    [Senate Hearing 117-2]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                              S. Hrg. 117-2

       THE NOMINATIONS OF BRENDA MALLORY TO BE A MEMBER AND CHAIR OF THE
        COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND JANET McCABE TO BE DEPUTY
              ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 3, 2021

                                   __________

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

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 ______

                  U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     43-843 PDF            WASHINGTON : 2021

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                        ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                      THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware, Chairman
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont                 Virginia
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island         Ranking Member
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts      KEVIN CRAMER, North Dakota
    TAMMY DUCKWORTH, Illinois            CYNTHIA M. LUMMIS, Wyoming
    DEBBIE STABENOW, Michigan            RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama
    MARK KELLY, Arizona                  JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    ALEX PADILLA, California             ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
                                         DAN SULLIVAN, Alaska
                                         JONI ERNST, Iowa
                                         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina

                 Mary Frances Repko, Democratic Staff Director
                   Adam Tomlinson, Republican Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 MARCH 3, 2021
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware..     1
    Capito, Hon. Shelly More, U.S. Senator from the State of West
      Virginia.......................................................     3
    Carson, Hon. Andre, U.S. Representative from the State of
      Indiana, Seventh Congressional District........................     6
    Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, U.S. Senator from the State of
      Connecticut....................................................     7

                                   WITNESSES

    Mallory, Brenda, Nominee to be a Member and Chair of the Council
      on Environmental Quality.......................................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    10
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Capito...........................................    12
            Senator Inhofe...........................................    36
            Senator Cramer...........................................    36
            Senator Wicker...........................................    38
            Senator Sullivan.........................................    39
    Mccabe, Janet, Nominee to be Deputy Administrator of the
      Environmental Protection Agency................................    41
        Prepared statement...........................................    43
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Carper...........................................    46
            Senator Capito...........................................    47
            Senator Inhofe...........................................    71
            Senator Cramer...........................................    73
            Senator Sullivan.........................................    76
            Senator Earnst...........................................    77

       THE NOMINATIONS OF BRENDA MALLORY TO BE A MEMBER AND CHAIR OF THE
        COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY AND JANET McCABE TO BE DEPUTY
              ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 2021

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The committee, met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
    562, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Thomas R. Carper
    (chairman of the committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Carper, Capito, Cardin, Whitehouse,
    Markey, Kelly, Padilla, Inhofe, Cramer, Lummis, Wicker,
    Sullivan, Ernst.

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

        Senator Carper. Good morning, everyone. I am happy to call
    this hearing to order.
        We are gathered here today to consider the nominations of
    Brenda Mallory to serve as Chair of the White House Council on
    Environmental Quality and Janet McCabe to serve as Deputy
    Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
        We are also pleased to welcome my seatmate in the U.S.
    Senate, Richard Blumenthal, husband of Cynthia, who sits to my
    left when we gather on the Senate floor, and also welcome
    Representative Andre Carson, wonderful of you to come. I
    understand you both are going to be introducing our nominees
    today. We are happy you could join us.
        We all know that this is a critical time in our Country's
    history. The American people need compassionate, steady, and
    enlightened leadership. Fortunately, the two nominees before us
    today have the expertise, the commitment, and the integrity
    that we need to help lead our Nation's environmental efforts
    and meet this moment in time.
        Both nominations before us today are for particularly
    important roles, roles that can improve the quality of life for
    all Americans.
        One of my mentors, the former Governor of Delaware, a
    Republican named Russell Peterson, actually served as the White
    House Council on Environmental Quality during Richard Nixon and
    Gerald Ford's administrations. Governor Peterson, a very wise
    man, use to refer to his role at CEQ as an orchestra conductor.
    He said, you don't play the instruments when you are the chair
    of CEQ, but you do try to work to enhance and ensure that
    everyone is playing in harmony. Think about that. You don't
    play the instruments as a CEQ chair, but what you do is try to
    ensure that everyone is playing in harmony.
        The CEQ chair coordinates action across the entire
    government to ensure the Federal agencies are working in
    harmony, that every Federal decision advances the objectives of
    economic growth, better public health, and stronger
    environmental quality.
        Over the last 4 years, too often, CEQ took dangerous policy
    actions undermining that very missions. One example: the
    National Environmental Policy Act, or NEPA. As we know, NEPA
    calls on our Federal Government to consider the impacts on the
    environment and public health before taking major actions. This
    can inform the public about how transportation projects can
    impact air pollution and how Federal development decisions can
    affect important historic sites.
        This law embodies our democratic ideals by offering the
    American people the opportunity to understand a proposed
    project and to voice their views to decisionmakers. The same
    principles of democracy and citizen participation enshrined in
    our Constitution, as it turns out, are also enshrined in NEPA.
        Sadly, the Trump Administration CEQ walked away from the
    tenets of this 50 year-old law, so one of the many tasks ahead
    of the next CEQ will be to get us back on track, to harmonize
    our efforts to address the climate change, safeguard public
    health, and ensure that We are treating others the way we would
    want to be treated.
        There are few persons as well-qualified to tackle this
    challenge than Brenda Mallory. Ms. Mallory is a deeply
    committed civil servant with extensive experience under both
    Democratic and Republican administrations. She is a kind,
    compassionate person who brings people together to find
    solutions.
        That is exactly the kind of leader we need working to
    address the climate crisis and improve access to clean air and
    water for all Americans, while creating economic opportunities,
    drive opportunities, too.
        We need that kind of leader at the EPA as well because we
    all know there's no shortage of leadership challenges facing
    the EPA. The agency has been damaged repeatedly over the last 4
    years. Policymaking at EPA should be grounded in science.
        Let me say that again: policymaking at EPA should be
    grounded in science. Leadership is needed there to restore
    scientific integrity to decisionmaking so the men and women
    working there every day can effectively address the climate
    crisis and other challenges facing our Nation and our planet.
    So, we need strong leadership at the EPA, and we need it
    without delay.
        Last month, we came together and advanced Michael Regan's
    nomination as EPA Administrator. I want to thank my colleagues,
    especially the Ranking Member, for your help in doing that. I
    hope we will see his nomination come to the floor for a vote by
    the full Senate very soon.
        When confirmed, Mr. Regan will need a Deputy Administrator
    by his side. Steady, experienced leadership is essential, and
    Janet McCabe will provide exactly that.
        Many of us here first met Ms. McCabe when she was in a very
    different role at EPA. For this position though, she will have
    a different mandate, overseeing management of the agency's day-
    to-day operations. She is well-suited to meet that challenge;
    she has a deep understanding of the inner workings of the
    agency and its people and a profound commitment to their shared
    mission.
        How is this for a good fit: nine people who previously held
    the role for which she is been nominated, five Democrats, four
    Republicans, all recommended her for the job. Think about that.
    Let me say that again, it is worth repeating. Five Democrats
    and four Republicans who have held the job for which she has
    been nominated have all recommended her for this job. We don't
    see that every day.
        I am convinced that she will bring a profound dedication to
    public service as she works to rebuild morale, restore
    scientific integrity, and closely partner with States, our
    States, to protect the health of all of our communities.
        Many of our colleagues know that I like to quote Albert
    Einstein, who once said, among other things, ``In adversity
    lies opportunity.'' Well, we have no shortage of adversity in
    our Nation today, we know that. Whether it is this deadly
    pandemic, unemployment just beginning to show signs of
    improvement, or the growing climate crisis, there seems to be
    adversity just about everywhere we turn, but with that
    adversity, there's also great opportunity.
        There is an opportunity for us to unite in common purpose,
    to join together as fellow Americans, to do great things for
    our planet, for our Country, and for our neighbors, whether
    they live around the corner, across town, or on the other side
    of the world.
        The American people are looking to us to rise to today's
    challenges and turn those challenges into an opportunity for a
    better future. For them, for our States, and for us, let's not
    let them down.
        With that, I want to turn to Ranking Member Senator Capito
    for her opening comments. Senator Capito?

            OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO,
              U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

        Senator Capito. Thank you, Chairman Carper, and thank you
    all for being here. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal and
    Representative Carson, it is nice to see you again, and I
    appreciate your taking the time to introduce our candidates
    today.
        Last week, we had a very productive and positive hearing
    about how the committee can develop and advance a bipartisan,
    common sense surface transportation reauthorization bill. We
    heard about the importance of State flexibility and
    streamlining to get projects built faster, more efficiently,
    and to drive our economic growth. I look forward to building on
    that momentum of the committee and developing a bipartisan bill
    through the committee in regular order.
        Today, we have the opportunity to speak with two nominees
    to environmental policy positions in President Biden's
    Administration who have a great say over the path the
    Administration takes in that regard.
        I will be questioning potential regulatory overreaches by
    the administration beyond the authorities granted by Congress
    and this committee. I know that the two candidates, both Janet
    McCabe, who is the nominee for the Deputy Administrator of the
    EPA, and Brenda Mallory, who I have just met for the first
    time, the nominee to serve as Chair of the Council on
    Environmental Quality, will have very definitive answers.
        These two nominees certainly have a wealth of experience,
    and I certainly appreciate their willingness to serve and to go
    through this process as well, but, and we have talked on the
    phone and I appreciate the Zooms that we had, it would be no
    surprise to either one of them to know that some of the policy
    positions are causing me some concern.
        This Congress, and as our Chairman noted, our first nominee
    in front of the committee was the Secretary Michael Regan, who
    is presently head of the North Carolina Department of
    Environmental Quality. He has been nominated to serve as the
    Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, and he
    came out of this committee.
        What I said at our business meeting that month, I said
    Secretary Regan is the type of person I would like to see
    leading a Federal agency. He expressed a desire to work in a
    bipartisan manner and has a history of doing so.
        This is where our paths diverged. Unfortunately, the agenda
    has already been set by unconfirmed officials in the Biden
    Administration before Mr. Regan even has his hearing. That
    agenda is clearly shaping up to be a repeat of the Obama
    administration's regulatory agenda that devastated my State of
    West Virginia. Both of our nominees today served in politically
    appointed leadership roles in that administration and supported
    that agenda.
        In my view, that agenda means putting Americans out of work
    through executive orders like canceling the Keystone XL
    pipeline and rolling back common-sense regulations that protect
    our environmental while keeping our economy moving. It means
    promising the world that America will double down on reducing
    emissions while countries like China and India will get a free
    pass.
        The part that bothers me the most on these actions is the
    nonchalant attitude that I felt, and many of the people that I
    represent felt, during those years directed at them.
        According to a Politico reporter on Twitter, Gina McCarthy
    said at a recent event that after she saves the world from
    change, she will enjoy the most expensive glass of champagne I
    can find. She also said at an event in February that ``we have
    to get the middle of the Country understanding and active on
    climate. We have to show them what resilience looks like.''
        I think that the people of West Virginia and the people in
    the middle of the Country, they know what resilience looks
    like. We are experts in developing our energy resources and
    managing our land. What we don't need is an unelected or
    unaccountable, really, bureaucrat telling us that they know
    what is best for us or looking forward to celebrating, with a
    toast of expensive champagne, the policies that have cause pain
    in the past, and hopefully we can do better in the future.
        In that past Administration, Ms. McCabe reported to Ms.
    McCarthy. Ms. McCabe has said the Clean Power Plan was her
    proudest accomplishment, and we talked about this on our Zoom
    call, and I appreciate that.
        Let's just say I have strong feelings about the plan, as
    everyone on the committee knows. I led a congressional Review
    Act resolution to throw it out that passed our Congress, but
    was vetoed by President Obama. If the Clean Power Plan had been
    implemented, it would have imposed sweeping energy-shifting
    from coal and natural gas to wind and solar, preventing our
    gradual economic recovery from the Great Recession, a recovery
    that still hasn't been felt in parts of my State, thanks to
    some of these regulations.
        The Clean Power Plan was designed not to protect the
    environment, but to hurt fossil energy. My State, being a large
    fossil energy producer, was right in the middle of it and
    fought the rule in court with a host of other States. It never
    did go into effect.
        Ms. Mallory served as the General Counsel on the Council of
    Environmental Quality under President Obama. During that time,
    the Administration made no effort to modernize the decades-old
    regulations under the NEPA, the National Environmental Policy
    Act, and we talked about this in our hearing with the Governors
    how the permitting for transportation and infrastructure
    projects goes on for so long, a lot of it under the NEPA
    regulations, that it costs money and people abandon projects
    after a while.
        So, President Trump's CEQ did the right thing and updated
    those regulations to speed project delivery. Ms. Mallory has
    not minced words about her views on these regulations. When
    asked about the Trump Administration's rule, she said, and I
    quote, ``You almost don't have a choice but to remove the whole
    thing.''
        Her statements are not surprising, because she is presently
    working at the Southern Environmental Law Center. That center
    has challenged many critical Trump reforms that I supported,
    Navigable Waters, NEPA reform, Clean Water 401 reforms, and
    other things to try to help get more pipeline development
    forward.
        I look forward to talking with both of you, as I know
    everybody on this committee will, and the vision that you have
    in mind. I will say, I do thank you for being willing to serve.
    I know it is not easy, and certainly, the EPA and environmental
    regulations are always very, very difficult and cut both ways.
        I have shared with both of you my deep compassion for not
    just my State, but the economic devastation that regulation,
    when they are not looked at in the whole, can cause to certain
    areas of the Country and plunge people into poverty and into
    unsafe and unhealthy conditions. I know you are concerned about
    that as well, so let's try to find solutions together. I look
    forward to our nominees' testimony today, and thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Capito. Senator Capito
    and I both hail from West Virginia, and she knows my sister and
    I were born near a coal-mining town named Beckley.
        We didn't have a lot; we never drank champagne; many of our
    neighbors were coal miners. Their jobs are gone, and I want to
    make sure, working with her and members of this committee, that
    as we move to clean up our air and address climate change, we
    don't leave any of them behind.
        With that in my mind, I want to thank our colleagues from
    Connecticut, both of you from Connecticut, actually, who are
    here to introduce our nominees. No, Indiana. Indiana. Sorry
    about that, Andre.
        I want to turn now to our colleague from Indiana to
    introduce our nominee for the U.S. Environmental Protection
    Agency. Where is your district?
        Mr. Carson. Indianapolis, Indiana, sir. Home of the Indy
    500.
        Senator Carper. Oh, yes. That is good. We are delighted to
    be here to introduce our nominee for the EPA, Janet McCabe.
        Do you want to go ahead and start, and then I will turn to
    Richard? Thank you. When I was a kid growing up in West
    Virginia, and later in Virginia, we used to watch, occasionally
    watch professional wrestling, and one of my favorite wrestlers
    was Andre the Giant. How tall are you?
        Mr. Carson. I am 6'4'', but growing up in Catholic School,
    they called by Andre the Giant.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. I am sure they did. Welcome, Andre. We are
    happy to see you. Thank you.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ANDRE CARSON, U.S. REPRESENTATIVE,
            STATE OF INDIANA, SEVENTH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT

