science, concluded, and this is an important 

point: ‘‘What we have heard recently from scientists is that they 

tell us that their earlier projections regarding global warming were 

wrong, that in fact they underestimated the problem and that the 

conditions that they were worried about will likely be worse than 

what they had previously thought.’’ And Ronald Prinn, the Director 

of MIT’s Center for Global Change Science, said, ‘‘There is signifi-
50 

cantly more risk than we previously estimated, which increases the 

urgency for significant policy action.’’ 

Let me just conclude, and I am glad that my colleague Senator 

Inhofe is here, because Jim Inhofe and I are good friends, although 

we have rather strong disagreements on the issue of global warming. What Senator Inhofe has written and talked about is his belief 

that global warming is one of the major hoaxes ever perpetrated on 

the American people, said it is a whole push by people like Al Gore, 

the United Nations and the Hollywood elite. I think that is a fair 

quote from Senator Inhofe, is that roughly right, Senator Inhofe? 

Senator INHOFE. Yes. I would add to that list moveon.org, George 

Soros, Michael Moore and a few others. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator SANDERS. All right, there we go. 

So that is the issue. That is exactly what the issue is. Do we 

agree with Senator Inhofe that global warming is a hoax and that 

we do not want the Federal Government, the EPA, the Department 

of Energy to address that issue, because it is a ‘‘hoax’’ according to 

Senator Inhofe and others? Or do we believe and agree with the 

overwhelming majority of scientists who tell us that global warming is the most serious planetary crisis that we face and that we 

must act boldly and aggressively to protect the future of this planet? That is what the issue is, and that is why I am supporting Gina 

McCarthy. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Poor Gina. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. You are sort of caught in this situation. Anyway, 

Senator Inhofe, you are going to do this, and the vote has started. 

As soon as Senator Inhofe has finished, in his 5 minutes, we are 

going to go vote. We are going to come back between 11:30 and a 

quarter of. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, for 

giving me this opportunity. I think people realize we have two 

meetings going on at the same time. 

I would say this to you, Gina, you and I have had a chance to 

visit. I appreciate it very much, and I commented to you, and I 

have said publicly several times, if you are confirmed, I want to develop the same relationship that I had with Lisa Jackson. While we 

disagreed with policy things, we were able to get some things done. 

There are some areas of your previous position where I disagree. 

I am concerned about the direction of the EPA, and particularly the 

air office, some of the things that have happened. Americans want 

energy independence. We have the opportunity to have that, and 

I have said this so many times, that we now know that we have 

the resources to be totally independent. But we have to develop resources. Some of those are fossil fuels. 

The President’s campaign against the fossil fuels has been a Governmentwide effort. But the regulations coming out of your agency 

have had the most damaging effects. In just the last few months, 

you put out the Utility MACT. I remember I had a CRA on the 
51 

Utility MACT, came very close to getting it through. It would cost 

about $100 billion and 1.65 million jobs. Boiler MACT, which would 

have cost $63 billion, 800,000 jobs, and the PM 2.5, the Soot Rule, 

which would put dozens of counties out of attainment, in my State 

of Oklahoma, probably 15 counties out of 77. 

But the President has saved many of the worst regulations for 

his second term. And the simple fear if these regulations become 

final is having a sustained chilling effect on achieving the goal of 

domestic energy independence. One of those is the ozone, the 

NAAQS, that is probably being developed as we speak. This rule 

could shut down oil and gas activities across the Country. Additionally, because of the NSPS for electric generating units you have 

proposed last year, utilities cannot build new coal-fired power 

plants. That is in effect today. 

So coal, the source that you said in this room would remain vital 

for a long period of time, is now on the path to become obsolete. 

I am also concerned about the way the EPA has maintained its relationships with the States. Cooperative federalism is a key component to the Clean Air Act, but your agency has often acted secretly 

with environmental groups to impose damaging regulations. A lot 

of this comes through lawsuits that are filed by them and then consent decrees. We will have a chance to talk about that in the question and answer. 

So I look forward to this. I hope it does work out with our timing 

and I look forward to working with you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you so much. I am glad you were 

able to come back. 

We are going to recess now and come back between 11:30 and 

a quarter of. So could you just take a break and come back at 

11:30? Senator Baucus wanted to speak at that time. We are going 

to try to get back as fast as we can. We recess until the call of the 

Chair. 

[Recess.] 

Senator BOXER. We are back, thank you so much, Hon. Gina 

McCarthy, for waiting patiently. We are going to move forward, 

and I am going to read the list. If there is any disagreement with 

this list, please let me know. We will go back and forth. Carper, 

Fischer, Merkley, Wicker, Cardin, Sessions, Udall. All right. Yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Madam Chair, I’m not on the list. 

Senator BOXER. Didn’t you speak already? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Oh, this is—— 

Senator BOXER. We are still opening. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Then I did. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. As a matter of fact, I personally remember it 

well, and it was good, from my standpoint. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator BOXER. All right, so we’re moving to Senator Carper. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

Senator CARPER. Thanks, Madam Chair. 

Welcome, Gina. It is very nice to see you. 
52 

I just want to start off, to my colleagues, my last job before I 

came here to work with all of you, as some of you know, I got to 

be Governor of my State for 8 years. The tradition in Delaware, 

whether you are a Democrat or Republican Governor, is you get 

elected and you have the opportunity to govern with the team that 

you choose. I think every year, anyone we wanted to nominate or 

ask to be a cabinet secretary or division director during those 8 

years, and we had a Republican house and a Democrat senate for 

all 8 years. 

But to a person, they were all confirmed and went on to serve. 

I said to the legislature, let me have the team that I think will help 

me and the administration serve our State well. And God bless 

them, they did. They did. And I said, hold us accountable for our 

results. 

I worry about something, I call it executive branch Swiss cheese. 

I don’t care whether you have a Republican President, if it is 

George W. Bush, or if we have a Democratic President. This is not 

a good situation for our Country. 

I chair the Committee on Homeland Security now. We had a 

hearing a couple of days ago for OMB Director. And we have an 

acting OMB Director. As you may know, there are two Deputy 

OMB Directors, one for management, one for budget. They are vacant. We have a position for OIRA, which handles regulation, and 

we have an acting person in place. Part of that is the responsibility 

of the Administration. This is a shared responsibility here. They 

have an obligation to give us good names. They have to vet them, 

give us good names. We have an obligation to, in a prompt, forthright way, consider those names. 

I tell you, I was once asked by Bill Clinton to serve on the Amtrak board of directors. The process, just going through there, I was 

a sitting Governor, the process you have to go through to be vetted 

is awful. It was horrendous. I hated it. And what we ask people 

to do, very good people, whether it is George Bush as President or 

Barack Obama, we ask very good people to go through what is a 

very unpleasant experience, a lengthy process. Sometimes they 

have to put their life on hold. And then to risk having their integrity impugned publicly, just because they want to serve their Country. 

This is a good woman. This is a good woman. Is she perfect? No. 

Do we disagree on something? Sure, we do. But I mean, how many 

people come before us nominated by a Democratic President that 

actually served not one, not two, not three, but four Republican 

Governors? When you are a Governor, you are a practical person, 

you are a pragmatic person. The four that she served are that. 

For myself, I want us to have people in this position that are 

smart, that are pragmatic, that use some common sense to try to 

do what is right. Here is the situation we face. Virtually every regulation that the Bush administration sought to put in place dealing 

with air, they were all basically remanded or turned back over to 

the courts, every one were remanded or turned back over to the 

agency. They said, you got it wrong. 

The reason why there is all this stuff in her lap and in EPA’s 

lap is because of that. We have to get it right. 
53 

The last thing I will say is this. We all have things that kind of 

stick with us and things that we have heard that really stick with 

us over time. I just want to share this one quick story, particularly 

with my Republican colleagues. And here it is. I think it was my 

first term in the Senate. I was, along with George Bush, trying to 

lead the Clean Air Nuclear Safety Subcommittee. We had a meeting with a bunch of utility CEOs. There was one CEO there, there 

was about 8 or 10 of them, there was one CEO from one of the 

southern utilities, maybe Alabama, but he said to us, we had been 

talking for an hour or so, on clean air emissions, clean air standards. 

Here is what he finally said to us. He said, look, tell us what the 

rule are going to be, give us a reasonable amount of time and give 

us some flexibility and get out of the way. That is really what he 

said. He said, we need predictability and we need certainty. And 

we need it especially with respect to this position. We need somebody who will help us develop what the rules are going to be, give 

us some flexibility, a reasonable amount of time to comply, and 

then let’s get out of the way. 

I think Gina McCarthy understands that. And I think she will 

be a very good partner with us. She has been a good partner with 

us. It wasn’t just by chance that we unanimously confirmed her 

here and in the U.S. Senate when she took over this Air position 

4 years ago. 

I think she will do a good job for us. She will be responsive and 

she will use pragmatism and some common sense. I would just 

plead with my colleagues, let’s get this done. Let’s get this done, 

and I don’t think you will regret it. Thank you. And I would ask 

that the rest of my statement be made part of the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Carper follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Thank you, Chairman Boxer, for having this hearing today. 

I would like to warmly welcome Gina McCarthy back to our committee. I am 

happy the President has nominated her for EPA Administrator and she has agreed 

to continue her service at the EPA in this new role. 

I believe Gina has a strong background for this position—not only from her long 

history of work in the States, but also as head of the EPA air division during a challenging time. 

Four years ago—after being unanimously approved as Assistant Administrator for 

Air by this committee and by the Senate—she faced a daunting task waiting for her 

at the EPA. 

Every major clean air regulation written by the Bush administration had been remanded or vacated by the courts. 

As a result, Gina was tasked with implementing a laundry list of court-ordered 

regulations—all during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. 

Many felt concerned that promulgating new regulations could short circuit the 

economic recovery. 

But at the end of the day, she helped put in place safeguards for cleaner air that 

protected the health of Americans without undercutting efforts to grow our economy. 

That’s in no small part due to her leadership. 

She has worked for not one, not two, but five, that’s right five, Republican Governors. Most recently she has worked for Mitt Romney in Massachusetts and Jodi 

Rell in Connecticut. 

As a result, she’s accustomed to working in a consensus-driven way with members 

of both parties—a critical skill set that will serve her well in the top job at the EPA. 

She and I have not always seen eye-to-eye on some issues. But she has always 

been honest with me and my staff—and tried to find common ground if possible. 

Again, an important skill to have as Administrator. 
54 

Some folks believe that you have to choose between protecting the environment 

and growing our economy, but Gina has helped prove that notion wrong. 

We know choosing between a strong economy and a safe environment is a false 

choice, and Gina is well-suited to help guide the EPA through a significant period. 

I look forward to continuing to work with her on issues facing our Country and 

my home State of Delaware, like curbing dangerous cross-state air pollution and addressing climate change. 

Lisa Jackson leaves big shoes to fill as EPA Administrator, but I’m confident Gina 

will fill them. 

And speaking of shoes to fill, I have long been concerned about a problem that 

has plagued the executive branch through both Democratic and Republican Administrations—numerous and longstanding vacancies in senior positions throughout the 

Federal Government. 

This problem has become so prevalent that I’ve started referring to it as executive 

branch ‘‘Swiss cheese.’’ 

At any given moment we are lacking critical leadership in numerous positions in 

just about every agency, undermining the effectiveness of our Government. 

While Congress and the Administration have taken steps to address this problem, 

the fact remains that we still have more work to do to ensure that we have talented 

people in place to make critical decisions. 

That’s one of the reasons why today’s confirmation hearing is so important, and 

why I’m pleased that President Obama has put forward a nominee who I believe 

has the skills necessary to step in and be effective from day one. 

And that’s why I am calling on my colleagues to join me in supporting Gina’s 

nomination. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. And I really thank you for 

that. It was so well said. 

Now, we have a slightly different list from the Republicans, I am 

going to go through it again just to make sure everybody is treated 

fairly. Because that is extremely important. 

So we are going to move to Senator Fischer, then Merkley, Wicker, Cardin, Sessions, Udall. Everybody happy? All right. Senator 

Fischer. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking 

Member Vitter. I am happy to be here today. 

Thank you, Ms. McCarthy, for being here and for your willingness to serve the public. I truly appreciate that. And I do appreciate that I have this opportunity to share with you some of the 

concerns of my constituents. 

