[Senate Hearing 111-1200]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-1200
HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF ROBERT PERCIASEPE TO BE DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE EPA AND CRAIG HOOKS TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, OF THE EPA
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 8, 2009
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
95-158 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Bettina Poirier, Staff Director
Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 8, 2009
OPENING STATEMENTS
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 1
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 4
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 6
WITNESSES
Perciasepe, Robert, nominee to be Deputy Administrator, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 9
Response to an additional question from Senator Carper....... 14
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 14
Hooks, Craig E., nominee to be Assistant Administrator,
Administration and Resources Management, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.............................................. 16
Prepared statement........................................... 18
Response to an additional question from Senator Carper....... 23
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 23
HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF ROBERT PERCIASEPE TO BE DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR OF THE EPA AND CRAIG HOOKS TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, OF THE EPA
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 8, 2009
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the full committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, and Cardin.
Senator Cardin [presiding]. Chairman Boxer requested that I
convene the hearing, start the hearing, of the Environment and
Public Works Committee. She will be joining us shortly.
I had anticipated being next to Bob Perciasepe to introduce
him, and I still will do that in my time on opening statement.
Bob hails from Baltimore, and it is a pleasure to have him
nominated for this very important position.
I also welcome Craig Hooks.
At this time, I am going to yield to the Ranking Republican
on the Environment and Public Works Committee for his opening
statement.
Senator Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also confided in
the Chairman that I have worked with Robert Perciasepe over the
years in many incarnations and have enjoyed that relationship,
and so I am very supportive of both of these nominees.
However, I do have an opening statement that I want to put
in the record that, quite frankly, I regret to say, has
nothing, well, no, actually, I joyfully say, has nothing to do
with you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. From the beginning of the Administration,
the current Administration, and from the moment that
Administrator Lisa Jackson became the head of the EPA, we were
told that there would be an overwhelming transparency in the
operation of that agency. And we were lectured about the Bush
administration's alleged failure to follow sound science. We
were told there would be a new era with no suppression of
discussion, no matter what the view is or who conveys it.
Well, last week we saw the reality behind those words. A
35-year veteran EPA employee questioned the science behind the
EPA's headlong rush to regulate greenhouse gases. He was told
to keep quiet about his findings, not once, but four separate
times. And his work was then buried. This was back in March at
the very time that we, on this committee, were getting
straight-faced assurances that there would be, that this would
not occur.
Worse yet, this did not happen with some minor
administrator or administrative matter. It happened with
perhaps the most important public policy issue that we will be
dealing with.
In her first memo to all EPA employees, dated January 23,
2009, Administrator Jackson emphasized, and I am quoting now,
she said science must be the backbone of the EPA programs. When
scientific judgments are suppressed, misrepresented or
distorted by political agendas, the American can lose faith in
their Government. That is all in a quote.
Then she finished by saying, I pledge that I will not
compromise the integrity of the EPA's experts in order to
advance a preference for a particular regulatory outcome.
And in her testimony before this very committee, she
repeated those pledges.
Now, we have proof that EPA has rejected science,
suppressed scientific judgment for the critical agenda, and
compromised the integrity of EPA's experts for the sake of a
particular regulatory outcome being pushed by the Obama
administration.
That is why last week I demanded an investigation of the
suppression of the March 9, 2009, direct report on the
endangerment of finding for greenhouse gas emissions under the
Clean Air Act. The report warned of several inconsistencies and
problems with scientific data behind the Administration's
proposed endangerment finding and called on EPA to conduct a
serious review of the science before making a determination.
In other words, it called upon the EPA to do the very
things that Administrator Jackson had stated should be done.
There is another matter that I need raise. I have asked
each of the nominees before the committee to respond with equal
vigor to the requests for information from either side of the
aisle. I have been repeatedly assured that this will be the
case. In fact, back in April, Administrator Jackson herself
issued a memo to all EPA staff directing them to provide
Congress with the information we need to do our jobs.
Yet, in the months since the Administration took office, I
have made several requests for information that have not been
received fair and equal treatment. When I do get replies to my
questions, they have sometimes been vague and unresponsive.
I know other colleagues on this committee have had the same
problems, the same experiences. This lack of responsiveness is
a real impediment to us in fulfilling our constitutional duties
over oversight.
Now, to the nominees at hand, I have something that you
have no control over, and that is that I have observed each
time we have a new nominee, even though I have supported, I
think, all of them, they are all from the Northeast. I would
just hope that you folks would look very carefully, as issues
come along, and think of the entire country, think of our part
of the country out in Oklahoma and other areas. I know this was
nothing intentional, but it turned out to be that way. So that
is something that I would like to have you folks, well, at
question time I will probably ask something to that effect.
This is not a one size fits all type of situation. We are
dealing with issues that affect different parts of the country
differently. Certainly, in the current debate that we are
having on cap-and-trade, the costs are disproportionate. It is
the Heartland that is paying for the East Coast and the West
Coast. And these are things that we, I think, should keep in
mind.
Having said that, I look forward to serving with both of
these nominees and for confirming their nominations.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
Madam Chairman, I am pleased to join you today to review
the two latest nominees for senior level positions at the
Environmental Protection Agency. I congratulate them on their
nomination and appreciate their commitment to public service.
Before I get to them, I have something to say about the
administration they wish to join.
From the beginning of the Obama administration, and from
the first moment Administrator Lisa Jackson became head of EPA,
we were told there would be ``overwhelming transparency'' in
the operation of that agency. We were lectured about the Bush
administration's alleged failure to follow ``sound science.''