        Mr. Carson. Thank you. Well, good morning. I want to thank
    Ranking Chairman Carper and Ranking Member Capito, good to see
    you again, for holding this hearing.
        I am extremely pleased and honored to be here to introduce
    Janet McCabe, President Biden's nominee to be the Deputy
    Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. I could
    not be more supportive of her nomination, not only because she
    is a fellow Hoosier who has made our State proud, but also
    because she has demonstrated the character and experience
    necessary to succeed in this very key position.
        Her extensive career in environmental protection,
    education, and advocacy, spanning decades, reveals a consistent
    and passionate effort to be of service to others. She
    understands better than most that protecting and preserving our
    environment is about standing up for the most vulnerable among
    us. That includes children harmed by rampant pollution in their
    formative years, communities of color, which bear the brunt of
    environmental justice, struggling workers whose livelihoods are
    threatened by climate change, and more.
        This is why her nomination has garnered praise and support
    from all sides of the political and ideological spectrum. Her
    life and career demonstrate those Hoosier values of compassion,
    hard work, and seeking common ground. Under her leadership, I
    am very confident she will help the EPA return to its core
    mission and to make much-needed progress in ensuring we leave
    our planet healthier for future generations. I look forward to
    working alongside her to achieve this vital goal, should she be
    confirmed. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Mr. Carson.
        I will now turn to my colleague, not my roommate, but my
    seatmate in the Senate, Richard Blumenthal, to introduce Brenda
    Mallory to be the Chair of the Council on Environmental
    Quality. Colleague, welcome. Good to see you, thank you. Tell
    us about Ms. Mallory.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT

        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        I am honored and humbled to appear before you and Ranking
    Member Capito this morning, and thank you to my colleague,
    Representative Carson for being here.
        I couldn't be prouder than to introduce Brenda Mallory to
    the committee today. I couldn't be prouder because she is the
    best person for this job whom I know in the entire Country, and
    I couldn't be prouder because she is a daughter of Waterbury,
    Connecticut, although she has lived in Maryland for quite a few
    years.
        Her roots are really in Waterbury, and they reflect the
    values of that great city, a commitment to faith, family
    values, and tough work ethic, and commitment to community that
    really was reflected in her father, a legend, the Revered
    Thomas Mallory, who was so committed to caring for every
    individual and to bettering the community as a whole.
        Brenda Mallory really epitomizes the American dream. She
    was fortunate to go to a private school, an all-girls school,
    Westover, on a scholarship, changing the trajectory of her
    life. She was the first in her family to go to college, Yale,
    and then to Columbia Law School. She is married to Mark
    Schneider, also a lawyer, and a former clerk for Justice
    Blackmun. I share that experience.
        After graduating from Yale and then Columbia Law School,
    she spent time in private practice helping businesses and
    developers do the right thing in their communities, and then
    she worked in the Environmental Protection Agency. She spent
    half of her career fighting for the people of our Country,
    serving in both Democratic and Republican Administrations. More
    recently, she worked for a non-profit organization helping to
    advance environmental and natural resource protection.
        In short, she knows these issues, environmental issues,
    natural resource issues, from every side, and the Ranking
    Member, Senator Capito, used two words: bipartisan and common
    sense to describe what the goals are of this committee. Brenda
    Mallory is bipartisan, and she has common sense in dealing with
    all of these issues.
        Remember that Congress established the Council on
    Environmental Quality under the National Environmental Policy
    Act, NEPA, which was signed into law by President Richard
    Nixon, obviously a Republican. Environmental values should be
    bipartisan, and Brenda Mallory has lived those values without
    regard to partisan politics.
        I would stress about her, and it may be the most important
    quality that any of us in public life have, that she is a
    listener. I know that the Chair and Ranking Member pride
    themselves on listening to their constituents. She listens,
    truly, adeptly, closely, carefully to people who have views
    different from hers, as well as the same. That quality, I
    think, is one that will stand her in good stead, along with her
    commitment to coalition-building, taking people from different
    sides of an issue and bringing them together, and making sure
    that they understand each other and have a common goal.
        She is committed to racial justice as well as environmental
    and social justice, and she will make Waterbury and Connecticut
    proud of her record as the Head of the Council on Environmental
    Quality.
        I think, as I said at the outset, there is no one better in
    the Country to take this position of Chairman of the Council of
    Environmental Quality, and I am hopeful that she will have the
    kind of bipartisan support she deserves.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Capito.
        Senator Carper. Congressman Carson and Senator Blumenthal,
    those were lovely introductions.
        Mr. Carson. Mr. Chairman, votes have been called, so I have
    to leave, but thank you for your time, and all the best to
    Janet and her husband.
        Senator Carper. All right. I was just about to move the
    nominations, but we will let you go and do your business. Thank
    you so much for joining us today. It means a lot, thank you.
    Richard, thank you again. Great to see you. Now, we are ready
    to welcome our witnesses, Ms. Mallory and Ms. McCabe, to the
    witness table please.
        Ms. Mallory, I am going to ask you to start first, and
    share with us your opening statement. I understand that you
    might have a special guest with you, and if you feel like
    introducing him, feel free. You are recognized. Welcome.

     STATEMENT OF HON. BRENDA MALLORY, NOMINEE TO BE A MEMBER AND
             CHAIR OF THE COUNCIL ON ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

        Ms. Mallory. Good morning, Chairman Carper, Ranking Member
    Capito, and members of the committee.
        Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today as
    the nominee for the Chair of the Council on Environmental
    Quality.
        It is the greatest privilege of my professional life and a
    blessing in my personal life that President Biden has nominated
    me for this important position on his environmental team. I
    want to thank President Biden for this nomination and for
    trusting me to lead CEQ.
        Thanks, Senator Blumenthal, for that wonderful and kind
    introduction. I also want to thank the members of the committee
    and their staff who took the time to meet with me prior to this
    hearing. I thoroughly enjoyed and learned from every
    conversation.
        Finally, I want to thank my family, friends, and colleagues
    for all the support and encouragement, with special gratitude
    to my husband, Mark Schneider, who is here with me today.
        Senator Carper. Mark, could you raise your hand? Thank you.
        Ms. Mallory. And to my three children, Rachel, Alex, and
    Leslie, who give added purpose to all that I do.
        Since President Biden announced his intention to nominate
    me for this role, I have reflected on the journey that brought
    me to this moment and the service I can provide the American
    people if I am fortunate enough to gain your support and be
    confirmed. My humble beginnings in the city of Waterbury,
    Connecticut did not lead me to expect this moment, but they did
    teach me that through hard work and commitment, faith and
    resilience, and with the strong support of family and
    community, the unimaginable becomes possible.
        I am sorry that my parents did not live to see this moment.
    In their own way, they left an indelible mark through their
    service to family, church, and community. I sit here as an
    embodiment of their values.
        First, I strive to bring the best I have to offer to every
    situation. I have always taken great pride in finding ways to
    make a difference wherever I am. In private practice, that
    meant helping my clients, companies, cities, trade
    associations, navigate complex Federal and State permitting
    processes. In government and in the non-profit sector, that has
    meant pursuing common ground for practical solutions.
        Second, I believe in the dignity of every person. Both
    professionally and in my volunteer activities, I have worked to
    advance policies that recognize our common humanity and are
    designed to ensure that all people are treated with respect and
    can have access to clean air, clean water, and toxic-free
    environments.
        Third, I believe in working collaboratively with all
    stakeholders around common goals. Throughout my career, I have
    worked effectively with Republicans and Democrats, business
    leaders and community advocates, and Federal, State, and local
    governments.
        These are the hallmarks of my life and career that I will
    bring in service of the Council on Environmental Quality and
    the American people.
        If I am confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Federal
    environmental laws work for all people, no matter where they
    live or who they voted for. I will work to demonstrate that we
    can protect our environment, create jobs, and grow our economy.
    I will ensure that CEQ plays its role, leading on environmental
    and natural resources policy, across the Federal Government and
    listening, truly listening, as we find solutions that serve the
    public interest.
        Among other things, I will work with all stakeholders to
    advance efficient permitting approaches that also examine the
    environmental consequences and engage affected communities.
        I will see that CEQ's expertise is applied to the challenge
    of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and to helping communities
    to prepare for the increased flooding, more frequent hurricanes
    and wildfires, and other impacts of climate change that are
    already occurring.
        Finally, I will ensure that the voices of the poor and the
    powerless, from the most rural parts of America to our biggest
    cities, are heard as we tackles the environmental and public
    health crises the Nation faces.
        Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Capito, and members of the
    committee, thank you again for the opportunity to appear before
    you. I am happy to answer any questions, and I look forward to
    working with you and other Members of Congress should I have
    the honor of being confirmed. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Mallory follows:]

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Thank you very, very much for that
    statement and now, I would ask Janet McCabe to proceed with her
    opening remarks. Ms. McCabe? Welcome.