As you and I spoke, in Nebraska, agriculture is our No. 1 industry. We are a people who are proud to feed the world. Our success 

is the direct result of careful stewardship of our natural resources, 

which we depend upon for our livelihood. We hold dear these resources, our land and our water. These are both our heritage and 

our legacy to future generations. 

We have made tremendous gains in production agriculture, producing more while using less land, less water, less energy, less fertilizer and less pesticide. These achievements and these environmental improvements are made because of farmers’ and ranchers’ 

application of new technology and conservation practices. They are 

not the result of a permit or a mandate or a paperwork requirement from a Federal bureaucracy. They are the result of cooperation between producers and local university extension educators 

and conservation agents. 

These are folks who farmers trust to help them implement 

science-based solutions that improve our efficiency and reduce our 
55 

environmental impact. We believe that local natural resources 

management is more successful than EPA’s top-down command 

and control Federal approach. We believe that local natural resource management is more successful than EPA’s continual approach in that area. And we find that EPA’s proposed expansion 

of the Clean Water Act authority is alarming. 

Also of concern to us is the increasing cost of compliance with environmental regulations for Nebraska’s public power utilities, 

which you and I spoke about. Because that does increase the 

monthly electricity bills for all Nebraskans, and that is a burden. 

Our State is poised to work with EPA to make reasonable and costeffective changes that result in meaningful environmental improvements. What we cannot tolerate, however, is failure to consider economic impacts, mandates of controls that are not commercially 

available, and regulatory uncertainty. 

Regulations must be made on sound, publicly available science, 

subject to a thorough cost-benefit analysis, and promulgated 

through a transparent public notice and comment process. Madam 

Chair, I would ask that my full statement be entered into the 

record. Ms. McCarthy, again, I appreciate your being here. I look 

forward to questioning you about many of these concerns. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Fischer follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA

Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Vitter, for holding today’s confirmation hearing. Thank you, Ms. McCarthy, for being here and for your willingness to serve the public. I appreciate the opportunity to share with you the concerns 

of my constituents. 

During my Senate campaign, I traveled 73,000 miles, crisscrossing Nebraska. 

From every corner of my State, from families, from business owners, and especially 

from farmers and ranchers, I was overwhelmed with appeals to address the overregulation inhibiting economic growth. As a Senator, I continue to hear more of the 

same. These pleas for relief come from families facing higher electricity bills, businesses and utilities confronting the compliance costs of new rules, and producers 

who are frustrated with a bureaucracy that just simply doesn’t understand the nature of their business. 

In Nebraska, agriculture is our No. 1 industry. We are a people who are proud 

to feed the world. Our success is the direct result of careful stewardship of our natural resources, which we depend upon for our livelihoods. We have made tremendous gains in production agriculture—producing more while using less land, less 

water, less energy, less fertilizer, and less pesticide. 

These achievements and environmental improvements are made because of farmers’ and ranchers’ application of new technology and conservation practices. They 

are not the result of a permit or a mandate or a paperwork requirement from a Federal bureaucracy. They are a result of cooperation between producers and local extension educators and conservation agents. These are folks who farmers trust to 

help implement science-based solutions that improve our efficiency and reduce our 

environmental impact. 

Unfortunately, it seems EPA has preferred to pursue a top-down, command-andcontrol, Federal approach to addressing environmental and conservation issues. 

Centralized management and mandates are all too often arbitrary, ineffectual, or 

even counterproductive, lacking the insight of local stakeholders. I strongly believe 

that environmental policy and resource management should account for site- and 

situation-specific factors that acknowledge that those closest to a resource are generally best situated to manage it. 

I am particularly concerned about EPA’s proposed guidance to clarify regulatory 

jurisdiction over U.S. waters and wetlands, which would broaden the number and 

kinds of waters subject to regulation. Expanding the Clean Water Act’s scope imposes costs on States and localities as their own actions—such as transportation im-
56 

provements, flood control projects, and drainage ditch maintenance—become subject 

to new requirements. 

I am also concerned about the increasing cost of compliance with environmental 

regulations for Nebraska’s public power utilities. Advanced pollution-control equipment can account for up to 25 percent of the cost to build a new power plant. Last 

year, Nebraska utilities spent tens of millions of dollars complying with power-plant 

environmental regulations, and these costs are expected to continue to rise, increasing electricity prices and the monthly bills of all Nebraskans. 

Nebraska utilities work hard to provide low-cost electricity that is clean and reliable. We rely on coal-fired generators because they are the least expensive way to 

generate electricity. The barrage of new regulations under the Clean Air Act will 

likely cause Nebraska utilities to close some of our older power plants because the 

cost to bring them up to the new emissions standards would be more than the plant 

is worth. 

Our State is poised to work with EPA to make reasonable and cost-effective 

changes that result in meaningful environmental improvements. What we cannot 

tolerate, however, is lack of transparency, failure to consider economic impacts, 

mandates of controls that are not commercially available, and regulatory uncertainty. 

Regulations must be based on sound science—science that is publicly available 

and open to examination. EPA must also comply with the law, including the requirement that the agency use sound methodology to conduct continuing evaluations 

of potential loss and shifts in employment that may result from the implementation 

and enforcement of its rules. 

Finally, we must ensure that rulemaking is done through a transparent public notice and comment process, not through the increasingly common and underhanded 

litigation practice known as ‘‘sue and settle.’’ These lawsuits often result in consent 

decrees that give the environmental groups negotiating power; meanwhile private 

property owners and others in the regulated community are not given any power 

to participate in the process. 

Ms. McCarthy, thank you again for being here today. I look forward to questioning you about how we can work together to address these important objectives. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, thank you very much. 

Senator Merkley, followed by Senator Wicker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OREGON 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

And thank you so much for being willing to put yourself forward 

in this public service capacity. I appreciate it. 

I wanted to start by recognizing that this conversation is much 

broader than your background. I think many of us are extraordinarily impressed with the skills you have developed and the battles you have undertaken. But obviously, there is a very broad conversation about how we make the environment and the economy 

work together for a better America and better quality of life. And 

quite frankly, more and better jobs. In that context, this will be a 

framework that will continue throughout one’s service in this type 

of role. 

I share the opinion of many in this room that one of the most 

important jobs in our Country is to tackle the pressing environmental crisis of our time, climate change. The 12 hottest years on 

this planet have come in the last 15 years. The statistics of that 

happening randomly are, quite frankly, minuscule beyond calculation. I look at it through the lens of my farming and my timber 

community. I just came from Klamath County in the south part of 

Oregon. It is a massive wildlife refuge and farming community, depending upon irrigation. And they had their worst ever year for 

water in 2010. They had their second worst year in 2011 and there 

was a huge battle in the State. This year they are 50 percent 
57 

below. And that is just one example of the impact of the changing 

climate. 

In various parts of Oregon we have large pine beetle infestations 

because the winters are warmer and they are not killing off the 

pine beetles as much as they used to. It has a big impact on timber. And then of course, the drier years are producing a lot more 

fires. We had a fire the size of Rhode Island in Oregon last year. 

We had more acres burned in Oregon last year than we have had 

in 100 years. We lost range land, we lost timber land. And the 

drier conditions result, and the firefighting results in the Forest 

Service having a very difficult time having the funds to plan timber 

sales, which then complicates the problem, because we have less 

healthy forests and thinning in our Federal forests, which makes 

them more susceptible to fires. 

So meanwhile, we looked at farming and timber, let’s turn to the 

fishing side of this. We have a big oyster industry on the coast of 

Oregon. And the Whiskey Creek Hatchery produces oyster seed for 

other oyster farmers. It has been having a lot of trouble because 

of a slight change in acidification of the ocean. Just a small change. 

And if you have a small change affecting shell formation in very 

young oyster seed, you can think about how different food chains 

will be impacted. That is not a pretty picture. 

So this is just the State of Oregon. If we look more broadly, we 

see so much more going on. Some of my colleagues have spoken to 

concern about the natural resource industry and the extraction of 

coal. Well, quite frankly, I am concerned about my fishing community. I am concerned about my timber community, I am concerned 

about my farming community, all of which are impacted by the 

strategies we employ. America should be in the leadership in taking on this challenge. 

So there are many of these issues that I will return to, wrestling 

with specific issues for Oregon when we are in the questioning. I 

do want to mention how important the Superfund clean up is, particularly Portland Harbor. I have had a chance already to talk with 

you about that. I continue to look forward to working with you 

after your confirmation to pursue policies that get us out of the 

planning stage and into the implementation stage. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Wicker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROGER WICKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI 

Senator WICKER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ms. 

McCarthy, for making yourself available to the Committee. And 

thank you for meeting with me early on in the process. 

I have often said that the position of EPA Administrator is one 

of the most important and consequential of any Administration. 

Despite a weak economy and high unemployment, the Administration continues to use EPA to push regulations that I fear will 

put more Americans out of work and at the same time achieve only 

minimal results. I am afraid these harmful regulations will continue. 
58 

Because of the significance of these decisions, transparency is 

critical as taxpayers are asked to shoulder the burden of excessive 

regulations. In other words, you and I may disagree on policy. But 

let’s not hide information. Show us the data on the science. 

Ms. McCarthy, as you and I discussed in our first meeting, I 

have concerns regarding the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ozone. DeSoto County, Mississippi, has been dealing with 

this issue first-hand as have many counties across the U.S. DeSoto 

County is a suburban county, it is very clean. It has the misfortune 

of being just south of Memphis, Tennessee and Interstate 40. I was 

disappointed in the 2012 decision to designate DeSoto County as a 

major contributor to poor air quality in the region. I just do not believe that is fair. 

As EPA moves forward with regulations, many are concerned 

that more stringent rules could hinder economic growth in noncompliant counties, complicating job-creating efforts as new construction projects, energy production and manufacturing facilities 

struggle to comply with Federal regulations. 

I was interested to see the Chair’s chart on smog alerts in her 

home State of California. In 1976, it was very, very high. This year, 

zero. No smog alerts. It seems to me that this should be an occasion to celebrate the success of current policies, rather than to advocate more restrictive policies. Hard to get below zero, 100 percent 

success, on smog alerts. 

As is the case with many EPA regulations, I believe it is important for the agency to afford particular deference to the knowledge, 

authority and expertise of State governments. Strong consideration 

should also be given to regional variability and differences between 

States and within States where regulations are developed. A one 

size fits all approach is not always the best strategy, particularly 

when jobs are threatened for no significant environmental gain. 

Now, with regard to coal. I agree with Senator Barrasso, excessive rules from EPA affecting coal-fired power plants pose a serious 

threat to America’s economic competitiveness. Because Mississippi 

has diverse fuels and power generation technology options, including coal, our State can offer electric rates below national average 

and attract more job-creating investment. The President said in 

2008, we can develop clean coal technology. EPA needs to help 

make good on that promise. 

EPA’s regulatory assault on coal does not diminish the influence 

of foreign energy producers or bring down prices for families and 

businesses. 

Now, with regard to water, our next EPA Administrator will 

oversee development and implementation of more than just air regulations. If confirmed, you would be the primary decisionmaker on 

how to regulate activities related to chemical manufacturing, farming activities, forest products and private property rights, among 

others. I am interested to hear how you plan to approach water 

issues and water regulations that could have a severe impact on 

job creation. This would include burdensome permits for forest 

roads, development of numeric nutrient standards for the Gulf of 

Mexico, how you would exercise EPA’s veto authority under Section 

404 of the Clean Water Act, and if you believe the preemptive veto 
59 

of any project before it goes through the regular NEPA process is 

appropriate. 

These issues are critical for Mississippi and for the entire Country, the well-being of all Americans and their ability to earn a living. 

So I look forward to the hearing regarding these important 

issues. Securing a productive and reliable energy plan should be a 

top priority. And yet the focus should be on efficient and safe ways 

to utilize America’s abundant resources, not regulatory decisions 

that hurt jobs and block affordable energy. Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

So I wanted to say, since we have so many members here, that 

Senator Vitter and I were talking to Senator Wicker, we came up 

with a new early bird rule. So the way it will work is, whoever is 

here at the time the gavel goes down, in their chairs, that will be 

the order by seniority. But after the gavel goes down, then the 

early bird rule. Is that OK with everybody? Yes? OK. 

So we’re going to go to Cardin, Sessions, Udall, Boozman. Go 

ahead, Senator. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I noticed that that 

rule was implemented only after I got a chance to speak. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARDIN. I just would note that for the record, but I still 

love you. 

Senator BOXER. Here is my answer to that. Anyone who really 

cares about the future is a hero. Because you changed the rules for 

the future, we all thank you for that. 

