>> thank you. the reason i smiled when you said sears roebuck is my dad worked there and hardware for many years so it brought back a very nice memory. >> i was in division division division i, two and three you can tell them. >> so your question was about the new challenges that we face that epa and that has been our management challenge in trying to put together this budget. wenders did the president's strong call colin actually i very much agree with that we just have to find efficiencies and do what americans are doing which is trying to find ways to get our job done on lower budgets. that is fair and i think we should be at epa embracing that in being part of it. i just want to know for example on toxics which i do and we haven't identified as a real area of focus and concern. we have also called for modernizing our nation's toxic chemicals. i am still hopeful that we will get around to that soon, the congress will take up continue

its work there. but we have increased our funding for toxics in this proposed budget. it is a plus-up of $60 million to deal with some of the issues he mentioned including, and we are really proud of using the existing laws to challenge confidentiality claims where we can. we are going to add some people simply to do the legal work of challenging these come in the still open up the window shades of you willing to let scientists see what is in some of these products. that takes legal resources though because there are challenges under the law. so we have made cuts, but we have tried to preserve and actually in some areas increase those places where we believed with the challenges we see before us, we really need to increase our resources. >> mr. chairman, i was in the cab today in the cabdriver didn't know what i do for a living buddy asked me where i was from. i said i was from minnesota and he asked me via fish?

he said do you fish in the potomac? he turned around and gave me this light smile and he said you think i'm crazy? we have no idea whether they are boy fish or or girl first and what kind of fish they are. the cabdriver use the word into canned disruptor. we have our work to do to protect future generations. thank you. >> mr. kohl? >> thank you very much mr. chairman. i have a couple of specific questions one in particular a colleague asked and i have more general one that he asked me to put to you and this is mr. young from alaska. i'm going to read the question and he asked were due process is an basic in basic notions of fairness considered when you rescinded a properly issued permit on the desert rock power plant. that bill has said this plant will be the cleanest coal plant in the united states. this doesn't mean clean air

standards within a coal plant be able to do so going forward? i want to tell you ahead of time i don't know this issue particularly well but he particularly asked he have an opportunity to address it. >> is that a new mexico? >> again i wish i could tell you more. aegis of the desert rock our plan. >> i believe he is talking about a title v petition for a coal-fired power plant. >> this is a native american angle to it as well. there was a tribe that was going to benefit financially it is gone at. >> we had significant petitions and concerns raised by the state of new mexico and downwind areas that were very concerned that this plan will contribute to regional haze, the visibility issues over the grand canyon as well as some significant additional pollution issues. i could get more information for you. >> please do. i appreciate that very much.

at one other specific question and that is on drinking water issues. what is the epa doing right now to assist small water systems and meeting compliance on the safe water drinking act? >> our work there continues. i've had many discussions with the chairman about that very issue. we have two roles. the first is to put out health-based standards but the other calm the state drinking water act acknowledge is that there is a portability issues. so we are looking at both. we have encountered some amount of persistence understandably from communities who say because i choose to live in a rural area or small town doesn't mean i choose to have water that doesn't meet federal standards. that is a tough tough spot to be an. so we tend to err on the side of trying to bring resources to communities to meet the standards although we are increasingly looking at providing guidance on affordability as well. i don't think we have finalized

the guidance. >> let me ask her more general question i don't mean this to be adversarial. i really don't. i want to give you an opportunity to state a broader case. as was mentioned earlier in some of the questions we have an awful lot of amendments on cr one and obviously at epa, and i have to say when i go home i get more questions about your agency and concerns than they it do any agency in the federal federal government and this would have run the gamut. if it is farmers in the southwestern part of my district they are working want to regulate dust in the air. you can't farm in southwest oklahoma without having dust in the air. if it is oil and gas people again my friend mr. hench and i disagree on hydraulic, as a matter of fact we all waste is agree on hydraulic begin a recognized legitimacy in the issue he raises particularly in areas that haven't had oil and gas activities on the scale we have seen for decades. in oklahoma we have hydraulic

