Hearing of the Senate Environmental and Public Works Committee: Oversight of EPA's Decision to Deny the California Waiver (Panel I)
Interview
(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)
SEN. BERNARD SANDERS (I-VT): Thank you very much, Madame Chair, and thank you for calling this important hearing. And I want to thank the governors who will be speaking in a few minutes, including the governor of the state of Vermont -- Jim Douglas. We appreciate his being his being here very much. And I want to thank all of the states who are joining with California to say that it is absolutely imperative that we as a nation go forward in tackling one of the great environmental crises that faces not only our country but the entire world.
Madame Chair, there was an article in The New York Times just yesterday, and this is how it began. The headline is, U.S. Given Poor Marks on the Environment. First paragraph: A new international ranking of environmental performances puts the United States at the bottom of the Group of Eight industrialized nations, and 39th among the 149 countries on the list.
In Bali, where our representative went to speak, to defend the position of the Bush administration, that representative was actually booed. Booed. Unprecedented. All over the world, people are wondering what is going on in the United States of America, in so many areas but certainly in terms of the environment.
Before this committee, we have had some of the leading scientists, in the world, who have come forward. And they have said, global warming is an extraordinary crisis and if we do not begin to move aggressively to reverse global warming, this entire planet is in danger. And yet we have an administration which, I must say, will go down in American history as the worst administration in so many areas, certainly including environmental protection. This administration has taken the word environment out of Environmental Protection Agency wording.
Now, if I am correct, and I am pretty sure that I am, it was only last year that this administration actually admitted that global warming was a reality. All over the world, countries are trying to move forward to reverse greenhouse gas emissions, and we have an administration that was reluctant to even acknowledge the reality of global warming.
I want to applaud California, Vermont and all of those states, who have decided to provide the leadership that should be coming from the federal government but is not.
As others have said, if you can't go forward, at least get out of the way. In Vermont we take the environment seriously. We are an outdoor state. We want to see our streams, our lakes, kept clean. We want our kids to grow up in a world where there is not flooding, where there is not drought. So if you can't do the right thing, at least get out of the way of those states, like California, Vermont and others, that do want to go forward.
The law, in my view, could not be clearer. Under the Clean Air Act, California is given the explicit right to petition the EPA to implement tougher air pollution standards. Once California's waiver is granted, other states can then implement the California standard. The state of California waited for an answer on its waiver request for two years. Two years. And then, in a political stunt, the EPA administrator called a phone press conference with reporters to announce EPA's decision to deny the waiver. No decision document to back up the denial; just a press release and a letter to the governor of California. Unprecedented.
So Madame Chair, thank you very much for calling this important hearing. I'm glad to join you in your legislation that would immediately grant California's request for a waiver. And I know that this committee will continue to look into exactly how this ill- conceived decision was made.
Thank you, Madame Chair.
(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)
SEN. SANDERS: Thank you, Madame Chair.
Administrator Johnson, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has told us, as you know, that global warming is a huge crisis facing our planet and that very bold action is needed in the United States and throughout the world if in fact we're going to cut greenhouse gas emissions and reverse global warming.
As I mentioned earlier, however, a new international ranking of environmental performance puts the United States at the bottom of the Group of Eight industrialized nations and way behind many other countries in moving forward in environmental issues.
Now, if I am correct -- and I believe I am -- it was only last year that the Bush administration actually admitted that global warming was a reality.
So my questions to you are, number one -- yes and no would be fine -- do you believe that global warming is a major crisis facing our planet?
MR. JOHNSON: Well, Senator, one, as I said, I believe that it is a serious problem --
SEN. SANDERS: Is it a major crisis?
MR. JOHNSON: I don't know what you mean by "major crisis."
SEN. SANDERS: Well, the usual definition of the term "major crisis" would be fine. (Laughter.)
MR. JOHNSON: (Chuckles.) Well, I understand --
SEN. SANDERS: In other words, I ask these questions not just to put you on the spot but to provide some background as to how you reached your decision. If in fact, as I believe is the case, the Bush administration does not see this as a very serious problem, it is quite understandable why you would reject California's waiver.
I am not hearing you acknowledge that you believe that global warming is in fact a major --
MR. JOHNSON: No, I said that global warming is a serious issue facing our nation and facing our globe.
SEN. SANDERS: Okay.
MR. JOHNSON: And I also said that under the law, under Section 209, it says I am to judge.
SEN. SANDERS: That's not what I'm asking. All right, let me ask you another question.
MR. JOHNSON: That's what I am to judge --
SEN. SANDERS: Do you happen to agree -- do you agree with almost all of the scientific community that global warming is created by human activity? Is it man-made?
MR. JOHNSON: It is my understanding what the scientific community says is that there are both human activity as well as naturally occurring, but that the current levels and projected levels are due largely to human activity. That's my understanding.
SEN. SANDERS: If I understand it, the IPCC has said that the current situation is 90 percent likely caused by human activity. Do you agree with them?