OK, let’s move to Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Madam Chair, I am honored to be the first person recognized under the new rules. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator CARDIN. Let me welcome Ms. McCarthy to our Committee and thank you very much for your public service. I thank 

your family. You are stepping forward in an extremely important 

role. 

As you can see by the members’ interest in this hearing, that has 

a lot of members’ interest. That is courageous of you. We thank 

you. This is an extremely important public service and we very 

much appreciate your willingness to serve. 

EPA has a proud history, since 1970, bipartisan support. An 

agency that we labeled Environmental Protection Agency because 

we want to protect the environment for future generations, that is 

the responsibility. The Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act were bipartisan actions taken by Congress because we recognized that we 

have a responsibility to American families to protect their health 

and protect the environment for future generations. 

As Senator Boxer already pointed out, the cost-benefit ratios of 

these laws are well-documented. Multiple factors of 40 to one in the 

costs associated with implementing these statutes and the benefits 

that we receive from clean water and clean air. 
60 

In Maryland, we are very proud of what we have been able to 

do as a State. We enacted, in 2006, the Maryland Healthy Air Act. 

Those who claimed it would cost jobs, it did just the reverse. It created jobs in our State. And it provided a healthier environment for 

the people in Maryland. 

The problem is, like Delaware, we are downwind. If we don’t get 

help from the Federal Government in enforcing clean air standards, even though we can do the best job possible in our State, our 

people will still be vulnerable because of inaction in other States. 

That is why we are concerned about proper enforcement of national 

laws. It helps us, even though our State has done the right thing. 

We have families with children with asthma. We know what happens when the Clean Air standards are not as strict as they need 

to be. We have families with people who have heart disease that 

are affected by the quality of our air. We have water-borne disease 

problems in our State because of the quality of the water. 

I think the colleagues on this Committee have heard me talk frequently about the Chesapeake Bay, and we had a chance to talk 

about the Chesapeake Bay. The Chesapeake Bay is a multi-jurisdictional body of water, and all of the surrounding jurisdictions 

have come together in an effort to recognize the importance of the 

Chesapeake Bay as a way of life for us in our community, but also 

its national significance. We have to work together. 

The Federal Government is an important partner. And we have 

made a lot of progress. But let me make it clear. The Baltimore 

Inner Harbor today is unfit for human contact about 73 percent of 

the time. We still have a lot more we need to do. So we need your 

help. And yes, we have established programs to deal with development and agriculture and storm runoff. 

But there is also the issue of climate change that affects the 

Chesapeake Bay and affects the people of my State. Smith Islanders who are trying to hold on to that last bit of land know that 

every increase in sea level affects their survival. The sea grasses 

in the Chesapeake Bay are not as strong as they need to be. Why? 

Because of water temperature and rising water temperature. That 

affects our watermen and their livelihood. It affects the diversity 

within the Bay. It affects the health of the Chesapeake Bay. 

So yes, we are concerned about climate change. We are a coastal 

State. Every State in America should be concerned about it. Our 

military installations are vulnerable. As Senator Carper mentioned, the national security interest. There is a national security 

interest to make sure that we deal responsibly with global climate 

change. The best thing is not adaptation, the best thing is to slow 

down and do what we can to prevent unnecessary carbon emissions. 

EPA needs to be guided by the law and good science. Quite 

frankly, looking at your record, you have done both. I applaud you 

for that, because we need an EPA Administrator that will follow 

the law, use best science, work with us, and protect the public as 

you should. 

I thank you for stepping forward and I am proud to support your 

nomination. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Sessions. 
61 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Good morning, and thank you. 

Ms. McCarthy, it was a real pleasure for me to have a good conversation with you late yesterday, last night. I value Senator Carper’s opinion and look forward to evaluating your nomination. 

If confirmed, you will be taking control of a very important Federal agency. I don’t think there is any agency in Government today 

that has more potential and actual reach down to the average 

American, touching their lives in ways never contemplated when 

Congress passed some of the laws we passed over the years. 

I have heard from some that you will be a distinct change from 

your predecessor and that you are pragmatic and data-driven. I 

hope that is true. It is important that we move in that direction. 

But I am mindful, you were the principal architect of Boiler MACT, 

Utility MACT, the Greenhouse Gas Rules, the Ozone and PM 

standards and the Cross State Air Rule, which was recently struck 

down by the D.C. Court. So if you think about it, under statutes 

passed long before global warming was contemplated, now CO2 is 

being defined as a pollutant, and EPA is able to reach into someone’s backyard where they are barbecuing, their lawnmower, their 

house or their automobile and so forth. It is a massive reach and 

just a pure sense of Federal power to areas never before contemplated, and never expressly legislative by the U.S. Congress. 

So I worry about that, and the American people worry about 

that. We are hearing a lot of concerns from my constituents. 

A most recent study by the National Association of Manufacturers found that just seven of the new EPA rules would require total 

capital expenditures of about $400 billion to $880 billion. That is 

very significant. Americans expect the environment to be protected. 

But they worry about our competitiveness in the world marketplace. And certainly after trillions of new spending by this Administration and hundreds of new regulations that have been asserted 

as creating jobs, the United States has 3 million fewer jobs today 

than we had in 2008. We are not creating jobs. Jobs are leaving 

the work force every month. And last week’s report showed 88,000 

jobs being created, 486,000 Americans leaving the work force. So 

it is not a healthy thing, in my opinion. 

I want to tell you a little about the Henry Brick Company in Dallas County, Selma, Alabama, one of our counties with the highest 

unemployment rate in the State. They were formed in 1945. I think 

we have a picture of the family there. They made about 35 million 

bricks a year. By the 1970s they were making 75 million with 100 

employees. By the 2000s they were up to 115 million bricks. But 

sadly, the economic downturn hurt them. It hurt a lot of other companies, particularly brick companies. They fought hard to stay 

open, they hope to stay open. They have just 60 workers today. 

So in 2005, after EPA passed a new rule called the Brick MACT, 

Henry Brick Company spent $1.5 million to install scrubbers to 

clean their emissions. Now after having entered that settlement, 

entering into a new settlement that you’ve entered into, with an 

environmental group, EPA is proposing an even more stringent 

rule that would require Henry Brick to install more equipment, 

costing as much as $4 million to $8 million. Now, their gross rev-
62 

enue last year was $6 million. You see the impact of that on this 

small company? 

So this is a tremendous strain. It places jobs at risk. This is the 

kind of real impact that is occurring in our Country today. I just 

hope that if you are selected for this position and confirmed, and 

it looks like you will be, then I think you need to consider this and 

some other similar situations as we go forward. 

Senator CARPER [presiding]. I think, Senator Udall, you are next 

on the list. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is good to see you here 

and have you presiding. 

Let me just echo what everybody else has said, Ms. McCarthy. 

I think that we really appreciate your putting your name forward. 

We appreciate you for the work you have done at the Air Quality 

Bureau. I really wanted to highlight some of that work, because I 

know what you are going to be doing as EPA Administrator is trying to figure out the right balance between environmental protection and our economic needs. That is what you struggle with every 

day when you do the work. 

As you are aware, we had a very serious air quality issue in New 

Mexico. It was an issue revolving around the Regional Haze Rule. 

In the time period of 2011, EPA proposed a rule for the San Juan 

Generating Station, this is one of our biggest power generators in 

New Mexico, to install best available control technology to reduce 

pollution. It called for the owners of that generating station to install selective catalytic reduction technology on each of four units. 

And as you know what occurred could have just deteriorated into 

lawsuits and gridlock, and there were accusations back and forth 

about how much it was going to cost, and we couldn’t go forward 

with this. 

But the thing that I was impressed with is the EPA and under 

your guidance and with the regional administrator, they said, let’s 

hear proposals about how to solve this. Let’s not get into a long 

protracted lawsuit and not get anywhere. So what ended up happening as a result of that, the Governor’s environmental agency, 

and by the way, we are talking about a Republican Governor, and 

the Public Service Company of New Mexico, who owns this generating station and your regional administrator all got together. And 

they started talking, and there was a proposal put out by the environment department. What ended up happening is a, what I would 

call a common sense solution, a win-win solution in this circumstance. Two of the units of the four were retired and are going 

to be replaced by natural gas-fired units, which that helps in terms 

of pollution and is a win-win. And the actual technology on the 

other two units I think is being updated. And the company feels 

they can win with it. So that is a win-win. 

So all of the parties here, the citizens of New Mexico, public service company that owned the generating station, the Governor of 

New Mexico, all of us supported that coming together. Really what 

I think you bring to this position is that kind of common sense solution of problems. 
63 

So I support this nomination and I don’t want to go on any 

longer, because I know we are trying to get through this. I will put 

more detailed arguments and backup in the record as to what I 

have done here and leave some additional time for others to speak. 

I think this is a very good example of the kind of work that you 

have done, and I look forward to you doing the same kind of work 

as the head of the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CARPER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Boozman is next, then Senator Gillibrand. Senator 

Boozman. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you, Senator Carper. And thank you, 

Senators Boxer and Vitter for holding this important hearing. 

We just appreciate you, Ms. McCarthy, for your willingness to 

serve. These are very difficult positions. I also appreciate your coming by and having a good visit. 

We all value clean water, clean air and conservation. In short, 

we all value a safe and clean environment for the benefit of all 

Americans. No single agency or individual is responsible for bringing about these important goals. These are certainly things that 

the American people from all walks of life care about and cherish 

and work to achieve. 

I would like to talk a little bit also about the transparency issue 

and the accountability. Every Federal agency should be committed 

to transparency and accountability. This includes transparency and 

accountability to Congress and the American people. Certainly we 

must hold every Federal agency, including the EPA, to accountability in this regard. Transparency and accountability at the EPA 

should mean several things. First, it means the agency should respond fully, truthfully and promptly to Freedom of Information Act 

requests and congressional inquiries. It means that the agency’s 

business should not be conducted on secret email accounts and that 

shield officials from accountability. 

Transparency and accountability mean that the EPA shares the 

science, the underlying data used to write or promote rules that 

have such tremendous effect that will cost the American people in 

some cases billions of dollars every year. This is a matter of not 

only transparency, not just to Congress but also to the scientific 

community and ultimately to the American people. 

Transparency and accountability mean that the EPA should recognize and follow the spirit of cooperative federalism, working with, 

not dictating to State partners. The principle is built into our most 

important environmental laws, and too often the agency ignores it. 

When we visited, we had a good talk about that, and you mentioned the importance of cooperative federalism in our meeting. I 

appreciate that and hope to hear more about what that means in 

today’s hearing. 

Transparency and accountability mean that the agency should 

implement laws like the Clean Air Act in the way that Congress 

intended. New authorities and requirements should not be suddenly discovered decades after a law was written in order to avoid 
64 

accountability to the democratic process. Transparency and accountability mean that all citizens from all points of view and sides 

of the political spectrum will have equal access to the agency’s activities and processes. A suit and settle approach that provides 

unique access and influence to one set of stakeholders on one side 

of the political spectrum, while locking out States and other interested parties, is hostile to the democratic values that the agency 

should uphold. 

Ultimately, I believe you are a very gifted and committed individual with the credentials, knowledge and experience for the important role. My concern relates to the needs, again, and I have 

said it over and over in this, is the transparency, the accountability, the respect for the democratic institutions and principles 

that are foundational in our Country. 

Yesterday I joined several of my colleagues in sending a letter to 

you outlining some concerns that we had regarding the agency. I 

think our requests are just good government, non-partisan requests 

based on the principles that should apply to all agencies and administrations in both parties. I hope that we will get a response 

quickly, thoroughly, probatively. And I hope that today’s hearing 

will allow us to dig into some of these issues a little bit more. 

Thank you for being here and we look forward to your testimony. 

Senator BOXER [presiding]. Thank you, Senator. 

Our final Senator is going to be Senator Gillibrand. Then finally 

you get to say a word or two. Go ahead. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

Senator GILLIBRAND. Thank you, Madam Chair, for holding this 

hearing. 

I am pleased today to speak in support of the nomination of Gina 

McCarthy to serve as our next Administrator of the EPA. President 

Obama has made an excellent selection by putting this nomination 

forward to the Senate. 

As we have heard from our other colleague today, Gina McCarthy is a distinguished public servant with a career spanning more 

than three decades on the Federal, State and local level. The past 

4 years, she served as the Assistant Administrator for the Office 

of Air and Radiation, where she has had a role in some of the most 

important new environmental policies that will protect the air we 

breathe by reducing harmful emissions that threaten our health 

and accelerate climate change. 