fracturing is not a new technology. we think we regulated very well. we have been using it since the late 1940s and we think they ought to talk at the state level to whether regulators who do this. but i have a whole industry that worries they are on the verge of having a federal regime they have never had to deal with impose upon them when it is a practice they have been doing safely for a long time. and i've got communities that come to me continually and saying they keep raising the standards on water and we get unfunded mandates. so while you pointed out in your testimony the environment is bipartisan and it was nixon that created the epa and roosevelt the national park system. air and water is better today than it was 20 years ago and i think everybody appreciates that but somehow, this administration has whether deliberately or not, stumbled into a situation where it is becoming very ideological and very partisan. is that because they think the

science or the technology has changed so much or is it again, we clearly have a clash here in an area that we don't need to clash so are you being more aggressive and are you going further? i would ask you to sort of reflect a little bit about why the split controversies happening around the agency. >> i wish i had the benefit of history so i could look back and reflect on these times, but i will say this. is fair to say that there is a backlog especially under the clean air act but not only under the clean air act. standard-setting that has been overdue for a while, either because the previous administration and again not to be adversarial, set the standard and the courts overturned it. that was the case for mercury and other toxics in the air or transport of pollution from sort of the western half of the country because of course the

air blows from west to east. the standards. >> or north to south. >> i should've said in general. there is always an exception. so there is a backlog of updating of standards under the clean air act that none of the standards are without cost. it is my job as administrator to do and make sure that the analyses show that they are done in a way that is transparent that protects first and foremost public health but don't surprise business, but give them a clear set of rules to operate by. we have been in the state system are quite sometime. the other issue quite frankly, in any of them, and i make this offer with some trepidation that many of them i think have to do with our ability to communicate what is really going on inside the walls of the epa to people who shouldn't spend most of their time worrying about that, especially with the agricultural community. we have endeavored to redouble

our efforts with usea to communicate better. for example on course particulate matter which most people would call dust and parts of rural americom, there has been no regulatory change proposed. there has been a study in the study interestingly enough said he gets equal rate to retaining the current standards as it does to changing them and there has been absolutely no regulatory decision made. we have committed to listening sessions. we just had a bunch in iowa and missouri about that very matter so i think we need to find ways to get out and speak to people where they are and explain to them. i absolutely agree with you, americans don't want dirty or air. they don't want certainly farmers rely on clean water for their livelihood. we just need to be able to ensure that we are doing everything we can to communicate with the epa but also in the state.

>> i will have a series of questions later. my time is about that but i would just ask you to sort of recommit or think too that in the agency because i can assure you that the political wedge israel and it has real consequences. so, i don't know if we are going to far too fast. i had opinions on all of these things individually where i've may well differ with the epa but i can just tell you attitudinal he and atmospherically in a political sense there is a reason why all this is of this is happening. and so, sometimes you can be too zealous or to quit. i don't need you personally. i'm just talking about in general. agencies are people in government can get ideas a lot further in the to fashion the public wants them to go. i think we are in that now with epa's concern and we will continue to have clashes in congress must begin fight some more cooperative way to move forward and we have done that in the past. hopefully we can do that going

forward. thank you mr. chairman. >> thank you is to chairman and it is an honor to be a member of the subcommittee. >> is an honor to have have you here. your. >> it only took me 21 years. [laughter] before i begin let me just ask my questions. let me say that in those 21 years i always realize that every day you learn more or you hear things a little differently. for instance listening to the gentleman as he goes back to hear from farmers and ears from people who are drilling for oil or whatever, gas and so on. i don't have in the south bronx and the oil wells and i don't have any farmers. we enjoyed the results of the hard work they do but i don't. and the other hand in looking for balance and how we deal with the epa i had the highest admiration so we know that people want yes whatever balance we need to strike but not to go