MR. JOHNSON: I agree with the IPCC, yes.
SEN. SANDERS: -- statement on that? Okay. Do you agree that bold action is needed to reverse global warming?
MR. JOHNSON: I believe that action needs to be taken to reverse global warming, both here in the United States and around the world.
SEN. SANDERS: Bold action is the word I used.
MR. JOHNSON: As I said, action.
SEN. SANDERS: Action. Okay. If in fact bold or if in fact action is taken, why do you think it took six years before the Bush administration acknowledged the reality of global warming?
MR. JOHNSON: I'd like to correct to the best of my recollection what I recall the president acknowledging as far back as 2001 that it was a problem, and certainly be happy to, for the record, to make sure that that is clarified.
SEN. SANDERS: But you will agree that the Bush administration was far behind virtually every other industrialized country in acknowledging the problem and moving to deal with the problem?
MR. JOHNSON: No, I would not --
SEN. SANDERS: You would not?
MR. JOHNSON: I would not agree with that and I would not agree with that because as a nation, we have since 2001 been investing now over $37 billion in addressing this issue.
SEN. SANDERS: I hear that you do not agree with that and that's fine. Now, in terms of serious health problems, what we hear from the leading scientists of the world, that if we do not address global warming, we're going to see an increase in dangerous flooding, we're going to see draught, we're going to see an increased danger, which we are already seeing, of forest fires, we're going to see hunger because of the loss of farmland, we're going to see wars being fought over limited resources, and we're going to see an increase in such insect- caused diseases as malaria. That sounds to me like we may be facing some serious health problems. Do you disagree with that assertion?
MR. JOHNSON: Well, again, as I was trying to say to Senator Cardin, that under the Clean Air Act, there are specific definitions and certainly interpretations of the definitions and of the law focused on endangerment --
SEN. SANDERS: No, I'm not asking that. Just -- excuse me, we don't have much time -- just as a human being, just as a human being, do you happen to think that flooding -- the impact of flooding, the impact of drought, the impact of forest fires, hunger, wars, malaria and other insect-borne diseases -- do you think that that constitutes serious health problems?
MR. JOHNSON: Well, as administrator, I consider myself to be a human being, but I also agree that those are serious issues that require -- and that's why I believe that there is a compelling need to address them.
SEN. SANDERS: Well, I think, frankly, your response tells us why the entire world is wondering what is happening in the United States on this issue. Thank you very much, mister.
(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)
SEN. SANDERS: Thank you, Madame Chair.
Mr. Administrator, my understanding is that a technical document, especially of the magnitude of the California waiver situation, would usually be prepared and made ready for distribution before a decision of this magnitude is announced so that the legal basis for a decision can be defended and can be well understood. Was it just a coincidence therefore that you announced your decision regarding the California waiver at a press event at 6:30 P.M. on December 19, on the evening that President Bush signed the energy bill? It seems like a strange time to be making that announcement.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, I'd be pleased to explain again. The way the agency process works is briefings and then ultimately I make a decision, I turn to the staff and direct them to write the decision document. I turned to the staff, directed them to --
SEN. SANDERS: Was it a coincidence that you happened to make a decision at 6:30 P.M. right after the president signed the energy bill? It seems to be rather strange timing.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, let me explain why. That late afternoon -- and I don't recall what time -- but my press office started receiving phone calls from major newspapers saying that papers had been leaked, and that, at least in their view, that it was misrepresenting what actually was true. And they came to me and I made a judgement call that rather than having inaccurate information, that I would announce the decision. So while that was not my preferred course -- I had a more orderly course of action that I had planned to take of announcement -- I felt compelled that the American people owed what was the truth.
SEN. SANDERS: Just a coincidence that all that happened to occur on the same day that the president signs the energy bill?
MR. JOHNSON: Well, again, I wasn't the person who leaked the information --
SEN. SANDERS: No, no, no, no. Please. Sir, I am asking you a question. The average American would find it rather strange that the head of a major agency at 6:30 P.M. on the evening that the president signs an energy bill -- and you are under oath -- would make this announcement in a press release, rather than as a substantive legal argument on such an important issue.
MR. JOHNSON: Again, I acknowledge that this situation was unique. It was unique in that I --
SEN. SANDERS: And you're saying that it's a coincidence?
MR. JOHNSON: What I said was it's a unique situation. I explained what the situation is. I'd be happy to, in greater detail for the record, if you'd like. And, again, my commitment to the governor, members of this committee, was that I would make a decision by the end of the year. I, as I've already testified, while I was deliberating --
SEN. SANDERS: Mr. Johnson, would you -- could you understand that the American people might be somewhat dubious about your explanation, that just on that particular evening at a press conference on such a lengthy issue, where the governor of California and the American people, it seems to me, are entitled to a lengthy, technical, legal argument as to why that waiver is rejected, 6:30 P.M. press release on the same day the president signs the energy bill?