With her leadership, the Administration recently proposed a new 

Tier 3 vehicle emissions standard, which will reduce tailpipe emissions and protect public health by lowering the amount of sulfur 

in gasoline. This is expected to reduce asthma rates in our children. She has also taken a leading role in reducing mercury, arsenic and other toxic emissions from power plants. For mothers like 

me, who care what my children breathe every day, and the effects 

that it could have on their health, these types of common sense 

policies are exactly the right priorities for the EPA. 

Gina McCarthy has worked at every level of government. I am 

confident that she understands how the regulatory process impacts 

States and local government and brings that perspective to the job. 
65 

With tighter budgets at every level of government all across the 

United States, it is important to have an Administrator who can 

work with local leaders to find common ground. 

And her public service has demonstrated that protecting the air 

we breathe and the water we drink is not a partisan or ideological 

issue. It is about protecting our families. She served both Republicans and Democrats throughout her career, earning praise across 

the aisle for her pragmatism. Jodi Rell, the former Republican Governor of Connecticut, who Gina served as Environmental Protection 

Commissioner, called her a dedicated public servant with tremendous talent and passion. 

Madam Chair, the next EPA Administrator will confront a broad 

range of challenges from restoring our significant water bodies, like 

the Long Island Sound, to protecting against the threat of climate 

change, protecting our children from toxic chemicals that could 

harm their development or contribute to learning disabilities, autism, cancer, to rebuilding our Nation’s crumbing water infrastructure. It is critical that we have someone like you in that post who 

can work across the aisle to implement effective environmental protections that will lead to a healthier population, preserve our natural resources for generations to come. 

I applaud President Obama for nominating Gina McCarthy to 

take on this difficult task. I am confident that you are the right 

person for the job. Thank you for your service and your willingness 

to continue to serve the people of the United States. Thank you, 

Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much. And I want to thank all my 

colleagues. You have been just so, I think, interested in this. It is 

wonderful to see both sides of the aisle come out in the numbers 

that we have seen. 

Well, Assistant Administrator McCarthy, this is your time. We 

are looking forward to hearing from you. Please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF GINA McCARTHY, NOMINATED TO BE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Please allow me to express my appreciation to you and to Ranking Member Vitter for holding this hearing. I also want to thank 

Senators Warren and Cowan for their kind introductions, as well 

as the members of this Committee for spending time with me since 

my nomination, as well as during my tenure at EPA. 

I would also like to take a moment to thank my family, my husband Ken, seated behind me, and my three children, Dan, Maggie 

and Julie, who are hopefully hard at work today. Their support has 

been an endless source of energy and inspiration to me. 

I am deeply honored that President Obama has nominated me to 

lead the EPA. Having spent my career in public service, I know of 

no higher privilege than working with my colleagues at EPA, with 

Congress and our public and private partners to ensure that American families can breathe clean air, drink clean water and live, 

learn and play in safer, healthier communities. 

I take the mission EPA seriously, to protect public health and 

the environment. We have made dramatic progress since 1970, 
66 

when EPA was first created, which gives us very much to celebrate. 

Our air, land and water are significantly cleaner and safer today, 

while the economy has grown and prospered during that time. This 

record of success provides confidence that we can meet the very 

real and significant challenges that we still face in protecting 

American families from pollution and in ensuring that future generations can live in a cleaner, healthier and safer world, while enjoying even a more prosperous economy. 

To that end, I know many members here agree that we must ensure that increasingly complex and numerous chemicals we use in 

products are safe. If confirmed, I look forward to working with 

members of this Committee in your effort to reauthorize our antiquated chemical safety laws. We must also ensure that that water 

that is so critical to public health, quality of life and prosperity is 

protected from dangerous contaminants, including new emerging 

ones. 

If confirmed, I look forward to working with members of the 

Committee to ensure that EPA’s use of science is rigorous and 

transparent, so we can preserve and improve the Nation’s water 

quality. And as we continue our efforts to address improved air 

quality, we must also, as the President has made clear, take steps 

to address climate change. Climate change is one of the greatest 

challenges of our generation. And facing that challenge with increased focus and commitment is perhaps the greatest obligation 

we have to future generations. 

But I am convinced that we are up to that task. Common sense 

steps can be taken to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases while 

opening up markets for emerging technologies and creating new 

jobs. This Administration has already, through our greenhouse gas 

and fuel economy standards, set us on a path to reduce greenhouse 

gas emissions by 6 billion metric tons, just by doubling the efficiency of cars and other light duty vehicle by 2025, which will save 

consumers an average of $8,000 at the pump and reduce our reliance on foreign oil by 12 billion barrels. 

This national car program was a joint effort of States, the automobile industry, labor, environmental organizations, consumer advocacy groups and the Federal Government. It is one of the best 

examples of a key lesson that I have learned during my many 

years of public service. Public health and environmental protections do not come solely out of government, and they don’t come 

solely out of Washington, DC. They happen in States, cities and 

towns all across the U.S. when people take action to make their 

homes more efficient, their businesses run better, their products 

perform better and their communities cleaner, healthier and safer. 

Prior to coming to EPA in 2009, I was lucky enough to spend 

more than 25 years working at the State and local level, listening 

to, learning from and being inspired by people from all walks of 

life. And that brings me to one more important lesson that I 

learned. Environmental protection is not a partisan issue. I worked 

for and with Republicans, Democrats and Independents, who all 

shared a common desire and willingness to roll up their sleeves 

and figure out what kind of common sense approach we could take 

to be responsible and to act consistent with the laws and the 

science. 
67 

That is why my door is always open, that is why I listen well and 

I welcome all views. I know from our meetings and discussions that 

you share my passion and my commitment for serving the American people. I am fortunate enough, if I am confirmed as EPA Administrator, to continue to work with you, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Vitter and all the members of this Committee, over 

the coming years, to serve the American people. 

Thank you very much, and I look forward to taking your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McCarthy follows:] 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 

Senator BOXER. Thank you so much, Assistant Administrator 

McCarthy, for that statement. 

I want to place in the record, if there is no objection, letters that 

have come in in support of your nomination. Six presidents of the 

American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Executive Director of the American Public Health Association, Charles 

Warren, former regional administrator under the Reagan administration, Gloria Bergquist, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, 

Randy Spronk, President, National Pork Producers Council, William Becker, National Association of Clean Air Agencies. I like particularly what he wrote: ‘‘She is brutally honest, very fair, humorous and an incredibly hard worker. She is not an ideologue, she is 

a practitioner.’’ I just thought that sums it up. 

John McManus, Vice President, American Electric Power, Jodi 

Rell, former Republican Governor of Connecticut, Scott Segal, Partner, Bracewell and Guiliani, Houston law firm that works on business law, finance, litigation and regulatory policy, and Chris Wood 

of Trout Unlimited. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 

Senator BOXER. So the point is, putting these in the record, there 

is a reason. This is a very balanced group of people. They don’t 

agree with each other and I am sure they don’t always agree with 

you, Madam Administrator. So I think it speaks well. 

The second thing I would like to put in the record, without objection, is this. I want to make sure this is OK with EPA. Senator 

Vitter and his colleagues sent you some very important letters with 

some very important questions. And it is my understanding, and I 

have these letters here, you have responded to him. And I would 

like to put these letters in the record at this time, if there is no 

objection, in the interest of transparency that is so important to 

both sides of the aisle. 

So we will do that. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 
355 
356 
357 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 

Senator BOXER. But also, ask you if you intend to make those letters public? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Now, I guess because this is such an important position, and nobody could possibly reflect every point of view on this panel, I think 

we need to rise above our own particular ideology and look at the 

human being and why you are willing to do this. So I have a question, it is very open-ended and it is not particularly scientific. But 

what was it that kind of inspired you to get into this line of work 

so many years ago and stick with it? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is a good question, Chairman. Let me take 

a bit of a shot at it. When I went to graduate school at Tufts, my 

intent was to go into the field of public health. I began actually in 

Providence, Rhode Island, as my first job out of graduate school, 

working in community health centers. I was really interested in the 

delivery of health care at that time, particularly to underserved 

and poor populations. 

And my mother got ill and I went home to take care of her, wanted a job nearer home. Ended up finding a job in my own hometown 

in Canton, and I found myself as the health agent there. All of a 

sudden, there was a big controversy about some PCB barrels that 

had been found in the woods. And I found out that neighbors that 

I had lived near for all my life were very concerned about whether 

those barrels and that spill was causing them to have cancer in 

their community. I got embroiled in a controversy that I was totally 

unprepared for but worked my way through. And I began to realize 

that a career in public health could very much be related to protecting the environment. 

I realized very quickly how important it was to people in the 

community to feel like somebody was protecting them from those 

challenges. It was in the 1980s, it was when things were unfolding. 

Great Federal laws were being implemented and I just got swept 

into that. And it has been a great experience ever since. 

Senator BOXER. I want to thank you for that. 

Senator Crapo and I have been working to pass legislation that, 

it is interesting, it is very much along these lines, where if there 

is a cancer hot spot, that the EPA and other agencies could go in 

and help them figure out what is causing this. So these concerns 

continue in the U.S. Senate today. 

There is this whole thing about emails. It was raised again by 

Senator Boozman. Senator Boozman, in my opening statement, I 

explained that this idea of having a secondary email was started 

by Christine Todd Whitman and was continued by all the Republicans and Democrats following. One Republican had as a moniker 

tofu@epa.gov. So they all have used it, because they get a million 

emails to the primary email. And in order to figure out what they 

need to answer, they have all done this. 

So I don’t think it is anything nefarious. But I would like to ask 

you for the record, I understand the EPA Inspector General is looking into the agency’s email management practices. Are you aware 

of this effort and you could describe to us what you know as of this 

date, how that is going? 
363 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. The Inspector General is actually doing an 

audit in which we all participating. I certainly feel, and I believe 

the agency does as well, that it is a great opportunity for us to 

have their independent view of what we are doing well and what 

we can improve on. I know that Acting Administrator Perciasepe 

is working closely with them and we are going to be taking their 

recommendations to heart and doing everything we can to improve 

the system at EPA, as we always would. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I am going to yield my time to Senator 

Vitter. Before I do, I just have to ask you, as Chairman of the Committee, if confirmed, will you focus on ensuring the agency complies 

with all laws, including the Federal Records Act and the Freedom 

of Information Act? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I will, Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Ms. 

McCarthy, for your service and for being here. I appreciate it. 

First, just in reaction to some of the Chair’s comment about some 

of these aliases, let me just go on record as saying Richard Windsor, that sounds pretty monarchist. Now, a lot of folks would say 

that is appropriate for EPA, but I personally vote for tofu. I think 

that is even more on the mark. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am a meat-eater, myself. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator VITTER. As was said, this whole side of the aisle has focused on a lot of transparency concerns. And that has really been 

my sole focus in terms of defining those five requests that I gave 

you when we first met. And again, just to make clear, because I 

think Barbara was a little mistaken about it, that didn’t come up 

yesterday. We talked about that the first opportunity we had to 

meet. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator VITTER. And then we repeated it in writing yesterday in 

a letter from all of us. But I gave you that in writing and substance 

when we first met many weeks ago. 

So I want to focus in that area, because I think it is so important. Again, I am, quite frankly, disappointed. The responses we 

have gotten that are now in the record in my opinion address about 

one and one-quarter of the five areas. And so three and three quarters I think have not been responded to in a meaningful way. That 

is what I want to explore. 

So let’s start, the Chair has brought up the alias email accounts, 

which I think is largely a straw man. I want to start with the real 

man, which is personal email accounts. As you know, there has 

been a pattern of abuse using personal email accounts at EPA, led 

directly to one regional administrator resigning. In my opinion, it 

is clear that this practice in many cases was used to hide information from the public. So my question comes from that, and it is No. 

2 in what we have discussed in the letter. Did you ever use private 

email accounts to conduct official EPA business? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Ranking Member, can I just start by sharing a 

concern for transparency and accountability? I want you to know 
364 

that I care as much about this as you do and other members who 

have mentioned this to me in our private meetings. 