back into the days when the air in new york was totally totally totally polluted. i also have a river and for most people if you have a river in the middle of the bronx? yes, the bronx river, great name for it. most of you live in communities where rivers and ponds and waterways suggest away that you take for granted. the whole community worked on cleaning up that river and that ever became a very special place is so important and epa played a major role in making sure the fish came back to the river and animal life in the neighboring area that didn't exist before. again some may say that is a little melodramatic but in the middle of a city with a lot of cement that is extremely important. so as we look forward to the balance of not hurting industry we also have to make sure that

we don't move back on the advances we have made and that is just my comment. thank you so much for your work and for your service and i know the next couple of years will be rough funds. we also stand here ready to assist you in anyway that we can. as you know i've been actively involved in working with the epa on finding ways to address a public health impacts of pcb's in both window coughing and light ballast in our schools. this past week dirk city announced it is moving forward with a 10 year plan to remove and replace all pcb contaminated light ballast throughout the entire school system so i have three quick questions. based on current science and epa guidance issued in december 2010 on pcb contaminated light ballast do you think in order to protect our school children that the city needs to resolve this problem sooner than the announced tenure time period? secondly as you know separately from the light fixture problem

there is also an immediate and real concern about the pcbs contained in window coughing in our schools. could you please take a moment to update me in your efforts and have new york city also addressed this issue as well when the safety of our children is at risk and we cannot afford further delays. lastly is a something that in new york more than other places or so is an issue affecting the nation as a whole? >> thank you. i will start mr. serrano with your last question because i have written down that this is not a new york city only issue. it has to do with basically the generation of the building, so do very quickly summarize pcb's polychlorinated biphenyls cancer-causing are found in dallas and forth lights. they can be found in caulking. they were a component until they were phased out beginning in the 1970s i believe. so i do think that we were

gratified to see the city's announcement that they are going to move forward to address the ballast issue. the reason i came to be is that the city has signed up to do an investigation of pcb in caulking because pcb was showing up in the air and they came to understand i think through quick sampling that the bigger problem might well be these pcb's in the ballast. the ballast would start to leak and pcb's would be concerned. i think our next move is to meet with the city and encourage them 10 years is certainly i think part of their budgetary impetus and they are looking out to their credit and energy efficiency and sort of a dating revamp that would be beneficial to the schools in terms of their operating costs. they may well be able to replace the lights and they alice send me be able to pay for itself or nearly pay for itself over time. we are going to encourage them

to focus on the places where we think there is contamination and leaking so that we don't have some child god for bid or teacher who ends up being on the 10 year side of that. we would like to at least get some assurance that they are triaging this situation but i do think it has been a tremendous set for. the city in general has been dealing with this issue. other areas around the country and we now have guidance on our internet site. it is not a requirement, to help school districts who are dealing with caulking or pcb. >> you enter the last question which i was going to ask you, has a a citibank city ban corporate and you feel that they have. maybe you don't feel that they have. so let me ask you a question. has the city been corporative in moving ahead on this and again, 10 years may be a budget peas, but can we wait 10 years?

should this be dealt with in a much quicker pace? >> i think when you are talking about health issues especially one that is a children's health issue, young body still developing, we don't have a lot of data on how pollution source toxins affect them more or less than adults. urgency is always called for. i've not been dealing with the city and day-to-day negotiations. i would suffice it to say that where they are now is a good thing. they have stepped up after some period of time to say we now know understand that we need to be aggressive here and i don't think we should discount that. our goal now is to ensure that they improved even their 10 year plan which is a wonderful improvement and a step forward to driving make as effective as we can. always with children in mind. always with children and within their budget. the city schools have their own set of challenges and the mayor and officials are quick to point

that out, so we are trying to help them deal with this issue in a way that is protective but also mindful. >> thank you so much. thank you mr. chair. >> mr. flake. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you ms. jackson. this theme seems to be at least on the side of the aisle that there seems to be and i don't know how this can be classified otherwise, and we saw this in response on the cr to overreach why the epa. and just to give you an example, just a couple of weeks ago "the wall street journal" talked about a new rule promulgated just six weeks ago by the epa that finalized a rule that subjects dairy producers to the spill prevention control and countermeasure program. this was created in 1970 i believe to deal with oil spills