We were told there would be a new era, with no suppression of
discussion, no matter what the view is or who conveys it.
Well, last week we saw the reality behind those words. A
38-year veteran EPA employee questioned the science behind
EPA's headlong rush to regulate greenhouse gases. He was told
to keep quiet about his findings, not once, but four separate
times, and his work was then buried. This was back in March, at
the very time we on this committee were getting straight-faced
assurances that this would not occur. Worse yet, this didn't
happen with some minor administrative matter that doesn't
really make a difference--it happened with what is perhaps the
most important public policy issue of our time.
In her very first memo to all EPA employees, dated January
23 of this year, Administrator Jackson emphasized, ``Science
must be the backbone for EPA programs.'' She added, ``When
scientific judgments are suppressed, misrepresented or
distorted by political agendas, Americans can lose faith in
their government.'' Then she added the kicker: ``I pledge that
I will not compromise the integrity of EPA's experts in order
to advance a preference for a particular regulatory outcome.''
And in her testimony before this very committee, she has
repeated those pledges.
Now, we have proof that EPA has rejected science,
suppressed scientific judgment for a political agenda, and
compromised the integrity of EPA's experts for the sake of a
particular regulatory outcome being pushed by the Obama
administration.
That is why last week I demanded an investigation of the
suppression of the March 9 draft report on the endangerment
finding for greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act.
The report warned of several inconsistencies and problems with
the scientific data behind the Administration's proposed
endangerment finding and called on EPA to conduct a ``serious
review of the science'' before making a determination. In other
words, it called on EPA to do the very things Administrator
Jackson has said she is committed to doing.
There is another matter I need to raise. I have asked each
of the nominees before us to commit to responding with equal
vigor to the requests for information from either side of the
aisle. I have been repeatedly assured this will be the case. In
fact, back in April, Administrator Jackson herself issued a
memo to all EPA staff directing them to provide Congress with
the information we need to do our jobs. Yet in the months since
this Administration took office, I have made several requests
for information that have not received fair and equal
treatment. When I do get replies to my questions, they have
sometimes been vague and unresponsive. I know other colleagues
on this committee have had the same experience. This lack of
responsiveness is a real impediment to us in fulfilling our
constitutional duties of oversight.
Now to the nominees at hand. I've have had a chance to
speak to each of these gentlemen. I have nothing against them
personally, and I wish them success in their service to our
Nation. I note, however, a trend I've pointed out before. Each
of these senior level nominees either comes from or has spent
the better part of his life out East.
Mr. Perciasepe has had two tours of duty at EPA, both times
at headquarters, and he has worked in or near Washington for
his entire career. Mr. Hooks is also a veteran EPA headquarters
staff member, although at least he got his education from
schools in Florida and Texas.
I have nothing against those who choose to work in one part
of the country or another. But when virtually the entire
leadership of a key Federal agency is from one area, in this
case the Northeast, and the agency's mission is to address
national issues, it raises concerns for those of us from other
regions. The Nation's environmental challenges are not one-
size-fits-all. We suffer from policy decisions that do not take
into account their effect on the rest of the country. I saw
that time and again during my time as mayor of Tulsa, and I
keep seeing it in the regulations coming out of Washington even
now. It is said that personnel is policy, and if we fill senior
positions with persons of one mindset, we will see policies
that reflect that mindset.
Madam Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony
today and asking a few follow up questions. Thank you.
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe.
Let me point out that, in regards to the specific concern
that you expressed, the individual at the EPA is an economist,
and it is our understanding that his findings were attached to
the documents that are being transmitted.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, well I have heard her response on
that. However, that does not respond to all of the particular
investigative questions that we had offered. In fact, at
question and answer time, I will be a little bit more specific
and ask the two of you to perhaps jointly join in on an
investigation of some specific things that affect your area of
expertise.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Let me first welcome our two nominees,
Robert Perciasepe, nominated to be the Deputy Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency, and Craig Hooks, nominated
to be the Assistant Administrator, Administration and Resources
Management, Environmental Protection Agency.
I had asked Chairman Boxer if I could be permitted to
introduce Bob Perciasepe. I do that because he hails from
Baltimore. His first major public responsibility was working
for the city of Baltimore under Mayor William Donald Schaefer,
revitalizing the city's Inner Harbor into a world class
destination. We very much appreciate his public service then
and his career in helping at all levels of government.
He knows about State issues. In State government, he served
as a Cabinet Secretary for the State of Maryland, overseeing
the State's environmental programs. He knows about regional
cooperation. He served as Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Program's
Principle Staff Committee where he coordinated efforts among
the States of Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania, as well as
the District of Columbia, to restore the Chesapeake Bay.
And he knows about national issues. He already has served
in two major leadership positions with the EPA, first as the
Director of Water and later as the Director of the Air Program.
He knows about working outside of government, too. For the last
8 years, he has worked in a senior leadership position in one
of America's oldest and most respected national natural
resource advocacy groups, the National Audubon Society.
Bob Perciasepe brings to this position a record of
excellence in the areas of responsibility that would fall under
this new responsibility once he is confirmed in the position in
the Environmental Protection Agency.
So, I thank President Obama for making this appointment,
and I hope that we would quickly confirm his nomination.