         STATEMENT OF HON. JANET McCABE, NOMINEE TO BE DEPUTY
          ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        Ms. McCabe. Thank you so much, Chairman Carper, Ranking
    Member Capito, members of the committee. I am honored to appear
    before you and grateful for your time this morning.
        It is so humbling that President Biden has nominated me to
    serve as Deputy Administrator of the Environmental Protection
    Agency. If confirmed, it will be a tremendous honor to return
    to the agency and to work collaboratively with you, with EPA's
    many partners, and the wonderful EPA staff to protect the
    health of American families, communities, and our environment.
    I am eager for you questions today and to hear from you about
    your priorities for your constituents.
        I would like to thank my family: my husband Jon Laramore,
    who's here with me today.
        Senator Carper. Jon, would you raise your hand? Would you
    raise both hands?
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. McCabe. My children, Peter, Alice, and Dan, and my
    little baby grandson, Remy, who gives a whole new meaning to my
    work and my commitment to creating a healthier, safer, and
    brighter future. I am so grateful for their support.
        Senator Carper. How old is Remy?
        Ms. McCabe. He is 16 months.
        Senator Carper. Is he being supportive?
        Ms. McCabe. He is a tremendous support. I got a photo from
    him in his highchair yesterday.
        Senator Carper. Good. All right.
        Ms. McCabe. Since the start of my career, I have had the
    privilege to contribute to creating healthier, more livable
    communities for all Americans. I learned early on how poor air
    quality can worsen asthma and other respiratory problems,
    leading to higher medical bills, missed days of school and
    work, and an overall diminished quality of life.
        Air pollution is connected with heart disease, cancer, and
    birth defects. It shortens lives. These and other public health
    issues facing our fellow Americans have motivated my work.
        I have spent most of my career working for State and
    Federal environmental agencies in Massachusetts, my long-time
    adopted home State of Indiana, and at the EPA, with a focus on
    implementation of the Clean Air Act and other air quality
    issues. During my seven and a half years in the EPA's office of
    Air and Radiation, I worked on the entire range of air quality
    issues and became very familiar with the core operations of the
    agency.
        During that time, I got to know and admire many of the fine
    career staff. They come to work every day committed to helping
    the American people live healthier, more productive lives. I
    can't say enough about the public servants in our government,
    State and Federal, who do what the public expects of them, from
    one Administration to the next.
        At EPA, it is the scientists, the program staff, the
    regional teams, the environmental justice leaders, the
    individuals who support all the agency day-to-day operations,
    and so many more who truly fulfill the agency's mission of
    protecting human health and the environment. If confirmed, it
    will be an honor for me to join them once again and support
    their work on behalf of public health and the environment.
        When I worked in the Office of Air and Radiation at EPA, I
    focused on the critical partnership between EPA and the States.
    I know from my own experiences in both State and Federal
    agencies that the Federal-State partnership is fundamental to
    achieving progress, overcoming complex challenges, and
    delivering for the American people.
        This relationship requires openness, transparency,
    flexibility, and a willingness to listen, even if there are
    times when we do not agree. Being open and willing to listen to
    all stakeholders is how EPA should be doing its business, and
    if I am confirmed, I will be guided by a commitment to
    fostering open dialog and giving as many as possible a seat at
    the table.
        While at EPA, I also worked hard to strengthen the
    relationship between the headquarters and the ten regional
    offices. We worked on streamlining reviews and approvals,
    improving communication with our State partners, ensuring
    consistent implementation of national programs, and valuing the
    expertise that each person brought to the issues.
        In addition to my government service, I previously served
    as Executive Director of a small children's environmental
    health non-profit in Indianapolis, where I got to work directly
    with families worried about lead paint or clean water. That
    work was so rewarding and gave me a better understanding of how
    challenging these issues can be for families around the
    Country. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that all children
    can share equally in the promise of clean water to drink, clean
    air to breathe, and the opportunity to lead a healthy and
    productive life.
        In my more recent work with Indiana University and the
    Environmental Resilience Institute there, I have worked with
    many local governments across Indiana developing resources and
    tools to help them address the environmental challenges they
    face, listening to them first to find out what their needs
    were, and how the university could help, making their
    communities healthier and more economically vital.
        From all of my experience, I know firsthand that our
    programs to improve public health and protect our environment
    are strongest when they are informed by a diversity of
    perspectives and rooted in science, transparency, and the law.
        As the grandmother of one little boy and with another
    grandchild due to arrive later this month, I promise that if I
    am given the opportunity, I will work alongside our talented
    EPA staff to help ensure that all of our children and
    grandchildren can grow up in a cleaner, healthier, and more
    equitable world.
        If confirmed, I would be honored to work with Secretary
    Regan and all of you to make that a reality.
        I look forward to your questions, and thank you again for
    your time this morning.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. McCabe follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. Thanks, Ms. McCabe.
        As our colleagues know, we begin, once we have heard from
    our witnesses, your statements, what the chair does is ask
    three standard questions of our witness. I would ask you just
    to respond to each of these.
        The first question is, do you agree, if confirmed, to
    appear before this committee or designated members of this
    committee and other appropriate Members of the Congress, and
    provide information subject to appropriate and necessary
    security protections with respect to your responsibilities? Do
    you?
        Ms. Mallory. I do.
        Ms. McCabe. I do.
        Senator Carper. Do you agree to ensure that testimony,
    briefings, documents and other electronic forms of information
    are provided to this committee in a timely manner?
        Ms. Mallory. I do.
        Ms. McCabe. I do.
        Senator Carper. Finally, do you know of any matters which
    you may or may not have disclosed which may place you in a
    conflict of interest if you are confirmed?
        Ms. Mallory. No.
        Ms. McCabe. No.
        Senator Carper. Thank you. We are going to start with our
    first round of questions.
        First question I want to ask, before Senator Inhofe, who
    has been a past chair and ranking member as well, of this
    committee, he and I participate almost every week in Bible
    study. We are people of deep faith, a number of us are. We are
    guided by our faith. I was interested, you talked about your
    faith and your parents' faith. How does your faith guide you?
    How would it guide you with respect to the responsibilities
    that you have been nominated to fulfill?
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I think
    my faith is a very important anchor in all that I do, and has
    been a force in helping me to navigate the various trials and
    tribulations in life, and to find a way to look for purpose in
    how I can help people and to do the work, whatever I am called
    to do, in a way that advances peoples' lives. That is my goal,
    and that is what I would do if I was confirmed to serve at the
    Council on Environmental Quality.
        Senator Carper. Does the Golden Rule fit in there anywhere?
    The Golden Rule?
        Ms. Mallory. Absolutely, Senator. I think that does
    actually does inform the way I interact with people. I expect
    and I look forward to working with people in a way that gives
    honor to what they are bringing to the table. I try to bring
    the same energy and the same approach to issues that I would
    like to have people bring to me when I am engaged on issues.
        Senator Carper. All right, thank you. Ms. Mallory, speaking
    from your own experience, would you tell us how important CEQ
    is in coordinating all of this? How would your experience guide
    your leadership at CEQ if confirmed, making sure that all
    stakeholders have a voice in our Nation's environmental policy?
        Ms. Mallory. Yes, Senator, thank you so much for that
    question.
        The CEQ, as has already been stated, was created under the
    National Environmental Policy Act, with a broad mission to
    assist the President on environmental policy across the
    spectrum, on a broad range of issues. I think the goal of CEQ
    over time has been to serve the role of knitting together all
    of the work that is being done across the agencies, and helping
    to bring to the President and to the White House staff the
    information about the expertise that folks have in the
    agencies, and how it can be applied toward the President's
    agenda.
        That is a role that CEQ has played over the years, and in
    my time at CEQ, was a very important part of the work that I
    assisted in doing.
        That, I think, particularly the more complicated the
    issues, and the more issues there are to address, becomes
    really important in ensuring that there is the important
    coordination. Coordination in terms of my own experience has
    been really the key of all the work that I have done, both in
    private practice as well as in my various roles in the
    government, that ability to bring groups of people together
    around a common goal has been very central.
        One of the projects that I started on in my private
    practice career was to basically help in the environmental and
    historic resources analysis and strategy for what is now the
    Capital Center Arena. There were many players involved in that
    project, many different businesses. It was an important
    economic development opportunity for the District of Columbia.
        It was one of the examples where I was tasked, basically,
    to bring together all the forces around, in particular the
    historic resources issues, which was central to overcoming the
    concerns of the community around those issues, and making sure
    that they were handled in a way that met a very short timeline
    that required completion of the permits, so that financing for
    the project was available.
        Senator Carper. Thank you very much for those responses.
        I am going to turn now to Ms. McCabe and ask, would you
    tell us about some of the environmental challenges that you
    have seen at the community level in Indiana, where you work and
    where you have lived much of your life? How have they impacted
    your thinking about environmental policy generally? Would you
    also share some of the lessons you have learned in working with
    local governments that will inform your leadership at EPA if
    confirmed?
        Ms. McCabe. Yes, thanks, Senator. I think one of the most
    compelling issues that I have had close personal experience
    with dealing with families on is the issue of childhood lead
    poisoning, which is a serious concern in Indianapolis, and in
    various cities in Indiana, and all across the Country, due to
    our ageing housing structure, the legacy of lead in our
    environment. There is nothing more tragic than the youngest and
    most vulnerable of the people in this Country being exposed to
    these things, with potentially life-altering damage to their
    neurological systems.
        Being able to sit in a kitchen with a family and show them
    where the dangerous lead paint is on the windowsill, and give
    them some practical help on how to protect their children is
    just the most fulfilling and important work.
        In my work more recently, with the Indiana Environmental
    Resilience Institute, we have really focused on trying to help
    cities and towns across the State of Indiana. I love working
    with mayors. They are so practical.
        Senator Carper. Can you hold on.
        Did you hear that?
        Senator Inhofe. I heard that.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. I am a recovering Governor. He is a
    recovering mayor.
        Ms. McCabe. It is really true, Senator, I don't usually
    know what party the mayors are.
        Senator Carper. They don't know, either.
        Ms. McCabe. They are dealing with the practical problems in
    their communities.
        Senator Inhofe. Yes, but you know what, I tell my friends
    up here, they don't understand. Because if you really want to
    know what is going on, you want to be a mayor. If they don't
    like your garbage system, it ends up in your front yard. They
    get your attention. So that is working close to the people, and
    I am in full agreement with that.
        Ms. McCabe. Absolutely.
        Senator Inhofe. You paid your dues.
        Ms. McCabe. Well, it is honest and true, I talked with the
    mayor from Huntingburg, Indiana. We are having more increased
    flooding in Indiana, because of how the climate is changing.
    The mayors, they just look upstream, and here comes the water,
    and they have to deal with it. How does that mayor explain to
    his community that we have just had three 500-year floods in 18
    months? First, they have to learn what a 500-year flood was,
    and then figure out how to deal with it.
        So that has been incredibly fulfilling work. It just
    reminded me so much how you really have to listen to people and
    go and sit in their kitchens and find out the things that are
    concerning them and how you can best help them.
        Senator Inhofe. Yes.
        Senator Carper. My time has expired. Senator Capito,
    please.
        Senator Capito. Thank you very much. Thank you for your
    opening statements.
        You both talked a lot about listening, and listening to all
    the stakeholders. So I have a couple of quotes, and I want to
    give you a chance to respond to how you might, how that fits
    into the listening promises of your past and hopefully in the
    future.
        So you might recall, Ms. McCabe, that when you testified
    before the committee in 2015, when you were at the EPA, and I
    asked you then, why, with such a far-reaching agenda as the
    Clean Power Plan, why you were not holding a public hearing in
    my State of West Virginia, which is deeply impacted by this.
    You said at the time ``We wanted to have those meetings in
    locations where people were comfortable coming.''
        Then, Ms. Mallory, you gave an example from your private
    Federal service webinar, I guess it was in 2019. And the quote
    you have was, ``The question was whether I should be sent to a
    meeting in West Virginia, because you know how the boys are in
    West Virginia.'' And then you talked about a perception among
    higher levels of government leadership that the people in West
    Virginia were ``rough and tumble.'' You stated, ``This was
    coming from two levels above me and my direct supervisor was
    like, I am not comfortable with those people.
        You can imagine how that hits you, being a native West
    Virginian myself, and also in these policies that you all are
    going to be putting forward and coordinating are going to have
    deep impacts on the 1.8 million people living in my State.
        So I am concerned about previous sessions that were never
    held, to be listened at the concerns of my constituents. So I
    guess my question is, could you respond to that? Do you plan to
    go out to these areas where they are deeply impacted? You
    didn't before. Ms. McCabe, I will give you the chance first to
    talk about that conversation.
        Ms. McCabe. Thank you, Senator. I know how frustrating this
    issue is for you. I do understand that. I heard Secretary Regan
    commit to you that he would come to West Virginia. I make the
    same commitment to you today, that if I have the opportunity to
    visit with you and your constituents in West Virginia, I
    absolutely will come.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. And Ms. Mallory, do you have a
    response to your quote?
        Ms. Mallory. Absolutely. I absolutely commit as well to
    come to West Virginia. For a little context on that quote, it
    was a speech that I was giving at a conversation about
    diversity and treating the staff, in this case it was women,
    fairly on the job. On the job, I was explaining how in a
    situation where there was a meeting in West Virginia, that
    there was some sense that I shouldn't be allowed to go because
    of how people would react to me.
