    [Senate Hearing 115-102]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                              S. Hrg. 115-102

     HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF MICHAEL DOURSON, MATTHEW LEOPOLD, DAVID
        ROSS, AND WILLIAM WEHRUM TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS OF THE
     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AND JEFFERY BARAN TO BE A MEMBER OF
                       THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                                OCTOBER 4, 2017

                                   ----------

      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.fdsys.gov

     HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF MICHAEL DOURSON, MATTHEW LEOPOLD, DAVID
        ROSS, AND WILLIAM WEHRUM TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS OF THE
     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AND JEFFERY BARAN TO BE A MEMBER OF
                       THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

                                                            S. Hrg. 115-102

     HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF MICHAEL DOURSON, MATTHEW LEOPOLD, DAVID
        ROSS, AND WILLIAM WEHRUM TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS OF THE
     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AND JEFFERY BARAN TO BE A MEMBER OF
                       THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                OCTOBER 4, 2017

                                   __________

      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.fdsys.gov

                                  _________

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     27-172 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2017
    ____________________________________________________________________
     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 20402-001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS
                                 FIRST SESSION

                        JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming, Chairman
    JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma            THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware
    SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia  BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland
    JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas               BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
    ROGER WICKER, Mississippi            SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    DEB FISCHER, Nebraska                JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    JONI ERNST, Iowa                     EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska                 TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois
    RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama              KAMALA HARRIS, California

                  Richard M. Russell, Majority Staff Director
                   Gabrielle Batkin, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                OCTOBER 4, 2017
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming......     1
    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     3
    Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma...   410

                                   WITNESSES

    Chabot, Hon. Steve J., U.S. Representative from the State of Ohio   410
        Prepared statement...........................................   412
    Dunn, Hon. Neal P., U.S. Representative from the State of Florida   414
        Prepared statement...........................................   415
    Dourson, Michael, Professor, Risk Science Center, Department of
      Environmental Health, University of Cincinnati, College of
      Medicine.......................................................   419
        Prepared statement...........................................   422
        Response to an additional question from Senator Barrasso.....   426
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................   427
            Senator Booker...........................................   445
        Response to an additional question from:
            Senator Capito...........................................   447
            Senator Cardin...........................................   448
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Duckworth........................................   449
            Senator Ernst............................................   450
            Senator Fischer..........................................   451
            Senator Markey...........................................   452
            Senator Merkley..........................................   454
            Senator Sanders..........................................   456
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................   460
    Leopold, Matthew, Counsel, Carlton Fields Jordan Burt, P.A.......   478
        Prepared statement...........................................   480
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................   484
            Senator Cardin...........................................   489
        Response to an additional question from Senator Markey.......   489
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Sanders..........................................   490
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................   491
    Ross, David, Assistant Attorney General, State of Wisconsin, and
      Director, Wisconsin Department of Justice Environmental
      Protection Unit................................................   495
        Prepared statement...........................................   497
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................   501
            Senator Booker...........................................   509
            Senator Cardin...........................................   510
        Response to an additional question from Senator Ernst........   512
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Markey...........................................   513
            Senator Sanders..........................................   514
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................   519
    Wehrum, William, Partner, Hunton & Williams LLP..................   527
        Prepared statement...........................................   529
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Carper........   532
        Response to an additional question from Senator Cardin.......   556
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Duckworth........................................   557
            Senator Ernst............................................   560
            Senator Fischer..........................................   561
            Senator Markey...........................................   562
            Senator Merkley..........................................   563
            Senator Sanders..........................................   569
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................   572
            Senator Wicker...........................................   587
    Baran, Jeffery, (Reappointment) Commissioner, U.S. Nuclear
      Regulatory Commission..........................................   591
        Prepared statement...........................................   593

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Letter to Senators Barrasso and Carper from Audubon Florida,
      September 19, 2017.............................................   961
    News Release from the Office of the Administrator, EPA,
      Widespread Praise for Matt Leopold, Leopold Nominated as EPA
      General Counsel, September 2, 2017.............................   962
    News Release from the Office of the Administrator, EPA,
      Widespread Praise From Environmental Officials for David Ross,
      Ross Nominated to Head EPA Office of Water, September 2, 2017..   964

     HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF MICHAEL DOURSON, MATTHEW LEOPOLD, DAVID
        ROSS, AND WILLIAM WEHRUM TO BE ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATORS OF THE
     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, AND JEFFERY BARAN TO BE A MEMBER OF
                       THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

                                  ----------

                           WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2017

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Barrasso
    (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Barrasso, Carper, Inhofe, Capito,
    Boozman, Wicker, Fischer, Rounds, Ernst, Sullivan, Cardin,
    Whitehouse, Merkley, Gillibrand, Booker, Markey, Duckworth, and
    Harris.

               OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
                 U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING

        Senator Barrasso. Good morning. I call this hearing to
    order.
        Today we are going to be considering the nomination of four
    individuals to serve as Assistant Administrators of the U.S.
    Environmental Protection Agency and one individual to serve as
    a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC.
        First, I am going to address the four nominees before us
    today to be Assistant Administrators of the EPA. Each one is a
    well qualified individual who will bring a wealth of experience
    and expertise to a critically important role in protecting
    America's public health and safety. I applaud the President's
    nomination of such accomplished Americans and dedicated public
    servants.
        President Trump has nominated Michael Dourson to lead the
    EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. The
    Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention protects the
    American people and the environment from potential risks posed
    by pesticides and toxic chemicals.
        Dr. James Klaunig, who has served on numerous EPA
    scientific advisory panels, stated of Dr. Dourson, ``Dr.
    Dourson is a leader in the field of risk assessment. He has
    been instrumental in bringing scientists of different
    disciplines and representing different constituents together to
    address current and future approaches to the risks of humans to
    exogenous chemicals.''
        President Trump also nominated Matthew Leopold to lead the
    EPA's Office of the General Counsel. The Office of General
    Counsel serves as the EPA's chief legal advisor. John Cruden,
    former Obama Justice Department Assistant Attorney General,
    said this of Mr. Leopold: ``He is committed to the rule of law
    and can be counted on to give sound and candid advice to EPA
    decisionmakers.''
        President Trump nominated David Ross to lead EPA's Office
    of Water. The Office of Water ensures drinking water is safe.
    The Office also restores and maintains oceans, watersheds, and
    their aquatic ecosystems to protect human health, to support
    economic and recreational activities, and to provide healthy
    habitat for fish, wildlife, and plants.
        Todd Parfitt, the Director of Wyoming's Department of
    Environmental Quality, said this of Mr. Ross. He said, ``Mr.
    Ross possesses the necessary tools to effectively and
    appropriately oversee EPA's water program in a fair, balanced,
    and practical way.''
        When we get to the witness introductions, I will be
    introducing Mr. Ross and will say more about his
    accomplishments in the time he spent in the State of Wyoming.
        President Trump also nominated William Wehrum to lead the
    EPA's Office of Air and Radiation. The Office of Air and
    Radiation develops national programs, policies, and regulations
    for controlling air pollution and radiation exposure. Former
    environmental Obama Justice official John Cruden said of Mr.
    Wehrum, ``I believe he is committed to achieving clean air for
    all citizens and carefully following sound and current
    science.''
        I believe we must act quickly to confirm all these EPA
    nominees so the Agency will be even better prepared to protect
    human health and the environment, enforce our environmental
    laws, and respond effectively when disasters strike.
        It is deeply unfortunate that blind opposition to all of
    these Administration EPA nominees, including the well respected
    Susan Bodine to be EPA's Enforcement Chief, has stalled the
    confirmation process. Susan was reported in July and has been
    held up by the minority ever since.
        I want to be clear. The EPA's Office of Enforcement and
    Compliance Assurance, the office whose vital mission is to hold
    polluters accountable, is without a confirmed leader. It is
    without its confirmed leader because the minority feels
    compelled to block all nominees to the EPA, regardless of all
    the pollution and environmental needs of our communities,
    including those communities struggling to recover from the
    hurricanes that have ravaged our shores.
        A primary complaint of the minority that they cite is that
    blocking all nominees to the EPA is that the EPA is not being
    responsive to minority's oversight requests. The EPA has
    already sent the minority over 2,800 pages in response to its
    seemingly never ending requests. And I have those responses
    here. Twenty-eight hundred pages. And these are printed on both
    sides of the pages throughout. Two thousand eight hundred pages
    in response to its seemingly never ending requests of the
    minority. These from the EPA. Claiming the EPA is not
    responsive as an excuse for not confirming important nominees
    does not pass the smell test.
        Now, I regret that I can't strike the same positive note
    that I have for the EPA nominees for the nomination of Jeffery
    Baran to serve on another term as member of the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission. Mr. Baran is currently on the NRC and
    though his term does not expire until June 2018, he has been
    nominated at the request of the Senate Democrats. Senate
    Democrats have refused to advance the nominations of Annie
    Caputo and David Wright to the NRC until Commissioner Baran is
    confirmed to a new 5-year term.
        Let me be clear. Mr. Baran's nomination is a big ask. Mr.
    Baran has been nominated for a term that is effectively 3 years
    longer than the term for which Mr. Wright has been nominated
    and 2 years longer than the term for which Ms. Caputo has been
    nominated. If Mr. Baran is confirmed, his term would outlast
    those of all Republican nominees to the NRC, including Chairman
    Svinicki.
        In December 2014, the last time the Senate confirmed Mr.
    Baran, only one Republican voted in favor of his confirmation.
    I, along with many Republicans on this Committee, have voted
    against his nomination on six separate occasions. Since then
    Commissioner Baran has given me little reason to reconsider my
    vote. I hope this hearing gives us an opportunity to hear from
    Commissioner Baran and get more clarity regarding his record at
    the NRC.
        I will now turn to the Ranking Member for his statement.
        Thank you, Senator Carper.

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

        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        I want to welcome our witnesses today, our nominees. I want
    to welcome your family members--spouses, parents, children,
    sisters-in-law, brothers-in-law. We are happy that you are
    here, and we thank you for your willingness to share with our
    country those that you love.
        Let me just say our Chairman has stacked up here answers
    that he explains are answers to requests and inquiries that we
    have made on the minority side. Senate Democrats on this
    Committee have sent Mr. Pruitt, the Administrator of the EPA,
    some 26 letters. To seven of them we have received generally
    full responses. Seven out of 26.
        I have stacked up right here the pages of the responses for
    the other 19 requests, the other 19 requests. I have said more
    than a few times if the shoe were on the other foot, and we had
    a Democrat in the White House, and we had a Democrat majority
    in the House and the Senate, and the Republicans on this
    Committee or any committee were trying to do oversight and get
    the kind of responses from EPA and from an Administrator from
    EPA, you would be pulling your hair out, and ours, too. This is
    just unacceptable.
        I am seen in the Senate, and before that as Governor of
    Delaware, as a fair and impartial person. I like to work with
    my Republican colleagues. I have gone to bat for my Republican
    colleagues when we did have a Democrat in the White House and
    the responses to them and to us were not what I thought they
    should be.
        But we can do better than that. EPA needs to do better than
    that. They need to show us more progress, and when we do we
    will be happy to move these nominations forward. I don't think
    that is asking too much.
        And with respect to the nomination of Jeff Baran to serve
    another term on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, if he is
    confirmed, I hope that he will be, there will be--get this--
    three Republicans on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission--three--
    and there will be two Democrats. And they are all good
    nominees, and I look forward to supporting them all.
        Having said that, fast forward to the present to today's
    hearing. We are 4 days into the new fiscal year and our EPA
    Administrator, Scott Pruitt, has yet to appear before this
    Committee to discuss EPA's proposed budget. Since Mr. Pruitt
    was confirmed, I mentioned a number of letters that we
    submitted and the responses that we have gotten, or not gotten.
        Let me just say the idea that we are 9 months into a new
    Administration, an Administration that has proposed deep cuts
    in the budget for EPA, deep cuts to the number of people who
    work there, deep cuts to the programmatic support of clean
    water, clean air, cleanups for brownfields, hazardous waste
    sites, and we have yet to see the EPA Administrator sit at this
    table and talk to us to defend this budget. That is just
    unheard of. I have never seen anything like this.
        Turning to today's hearing, we have five nominees before
    us. For the most part, I believe that Presidents, Governors,
    mayors, and other elected CEOs should generally be allowed to
    assemble their leadership teams. As Governor, I used to say to
    the legislature, I have been elected to serve as Governor of
    our State; allow me to at least nominate the people that I
    think would enable me to serve well, and they did. And that is
    why I find it hard, though, I have always tried to find a way
    to support Democrat or Republic administrations with their
    nominees, and I am certainly trying to do that in this
    Administration, too. They don't always make it easy. They don't
    always make it easy.
        But I have some serious and unresolved concerns with two of
    our nominees today. The majority of our nominees I expect to
    support, but two I am troubled by, and I know a number of my
    colleagues are as well.
        Just over a year ago members of this Committee celebrated a
    rare bipartisan achievement when Congress almost unanimously
    enacted comprehensive reform of the Toxic Substances Control
    Act. Jim Inhofe provided great leadership. Others on this
    Committee did as well. From Jim Inhofe all the way to Ed
    Markey, that covers a pretty broad spectrum here.
        And we are trying to get that legislation implemented now,
    and all of us want to see it implemented well. And it was
    enacted because of a decades old lawsuit that made it all but
    impossible for EPA to otherwise regulate some of the most
    dangerous chemicals known to humankind. And we all share a
    strong bipartisan interest in seeing the new law implemented in
    an impartial, credible, and responsible way.
        Regrettably, I am concerned that Dr. Dourson is not the
    leader that we need for that job. Never in the history of the
    EPA has a nominee to lead the Chemical Safety Office had such
    deep ties to industry. Never has a nominee had such a long
    record of recommending chemical safety standards that are as
    much as thousands of times less protective, thousands of times
    less protective than those recommended by regulators. Never has
    a nominee, to my knowledge, so consistently underestimated the
    risks of chemical exposures to the most vulnerable among us.
        And I would like to recognize the presence of a number of
    people who are here in this hearing today who have suffered
    greatly due to exposure to harmful chemicals. These people
    traveled all the way from across the country to be here today.
    I am not going to ask them to stand, but we know you are here.
    We appreciate your presence.
        Having said that, Dr. Dourson did make a good faith effort
    to respond to a number of the prehearing questions that I sent
    him and others sent to him. That is the good news.
        Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to place those
    materials in the record.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Unfortunately, though, the bad news is that
    his answers did not alleviate my concerns about his nomination
    and his suitability to serve.
        I regret to say that my second concern with our nominees
    today before us is the nomination of Bill Wehrum, whose mom is
    here today, his wife is here today, sisters-in-law are here
    today, and we welcome you. He asked me to introduce him, and I
    have declined to do that, respectfully. I think my doing that
    might hurt you more than help you, and I don't want to make the
    situation more difficult for you or for me.
        He is a Delawarean. This is a little State, and you know,
    in Delaware you know just about everybody. We run many races
    together. I usually have to see him run from behind. He is
    always running far ahead of me; he is a great runner. Sometimes
    we ride the same train together from Wilmington to Washington.
    I think he is a good person. I think he is a good person, but
    he is not, in my judgment, a good choice for this particular
    job.
        In 2005 Bill was nominated for the very same post, and I
    opposed his nomination then due to concerns that he deferred
    too frequently to industry rather than to protecting our
    public, public health. Moreover, he has suppressed scientific
    information and was not responsive to congressional requests.
    Mr. Wehrum's nomination failed to receive Senate approval.
    Though unconfirmed, he served for 2 years as the head of the
    Air Office. Sadly, I fear that too little has changed since he
    last appeared before this Committee.
        I just want to take briefly--and then I will close, a look
    at some numbers. One of the numbers is 31, 31, the number of
    times that Mr. Wehrum has represented industry in lawsuits
    against EPA since 2009. Against EPA.
        Twenty-seven, the number of times that public health groups
    prevailed in court when challenging clean air regulations that
    Mr. Wehrum helped to craft at EPA because the rules didn't
    follow the law or protect public health. Twenty-seven.
        Ten, the number of additional years that children were
    exposed to toxic power plant emissions due to regulatory delays
    that Mr. Wehrum put in place while he was at EPA.
        And one, the number of times that industry supported
    language from Mr. Wehrum's old law firm and made it verbatim
    into a clean air regulation that he helped to write at EPA.
        As best we can tell, zero is also the number of times that
    Mr. Wehrum advocated in court for stronger clean air
    regulations since leaving the EPA, an especially troubling
    number for those in downwind States like Delaware. Zero is also
    the number of times that Mr. Wehrum expressed a desire to
    protect public health when he and I met prior to this hearing
    in my office.
        My time is short. Thank you for being generous with it, Mr.
    Chairman, but I would ask unanimous consent to submit my full
    statement for the record, including my views on the other three
    nominees before us who I hope to support.
        I look forward to hearing from all of you. Again, welcome.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Carper was not received
    at time of print.]
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Carper.
        Senator Inhofe.