I also want to take this time to talk about the two
nominees together. Management of our Federal agencies often
gets insufficient attention. But we provide these Federal
managers with large budgets, large staffs and broad ranging
responsibility. The American people deserve strong stewardship
of their tax dollars and management of these agencies.
These two nominees are competent managers who give us
confidence that the Environmental Protection Agency will be in
good hands.
We look forward to their testimony and we look forward to
their prompt consideration by this committee and the U.S.
Senate.
And with that, I will turn it over first to Mr. Perciasepe.
I would ask that you would first introduce members of your
family that may be here so that we might have a chance to meet
them. And the same thing with Mr. Hooks. And then we will be
glad to hear from you.
Mr. Perciasepe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cardin. Just a side conversation about Mayor
Schaefer. Once you meet Mayor Schaefer, you always know Mayor
Schaefer. He is still around.
Senator Inhofe. And I have to say this. You do not look old
enough to have worked with him because I was there in Tulsa
when he was mayor of Baltimore.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, it was a pleasurable time of my life,
working for a can do kind of person. So, I appreciate those
comments very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for those introductions and for
all of the work that both of you do on this Senate committee
and the leadership that you show for the country.
I want to, as you suggested, introduce my family who are
here today. First, Lee Palmer, who is my wife, my youngest
daughter, Julia, right behind me here, and my older daughter,
Laura, who is right there. I am glad they were able to be here
today. They may not know it, but they give me inspiration every
day.
The other thing I want to mention, by introduction. Shall I
just go with my introduction?
Senator Cardin. Yes. Well, Mr. Hooks, would you like to
introduce your family. That way we will know who is looking at
us here.
Mr. Hooks. I would love to do that. Thank you. I have with
me my father, Perry Hooks, Dorothea Hooks, his wife, my
youngest daughter, Kyla, my wife, Austria, my best friend,
Louis Castro, a wonderful family friend, Ramona Morano, my
middle daughter, Brianna, my oldest daughter Zoraya, and my
cousin Bridgette. I think that is it.
Senator Inhofe. I would observe that with that crowd here
it would be awfully hard not to be nice to you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Cardin. Well, we thank your families because we
know the sacrifices they make for your service, for your public
service, and we know that the challenges of the offices that
you are seeking are going to be long hours. It is a sacrifice
of not only yourselves but your families, and we appreciate
that very much.
Mr. Perciasepe. Thank you.
Senator Cardin. We have now been joined by our Chairman.
Senator Boxer [presiding]. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for chairing this. Feel free to
continue to chair it or, if you need to go, I will take the
gavel. But I am not going to give it to Senator Inhofe because
I do not want him to get any ideas about the future here.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. Even though I know he has a lot of good
ideas about the future.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. I would like to begin today's hearing by
welcoming Mr. Perciasepe and Mr. Hooks. You each have been
nominated to fill essential positions within the EPA at a
pivotal point in the Agency's history. You each bring a wealth
of experience and a record of dedication to achieving EPA's
mission of protecting public health and the environment.
The Deputy Administrator assists the EPA Administrator in
implementing the President's policies. The Deputy Administrator
also helps to provide leadership to EPA's programs and
activities and keeps the Agency focused on safeguarding the air
we breathe, the water we drink, and the land that sustains our
Nation.
Mr. Perciasepe, the Agency has a full agenda as it moves
the country toward a clean energy future while also
implementing and strengthening public health and environmental
protections. Administrator Jackson, in my opinion, is doing an
excellent job and, with more help, the EPA can accomplish even
more for the American people. As her right hand, you will fill
a critical role at the Agency.
Mr. Hooks, your decades of experience working in different
parts of the EPA are a great fit for the Office of
Administration and Resource Management. That office helps to
manage all of the other parts of the Agency, and it increases
or shifts resources to where they are most needed.
This office also works with State and local governments
that rely on Federal resources to implement public health
safeguards. And it plays a central role in working with other
agencies to reduce pollution and increase the sustainability of
their operations.
Mr. Hooks, your background at EPA and your clear commitment
to public service will ensure that you make a valuable
contribution to the Agency's work.
I look forward to hearing both of your testimony.
At this time, did you speak already, Senator?
Senator Inhofe. Yes, we did that already.
Senator Cardin. We are ready for Mr. Perciasepe's opening
comments.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT PERCIASEPE, NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Perciasepe. OK, I will try to be actually brief because
I think that you probably have all seen my statement.
First, thanks again, Madam Chairwoman. I mentioned before,
and I want to mention again while you are here, my appreciation
to the full committee and yourself, in particular, for the
leadership that you have been showing on the environment and
public health in the United States. It is going to be a
pleasure to be working with all of you if I am confirmed.
I want to start by simply saying how humbled and honored I
am that the President of the United States has nominated me to
this position. And also, I want to express my thanks and
appreciation to Administrator Jackson who has the confidence in
me also to help on some of those minor details that the Chair
was just talking about.
Senator Cardin, you mentioned quite a bit of my public
service background so I am not going to reiterate that too
much, just to make a couple of key points. Public service is a
very important thing to me. It is something that is a calling
that I think many of us have. I think that, what I want to
emphasize about those parts of my career that bring me to this
point, is that diversity of experience and how I think that is
going to be able to help EPA.
This city experience you mentioned, part of my job, in
addition to working on the Harbor and the Chesapeake Bay there,
I also helped the city to manage its construction budget and
the water and sewer systems. So, I had a lot of experience
which much aligns with what EPA works on with local
governments.