Throughout my career, I have done everything I can to focus on 

complying with the laws relative to transparency and accountability. I am certainly not new to public service, and I know these 

obligations. I do not conduct business through personal email. As 

we discussed before, when we met in person, there are times when 

I have gone home to Boston and I have used my personal email to 

send documents from EPA.gov, from my office at home for printing 

and review purposes to facilitate those. But those have never left 

the Government email system. Those have always been sent back 

and are discoverable and they would comply with FOIA and the 

Federal Records Act. 

Senator VITTER. OK. Now, when we talked, you gave me basically the same response, ‘‘to the best of your recollection.’’ 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator VITTER. Are you completely confident that that recollection is perfect? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, you asked me that, and I want to be 

very honest with you. I have thought about this a lot. I also responded to your question as to whether or not my recollection was 

right. And I did go back and I searched my emails. I went back to 

my personal accounts, I took a look at those so that I could see 

whether the work practice that I believed I developed I actually 

carried out faithfully. And I did not find any circumstance in which 

I transferred documents from EPA to anything other than back to 

an EPA website. And they have been maintained and are discoverable. There was one exception, and it wasn’t a document. I did find 

when I went back and searched that in my husband’s email there 

was an unsolicited incoming email that was sent for me. As soon 

as I saw it, I shipped it into the EPA site. 

Senator VITTER. So from what I am understanding of your answer, that certainly includes not using your personal account to 

correspond with anyone else about EPA official business? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Senator VITTER. I have the same question regarding something 

that has come up in EPA and that the Acting Administrator has 

expressed concern about, which is EPA instant messaging accounts. 

The concern is that there is no clear record of that. Have you ever 

used instant messaging accounts to conduct EPA business? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. One good thing about being 58 is I don’t even 

know how to use them. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I have never used an IM, I don’t know how. 

Sorry. You got to admit it. 

Senator BOXER. OK, moving to Senator Sanders. 

Senator SANDERS. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Ms. McCarthy, in 

my State, we take environmental issues quite seriously. We are 

proud of our record. Last month we had a town meeting on global 

warming, we had 600 people coming out, including a whole lot of 

young people. 

So let me begin by asking you, do you believe that global warming is real? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe that the science is overwhelming, yes. 
365 

Senator SANDERS. Do you believe that global warming is significantly caused by man-made activities? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do think man-made emissions contribute to 

global warming, yes. 

Senator SANDERS. Senator Boxer and I have heard from scientists who have told us that they worry very much, no one can 

predict weather in the future, that is for sure. But Senator Boxer 

and I have heard from scientists who tell us that they fear that the 

temperature of this planet can warm by as much as 8 degrees 

Fahrenheit by the end of this century. Is that something that you 

have heard and see as plausible? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I have heard a number of ranges of warming, 

yes. 

Senator SANDERS. Can you give us some idea as to what role you 

think the Government, and in particular the EPA, should play to 

address what I believe, if that happened, would be a monumental 

and catastrophic crisis for this Country and for the planet? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, President Obama has indicated that he 

would look forward to congressional action on climate. But in the 

meantime, he has asked each of the agencies, including EPA, to 

look at our administrative authorities and what reasonable, common-sense steps can we begin to take that more effectively tackles 

the challenge associated with carbon pollution. Carbon pollution, 

greenhouse gases, are a pollutant under the Clean Air Act. That 

has been made very clear to EPA. We are regulating greenhouse 

gases as pollutants. But again, we are doing it in common sense 

steps so that we can make sure that the economy continues to 

grow. But we believe that we have opportunities for mitigating carbon pollution moving forward, and we are looking at our tools and 

the availability of them. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me ask you a two-part question. Many of 

my Republican friends have appropriately enough and correctly 

enough talked about the economy. We are all concerned about the 

economy. I would like to reverse that question a little bit and ask 

you, if we do not get a handle on climate change, if we continue 

to see more extreme weather disturbances, we don’t know, most of 

us voted for $60 billion just to deal with the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy. 

What are the economic consequences in terms of drought, fires, 

floods, more extreme weather disturbances if we do not get a handle and reverse climate change? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, the economic exposure associated with 

climate change is quite large, not just domestically, but as a national security issue. I would also caution that the climate change 

that we already see and is happening is requiring us to look at adaptation plans for how our cities and towns can be more resilient. 

That in and of itself is a significant investment in infrastructure 

that we really need to begin to plan for. 

Senator SANDERS. Let me ask you, the second part of the question is, do you see economic opportunities as this Nation moves forward aggressively in dealing with greenhouse gas emissions? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator I think in my opening remarks, I gave 

the best example on the ground that I can give, which is the clean 

car program that the President has moved forward with. That is 
366 

going to improve our national security, reduce carbon pollution significantly and give people cars they want to drive that are much 

more efficient. There are many ways in which we can hopefully 

turn this climate challenge into an opportunity for a clean energy 

economy. 

Senator SANDERS. Would you agree, and in Vermont, we are developing some strong energy efficiency programs. Clearly the fastest, most cost-effective way of dealing with pollution or greenhouse 

gas emissions is to have less of them through energy efficiency. 

Would you be sympathetic to an aggressive effort toward weatherization and energy efficiency in this Country? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Very much so. This Administration has put considerable funds into those efforts. I think they are right on target 

in terms of some of the best things we can do for the American 

public while at the same time reducing carbon pollution. 

Senator SANDERS. What about supporting sustainable energy, 

like wind, solar, geothermal, biomass? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That must be part of the all of the above strategy as we move forward. Yes. 

Senator SANDERS. I thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Apparently I made a mistake. There was an agreement that each 

one would get 7 minutes for questions. I took 5. Senator Vitter took 

5. So we are going to do 5. And if people want to stay they can get 

their next 2 minutes for a second round. Because it is, we have 

been going since 10:30. And we are going to proceed now, and the 

next person is Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Madam Chairman, I think Senator Inhofe is 

next. 

Senator BOXER. Forgive me, I just got the new rules. Senator 

Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Barrasso. 

Since it was 5 minutes, we are going to have to make this real 

quick. I have three questions and three answers. I am going to be 

quick and I will ask you to be, too. 

I am concerned that the EPA has been circumventing the appropriate administrative process for developing its rules and settling 

scores of lawsuits brought by environmental groups instead of actually litigating them. Even though the States are significantly affected by these, they have left out the process. 

Now, Scott Pruitt, who is the attorney general for my State of 

Oklahoma, and several other AGs from other States, filed FOIA requests asking the EPA to release information about these settlements. But the EPA has denied its request for a fee waiver. We understand what that is. 

My question to you is, if I make that request to you, would you 

supply me with that information? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, that isn’t an area in which I have had 

authority. So I will certainly go back and take that back to the 

agency and respond as quickly as I can to your request. 

Senator INHOFE. All right, I appreciate that very much. 

The EPA overturned Oklahoma’s regional haze plan after the 

consent decree, citing the plan’s cost estimate as inaccurate. Oklahoma’s plan was a low-cost plan, $100 million, as opposed to $1.8 
367 

billion which would have been for the EPA’s. It is that much more 

costly. 

Now, are you familiar with this? These are the two plans, the 

outcome of the plans that no one has actually refuted. Can you tell 

me whether or not you would take our plan, our State of Oklahoma 

plan, and save the taxpayers $1.7 billion? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, again, this is an area that I oversee. I 

am not exactly familiar with the plan that you are talking about. 

I am more than happy to respond to that in writing. 

Senator INHOFE. You are not familiar with the two plans? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I actually have gotten very engaged in Oklahoma in particular, one of the plans, because we did propose a regional haze strategy for that plan. We actually worked with the region and we worked with the Governor’s office. We worked with the 

company and we developed a plan that was more suitable for them, 

which they are now proposing back to us for public comment. So 

the one that I am familiar with we worked very well with the State 

on and I think they should be happy with. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much. 

I have become real troubled by the EPA’s actions. When the 

agency uses discretion, it has to further a climate change agenda. 

This has been especially problematic for the new source performance standard for greenhouse gases in the utility sector, wherein 

the EPA has forced all power plants to meet the emission standards of natural gas plans. 

Now, what we are getting to here is the category, of changing the 

category from, as it has been historically always a category of oil, 

gas and coal. In fact, the gas broken down into segments. So my 

question would be, would you commit to repropose a rule of the 

EPA’s as the President has been in the past, as opposed to accepting this one what I would call the sub-categorized approach that 

they are taking? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, first, let me say that I really appreciate 

the comment. We have heard similar comments in the comment period. We have received 2.7 million comments on that proposal, 

which tells me that there is great interest in what we do. I will assure you that we are going to take that comment into consideration 

as we look at finalizing a rule. I don’t want to tell you now at this 

point. 

Senator INHOFE. You can’t tell me now in terms of the sub-categorizing you have been doing that you would be willing to go back 

to the precedent that has worked for quite a number of years and 

that I would prefer? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am more than willing to take that comment 

into consideration and work it through in the public process, Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. During your confirmation hearing back in 2009, 

I recall that you said that coal is a vital resource. In light of this 

new standard, have you changed your mind on that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Not at all, Senator, no. 

Senator INHOFE. Can you explain why you used your discretion 

at the Air Office to abandon the longstanding Clean Air Act precedent? Why did we change the categorization issue in the first 

place? 
368 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We actually took a look at the two categories 

and we made a policy decision that it was a most appropriate way 

to look at energy generation, was to combine those categories. But 

we believe that the proposal we put out created a pathway not just 

for natural gas facilities, new ones, but also for new coal. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, is that policy one that can be reversed? 

Well, it can be reversed, would you assist in reversing that policy 

back to as the President has set in the past? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I believe that that is part of the comments that 

we received, and we will be giving that consideration, Senator. 

Senator INHOFE. I have a third question that I have a feeling I 

am not going to be able to get through here. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, we have so many waiting. Senator 

Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I want to first respond to something that the Chairman said 

about the dual email accounts, saying everybody does it. There is 

an April 11th, 2008 EPA memo from the agency’s own agency 

records officer that states ‘‘This dual account structure was first 

implemented during the former administrator, Carol Browner’s, 

tenure.’’ It goes on to say, though, ‘‘The secondary email accounts 

are configured so the account holder’s name appears to be in the 

sent by field,’’ so people actually know who it is sent by. So the 

email alias Richard Windsor does not comply with the rules. 

So I would ask you, if confirmed, will you please comply with the 

EPA rules with regard to the secondary email accounts that have 

been outlined in this document? And Madam Chairman, I ask that 

this EPA document, letter be included in the record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
374 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I am not familiar with the document, 

but I will certainly take it back to Acting Administrator Perciasepe 

and we can respond to that. 

Senator BARRASSO. Well, it is the rules of the EPA from April 

2008, and it says that the address of the secondary account has to 

be configured so the account holder’s name appears in the sent by 

file. And yet, I have a whole pile of emails from Richard Windsor 

to you and from you to Richard Windsor. Your name appears appropriately, but Richard Windsor’s does not, anywhere. 

So I would say that this is a practice, I wonder if anybody at the 

EPA objected or if you personally objected to EPA Administrator 

Lisa Jackson using an alias that was absolutely against the policy 

of the EPA? And your emails back to her, as Richard, go back to 

2009. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I am just not familiar with the policy 

you are reading from, but I will certainly be happy to familiarize 

myself with it. 

Senator BARRASSO. I think it is important for all of us to know 

if the EPA and this Administration are going to be transparent or 

are intentionally deciding to try to deceive the American people. 

Senator BOXER. Without losing any time, could you stop the 

clock? Would you, since we are asking Gina McCarthy, could we 

ask all those Republicans also? 

Senator BARRASSO. This is a 2008 document, April 2008. So I am 

not asking Carol Browner, who wasn’t there at the time, although 

she started it, and the people during the Bush administration. That 

is fine. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, but I just think it would be interesting to 

ask them as well. So I am going to do that. I am going to ask them 

as well. Go ahead. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The President said during his State of the Union address that if 

Congress won’t act soon to protect future generations that he would 

direct the Cabinet to come up with executive actions he said we can 

take in terms of pollution and prepare our communities for the consequences of climate change. This Administration has attempted to 

pass highly controversial legislation regarding climate change in 

terms of expanding the definition of even Federal waters among 

others. Clearly, Congress, in a bipartisan way, rejected these efforts by the President in terms of climate change, rejected the 

issues of Federal waters. The people in the House and the Senate 

who introduced the Federal waters legislation, they both lost the 

re-election bids. 

So the EPA doesn’t seem to care about any of the thoughts of the 

American people. They have moved forward, regardless, to attempt 

to enact these proposals despite the will of the American people, bipartisan. This includes climate change rules, it includes clean 

water jurisdiction. 