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

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to
    join Congressman Chabot and Dunn in making introductions of
    nominees.
        I will be introducing Bill Wehrum. I am his second choice
    for an introduction. However, I am honored to do so. He has
    been a friend during the years I chaired this Committee. I just
    know his knowledge and expertise is second to none. His career
    spans more than 31 years in the environmental field, including
    work as an environmental engineer, a public servant with the
    EPA, and an environmental lawyer. As a result, he is known
    across the field as an expert on the issues he will be
    overseeing at the EPA when he is confirmed.
        He has consistently been recognized as a leader and top
    lawyer in environmental laws for such groups as the Chambers
    USA, Legal 500 United States, and Washingtonian Magazine. Those
    who have worked with Bill praise him, like his former EPA boss,
    Jeff Holmstead, who said, ``There is no better person to serve
    as the Assistant Administrator of the EPA's Office of Air and
    Radiation.''
        Former EPA Deputy Administrator Marcus Peacock said, ``Bill
    Wehrum, his understanding of the Clean Air Act may be second to
    none. His desire to pull up his sleeves and actually make the
    Clean Air Act work as a practical matter is second to none.''
        And that gets to what we are doing here. Congress and our
    other agencies should not be in the business of creating laws
    and regulations that are unworkable and impossible to
    implement, and I trust that Bill will be able to navigate the
    line between the healthy environment and ensuring standards and
    regulations are achievable and practical without undue harm to
    our economy, and that is the law, I would remind you.
        So, Mr. Wehrum, thank you for your willingness to do this
    tough job, and I look forward to many more year of service with
    you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
        We have two members of the House who have joined us today,
    Congressman Chabot from Ohio and Congressman Dunn from Florida,
    to introduce two of the nominees.
        I would like to welcome both of you to the Senate and
    invite Congressman Chabot to introduce Dr. Dourson.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE J. CHABOT,
               U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF OHIO

        Representative Chabot. Thank you very much, Chairman
    Barrasso and Ranking Member Carper and all the members of this
    Committee for inviting me here today to introduce a fellow
    Cincinnatian, Dr. Michael Dourson.
        As everyone on the Committee is aware, Dr. Dourson has been
    nominated to be the Assistant Administrator for the EPA's
    Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.
        I am sure that most of you are also aware that Dr.
    Dourson's impressive credentials and distinguished career, so I
    won't delve into every aspect of his resume, but I would like
    to mention just a few highlights.
        Currently, Dr. Dourson is a professor in the Risk Science
    Center at the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine,
    which is located in my congressional district in Cincinnati.
    Prior to his current position he founded and led the Center's
    predecessor for 21 years, the non-profit corporation Toxicology
    Excellence for Risk Assessment. And these two positions
    occurred following the 15 years Dr. Dourson worked at the U.S.
    EPA, where he held numerous leadership positions.
        Throughout his career, Dr. Dourson has served on numerous
    government panels and authored or co-authored an impressive
    array of publications, including more than 150 papers on risk
    assessment methods or chemical specific analyses, and over 100
    government risk assessment documents. And he has been elected
    as a fellow or an officer for numerous professional
    organizations, including the Academy of Toxicological Sciences,
    the Society for Risk Analysis, the American Board of
    Toxicology, and the Society of Toxicology. Currently, Dr.
    Dourson is the President of the Toxicology Education
    Foundation.
        Dr. Dourson's excellence in his field of expertise has been
    recognized time and time again. Over the years, he has received
    four bronze medals from the EPA, the Arnold A. Lehman Award
    from the Society of Toxicology, and the International
    Achievement Award from the International Society of Regulatory
    Toxicology and Pharmacology.
        In addition to his stellar qualifications, I would be
    remiss if I did not also mention that Dr. Dourson is a fellow
    graduate of La Salle High School. And I would also be remiss if
    I didn't mention that La Salle has won the Ohio Division II
    State football championship the last 3 years, and we hope they
    win it again this year.
        Dr. Dourson, thank you for being here today, and
    congratulations on your distinguished career and this
    prestigious nomination. I wish you the best as this process
    moves forward, and again I want to thank Chairman Barrasso and
    Senator Carper and all the Committee members for allowing me to
    be here today. And if I could be excused, I have the parents of
    Otto Warmbier, who was kidnapped and brutalized by North Korea,
    waiting for a meeting.
        [The prepared statement of Representative Chabot follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you for your time. Thank you
    for your testimony. You are certainly excused.
        Representative Dunn, welcome to the Committee, and we look
    forward to your introduction.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. NEAL P. DUNN,
             U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

        Representative Dunn. Thank you very much, Chairman
    Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of the Committee.
    Thank you for the opportunity to introduce Matt Leopold,
    President Trump's nominee to serve as the Assistant
    Administrator to the Office of General Counsel of the United
    States Environmental Protection Agency.
        I have the honor of serving Matt in Congress as his
    representative for Florida's 2nd Congressional District. Over
    many years in public service to the State of Florida Matt has
    earned a reputation for his commitment to the rule of law and
    as a man of integrity.
        Matt's record is well known to the members of this panel by
    now. He served with distinction as the General Counsel for
    Florida Department of Environmental Protection and is the
    attorney for the U.S. Department of Justice's Environment and
    Natural Resources Division. Along the way, he earned the high
    regard of his colleagues and of the diverse group of
    stakeholders served by those institutions.
        Matt has twice been awarded the Attorney General's Award
    for Excellence and was awarded a prestigious James Madison
    Institute Leaders Fellowship during the 2015-16 years. I also
    know him as a champion during his legal career on behalf of
    Florida's coastal economies, particularly the oystermen and
    small businesses of Apalachicola, who depend on the bay for
    their livelihood.
        Matt is an alumnus of the University of Florida and
    obtained his JD from Florida State University College of Law,
    so this is perhaps another indicator that he is uncommonly
    capable of bridging diverse interests on complicated issues.
        In closing, I thank you for the opportunity to introduce a
    favorite son of Florida and a distinguished public servant to
    the Committee today. I applaud the President's recognition of
    Matt's unique qualifications for this critical role at the EPA,
    and I look forward to his continued service on behalf of our
    communities throughout our nation.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity.
        [The prepared statement of Representative Dunn follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thanks very much, Congressman Dunn, and
    you are excused as well. I know you have pressing items of
    business elsewhere, so thank you for being with us today.
        I would like to introduce David Ross, who is the nominee
    for the Assistant Administrator of EPA's Office of Water. Mr.
    Ross is a graduate of the University of Wisconsin-Madison and
    the Vermont Law School. He currently serves as Assistant
    Attorney General and Director of Environmental Protection Unit
    for the Wisconsin Department of Justice. Before that, Mr. Ross
    served as Wyoming's Senior Assistant Attorney General in the
    Water and Natural Resources Division for the Wyoming Attorney
    General's Office.
        Mr. Ross has a total of two decades of environmental,
    legal, and consulting experience in both the public and private
    sectors. His nomination has elicited bipartisan praise and
    support within my home State of Wyoming.
        Dave Freudenthal, the former Democrat Governor of Wyoming,
    has said ``Mr. Ross's private practice experience in DC,
    combined with his service in two State environmental protection
    agencies, make him uniquely qualified to implement America's
    nuanced structure of Federal and State environmental
    protection.''
        Likewise, Wyoming's current Governor, Matt Mead,
    Republican, expressed his unequivocal support for Mr. Ross,
    saying, ``Dave is a talented attorney, an excellent advisor,
    and a person who can get things done. I recommend Dave without
    reservation for this position.''
        So now I would like to welcome to the Committee our
    nominees.
        Please take your seats.
        Congratulations to each of you. I welcome you to the
    Committee. I would like to remind each of you that your full
    written testimony will be made a part of the record. We look
    forward to hearing your testimony today.
        We will start first with Dr. Michael Dourson, and would you
    like to introduce your brother?

     STATEMENT OF MICHAEL DOURSON, PROFESSOR, RISK SCIENCE CENTER,
     DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH, UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI,
                          COLLEGE OF MEDICINE

        Mr. Dourson. Yes. Chairman Barrasso, thank you very much.
        My brother, David Dourson, is behind me, my younger
    brother. He is a Cincinnati native and a businessman
    extraordinaire. So, if you get a chance to talk with him, I am
    sure he would be happy to speak with you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you. Welcome to the Committee.
    Welcome as a guest, and please proceed with your testimony.
        Mr. Dourson. Well, thank you, Chairman Barrasso, Senator
    Carper, and distinguished members of the Committee. I thank you
    for the privilege of coming before you today as a nominee for
    the position of Assistant Administrator of the Office of
    Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. I am honored and
    humbled that President Trump, Administrator Pruitt, and this
    Committee are considering me for this position.
        I would also like to thank my many current and former
    colleagues with the University of Cincinnati College of
    Medicine and the independent, non-profit Toxicology Excellence
    for Risk Assessment, and the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency for their support and friendship.
        I also wish to thank my many friends and family, and
    especially my much better half of 39 years, Martha Dourson, who
    apologizes for not being here due to a family obligation
    involving grandchildren.
        I have worked on chemical safety and pollution prevention
    issues for my entire professional career as a board certified
    toxicologist in three different organizations and as an officer
    in one or more groups with five different scientific societies.
    The work included developing scientific positions to support
    the rulemaking under congressional legislation, such as the
    Clean Water Act, or pollution control prevention measures as in
    my role as EPA's first leader of its Integrated Risk
    Information System, or IRIS.
        I have also served as a chair or member of well over 100
    scientific peer review panels to review others' efforts. For
    example, as chair of the panel that reviewed the nine
    government response to the World Trade disaster, or as chair of
    the panel that reviewed the government response to a West
    Virginia river spill and recommended lowering the existing safe
    dose by eightfold. We made it eightfold more safe.
        If confirmed as the Assistant Administrator of the Office
    of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, I will dedicate my
    mind, body, and spirit to the work of this office, to working
    with its dedicated staff, to the protection of the American
    public, including its most vulnerable, and its environment from
    exposure to pesticides and otherwise unregulated chemicals, and
    to answering any and all of your questions and those of your
    constituents on chemical specific matters at any time.
        In contrast, I will not deviate in my decisions from the
    scientific principles of toxicology and risk assessment that
    have been taught to me by my mentors and co-workers, nor
    deviate from the code of ethics by my Society of Toxicology or
    my Society for Risk Analysis, nor ever stop listening to my
    colleagues whose expertise I do not have but otherwise cherish.
        As you would expect, if confirmed, I will work with my
    Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance colleagues in
    the enforcement of environmental laws that you, the
    representatives or our nation, have established. I strongly
    support those laws and will do everything in my power to assure
    that they are being administered fairly and without prejudice.
        Finally, I will strongly foster, without reservation, a
    collaborative spirit with our Federal and State colleagues, and
    those from other nations, organizations, and the public on
    pesticides and otherwise unregulated chemicals. It is through
    such collaboration, exemplified throughout my career with EPA,
    TERA, and U.C.--University of Cincinnati--it is through such
    collaboration that EPA's practice of safety assessment and
    pollution prevention will meet the needs of the 21st century
    and will best protect the public health and the environment.
        Your passing of the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act was a
    significant milestone, and I know it was celebrated here in
    Washington, but it was widely celebrated outside of Washington,
    DC, by many folks. So congratulations on that. It was enabled
    by a bipartisan effort that included collection of diverse
    outside groups. If confirmed, nothing less should be expected
    of myself and the talented people of the Office of Chemical
    Safety and Pollution Prevention who now carry your torch.
        I appreciate the time and effort you have devoted to
    reviewing my credentials and background materials, and look
    forward to questions that you or your colleagues may have
    regarding this or related information.
        Thanks again for the opportunity to serve.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Dourson follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Dourson.
        Mr. Leopold. And if you would like to introduce your
    family, please go ahead, and then proceed with your testimony.

                STATEMENT OF MATTHEW LEOPOLD, COUNSEL,
                    CARLTON FIELDS JORDAN BURT, P.A.

        Mr. Leopold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me I have today
    my wife, Kim, my daughter, Ava, my son, Zane, and my son, Luke.
    And at home with her grandparents is our 2-year-old daughter,
    Abby. And not able to be with us here today is my father, Zane,
    who couldn't make the trip from Florida.
        Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, distinguished
    members of the Committee, I am thankful for the privilege of
    being here before you today as the nominee for the position of
    General Counsel of the Environmental Protection Agency. I am
    honored that President Trump, Administrator Pruitt, and the
    members of this Committee are considering me for this position.
        The role of EPA's General Counsel, overseeing the
    implementation of laws entrusted to the Agency, is a public
    trust. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I would pledge
    to execute those duties with the utmost diligence and care.
        The EPA is quickly approaching its 50th birthday, and over
    those years it has already tackled some of the nation's most
    pressing problems. When President Nixon and the Congress
    created the Agency in 1970, there were environmental issues
    that abounded--from the choking smog in Los Angeles, to toxic
    dumping in our oceans, to an infamous burning river in Ohio.
    The environmental laws passed by the Congress in the decades
    that followed EPA's creation have been essential to securing
    the promise of environmental and human health protections,
    while at the same time allowing for economic growth and
    prosperity.
        There is no question that EPA has made great strides,
    significantly improving the quality of the air we breathe and
    the water we depend on. EPA must always continue to ensure that
    we don't backslide from those important protections.
        To accomplish this important mission, the Federal
    environmental laws harness the strength not only of the Federal
    Government, but the resources of the States in a unique
    partnership known as cooperative federalism. Having served in
    the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, as well as
    the Environment and Natural Resources Division of the
    Department of Justice, I saw firsthand how that cooperation
    could yield incredible results on issues big and small.
        For example, the Federal-State partnership to restore
    America's Everglades is the largest ecosystem restoration
    project in the world and has significantly improved water
    quality and delivery in a vast and rare environment, benefiting
    State, tribal, and Federal lands. On a smaller scale, I
    observed the State issue permits, inspect facilities, and
    collect air and water quality data which enabled EPA to better
    understand, manage, and ultimately prevent pollution.
    Leveraging the assets of State and Federal environmental
    agencies continues to be a key strategy for protecting and
    improving the environment.
        On enforcement of our environmental laws, I have also seen
    how the Federal Government and States came together to address
    what has been called the greatest environmental disaster of our
    time, the Deepwater Horizon oil spill of 2010. I am proud to
    say that I played a small part in securing funding for
    restoration by participating in the United States civil
    enforcement case.
        This massive effort, led by the Department of Justice,
    resulted in a $20 billion settlement that has already begun
    flowing to Federal, State, and local government entities around
    the Gulf of Mexico. These funds are going largely to restore
    and enhance the environment, creating a once in a generation
    opportunity to address damages to natural resources and
    conserve sensitive lands in the Gulf.
        I have been engaged in environmental law and policy issues
    for my entire legal career, and for most of those years I have
    been in public service. Through that experience, I developed
    great respect for my fellow career civil servants who carry out
    the day to day work of the Federal agencies. And I think it is
    important for political appointees in any administration to
    listen to, understand, and collaborate with the career staff. I
    plan to do nothing less, should I have the opportunity to lead
    the Office of General Counsel.
        Having been in private practice, I would also emphasize to
    EPA employees the importance of listening to the regulated
    community who understand, oftentimes better than government,
    what it takes to comply with environmental regulation in the
    real world.
        In closing, Mr. Chairman, I again thank the President and
    this Committee for the opportunity to be here today. I would be
    humbled to join Administrator Pruitt to carry out EPA's
    important mission. I respectfully request your support, and I
    look forward to any questions you or your colleagues may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Leopold follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

              Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Mr. Leopold, and
    congratulations.
        Mr. Ross.

     STATEMENT OF DAVID ROSS, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF
       WISCONSIN, AND DIRECTOR, WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
                     ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION UNIT

        Mr. Ross. Chairman, I would like to first introduce my
    family. With me are my wife, Tiffany, and my girls, Payton and
    Kennedy, who are sitting behind me. The girls are here on
    special assignment from their social study classes back in
    Waunakee, Wisconsin.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Ross. My brother, Admiral Eric Ross, is also here. Eric
    is taking time out of his busy schedule to attend today. Eric
    had the honor of being confirmed by the U.S. Senate as a Rear
    Admiral in the U.S. Navy earlier this year, and I thank the
    Senate for that family honor.
        My mother, Sue, and my sister, Debbie, are back home,
    hopefully participating, watching right now.
        Chairman Barrasso, Senator Carper, and distinguished
    members of this Committee, I am honored to be here today, and I
    want to thank President Trump and Administrator Pruitt for
    placing their trust in me and for providing me with this
    amazing opportunity to serve the public as the Assistant
    Administrator for EPA's Office of Water.
        I also want to thank my wife, Tiffany, my amazing girls,
    Payton and Kennedy, and the rest of my family for their support
    as I continue my career in public service.
        And Chairman Barrasso, I want to thank you for the
    introduction and for your support during my time working for
    the great State of Wyoming.
        I have worked on water quality and resource management
    issues my entire career. My experience ranges from serving as a
    consultant on wastewater reclamation and reuse projects, to
    advising members of the regulated community on Clean Water Act
    compliance and related matters, to serving as the lead water
    quality attorney for the State of Wyoming and currently as the
    lead environmental prosecutor for the State of Wisconsin. I,
    therefore, understand water resource issues from multiple
    perspectives, and I have a deep appreciation for the complexity
    inherent in managing those waters.
        Our waterways help transform the nation into an economic
    power, and they continue to support economic activity that
    sustains our position in the world. They move commerce, supply
    power, provide drinking water, sustain wildlife, grow crops,
    and serve as playgrounds for outdoor enthusiasts. These
    competing uses highlight the critical importance of our
    nation's water resources, but they result in divergent views on
    how best to manage those resources.
        The Office of Water must consider those diverse
    perspectives while pursuing common objectives, including
    protecting and enhancing the quality of our water, ensuring
    that our citizens have access to safe and reliable drinking
    water, and promoting regulatory certainty.
        I will pursue those objectives based on a few core
    principles. First, we must manage our nation's waters within
    the statutory framework established by Congress, while
    respecting the constitutional limitations imposed by our
    founding fathers. If I have a bias as a lawyer, it is a
    profound respect for the rule of law.
        Second, I will respect the role of States, tribes, and
    local governments as key partners in managing our nation's
    water resources. I have been fortunate to observe firsthand the
    expertise and professionalism of State environmental officials
    and their dedication to the protection of the resources that
    they know best. I have also witnessed the frustration those
    environmental experts experience when the Federal Government
    fails to engage with them on matters of critical importance to
    the States. Should I be confirmed, I will embrace cooperative
    federalism as envisioned by Congress when it enacted many of
    the statutes that govern the work of EPA.
        Third, and finally, I will manage with an open mind, I will
    seek the input and expertise of the dedicated career
    professionals at EPA, I will listen to the advice and
    recommendations of the regulated community and the rest of the
    American public, I will engage with the States, tribes, and
    local governments, and I will pursue the objectives of my
    management with dedication, while always striving to give them
    my best counsel.
        The nation has made great progress improving the quality of
    our waters over the past 50 years. There is certainly more work
    to do, but I am confident that we can continue to make progress
    while pursuing the twin goals of environmental protection and
    economic prosperity for the nation. Indeed, to be successful, I
    think those goals are--and must be--interdependent.
        Thank you for your time today and the opportunity to
    appear. I look forward to answering any questions that you may
    have, and more importantly, to working collaboratively with all
    members of this Committee and your colleagues in both chambers,
    should I have the honor of being confirmed.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Ross follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Ross, and
    congratulations.
        Mr. Wehrum, welcome to the Committee. We look forward to
    your testimony.