At the State government, as you know, working with the
Chesapeake Bay Program, some of the interstate issues with the
States around, and also agriculture, quite a bit of time with
agricultural interests on the DelMarVa peninsula and in other
parts of the State.
At EPA, with the air and the water programs, I think I
bring some experience to EPA of having at least managed some of
those larger programs. Certainly not all of them, but some of
them.
And finally, at the National Audubon Society, I have been
the Chief Operating Officer for the last 5 years of service
there. In that time, I have managed budget planning, annual
performance planning, all of the other kinds of management
issues that you really need to bring to bear to a well managed
institution, including a Federal agency.
I feel very confident that those experiences are really
going to serve me well to help the President and Administrator
Jackson with the tasks at hand.
I want to just quickly say something about, well, I will
just wait for the questions on the East Coast and the rest of
the things. I have some thoughts on that.
But I will just end right now by simply saying that we do
have a set of core values that have been laid out by the
Administrator, and I want to reiterate my support for those
core values of strong science, transparency and the rule of law
in terms of how EPA conducts its business.
Also, I have to say, and Craig will be involved with these
as well, that we are stewards of public funds, and we have a
responsibility to make sure that they are used in a wise and
effective way, and that is another thing that I am really going
to pay attention to if you all confirm me to this job.
We also need a strong and empowered work force. Our work
force is, you know, 90 percent of what EPA's strength is are
the people that work there. I want support them and make sure
that they have the resources that they need to get their work
done.
So, if confirmed, I will put all of my skills, and all of
my energy, into this task and working closely with
Administrator Jackson to achieve these goals.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perciasepe follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Mr. Hooks.
STATEMENT OF CRAIG E. HOOKS, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
ADMINISTRATOR, ADMINISTRATION AND RESOURCES MANAGEMENT, U.S.
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Hooks. Thank you.
I would first like to take this opportunity to express my
gratitude to Chairman Boxer and to Ranking Member Inhofe for
holding this hearing.
I am deeply honored to have been nominated by President
Obama to serve as Assistant Administration for the Office of
Administration and Resources Management, OARM, at EPA. It is a
privilege to work with Administrator Jackson and, if confirmed,
I look forward to becoming a member of her team, as well as
working closely with this committee and Congress to continue to
improvement management and performance at EPA.
OARM's role within EPA is to provide national leadership,
policy, and management of many essential support functions for
the agency, including human resources management, acquisition
activities, grants management, and management and protection of
our facilities and other critical assets nationwide.
In over two decades of experience in public service, I have
held a variety of both programmatic and administrative
positions in the Federal Government. After beginning my career
at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, I
joined EPA in 1988.
Most recently, as EPA's Acting Assistance Administrator for
OARM, I also serve as the agency's Senior Resource Official for
the Recovery Act activities. In this role, I have focused my
efforts on rewarding funds in a prompt, fair and reasonable
manner, while also ensuring transparency and accountability in
an effort to achieve both economic and environmental results.
At this time, over 62 percent of EPA's Recovery Act funds have
been awarded.
Prior to my current position as Acting Assistant
Administrator for OARM, I served as the Director of EPA's
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, or OWOW. OWOW
promotes a watershed approach to manage, protect and restore
water resources and aquatic ecosystems of the Nation's marine
and fresh waters. I have also served as Director of the Federal
Facilities Enforcement Office, which ensures that Federal
agencies meet multi-billion dollar clean up commitments and
comply with environmental law.
As Associate Director of the Administration and Resources
Management Support Staff within that office, I was also
responsible for guiding annual resource requests, managing
mission contracts, and supporting information technology,
personnel and facilities activities.
President Obama and Administrator Jackson have made clear
the three core values they expect EPA to uphold: scientific
integrity, the rule of law, and transparency in our actions. If
confirmed, I am committed to keeping these values at the center
of everything I do.
I welcome the opportunity to focus on workplace issues
emphasized by Administrator Jackson: labor management
relations, work force planning, work force development,
diversity, and work-life amenities. I believe that by creating
an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect, we can work with our
unions to identify and solve workplace issues.
I would proactively focus on our future work force needs,
as EPA faces the retirement of one-third of our employees over
the next 10 years. I would continue the Agency's efforts to
create a work force that is representative of America by
providing opportunities to all employees. And, I would continue
EPA's focus on work-life balance in order to maintain a
motivated and engaged work force.
As the next generation of environmental professionals
enters the work force, we will continue to create a workplace
that attracts the best talents and fosters their development
and ensures that EPA continues to fulfill its mission in the
future.
In terms of facilities management, my priorities would be
to ensure employee health and safety, as well as managing EPA's
environmental footprint. To ensure that EPA's buildings and
practices reflect our mission, the Agency implements a range of
strategies to reduce the environmental impact of its facilities
and operations, from building new, environmentally sustainable
structures to improving the energy efficiency of our older
buildings.
If confirmed, I pledge to ensure that EPA's contracts and
grants management processes are run according to the laws and
regulations governing Federal procurement, to ensure that
Federal funds are used responsibly to deliver meaningful
environmental results.
In conclusion, if confirmed, I pledge to uphold the laws by
EPA is directed, to implement the priorities of the President
and Administrator Jackson, to conduct agency business in a
transparent manner, to be responsive to the inquiries of this
committee and Congress, and to uphold the mission of the EPA.
Once again, thank you for this opportunity. I am happy to
answer any questions that you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hooks follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Well, let me thank both you for your
testimonies. I am going to have to leave in a moment, but I
just want to ask one question related to the interagency
issues.