So I ask of you, you are looking to replace Lisa Jackson, do you 

disagree with any of the actions that the EPA Administrator Jackson has taken with regard to Clean Water Act jurisdictional guidance or climate change rules? 
375 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I respectfully ask if I could just stick 

with the Air program. I understand that there are many issues 

that folks are concerned about on the water side. I just can’t speak 

to those directly. But I know the rules that we have put forth that 

regulate carbon pollution are rules that we believe that the Clean 

Air Act requires us to regulate or is appropriate given the law and 

the science. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. In January of this year there was 

a proposed new coal-fired power plant that was canceled in Corpus 

Christi, Texas, a $3 billion plant that would have employed 3,900 

folks. The CEO of the company that was to build the plant stated 

that the plant, he said, is a victim of the EPA’s concerted effort to 

stifle solid fuel energy facilities in the United States, including the 

EPA’s carbon permitting requirements and the EPA’s new source 

performance standards for new power plants. The same month, 

Georgia Power announced the EPA emissions standards are being 

blamed for the closure of 15 coal-fired power plants and the loss 

of nearly 480 jobs in Georgia. 

Since you have taken office, 10 percent of coal-fired generated 

power in the United States has been taken offline. Thousands upon 

thousands of people are now out of work. More get laid off with 

each plant closure and each proposed project that gets killed. Do 

you see the EPA having any responsibility for the thousands of 

folks who are out of work for these plant closures? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I believe that coal has been and will 

continue to be a significant source of energy in the United States. 

I take my job seriously when I am developing standards for protecting public health, to take a look at the economic consequences 

of those and do my best to provide flexibility in the rules. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator INHOFE. Madam Chairman, I meant to ask one question 

for the record, would you allow me to do that. 

Senator BOXER. We will put it in the record for you. 

Senator INHOFE. But I think it is important that I ask the question. 

Senator BOXER. Senator, please, then, you need to wait. We are 

going to have another 2-minute round. Senator Cardin. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Madam Chair. I am willing to give 

30 seconds to my friend, if he would like to use it. 

Senator BOXER. That is fine, thanks for yielding. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin, and I 

appreciate that so much from my old classmate from 1986. 

Senator BOXER. Your 30 seconds are up. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. The question I was going to ask was, the decision that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals came against the EPA, 

and they are only applying that to the Sixth Circuit, so the question is going to be, will you be willing to commit to apply the Sixth 

Circuit court decision to the rest of the Country? You may want to 

say yes right now. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I am more than willing to go back and 

talk to our attorneys and see what the implications of that are and 

get back to you as soon as I can. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Senator Cardin. 
376 

Senator CARDIN. Well, you are quite welcome. 

First, let me again point out, we are all concerned about the impact that the work that you do will have on our economy. Jobs are 

critically important. We want the work to be done in a very transparent, open way. You have already indicated that is how you do 

business, and your record at EPA has confirmed that. 

Let me just put on the record, and I would appreciate any response that you want to make to it, when a Maryland family, when 

their child is not able to go to school because of asthma, and a parent who would be working now has to take a day off from work, 

that affects that family’s income. So if we don’t enforce the Clean 

Air standards the way we should enforce the Clean Air standards, 

there are going to be parents who are going to miss work days as 

a result of their children missing school days. I have had Maryland 

families tell me that they paid good money for a summer camp for 

their children only to find that because of the warnings, they can’t 

send their children out on that day because of air health risks. 

That also affects what the parent does that day in taking care of 

their child that they assumed would be in camp that can’t be in 

camp. 

My point to you is, there is a reason why we want cost-benefit 

analysis, there is a reason why we want to be able to understand 

the impact. And there has been voluminous material made available to this Committee as to the premature deaths, the amount of 

hospitalizations, the amount of extra hospital care, et cetera, as a 

result of the dirty air or dirty water or not enforcing at the level 

that we can. I just really want you once again just to assure this 

Committee that in implementing the laws that Congress has 

passed, we passed the laws, we passed the Clean Water Act, we 

passed the Clean Air Act, we did that because we thought we had 

a responsibility for public health and our future environment, that 

you will be guided by the best science, by the cost-benefit analysis 

that you do, that you are doing currently, but that it will be balanced, including looking after the responsibilities Congress entrusted upon you as a result of the passage of these laws. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It would be an honor for me, as you indicate, to 

let the law, the science, transparency, accountability and cost-benefit guide my judgments. 

Senator CARDIN. I thank you for that. Let me say, Ms. McCarthy, 

you have a reputation, and I know some of my colleagues on both 

sides of the aisle have said this, of being true to your word, of being 

open, of being transparent. That is the type of Administrator that 

we need at the Environmental Protection Agency. We had it from 

our current Administrator. Lisa Jackson, to me, did a great public 

service to this Country. She was always very straight with this 

Committee and very clear about the responsibilities and the manner she was going to continue to conduct her public life. 

We just want to make sure, and your record indicates that, but 

that is the type of Administrator we need. Look, we are going to 

have our differences. You can see that today. There are more differences, I think, among the members of this Committee than there 

is with the witness before us. And that is our job. Your job is to 

carry out the law and do it the best that you can in an open, transparent way, letting best science judge your work. I thank you for 
377 

being willing to commit to do that, and your record gives us great 

confidence in fact you will carry out those responsibilities in that 

regard. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator Cardin. Senator Fischer. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ms. 

McCarthy, for being here again today. I do appreciate you offering 

yourself for extended public service. 

In Nebraska, we are very serious about our environmental stewardship and our conservation management. But I get calls and I 

get letters every day from Nebraska farmers who are concerned 

about the compliance challenges associated with EPA’s spill prevention control and countermeasure rule for the on-farm storage, 

fuel storage. 

Allow me to share a portion of one such constituent email that 

I recently received: ‘‘We just became aware of this regulation yesterday through an email from Farm Bureau. Since we have a large 

quantity of on-farm storage capacity, we are not able to self-certify 

and must hire a professional engineer to create a plan. In order to 

find a qualified engineer, I first called the EPA, who then told me 

to call the Region 7 office out of Kansas City, who then told me to 

call the Nebraska Board of Engineers who then told me to call the 

Nebraska Society of Professional Engineers. But the number on 

their website is no longer in service. So when I asked the gentleman from the Nebraska Board of Engineers how much it would 

cost, he said anywhere from $1,500 to $4,800, depending on the 

complexity and the engineer’s ability to charge more due to this 

now high demand, due to the approaching deadline. When I asked 

the gentleman from the EPA Region 7 office why we hadn’t heard 

about it before now, he said the ruling was in place for a long time, 

but they hadn’t done a good job of getting the word out.’’ 

As you are aware, bipartisan legislation has been introduced that 

would raise the exemption levels for the fuel storage capacity. I 

think that better reflects the spill risk and the financial resources 

of farms. Would you support this common-sense solution that 

would help to ease these regulatory burdens? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, thank you for raising the question. I believe this is an issue that Congress has dealt with, at least to give 

some temporary leeway to take a look at this question. I am more 

than happy to go back and take a look at it. I think as we have 

talked when we were together, I think the agency has bridges to 

build with the agriculture community. I would look forward to 

tackling that with you and others. Because I know just how hard 

the farming community protects their resources. And I want to 

make sure that we have an opportunity to change the relationship 

between that community and EPA. 

Senator FISCHER. I appreciate that. 

Do you know if agriculture has any history whatsoever of any 

large oil or fuel spills? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am not aware of any directly, but we certainly 

can get back to you, Senator. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. Another question I have, again, we 

had the opportunity to visit earlier this week about that deteriorating relationship between agriculture and the EPA. And farmers 

and ranchers have become increasingly frustrated with the bu-
378 

reaucracy that doesn’t seem to understand the nature of our business or appreciate the pride that we take in our stewardship. 

So I would like to ask you about one recent example of EPA action that I think illustrates this problem that we have. And that 

was the release by EPA of the animal feeding operators personal 

information to environmental activist groups. Then the EPA is now 

asking for the information back. There is the perception out there 

that there is collusion between EPA and some of these activists. 

The Department of Homeland Security, they expressed explicit concern to the EPA about the creation of a national database about 

our animal feeding operations, because of the risk that it would impose on our food supply as a Nation. 

Would you commit to not developing, contracting for or implementing such a data base during your tenure, if you are confirmed? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, what I will commit to, because I am not 

familiar with this database, is to continue, I think, the path forward that Acting Administrator Perciasepe has taken, which is to 

get that information back and to follow up with Ranking Member 

Vitter and others who are concerned that we really improve the 

system at EPA. I know that there is great concern that that information went out. I understand that concern. And I would do everything I could to make sure that those errors are not repeated. 

Senator FISCHER. Thank you. Because I do view this as a national security concern as does Homeland Security. So thank you 

very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

We will turn to Senator Merkley and then Senator Sessions. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. 

And thank you, Ms. McCarthy, for being here. I wanted to address biomass. I come from a part of the Country that has a lot of 

biomass. And thus I recall once in a meeting someone said to me, 

wouldn’t it be great if we just had something that would take carbon dioxide out of the air? And I was able to respond and say, well, 

you will be glad to know we grow millions of those in Oregon. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator MERKLEY. I really do appreciate an important decision 

that was made under your direction for a 3-year deferral on biogenic greenhouse gas emissions. This was related to the tailoring 

rule and the goal is to understand the difference between fossil 

fuels and biomass and to create a framework for analyzing that. 

That framework, my understanding is that has been completed and 

is being submitted to an independent scientific advisory board. And 

that the preliminary findings are that biogenic or biomass does 

have some carbon emissions related to transportation, et cetera. 

But because it takes carbon from the atmosphere and returns it to 

the atmosphere, the overall life cycle impacts are much, much 

lower. That is a very important thing to learn in terms of a scientific framework. 

The expiration of the deferral is fast approaching. We have 1 

year left on it. My goal is that we bring this scientific information 

to bear so we don’t put very different types of products into the 

same basket, if you will. Will you just share a comment? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, just to thank you for your leadership on 

this issue. I know it was a big concern of your State and others in 
379 

that area, as well as folks in the Northeast and down South that 

we recognize the difference of biogenic emissions and that we properly study that and take a look at how we would account for that 

in any process moving forward. 

We got great advice from the Science Advisory Board, as we always do when we put our studies out for peer review. We are looking forward to resolving this issue in a way that I think people will 

agree is thoughtful and appropriate. We need to do that quickly because we have a July 2014 time line that is right in front of our 

heads, Senator, and we will work with you on it moving forward. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. 

Second, I want to turn to the Portland Harbor superfund. This 

is a section of the Willamette River where a lot of industrial activity took place, including a lot of shipbuilding during World War II. 

We are anxious to get through the planning and into the actual efforts to clean up the river. Complex combination of capping sediments or removing sediments. So far, it has been years and years 

and years, decade plus counting of studies. I would like, I am hoping that you will bring the philosophy of at some point you have 

to actually get in there and do the work, not just keep spending 

money on more and more studies. 

Any thoughts on your part? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, Senator, having worked at the State level 

for a long time, I know these issues are very difficult. I also know 

they are incredibly important. I have worked on issues related to 

the clean up of the Boston Harbor, the clean up of the New Bedford 

Harbor, clean ups in Long Island Sound, clean ups in the 

Housatonic. I understand the need to study, but I also understand 

the need to take action. People value these resources, and we need 

to make sure that we move from study to action. To the extent that 

we can work together on the Portland Harbor, I would really appreciate that and hopefully we can make some efforts moving forward, if I have the honor of being confirmed. 

Senator MERKLEY. We have a group of potentially responsible 

parties that have stepped forward to form a working group to work 

in close cooperation with EPA to try to get through the appropriate 

studies and get to the action. This minimizes costs and maximizes 

clean water. I hope the EPA will work very hard to utilize that 

close partnership. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator MERKLEY. Fuel economy standards, thank you for your 

work on tailpipe pollution and increasing the mileage standards. I 

was struck by the numbers, that it will result in $8,000 in fuel savings per vehicle, saving families $1.7 trillion at the pump. That is 

a lot of money spent in other places, a benefit to our American families. 

This work then is one of those places where a higher quality of 

life for families, more money to spend elsewhere, cleaner air, the 

money spent elsewhere stimulates the economy. Seems like a win 

on all fronts. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Well, and some of the best things, the best outcome is that the automobile industry is thriving again. 