        At the time, what I was saying was, I should be allowed to
    go where I need to go to do my job. I would commit to you that
    if there are reasons to be in West Virginia, I will gladly come
    to West Virginia.
        Senator Capito. I appreciate that. We are very polite,
    nice, warm and loving people. I promise you that, and we would
    embrace your coming to our State to hear, really, the direct
    impacts.
        Let's talk about the Clean Power Plan, Ms. McCabe. You did,
    I think, characterize it as something you are extremely proud
    of. We know it was a stay at the Supreme Court level and never
    actually went into effect.
        One of the issues with that, and I asked Secretary-to-be
    Regan about this too, but I am going to ask you. Do you believe
    that the EPA has the authority to use Section 11(d) of the
    Clean Air Act to regulate a power plant's carbon dioxide
    emissions outside the fence line, as the Clean Power Plan did?
        Ms. McCabe. Thank you, Senator Capito. Certainly, the Clean
    Power Plan was one of the most important, impactful rules that
    we work on during the Obama administration. I am very proud of
    the job that we did, working with all parties, all
    stakeholders, on that project.
        You are right, the Supreme Court did stay the rule. We have
    never had a legal ruling on that very question. Certainly, we
    would not have put that rule forward if we did not believe that
    we were acting within the four corners of the Clean Air Act. I
    understand that people have different views about that. To the
    extent that EPA or other agencies move forward, looking at
    these policies in the future, I don't know whether my
    responsibilities as deputy will involve me in those issues. If
    I am asked, of course, I will. But I know that there will be
    lots and lots of conversation about that very issue, and
    solicitation of views from everybody who has an interest in it.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Thanks, Senator Capito.
        I am going to be stepping out in just a moment, and will
    leave the gavel with you. I would just ask that when I come
    back I don't find that you have enacted six of your favorite
    pieces of legislation.
        [Laughter, conversation off microphone.]
        Senator Carper. That really scares me. Just kidding.
        Senator Whitehouse is next, he is joining us by WebEx, and
    then I think Senator Inhofe might be right after him.
        Senator Whitehouse, you are recognized. Senator Whitehouse,
    are you out there? Is anybody out there?
        Senator Inhofe, you are recognized. I will be right back.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you. I accept.
        Brenda, I enjoyed your comments, and I thank you very much,
    both of you. I enjoyed visiting with you. In reality, we know
    that we disagree on some things, and we were very frank about
    that in our conversations. But you know, I used to kind of
    laugh about Barbara Boxer, commenting that she and I had very
    little in common philosophically. But we got more done than any
    other committee did. So hopefully we will have that kind of
    relationship.
        So let me just mention to both of you one thing I think is
    very significant. I know we feel differently about fossil
    fuels. I understand that. And just to get into the record this
    point, since 1970, the combined emissions of the six common
    pollutants dropped 74 percent. Since 2005, the United States
    energy-related CO2 emissions fell by 12 percent while related,
    nationally it was increased by 20 percent.
        This is, in large part, a result of American oil and gas
    companies' commitment to responsible, environmentally friendly
    practices and advancements in technology like carbon capture.
        [Remarks off microphone.]
        Senator Inhofe. Ms. Mallory and Ms. McCabe, would you agree
    that if oil and gas is going to be produced anywhere in the
    world, it should be in America? And shouldn't we export it
    around the world so that everyone has access to the cleanest
    oil and gas in the world?
        Ms. McCabe. It is certainly possible, and a good thing, for
    all energy to be produced in as clean a way as possible. We
    certainly do have the tools in this Country. And the companies
    have the tools in this Country to do that.
        Senator Inhofe.
        [Remarks off microphone.]
        Ms. Mallory. Yes, Senator, I believe that we have the
    ability to look at some of the issues that are presented in a
    way that will improve the quality of the oil and gas, and that
    is important.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you. A second thing is, we have
    talked about small refinery exemptions. I talked to both of you
    about that. When we talked about that, I shared with you that
    SREs are of great importance for refinery States like Oklahoma.
        The Supreme Court has taken up a case, HollyFrontier v.
    RFA, which could decide the future of small refinery exemptions
    in States like Oklahoma. What I would like to ask both of you,
    this will be to you, Ms. McCabe, will you commit to encouraging
    EPA to delay any action on SREs until after the Supreme Court
    has issued its decision?
        Ms. McCabe. Senator, I believe EPA has already indicated
    that that is their intent, to wait until after the Supreme
    Court issues a decision.
        Senator Inhofe. OK. How about you? Do you agree with that?
        Ms. McCabe. I wouldn't disagree with that. I am not at the
    agency yet. But that makes sense to me, sure.
        Senator Inhofe. That is fine. And the last thing, I want to
    get this in, because I won't be here for the second round, so I
    might as well go over a little bit. Senator Padilla, if that is
    OK with you, I will go ahead.
        This has to do, well, Ms. McCabe, as you know, the United
    States is heavily reliant on imports of critical minerals used
    in things from electronics to missiles, and also you are both
    aware that I spent a number of years as chairman of the Senate
    Armed Services Committee, so this is right in my area.
        Mining is one of the most heavily regulated domestic
    industries in America with dozens of State and Federal laws and
    regulations.
        [Remarks off microphone.] The Fiscal Year 2021 NDAA, that
    is the National Defense Authorization Act, I was a principal
    author of that, requires the DOD to assess the sources of our
    mineral imports the vulnerabilities of the American mineral
    supply chain. In other words, we produce them here.
        So I am going to ask you, Ms. McCabe, will you commit to
    supporting a strong domestic mining industry and work force so
    as to reduce our dependence on foreign imports of minerals? I
    ask that question.
        [remarks off microphone] you and I talked about it,
        [remarks off microphone].
        Ms. McCabe.
        [Remarks off microphone] strong industry here in the United
    States producing good jobs for Americans, and also attention to
    making sure that those activities are done in a way that
    protects our health and our environment.
        Senator Inhofe. I am sure the mining industry would be very
    appreciative of that response.
        Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Capito.
        [Presiding] Senator Padilla.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Inhofe, it is not just mayors who get that very
    personal treatment from constituents. So do council members in
    many places.
        Senator Inhofe. Oh, I know.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Padilla. Ms. Mallory, Ms. McCabe, thank you both
    for your willingness to serve.
        A couple of very quick questions for the two of you, then I
    have two questions, one for each. No. 1 is, do you believe in
    science, yes or no?
        Ms. Mallory. Yes.
        Ms. McCabe. Absolutely.
        Senator Padilla. Do you look forward to making decisions
    based on science and data, yes or no?
        Ms. Mallory. Yes.
        Ms. McCabe. Absolutely.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you. Next question is for Ms.
    McCabe. We had a chance to discuss briefly just yesterday, and
    you recognized that California has long been a leader, not just
    in environmental policy and stewardship generally, but
    specifically in the area of fuel economy standards. One of my
    priorities is to ensure that we restore California's undisputed
    authority to set fuel economy standards that are safe,
    affordable for consumers and obviously good for the
    environment.
        California standards are such that several auto makers
    entered into voluntary agreements with the State of California
    to make the stricter standards than the prior Administration
    sought to impose. So the question is another simply yes or no.
    Would you work with us under this Administration in partnership
    with California on fuel economy standards that can improve
    standards and environmental quality nationally?
        Ms. McCabe. Senator, if confirmed, I would gladly commit to
    you to work in partnership with the State of California. They
    have been a real leader on these issues of fuel economy and
    auto standards.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you very much.
        Next question, for Ms. Mallory. Throughout my time in
    office, I have prioritized not just environmental protection
    policy, but environmental justice policies, specifically for
    communities that have too often borne a disproportionate brunt
    of pollution, contamination, toxics, traffic congestion,
    proximity to Superfund sites, etc.
        It is an issue that is personal to me. I grew up in one of
    the first experiences in terms of being active in the community
    was standing alongside my mother as we blocked trucks from
    entering the Lopez Canyon landfill in Los Angeles County,
    California, because of its impact on the community that we
    lived in, air quality, traffic, trash, et cetera.
        Years later, I would serve on the Los Angeles City Council
    and supported the creation of an environmental justice zone
    which is a designation that provides extra consideration to the
    cumulative impacts of new developments for areas that have a
    high concentration of facilities, such as solid waste
    processing, recycling, et cetera. You are probably familiar
    with the fact that in California we have a mapping and
    screening tool called calenviroscreen, to help identify
    communities with the most significant pollution burden. It
    collects data on 20 indicators to help California policymakers
    identify disadvantaged communities, to prioritize our climate
    investments.
        It is worth noting that California's tool goes further than
    the EPA's environmental justice screening tool in that
    California includes some non-environmental indicators like
    education attainment for populations in the area, high housing
    costs, unemployment and more. It also allows for identification
    of cumulative effects that policymakers can compare census
    tracts and identify communities most at risk.
        Thanks to this tool, California has been able to invest 35
    percent of revenues from our cap and trade program in over-
    polluted communities to ensure we are targeting our
    investments, which serves as a potential model for the new
    Administration.
        Ms. Mallory, my question is, what you think are some of the
    best ways to identify some of these overburdened communities?
    Can tools like the environmental justice zone or California's
    modeling help the Biden Administration meet its commitment to
    40 percent of the benefits from clean energy and infrastructure
    investments benefiting disadvantaged communities?
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that
    question.
        As we discussed when we met, I think the environmental
    justice obviously is being given a front and center place in
    President Biden's agenda, at CEQ in particular. Among the
    things that have been tasked to CEQ already is standing up the
    infrastructure through an interagency task force as well as a
    FACA, Federal advisory committee, working with citizens from
    across the Country.
        But in addition, there is a responsibility to look at a
    screening tool specifically with the idea that these tools can
    be really important in helping to understand the extent of the
    problem, where we should be focusing and locating our energies.
    So I believe that those are going to be front and center in
    terms of how the Administration is going to be focusing the
    issue.
        If I am confirmed at CEQ, those would be approaches that I
    would definitely be keeping in mind and talking to the staff
    about. As we have discussed, I look forward to partnering with
    you on that issue if I am confirmed.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam
    Chair.
        Senator Capito. Senator Cramer.
        Senator Cramer. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks to both of
    you for being here, and thank you for the time on the phone. It
    was helpful to me.
        Ms. Mallory, I am going to focus on you for the first 5
    minutes. As you know, obviously, CEQ plays a really important
    role in infrastructure review and approvals. Your current
    employer, the Southern Environmental Law Center, has been a
    high profile litigant against numerous pipelines within the
    States that you are now going to have oversight of.
        When you joined the SELC, you said it was a ``perfect
    fit.'' The Atlantic Coast Pipeline was canceled, and one of
    your colleagues was quoted as saying, ``This risky and
    unnecessary project is on the scrap heap where it belongs, and
    the decks are cleared.'' Do you agree with your colleague's
    sentiment? Is there at least one well-known pipeline project
    that you ever supported?
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator Cramer, I really appreciate
    that comment, because it goes to the heart of something that I
    think is important for establishing with you and the public in
    general, which is, I take very seriously the role that I would
    play as a Federal official serving the Administration, and in
    particular, serving the American people. I have had really
    broad experience, as you have heard, which has brought me in
    contact with and working with a number of different
    stakeholders over the past time.
        But in the job as the chair of CEQ, if I am confirmed, my
    job will be focused on serving the American people and serving
    President Biden's agenda. So those issues, no, they would not
    drive the way that I approached any particular issue.
        Senator Cramer. Have you ever supported a pipeline, and if
    so, what differentiated that pipeline from the ones we
    discussed?
        Ms. Mallory. In fact, as I said, in my life as a private
    practice lawyer, I worked with pipelines and helped pipelines
    get permitted as well. But that was 20 years ago, and what I am
    focused on now is serving President Biden's agenda.
        Senator Cramer. OK, great, so let's get to something real
    recent and current. The Dakota Access Pipeline, which as you
    might imagine, is real important to North Dakota, begins in
    North Dakota, moves about 600,000 barrels of Bakken crude to
    market every day. Been operating successfully now for 4 years
    without any incidents.
        They were recently ordered to redo its NEPA, as you are
    probably aware. After it was built and safely operating, Judge
    Boasberg here in the District of Columbia ordered that the
    pipeline be shut down and required a full EIS to be conducted.
    Thankfully, the circuit disagreed at least in part with his
    ruling, and realized that following that decision it wouldn't
    be shut down. So it allowed the pipeline to stay in operation,
    thank goodness.
        As a reminder, the company did do an EA, instead of an EIS.
    Now through this external litigation they are being forced kick
    through shifting goalposts. Of course, it is litigation from
    organizations like yours.
        Despite what seems to me and I think to most North Dakotans
    and most people with common sense, the insanity of all of this,
    the real question comes down, well, let's just say that both
    the company and the Army Corps of Engineers, the two entities
    most involved in this, of course, are complying with this EIS,
    I think everyone should understand that, as ordered.
        Should you be confirmed, can you commit that the White
    House will not interfere with the timely progression of the
    results of the EIS? I ask that question because we know there
    is a lot of political pressure being applied to the White House
    and to the President himself to stop the Dakota Access Pipeline
    after these 4 years of successful operation. Can you commit
    that the White House won't interfere politically?
        Ms. Mallory. Senator, I can commit that I will carry out
    the President's agenda in making sure that the decisions that
    are made are based on sound science, and full integration of
    information that we have about issues. I am happy to commit to
    you that if we move forward and I am confirmed and this issue
    is before us, I am happy to talk to your office about it.
        Senator Cramer. Well, I am happy to do that, except that
    the science is, I appreciate your commitment to science. The EA
    was done. And it was done under the Obama administration and