Mr. Perciasepe, we had a chance to talk yesterday about the
challenges of the different Federal agencies that you have to
work with. I must tell you, I have been pleased this year to
see EPA and DOD working together on clean up issues in my own
State, both at Fort Meade and Fort Detrick, where we have made
significant progress. But is it not easy working with other
Federal agencies.
So, I want to ask you a question about OMB, which does not
always see eye to eye with EPA on budget requests. This
committee is very interested in the State Revolving Fund and
the Drinking Water Revolving Fund. We have legislation pending
to try to increase the authorized amount.
As Deputy Administrator, if confirmed, you will be
responsible to try to deal with OMB in getting the appropriate
funding levels so that we can move forward with our water
infrastructure in this country. And these are programs that are
critically important.
I just want to know how you would see your role in working
with OMB to make sure that we get the appropriate resources in
this country to rebuild the infrastructure and the needs in our
communities.
Mr. Perciasepe. Thank you, Senator. In my past time at EPA,
I spent quite a bit of my time working with the different
agencies and, in particular, with the Office of Management and
Budget. I have a great appreciation in the role that they play
in managing the entire Federal Government. They certainly have
their own set of challenges.
I think it is, well, this may sound almost like diplomacy
and I do not mean it to sound that way, but in recognizing
where each agency is coming from in terms of its perspective
and in terms of its charge that Congress has given to them in
many cases, for instance, the Department of Agriculture or the
Department of Transportation or the Department of Defense. It
really is important that people at EPA in the responsible
positions, you know, can communicate in a way of mutual respect
and find the right way to proceed.
And I think that I have quite a bit of experience and
success in that area. I have a lot of respect for my colleagues
that are in those other agencies. I have not had the
opportunity yet, because I have not yet been confirmed, to
really get to know them in detail. But I certainly will
approach that interagency area of work with that kind of
attitude, but also one that is aimed toward solving the
problems and moving the ball forward.
Senator Cardin. Well, the Congress, in a bipartisan manner,
has added funds to these accounts over the President's budget
because of the importance that we place on moving forward and
modernizing our infrastructure. I give the examples frequently
in Maryland where River Road became a river and downtown
Baltimore was flooded out and the trains could not run. The
funding of these programs is very important and I am pleased to
hear that you will be fighting within the Administration so
that perhaps we will have an easier lift in Congress in passing
budgets that are adequate in this area.
Madam Chair, thank you, I am going to turn it over to
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Well, first of all, I ask both of you the same question. If
you are confirmed, which you will be confirmed, will you commit
to answering requests for information and documents from the
minority and respond the same as you would those requests
coming from the majority?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, Senator, I would.
Mr. Hooks. Yes, sir.
Senator Inhofe. OK, thank you.
Mr. Perciasepe, first of all, I have always enjoyed working
with you, as I said earlier, in the past, and I look forward to
it again. You heard us taking about the alleged suppression of
the information that went into the endangerment decision and
the fact that the information was not used. We have requested
an investigation of that.
Let me just ask you, since you will be coming in to the
second position. Will you make your own independent, go in with
a fresh look and make it an investigation and share with us
what your feelings are as to the accuracy of the accusations
that have been made? Would you do that for me and get back in a
timely fashion? It does not have to be formalized or anything.
Mr. Perciasepe. You know, I am not familiar, other than
what I read in the press about this.
Senator Inhofe. And that is dangerous.
Mr. Perciasepe. And I do know that the Administrator, I was
watching the hearing yesterday on television, and I know that
the Administrator responded, I thought, with some specificity.
So, I would want to work with the Administrator on whatever
reviews that they are doing and to make sure that information
is available.
Senator Inhofe. Well, if you would rather not do it
independently, I can understand that, but would you go back, if
we gave you some of the specifics we would like addressed, and
try to help us with that?
Mr. Perciasepe. Any information that you provide I will
certainly make sure that it gets to the right people at EPA.
Senator Inhofe. All right. You have been watching what we
are doing now with this Clean Water Restoration Act. We are all
familiar with this. We remember the background, where it
started, we are familiar with the two court decisions and then,
of course, what this would attempt to do would to be put all,
in my opinion, my interpretation of the Act, would be to put
all waters under Federal jurisdiction. How far do you think
that should go? Are their exceptions to the Federal
jurisdiction?
All right, let me ask you more specifically. A farm pond
that is unconnected to any other body of water, should that be
Federal jurisdiction?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, it is hard to answer in the abstract
of a particular pond or a particular water body. Let me just
say, step back for just a moment on this. Based on my own past
experiences, and what I have watched unfold over the last
number of years with certain Supreme Court decisions, is that
one of the things that is really clear to me is that there
needs to be some work on this by the Congress to help create
certainty in the current situation. Because for both people who
might have a farm pond, and people who are worried about
wetlands restoration and preservation, all of them have, you
know, whatever perspective you are bringing to that issue,
there is a degree of uncertainty right now.
I think that the Administration did lay out some broad
principles on this, and what I can say to you is that I would
pledge to make sure that I would work with this committee in
any way that you see your needs, so that we can find the kind
of common sense approach that we need to take under those
principles that the Administration had laid out.