Senator MERKLEY. Thank you. My time is expired. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 
380 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you. Well, as I indicated, Ms. McCarthy, the Environmental Protection Agency has extraordinary powers over virtually every American. They have the power to impact 

our lives in ways that I don’t think Congress contemplated when 

they authorized this agency or contemplated when they passed the 

Clean Air Act. It is a serious problem that I hear all the time. I 

had a group of shopping center people in yesterday, that was one 

of their three or four top issues, EPA issues they felt was wrongly 

decided. It is across the board. 

So your nomination is important. I am going to submitting to you 

some 30 some questions for the record that deal with a lot of important issues, how you think and how you will administer this 

agency. And I would expect that you will give us a candid reply. 

Will you do that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I absolutely will. And Senator, thank you for 

spending more than an hour with me yesterday. I know it was an 

incredibly busy day and we had a great conversation. 

Senator SESSIONS. It was a valuable exchange. We talked about 

a number of things. 

I would like for you to tell me, and tell this Committee and the 

American people, that you understand the seriousness of the regulatory responsibilities that you have and that you will say no to 

anyone in the Administration, to political interests or the President 

himself if he is asking you to shortcut or to conduct regulatory procedures and processes that you believe are not consistent with the 

highest standards of the EPA Administrator. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I will abide by the highest standard 

that the law and the science asks me to do. We will be having good 

conversations to make sure that you hold me to that. 

Senator SESSIONS. That is good. I mentioned the brick company 

making those items that make Americans’ homes better and better. 

In 2005, Henry Brick spent $1.5 million on scrubbers, dry lime, absorbers that would remove pollutants. And I am told they removed 

90 percent of the pollutants there. Other brick companies spent 

$100 million so far. But then an event occurred. Sierra Club filed 

a lawsuit, as many environmental groups do, challenging the EPA’s 

rule. In 2007, after the industry had come into compliance with 

EPA’s rule, a court invalidated that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. The EPA’s Air Office, under your leadership, 

entered a settlement agreement with Sierra Club establishing a 

much more ambitious schedule for finalizing new and more stringent Brick MACT rules. So under the proposed consent decree, 

EPA must propose a new Brick MACT rule by August of this year, 

and finalize it by July 2014. Is that correct? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is the current settlement schedule, I believe, Senator. But I can get back to you. My memory may not be 

exact on that. 

Senator SESSIONS. So this could be a much more costly rule. It 

could add up to $8 million to Henry Brick, they say, hopefully not. 

So I will submit for the record letters from a series of brick companies in my State that expressed real concern about that. 
381 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, the only thing I can add is, I do know 

that this particular sector has a number of small businesses. In 

fact, I think most are small businesses. And we are going to have 

to be incredibly sensitive to the impact of any proposed rule, never 

mind the final, and go through the appropriate process to make 

sure we understand the implications on small business. 

Senator SESSIONS. It should, because you don’t want to just consolidate every small business who can no longer compete. And then 

it clears the field for the megabusiness. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes. 

Senator SESSIONS. Ms. McCarthy, in November President Obama 

stated ‘‘The temperature around the globe is increasing faster than 

was predicted even 10 years ago.’’ I thought that was curious, because I had seen some data that indicated that that was not true, 

in fact, that it had been fairly flat. And certainly, so I wrote Administrator Jackson and asked her simply this, to provide the data 

supporting the President’s assertion along with ‘‘a chart of the actual global average temperature increases since 1979 versus the 

latest IPCC predictions.’’ And you responded to that. But it didn’t 

respond to my question. 

You basically said, in February of this year, ‘‘There are multiple 

lines of evidence that clearly demonstrate that average global temperatures are rising.’’ So you didn’t provide any specific data relating to the question I asked to the President’s statement. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, would you like me to take another shot 

at that? 

Senator SESSIONS. Would you? 

Senator BOXER. And if I could just say, Senator, I am adding 2 

minutes to your time, so you will get your 7. And if Senator 

Boozman wants his 7, he will get that as well. Go ahead. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am more than happy to take a look at that, 

Senator, and get back to you. 

Senator SESSIONS. Very good. I noticed a March 30th this year 

article in The Economist, a publication that supports anthropogenic 

climate change, stated: ‘‘Over the past 15 years, air temperatures 

at the Earth’s surface have been flat, while greenhouse gas emissions have continued to soar.’’ Do you dispute that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually I don’t know the study, Senator. But I 

also want to make sure that you don’t look at me as a climate scientist. I do rely on those that are. And I am more than happy to 

work with them in order to take a look at the study and get back 

to you, if that would be of interest, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. All I am saying, it makes sense to me, it always has created some common-sensical idea that a blanket effect 

of CO2 and other greenhouse gases might increase the temperature. And we have seen some temperature increase over the years, 

over the century maybe. But it hasn’t been following the models. 

Much below the recent model, may we have a quick chart? The red 

line represents what the IPCC average of their models show. And 

the other lines show that it is not reaching that level. I hope the 

President will be accurate in his statements. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Senator Boozman, you get 7. And 

then Senator Vitter gets 5 and I get 5. And then you are done. 
382 

OK, go ahead. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Thank you for being with us, Ms. McCarthy, 

so long. We do appreciate that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. My honor, Senator. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Don’t feel bad, in regard to instant messaging. 

To the embarrassment of my three daughters, I don’t have a clue 

either as to how to do that. 

Let me just ask you a few things that I think are real important. 

According to EPA and GAO, replacing a water infrastructure funding shortfall of over $500 billion over the next two decades, which 

amounts to about $25 billion annually. Amazingly this doesn’t even 

take into account the hundreds of billions of compliance costs that 

are going through, that municipalities are facing, due to EPA’s expansion of the Clean Water Act requirements, which sometimes are 

certainly right. Sometimes I think they are overly aggressive. 

But in our communities, the compliance costs are falling on ratepayers that have very little discretionary income. The communities 

are in trouble themselves. The increased cost disproportionately hit 

low income families and economically distressed communities. In 

response to this, a growing number of cities, groups like the U.S. 

Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the National 

Association of Clean Water Agencies, have been seeking increases 

in flexibility to prioritize Clean Water Act requirements and to develop longer compliance schedules to meet the increasingly complex 

requirements. 

I guess what I would ask is, so far the EPA is actually working 

to partner in these efforts to some extent. I guess my questions are, 

will you continue to support EPA’s integrated planning and permitting framework which is designed to maximize public utility flexibility in meeting the costly requirements of the Clean Water Act? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I think you will find you have a very 

big friend in me. I worked for States and local communities, I understand the stress that they are under and the need for us to be 

flexible, as well as support these efforts. 

Senator BOOZMAN. And along with that, do you have plans to 

make perhaps the integrated planning even a more useful tool to 

utilities across the Country? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. If there is a way in which we can do that, I 

think that is the smartest thing available to us. 

Senator BOOZMAN. The other thing that has come up is what we 

would like to do, through congressional action or whatever, is to extend longer Clean Water Act permits. One of the things that we 

have got going on right now that really is impacting the economy 

in so many ways is you just don’t know what the future holds. So 

would you be willing to look at longer permit processing so we can 

have a longer period that the communities can plan? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I wish I could tell you I knew enough about that 

issue to answer that firmly. But because I haven’t worked in this 

area, why don’t I go back and I will take a look at what flexibilities 

there are. If I am confirmed, I am more than happy to work with 

you on it, Senator. That would be great. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Good. Thank you. 

One of the things that occurs, the EPA frequently issue proposed 

rule that really are complex and lengthy, often taking years with 
383 

the studies, gathering the information, large volumes and sometimes thousands of facilities to be regulated. Frequently the EPA 

provides only 60 days for comments in regard to some of these proposed rules. That to me is a little bit on the short side. 

So I guess again, my question is, would you be willing to look at 

a longer period of time or to have somebody actually, I am suggesting 90 to 100 days, but I don’t really base that on anything. 

Sixty days to me is too long, 60 days just to read the stuff is probably adequate. 

But really to look into the underlying stuff. Would you be willing 

to look at that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am more than happy to look at that issue. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Good. Thank you very much. 

The other thing is that, I am an optometrist by training. So I am 

familiar with the scientific world. The idea that we have taxpayer 

financed databases that we can use to conduct cost-benefit analysis 

by EPA or really by any other agency or really any other entity 

that is making these really difficult decisions that have tremendous 

impact, I don’t understand why all of that information isn’t being 

made public. I was at the White House yesterday, in the evening, 

and visited with the President with a group. I walked through the 

security without any problems, they don’t look at me because I am 

a United States Senator. But the idea that I can’t get the information that I need to see that the studies that you are doing, and 

again, I have a trust in the agency. We have oversight of the agency. I just don’t understand that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, the information that we have not been 

able to gather and share is information that is confidential. It relates to medical records and information that can trace back to specific people. We are required to protect that as are the scientists. 

Having said that, if there is anything that we can do to build a 

more trusting relationship on these issues, I want you to feel more 

confident as time goes by that we are doing sciences we are supposed to do, that we are basing our decisions on the best science. 

Senator BOOZMAN. But that can be redacted, as far as the people 

and that sort of thing. And again, you dumped out a bunch of information that you shouldn’t have dumped out that you acknowledge 

that you shouldn’t have dumped out with people’s names and all 

this kind of stuff. So again, we talk about transparency and this 

and that. I don’t know that there is any, in any other area of research, those things are taken care of, where you redact, you do 

this and that, names, things like that. But the basic science can be 

given. There is just no excuse for that. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I am more than happy to work with 

you. If you think there are things that we are not doing, I know 

that the Administration is fully committed to transparency and I 

am personally. So we should sit down and if there is something we 

are doing to not get you data that you think should be available 

to you, we will take those steps. 

Senator BOOZMAN. Good. Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. Senator Vitter. 

Senator VITTER. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to follow up on 

my colleague’s question, because as you know, that was one of our 

central points of these five, we have been very specific about what 
384 

we think you are not doing. I think John is exactly right. You can 

give us all of this data once it has been scrubbed of personal, identifying information. That is exactly what we are asking for. That 

is absolutely possible. That has been asked for for years with regard to the key studies underlying your decisions. It has not been 

provided. So I just remake that request. I think we have been extremely specific. 

On another point, there has been a lot of discussion about costbenefit analysis. All of us think that is being done in an inadequate 

way under the law. Specifically, Section 321(a) of the Clean Air Act 

requires the EPA to conduct continuing evaluations of potential 

lost or shift of employment economy-wide. You have been the leader on some huge air regs in the last three and a half years. Has 

a Section 321(a) analysis ever been done? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It has been done by the agency, yes, not on those 

particular rules. 

Senator VITTER. On those huge rules, I mean, what I am talking 

about that you have led on, Utility MACT, et cetera, ongoing, biggest impacts in history. Has a 321(a) analysis been done on that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I should be clear, the whole economy 

analysis wasn’t done on a Clean Air Act rule. It was done on a larger analysis that the agency undertook. So let me answer your question. When we did those particular rules, we did, we followed the 

directives that we are allowed to follow. We used modeling available to us, the most appropriate we had available. We used all of 

the data available to us, we believe we did it in a robust way and 

made that transparent. It went through a public comment process. 

To the extent that we could define the economic consequences of 

those rules using the best modeling available, we believe we did 

that, Senator. But if there are other things that we are not doing 

that you think we should be doing, I am more than willing to explore that. 

Senator VITTER. So 321(a) analysis was not done in those cases? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is correct. 

Senator VITTER. I think that is required and appropriate. 

The analysis that was done, for instance, did it take account of 

the negative impact of increased energy costs economy-wide? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It looked at energy, expected energy costs, it 

looked at expected job, either growth or loss. 

Senator VITTER. So it specifically quantified expected energy cost 

increases and measured those impacts economy-wide? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, I am probably not well positioned to answer these questions. But I am more than happy to do that following the meeting, and we can walk through those issues. 

Senator VITTER. This is a huge body of your work. It is a pretty 

fundamental question. We have these big regs. Are we measuring 

spikes in energy costs? That would be a big factor. My understanding is, that was not done on an economy-wide basis. That 

seems to me it is a glaring omission. 

Let me move on to another big concern of ours, which is No. 5 

in our list, which is the sue and settle practice. We all have the 

concern that in some cases, EPA is sued by outside left-wing environmental groups. The group and the EPA are the only two parties 

in the lawsuit. You come up with a settlement and the truly im-
385 

pacted parties never have a seat at the table. Never get input, 

never say boo. 