    approved by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. And the EIS is
    being done for all good scientific reasons.
        So I would hope, I would hope that that at the end of all
    that good science and discussion with my folk we can keep the
    Dakota Access Pipeline operating, lest we become dependent on
    other nations again.
        I think given the shortness of my time, I will wrap it up
    there, Madam Chair.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        It is my understanding that we don't have other Democrats
    lined up, so I am going to keep going down the Republican side
    and go to Senator Lummis by WebEx. Senator Lummis, are you
    there? All right, we will go to Senator Boozman. Busy day here
    on Capitol Hill. Senator Lummis, there she is.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you. I am so sorry. Little technical
    difficulties here.
        Ms. Mallory and Ms. McCabe, you have both worked at the EPA
    during the Obama administration. During your time at EPA, the
    Obama administration's Interagency Working Group on the Social
    Cost of Carbon met behind closed doors with no public
    engagement to revise what is known as the social cost of
    carbon. Federal agencies use this figure to justify regulations
    on greenhouse gas emissions, no matter how large or how small.
        My question is this. During your time there, were you in
    any way involved in this working group? And if you were, please
    detail your role.
        Ms. McCabe. Senator, this is Janet McCabe. I was not
    involved in the working group to develop the social cost of
    carbon.
        Ms. Mallory. Senator, CEQ was a participant in the working
    group on the social cost of carbon during the Obama years.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you for saying so. The interagency
    working group did not publicly list individuals that
    contributed to the work group's efforts. Public input was
    limited. President Biden reconstituted this working group and
    directed it to revise the existing costs. Only five of the 12
    Senate-confirmed positions that lead agencies in the working
    group are confirmed thus far. Last Friday, the Administration
    reverted to the Obama-era cost estimates.
        So I raise this issue to reinforce the need for openness
    and transparency in how critical data is developed. I think
    this is particularly important when the figure is used to
    rationalize costly job-killing new regulations. This is an
    issue that is important to my State, so hence my raising the
    issue.
        Moving on, if confirmed, will you inform this committee and
    the public of CEQ or EPA's participation in the Interagency
    Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, including all offices
    and staff that are participating and representing your
    respective organizations?
        Ms. Mallory. Senator, I can say that CEQ definitely expects
    to be involved in the social cost of carbon working group going
    forward. That has been laid out already by the President in the
    Executive Order. That process before, under the Obama
    administration, was one that went on for a number of years.
    There was extensive public process associated with it before a
    decision was ultimately rendered, which is why understanding is
    that the Administration felt they could move forward with an
    updated version of that estimate now, while a new process is
    being set up and opportunity for public participation will be
    included in it.
        Ms. McCabe. Senator, that is my understanding as well. I
    agree with Brenda, I expect there will be a process that will
    involve people having an opportunity to weigh in.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you for that. So I am assuming that
    both of you support using the regulatory review process for
    future revisions to the social cost of carbon.
        Ms. Mallory. Senator, I am not sure what you mean by
    regulatory review process. I think that the process that was
    previously used to ensure that there was an opportunity for
    input by the public and experts in the area is what is
    anticipated at this point. That is my sense from the outside.
        Senator Lummis. Well, we have recommendations that the
    working group go through a full regulatory review process to
    revise the cost estimates, then relying on studies that were
    subjected to a less rigorous journal review process. So what we
    will do is try to get that information to you about concerns
    that have been expressed. We want to make sure a consequential
    scientific analysis is done.
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you.
        Ms. McCabe. We are here and listening. I don't think you
    will have any disagreement from us that any decisions such as
    this be based on sound science and well vetted studies that
    folks have an opportunity to see and weigh in on.
        Senator Lummis. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Senator Capito. Thank you. Senator Markey, by WebEx.
        Senator Markey. Thank you to both of our great panelists
    for being here, thank you for being willing to serve.
        As you both know, we are in a climate crisis right now and
    we need to move forward aggressively in order to deal with this
    crisis. I would like each of you, if you would, just to give me
    a sense of your commitment to ensuring that we unleash this
    clean energy revolution that can help to deal with the climate
    crisis.
        Ms. Mallory. Senator, I am happy to give you the commitment
    that I will carry out the responsibilities of CEQ if confirmed
    in a way that advances President Biden's agenda and in an
    aggressive way.
        Ms. McCabe. Senator Markey, this is Janet. We can't see
    you, so we are all sort of looking around the room.
        There you are. It is great to see you. You have my
    commitment as well, that if I am confirmed as deputy at EPA, I
    will work with the agency, with all the other agencies in the
    Federal Government, and with this body to address the serious
    issues of climate change across this Country.
        Senator Markey. Thank you so much. The workers at the EPA,
    they give up their lives, they dedicate their careers to
    helping protect the American public against the worst, most
    insidious dangers that are created by pollutants and other
    dangers to our society. These workers need to be protected. I
    know that it is something that absolutely has to be done.
        That is why I signed onto the EPA Workers Bill of Rights,
    to fight for scientific integrity and healthy working
    conditions. That includes the 8,000 members of the AFGE working
    at the EPA.
        So are you committed to ensuring that we create a safe
    working place for these workers? Ms. McCabe?
        Ms. McCabe. Yes, Senator Markey, it is the staff at EPA
    that bring environmental protection and public health
    protection to this Country. That is the main reason I am so
    honored to be considered for this position, is because my main
    job, as I understand it, would be to support the amazing work
    force. They need a safe environment, and they need support,
    they need respect. They need to be in the room and consulted,
    because they have expertise to bring to the table. The agency
    can't make good decisions without that work force.
        Senator Markey. Thank you.
        On the issue of environmental justice mapping, Senator
    Duckworth and I introduced legislation on this issue to make
    sure that we can actually see the full picture of what is
    happening in our Country, so that those communities that have
    always historically been most adversely impacted, Black, Brown,
    immigrant communities, are seen so that as we act we ensure
    that we are giving the protections to those communities.
        I would love to hear each of you speak about that issue,
    and the need to focus upon it over these next 4 years. I know
    that Senator Padilla has already raised it, but I would love to
    hear you expand a little bit more on this.
        Ms. Mallory. Sure. Thank you, Senator Markey. As we
    discussed in our conversation, the President has made
    environmental justice a central element of his agenda, and a
    central element of the work that CEQ will be doing. So I look
    forward to working with the staff and really with the rest of
    the Federal Government as we move forward on this issue.
        As I said to Senator Padilla, one of the issues that is
    already identified in the Executive Order that the President
    issued is the need to look at better tools to help understand
    where the communities are and where activities are most needed
    from the work that we are doing. So I also expect that to be
    part of the work that I would do at CEQ, if confirmed.
        Ms. McCabe. Senator, I will just add that ejscreen, EPA's
    screening tool, was developed when I was at EPA before. We
    heard Senator Padilla talk about the amazing system in
    California. I have actually been working with a colleague and
    some students at Indiana University on a review of about 17
    different environmental justice screening tools that different
    States or universities have developed. It is amazing to see the
    different approaches.
        So I think there is a lot to work from in terms of
    developing a tool that is usable and can be kept up to date and
    is really meaningful and will help everybody make good
    decisions about focusing on areas where the protections of the
    environmental laws may not have been realized over the history
    of the Country.
        Senator Markey. Without question, and Chelsea,
    Massachusetts is just a perfect example of where it is just the
    most densely populated city in New England, has high minority
    population, it is right next to the airport, the oil tankers,
    the idling diesel trucks. So they have the highest level of
    asthma, and also the highest level of coronavirus, both
    respiratory illnesses. So you can see how it all interacts
    together.
        So it is time for us as a Nation to ensure that
    environmental justice is made a priority.
        We thank both of you for your willingness to serve our
    Country. And I thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Carper.
        [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator Markey.
        I think Senator Cardin is next. I ran into him in the hall
    coming down here, and he asked me if anybody had raised any
    questions about the Chesapeake Bay. So that is like a pitch for
    a telegraph.
        Senator Cardin. Mr. Chairman, I was surprised to find out
    that the answer was no.
        Senator Carper. Senator Cardin.
        Senator Cardin. I rushed into the hearing room to make sure
    that we had the Chesapeake Bay properly protected.
        Let me first thank both of our nominees for your
    willingness to serve in these critically important positions.
    We know it is a challenge, any position in public life, but
    particularly when you are dealing with these issues. We thank
    you and your families for being willing to make this commitment
    to public service.
        So Chairman Carper has given me the perfect introduction,
    for Ms. McCabe first, the commitment toward the Chesapeake Bay.
    Every chance I have, I like to underscore the efforts that have
    been made on the Bay for over, now, 30 years, maybe 40 years.
    We started in the State legislature. It was really from the
    locals up, it was not a federally mandated program. It started
    with the local governments and other stakeholders, including
    our farmers, our developers, our local government units, coming
    together with a science-based approach to try to deal with the
    challenges of the Chesapeake Bay.
        It is not easy. It is a complicated body of water. It
    doesn't flush itself as frequently as other bodies of water. It
    is a national treasure, declared by numerous Administrations.
    And we have made a lot of progress. The water quality is
    certainly a lot better than it would have been without the
    efforts we have made. But we still have a lot of challenges to
    go.
        The first question I have is that, in a previous
    Administration, the Obama administration, we had a person
    designated for the Chesapeake Bay as the coordinator within
    EPA. We found that to be very helpful, because it really did
    help the seven States, the six States and D.C., in coordinating
    our efforts.
        Can you tell me, Ms. McCabe, your commitment if confirmed
    in working as a Federal partner in the Chesapeake Bay and
    putting a spotlight within EPA for those efforts?
        Ms. McCabe. Thank you, Senator Cardin. I really enjoyed
    talking about this with you the other day. These special
    places, these incredible places in our Country are where people
    live and work, and what animates them to make things better. In
    my neck of the woods, it is the Great Lakes. And it is the same
    thing: you need everybody from the bottom up and the top down
    around these incredible resources to be working together.
        I know you talked with Secretary Regan about the idea of
    how to focus attention on the Chesapeake Bay at EPA. Certainly
    if I am confirmed and able to work with him, we will do what we
    can to work with your office and make sure that the agency is
    focusing the right resources on this special area.
        Senator Cardin. I thank you for that.
        Ms. Mallory, I want to talk a little bit about a subject, I
    hope I don't get you into any trouble in this nomination
    hearing, but about NEPA and the regulatory process. I say that
    because we all want to streamline the process. We want it to
    move as quickly as it can.
        But there is a real purpose for the review process,
    including look at the social impact on communities, the impact
    of emissions as it affects climate change, which is one of our
    greatest challenges in the Chesapeake Bay, is the sea level
    rise, an issue dealing with the warming in the bay.
        Can you tell me your commitment to use the process to make
    sure that there is social justice, environmental justice, and
    that communities' views are in fact, that they have an
    opportunity to be heard in the review process?
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator Cardin. I appreciate the
    question. I know we talked about this a bit when we met as
    well.
        What I can tell you is that I view the challenge of finding
    a way to ensure that NEPA is serving its multiple purposes, and
    in a way that allows the President's full agenda to be met as
    the challenge that we face. It not only has to create an
    opportunity for there to be a full, robust analysis of the
    impacts on major projects. It has to create an opportunity for
    there to be a way for citizens and the community to engage. But
    it also has to be done in a way that ensures that we have
    significant infrastructure projects, and that economic
    recovery, which is based on those projects, can occur.
        I think that is our challenge. I think that is what I see
    myself, if I am confirmed, trying to search for the
    opportunities that allow those things to occur at once.
        Senator Cardin. I just really want to underscore President
    Biden's program of Building Back Better. We talk about building
    back better, it seems to me that the process that we use is
    critically important to make sure at the end of the day we have
    an America that is resilient, that adapts to the realities of
    where we are, and is contributing to the environmental justice,
    not only the local community, but the global community. It
    seems to me that CEQ plays a critical part in making sure we
    build back better.
        Ms. Mallory. I couldn't agree with you more.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Carper. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
        I understand we have been joined by Senator Sullivan.
    Colonel, are you there?
        Senator Sullivan. Captain, I am here, sir.
        Senator Carper. Navy recognizes Marine Corps. Go ahead.
        Senator Sullivan. Thank you very much, Captain.
        Ms. Mallory, Ms. McCabe, thanks, and thanks for your
    willingness to serve. I appreciated the opportunity to meet
    with both of you.
        So let me just get a commitment, if confirmed, can I get
    you up to Alaska soon, in the first year of your tenure? There
    are a whole host of issues that are impacting my State right
    now. I am going to go into them. But it is not like being on
    the ground in the largest State in the Country with very unique
    challenges.
        Can I get that commitment from both of you, if confirmed?
        Ms. Mallory. Yes, Senator, I would make that commitment to
    go to Alaska. We did talk about a number of the unique issues
    that Alaska faces. To have an opportunity to see that, I would
    appreciate it.
        Senator Sullivan. Great.
        Ms. McCabe. Likewise for me, Senator. I have had the
    pleasure to be there once before, and would gladly go again.
        Senator Sullivan. Good. And it can be in the summer. I was
    back in Fairbanks last weekend, and it was about 38 below zero.
    So it doesn't have to be in winter, but maybe it is good to see
    it at 38 below zero, too, there are a lot of unique elements to
    living in communities like that, great people, tough people.
    But it would be great to have you up there.