                     STATEMENT OF WILLIAM WEHRUM,
                     PARTNER, HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP

        Mr. Wehrum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I would first like to introduce my family who are here with
    me today. My wife, Cindy, is sitting immediately behind me; my
    mother, Mary Ann, and my sisters, Lisa and Laura, who, believe
    it or not, are twins, fraternal, of course.
        Senator Carper, my wife came down on 111 this morning and
    will be on 188 tonight, so if you happen to be on the train,
    please be sure to say hello to her.
        Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of
    the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
    you today as the nominee for the position of Assistant
    Administrator for the Office of Air and Radiation at U.S. EPA.
    I am honored that President Trump nominated me for this
    position.
        I would also like to thank, in particular, Senator Inhofe,
    for your very kind introduction. Under your leadership,
    previously in 2005, my nomination was voted out of this
    Committee, and I very much appreciate that. That meant a whole
    lot to me.
        President Trump and Administrator Pruitt have set a clear
    agenda that I intend to implement if confirmed to this
    position. The President has issued executive orders that will
    eliminate needless and burdensome regulations, simplify and
    streamline compliance obligations, and strike a better balance
    between the twin goals of protecting human health and the
    environment and promoting the economic vitality of the nation.
        Administrator Pruitt emphasized three key objectives in his
    remarks to this Committee during his confirmation hearing.
    First, we are a nation of laws. He explained that EPA's role is
    to administer those laws faithfully and that the Agency should
    avoid the temptation to bootstrap its own powers and tools
    through rulemaking.
        Second, Administrator Pruitt committed that the Agency
    would acknowledge, respect, and promote the critical role of
    States in implementing Federal environmental laws and in
    protecting human health and the environment. Cooperative
    federalism is one of the cornerstones of the Clean Air Act. In
    fact, in the very first section of the Act, Congress declares
    that air pollution control at its source is the primary
    responsibility of States and local governments. Administrator
    Pruitt's commitment to State involvement carries out Congress's
    stated intent.
        Third, Administrator Pruitt emphasized the important role
    that the public plays in the regulatory process. He said, ``It
    is critical to me that EPA also truly listen to the diverse
    views of the American people and learn from them.'' He rightly
    stated that ``we simultaneously pursue the mutual goals of
    environmental protection and economic growth,'' but cautioned
    that that can only happen if EPA listens, listens to the views
    of all interested stakeholders.
        These are goals and objectives that have been established
    by our leadership. I concur in them, and if confirmed, will do
    all I can to achieve them.
        Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee, thank you again
    for the opportunity to be here, and I would be happy to answer
    any questions you may have today.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Wehrum follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you very much and
    congratulations, Mr. Wehrum.
        Mr. Baran, welcome to the Committee.

    STATEMENT OF JEFFERY BARAN, (REAPPOINTMENT) COMMISSIONER, U.S.
                     NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