But it is hard to say----
Senator Inhofe. Yes, but----
Mr. Perciasepe. Can I just finish? It is hard to say, like
a particular pond, you would have to know what the----
Senator Inhofe. Well, what about water that collected in a
ditch? You see, this is what I am really concerned about----
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, I understand----
Senator Inhofe. That it would go so far and, quite frankly,
if you feel, if you do not feel, that the Federal jurisdiction
should come to these areas, that is a great concern. It is not
going to affect your confirmation. But it is going to put me in
a position where if I talk to the ag people and say that this
Administration is not even going to say that you are exempt if
you have water in ditch or in your farm pond that is
unconnected, that is of concern to me.
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, I do not think that anybody wants, I
can say this categorically, but not being involved with the
current discussions even on the legislation, but nobody wants
some impractical jurisdictional determination that gets into
rain puddles and things of this nature that you hear about.
Senator Inhofe. OK. Let me do this a different way then. I
am going to run down a list of six bodies of water. And all I
am going to ask you do to do is say should the Federal
Government have a jurisdiction over these. If you do not say
yes or no, just say it depends or something. I just want to get
you on record, so that if I have to go to someone and say, even
water collecting in a ditch is one that might be subject to it,
then that at least gives me something specific. These are my
concerns.
So, we have an intermittent stream that has no flowing
water in past year.
Mr. Perciasepe. I do not know the answer----
Senator Inhofe. All right. And a farm pond, unconnected, as
I mentioned before, to any other body of water.
Mr. Perciasepe. A farm pond? Is this a farm pond that was
made by the farmer or was this----
Senator Inhofe. Yes. We do this in Oklahoma. You build a
little dam and you build a farm pond, and that is where the
cows go to keep cool.
Mr. Perciasepe. I am going to probably, for all of these,
just to give you a heads up, I'm probably going to say I do not
know because, you know----
Senator Inhofe. That is fine. I do not know will suffice.
Water that collects in a ditch?
Mr. Perciasepe. I do not know.
Senator Inhofe. A wetland that is not connected to a stream
or river?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, wetlands are connected hydrologic, by
the full hydrologic cycle. But again, it takes a scientific
discussion and knowledge of this particular water body to be
able to answer that. But I am going to say that I do not know
again.
Senator Inhofe. A prairie pothole? And I do not know, is
that OK? And a body of water that migratory birds happen to
land upon?
Mr. Perciasepe. A migratory bird now?
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. There is a court decision on that, you
might know.
Mr. Perciasepe. I think the Supreme Court mentioned
something about migratory birds and using them exclusively for,
this I do know, and obviously there would have to be other
factors involved.
Senator Inhofe. Well, OK, I did not mean to take that much
time.
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, I am not saying----
Senator Inhofe. I just really want to be able to say, to my
people in Oklahoma, how far this thing really could go. You
have been helpful. And you have been very honest in your
response.
This issue that you are aware of on the startup and shut
down, a maintenance issue. As you know, since 1994, the EPA has
given plants and refineries and manufacturers exemptions on
their strict emissions standards on startup and shut down. The
concern I have here is that, if these are discontinued, you
would have a situation where people would either not even start
up again, or, you know, well, is your feeling that there should
be some exemptions on startup and shut down?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, startup and shut down of major
facilities of any kind clearly are a moment in time where
conditions are different than ongoing operations. I have to
tell you that I am familiar with this concept, but I am no
familiar with the current states of affairs with whatever
rulemaking EPA is looking at.
I can say that there are conditions at that particular
moment that are unique, but I do not know the state of play of
the regulation. I would be happy to look into that and get back
to you.
Senator Inhofe. That is fine. Do I have time to go ahead?
Senator Boxer. You can do whatever you want.
Senator Inhofe. Well, that is----
[Laugher.]
Senator Boxer. Within reason.
Senator Inhofe. I noticed that you are on the One Thousand
Friends of Maryland Board having to do with smart growth. This
is an issue that, way back, many years ago, about the time that
Schaefer was mayor and I was mayor of Tulsa, we dealt with a
lot of the insiders coming in and trying to tell us how to
handle our property rights in the city of Tulsa and these
things, where we could grow and these things.
Because of your previous association, just as a general
question, do think that sometimes, sometimes, not always, but
sometimes, that Washington knows more about, and should be
involved in, land use in a Tulsa, Oklahoma, than people who
live in Tulsa?
Mr. Perciasepe. Well, the one thing I can say is, if the
Department of Transportation funds a highway project in Tulsa,
Oklahoma, they are going to be involved with land use, one way
or the other because it is going to stimulate growth, or it is
going to direct growth to a certain area. And I think there is
a need for collaboration on these kinds of matters when Federal
funds are used.
Senator Inhofe. Absolutely. I understand that. In my
experience, do you remember the name of Dr. Robert Froehlich
out in San Diego? He was the one who was making the circuit at
that one time talking about zoning. This had nothing to do with
the highways and with Federal funding. I agree with you there,
that is not a problem. But just on land use, and it gets a bit
down to property rights, where he had used the circles around a
city and said that certainly zoning could take place in some
places and could not in other places.
Is your feeling that even outside of the area where there
are Federal funds that we should take a more aggressive stand
in Washington in terms of zoning and land use throughout the
country?
Mr. Perciasepe. I really think that zoning, and specific
kinds of land use decisions that you are talking about, are the
purview of States and local government. It is the partnership
between the Federal Government and the investments that we
make, good or bad, that can disrupt those. So, we need to work
on this together. The Federal Government has a role, to
cooperate.
Senator Inhofe. One last question to Mr. Hooks.
Senator Boxer. Yes.
Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hooks, you are probably aware, in fact
I know that you are, that I have a kind of long standing
interest in maintaining the integrity of the grant system at
the Environmental Protection Agency. We have set up some
restrictions, some guidelines. I think we are making great
headway. It was not too long ago, though, that they moved the
attorneys that were supposed to be making some of the
interpretations to another building. This concerned me.
I would like to know what your feelings are in terms of my
past efforts and concerns about grants management and the kind
of reforms, whether you agree to some of the reforms or not
that I was trying to do and could continue with those reforms.
I am very, very, I have always been very concerned about the
way that grants are handled.
Mr. Hooks. I am actually very pleased with some of the
reforms that have taken place over the last few years. For a
grants program, it is very important to further the agency's
mission. I think one of the key factors in terms of some of the
results that we have achieved over the last few years is that
we have really advanced the ball in terms of achieving
environmental results.
However, it is going to be important for us to ensure that
we monitor our policies and procedures, to offer improvements
when necessary, and also maintain a high quality grants
management work force to keep them in place.
One of the things that I really want to focus on is
leveraging technology to ensure that we can use that for
decisionmaking and also increase transparency.
In terms of the attorneys that were co-located in the same
office, I believe those were attorneys that were associated
with the contracts office and that is another issue that I
actually want to look at.
Senator Inhofe. Well, let me look into that because that
may be true. That was not my understanding but you are probably
right in this case. So we will look at that.
But I am concerned, and pleased that you are concerned,
with the integrity of the grants system and the improvements
that we have made.
Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
To both our nominees, we have a question that we have to
ask all nominees, so I will just ask you to answer yes or no.
Do you agree, if confirmed by the Senate, to appear before
this committee or designated members of this committee and
other appropriate committees of the Congress, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security
protection, with respect to your responsibilities at the
Environmental Protection Agency?
Mr. Perciasepe, please, you go first. Answer yes or no.
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, I will.
Mr. Hooks. Yes.
Senator Boxer. And do you agree, we will do the same order,
to ensure that testimony, briefings, documents, electronic and
other forms of communication are provided to this committee and
its staff, and other appropriate committees, in a timely
fashion?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, I do.
Mr. Hooks. Yes. I do as well.
Senator Boxer. And the last question of this. Do you know
of any matters which you may or may not have disclosed that
might place you in any conflict of interest if you are
confirmed?
Mr. Perciasepe. None other than I may have already
disclosed in the information packet that I have given to the
committee.
Senator Boxer. All right.
Mr. Hooks. No, I do not.
Senator Boxer. All right.
I just want to give, of course, a little bit of a different
view on the clean water issues. I have no intention of putting
a pothole under the Federal Government's jurisdiction. And I
also agree with my colleague, coming from local government, I
was a county supervisor, and I agree with you, Robert, that
zoning and land use are a matter of the locals. But when we do
inject Federal funds in there, there needs to be a partnership
discussion and we need to respect each other and make that
work. So, thank you for that answer.
I would say, coming from a State that has lost 95 percent
of its wetlands, that I do believe whether a wetland drains
into a stream or a river, that is a different issue for me.
Because I have seen areas that flooded over because everyone
thought that the wetland was a swamp, everyone thought the
wetlands were a ditch. And all through my early years in
government, I took a great interest in restoring wetlands.
I just want to make the point that wetlands, if they truly
are wetlands, and that is why I think your answer is right,
Robert, I mean it is so site specific. One person looks at
something and says, that is a ditch. It is not worth anything,
fill it up. Another person, perhaps a scientists, might say
well wait a minute, do you know this is part of the ecological
chain and the food chain and what is going on in here, do you
know it is cleaning the air, and do you know it is providing
the areas with flood control? All you have to do is look at New
Orleans to see how desperate both our colleagues are to restore
wetlands.
So, I just want to make the point that we are, Senator
Inhofe and I do have a disagreement over this, but we do also
have some agreements on zoning and respecting the power of
local government.
I guess I would like to ask you both this question. Do you
not view it this way, whether it is this contentious issue
after Rapanos that we are trying to resolve which our
colleagues on the other side feel that we overstepped, and I
completely respect that, but we passed this out. I am not
asking your opinion. But is it not true that, whatever the law
is, it is your job, whether you agree with it or not, to
implement it. Is that right? If it is the law? Go, go.
Mr. Perciasepe. The Congress has had----
Senator Boxer. And the President.
Mr. Perciasepe. The executive branch obviously has the role
of implementing those laws.
Senator Boxer. Well, the President has to sign it for it to
become a law or we have to override a veto. So, I think putting
you on the spot, either of you, and we did not really see that
happening to you, Mr. Hooks, I am sure you are grateful, is
just not fair. Because it is up to us to write the laws. You
know, if you are sitting up here and I am sitting there, then I
have to say, well, regardless of my opinion, you write the
laws. But you gave a truthful answer on what you think, and you
have done that and I just appreciate it.
There are contentious issues here. I think you are right on
the point about certainty.
I want to talk about the stimulus bill, otherwise known as
the Economic Recovery Act, Mr. Hooks. You said that 62 percent
of the awards have been made. Out of that, how many have really
started the groundbreaking? Do you know?
Mr. Hooks. Well, you can look at it in two different ways.
You can look at it in terms of obligation rate, and I think we
are doing a pretty terrific job in terms of getting the money
out of the door. The majority of our money goes in the form of
clean water and drinking water SRF loans.