        Let me go into a couple of issues. I talked to both of you
    about the balance on the environment and other things, like
    jobs. I also want to talk about environmental justice, maybe
    not from the perspective that it is always talked about.
        But on jobs, we are in a recession. My State is in a really
    hard, difficult economic challenge with regard to the pandemic.
    Yet the Biden Administration in its first 6 weeks has launched
    seven executive orders that have either focused directly or
    indirectly on my State. Seven. There is no State that is
    getting love from the Biden Administration like mine. We don't
    view it as love. We view it as a war on working families and
    jobs in Alaska. It is incredibly concerning.
        I guarantee you, Delaware, no other State in the Country
    gets seven, really eight if you consider the latest Biden-
    Trudeau joint statement which focused on ANWR, to really attack
    my State and working families and jobs. Can I get you to just
    briefly explain how you balance environmental protection, which
    we in Alaska care more about, trust me, Alaskans care more
    about protecting our environment than anybody in EPA or CEQ,
    Democrat or Republican Administration.
        How do you balance the challenge? Right now, there are
    projects almost daily in my State where people are losing jobs.
    Good jobs, yes, oil and gas jobs. They are relevant by the way,
    Mr. Chairman. And very important in America. Yet they are under
    assault. Help me with this. My State is reeling. And the new
    Federal Government Administration, seven EOs attacking Alaska.
    There is nothing like it, and we are not enjoying it.
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that
    question.
        You are hitting on, I think, the major challenge that we
    see as an Administration, in trying to address the climate
    crisis and prepare ourselves for a future that allows all of
    us, and all communities, to live better and to live in ways
    that don't have the extreme impact----
        Senator Sullivan. Ms. Mallory, I am going to interrupt
    here. Sorry, I don't want to be rude. But you know, even our
    Country has reduced greenhouse gas emissions in the last 15
    years from 2005 to 2017 by almost 15 percent. More than any
    major country in the world by far. It is not even close, China
    is doubling theirs, we are reducing it. Almost all that is due
    to the revolution in natural gas, with good jobs.
        Right now, all we are seeing from the White House is, we
    are going to restrict production of energy, kill the jobs, and
    the result is, no good jobs and importing more gas from Russia,
    oil from Saudi Arabia. None of this makes sense. You don't kill
    American jobs in energy production to address the climate
    crisis when natural gas is actually helping globally, no doubt,
    with the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
        Again, how do you square this? Because I keep asking the
    question about jobs, and I get, well, we have to sacrifice
    jobs, well, we are going to make, John Kerry, we are going to
    help people make good choices in their jobs. That condescending
    attitude really, really ticks me off, and it really insults the
    people I represent.
        Ms. Mallory. As I was saying, Senator, I think the
    importance of jobs as part of the clean energy economy that we
    are aiming to build, I think, is central. We understand that
    people are suffering now, and I think, I know personally, I
    understand what that means when people are suffering because of
    the loss of their jobs. Our goal is to get to a place where we
    can have an economy on which we can all plan for a future that
    recognizes the climate impacts that we are experiencing.
        Senator Sullivan. Does that mean States like Alaska that
    produce energy have to sacrifice jobs?
        Ms. Mallory. I think it means for States like Alaska that
    there is a unique transition that has to occur there, and that
    we have to work more closely with you in figuring out how to do
    that in a way that protects people. That is the goal.
        Senator Sullivan. Let me ask a really important question.
    My understanding in a recent meeting with the President of the
    United States, and he was fully endorsing natural gas as a
    transition fuel. The President. John Kerry said he doesn't. I
    think the White House needs to figure out who is speaking for
    whom on energy policy. I think it would be the President.
        Do you two support natural gas, robust production of
    natural gas and natural gas jobs as an important transition
    fuel? The President of the United States does.
        Ms. Mallory. I think gas is a part of the transition, for
    sure.
        Ms. McCabe. Senator, I would agree. I think the President
    has made clear that we need a wide variety of fuel sources to
    move us forward toward a cleaner energy. The point is getting
    carbon out of the air, Senator, regardless of the fuel source.
    Getting carbon out of the air, that is what is fueling climate
    change.
        Senator Sullivan. I am going to show you this map. I think
    I have shown it to both of you, and hopefully you can see it.
    Can you see this map?
        Ms. Mallory. Yes.
        Ms. McCabe. Yes.
        Senator Sullivan. OK. So this is an AMA study. Mr.
    Chairman, I am having a hard time seeing my time, so I am
    probably almost up here. You can cut me off whenever you need
    to.
        That is an American Medical Association study from 1980 to
    2014. It shows where Americans increased their life expectancy.
    The blue and the purple are the dramatic increases.
        There are a couple of places in America, mostly yellow and
    red, unfortunately, where the life expectancy of Americans
    decreased. My State had the biggest increase by far of anybody,
    up to 13 years. There is no better policy prescription than,
    are your constituents living longer because of policies.
        There is a lot of talk about environmental justice. These
    are mostly Alaska Native communities, where the increase in
    life expectancy was huge, 10 years or more in some communities.
    The reason there was such an increase in life expectancy is
    because there was significant resource development
    opportunities, where these communities now have running water
    and gymnasiums and clinics, those things that Americans take
    for granted.
        This happened because of resource development happened, oil
    and gas, mining. And my constituents are very nervous, not
    about jobs, but literally about whether they are going to live
    longer if you have an Administration that is going to target
    these kinds of job opportunities and income.
        So this is environmental justice in a huge way. Are the
    people you representing in minority communities living longer?
    The answer is yes, because of responsible resource development.
    What we are scared about right now is that, with these
    targeting EOs against Alaska that this trend might be reversed.
    Can you talk to me about environmental justice----
        Senator Carper. Senator Sullivan, you are almost 3 minutes
    over your time.
        Senator Sullivan. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I will submit
    this for the record.
        Senator Carper. If you could do that, that would be great.
        Senators, I don't believe you have had an opportunity to
    ask a question. Let me see if Senator Whitehouse is with us.
    Senator Whitehouse?
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes, I am. Here I come on video as
    well.
        Thank you, Chairman.
        Senator Carper. There you are, good. Welcome.
        Senator Whitehouse. First of all, congratulations to both
    of you. I look forward to working with you to solve the urgent
    climate crisis that faces Rhode Island and the rest of the
    planet.
        As you know, under present projections, if we don't get our
    arms around this, we are going to have to redraw the map of
    Rhode Island, because our coastline is going to change
    dramatically. We are going to lose enormous amounts of coastal
    property, and coastal livelihoods, to all of this. It is a big
    enough deal that even Freddie Mac is warning about a coastal
    property value crash that cascades through the rest of the
    economy, a little bit like the 2008 mortgage meltdown.
        So this to coastal States like mine is deadly serious. I
    wanted to ask first, Ms. Mallory, the social cost of carbon has
    just been revived by the Biden Administration, which I am very
    happy about. I think CEQ is probably going to oversee updating
    the number. We went back to the last established number, which
    I am glad we did. But we also need to make sure that the number
    is the most accurate number.
        We also need to make sure that the social cost of carbon
    figures into as many administrative decisions and calculations
    as possible. Could you comment on where you intend to go at CEQ
    with the social cost of carbon?
        Ms. Mallory. Sure, Senator, thank you for that question. As
    you know, since I am outside of the Administration at this
    point, I haven't been engaged in any of the conversations about
    the social cost of carbon or the action that the Administration
    took last week. Under the executive Order that was issued
    several weeks ago, it identifies CEQ as a participant on the
    work group for the social cost of carbon, but the leads are in
    other organizations, OMB and I think the Council on Economic
    Advisors.
        But we fully expect to participate in the work group as we
    look at the issues. Among the issues that were laid out last
    week and what the White House released was an indication that
    part of the analysis will consider what types of actions should
    be, where the social cost of carbon should be used.
        So I think the question you are raising about the scope of
    the social cost of carbon is one that will be front and center
    in the work group activities that will go forward in the year.
    I do expect CEQ to be a part of that.
        Senator Whitehouse. Let's talk about oceans and coasts for
    a minute as well. The impact of climate change is obviously
    very strong in oceans. The chemistry is changing. They are
    acidifying, they are warming, it is multi-Hiroshima atom bomb
    equivalent of heat energy being added per second to the oceans
    per second, sea levels resultantly rising, fish populations
    moving around. As one Rhode Island fisherman said to me, things
    are getting weird out there, Sheldon. This is not my father's
    ocean.
        Regrettably, I think we pay very little attention to that,
    even in the environmental community, because we are terrestrial
    beings. But the dangers of the oceans, if currents shift, or if
    we lose massive fisheries, or can no longer support coral
    reefs, are going to be immense. I hope I will have your
    commitment to look hard at these oceans and coasts questions,
    to take a particular look at the flood insurance program along
    the coasts. NFIP is up for renewal this year. At the moment, we
    have just been kicking the ball down the road, paying no
    attention to real reform.
        We also have, and Dan Sullivan and I have done a lot of
    good work together, we also have the critical ocean plastics
    problem that the U.S. can play a big role in fixing. We are
    headed for a world of more plastic in the oceans than living
    fish in the oceans. That is not something that I think we
    should leave to our grandchildren.
        So could you comment on the role of oceans at CEQ?
        Ms. Mallory. Yes, absolutely, Senator. Oceans have been, at
    least in my knowledge of CEQ, have been a part of the agenda
    for some time. We fully expect it to be a part of the agenda
    this time if I am confirmed.
        Oceans is an area that we have partnered with the OSTP, the
    Office of Science and Technology Policy, around those issues in
    particular because of all the changes that you were describing
    in your opening in terms of figuring out what is the path
    forward. I fully expect to participate in that process.
        Senator Whitehouse. Chairman, do I have any time left on
    the clock?
        Senator Carper. You are a few seconds over. If you have a
    short question, go ahead.
        Senator Whitehouse. Ms. McCabe, methane. How much do know
    about methane leakage, how much do we need to know, and what
    are you going to do?
        Ms. McCabe. Thanks, Senator. This is an issue where there
    has been continuing research on understanding the levels of
    methane, where it is coming from and what we can do to reduce
    it. Methane is a very powerful climate forcing pollutant.
        So I look forward, if confirmed, to working with the
    scientists at EPA and everywhere to understand this issue as
    well as we can. If we don't know what is out there, it is very
    hard to have sound policy around it.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thanks, Chairman. I would just point
    out that if you don't know what your methane load is, your
    methane leakage load, it is hard to assess how good natural gas
    is as a climate alternative. Thanks very much.
        Senator Carper. Senator Whitehouse, thanks very much for
    joining us. Senator Ernst, you are next.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it.
        Ladies, thank you so much for being here today. I really do
    appreciate the opportunity to sit down with you face to face
    and ask a few questions.
        For both of you, please, in a February interview, White
    House National Climate Advisor Gina McCarthy had stated, ``We
    have to get the middle of the Country understanding and active
    on climate. We have to show them what resilience looks like.''
    Would you both agree with this statement and why or why not?
        Ms. McCabe. Since I come from the middle of the Country,
    maybe I can go first. I work at an organization set up by
    Indiana University called the Environmental Resilience
    Institute. Folks in the Midwest are very aware of what is going
    on in their environment, and very eager to work across their
    States to come up with approaches that will allow them to be
    more resilient in the face of environmental challenges.
        Senator Ernst. Ms. Mallory?
        Ms. Mallory. Senator, I don't know the context of that
    statement, but what I do know is that we see the impacts that
    are affecting different areas of the Country very differently.
    I think it is important for us to understand what those
    differences are, and what the tools are that are available for
    us to address it.
        So I think it is an important part of understanding the
    climate impacts that we are experiencing if we are going to
    figure out ways to address them.
        Senator Ernst. Certainly, I would agree. Thank you, Ms.
    McCabe, as well. I know that we had such a great discussion
    about solutions from the land, and so forth. I just want to
    emphasize that what the climate advisor is stating when she
    addresses the middle of the Country I would want to point out
    to her, and I hope in your capacity, if confirmed, you would be
    able to communicate that we are concerned about resilience in
    the Midwest and across the middle of the Country.
        Right now, in Iowa, wind energy provides 40 percent or
    better of our electric, more than any other State. We didn't
    have to have any big mandates coming from the Federal
    Government to do that. It is something that we are driven to do
    in the Midwest. There weren't any job-killing mandates, no
    additional taxes, no fees. It was all very incentive-driven by
    the people in Iowa and the companies that supported those
    programs.
        The latest data from a Harvard study also shows that first
    generation ethanol, Iowa is the No. 1 producer of ethanol,
    reduces emissions by 46 percent and biodiesel produced from soy
    is 66 percent to 72 percent less carbon-intensive than
    petroleum diesel and biodiesel from other types of feedstocks.
        So this was an affront. Many of us across middle America
    have taken this as just another example from Ms. McCarthy as a
    ``we know best'' attitude that is pretty common amongst our
    coastal elite counterparts. I think that Iowa has set a very,
    very good standard for others to follow. I hope that if given
    the opportunity, you will visit us in middle America, and see
    some of the wonderful things that we are doing in the space of
    green energy.
        Again, it is not driven by big Federal mandates. It is
    because we believe in what we do, and we as Midwesterners have
    resilience.
        I want to talk about permitting as well. Ms. Mallory,
    permitting. As you know, on January 21st, President Biden
    revoked President Trump's August 2017 Executive Order that
    created the One Federal Decision policy, which requires
    agencies to process as one Federal decision environmental
    reviews and authorization decisions for major infrastructure
    projects. Infrastructure is going to be a hot topic for a
    number of years. And to complete the NEPA process within an
    average of 2 years.
        Do you agree with President Biden's decision, why or why
    not?
        Ms. Mallory. I would say that that Executive Order revoked
    that Executive Order, but also told CEQ and OMB to look at that
    policy, to see whether or not it should be revised or