        Mr. Baran. Thank you.
        Chairman Barrasso, Ranking Member Carper, and members of
    the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before
    you today. I am honored to have been nominated to continue my
    service on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for another term.
        I want to thank my wife, Michelle, and our kids, Mia, Gus,
    and Max for their love and support. My dad, Marty, also
    deserves special recognition for the many, many hours of
    Commission meetings he has watched online. He probably set some
    kind of record there.
        When I was confirmed as a Commissioner almost 3 years ago,
    I committed to bringing an open minded and collegial approach
    to the issues that come before the Commission, and I have
    worked very hard to meet that commitment. My focus has been on
    crafting thoughtful, balanced, and timely votes after hearing
    from a broad range of stakeholders. I value the relationships I
    have formed with my Commission colleagues, the NRC staff,
    licensees, unions, States, and public interest organizations,
    and have benefited greatly from their ideas and input.
        My frequent visits to nuclear plants and other NRC
    regulated facilities not only give me an opportunity to view
    equipment and technologies firsthand; they also give me the
    chance to hear directly from NRC's resident inspectors, as well
    as the workers and managers at the sites about their priorities
    and concerns.
        If confirmed, I look forward to continuing to serve with
    Chairman Svinicki and Commissioner Burns. We work very well
    together. We don't always agree on policy, but we always have
    constructive and collegial discussions, and I think that is how
    the Commission is supposed to work, bringing together people
    with different backgrounds, perspectives, and experiences, and
    have them grapple with tough policy issues together.
    Ultimately, we make sure that important regulatory decisions
    are carefully and thoroughly considered.
        If they are confirmed, I also look forward to working
    closely with my fellow nominees, Annie Caputo and David Wright.
        Several important initiatives are underway at NRC, and I am
    eager to see them through to their conclusion. If I am
    confirmed for another term, I will continue to focus on these
    efforts, including the power reactor decommissioning
    rulemaking, implementation of post-Fukushima safety
    enhancements, development of an effective and an efficient
    licensing framework for advanced reactors, and the pending
    small modular reactor design review.
        Managing the Project Aim reductions while fulfilling NRC's
    vital mission of protecting public health and safety and the
    environment is one of the Agency's most significant challenges
    in the coming years, so ensuring that the Agency has the
    resources, talent, and leadership to succeed is another top
    priority for me. I am happy to discuss these or any other
    issues of interest to members of the Committee in greater
    detail today or in the future.
        Prior to my service on the Commission, I had the privilege
    of working for Congress for more than a decade. I have a deep
    respect for the importance and value of congressional
    oversight. If confirmed, I will continue to do everything I can
    to ensure that the Committee has the information it needs to
    meet its oversight responsibilities.
        Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Baran follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Well, thank you all for your testimony.
        Throughout the hearing and with questions for the record,
    the Committee members are going to have an opportunity to learn
    more about your commitment to public service and this nation. I
    would ask that throughout the hearing please respond to the
    questions, as well as those written questions that will be
    submitted after the hearing. Please submit those for the
    record.
        I have to ask the following questions that we ask all
    nominees. I do this on behalf of the entire Committee.
        Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this Committee
    or designated members of the Committee and other appropriate
    committees of the Congress and provide information subject to
    appropriate and necessary security protection with respect to
    your responsibilities?
        Mr. Dourson. Yes, I will.
        Mr. Leopold. Yes, I will.
        Mr. Ross. Yes, I will.
        Mr. Wehrum. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Baran. Yes.
        Senator Barrasso. Do you agree to ensure that testimony,
    briefings, documents, and electronic and other forms of
    information are provided to this Committee and its staff and
    other appropriate committees in a timely manner?
        Mr. Dourson. Yes, Senator.
        Mr. Leopold. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Ross. Yes, I will.
        Mr. Wehrum. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Baran. Yes.
        Senator Barrasso. Do you know of any matters which you may
    or may not have disclosed that might place you in a conflict of
    interest if you are confirmed?
        Mr. Dourson. No, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Leopold. No, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Ross. No, I do not, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wehrum. No, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Baran. No, I do not.
        Senator Barrasso. Based on a prior agreement with the
    Ranking Member, we will have two rounds of questions, not the
    customary one round. Each Senator will have 5 minutes of
    questions per round. I will begin with my questions.
        Commissioner Baran, as you know, in 2013 the U.S. Court of
    Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the NRC to resume the
    licensing process for Yucca Mountain. The Court found that the
    NRC, under former Chairman Jaczko, had illegally terminated the
    licensing process. Under that Chairman, the NRC argued that it
    suspended the licensing process because it said Congress had
    not appropriated the funds necessary to complete it. The NRC
    also speculated that Congress would not appropriate additional
    funds in the future.
        In the order, the Court rejected the NRC's rationale. It
    explained, ``Federal agencies may not ignore statutory mandates
    simply because Congress has not yet appropriated all of the
    money necessary to complete a project.'' The Court also stated,
    ``An agency may not rely on political guesswork about future
    congressional appropriations as a basis for violating existing
    legal mandates.''
        Well, last month the NRC, under Chairman Svinicki, voted to
    spend funds on activities related to the licensing process of
    Yucca Mountain. The NRC took this step to comply with the
    Court's order. The NRC took this step on a bipartisan basis,
    and you were the lone person to dissent. You wrote that you did
    not believe, you said, that the NRC should take such a step
    without knowing whether Congress will decide to appropriate
    funds for the licensing proceeding. You suggested that Congress
    might not appropriate the funds. You stated, ``It has been 6
    years since Congress last appropriated moneys for the Nuclear
    Waste Fund.''
        Commissioner, I just find your rationale deeply troubling.
    The Court has ordered the NRC to resume the licensing process.
    Why are you following the footsteps of former Chairman Jaczko
    and using a discredited rational--uncertainty about
    appropriations--as an excuse not to follow the law in the
    courts?
        Mr. Baran. Well, thank you for the opportunity to clarify
    my vote. Back when the D.C. Circuit looked at this issue, I
    believe there were about $13 million of appropriated funds
    remaining, and at that time the D.C. Circuit said there is more
    you can do with those funds, NRC; you should go ahead and do
    that; and in the intervening years that is exactly what NRC has
    done. In that time, the NRC staff completed the safety
    evaluation report, prepared a supplemental environmental impact
    statement that addressed groundwater issues, worked on making
    sure documents were available online that were previously held
    in the system for the adjudication.
        In that time, the amount of appropriated funds we have left
    that were previously appropriated has dropped to, I think,
    around $600,000 or $700,000. We are also in the midst of some
    litigation that requires the use of some of those funds.
        So the question that was presented to the Commission is
    does it make sense, in fiscal year 2017, to use most of those
    remaining funds to start doing some preliminary steps toward a
    potential adjudication. My view is that it did not make sense
    to expend the very little that we had left of those Nuclear
    Waste Fund moneys during the fiscal year to prepare for an
    adjudication until we knew whether Congress was going to
    appropriate funds for the adjudication in fiscal year 2018.
        And I kind of share the view that you expressed, which is
    that we shouldn't, as a Commission, be making predictions about
    what Congress is going to do. My view is we should wait a few
    months, see what Congress decides to do. Some of the items that
    would have been funded, for example, like a real estate search
    for a facility to hold the hearing in Nevada, are very kind of
    short shelf life type items, so I didn't think it made sense to
    start doing that work until we knew we were actually going to
    begin the adjudication in fiscal year 2018.
        Senator Barrasso. With all due respect, it just seems that
    agencies do rely on guesswork about appropriations in an effort
    to comply with the law. What the Court said is that agencies
    may not rely on guesswork about appropriations to avoid
    complying with the law. So I just find it disturbing that
    perhaps your opposition to Yucca Mountain is so strong that you
    wouldn't even follow the legal court order on this one.
        Mr. Wehrum, last week you argued a case before the U.S.
    Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. You did it on behalf of
    clients who were challenging the Silica Rule. Do you have any
    concerns that this litigation is going to interfere with your
    work, if confirmed as the EPA Assistant Administrator for the
    Office of Air and Radiation?
        Mr. Wehrum. No, Mr. Chairman, no concerns whatsoever. The
    issues related to the Silica Rule we were litigating have
    absolutely nothing to do with the issues for which I would be
    responsible, if confirmed to the position of AA for OAR at EPA.
        Furthermore, as we all know, there are comprehensive ethics
    rules that will govern my transition from private practice into
    Government service. I already am working very closely with
    EPA's ethics officers to make sure I fully understand those
    obligations and have their counsel, and I commit that I will
    strictly follow the regulations that apply to this transition,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much.
        Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        Again, our thanks to all of you for joining us today and
    for your statements.
        I want to go back to something that Mr. Leopold said, and I
    thought he really nailed it, and I thought he spoke from his
    heart with respect to his commitment to protecting our air and
    our water and our natural resources in this role, if he is
    confirmed. Here is what he said. He said the environmental laws
    passed by Congress in the decades that followed EPA's creation
    have been essential to securing the promise of environmental
    and human health protections while at the same time allowing
    for economic growth and prosperity. He went on to say there is
    no question that EPA has made great strides, significantly
    improving the quality of the air we breathe and the waters we
    depend on. EPA must always continue to make sure that we don't
    backslide from these important protections.
        When our four nominees for EPA appeared before, I was
    looking for that kind of commitment to protecting our air, our
    water, our natural resources, and I must say I was disappointed
    not to hear it today from at least two of our witnesses, and
    sadly, not to hear it in the meetings that we had in my office.
        I repeated those words because that is the kind of
    commitment we are looking for. That is what we are looking for.
        I have a poster I just want to hold up, if I can, and
    probably ask my first question, if I may, of Dr. Dourson.
        As I mentioned in my opening statement, Dr. Dourson, one of
    the main reasons that Congress worked so hard to reauthorize
    the Toxic Substances Control Act was because everyone
    recognized that EPA needed to have the authority to credibly
    and impartially assess chemical safety and regulate the
    chemicals that were found to be dangerous.
        This poster shows some examples of the chemicals that you
    were funded by industry to study. In each and every case you
    concluded that the right safety standard for the chemicals
    should be tens, hundreds, even thousands of times less
    protective, less protective than the Federal or State
    regulators did. It is regrettably difficult to look at your
    record and conclude that you could be an impartial regulator.
        One way you could remedy the perception that you may not be
    able to be an impartial regulator would be to promise to recuse
    yourself, if you are confirmed, from working on any chemical
    that industry has paid you, has paid you to study. And I am not
    interested in a long answer, but I would like a very brief
    answer. Yes or no will do. Would you make that commitment
    today?
        Mr. Dourson. Senator, I can give you as many or more
    examples of situations where the science that we brought
    forward as a team actually lowered the safe dose or risk
    position for various sponsors. If confirmed, I will rely on the
    guidance of EPA ethics officials to determine any issues for
    which I am to be recused.
        Senator Carper. Let me just say all of us here try to
    figure out the right thing to do and do it: not the easy thing,
    not the expedient thing. When I apply the ``right thing to do''
    test to this, the idea that I represented industry combating
    EPA on a particular substance, and later on I am going to have
    the opportunity, as part of the EPA leadership team, to
    determine whether or not, presumably impartially, we are going
    to allow that substance to be approved or in our environment, I
    would recuse myself. I would just say I am going to recuse
    myself. It wouldn't be right for me to represent industry
    opposing EPA with respect to that particular substance and then
    turn around and go to work for EPA and take the other position.
    I just don't see why you can't just say I would recuse myself.
    I don't get it.
        Mr. Dourson. Well, Senator, again, the majority of our work
    is done for government organizations, and several of the
    chemicals up there we were doing, we did work with teams of
    individuals and groups, including government and industry
    organizations. So, again, I will rely on the guidance of U.S.
    EPA ethics officials to determine any issue for which I am to
    be recused.
        Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, I want to just ask unanimous
    consent to submit for the record a list of over 150
    organizations from across our country who are opposed to Dr.
    Dourson's nomination. This list consists of environmental
    groups, labor groups, health, justice and consumer groups, and
    the American Association of Justice. I submit this list for the
    intention that it will allow the record to better reflect the
    considerable national opposition to his nomination.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. I also want to ask unanimous consent to
    back up the re-nomination of Mr. Baran to submit for the record
    a release, I guess it was just yesterday, October 3rd, a
    release from the Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear
    industry's association. This press release echoes my support
    for Mr. Baran and his re-nomination to serve as Commissioner to
    the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I ask unanimous consent.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Thanks very much.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        For the record, on September 15th of this year, 14 doctors,
    each of whom has won the Arnold Lehman Award, the Society of
    Toxicology's highest honor, submitted a letter of support for
    Dr. Dourson's nomination. They wrote, ``Dr. Dourson is highly
    qualified to serve as an Assistant Administrator of the Office
    of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention.'' They go on to
    say, ``Dr. Dourson's deep understanding of the scientific
    elements of toxicity testing, data interpretation, weight of
    evidence evaluation procedures, and risk assessment is just
    what it will take to ensure effective implementation of the
    TSCA reform legislation.''
        I ask unanimous consent to enter this letter into the
    record.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Baran, a recent report from the Energy Futures
    Initiative, a group formed by former Secretary of Energy Ernest
    Moniz, and a lot of other people, too, were involved in this,
    concluded that a healthy U.S. civilian nuclear power industry
    is a national security imperative--not opportunity, imperative.
    The report found, ``The nuclear sector helps the U.S. military
    meet specific defense priorities, supports implementation of
    U.S. nonproliferation policy, and is essential to the global
    protection of U.S. military capability. The flip side is that
    an eroding nuclear enterprise will compromise nuclear
    securities capabilities and make them more costly.''
        Do you agree that the erosion of the U.S. commercial
    nuclear power industry presents a threat to the United States'
    national security?
        Mr. Baran. As an NRC Commissioner, Senator, it is my job to
    focus on nuclear safety and security, not to weigh in on----
        Senator Inhofe. No, I think it is an easy answer. Do you
    believe that that is related to our national security?
        Mr. Baran. Well, again, as a Commissioner, it is not my job
    to weigh in on the pros and cons of the merits of nuclear
    power.
        Senator Inhofe. All right, let me reword something, then.
    As the former report said, the U.S. ability to influence
    nonproliferation was ``rooted in the historically unique
    capabilities in U.S. technology, services, and know-how.''
        At this time, at this time, Mr. Baran, there is one new
    nuclear plant under active constructive and at least 16
    existing nuclear plants under the threat of closure. Meanwhile,
    the rest of the world is advancing. We are falling behind. Does
    this bother you?
        Mr. Baran. Well, again, it is our job at NRC, we stay
    focused on our mission, which is to ensure the safe, secure use
    of nuclear power to protect human health and the environment.
    That is our focus. It is our responsibility to make sure that
    we have----
        Senator Inhofe. You don't have an opinion on this as to
    whether or not this affects our national security? You have a
    problem with the fact that the rest of the world is passing us
    up in nuclear progress?
        Mr. Baran. Well, the part I focus on, and my job as a
    Commissioner, is to make sure we have an effective, efficient
    process for licensing new reactors, and that we do a good job
    overseeing the construction that is underway.
        Senator Inhofe. All right. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Wehrum, in 2015 the Supreme Court found that the EPA,
    under the Obama administration, violated the Clean Air Act by
    not looking at the cost of compliance. This is required,
    looking at the cost of compliance before issuing new
    regulations on the emission of mercury and other toxins from
    coal fired power plants, as Congress required. That is in the
    law. In fact, the Clean Air Act calls for EPA to conduct
    ongoing evaluations of job losses, economic shifts in costs,
    and so forth.
        Do you believe that EPA should follow that law?
        Mr. Wehrum. Senator Inhofe, absolutely.
        Senator Inhofe. You have demonstrated that in the past,
    haven't you?
        Mr. Wehrum. I have tried very hard to achieve the dual
    goals of the Clean Air Act, Senator, which is to protect human
    health and the environment, but also promote the economic
    vitality of this nation.
        Senator Inhofe. And if you are confirmed to this position,
    you will do so and continue to do it?
        Mr. Wehrum. Yes, Senator, I will.
        Senator Inhofe. Mr. Wehrum, you previously served for 6
    years on the EPA. You did great work, and I thank you for that
    service. Can you talk about a project that you worked on which
    you are most proud? You and I talked about this in the past. I
    think we should share it on the record here. How did that
    project protect the public health and our environment?
        Mr. Wehrum. Well, Senator, one of the key achievements
    during my time at EPA was implementation of the so-called Tier
    4 Nonroad Rule, which is a comprehensive set of emissions
    limits and fuel requirements for engines in vehicles that are
    used off the highway. That program was unprecedented at the
    time, achieved millions of tons of emissions reductions, and
    did it in a very smart way, such that was also achieved even
    greater amounts of benefits to health and the environment.
        Senator Inhofe [presiding]. It has been very effective.
        Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Chairman.
        Mr. Dourson, the tobacco industry has manipulated and
    obfuscated scientific research into the dangers of smoking for
    decades. Your name comes up over 460 times in the tobacco
    industry documents made public as part of the tobacco master
    settlement agreement. Some of your e-mails are there,
    corresponding with Philip Morris over the work they hired you
    to do. Even the articles of incorporation for your
    organization, TERA, are there in the files of R.J. Reynolds,
    with a handwritten note next to your bio that the document
    should be filed under Consultants: Dourson.
        In the late 1990s TERA, the organization you founded,
    received funding from the Center for Indoor Air Research to
    study the effects of secondhand smoke. TERA's name pops up
    throughout the tobacco data base, and it has been well
    documented that the Center for Indoor Air Research was a front
    group for the tobacco industry.
        In 1999 you were the co-author of a paper that
    underestimated the effects of exposure to secondhand smoke in
    the workplace. To reach this industry favored conclusion, you
    and the other authors relied on inappropriately combined
    exposure data collected from workplaces that allowed smoking
    anywhere and those that allowed it only in designated areas,
    which skewed the results. That study is also in the tobacco
    data base, compliments of the Philip Morris collection.
        Can you and will you provide a full accounting of all the
    work you and TERA did for the tobacco industry, all the money
    you and TERA received from the tobacco industry, and the role
    that you played in the campaign to hide the truth about the
    dangers of smoking?
        Mr. Dourson. Senator, the roles that we played in the
    tobacco work are a matter of public record in the House Science
    Space and Technology 2015 hearing. The total value of our
    tobacco work was approximately $13,000.
        The bottom line is that throughout my career, with EPA,
    TERA, and now with the University of Cincinnati, I have been
    objective in my work and applied sound science to come to my
    conclusions.
        Senator Whitehouse. And Mr. Wehrum, you have been leading
    the fight against EPA's air standards, so it is unclear to me
    how you are appropriate to serve in the position to enforce
    those standards. In particular, Executive Order 13770, Ethics
    Commitments by Executive Branch Appointees, prohibits
    appointees from participating in any particular matter
    involving specific parties that is directly and substantially
    related to their former employer or former clients for the
    first 2 years after their appointment. Your ethics agreement
    states that you intend to sign the pledge.
        We are aware of dozens of separate air cases you have
    worked on during your time at Hunton & Williams. To ensure
    compliance with the pledge, will you provide for the record all
    of Hunton & Williams' clients and cases or work from the past 2
    years, noting all clients with whom you have worked, cases on
    which you have worked, and regulatory work you have done?
        Mr. Wehrum. Senator, as I stated previously, there are
    comprehensive rules of ethics that govern transition of someone
    like myself from private practice into Government service. I
    already have had extensive conversations with EPA ethics
    officials, and will continue to consult with them closely if
    this transition goes forward, if confirmed.
        Senator Whitehouse. Do you understand that the Senate has
    an independent role and has a right to independent
    investigation and independent information, that we aren't just
    an adjunct of the EPA ethics department?
        Mr. Wehrum. I am sorry, Senator, I missed the beginning of
    your question. I apologize.
        Senator Whitehouse. Do you understand that the Senate has
    its own independent oversight responsibility here and that we
    are not an adjunct to the EPA ethics office?
        Mr. Wehrum. I understand, Senator, yes.
        Senator Whitehouse. And will you provide the materials to
    us so we can engage in that oversight?
        Mr. Wehrum. Senator, as I said, my commitment is to
    understand the comprehensive rules of ethics that apply, to get
    the best advice that I can in understanding what I am required
    to do and to comply with them and to make every effort to
    strictly comply.
        Senator Whitehouse. Well, that sounds like a no with