MR. JOHNSON: Again, I'd be happy to, for the record, explain the circumstances that had happened. I said that the rollout or the release of my decision was unique, but given the circumstances, I felt it was the best decision.
SEN. SANDERS: And the circumstances had nothing to do with the fact that the president was signing the energy bill on that day?
MR. JOHNSON: As I said, I've already described the circumstances. We'll be happy to --
SEN. SANDERS: But you didn't answer my question. Did your release that day have nothing to do with the fact that a few hours before the president signed the energy bill? Nothing to do with it?
MR. JOHNSON: Well, as I said --
SEN. SANDERS: You didn't say, sir. You keep saying, as you said. You didn't say. I'm asking you a simple question. Was it related, was it not?
MR. JOHNSON: Well, as I tried to say that I was aware that Congress was debating this issue whether to change the Clean Air Act. I wasn't sure whether Congress would or would not.
SEN. SANDERS: Madame Chair, I have to tell you --
MR. JOHNSON: I wasn't sure if the president would sign or would not sign, and so I wanted to have --
SEN. SANDERS: You were doubtful whether the president would sign it? Everybody in America knew that he would sign it. And you're the head of the EPA, you were doubtful?
MR. JOHNSON: I wanted to have the advantage of making sure the president had indeed signed the legislation.
SEN. SANDERS: Thank you.
(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)
SEN. SANDERS: I'll do it.
SEN. CARPER: Madame Chair, I would like to have a minute just to maybe illuminate, to add a perspective on this if I could.
SEN. BOXER: Well, if you could after Senator Sanders, and then we're going to the governors, because this is to do with his question and I feel he has the right to follow up on this.
SEN. SANDERS: Mr. Administrator, I would very much appreciate, for all of our goods, if you could rephrase your answer to me. The question -- for your good, as well, because you are under oath.
I hadn't, to be very honest with you -- not seen your press statement, and the first that I've seen it is Senator Boxer's making it public.
There is concern about the politicalization of many aspects of the Bush administration, including the EPA. I asked you if, in fact, it was just a coincidence that at 6:30 in the evening when President Bush signed the energy bill that you, in a press release, released such an important statement as your refusal to grant the California waiver, and you said there were other reasons, that leaks had been taking place and you wanted to respond to what you believed to be inaccurate information. Senator Boxer just made public what we should have known earlier, is your statement, which begins with stating that President -- and I quote -- "President Bush signed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 improving fuel economy" -- this evening he did -- "and helping reduce U.S. dependence on oil. This bill delivers energy security benefits," et cetera, et cetera. The beginning of your statement in terms of why you rejected the California waiver has everything to do with the president signing the energy bill. How can you come here and tell us that it was just a coincidence?
MR. JOHNSON: As I have tried to explain, that there were two events happening in a parallel path. One, I was deliberating on Section 209 in the waiver petition, and the parallel path, you all were debating whether to change the Clean Air Act, including that section. When it became clear that you were not going to change, therefore would not impact the decision that was before me -- and in fact, you did not change Section 209 --
SEN. SANDERS: Let me ask you this. I --
MR. JOHNSON: -- then -- then I was clear that I was able to make my decision on the Clean Air Act --
SEN. SANDERS: You've just told us that the reason you made the decision at 6:30 on that particular evening is you wanted to set the record straight, that there was misleading information. Why don't you begin your statement by saying, look, this is just a coincidence; the president signed the bill, but I want to make it clear there's misleading information, and that's why I'm making my statement at 6:30 in the evening? Instead, what you do is you congratulate the Congress and the president for passing the energy bill. That is your justification for rejecting the California waiver.
MR. JOHNSON: Well, I certainly appreciate your advice on press statements, but --
SEN. SANDERS: It's not my advice; that's what you said here.
MR. JOHNSON: -- but I said -- and again, it's factually correct that, in fact, Congress had passed. It's a good thing. I stand by that statement then, I stand by it now, as I point out. And then what I said was that -- and if you'll read the rest of the statement -- "in light of the global nature" -- I'm quoting -- "of the climate change, earlier this evening I called Governor Schwarzenegger to inform him that I had found that his state does not meet the compelling and extraordinary conditions needed to grant a waiver of federal preemption."
SEN. SANDERS: That's exactly right, but that is in the middle of this paragraph. You begin your statement by recognizing the passage and the signing -- is that correct -- of the energy bill. Is that correct?
MR. JOHNSON: Again --
SEN. SANDERS: Did Senator Boxer read the statement that you made? Let's be clear. Did she?
MR. JOHNSON: Yes, yes.
SEN. SANDERS: Okay.
MR. JOHNSON: You have the document before you.
SEN. SANDERS: I have it right before me.
MR. JOHNSON: Mm-hmm.
SEN. SANDERS: Just wanted to make sure.
MR. JOHNSON: Yeah.
SEN. SANDERS: All right.
Senator Boxer, thank you very much.
(BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT)
Source