    reinstated. So I don't think the issue is off the table. In
    fact, I also believe that the elements of the One Decision
    policy are integrated into the 2020 regulation itself.
        So the issue has not gone away. The question is, is there a
    way for us to address the approach to permitting in a way that
    also responds to the other values that we are going after,
    making sure that you have good data, making sure that
    communities are participating, making sure that we can do it in
    a way that ensures that we get our projects done in a timely
    manner.
        Senator Ernst. Thank you. I do believe we need to find ways
    to speed along the permitting process, of course, taking into
    account our values. But certainly, infrastructure will continue
    to be a very important topic for us to discuss, especially
    right here in this committee.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair, very much. Thank you, ladies, for
    being here today. I appreciate it.
        Senator Carper. Senator Ernst, thank you so much for
    joining us and for your questions.
        Ms. McCabe, how far away is Indianapolis away from Iowa?
        Ms. McCabe. From Iowa? It is pretty close.
        Senator Carper. How close?
        Ms. McCabe. You sort of go halfway across Indiana, then you
    do Illinois, and then you are there.
        Senator Carper. Have you ever been there?
        Ms. McCabe. To Iowa, I am sure that I have been to Iowa.
        Senator Carper. All right. You may want to go again.
        Senator Cramer, you are next. Senator Capito and I are
    going to yield to you and if no one else shows up, then we will
    wrap it up.
        Senator Cramer. All right, thank you very much.
        Since Senator Ernst raised the issue of Ms. McCarthy's
    comment about resiliency and the ignorance of the Midwest, I am
    going to tag onto that a little bit. I am not going to brag so
    much about all the wind that we have in North Dakota; we do
    have a lot of it.
        But I would say this. Winter is an annual event, it is not
    a vortex. We don't shut the lights off because it is cold. We
    crank up the coal and the gas to make sure that people stay
    warm. We don't shift the gas away from manufacturing or heating
    homes to go over here to a peaking station. We have been
    talking about the resiliency of the grid for decades before it
    was the cool thing to do.
        So we really, I would just say to you, Ms. McCabe, I am all
    about second and third and fourth chances. I am grateful for
    all of them that I got. You have a steeper hill to climb,
    frankly, than most. Largely because in 2014, you stood, you sat
    before this same committee and promised federalism. You did it
    again today, promised federalism, considering the States,
    listening to the States.
        Yet the Clean Power Plan proved to be one of the most
    overbearing big government impositions on States ever, which is
    why 26 States successfully litigated it, including mine.
        One of the biggest problems, and this is why you have a lot
    to answer for, frankly, with regard to what you call your
    proudest accomplishment. The proposed rule, the Clean Power
    Plan, required North Dakota to cut its CO2 emissions by 11
    percent. Now, reasonable, nice Midwesterners say, 11 percent,
    don't like it, I don't like the prescription. That is another
    whole factor. But we could probably do 11 percent.
        Then of course, the final rule comes out, and since
    everybody just said, well, 11 percent, let's play along, let's
    do our part, rather than stand against this thing. It was 45
    percent. Forty-five percent, just dropped on a State like North
    Dakota, that either way is one of the handful or so of States
    that meet all ambient air quality stands as prescribed by the
    EPA. We are very proud of that. We love our air. We love our
    land. We rely on all of that.
        So, and I have been pushing Mr. Regan really hard on this.
    I voted for him out of this committee, with an understanding
    that he is going to keep an open mind and he is going to talk
    to the people of North Dakota, and that he is going to be
    sincere about it. And he seems to be. Your history with us
    makes it a lot more difficult.
        So, that lack of transparency and stakeholder interaction,
    particularly with middle America, is a tough one for us to get
    over. For me to vote for you, I would have to explain myself
    pretty clearly to North Dakotans. So I am going to give you the
    moment for a couple of minutes to tell North Dakotans why we
    ought to give you another chance at this.
        Ms. McCabe. Senator, I really thank you for being so candid
    with me. I am sorry we didn't have a chance to chat before the
    hearing. I hope we will have a chance to chat afterwards. I
    would love to do that.
        I understand your position and what you are saying. I have
    to tell you that when I was working at EPA before, I was
    absolutely sincere in my commitment to involve everybody. I
    know that there are many who disagree with the outcome of that
    rule.
        But in terms of listening to people and hearing people and
    taking everybody's perspective into account, we certainly did
    that in the lengthy process that we went through on the Clean
    Power Plan. The final rule, as I said a minute ago, the rule
    was about carbon emissions. My State is also a State with a lot
    of fossil energy. It had a large reduction expectation as well.
        But what we tried to do in that rule was build a very
    flexible approach. We talked for hour and hours with State
    officials about how to do this in a way to provide flexibility
    so that the goal of the rule, which was to reduce carbon
    emissions, could be done in the most flexible way, giving
    States as many options as possible to work together, to work
    internally, to work with other States all across the Country to
    make that happen.
        I think we have had success in this Country with programs
    like the Acid Rain Program, in allowing flexible approaches to
    do these things affordably.
        Senator Cramer. I would submit to you that you have had
    success in lots of areas, NOX, SOX, mercury, particulate
    matter, because you worked with States and stakeholders and the
    innovators that actually do the production of the energy met
    those. But when you pull a bait and switch from 11 percent to
    45 percent, it is hard to, whether you go outside the fence
    line, or whether you stay inside the fence line, these are
    important matters, as you know. It is why the litigation was
    successful.
        I appreciate your answer. Don't worry, I will always be
    candid. But I will always do it with a smile. I appreciate it.
    Thank you. I yield my time.
        Senator Carper. When he is not smiling, you know you have a
    problem.
        I think next up, joining us by WebEx, is Senator Lummis.
    Senator Lummis, are you there?
        Senator Lummis. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I am in
    between hearings, so I am going to be quick.
        First of all, I really want to thank both Ms. McCabe and
    Ms. Mallory for spending time with me before the hearing. We
    are dealing with some of the same tough problems that the
    Senator from North Dakota just mentioned.
        I would tell you with regard to refineries specifically, I
    live right next door in Cheyenne, Wyoming, to the HollyFrontier
    Refinery, which just because of the small refiners exemption
    and the inability to get that exemption, we lost 200 jobs
    because that oil refinery is being converted into a soybean
    refinery. The 260 jobs that were there are now 60 jobs. Those
    people were moved elsewhere in the Country.
        So it was a tremendous blow to us. These things are
    happening as a consequence, a direct consequence, a singular
    consequence, of Federal regulation.
        So my question for Ms. McCabe is, in the wake of these
    refinery closures and downsizing, and the resulting increases
    in imported fuels, how will you ensure that EPA policy doesn't
    weaken energy security by increasing dependence on imported
    fuels?
        Ms. McCabe. Thank you, Senator. Certainly, energy security,
    energy independence, and affordable energy are critical
    priorities for this Country and for this Administration. So if
    I am confirmed, and to the extent that my duties involve me in
    these kinds of questions, I will have that very, very much in
    mind.
        Senator Lummis. The jobs issues for our States, as you have
    heard from Senator Sullivan and Senator Cramer and others, it
    is hugely consequential. You can say in theory that jobs will
    not be lost or people will be retrained or energy that is non-
    emitting will replace the jobs of emitters. But in fact, it
    just hasn't happened that way.
        So it is important that we protect jobs at the same time
    that we are protecting the environment and making environmental
    improvements. We want that. As Senator Sullivan says, nobody
    cares more about the environment in their State than the people
    who live there. That is true in Wyoming, too, and we are very
    proud of our environmental record.
        But we are very concerned about approaches that set targets
    that just cost jobs and don't improve the environment. I want
    to work with you on these issues, believe me, I do. It matters
    so much to our State.
        Thank you for your time. Thank you for your willingness to
    step up.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you for the time today as well. I yield
    back.
        Senator Carper. Senator Lummis, thanks so much.
        I think Senator Kelly may be out there somewhere. Senator
    Kelly, can you hear us?
        Senator Kelly. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for holding this
    important hearing. And thank you to Ms. McCabe and Ms. Mallory
    for joining us today, and for your willingness to serve in
    these roles. Both of these positions to which you are nominated
    are very consequential to the State of Arizona and for our
    Country.
        So let me just jump in with a question here. I want to
    start with Ms. Mallory.
        Ms. Mallory, the Council on Environmental Quality is
    essentially the compliance officer for every environmental
    impact statement issued by a Federal agency under the NEPA
    process, the National Environmental Policy Act.
        Arizona is one of the top mining producers in the world. To
    get to a carbon free future, we need to have copper, lithium,
    nickel, cobalt and other strategic minerals to build solar
    panels and to build electric vehicles and high capacity, high
    density batteries. The World Bank estimates that 3 billion tons
    of minerals are needed for green technology worldwide to
    accomplish this. And I fully support the NEPA processes that
    are out there.
        But the average time it takes to permit a mine in the U.S.
    is about 10 years, in part because of the lengthy and complex
    Federal permitting and EIS review process. We need strong
    environmental reviews.
        But is there a way that you know of, is there a way to
    increase the speed and accuracy of environmental impact
    statements for mines that produce critical minerals without
    compromising the integrity of NEPA?
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator. As I was saying earlier, I
    think that in some ways, that is the challenge that CEQ is
    facing right now for a number of activities. Infrastructure is
    the topic we were discussing before.
        I think the issue is, as you have emphasized, we need to
    make sure that we are not making changes to our process, a
    process that has been in place for over 50 years, that
    undermine what the goal is. At a time when the environmental
    impacts that we are facing from climate change and other things
    are so grave, we don't want to lose the value that the NEPA
    process can bring to our decisionmaking.
        But we also need to figure out ways that will allow us to
    make these important decisions in a timely way. So that is the
    charge that I believe is central to the role that I would play
    at CEQ if confirmed.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you.
        I think I have a couple more minutes. Let me address the
    next question to Ms. McCabe. Luke Air Force Base last week, it
    is in the west valley of Phoenix, announced recently that
    recent tests of the drinking water near the base tested
    positive for high levels of dissolved PFAS, PFOA and PFAS, in
    excess of the EPA's lifetime health advisory for drinking
    water. That has prompted the Air Force and the Arizona
    Department of Environmental Quality to urge more than 1,600
    homes, 1,600 of them, and neighboring businesses, to avoid
    drinking tap water. The Air Force has begun, as they should,
    distributing bottled water to affected Arizonans.
        PFAS contamination is not just an issue in the west valley.
    To date, more than a dozen water systems across Arizona have
    found high levels of harmful PFAS chemicals. Yet, as you know,
    the EPA has not designated PFAS chemicals as hazardous
    substances.
        So if confirmed, what steps do you believe the EPA could
    take to help protect Arizona communities, especially those near
    our Air Force installations and airports from PFAS
    contamination?
        Ms. McCabe. Thank you, Senator.
        This is an issue that is affecting the entire Country. I
    know that areas around military bases are often finding these
    contaminants in a way that is really concerning.
        My understanding, and Senator, these areas are not my
    historical areas of expertise. But I know that there are a
    number of different approaches that are within the
    environmental statutes, environmental authority of EPA, to be
    looking at this chemical. Steps are already being taken by this
    Administration to move forward on those.
        If I am confirmed and if Secretary Regan asks me to help
    work on these issues, I certainly will be working with your
    office, other Members of Congress and all stakeholders to move
    these issues forward in appropriate legal mechanisms to bring
    protection to the drinking water of this Country.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you for that. I look forward to
    working with you as well, Ms. McCabe.
        Mr. Chairman, apologies for taking a little extra time
    here.
        Senator Carper. No apology necessary. Thank you, Senator
    Kelly.
        As it turns out, Senator Kelly, our Ranking Member and
    yours truly have a keen interest in PFAS groundwater pollution,
    both in West Virginia and in Delaware. We are told about 300
    communities across the Country where this is a real problem for
    families. We are anxious to get going on it.
        All right, Senator Wicker was here. Here he is. Senator
    Wicker is here.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Chairman, I would note Senator Kelly is a junior, brand
    new Senator, otherwise he would not have felt he should
    apologize for taking an extra 25 seconds.
        Senator Carper. That is probably the first and only time we
    will hear that apology.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Wicker. I think he made a great point. There are
    minerals in his State of Arizona and all over the United States
    that are vital to manufacturing clean technology. Yet they have
    to be mined, and somehow the mining regulations need to be
    loosened up a little so that these essential minerals can be
    utilized to make the environment better. Good point there from
    Senator Kelly.
        Let me ask you this, Ms. Mallory. Do you agree that wood is
    a cost-effective, energy-efficient and sustainable solution for
    building construction?
        Ms. Mallory. Senator, I feel like there is a technical
    aspect to that question that I am not sure I understand. I
    believe that wood is an important ingredient. I don't know if I
    would go so far as to say it is cost-effective and whatever the
    last words were.
        Senator Wicker. OK, that is a bit telling right there. Let
    me just say that it is compared, I believe that it is, and I
    believe most Americans do. Also as compared to other building
    materials, wood products are derived from a renewable resource
    and are responsible for less air pollution and less water
    pollution.
        That brings me to an act by the EPA back in 2015, where
    they issued an interim regulation for Federal procurement of
    wood products based on the Council on Environmental Quality
    implementing instructions. The recommendations, which happily
    have been overturned, would have resulted in potential
    exclusion of wood products from over 95 percent of U.S.
    timberlands, including more than 80 million acres of certified
    U.S. forests in Federal procurement projects.
        We were able, in the 2018 Farm Bill, to include a provision
    which prohibits procuring agencies from establishing
    regulations against procurement of such excellent sources of
    construction as bio-based products.
        Let me just ask you, are you aware that there are a lot of
    alliances of wood-growing entities around the Country that are
    concerned that the new Administration could work around this
    solution in the Farm Bill and implement regulations similar to
    the one we had in 2015, which basically disadvantages
    disadvantaged forest resources in almost all of the 50 States?