    regards to the Senate.
        Did you or your firm do any pro bono work? Pro bono work
    need not be disclosed. Did you do any pro bono work for the
    Oklahoma Attorney General's Office while Scott Pruitt was the
    attorney general?
        Mr. Wehrum. I personally have done no work for the State of
    Oklahoma, and I can't speak for the rest of my partners and
    associates; I have never made that inquiry, Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. You don't know whether the firm did or
    did not?
        Mr. Wehrum. I do not know, Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. Would you provide the Committee a list
    of the firm's pro bono work so that we can make an assessment
    of whether or not pro bono clients ought to be covered by the
    ethics pledge? At the moment, we simply would never know.
        Mr. Wehrum. Well, as I said, Senator, there are
    comprehensive rules that apply, very strict, including the
    voluntary agreement that you referred to, which I have
    committed to sign and----
        Senator Whitehouse. And which pro bono work does not apply
    to, right?
        Mr. Wehrum. I am sorry, Senator, I don't understand your
    question.
        Senator Whitehouse. The ethics pledge does not require you
    to disclose pro bono work, does it?
        Mr. Wehrum. I don't know the answer to that, Senator. I
    believe it applies to any work. There is no difference between
    pro bono work and work that is done for pay. We owe all clients
    a common commitment of zealous representation.
        Senator Whitehouse. Well, my time has gone by. I hope that
    these questions and the independent role of this Committee to
    do oversight is not something that is going to be overrun in
    the pursuit of getting these nominees in place.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
        Senator Capito.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank all of you for being here today.
        Dr. Dourson, you have a long career in industrial chemical
    risk assessments, including with your consulting firm. As you
    know, TERA, we talked about this when you came to my office,
    you have been involved with two cases that very much touched
    the lives of my fellow West Virginians, one being the DuPont C8
    and Teflon manufacturing issues and the other being the Freedom
    Industry spills of 2014, a spill of MCHM and PPH.
        The accuracy of these safety standards, having lived
    through these spills personally, myself, the accuracy of safety
    standards is absolutely critical. It is imperative to have it
    as quickly as possible and as accurately as possible to protect
    constituents and to also can have significant implications for
    liabilities.
        This issue is particularly sensitive, as I mentioned
    earlier, so I believe that we must conduct rigorous enforcement
    of appropriate safety standards, that we must hold those
    illegally exposing human health and the environment to harmful
    substances accountable, and that we must support timely and
    effective mitigation and cleanup efforts when spills do occur,
    and we need to apply the lessons of past incidents to prevent a
    recurrence of harmful spills and emissions.
        Do you share those goals, Dr. Dourson?
        Mr. Dourson. Yes, Senator, I share those goals.
        Senator Capito. If you are confirmed, how would you direct
    the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention to
    achieve these goals?
        Mr. Dourson. Well, several of these goals reside in the
    authorities of other EPA offices, but if confirmed with the
    Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, I will work
    with other EPA offices, as appropriate, to fulfill these goals.
        Senator Capito. In the past, in your past work, I would
    imagine, in order to get the appropriate process for setting
    scientifically sound safety levels, that you need to advocate
    for a transparent peer reviewed body of science to back reviews
    of safe levels of potentially harmful substances. Would you
    agree with that, and what have you done in the past that would
    convince me that this is the direction you would take the
    office?
        Mr. Dourson. Well, absolutely I agree with this. TERA, the
    capacity of TERA as the non-profit 501(c)(3) organization, and
    then University of Cincinnati, we have had over 100 independent
    peer review panels. We have different groups come to the
    panels, different sector representation. We have well
    established conflict of interest statements, and also we have
    been reviewed by the EPA's Inspector General in 2009 as a way
    of showcasing our particular independent peer review panel. So
    I very much agree with your views of independent peer review
    and transparency as paramount.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, Dr. Dourson.
        Mr. Ross, you and I talked about intractable water systems.
    I am still on water because we have had some issues. We have a
    lot of kind of abandoned former coal camps where the systems
    are just defunct, but they don't have the money, or there isn't
    the money there to maintain or to get them back into
    compliance. A lot of these communities, unfortunately, are
    under boil water orders, and in many cases the EPA continues to
    issue citations, including fines, but there is no real help
    here for them in an official management capacity to get them
    into compliance, and it is my understanding that we really
    haven't studied this issue as deeply as we should.
        I am working on a legislative solution to help deal with
    this problem and hope that the EPA will be a willing partner.
    So, I am asking you are you willing to work with me and others
    to study the challenge posed by intractable water systems?
        Mr. Ross. Yes, Senator, very much so. You have put your
    finger on a very critical priority for me, should I be
    confirmed, addressing these challenges going forward. It is an
    issue that we addressed in Wyoming, we struggle with, and we
    deal with in Wisconsin, and I look forward to working on that
    at a national level.
        Senator Capito. Last, Mr. Ross, I would like to give you
    the opportunity to respond a little bit to what Senator Carper
    had mentioned. At least the implication that I heard was that
    because it wasn't expressly in your statements, several of your
    statements, that you are less committed to the end goal of
    clean water and environmental safety standards of the highest
    order, and I would like to know if you have a response to that.
        Mr. Ross. Thank you, Senator, for that opportunity. I do.
    In fact, I wish Senator Carper was here because he gave me a
    research assignment when I met with him, and to go to him, and
    the opening lines were for the beauty of this earth and for the
    beauty of the skies. And he put his finger on why I do what I
    do for a living. Now, I may disagree a little bit on some
    approaches, but the ultimate objective I share deeply. So I am
    fully committed to protecting public health and the
    environment, should I be confirmed.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Duckworth.
        Senator Duckworth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Dourson, when your nomination was announced in July of
    this year, the Trump administration's EPA circulated press
    releases proclaiming that there was a ``widespread praise for
    Dr. Michael Dourson.'' Yet, when I reviewed this glowing yet
    highly misleading document, I was struck by the absence of
    public health leaders and dug a little deeper to figure out
    why. And I say what I found was not pretty.
        From the American Petroleum Institute to the Koch brothers,
    it appears that you have no compunction about accepting
    millions of dollars from the chemical industry to conduct
    scientific studies on their behalf. This included a study
    conducted in Chicago that was paid for by a Koch Industry
    subsidiary, KCBX Terminals, which is an amazing coincidence.
    Their study concluded that petroleum coke, or petcoke, as it is
    known, which KCBX was pushing into the air and lungs of my
    constituents in the south side of Chicago, was unlikely to harm
    human health.
        This finding, that was bought and paid for by the Koch
    brothers, dramatically diverges from health assessments
    published last year by the U.S. Department of Health and Human
    Services experts on toxic substances and related diseases.
    Their assessment was consistent with the common sense
    observations of Illinois families who literally could see the
    chemical byproducts floating in the air that they and their
    children were breathing in.
        My constituents needed experts such as yourself to stand up
    for them and their health, rather than running cover for
    polluters who are wealthy and willing to poison our children as
    they put profits first.
        Now, look, I understand that you were being paid by a
    client to produce a result that would benefit the client's own
    financial interests, and frankly, over the years, you seem to
    have become quite good and quite comfortable at producing this
    type of pseudoscience for the highest bidders. But manipulating
    science to achieve a predetermined outcome is not what the
    EPA's Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention should
    be about. So you are applying for a very different job now.
        In fact, EPA's own Web site makes clear that petcoke is
    dangerous to human health. It defies common sense that inhaling
    toxic particulate matter could be anything but poisonous for
    people, and especially for children.
        Olga Batista, one of my constituents who fought for her
    family's right to clean air, told me, ``When I fought to get
    the industrial petcoke out of our neighborhood in Chicago,
    Michael Dourson was working with Koch Industries to minimize
    our concerns. To charge him with seeing the chemical safety for
    the entire country might be good for families like the Kochs,
    but it certainly would not be good for families like mine.''
        Anyone who could turn a blind eye to the environmental
    injustices that the residents of Chicago have had to bear, as
    you did, does not deserve my support, and I urge all of my
    colleagues to join me in opposing your nomination.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous consent to
    submit for the record a September 7 article from Midwest Energy
    News.
        Senator Fischer [presiding]. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Duckworth. Thank you.
        This article details the concerns of environmental consumer
    groups about Dr. Dourson's troubling history of working for
    Koch Industries to the detriment of public health. The article
    states, ``A study funded by Koch Industries and carried out by
    Dourson and two other scientists paid for by Koch found no risk
    of adverse health impacts from exposure to petroleum coke in
    the air or on surfaces in neighborhoods around the company's
    two facilities. CDM environmental experts retained by the city
    of Chicago issued several reports which flatly disagreed with
    the conclusions by Dourson's colleagues and others hired by
    KCBX that KCBX's operations were having little impact on the
    neighborhood.''
        Mr. Dourson, on EPA's Web site it states, ``Significant
    quantities of fugitive dust from petcoke storage and handling
    operations present a health risk.'' Yes or no, do you agree
    with this statement?
        Mr. Dourson. Senator, first of all, thank you very much.
    The people of Chicago have every right to----
        Senator Duckworth. No, reclaiming my time. My question is,
    yes or no, do you agree with the EPA's Web site as it currently
    states, ``significant quantities of fugitive dust from petcoke
    storage and handling operations present a health risk.'' Do you
    agree with that, yes or no? You are looking to go to work at
    EPA. Do you agree with what is on their Web site right now?
        Mr. Dourson. With all due respect, Senator, what we did
    with the city of Chicago was looked specifically----
        Senator Duckworth. I am not asking about what you did with
    the city of Chicago. I would like to know do you agree with the
    current statement. And if you are not willing to answer, that
    is fine, but I am asking a very simple question. You are
    applying for a job here at the EPA, and they say on their Web
    site, right now, ``significant quantities of fugitive dust from
    petcoke storage and handling operations present a health
    risk.'' Yes or no?
        Mr. Dourson. Senator, I am not really ready to answer that
    question without----
        Senator Duckworth. OK. Then I don't think you are ready to
    go work at the EPA. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Senator Barrasso [presiding]. Thank you very much, Senator.
        Senator Ernst.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        And thank you to all of our witnesses for appearing today.
        Mr. Wehrum, I would like to start with you, please. You had
    stated that Administrator Pruitt had stated, even during his
    own confirmation process, that he will uphold the law. And I
    know in my meetings with Administrator Pruitt he continuously
    told me time and again that he will uphold the law. And last
    week the EPA put forward a Notice of Data Availability that
    would lower the annual biodiesel blending targets by the number
    of gallons imported, yet still allow those imported gallons to
    receive compliance credits.
        The EPA is also considering allowing exported ethanol
    gallons to qualify for compliance credits. Both of these moves
    are contrary to the spirit of the renewable fuel standard and
    would undermine the program.
        Administrator Pruitt pledged to me, both in person and
    before this Committee, to enforce the RFS as intended by
    Congress. Will you pledge to uphold the spirit and the letter
    of this law?
        Mr. Wehrum. Senator, if I am confirmed, I would look
    forward to working on these issues with you.
        Senator Ernst. It is a law. Will you uphold the law?
        Mr. Wehrum. As I said in my opening statement, Senator, I
    share the Administrator's commitment to rule of law. That is a
    big reason why I want to come to EPA and work with
    Administrator Pruitt. He has a palpable commitment to that
    outcome. The RFS is incorporated in the Clean Air Act, and my
    goal, if confirmed, is to understand the law and implement the
    law.
        Senator Ernst. The intent would be to uphold the law,
    correct?
        Mr. Wehrum. Absolutely, Senator.
        Senator Ernst. OK. That is the commitment that
    Administrator Pruitt has given to me, has given to many others,
    and this Committee, is to uphold the law. And I am hoping that
    you will also uphold the letter of the law, which is the
    renewable fuel standard.
        Do you believe the major regulatory actions that change the
    underlying operation of the RFS should be subject to full
    notice and comment period?
        Mr. Wehrum. Yes, Senator. If the RFS regulations are
    changed, that should be done through notice and comment
    rulemaking.
        Senator Ernst. Absolutely. Thank you.
        And as part of the EPA's 2018 RVO Rule, the Agency proposed
    reducing the amount of cellulosic biofuel by 150 million
    gallons, despite evidence of growing production and demand for
    the second generation biofuel. If confirmed, can you commit to
    ensuring that the cellulosic RVO numbers are based on an
    objective analysis of expected production capability?
        Mr. Wehrum. Senator, I am going to take half a step back
    and just say this. The RFS is a very complex program, and there
    are extensive provisions within the law that govern how it
    should be implemented, and even more extensive regulations that
    EPA has adopted. So I have to say I know a bit about the RFS. I
    don't know everything about the RFS. So I said this before, but
    I really mean it, if confirmed, part of what I need to do is
    fully understand the program, and part of what I need to do is
    fully understand your concerns, and I commit to you that I will
    do that, Senator.
        Senator Ernst. I do appreciate that, and we are happy to
    assist in any way with the education process there.
        The RFS is part of our code, it is the law, and we need to
    ensure that that law is upheld. Regardless of ideology, the
    goals of the RFS should be upheld. It is the law.
        President Trump has repeatedly stated his strong support
    for the renewable fuel standard on multiple occasions, and just
    a few weeks back President Trump made a personal phone call to
    Senator Chuck Grassley, reemphasizing how much he loves
    ethanol, loves those biofuels, and so far his EPA is on track
    to meet the deadline for annual rulemaking. That is important.
        Will you commit to upholding the timeliness of the yearly
    renewable volume obligations required under the RFS?
        Mr. Wehrum. Senator, if confirmed, I will do everything I
    can to make sure we stay on schedule. I understand that there
    have been concerns with that in the past and EPA has had
    difficulty keeping up with the schedule, so, if I am confirmed,
    I will do everything I can to try to keep us on track.
        Senator Ernst. OK. I appreciate your answers very much. We
    will hold Administrator Pruitt to his commitment to uphold the
    law. We will do the same of you. If there is a way that we can
    be helpful in the education process when it comes to the
    renewable fuel standard, I am ready to assist, my staff is
    ready to assist, and I appreciate your commitment.
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Ernst.
        Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Dourson, chlorpyrifos is a pesticide that is widely
    used; you find it on a lot of the produce in the fresh
    vegetable aisle at the grocery store. A lot of that produce has
    been sprayed with this. A simple yes or no, has chlorpyrifos
    been linked to brain damage in children?
        Mr. Dourson. Although it would be inappropriate for me to
    prejudge an issue within U.S. EPA since there are some staff
    deliberations I am not privy to, if confirmed, I will ensure
    that the issue is fully and fairly----
        Senator Merkley. You have no knowledge about the studies
    that have been done on this insecticide?
        Mr. Dourson. No, I am knowledgeable of the studies.
        Senator Merkley. Has it been linked to brain cancer in peer
    reviewed studies?
        Mr. Dourson. I am aware of the studies.
        Senator Merkley. Brain damage. Has it been linked in these
    studies? Can you answer yes or no? Has it been linked to brain
    damage in children in peer reviewed studies?
        Mr. Dourson. There are peer reviewed epidemiology studies
    that show an association in one study and not others.
        Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for
    the record the following peer reviewed study showing that
    chlorpyrifos has been linked to brain damage in children.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. You have been paid to assess the safety of
    this chemical. Who paid you or TERA to assess the safety of
    this chemical?
        Mr. Dourson. In 2006, in 2005, we did two manuscripts----
        Senator Merkley. Who paid you? That is the question.
        Mr. Dourson. It was Dow AgroScience.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. So, my understanding of your
    organization is that you ultimately recommended a safe level of
    10 micrograms per kilogram per day. That standard is quite
    different from the EPA floor for safety for children ages 1 to
    2 of .0017 micrograms per kilogram per day. In fact, the safety
    level you proposed in your study, paid for by Dow Chemical, the
    very same company that makes this chemical, is 5,822 times less
    protective than the level proposed by the EPA.
        I would like to turn to alachlor and acetochlor, two
    herbicides that are widely used. Simple yes or no, have they
    been linked to cancer?
        Mr. Dourson. We did the study for a collection of
    industries----
        Senator Merkley. Have they been linked? This is a yes or no
    question. Your knowledge, your background, your life's work,
    are you aware of these studies linking these chemicals to
    cancer?
        Mr. Dourson. I am aware of studies with neurological
    disturbances with acetochlor.
        Senator Merkley. But not cancer?
        Mr. Dourson. I am not so sure I recall those data.
        Senator Merkley. Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit for
    the record the following peer reviewed study linking alachlor
    and acetochlor to cancer.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you very much.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Mr. Dourson, I understand you have been
    paid to assess the safety of both of these chemicals;
    therefore, your familiarity with them I anticipate to be
    significantly more. What organization paid you to assess the
    safety of these two chemicals? Just the name, please.
        Mr. Dourson. Dow AgroSciences. And we also had Monsanto. I
    believe both of them contributed to a collaborative project
    that included a group of people, including government
    scientists, that helped with the assessment.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you. That is my understanding, those
    two companies.
        Mr. Dourson. Right.
        Senator Merkley. Your organization ultimately recommended
    reference dose for the degradates or breakdown products that
    would translate to a safety level of 5,600 parts per billion.
    That is a significantly weaker standard than the standard set
    by the State of Wisconsin of 20 parts per billion, of Minnesota
    at 60 parts per billion. In fact, the safety standard proposed
    is 280 times weaker than standards set by Wisconsin and 70
    times weaker than that of Minnesota.
        The same trend is true for acetochlor. Your standards were
    15 times weaker than standards set by Minnesota. This is a
    disturbing pattern for someone charged with representing the
    safety of our citizens from these chemicals.
        Mr. Chairman, I would like unanimous consent to submit for
    the record a letter from a wide range of worker advocacy
    organizations, including many farm worker advocacy
    organizations.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Merkley. Thank you.
        This letter states, ``The nomination of Mr. Dourson to be
    in charge of chemical safety at the EPA is a threat to our
    nation's children, farm workers, communities at the front lines
    of exposure to chlorpyrifos.''
        Flame retardants are chemicals that are used in everything
    from car seats to couches. EPA has placed many of these
    chemicals on its list of chemicals it wishes to examine first
    under TSCA. Ten years ago the biggest companies that made these
    chemicals formed an organization, Citizens for Fire Safety, to
    promote their use.
        In 2012 the group was found to have paid doctors to testify
    against proposed legislation to ban the chemicals. These
    doctors described heartbreaking stories about burned children
    who died in their arms, but might have been saved if only flame
    retardants had been used on their burning sheets and pillow
    cases.
        Just one problem--those children did not exist. These
    stories were fabricated. Citizens for Fire Safety folded in
    2012, right after this shameful scam was exposed. And I note
    this because the very same flame retardant manufacturers that
    backed Citizens for Fire Safety then announced they would
    continue their advocacy efforts through the North American
    Flame Retardant Alliance, which was part of the American
    Chemistry Council. That Alliance consistently promotes the use
    of flame retardants, downplays the risk to health, lobbies
    against proposals to regulate them.
        Mr. Dourson, according to documents you provided the
    Committee, you were a member of the North American Flame
    Retardant Alliance Scientific Advisory Council from early 2012
    until just a couple months ago. You list being paid $10,000 in
    consulting fees. You have led research funded by the same flame
    retardant companies that were backing the Citizens for Fire
    Safety and the Alliance.
        Having taken this employment, this advocacy, it is simply
    hard to conclude how you can be an objective and impartial
    regulator when it comes to these flame retardants. If
    confirmed, do you commit to recuse yourself from working on any
    chemical safety matter related to flame retardants?
        Mr. Dourson. Senator, we have--TERA and the University of
    Cincinnati, has worked with a number of organizations for flame
    retardants, including Consumer Product Safety Commission,
    Health Canada, the National----
        Senator Merkley. That is not the question I am asking.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator, your time has expired.
        Senator Merkley. It is a simple yes or no question.
        Senator Barrasso. And there is a second round. We will have
    plenty of time for a second round of questions.
        Senator Merkley. Yes or no, Mr. Dourson? Can you answer the
    question?
        Senator Barrasso. I ask all members to keep this in their 5
    minute rounds.
        Senator Merkley. Well, we would be done if he would answer
    the question, Mr. Chairman. It is a simple yes or no question.
        Mr. Dourson. I will rely on the guidance from the EPA
    ethics----
        Senator Merkley. That is not sufficient. Thank you.
        Mr. Dourson [continuing]. To determine any issues----
        Senator Barrasso. You will have time for a second round of
    questions to further pursue.
        I would like to introduce for the record a letter from Dr.
    James Klaunig, who served as Indiana's State Toxicologist for
    over a decade, is now Professor of Indiana University School of
    Public Health, who wrote, ``Dr. Dourson is an exceptional
    scientist and leader in the fields of risk assessment and
    toxicology. As the Assistant Administrator of the EPA Office of
    Chemical Safety and Pollution, he would bring over a generation
    of experience in chemical safety and human risk assessment'' to