Senator Boxer. Right.
Mr. Hooks. In terms of the outlays, it is actually fairly
small. We are only about $22 million. I think, at this point in
time, the States have had those contracts out for bid. Right
now, all that is starting to come to fruition. At this point in
time, I expect that the outlays should start to jump up.
Senator Boxer. Good. I mean I have a serious concern out
this, across the board. I think you are doing great getting 62
percent. When do you think you will have 90 percent?
Mr. Hooks. I suspect within the next 100 days, I would put
us at 90 percent of the funds being obligated.
Senator Boxer. OK. Well, I want to urge you, I do not want
you to make mistakes on this. God knows, we do not want that.
But I would urge you to do your best with your staff, because
this recession is very prolonged, it started in 2007, it still
is very tough out there, and we need to make sure that these
grants are not only awarded, but the moneys are obligated. Do
you stay in touch to make sure these are obligated? Is there a
certain rule that they are going to lose the funds if they do
not spend it by x time?
Mr. Hooks. In the context of clean water and drinking
water, yes, there is.
Senator Boxer. Good.
Mr. Hooks. There is a 1-year, actually, timeframe to have
all drinking water and clean water SRF loans made within 1 year
from enactment. So, by February 2010, all those contracts have
to be under contract or construction.
Senator Boxer. Well, I would urge the Administration to do
whatever they can to stay on top of it and let people now they
are under contract to get this done within a year because we
need the jobs and we need the work done. And the SRF is a great
program.
As a matter of fact, if Senator Inhofe were here, he and I
would be singing out of the same book. We very strongly support
that fund and also, by the way, making sure that the formulas
are fair. We are working hard on that. If we get that done, it
will be the first time in 22 years that the SRF for clean water
would be done and the other one was how many years? Thirteen
years for the drinking water. So, we are really working hard.
So, I guess I have a couple of other questions. Can you
take a couple of more questions?
Mr. Hooks. Absolutely.
Mr. Perciasepe. We are here at your pleasure.
Senator Boxer. Good. Oh, and I am having such a good time.
Let me see. Mr. Perciasepe, earlier this year,
Administrator Jackson ended EPA's voluntary performance track
program, which was criticized for giving companies good PR
despite poor environmental performance. The Administrator has
asked an EPA Federal Advisory Committee to review the agency's
voluntary program, and to recommend potential changes.
If confirmed, do you commit to work to ensure that EPA's
voluntary programs reward the best companies, those leaders who
go beyond what is required and demonstrate what is possible?
Mr. Perciasepe. Of course. I think voluntary programs have
a role in the overall scheme, and we need to make sure that
they accomplish some goals of improving compliance and getting
people ahead of the curve, providing those proper incentives.
So, yes, absolutely and I am looking forward to seeing that.
Senator Boxer. The private sector can do so much and we
ought to just save the rewards for those that really take that
extra step.
Also for you, the 2007 energy bill required EPA, in
consultation with the Secretary of Education and Health, to
develop voluntary school siting guidelines by June 30, 2009. I
understand the Administration is working to catch up on this
issue which, in my view, was not given enough attention in the
past.
If confirmed, do you agree to provide my staff with a
status update and time line for EPA's issuance of these
guidelines?
Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, yes I will. I do not know the
particulars right now, but I will look into it and get back to
you.
Senator Boxer. Yes, please do. If you could get us an
answer in writing ASAP on that one. Just get back to us.
And Mr. Hooks, EPA unions have called for the agency to do
a workload and work force analysis which enables EPA to
identify the skills needed to accomplish the agency goals and
to address any gaps or surpluses in skills.
If confirmed, do you commit to consider working with EPA's
unions to determine the need to conduct such an analysis and
complete it if such analysis is needed, in your opinion?
Mr. Hooks. Yes, I will.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Hooks, in January 2009, EPA's inspector
general found that the agency could more quickly make
unexpended funds available for use in other programs and
activities in a process called de-obligating funds. The report
made recommendations to help ensure that money was more quickly
used where it was needed.
If you are confirmed, would you please provide my staff
with an update on the status of EPA's implementation of that
report's recommendations?
Mr. Hooks. Yes, I will.
Senator Boxer. Good, because we, at this point when we have
such a need for these funds to be used, we do not want them
just wasting away or sitting there because somebody did not get
their act together.
Mr. Hooks, an April 2009 inspector general report found
that the agency had not fully documented their implementation
of five prior recommendations concerning grant disbursements.
And I think that is a little bit to what my colleague is
talking about.
If confirmed, do you commit to report back to my staff on
the status of EPA's implementations of these recommendations?
Mr. Hooks. Yes, I will.
Senator Boxer. Well, thank you very much, both of you. I am
very grateful to you for undertaking these new
responsibilities. I think it is an exciting time. It is a time
of change. We have a big job to do. These are also very tough
times. You are in a position, by doing your work well, by
really focusing, to make things happen on the ground.
A lot of people are hurting out there. It does not do us
any good if stimulus funds are sitting somewhere, right, on the
shelf. It does not do us any good if there are programs that
have unobligated moneys, and we all think that it was a great
grant and then it does not happen and it does not do us any
good.
And it does not do us any good when EPA does not conduct
itself in accordance with science and the law, and I am very
convinced that that will happen.
So, congratulations to both of you. To your families, we
really thank you. There will be long nights and hard work, but
you will be part of this process of change by virtue of your
standing behind your loved one. So thank you.
We stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[all]