        Ms. Mallory. Senator, I am not really aware of the alliance
    that you are speaking of, but I would be happy to learn more,
    if confirmed. I understand that biomass and bio ingredients are
    an issue that is getting, and should get, more attention in
    terms of figuring out what our climate solutions are. And I am
    happy to be part of that.
        Senator Wicker. I appreciate that assurance. Let me just
    say that the resistance to what was attempted in 2015 was
    bipartisan and it covered almost every geographical area of the
    United States, from the southeast where I live up to New
    England and other areas.
        Briefly, Ms. McCabe, there was a feeling back in the Obama
    administration when developing the Clean Power Plan that there
    was a Washington, DC. decision forced on the States, and we
    didn't have a practice of cooperative federalism then. Do you
    agree that by working with State environmental agencies, we can
    oftentimes result in the same efficiencies and the same clear
    result by listening to local and State regulators at the same
    time?
        Ms. McCabe. Senator, I totally agree that EPA has to do its
    work in partnership and cooperation with State and local
    agencies.
        Senator Wicker. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to yield back 24 seconds.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. It is a record.
        All right. I thank you for those questions.
        I do have some followup questions of my own, but I will
    save them until the end.
        Senator Capito, please.
        Senator Capito. Thank you, thank you both. We are closing
    in on it here.
        I wanted to get this question on the record to you, Ms.
    Mallory, because it is an issue that is important to all of us.
    Certainly, the deployment of broadband in this Country is
    woefully behind, and in this pandemic we see how much that is
    affecting students, health care, ability to telecommute and all
    kinds of things.
        There is a working group at the FCC, the Broadband
    Deployment Advisory Committee, that is recommending that
    agencies finalize categorical exclusions that exempt broadband
    projects from the NEPA process. As a matter of fact, in 2010,
    the Obama administration's CEQ noted that ``Appropriate
    reliance on categorical exclusions provides a reasonable,
    proportionate, and effective analysis for many proposed
    actions, helping agencies reduce their paperwork.''
        So we need to deploy this as quickly as possible. I guess
    what I am asking you, would you look at this issue of
    categorical exclusions that I think, as we have pumped a lot of
    money into broadband deployment. But if we get it hung up into
    all kinds of permitting, we are going to end up elongating it
    and making those projects more expensive.
        So I would just like to have your opinion on this, or at
    least some assurances that this is something you will take up.
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator, absolutely. If I am
    confirmed, I would look into and be brief on the issue of
    broadband categorical exclusions.
        Senator Capito. Thank you.
        I want to talk about environmental justice. I know that Ms.
    McCabe and I talked about it on our Zoom, I am not sure that we
    did. It has been touched on, and you can see, with the job loss
    issues. As I think of environmental justice and understanding
    that it is somebody living next to a polluted area, can't move,
    they don't have the wherewithal or the money to be able to
    change that or clean it up or all those kinds of things.
        But I also think with joblessness comes an expanded
    environmental hazard, when you have people who have depression
    or opioid addictions or joblessness or hopelessness, you end
    up, the environment surrounding those types of folks, those
    folks, those homes and those communities I think can be just as
    damaging to our environment in some ways as maybe a factory or
    a power plant or some other kind of, well, you can directly say
    that is an environmental hazard.
        I guess what I am asking is, do you agree with what I am
    saying in terms of the joblessness issue? Does environmental
    justice encompass those kinds of concepts that I am putting
    forward? Help me understand your perspective on that. We will
    start with you, Ms. McCabe.
        Ms. McCabe. Thank you, Senator.
        Any job loss is a terrible thing. I agree with you that we
    have communities across this Country that are suffering
    greatly. The pandemic is just making it worse. You have my
    total agreement there.
        I think we need to pay attention to all of these issues. I
    think that President Biden has reflected, in his Executive
    Orders, that paying attention to communities that are affected
    by the transition to a climate, a more climate safe world,
    those impacts are real. The government needs to be paying
    attention to those.
        So I do agree with you that we have to pay attention to
    these issues.
        Senator Capito. Ms. Mallory.
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator Capito. I guess what I
    would say is I definitely agree that those are problems that
    need attention, and that we are prioritizing in terms of
    thinking about the broader agenda. Whether they always fall
    under a category of environmental justice, I am not sure. But
    it doesn't matter, because I think they are priorities that we
    need to figure out ways to address.
        Senator Capito. Well, in this it does matter. Because there
    is a great emphasis in this Administration on environmental
    justice and equity. That is a lot of the words that are used.
    As a matter of fact, this COVID bill has, for some reason, some
    money in there for environmental justice. I don't agree with it
    being exactly COVID related, but that is a whole different
    topic.
        So I think it does mater, because we are going to put a lot
    of resources into this, meaning Federal dollars. I know there
    have been some promises in some of the Executive Orders that 40
    percent of whatever the benefits would be from green energy is
    going to go back into the communities. But you can hear the
    skepticism of the States that have been impacted before. Some
    of us kind of feel like it is sort of a little pat on the head,
    and you are going to be OK.
        I am glad to hear you talk about transitions, because we
    didn't really have a transition, I didn't think, under the
    Obama administration. We lost thousands of jobs, and really
    shuttered a lot of our communities.
        Last question is, you have Gina McCarthy as the climate
    czar, and John Kerry as another climate czar. Then Ms. Mallory
    at CEQ, and then you and Michael Regan at EPA. How does this
    all fit together? Who is the lead here? I don't know if you
    have had these discussions with Gina McCarthy or the President
    himself as to who is going to be the lead on environmental
    policies and whose voices should we be listening to? Will it be
    one coordinated voice? But who is going to be the one who is
    going to be the spokesperson, I guess is my question.
        I asked Michael Regan the same thing. If you have a quick
    response, or I could add that to a written question. Ms.
    Mallory?
        Ms. Mallory. The way that I see the issue is that there is
    a coordination activity that is occurring around climate change
    that the new White House positions are helping to orchestrate
    with every agency and every other part of the Administration
    kind of bringing to bear the expertise that their organizations
    offer.
        So CEQ will be working around these issues in partnership
    with Gina and others and the White House that are designed to
    actually have us all end up with the President's agenda being
    met.
        Senator Capito. Ms. McCabe.
        Ms. McCabe. Well, I haven't had any conversations with Gina
    or anybody else, other than Secretary Regan. He made clear to
    you that he will be making the decisions at EPA, accountable to
    the President and carrying out EPA's responsibilities. And that
    will be my experience as well, if confirmed.
        Senator Capito. Yes, I think that is what we would like to
    see. I mean, certainly from my perspective, because I think the
    more transparency we have, more accountability, we can ask the
    right questions and you can give us the right information for
    us to be able to react.
        Thank you both for being here today. Thank you.
        Senator Carper. Senator Capito, thanks so much.
        I have a couple of UC requests and I have a couple of
    questions and we will close it out.
        I would like to ask unanimous consent to submit for the
    record a fact sheet from EPA on the Clean Power Plan that
    states that the agency received 4.3 million public comments
    before finalizing the rule. Is that correct?
        Ms. McCabe. It was four plus million, yes, sir.
        Senator Carper. Did you respond to any of those?
        Ms. McCabe. We responded to every substantive comment,
    Senator.
        Senator Carper. That is a lot. OK, thank you.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. The second unanimous consent request would
    be to submit for the record a variety of other materials that
    include news articles, letters from stakeholders, reports,
    other materials that relate to today's nomination hearing.
        Is there objection? Hearing none, so ordered.
        [The referenced information follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Carper. I am going to come back to the Clean Power
    Plan.
        But before I do that, I love to tell the story of Willie
    Sutton, Willie Sutton who was a famous bank robber back, I
    think, in the Great Depression. He robbed a lot of banks,
    finally got caught. He was dragged before the judge in court,
    and the judge said, Mr. Sutton, why do you rob so many banks?
    He said, that is where the money is.
        When you look at EPA, and the last Administration, two
    Administrations ago and the current Administration, we know we
    have too much carbon in the air, and we have a pretty good idea
    where it is coming from. My understanding is that mobile
    sources are producing about 28 percent of that carbon dioxide.
        I am told that our power plants, power sector, would be
    maybe No. 2 in the pecking order. What would be No. 3?
        Ms. McCabe. As I recall, oil and gas development is--well,
    if you look at the economy, you have mobile sources, power
    generation, and then kind of the rest of our economic activity,
    including commercial buildings and that sort of thing, heating,
    that sort of thing.
        Senator Carper. There has been negotiation going on in
    terms of mobile sources, as you know, between the auto industry
    and a bunch of States, including California, including
    Delaware, to phase down, ratchet down, CO2 emissions,
    greenhouse gas emissions, from our mobile sources. I think
    there are some encouraging developments in this area, as you
    know, and our friends at GM have announced that they are going
    to stop producing gas and diesel-powered vehicles in 2035.
    Ford, I think has set 2030 as a date for stopping the
    development of similar kinds of vehicles. I don't know if that
    was in Europe or the U.S., but it is significant, in any event.
        The Clean Power Plan, I know that there was a stay by the
    Supreme Court several years ago. My understanding, despite that
    stay, the power industry, utility industry writ large, has
    actually met and maybe even exceeded the reductions that were
    called for in the Clean Power Plan. Is that correct?
        Ms. McCabe. That is my understanding, Senator. And it
    doesn't surprise me, it doesn't surprise people. Because the
    EPA rules, as dictated by the Clean Air Act, are supposed to
    focus on where the industry is going, and look at the
    technologies and the innovations and the practice that are
    already out there in the industry and project those forward.
        So we fully expected the power sector to move forward in
    ways that reduce emissions, and indeed they have, even though
    the Clean Power Plan never went into effect.
        Senator Carper. All right. Thank you.
        If I can, Ms. Mallory, a question for you. This is again
    with respect to environmental impact studies under NEPA.
        Are you concerned that the changes, some of the changes and
    revisions, to how we analyze Federal action will undermine our
    Nation's ability to address these and other major challenges?
    Are you concerned that some of the changes that we have talked
    about earlier, to how we analyze Federal actions will undermine
    our Nation's ability to address these and other major
    challenges?
        Ms. Mallory. Thank you, Senator, for that question. That is
    a question that I am very interested, if confirmed, in getting
    to talk to the experts at CEQ, and the NEPA staff, about their
    sense of how the rules are being implemented and the impacts
    that the rules are having right now.
        From the outside looking at what the rules did and the way
    they were structured, I definitely have concerns about them
    being set up in a way that would impact the ability to get the
    information that is necessary for the agencies to make a
    decision.
        Senator Carper. OK, good. Thanks.
        Ms. McCabe, maybe one or two final questions. What lessons,
    if any, can we draw from EPA's experience under the previous
    Administration to improve agency safeguards that protect
    scientific research and the publication of scientific findings?
        Ms. McCabe. Yes, Senator, good science done in an open and
    transparent way with respect for the scientific process and the
    scientists is absolutely essential to good policy. I think that
    many have been concerned at some of the things that happened
    during the prior Administration about the treatment of
    scientists and the use of science in agency decisionmaking
    processes.
        So I think we have already seen the Biden Administration
    make clear that science will be the foundation of policy going
    forward. I know that is the commitment of Secretary Regan. If
    confirmed, it will be mine as well.
        Senator Carper. OK, good. A followup question to that.
    Would you commit to working with this committee in fixing
    scientific integrity at EPA, either by administrative or by
    rule or by legislation, to ensure that abuses of the scientific
    process cannot happen again?
        Ms. McCabe. Senator, if confirmed, I would be more than
    happy to work with this committee and any other members on any
    issues related to making sure that scientific integrity is
    protected.
        Senator Carper. My last question of you, have you ever
    heard the name Thomas Dolby?
        Ms. McCabe. Thomas Dolby? I don't think so.
        Senator Carper. Have you ever heard the term one-hit
    wonder?
        Ms. McCabe. Yes.
        Senator Carper. He was a one-hit wonder.
        Ms. McCabe. OK.
        Senator Carper. Whenever we talk about science, I think of
    him. Because his one hit was, She Blinded Me With Science.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Carper. We don't want to be blinded by science; we
    want to be guided by science. We want to be guided by science
    as we go forward.
        Are there any more questions? Anybody out there in web land
    want to ask a question? All right.
        Let me just say, a real thanks to our witnesses today for
    joining us. Thank you for your life's work in the past and your
    willingness to sign on for another tour. We will see how things
    go forward. I wish you luck. We hope personally that we are
    able to move your nominations and to work with our Republican
    colleagues in that regard.
        If there are no more questions, I have one more unanimous
    consent request, Senator Capito, that Senators are able to
    submit materials for the hearing record which will be open for
    2 weeks until the close of business on Wednesday, March 17th.
        If there are no more questions for today, members may
    submit followup written questions for the record, we call those
    QFRs, by 4 p.m. on Wednesday, March 10th. The nominees should
    respond to those questions by 10 a.m. on Wednesday, March 17th.
    So we are looking for responses by 10 a.m. on Wednesday, March
    17th.
        Anything else?
        Senator Capito. No. Just thank you both, very much. We
    thank your loyal supporters back there. I know sometimes it is
    harder on them than on you.
        Senator Carper. Again to your spouses, thank you. President
    Biden recently visited Robert Dole, Bob Dole, a great hero,
    great Senator from Kansas, who sat in one of these hearing
    rooms I think in this building many years ago when his wife had
    been nominated, I think by George W. Bush, to be a cabinet
    secretary.
        And her husband introduced her at the hearing to his
    colleagues. Robert Dole, who had a wicked sense of humor, said
    at the hearing, you may recall, he said, ``I regret that I have
    but one wife to serve my country.'' And so to your spouses,
    thank you for your willingness to share your spouses and your
    loved ones. We thank you for being with us today. God bless.
        With that, this hearing is closed.
        [Whereupon, at 12:24 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]