    submit for the record.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask unanimous
    consent, if I could, to submit for the record an October 3rd
    letter from the International Association of Fire Fighters to
    members of this Committee. This letter expresses the
    Association's strong opposition to the nomination of Dr.
    Dourson.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Senator Fischer.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wehrum, last week the EPA proposed to dramatically
    change the RFS in a proposal that is typically just a request
    for additional data. Moreover, there are press reports that EPA
    wants to attach a compliance credit to exported biofuels, an
    act that would completely undermine the integrity of the
    program, not to mention, I believe, harm the reputation of the
    United States as a fair trading partner.
        I have some real concerns with the approach that the Agency
    has recently taken on the RFS, especially after Administrator
    Pruitt committed to me, in this room, as he did to Senator
    Ernst, he also committed to me in two private meetings to
    uphold the law as intended.
        As you are aware, the RFS is the law until 2022. Are you
    aware of that?
        Mr. Wehrum. And beyond, Senator, yes.
        Senator Fischer. And beyond. The EPA could look at it after
    2022, is that correct?
        Mr. Wehrum. That is correct, Senator.
        Senator Fischer. What are your thoughts on the EPA's, I
    believe, attacks on the RFS that we have been seeing lately?
        Mr. Wehrum. Senator, as I responded to Senator Ernst
    earlier, the RFS is a very complicated program, and I am not
    apprised of all of the recent actions and all of the recent
    activity under the RFS, but it certainly will be one of my
    primary responsibilities, if confirmed to this position; and as
    I committed to Senator Ernst, I will commit to you that I will
    work very closely with you and with your staff and with your
    constituents to understand your concerns, and my goal would be
    to implement the RFS as faithfully and completely as I could,
    Senator.
        Senator Fischer. And as Senator Ernst asked, would you
    commit that the RFS is the law, and it is in law until 2022?
        Mr. Wehrum. Senator, there is no doubt the RFS is in law.
    It is included in the Clean Air Act; it was an amendment to the
    Clean Air Act.
        Senator Fischer. Until 2022, at the earliest, when the EPA
    could look at it?
        Mr. Wehrum. Yes, Senator. So the statute specifies
    renewable volume obligation goals through 2022, and then leaves
    it to the discretion of the Administrator, in consultation with
    others, to determine what those goals might be beyond 2022.
        Senator Fischer. The Assistant Administrator of the Office
    of Air and Radiation plays a key role in ensuring the RFS
    functions according to congressional intent. And with the
    President's commitment to the RFS and the biofuel production
    that we see, would you commit to upholding the President's
    commitment?
        Mr. Wehrum. The President, Senator, would be my ultimate
    boss, so our job is to implement the policy as the President
    specifies.
        Senator Fischer. According to the law.
        Mr. Wehrum. According to the law, that is absolutely
    correct.
        Senator Fischer. Do you think that the EPA has the
    authority to artificially reduce biofuel blending that runs
    counter to the intent and the literal reading of the RFS law?
        Mr. Wehrum. Well, Senator, I have said a couple times the
    statute is pretty extensive, the statutory provisions; they go
    on for many pages in the Clean Air Act, and the regulations are
    even more extensive than that. What I do know is that there is
    discretion built into the law for the Agency and others to use
    in making sure that the law can be implemented according to the
    law, but also be effective as a practical matter.
        So I understand much of the concern is with regard to how
    that discretion has been implemented, and again, I will fully
    commit to you that, if confirmed to this position, that I would
    work very closely with you to understand your concerns, to
    understand the concerns of your constituents, and to try to
    implement the law as best we can.
        Senator Fischer. Do you believe it is the intent of the RFS
    to increase the production of American made renewable fuels and
    also to decrease our country's reliance on foreign oil?
        Mr. Wehrum. I believe there is no doubt that that is the
    case, Senator.
        Senator Fischer. And is it in the best interest of our
    national security that we have a reliable, stable fuel supply?
        Mr. Wehrum. I believe that to be true, and energy security
    clearly was one of the motivating factors behind the enactment
    of the RFS, Senator.
        Senator Fischer. And do you believe it was also the intent
    of the legislation to have a balanced portfolio when it comes
    to our energy sources in this country?
        Mr. Wehrum. Senator, I am not exactly sure what you mean by
    that. I would be happy to respond; I am just not sure what you
    are getting at.
        Senator Fischer. Well, I look forward to furthering our
    understanding of the situation in future conversations.
        Mr. Wehrum. As do I, Senator.
        Senator Fischer. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Fischer.
        Senator Markey.
        Senator Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Dourson, you and the organization you have led, known
    as Toxicology Excellence for Risk Assessment, have been
    routinely paid and funded by chemical companies and polluters
    defending the need for weakened chemical safety standard. For
    example, in 2014 and 2017 you led two industry funded studies
    that defended a safe level of exposure to the carcinogen 1,4-
    dioxin that is 1,000 times greater than EPA's health based
    safety level; 350 parts per billion versus EPA's .35 parts per
    billion. One thousand times greater exposure to dioxin.
        Dioxin is an industrial chemical found in a wide range of
    products and known to frequently contaminate water systems.
    According to water sampling studies conducted by the
    environmental working group Water Surprise, for more than 7
    million Americans in 27 States are contaminated with the
    chemical at a level higher than EPA's health based standard.
    Just last year the EPA announced dioxin to be one of the first
    chemicals to be evaluated by the office to which you were
    nominated under the new Toxic Substances Control Act, which I
    helped to write.
        Given your recent work defending a 1,000 times weaker
    safety standard for dioxin than what the EPA determined will
    cause cancer, will you recuse yourself from working on this
    chemical if you receive confirmation for this position?
        Mr. Dourson. Senator, I worked with a team of groups,
    including five different U.S. States, three different
    international organizations----
        Senator Markey. Will you recuse yourself from the
    consideration of dioxin?
        Mr. Dourson [continuing]. Several consulting firms, and
    several industries to advance the science that EPA put out in
    its 2013 document----
        Senator Markey. Will you recuse yourself? Will you promise
    not to weaken the standard the EPA has set to protect the
    public's health against the carcinogen dioxin? Will you not
    weaken that standard?
        Mr. Dourson. If confirmed, I would bring new science and
    thinking into the Agency and----
        Senator Markey. Your science says that dioxin can be
    exposed to by human beings at 1,000 times greater rate than the
    EPA has determined is safe for human beings. Will you recuse
    yourself?
        Mr. Dourson. This new information is new information and
    new science since the time of the EPA document----
        Senator Markey. I hear you. You are not going to give us a
    commitment, Mr. Dourson. And what is going to happen is, when
    you arrive at the EPA, you are going to have been the
    defendant's chemical lawyer, who then becomes the judge over
    the very science, bogus science which you have been
    propounding. You are not just an outlier on this science; you
    are outrageous in how far from the mainstream of science you
    actually are.
        They are giving out the Nobel Prizes in chemistry this
    week. If there was a Nobel Prize in chemistry in reverse, you
    would be the clear winner this week in the United States and
    the world. This is an absolute atrocity.
        Let me move on, then, to TCE, a volatile organic compound
    and common industrial solvent that has been linked to cancer,
    congenital heart defects, other health issues. It is a route by
    which humans actually contract cancer. Because of the wide
    range of health concerns that can occur through even short-term
    exposure to TCE, the EPA has proposed banning TCE in commercial
    vapor degreasing and dry cleaning. Other uses of the chemical
    have been prioritized by the EPA for assessment under the
    updated TSCA law.
        A study you led and funded, Mr. Dourson, in 2016 proposed a
    safety range for TCE that is 1.5 to 15 times less protective
    than the EPA's own drinking water standard. Given that the EPA
    will soon be finalizing its proposals on TCE for certain uses,
    and assessing the remaining uses for regulation, will you
    commit to not working to weaken the standards the EPA has
    already proposed?
        Mr. Dourson. Again, Senator, based on existing science, EPA
    came out with an assessment. Subsequent to that science, I
    worked with a consortium of individuals and groups of various
    sectors to bring additional science to EPA's good questions. It
    is inappropriate for me to prejudge an issue, but if confirmed,
    I will ensure that the issue is fully and fairly considered in
    a publicly transparent manner.
        Senator Markey. Mr. Dourson, it is pretty clear that you
    have never met a chemical you didn't like, and your previous
    studies have already prejudged the exposure. You are a
    scientist who already did work on this subject, and you have
    come to conclusions which are fundamental threats to the public
    health and safety of this country. You should commit here to
    recusal on the issues where you have already reached
    conclusions.
        Mr. Dourson. The published paper we used, Senator, was
    using U.S. EPA safe doses and also EPA's method for estimating
    ranges.
        Senator Markey. EPA found 1.5 to 15 times higher risk than
    you did, and that is not consistent with the conclusion----
        Senator Barrasso. There will be a second round of
    questions, Senator, for your opportunity.
        Senator Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am about to
    lose my voice, but I did want to ask a couple questions.
        Mr. Ross, in recent years EPA has made it increasingly
    difficult for Arkansas to manage its delegated national
    pollutant discharge elimination program and responsibilities
    under the Clean Water Act.
        Too often, permits, rulemakings, or other actions sent to
    EPA for review were returned with demands for more restrictive
    requirements, additional expensive data collection, or other
    costly, onerous requirements. New leadership at EPA has an
    opportunity to correct this coercive federalism and instead
    restore cooperative federalism, as intended.
        The States have the expertise and local knowledge necessary
    to administer our environmental programs. The EPA has been
    proud to say that the States are essentially in charge and that
    they will defer to them, and that is true, as long as they
    agree with what the States come up with.
        I guess the question is EPA has the opportunity to play a
    significant role in supporting a move back to cooperative
    federalism. Can you please explain how you plan to change the
    EPA's State dynamic?
        Mr. Ross. Thank you for the question, Senator. I do believe
    strongly in cooperative federalism. One of the things that I
    have heard in the run up to this hearing, and also working for
    two different States over the last several years, is the
    frustration in the relationship between the Federal Government
    and the State government, and I commit to taking that head on.
    And one of the ways that I have heard is to make sure we get
    outside the Beltway; to go out, work with States, figure out
    the relationships, and listen and develop a common relationship
    on how best to manage our nation's resources.
        Senator Boozman. Very good.
        Mr. Wehrum, more than 1,000 U.S. companies and
    organizations sent a letter to Congress and the Administration
    calling for lawmakers to preserve the voluntary Energy Star
    program that was recently proposed for elimination. This
    program, founded in 1992 during the Bush administration, is an
    extremely successful public-private partnership model.
    Consumers enjoy the benefits of the program, which encourages
    innovation and has saved taxpayers over $430 billion since
    1992.
        Do you view the Energy Star program as a successful public-
    private partnership?
        Mr. Wehrum. Senator, Energy Star is a unique program, and
    products that are allowed to carry the Energy Star label must
    be shown to be cost effective, energy efficiency technologies,
    which means they pay for themselves over time, so a very strict
    criteria are applied to deciding where the Energy Star label
    can be applied. So it is a different kind of program because it
    is a voluntary program and not a mandatory regulatory program,
    and it is a program that has been widely used in many different
    industries.
        Senator Boozman. So you think it has been successful?
        Mr. Wehrum. Personally, I do believe it has been
    successful, Senator, yes.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you.
        Dr. Dourson, for the past 8 years EPA has acted as a
    political arm of the Obama administration. Time and time again
    we have seen rules developed not based on sound science, but on
    political ideology. When rules have been released, States, the
    private sector, and even Congress have had trouble getting EPA
    to show the science that helped develop these rules. As an
    Assistant Administrator of the Office of Chemical Safety and
    Pollution Prevention, can we expect EPA to be more transparent
    as to how rules are developed?
        Mr. Dourson. Yes, Senator. My career has been based on
    transparency and collaboration, and I intend to do so if
    confirmed.
        Senator Boozman. Good. That is very, very important, to
    have access. It is one thing to come out with a finding, but
    certainly that needs to be transparent. We need to have the
    ability to see the science behind it.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Boozman.
        Senator Booker.
        Senator Booker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Dourson, I have to say, and you have heard from my
    colleagues, that I have only been in the Senate for 4 years.
    But your nomination is one of the more shocking that I have
    seen, and your job that you are being nominated to, as my
    colleague just said, is to the Chemical Safety and Pollution
    Prevention Office, and the mission, as I hope you have
    memorized, frankly, is to protect families and the environment
    from the potential risks from pesticides and toxic chemicals.
        You heard already from some of my colleagues; Senator
    Duckworth talking about the south side of Chicago. I live in a
    community that has seen the effects of corporate villainy to
    the point now that our soil is poisoned; we can't plant many
    places in our city. The air is poisoned, asthma rates, lead
    poisoning rates, the water is poisoned because corporations,
    pressing their hand and their power and their money, have been
    able to poison communities to the extent that you have autism
    rates, birth defects, cancers in our children in places in this
    country that are unconscionable.
        And I really hope, as you sit there on your perch right
    now, that you have the capacity to have empathy for those
    people, many of whom are sitting behind you right now, who view
    your nomination with fear, with anguish. And that fear and
    anguish is not partisan; it is not coming from the thin air. As
    you have heard from my colleagues, it is coming from looking at
    your record.
        I would imagine that somebody would be nominated that has a
    track record of standing up for those vulnerable people in our
    nation. But my colleague after colleague has now pointed out
    what you have been doing with your professional career. And I
    will just go through, because it almost seems like a bit of a
    scene out of some Disney movie where there are corporate
    villains that do harm to our environment, or at least seek to
    if it weren't for the heroic actions of others.
        So, this is the process. First, a company or industry
    identifies a problem, and you have already talked to Dow and
    Monsanto and chemical companies like this, and they want to
    exercise influence to stop safety measures being done by
    governments. So, what happens is that the corporation hires
    your organization, TERA, to come up with a recommendation, a
    safety standard so that they can try to defend their desire to
    put more poisons into the atmosphere, into the soil, and into
    our water. So, what happens is that you come up with the
    science to back up these corporations.
        But I try to give this a fair measure. I mean, the surface
    information I received was so astonishing that you would be
    sitting where you are as a nominee that I wanted to dig into
    some of the stuff, and came up with the same things that other
    folks came up with. You have heard these chemicals now
    mentioned by my colleagues--alachlor and acetochlor. They are
    banned in the European Union. Literally banned. You all
    advocated for limits in the water based on your science that
    ended up being 280 times higher than the State of Wisconsin
    believed was safe for their kids.
        So, I know that you can pick your chemical here. The
    pattern I have seen from just looking at your record, sir, goes
    again and again and again. Corporations fund studies from TERA
    and have science on here is chlorpyrifos that literally comes
    out. Your studies, this one, in the case of that chemical, that
    affects farm workers and children, was 1,000 time higher than
    the ultimate EPA standard. A thousand times higher.
        So clearly, to me, we have a situation where you are about
    to be the person that is a head of an office that has the
    mission of protecting children, and you have a pattern of
    working with corporations to advocate for a position that is
    hundreds, if not thousands, of times more dangerous than the
    standards we set and that we see other nations who are moving
    to ban the very chemicals that you have been advocating for as
    safe at higher levels.
        The Chairman said that you have been a leader, read a
    letter that calls you a leader in human risk assessment. I
    don't see this as leadership when you are advocating for levels
    that will literally poison people. It doesn't make you seem
    like a leader in your career; it seems like you are a lackey, a
    corporate lackey doing the bidding of people that are trying to
    create in communities like the one I live in, where my niece
    was born, to create environments that are chemically toxic.
        So, I have heard you not answer this question over and over
    again, but I am appealing to you to recuse yourself. It seems
    logical and legal that you would recuse yourself from making
    decisions on chemicals from companies that have paid you. And I
    don't understand any defense to that. If these corporations
    were going to be advocating for standards that you set at
    levels that poison human beings, it seems logical that you
    should not be now the judge of whether those chemicals should
    be released, or changing standards that now will reflect what
    those corporations wanted.
        So, I doubt I am going to get it, but will you recuse
    yourself, sir?
        Mr. Dourson. Senator, I will follow the EPA ethics
    officials' determination for any recusal.
        Senator Booker. And that is the point I will conclude with,
    sir, because you are going to follow the ethics that you think
    that the EPA is going to give you, and I am talking to you not
    just about ethics and law, but I am talking to you about
    conscience and moral values.
        And it seems like you have been willing to bend those
    ideals, because I don't know if you have children, I don't know
    if you have grandchildren, I don't know if you have nieces or
    nephews like me, but I doubt you would let them live next to
    the companies that are spewing this stuff in the air. You would
    not let them live there and accept standards in their
    atmosphere that you have been claiming for your entire career
    are safe. You would not do it. But you are advocating for
    positions, and there are people here right now, you are
    advocating for positions that are going to endanger those
    children that are in those communities.
        Thank you very much.
        Senator Barrasso. And there will be time for a second round
    of questioning.
        I would like to submit for the record a letter by Dr.
    Jennifer Seed, who has worked for 23 years in various positions
    at the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics at the EPA,
    who wrote that Dr. Dourson has a long history of supporting
    regulatory agencies both at the State and Federal level. As an
    EPA employee, he played a paramount role in the development of
    risk assessment practices that are now used internationally.
        Unanimous consent that the letter be admitted.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, I would also like to ask
    unanimous consent to submit for the record a September 19th
    letter from several environmental organizations to members of
    our Committee, and on behalf of their millions of members,
    these organizations write to oppose the nominations of Dr.
    Dourson and Mr. Wehrum. It has raised serious concerns
    regarding the nominations of Mr. Ross and Mr. Leopold to their
    respective positions at the Environmental Protection Agency.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Senator Rounds.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Dourson, if you are confirmed to lead the Office of
    Chemical Safety, you will be responsible for implementing the
    TSCA reforms passed by Congress last year. This Committee has a
    strong interest in making certain that TSCA reforms are
    implemented properly and in a timely fashion.
        Can you commit to us that you will keep Congress apprised
    of the status of TSCA implementation and answer congressional
    requests for information about the program?
        Mr. Dourson. Yes, Senator. As I said in my opening
    statement, the Lautenberg Chemical Safety Act was a significant
    milestone, celebrated broadly by scientists in my sector, so I
    will commit to working with this Committee and Congress to make
    sure it is implemented correctly.
        Senator Rounds. Dr. Dourson, in the prior administration we
    heard reports of the EPA not using up to date or the most
    relevant science when making chemical safety decisions. Can you
    explain to me your views on the importance of science at the
    Agency, particularly in the decisions being made by the Office
    of Chemical Safety?
        Mr. Dourson. Senator, good science and use of good science
    is a touchstone of everything that U.S. EPA does, and other
    Federal agencies, I am sure, as well. Bringing good science and
    doing it in a collaborative and transparent manner has been my
    life's passion. Collaboration is important, and if confirmed, I
    will work with the talented people of the Office of Chemical
    Safety and Pollution Prevention and make sure that the best
    science is looked at and reviewed, and used to protect the
    public health, including the most vulnerable members of our
    population.
        Senator Rounds. Let me get into this a little bit more,
    because when we talk about sound science, and we talk about
    good science, the science community has a unique way of looking
    at the way that it is reviewed, the way that we go about
    establishing the processes, and so forth. You are a scientist.
    Can you share with the Committee your analysis of what makes
    good science and sound science, and what the expectations
    should be of this Committee of the EPA in the way that they set
    up work with the science community to develop recommendations
    based on sound science? What goes into it?
        Mr. Dourson. Well, the sound science, if you would take a
    particular chemical, it doesn't matter which one for an
    example, you would look at all the available information on
    that particular chemical.
        Senator Rounds. Who looks at it? Who looks at the
    information?
        Mr. Dourson. Well, it would be the scientists within the
    Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, and it
    could be exposure science, it could be toxicology, it could be
    epidemiology. But you bring all this together, and you work
    with teams within the organization to review all this data. The
    next step is to look and winnow out and use the most
    significant or credible science on which to make the basis,
    your assessment of chemical safety or exposure. And once that
    determination is made, you do this in an open fashion, you ask
    for information, then you have an independent peer review.
        Senator Rounds. Talk about that a little bit. I think that
    is the important part here that sometimes gets missed.
        Mr. Dourson. Well, the independent peer review, U.S. EPA
    has several ways to do this, and they have several very good
    organizations within U.S. EPA. The Science Advisory Board, of
    which I have served as a member until just a couple days ago
    when my 6-year term was up, is an example of very good
    independent peer review. They are independent of the Agency,
    the group within EPA that does this, and they bring scientists