We asked you to change that practice and so far you haven’t 

agreed to that full request. Shouldn’t an affected group like the 

States, for instance, on the regional haze issue, shouldn’t they have 

a seat at the table? Shouldn’t they know any proposed settlement? 

Shouldn’t they have input into that? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Senator, what I can speak to is how we practice 

it under the Clean Air Act. The Clean Air Act actually does require 

public comment on settlement agreements. It does offer an opportunity for that comment. There are many additional opportunities 

beyond that. 

Senator VITTER. Is that before or after the agreement has been 

made. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. It is before the agreement is finalized. And 

States and others can comment and do comment on that. And we 

do that take that into consideration. 

Senator VITTER. So the agreement has been agreed to by the 

EPA, not finalized. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Actually the agreement is reached with the EPA 

and the Department of Justice. And we put that draft agreement 

out, our proposed agreement out for public comment. 

Senator VITTER. Have you ever changed agreements based on 

comment? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I can’t answer that question, Senator. I don’t 

know the full history of the agency. 

Senator VITTER. Was regional haze changed in every way when 

the States say, time out, we are supposed to be the primary player 

on the regional haze issue under the statute? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We worked very closely with States on regional 

haze issues, and we worked hard to make it a State implementation plan to the extent that we can. 

Senator VITTER. Have you responded to their FOIA requests on 

regional haze? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I am not sure what specific one you are talking 

about, but I can certainly get back to you, Senator, and find out. 

Senator VITTER. OK. I would like that for the record. Thank you. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Assistant Administrator McCarthy, does the 

EPA use peer-reviewed science when crafting Clean Air rules? And 

does the agency analyze the impacts of these rules, including on affected industries using widely accepted economic models? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. That is how we do our business, Senator, yes. 

Senator BOXER. Does the Office of Management and Budget also 

review the agency’s analysis to ensure it meets legal requirement 

and official guidelines? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. We do. 

Senator BOXER. And does the public, including regulated industry, also get to review and comment on these rule and point out 

anything that they perceive as a problem? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Yes, they do, Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. And I want to place in the record this letter that 

was waved around by one of our Senators, Barrasso, and he said, 

oh, you were told of the EPA to use your name, don’t use a false 
386 

name. First of all, here it is. Guess what. It is a letter, it is going 

in the record, without objection. 

[The referenced information follows:] 
387 
388 

Senator BOXER.The reason the letter was written, and it is an internal EPA letter, is because under Stephen Johnson, there was destruction of hundreds on hundreds of emails. So it started an investigation into what the heck happened to these emails. And as they 

went through them and they were destroyed automatically every 

90 days, and the Johnson people said, well, we printed up anything 

we thought was important and destroyed the rest. 

That is the genesis of this whole darned thing. So if this is where 

my Republican friends want to go, bless their hearts, we are ready. 

Because this whole issue is a non-issue in terms of this EPA now. 

So let’s get that clear. 

Gina, I want to say to you how much I admire you, how much 

I thank you on behalf of my children and my grandchildren for 

your years of bipartisan service to our Nation. The work you have 

done already is a legacy. I just hope and pray that my colleague 

will give you this opportunity to continue to serve. I think you have 

proven here today that you are in this for the right reasons. 

I also, since I am thanking you, I want to thank your husband 

and I want to thank your kids. It is a sacrifice. It is a balance. And 

I want to thank them so much, because I know they are very proud 

of the work you do. 

So in conclusion, I would hope that we can move this nomination 

swiftly. I certainly will work with Senator Vitter and all my colleagues to try and mark this up as soon as possible. I can’t announce that we have an agreed-upon date, but I am very hopeful 

we will have one soon. And I would ask if you would agree to take 

the oath in this case. If you would raise your right hand. 

Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this Committee or 

designated members of this Committee and other appropriate committees of the Congress and provide information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection, with respect to your responsibilities? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do, Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. And do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, documents and electronic and other forms of communication 

are provided to this Committee and its staff and other appropriate 

committees in a timely manner? 

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do. 

Senator BOXER. And Assistant Administrator McCarthy, do you 

know of any matters which you may or may not have disclosed that 

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

Ms. MCCARTHY. I do not, Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. With those answers, we thank you for your service. We thank you for being with us today. We thank your staff, 

we thank your family. In advance, I thank my colleagues for working with me to make sure this goes smoothly. We stand adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:34 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

Madam Chairman, our Nation faces significant environmental and public health 

challenges, and to meet them, we need a strong leader at the EPA who will make 

protecting public health a top priority. We need a leader who will not rest until 
389 

every community is free of poisons that threaten our families or until every child 

has clean air to breathe and clean water to drink. 

In Gina McCarthy, the President has made a great choice for EPA Administrator. 

He has nominated a strong, well-qualified candidate, and her nomination represents 

an opportunity to make great progress on crucial environmental issues. She brings 

immense experience at both the Federal and State levels, under both Democratic 

and Republican administrations, and the Senate should confirm her without delay. 

During her time at the EPA, she has led the Office of Air and Radiation as the 

Assistant Administrator and done incredible work to protect our families and children from air pollution. Among her accomplishments in that leadership role are: historic clean air standards for power plants, landmark auto pollution standards, and 

many other actions to protect public health and keep pollution out of the air we 

breathe. Together, these standards will prevent asthma attacks, heart attacks, respiratory diseases, and even premature deaths. 

As Assistant Administrator, Ms. McCarthy not only fulfilled EPA’s mission to protect public health and the environment, she also listened to concerns from industry, 

States, and numerous other stakeholders to ensure that EPA’s decisions were fair, 

science-based, and transparent. I am confident that the same approach will guide 

her as Administrator. 

As we move forward, it is important to address the crucial challenges the EPA— 

and its new Administrator—must move decisively to meet, such as reforming the 

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), tackling climate change, ensuring clean air 

and clean water, and cleaning up toxic sites across the country. 

One of my top priorities is reforming America’s broken toxic chemical laws. These 

laws have not been significantly updated since their original passage in 1976. That’s 

more than 35 years ago. As a result, EPA has limited authority to test and ban toxic 

chemicals to protect the public and ensure that dangerous chemicals—some of which 

can cause cancer—aren’t in the everyday products found in our homes. 

Yesterday, I introduced the ‘‘Safe Chemicals Act’’ along with Senator Gillibrand 

and 27 other cosponsors. This bill would reform TSCA and ensure that the EPA has 

the tools it needs to protect families from toxic chemicals. And as we work for its 

passage this Congress, we need a strong EPA Administrator to help move the fight 

forward. 

The next EPA Administrator will also play an important role in our battle against 

climate change. We have a real opportunity to slow climate change, but it will only 

be possible if the EPA exercises its authority to set global warming pollution standards. Our next EPA Administrator must take this role and responsibility seriously, 

which Gina McCarthy does. In New Jersey, Superstorm Sandy served as a painful 

reminder that climate change is a force that directly threatens the well-being of our 

residents and communities. 

Acting to rid our atmosphere of global warming pollutants can also work hand in 

hand with ensuring that all Americans have clean air to breathe and clean water 

to drink. The EPA’s recent standards for smog, auto pollution, and mercury—which 

is brain poison—will be critical to cleaning up our environment, but we must remain 

vigilant as we continue to improve the quality of our water and air. 

Last, our next EPA Administrator must be dedicated to cleaning up our toxic legacy. I’m proud to have authored the ‘‘Toxic Community Right-to-Know Act,’’ which 

created the Toxic Release Inventory and gives families the right to know when they 

are at risk of toxic pollution in their neighborhood. But we must do more. Right 

now, in too many communities children grow up exposed to chemicals and other pollutants that will permanently stunt their growth, diminishing their futures before 

they’ve even entered a classroom. 

On all of these issues, former EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson has been a great 

ally and a strong leader. And I know that there is no one better than Gina McCarthy to carry on our important shared work. 

I look forward to supporting Gina McCarthy’s nomination to be the next Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and I strongly urge my colleagues 

to do the same. 

STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE CRAPO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO

Thank you, Gina McCarthy, for being here with us today to discuss your nomination and for your willingness to serve. There is no doubt that the agency faces considerable challenges. 

Having served as Assistant Administrator since 2009, no one on this committee 

needs to explain to you the unique challenges that come with running the EPA. 
390 

In fact, in a letter Republicans on this committee recently sent to you on your 

nomination, we outline several critical issues we have with the agency in relation 

to transparency in rulemakings and scientific review. We all look forward to your 

prompt response to that letter as we continue to review your nomination. 

To be sure, there is not an agency that I hear more about from Idahoans in a 

negative way than the EPA. I continue to receive the input of Idahoans about the 

impacts of EPA’s regulations on family farms, ranches and businesses. 

The EPA has become synonymous with overly burdensome regulation, bureaucratic paralysis and economic decline. In fact, the EPA leads other Federal agencies 

with the most regulatory actions currently under review. 

Business owners know to plan for change. In our evolving, global economy, they 

understand that there will be ups and downs due to market and policy changes. 

They understand that operating a business, whether it is a ranch, farm or retail 

store, involves risks. However, they should be able to expect that our Government 

will not pursue Federal policies when the benefits do not outweigh the costs. 

Unfortunately, there are too many examples of Federal regulations that make it 

harder to do business and maintain jobs while providing little benefit to their intended purposes. And that is just on the business side of the spectrum. 

To individuals, the EPA is often associated with loss of property rights, constraint 

of Federal freedoms and an ever-increasing financial burden to comply with rules 

promulgated by faraway officials on local communities. 

As a lawmaker, parent and active community member, I have had the great opportunity to see the Federal Government and local stakeholders work together to 

find solutions based on collaboration, trust and ultimately compromise for the greater good of the group. 

Despite my nearly two decades of efforts at collaborative problem-solving, I find 

myself confounded by the morass and multitude of problems confronting the EPA. 

As we survey the most contentious debates in the West over resource and land 

management, we see States, counties, local governments and concerned citizens 

coming together to find solutions. It is difficult for me to understand why such 

achievements are so absent with the EPA. 

Should you be confirmed, I will look to you to begin a new chapter with the EPA— 

one that sees the agency as part of a community, looking for solutions, working with 

community and property owners—not focusing on enforcement actions and heavyhanded penalties. 

I am interested in an EPA that builds trust and does not break down morale, an 

agency looking for solutions, not a behemoth extracting payments, and an agency 

ready for reform, to join the Federal family of agencies working with and not 

against its citizens. 

To provide an example, the EPA’s Brownfields Program is a step in the right direction, as it enables working with property owners and communities to clean contaminated sites to enable business and job growth. I recently co-sponsored bi-partisan legislation with colleagues on this committee to reauthorize the program. 

As you have often said, Ms. McCarthy, you are passionate about supporting the 

disenfranchised, the middle and working classes. I could not agree more. However, 

I will carefully evaluate your answers today to see how that commitment can usher 

in to a new EPA. 

Not an agency competing with the IRS for most feared Federal agencies. One that 

works with communities and citizens to provide environmental benefit, not at the 

expense, but at the collective benefit of the citizens it serves. 

I expect you to work closer with communities and local governments. 

It is my hope that the new EPA leadership will not seek to administratively expand its regulatory umbrella, but rather carry out its responsibilities within the 

confines of congressional intent. 

While I support ensuring that science, research and other tools are available to 

leave our air, water and soil better than we found them for future generations, 

layering on more regulations, burying American businesses in more paperwork and 

imposing overwhelming penalties are not the best means to achieve this goal. Rather, working with property owners and communities to help implement needed 

changes is far more productive. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to discuss your nomination and the direction 

of the agency. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 
391 
392 
393 
394 
395 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 
403 
404 
405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 
413 
414 
415 
416 
417 
418 
419 
420 
421 
422 
423 
424 
425 
426 
427 
428 
429 
430 
431 
432 
433 
434 
435 
436 
437 
438 
439 
440 
441 
442 
443 
444 
445 
446 
447 
448 
449 
450 
451 
452 
453 
454 
455 
456 
457 
458 
459 
460 
461 
462 
463 
464 
465 
466 
467 
468 
469 
470 
471 
472 
473 
474 
475 
476 
477 
478 
479 
480 
481 
482 
483 
484 
485 
486 
487 
488 
489 
490 
491 
492 
493 
494 
495 
496 
497 
498 
499 
500 
501 
502 
503 
504 
505 
506 
507 
508 
509 
510 
511 
512 
513 
514 
515 
516 
517 
518 

Æ