    from the outside sector that are multiple disciplines and also
    multiple sectors in to review the information that EPA puts
    out. That is very important.
        Another important thing is access to all of the available
    data. There are sometimes studies you don't have access to the
    raw data. Sometimes that is difficult to make decisions in that
    case.
        Senator Rounds. OK.
        Mr. Ross, in the last Administration we uncovered several
    instances in which regulations were promulgated by the EPA
    without taking into consideration the opinions of the Science
    Advisory Board or not properly submitting information to the
    Science Advisory Board to review prior regulating.
        If confirmed, will you commit to relying on the best
    available science when regulating?
        Mr. Ross. Absolutely, Senator. I think sound science,
    together with the proper application of law, are the twin
    pillars of sound Government policy decisionmaking, so
    absolutely.
        Senator Rounds. Thank you.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Senator Rounds.
        Senator Harris.
        Senator Harris. Thank you.
        Mr. Wehrum, section 209(b) of the Clean Air Act recognizes
    California's authority to increase air pollution standards for
    new motor vehicles. I am sure you are familiar with that.
        Mr. Wehrum. I am, Senator.
        Senator Harris. And I have an e-mail that is dated March
    15th, 2006, from you to the EPA staff, where you told staff
    that you thought the EPA should preempt California and deny the
    waiver.
        And Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter that into the
    record.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Harris. Also, in 2008 there was a House Committee
    on Oversight and Government Reform investigation showing that
    the EPA career staff and lawyers unanimously and uniformly
    thought the waiver should be granted.
        And I have that document as well, Mr. Chairman, that I
    would like entered.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Harris. Will you commit, if confirmed, to follow
    the science and law, and heed the advice of career staff in the
    Department, and recognize and preserve California's authority
    to issue its own new motor vehicle standards as it relates to
    emissions?
        Mr. Wehrum. Senator, the provision that you refer to, in
    appropriate circumstances, certainly does allow California to
    implement its own motor vehicle standards, and my commitment to
    you would be to understand that provision as much as possible
    and implement it as faithfully as possible.
        Senator Harris. And are you familiar with the several
    decades of practice and court decisions that make it clear that
    the EPA should be deferential to California and only deny the
    waiver if the EPA could ``affirmatively demonstrate that
    California, or any State, was arbitrary and capricious''?
        Mr. Wehrum. Senator, EPA has an obligation to review waiver
    requests and make a determination if they are adequate in light
    of the criteria set out in that provision, yes.
        Senator Harris. OK. And you are familiar with these decades
    of practice that have made that finding?
        Mr. Wehrum. I can't say I am familiar with every single
    waiver that has been issued, but I am familiar with the waiver
    process, Senator.
        Senator Harris. OK. I would urge you to become familiar
    with it, if confirmed. Thank you.
        Mr. Dourson, in my home State of California, the city of
    Santa Clarita has struggled with groundwater contamination from
    perchlorate. The toxic chemical is a byproduct of producing
    munitions and rocket fuel, and it affects the thyroid's ability
    to regulate metabolism and guide a child's development.
        In Santa Clarita, for more than 50 years, the Whittaker
    Bermite Corporation contaminated the soil and groundwater
    across a 1,000-acre site in the heart of the city. You, sir,
    were hired by companies that have used perchlorate, like
    Lockheed Martin and Boeing, to study this toxic chemical, and
    you rewarded them by marking that the safe level would be eight
    times higher than what the EPA said would be safe.
        In 2013 the EPA's own independent Science Advisory Board
    asked you to recuse yourself from perchlorate matters because
    of this conflict of interest.
        Can you commit to this Committee that you will recuse
    yourself from any EPA decision having to do with perchlorate?
        Mr. Dourson. Again, Senator, I am going to rely on guidance
    from EPA ethics officials to determine any issues for which I
    need to be recused.
        Senator Harris. Sir, you profess to be a professional. And
    you must be, then, aware that professional standards as it
    relates to ethics, and as my colleague has mentioned, also
    moral standards, would demand that we are aware of not only an
    appearance of conflict, but actual conflict. And if we are to
    be leaders, it would suggest to me that you, as a leader, as
    you say, in this field, would understand the importance of
    making the decision yourself, instead of waiting for someone
    else to tell you that you should recuse yourself from these
    matters.
        Are you going to wait for permission from the ethics to
    exercise your discretion as it relates to other matters? Do you
    believe you possess discretion in this position, if confirmed?
        Mr. Dourson. Senator, as I stated in my opening statement,
    I commit my mind, body, and spirit to protecting the public
    health, if confirmed, in this organization, the Office of
    Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. The staff is very
    talented. I would be humbled and honored to serve with them,
    but ultimately protect the public health, including those
    sensitive members of the population.
        Senator Harris. Are you aware that, if confirmed, you would
    have the discretion to recuse yourself and would not have to be
    ordered to do so by anyone?
        Mr. Dourson. Again, I can depend on EPA ethics officials to
    advise me in that capacity.
        Senator Harris. Are you aware that you would have the
    discretion to make that decision, sir?
        Mr. Dourson. I would, again, defer to EPA ethics officials
    to advise me in that capacity.
        Senator Harris. I have nothing else.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Harris.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Dr. Dourson, am I pronouncing your name right?
        Mr. Dourson. Yes, sir.
        Senator Wicker. My first question deals with the Federal
    Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act, FIFRA. As we all
    know, pesticide policy in the United States is supposed to
    involve a balancing act between the potential hazards of a
    pesticide and the benefits of the product based on real world
    impacts. Pesticides can poison you, can hurt people. But
    without pesticides, we would not be able to supply the world
    with food and fiber as we do; hence, the balancing act with
    real world facts under FIFRA.
        There is a feeling that, under the Obama administration,
    decisions were made by EPA that were beginning to resemble not
    what we call facts on the ground, but a precautionary approach
    to regulation, where regulatory action was taken to prevent
    theoretical risks, unproven risks. So would you please comment
    on that issue, and will you tell the Committee about your
    commitment to science based risk assessment of pesticides under
    FIFRA?
        Mr. Dourson. Senator, my career, including more than a
    decade as an EPA scientist, focused on protecting public health
    by developing, reviewing, and communicating risk assessment
    values done in an impartial and objective and transparent way.
    If confirmed, I commit myself to you and this Committee, and to
    the American people, to continue in that effort.
        Senator Wicker. Well, OK. Do you have any insights to give
    to the members of the Committee about my concern or the
    concerns of people like me that there has been too far of a
    move toward precautionary regulation and prevention of
    theoretical and unproven risks, rather than facts on the
    ground?
        Mr. Dourson. The area that I study and work in, and the
    area of the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Protection
    risk assessment is preventive medicine. In some regards, it is
    precautionary. However, there have been tendencies in certain
    cases to be additionally precautionary, more protective than
    needed, and you are correct, Senator, in those particular
    situations you might have an erosion of this balancing act
    within FIFRA.
        If confirmed, I will go in and work with the talented staff
    of the Office of Pesticide Programs and bring impartiality to
    it, or maybe maintain that balance if it is already there, so
    that you can be assured and the American people can be assured
    that FIFRA is regulated in the way it is intended to be
    regulated as a balance between risk and benefit.
        Senator Wicker. OK.
        Well, let me move, then, to Federal procurement of wood and
    guidelines from the Federal Government and from EPA in that
    regard.
        I can tell you that folks in my State of Mississippi feel
    that the Federal Government has unduly discriminated against
    domestic lumber and domestic wood production by this adherence
    to one form of certification from the Forest Stewardship
    Council, ignoring and to the detriment of other initiatives
    such as the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, SFI, or the
    American Tree Farm System, ATFS.
        What do you know about that, and do you have any
    information to share with the Committee about guidelines issued
    for purchasing lumber and wood discriminating against
    domestically produced wood?
        Mr. Dourson. Senator, I am not familiar with that
    particular issue, but if confirmed, I would be more than happy
    to work with you individually or this Committee and appropriate
    Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention staff to make sure
    that such discrimination is at least understood, and if not
    appropriate, to be removed.
        Senator Wicker. And I will note, Mr. Chair, that I asked
    Administrator Pruitt essentially the same thing when he was
    here in January.
        So, doctor, I would just like to make sure, will you commit
    to working with me and your colleagues at EPA to fix this
    flawed policy so that EPA promotes the use of all domestic
    forest products in its purchasing policy?
        Mr. Dourson. I would be happy to work with you, Senator, on
    that.
        Senator Wicker. Now, Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I
    understand we are going to have a second round. If I could
    squeeze in a quick question, I could be out of your hair.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Gillibrand, you are next. Are you
    OK with him doing that?
        Senator Wicker. I am sure she will love the question.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Wicker. Because I was going to ask Dr. Dourson, Mr.
    Leopold, Mr. Ross, and Mr. Wehrum did they agree or disagree
    that Waters of the United States and the Clean Power Plan
    involved a reach beyond the authority granted the EPA by
    Congress.
        And we will start with Mr. Wehrum down here.
        Mr. Wehrum. Well, I can speak to the Clean Power Plan,
    Senator, and I think I would just refer to the action of the
    U.S. Supreme Court, which, in an unprecedented move, stayed
    implementation of the Clean Power Plan even before the D.C.
    Circuit had rendered a decision on the underlying litigation.
    The Court has never taken an action like that in its history,
    and I think it says a lot about that Court's perspective on the
    legal viability of the CPP.
        Mr. Ross. Senator, I can speak to the Waters of the United
    States litigation, and I will defer to the same thing. There
    are two Federal courts who have taken the extraordinary step of
    staying implementation of a rule both on procedural and
    substantive concerns. So I think the courts have sent the
    message as to whether or not there are some legal infirmities
    there.
        Mr. Leopold. Senator, I will echo the comments of my
    colleagues here and that courts have taken extraordinary steps
    that are unprecedented in staying both of those regulatory
    actions. Thank you.
        Mr. Dourson. Senator, as a scientist and not a lawyer, I
    think I will withhold comment about the legalities of this
    particular thing. As a member of EPA's Science Advisory Board,
    however, this rule came through us, and I had some comments on
    that and some scientific risk issues that were raised during
    the meeting. But again, I have no comments on the legality.
        Senator Wicker. Are those a matter of public record?
        Mr. Dourson. Yes, Senator, they are.
        Senator Wicker. OK. Could you make those available to the
    Committee?
        Mr. Dourson. Sure. Absolutely.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you.
        And let the record reflect that I owe Senator Gillibrand at
    least my 3 minutes.
        Senator Gillibrand. I will hold you to that.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Gillibrand, thank you for your
    patience. Thank you. Appreciate it.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Dourson, today, in the audience, are New Yorkers whose
    lives have been personally impacted by the chemical PFOA:
    Michael Hickey, Laureen Hackett, Gwyneth Young, and Lee Marby.
    They live in the village of Hoosick Falls, New York, and the
    town of Petersburg, New York, two neighboring communities that
    together are going through a gut wrenching experience of
    discovering that their drinking water, the water that they
    drink, the water they give their children, the water they cook
    in, the water they bathe in, is contaminated by PFOA. Michael
    Hickey has lost his father to kidney cancer, and they have
    family members, friends, and neighbors affected by illnesses
    that are known to be linked to PFOA.
        These families are so frightened. I live so close to where
    they live. I can't imagine what it would be like to live and
    not know if the water that your children are being bathed in is
    safe; if they are going to get cancer when they are 25; if they
    are ever going to be able to have kids. Their lives are so
    affected by the decisions that you have made, and I don't think
    you recognize when you are hired by a company, when you are
    hired by the DuPonts of the world, when you are hired by the
    Monsantos of the world, you are being asked to change how
    governments, how leaders look at these risks and whether they
    say it is safe or not.
        We have lived through this. After 9/11 the EPA said the air
    was safe. Do you know how many people in their 40s and 50s and
    60s have died of cancers you would not see in people who are
    younger than 80? Because you have such a responsibility. You
    are no longer being paid for your opinions. You are here as a
    public servant. Your job is to serve the people sitting behind
    you. Your job is to look at their children in the same way you
    would look at your own children or any other person you love.
    And the decisions that you are going to make will affect
    hundreds and hundreds of more children just like them.
        Now, you have refused to answer the question that my
    colleagues have asked you, if you would recuse yourself. If I
    was you, I would recuse myself over and over again if I was
    paid for a determination that in many instances were multiples,
    hundred times, thousand times more than what the EPA has
    recommended.
        Now, I can take you through the drill. Do you believe that
    PFOA has been linked to cancer, including kidney cancer?
        Mr. Dourson. I believe the scientific studies associated
    with PFOA indicates that it is linked to some kinds of cancers.
        Senator Gillibrand. Concerns about PFOA are not unique to
    upstate New York, but your organization, TERA, was hired to
    assess the safety of PFOA in West Virginia in 2002. We know
    that DuPont manufactures PFOA in Parkersburg, West Virginia,
    and I understand they paid you for that assessment, correct?
        Mr. Dourson. The State of West Virginia hired us to do that
    assessment, Senator.
        Senator Gillibrand. Was DuPont involved at all?
        Mr. Dourson. Senator, I don't know about where the State of
    West Virginia got its money.
        Senator Gillibrand. Did TERA recommend, in a risk
    assessment, that water with PFOA levels of up to 150 parts per
    billion was safe to drink?
        Mr. Dourson. No, Senator, TERA did not; that was a
    collection of 10 individuals, 5 of them government agents,
    government employees, 4 of them U.S. EPA that made a consensus
    decision on that.
        Senator Gillibrand. But it was 150 parts per billion.
        Mr. Dourson. The science at the time indicated in a
    consensus manner of all the scientists at the table that that
    was the appropriate level to base it on.
        Senator Gillibrand. Did you know that DuPont had an
    internal recommendation guideline of 1 part per billion at the
    time?
        Mr. Dourson. Our understanding at the time was the 1 part
    per billion was a placeholder; it wasn't based on a full
    reading of the science. They were waiting for the science panel
    to do it.
        Senator Gillibrand. Do you know that EPA has a health
    advisory level of .07 parts per billion?
        Mr. Dourson. The science has progressed, significantly
    advanced since the time of 2004, and the new science indicates
    a lower level.
        Senator Gillibrand. Do you know that in Hoosick Falls they
    have found contamination at .66 parts per billion, which at the
    level you determined would save 150 parts per billion is 228
    times higher than the parts per billion that is actually
    occurring today in Hoosick Falls?
        Mr. Dourson. Well, again, the science has progressed since
    the time of the consensus decision of the 10-member panel in
    2004. I am not aware of the specific----
        Senator Gillibrand. So here is my fundamental question.
        Mr. Dourson [continuing]. Exposure in that particular
    location, however.
        Senator Gillibrand. In the job you are about to take, will
    you commit that you will maintain the .07 parts per billion
    standard?
        Mr. Dourson. Senator, if confirmed, I will commit to
    protecting the American public and its most vulnerable members
    using the best science and working with the talented people of
    the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention. We will
    bring the best science forward; we will be transparent; we will
    be collaborative. I commit to that.
        Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Chairman, can I just ask unanimous
    consent to submit for the record two articles from West
    Virginia, a West Virginia news source? The first quotes a
    watchdog group formed to ensure companies remain liable for
    pollution for damages of PFOA, and the article concluded
    Michael Dourson spent his career helping chemical companies
    cover up deadly chemical contamination, and he was directly
    complicit in the PFOA contamination crisis that seriously
    harmed thousands of West Virginians and Ohioans. This
    nomination is a classic example of the fox guarding the hen
    house.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. Thank you
    for your patience.
        Senator Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. I am not exactly sure how to begin on this,
    but I think I will start with Mr. Leopold. I have a major
    concern for the safety of the people in Baltimore. On September
    the 18th of this year a cloud of chlorosulfonic acid leaked
    through a valve at Solvay Industry plant in Baltimore. I don't
    know if you are familiar with that or not.
        Thousands of my constituents were told to shelter in place
    for several hours that morning and early afternoon over fear of
    their health and safety. It is my understanding that this bill
    is colorless, and it is very difficult to know its presence
    other than the effect it has on your skin and respiratory
    tract. It can be fatal. It is extremely dangerous.
        And I would like to get your understanding of what role you
    will play as counsel in dealing with protecting the people of
    Baltimore and this nation on this issue. On June 9th
    Administrator Pruitt signed a final order to further delay the
    effective date of the RMP Rule amendment, known as the Chemical
    Accident Safety Rule, for 20 months, until February 19th, 2019.
        So I want to get some of your views as to what role you are
    going to play on implementing the laws of this country through
    regulations so that we are not bearing in Baltimore this type
    of safety condition. This is not hypothetical; it happened just
    a few weeks ago.
        So how do you see your role, if confirmed, in using the
    enforcement of our laws to protect the public health of the
    people of this country?
        Mr. Leopold. Thank you, Senator. I think the general
    counsel's role on this issue--and my concerns are certainly
    with the people of Baltimore and those who have experienced
    releases of chemicals--I think the role of the general counsel
    of the EPA is to approach this issue as it would any legal
    issue; to look at the statutes, the regulation the EPA
    administers.
        And in this case EPA has emergency response authority,
    which in an Office of Emergency Response, which it could
    activate. I am not privy to any details about what is occurring
    in the Agency at the moment, but----
        Senator Cardin. Emergency response is one thing. Preventing
    this is something else. The delay of the rule is delaying
    protection. Do you believe that you would have a role in making
    sure that we get timely action taken on these types of rules?
        Mr. Leopold. Well, I think the General Counsel's Office,
    again, the role is to advise the program offices and the
    Administrator on their authority, and if the Agency has
    discretion, we would advise, the discretion and the statutory
    bounds in which the Agency has to operate. Again, that is the
    role of the counsel, but certainly my commitment, as is the
    Administrator's, is to the rule of law. And if the law requires
    a substance to be regulated, I would advise of that, Senator.
        Senator Cardin. And of course, delay is denying the
    regulation of the law. So they may have discretion of delay,
    but do you see an obligation to make sure that the laws that we
    passed are carried out?
        Mr. Leopold. Absolutely, Senator. The obligation of the EPA
    is to implement the laws that are passed by Congress. In
    certain instances, the Agency has discretion on when to
    exercise that discretion, and in other instances statutes are
    very specific about when the Agency has to take action.
        Senator Cardin. I hear you. I would like to get a greater
    comfort that public safety is the reason why we pass these
    laws. There may be discretion on delay, but delay can cost
    people lives, so there needs to be a sense of urgency on public
    health.
        Mr. Ross, quickly, if I might. We have had several
    discussions about the Chesapeake Bay Program and the fact that
    it is a unique program; it is local governments up, we have all
    the stakeholders working together. Mr. Pruitt, in his
    confirmation hearing, said very nice things about the
    Chesapeake Bay, so I assume you are going to say nice things
    about the Chesapeake Bay Program.
        Mr. Ross. Yes. Thank you for the question. A couple months
    ago I had the distinct pleasure of driving 16 hours across
    country with the little ones back here to go from Wisconsin. We
    dropped our children off at a YMCA camp along the Chesapeake
    Bay in Maryland, in your State, and my wife and I continued out
    to the Delaware shore in your State, Senator Carper. So I care
    very deeply about where my kids play and swim, and the water
    quality, and I think the Bay is a treasure.
        Senator Cardin. Let me just point out that this Committee
    just reauthorized the Chesapeake Bay Program, the Federal role
    in the Chesapeake Bay Program by unanimous vote, and we
    authorized it at a higher level than the current appropriation
    levels. It is a clear signal that this program is supported,
    and for the benefit of your children, we hope that you will be
    a strong advocate to help us as one of the stakeholders,
    because without the Federal Government's significant role in
    this, it is hard for the other stakeholders to work together,
    because Federal participation is the glue in a program that is
    really popular among the six States and the District of
    Columbia and the stakeholders. So we will hold you to helping
    your children preserve this great heritage.
        Thank you.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
        Mr. Ross, having served both the State of Wyoming and
    Wisconsin, I think you have an immediate understanding and an
    intimate understanding of many of the different types of water
    issues faced by States across the country. Senator Wicker
    raised some questions about the Waters of the U.S. Could you
    please just explain to the Committee how you intend to work
    with western States to solve some of the water and water
    scarcity issues faced in Wyoming and elsewhere?
        Mr. Ross. Yes. You put your finger on it. I have worked in
    California, and I studied in Vermont, I have worked in
    Wisconsin, I spent time in DC; I spent a lot of time in
    Wyoming, and what I have learned is that each region, each
    State has unique challenges; and the issues out west are both
    water quality and water quantity, and that is a really
    difficult intersection.
        And there are some amazing folks, including in Wyoming, the
    State engineer, the director of the Department of Environmental
    Quality, they are subject matter experts that understand the
    issues as well as anyone. My job is to go learn from them and
    to make sure that the Federal Government works collaboratively
    with the States to protect the resources.
        Senator Barrasso. And Mr. Baran, I wanted to just follow
    up. The National Environmental Policy Act, NEPA, that requires
    agencies to prepare an environmental impact statement. They
    have to do it for every major Federal action. Well, at the NRC
    major Federal actions can include the issuance of licenses,
    license amendments. NEPA requires an agency to provide notice
    and to take public comments as it prepares an environmental
    impact statement.
        But in contrast to many Federal agencies, the NRC has
    voluntarily decided to take steps beyond those required by
    NEPA. Specifically, the NRC allows parties to challenge the
    NRC's environmental impact statement at its evidentiary hearing
    on security and safety measures. So, recently what we have seen
    are anti-nuclear activists. They have argued that if new
    information is presented at the hearing, then the NRC can't
    supplement its environmental impact statement.
        Instead, these activists are arguing that the NRC has to go
    back and rewrite the entire environmental impact statement
    before issuing a license or license amendment. So, if the NRC
    has already issued a license, these activists argue that the
    NRC has to then vacate and suspend a license that has already
    been issued.
        A bipartisan majority of the NRC Commissioners has
    repeatedly rejected this argument by the extremists, but you
    are the only Commissioner who agrees with these anti-nuclear
    activists, the only one. So, the issue is now before a Federal
    appeals court. So, if these activists succeed, it is going to
    add significant delays, I think, to any NRC licensing
    processes. This is going to make nuclear energy much more
    expensive to produce, and in some ways could potentially
    jeopardize safety.
        So, is it still your position--I know how you voted, but is
    it still your position that if new information is presented at
    NRC's evidentiary hearings, that the staff must rewrite the
    environmental impact statement before the NRC issues a license
    or license amendment? And if the NRC has already issued a
    license or license amendment, they must then vacate or suspend
    the license or the license amendment?
        Mr. Baran. Well, my concern is a little bit more specific
    than that. In the cases I think you are citing, the issue there
    was that the NRC staff, as you mentioned, made a licensing
    decision on the basis of an environmental review that our
    administrative law judges, the agency's administrative law
    judges later found to be inadequate. So that is the key factor
    there.
        My concern is that at the point we make a decision, when
    the agency issues a license, at that point we should do so on
    the basis of an adequate NEPA review. In my view, in the cases
    you mentioned, that did not happen. And as you mentioned, this
    question is now pending before the D.C. Circuit Court of
    Appeals, which will hold arguments on it next week.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
        Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
        I think this is a question for Bill Wehrum. Virtually every
    major clean air regulation that you helped to craft during the
    Bush administration has been thrown out, I am told, thrown out
    by Federal courts. Twenty-seven times the courts found that you
    failed to protect public health as directed by the law. All of
    the failed regulations you worked on created greater
    uncertainty for businesses and left the life of those that are
    most vulnerable at risk.
        When you left the EPA in 2007, I am sure you reflected on
    your time at the Agency in different ways, but one of the ways,
    the only one we are aware of, is really captured in the
    following quote from you, and I am going to read what the
    poster over my head says. It is put in juxtaposition to what
    Mr. Leopold said earlier in his testimony, and I think it was
    heartfelt, in his opening statement about a commitment, sort of
    a moral commitment to clean air, water, and so forth.
        I was out of the room when Mr. Ross invoked the verse for
    the beauty of the earth to talk about his commitment, and the
    juxtaposition of those two statements and what I am about to
    quote here from you just could not be stronger. Your quote is
    saying ``I am a much better lawyer now than when I first joined
    the Agency. To really get to know how the Agency works and how
    it ticks, I think that is very valuable. I have expanded my
    capabilities, which will hopefully allow me to be effective in
    generating business and clients.''
        Since then you have represented industry 31 times in
    lawsuits that I am aware of, against EPA, arguing for weaker
    air toxic mercury and climate protections. Would you just take
    a minute and tell us why the American people should believe
    that you will be impartial in making decisions when it comes to
    protecting public health over the interest of the industries
    that you spent many years representing?
        Mr. Wehrum. I would love to, Senator. Thank you. First of
    all, with regard to the cases you cited and also the quote that
    you provided, both of them are tip of the iceberg situations.
    With regard to the cases, what gets litigated in the D.C.
    circuit is a very, very small fraction of what gets done in the
    Office of Air and Radiation, so I think it is a
    misrepresentation of my experience at EPA previously to say
    that that somehow is an indicator that I am not committed to
    faithfully implementing the law and committed to protecting
    human health and the environment, so I think that is not
    representative.
        Senator Carper. Let me just follow up, if I could. I am
    particularly concerned about your legal efforts against the
    Obama administration's mercury and air toxic rule for power
    plants. You argued in court that EPA has not proven that it is
    appropriate to regulate mercury and air toxic power plant
    emissions, despite the fact that most utilities are meeting the
    rule's deadlines and health benefits are being realized faster
    than predicted.
        Administrator Pruitt is reviewing the rule, and you made it
    clear you in our private meeting that you will not recuse
    yourself from working on this issue. If the mercury and air
    toxic rule is revoked, how is that good for public health? And
    if the rule is revoked, will power plants stop running
    pollution control technology they have already bought, paid
    for, and installed, and how is that good for ratepayers?
        Mr. Wehrum. Well, Senator, I think a point you are trying
    to make is rule of law is important, and there is no better
    example than this particular standard. It went all the way up
    to the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court said that EPA
    made a fundamental flaw in deciding whether to implement this
    regulation because it did not consider cost in making the
    threshold judgment as to whether power plants should be
    regulated as part of the Clean Air Act.
        That question is still an open question before U.S. EPA.
    The Obama administration implemented a rule to address that
    court finding, but the litigation is still pending, and I
    believe has now been stayed, and that is an issue that we will
    have to take up if I am confirmed.
        Senator Carper. My time is almost expired, so I will ask
    you to hold it there. Thank you for that response.
        Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to submit four cases
    where Mr. Wehrum represented oil interests against biofuel,
    biodiesel, and renewable fuel standard regulations. These cases
    show or suggest that Mr. Wehrum should be very familiar with
    renewable fuel standard and flexibility given to the
    Administrator to implement the RFS. I make that unanimous
    consent request.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. And if I could, just one more unanimous
    consent. I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit for
    the record two L.A. Times articles from 2004. These articles
    report two instances where Mr. Wehrum ignored the EPA career
    staff and inserted industry language from his former law firm,
    Latham & Watkins, into two different rules dealing with
    formaldehyde and mercury emissions. Both professions ended up
    failing in court. For the mercury rule, the L.A. Times reported
    that, ``Several complete paragraphs were lifted from three
    memos provided by Latham & Watkins, a national law firm whose
    clients include large coal-fired utility plants.''
        I ask unanimous consent.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. And I also have a statement for unanimous
    consent. We have multiple State officials who are supporting
    Mr. Wehrum's nomination. The Association of Air Pollution
    Control Agencies is a consensus driven organization, brings
    together officials from 20 States, a host of local agencies.
        Clint Woods, who is the Executive Director of the
    organization, stated that ``Through his comprehensive knowledge
    of the law and experience in the Federal Government, Bill
    possesses the background to manage challenging Clean Air Act
    issues at U.S. EPA and to help continue the tremendous air
    quality progress that has been achieved in our country over the
    last several decades.''
        Without objection, that will be submitted as well.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Senator Inhofe.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        During the first round of questions I was critical of the
    previous administration, Mr. Wehrum, for not following the law.
    It was ruled that they were not accurately following the law in
    terms of coming out with the costs and evaluations of various
    emissions standards, and you said that you would comply with
    the law if that happens.
        But there is another condition that they have where they
    had not been complying with the law, and that is the Clean Air
    Act also calls for the Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee
    to evaluate implementation issues related to air quality
    standards. Yet, that wasn't done.
        Should it have been done, and will it be done, if you are
    confirmed?
        Mr. Wehrum. Senator, CASAC has a role specified by statute
    and advising the Administrator on setting national ambient air
    quality standards, and there has been a suggestion that CASAC
    has not been implementing its complete, full set of
    obligations, focusing only on certain aspects of the job and
    not others, so I believe it is important for CASAC to fulfill
    its complete role, sir.
        Senator Inhofe. OK.
        Mr. Dourson, I have 20 kids and grandkids, and you have a
    bunch out there, too, and despite what the critics think, we
    want them to grow up in a healthy environment. I care about the
    world we are going to leave behind for them, and you, too, are
    a father and grandfather, and I imagine that your family is a
    big driver for you in your work over the last 38 years. What
    led you to pursue this field, and why do you want this job?
        Mr. Dourson. Thank you very much for the question. No, what
    led me to this field was some time in West Africa with a
    medical doctor, and I got enamored with the idea of preventive
    medicine. So after school, graduate school, I went into
    toxicology. It was funded by the U.S. Government on a stipend.
    I learned that this particular area was preventive medicine,
    and so I became enamored with that.
        To fulfill my duties of the stipend, I started working with
    U.S. EPA immediately thereafter, and I have grown to admire the
    people of the U.S. EPA, and of course, I have had the good time
    to work with a non-profit organization since then. So, in each
    of these cases it is the lifelong career objective of
    protecting the American people and their sensitive individuals
    and the environment from chemical pollution.
        Senator Inhofe. Out of curiosity, where in West Africa was
    it?
        Mr. Dourson. Liberia, West Africa, before the wars. It was
    a very peaceful country.
        Senator Inhofe. Yes, I know that. When we met in the office
    last month, you said of your non-profit that only a third of
    the research was at the request of industry. What was the
    majority of the organization's work focused on?
        Mr. Dourson. Two-thirds of our work is government
    organizations, over 70 different government organizations. And
    also a big part of the work is collaborative opportunities. So
    we worked with government and industry often in collaborative
    modes. Many of the chemicals that came up before where all
    these numbers were up or down, or something like that, were
    collaborative ventures, including government and other groups.
        Senator Inhofe. Were you involved in pro bono type work? It
    is my understanding that some 10 percent to 20 percent of
    TERA's work was also pro bono. Can you provide us with an
    example of pro bono work?
        Mr. Dourson. Yes. Thank you, Senator. So, when we started
    TERA, we did this free State help, what we call it SHELP, State
    Hazard Evaluation Lending Program, and we gave free assistance
    to any State. We have worked with many States in that capacity.
        Another example of scientific societies, the one that is
    most fulfilling to me is we are a public organization; we have
    members of the public come in. We had a young mother come in to
    my office 1 day. She was distraught. No one had been listening
    to her; she had nowhere to turn. She went to the Web, found our
    site. As she relayed her story, her family had been poisoned,
    and it became obvious to me that the poisoning was likely to be
    hydrogen sulfite, which is a very serious poison. Her four
    children were affected; her horses were affected; the dogs were
    dead. I mean, it was a really pretty severe case.
        So, after a little bit additional study, we were able to
    get her the medical attention and then the legal support that
    she needed to carry on, and that made the local news several
    times. That was very gratifying, although, honestly, dealing
    with the public one on one like that is not always the most
    direct part of our pro bono.
        Senator Inhofe. Well, good for you.
        Mr. Leopold, you have worked on several large scale
    environmental issues in your time in private practice and on
    behalf of the State of Florida. Could you give us a quick
    overview of these and your work on these issues?
        Mr. Leopold. Thank you, Senator. Yes, I have been fortunate
    to work on some of the biggest environmental cases going. I am
    very proud that I worked on the BP oil spill enforcement case,
    spent a couple years helping the Justice Department hold BP
    accountable for that spill and resulted in the biggest Clean
    Water Act penalty in U.S. history.
        Also, the Everglades litigation. I helped support the State
    of Florida in advancing restoration on the Everglades.
        So those are two of the big ones.
        Senator Inhofe. Good.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Merkley.
        Senator Merkley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Wehrum, do you believe with high confidence that human
    activity is a major driver of climate change?
        Mr. Wehrum. Senator, I am sorry, your question, I didn't
    hear----
        Senator Merkley. Do you believe with high confidence that
    human activity is a major driver of climate change?
        Mr. Wehrum. I think human activity contributes to climate
    change, Senator, yes.
        Senator Merkley. When you say yes, do you believe it the
    major driver of climate change?
        Mr. Wehrum. I believe that is an open question, Senator.
        Senator Merkley. That is certainly the type of answer that
    we hear continuously. That is the coached answer that the Koch
    brothers are asking people to sew this uncertainty, so we have
    seen that in answer after answer that comes before this
    Committee, such as statements from Mr. Pruitt, statements from
    Mr. Tillerson, statements from Mr. Perry, all citing this, oh,
    we are just not sure if it is significant or not. Maybe it is
    contributing, but we are just not sure if it is significant.
        So let's take a look at the NASA charts. I am going to put
    up a chart that shows NASA's evaluation of the contribution of
    solar energy. We see the yellow line on this chart, the flat
    line that goes across. Virtually no variation over the course
    of 125 years. And we see the enormous variation in the climate.
    Do you see any correlation, significant correlation between the
    yellow line and the black line?
        Mr. Wehrum. Senator, I have no idea what that depicts.
        Senator Merkley. Well, I just explained it to you, so let's
    try it again. I think you are supposed to have a background
    capable of understanding this sort of thing. Solar energy,
    temperature of the planet. NASA statistics. Does there appear
    to be any correlation between those two lines?
        Mr. Wehrum. Senator, I will respond to you as I did to
    questions on the renewable fuel standard. These are very
    complex issues, and they are very important issues, and I
    understand that they are important to you, so----
        Senator Merkley. OK, thank you. We will go on to the next
    question, because anyone slightly familiar with statistics
    would say a flat line and a rising line do not show
    correlation.
        Another argument is that volcanic activity, the Earth's
    orbit, as well as solar activity contribute. That is what NASA
    has compiled collectively under the bottom chart. We have the
    natural factors, those three that I just summarized, and then
    we have the rising temperature in the black line. Does there
    appear to be any correlation in this case?
        Mr. Wehrum. Again, Senator, I will say I am not familiar
    with those data; I have no idea what it shows.
        Senator Merkley. OK. Well, if you can't read a chart, are
    you qualified to have this role?
        Mr. Wehrum. Senator, what is important is to understand the
    data underlying the depiction, and I have had no opportunity to
    see those data or understand how they have been depicted.
        Senator Merkley. You have been working in air pollution for
    these decades, and you have no acquaintance with data related
    to the warming of the planet or the factors that contribute to
    that?
        Mr. Wehrum. Senator, all I said is I have no idea what data
    contributed----
        Senator Merkley. OK. Well, let's turn to the third chart,
    then. NASA has compiled a third chart. This one, again, shows
    the rising temperature in the same color, in black, and it
    shows the rising greenhouse gas emissions. Can you, without
    great familiarity, acknowledge that these lines generally track
    each other?
        Mr. Wehrum. Once again, Senator, I am not familiar with
    those data; I have no idea what it depicts.
        Senator Merkley. You can see the lines. Do the lines track
    each other?
        Mr. Wehrum. What is important, Senator, is to know how the
    data are depicted. Understanding the underlying data and
    understanding the----
        Senator Merkley. Yes, it is, but I am just asking you a
    question. Can you see those two lines and do they generally
    track each other?
        Mr. Wehrum. Well, again----
        Senator Merkley. OK, thank you.
        What we have seen is this Koch Brother inspired
    determination not to acknowledge even the most fundamental
    facts, and continuous excuses that perhaps the temperature of
    the climate is going up because of solar activity. Oh, no. No,
    wait, maybe it is volcanic activity. But when NASA presents the
    information that shows there is no correlation from those
    factors, and extensive correlation from carbon dioxide and
    other global warming gases, individuals like you simply refuse
    to acknowledge it.
        Why should the American people put into an office of
    significant influence someone who refuses to look at the facts
    directly that are so important to the health of this planet?
        Mr. Wehrum. Senator, as I said a second ago, these are
    complex issues and very important issues, and I commit myself,
    if confirmed, to speak----
        Senator Merkley. Do you think on such a serious--so, in
    Oregon we have lost a billion oysters due to the increasing
    acidity of the ocean that is caused by carbon dioxide becoming
    carbonic acid. Are you familiar with this problem? Yes or no,
    are you familiar with the increased acidity?
        Mr. Wehrum. I am not familiar with the oyster industry in
    Oregon, no, sir.
        Senator Merkley. Are you familiar with the increasing
    acidity of the ocean?
        Mr. Wehrum. I understand there is an allegation that----
        Senator Merkley. Oh, my goodness. You have to be kidding
    me. Really?
        Mr. Wehrum. I understand----
        Senator Merkley. You are in this field and you have never
    read anything about the increasing acidity of the ocean? Well,
    how about the fact that we have a fire season that is 2 months
    longer than it was 4 years ago? Are you familiar with the
    growing length of the fire season?
        Mr. Wehrum. I have not----
        Senator Merkley. Are you familiar with the extending range
    of pine beetles that are having a devastating impact on our
    forests and creating an area that you can fly over called the
    red zone?
        Mr. Wehrum. As I said, Senator----
        Senator Merkley. Are you familiar with the snow pack in the
    Cascades? All of these things, no one can look at what is
    happening on the planet and see that there is nothing happening
    unless you are deliberately determined to ignore that
    information, and that makes you really, quite frankly,
    unacceptable to serve in this capacity.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Barrasso. Senator Carper.
        Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman, I have a unanimous consent
    request to enter an op-ed written by Senator Whitehouse that is
    in my hands, and I would like to ask unanimous consent to be
    inserted into the record.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. I would also like to ask unanimous consent
    to insert a number of other letters and articles about today's
    nominees into the record, please.
        Senator Barrasso. Without objection.
        Senator Carper. Thank you.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Some of you have been in this room before,
    some of you several times. I joined this Committee almost 17
    years ago, and I have sat through a lot of hearings. Senator
    Inhofe has sat through more. Our Chairman has sat through a
    bunch of them, too.
        This has been an extraordinary hearing. Extraordinary
    hearing. And these decisions that we are going to make, that
    you would make, if confirmed, are really life and death
    decisions. No question. And you have witnessed, in some cases,
    an outpouring of emotion, almost fear about what your service,
    not all of you, but some of you, what your service might lead
    to.
        And I just want to say, Dr. Dourson, I try to treat other
    people the way I want to be treated. I met with you, and I
    appreciate the time you spent with me, and I care about
    surrounding myself with people who have good mind, also a good
    heart, and there is no question you have a good mind. You are
    well educated. You are a scientist. You are smart.
        I think what we are hearing from the Senators on our side,
    there is a question about your heart. And I don't mind people
    saying to me that they think I am dumb. I don't like it, but
    what really hurts me is when they question my heart. And there
    are really serious questions about your heart.
        A woman named Maya Angelou, now deceased, a great poetess.
    She used to say these words. She used to say, people won't
    remember what you said. People may not remember what you do or
    did. They will always remember how you made them feel. They
    will always remember how you made them feel.
        And honestly, some of the people in this audience here that
    have lived through exposure of materials that we are talking
    about, they are afraid. They are afraid. And they represent a
    lot of other people as well. And I am afraid what you said here
    today does not diminish those concerns or those fears. I just
    have to say that to you.
        Thanks very much.
        Mr. Dourson. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Senator Carper.
        Thanks to all of the members.
        I am going to submit for the record a final letter from
    Sean Alteri, who is the Director of Kentucky Division of Air
    Quality, stating that ``Considering his education,'' regarding
    Mr. Wehrum, ``his education and experience as a chemical
    engineer and environmental attorney, Mr. Wehrum will be well
    positioned to provide clear, concise director to address the
    many diverse, complex air quality issues.'' He goes on to say,
    ``As a study of the Clean Air Act, Mr. Wehrum's knowledge and
    experience will greatly benefit EPA, State, and local air
    pollution control agencies.''
        Without objection, that will be submitted.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Barrasso. Finally, with regard to the Nuclear
    Regulatory Commission and the issues of NEPA and licensing, I
    find the position that the nominee today has taken deeply
    troubling and outside the mainstream. I think it is just tailor
    made to those looking to delay the NRC's licensing process
    indefinitely and to stop nuclear energy production from going
    forward in the United States, and I believe we need all the
    sources of energy.
        Finally, Mr. Ranking Member, if no one else has questions
    today, members are going to be able to submit written follow up
    questions for the record. We will do it by the close of
    business on Friday. The nominees will then respond to those
    questions by the close of business Thursday, October 12th.
        So, I want to thank each of the nominees, commend you, and
    congratulate you on the nominations, and the hearing is
    adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:58 a.m. the Committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]