near shorelines and navigable waterways. if this is done i believe as the epa put it, because of of the percentage of animal fat which is a nonpetroleum oil and milk. now this requires from my understanding that mitigation measures be put in, they dairies train first responders and cleanup for a call, bill containment facilities, worms and if possible. i can tell you i grew up milking a cow and i would have loved to have told my dad sorry, there is no berm here. i'm not going to do it. [laughter] but how with a straight face can anyone in the epa say that given all the problems and the need as everyone has put it here, to maintain the progress that we have made in a budget environment like this, how can

the epa promulgated new rules like this? we understand it is not going to cost the epa much but it cost the dairy industry and the farmers a lot and those who produce the cheese and other milk products are required to be in this as well. i mean what is next? tzipi cups in the house cafeteria? what are we going to do? you are nodding here. but please explain how that is not overreach. we seem to dislike any criticism of anything the epa is doing. it is not overreach. we are not going too far. is this not overreach? >> well cert is not accurate. i can just reach you from the letter to the editor that we wrote that i think "the wall street journal" has yet to find time or space to publish. epa has already proposed to exclude milk storage tanks from the spill prevention program. this commonsense decision was announced months before "the wall street journal" chose to

write their inaccurate article. moreover epa stayed enforcement compliance requirements for tanks pending the final agency action. is widely known that epa will take action on this spring and i can give you a personal update. epa has already sent the draft final exclusion to the white house so we are on schedule to you that which we announced months ago. i have no idea why "the wall street journal" chose to inaccurately report. we have tried to fix the record but i don't believe they published his. >> it sounds like the role has been promulgated and now you are just looking to maybe make exemptions do it. would that not be accurate? >> that is not entirely accurate serve because when we promulgated a rule at the same time we made clear that we were announcing and proposing an exemption so it does take a bit of time for the regulatory process to ensure the exemption is through and to be sure no

producer was subject to a rule that we did not intend for them to be subject to. we also know that we want to force it so there is no period of time for anyone has been subject to worry about whether milk and spilled milk was going to be regulated. we have announced that we don't believe that is an area where regulation is needed. >> but it would be accurate to say the epa has spent a considerable amount of time, getting this rule in and the first-place. >> the rule is that oil. the rule is for inland oil facilities that meet containment to ensure our waterways are protected but they wanted to ensure there was the exemption for milk on the facts and no. >> but there has been no effort to include or two subjects dairy producers to this bill prevention control and countermeasure program. no effort than? >> no, sir. there has been an effort to exempt them but there are rules under sbc see if we can just use

the shorthand, to deal with preventing spills of large amounts of oil into inland waterways. that is part of our requirement that because this unintended consequence came up a epa announced an exemption so they there would be no confusion. >> albright but it is still inaccurate to say this was not considered by the epa and time was not spent to subject because there was some, there was a rule finalized two subjects dairy producers to this so it is now being considered or exempted? >> at the same time the rule is finalized for oil containment and storage facilities, large ones, i think over million gallons but i can doublecheck that, epa proposed to ensure that not was exempted. so there has been time and effort in my mind, in my opinion than on just the opposite of overreach which is under reach. we made it clear through our rules that we were not going to

or weren't intending to have milk is a substance regulated regardless of whether it is over a million gallons. you asked why. i cannot entirely buy into this idea of overreach. many of of the things epa is accused of are in my mind attempts to misinform people about what is actually happening. what is happening on the ground as we are not intending nor i do believe will ever regulate mouth is and is a rule becomes final. that will be quite clear. >> let me move to arizona here. arizona counties and municipalities are very worried about this review of the ambient air quality, lowering the course particular it standard. you talked about this before. it is because, i understand, the clean air scientific advisory committee has recommended that the standard needs lowered or raised to better guess you would

say. is that correct? is that why the epa is moving ahead with consideration of changing the standard? >> the actual language in the scientific advisory board document says -- i don't have the exact quote but i will try to find it for you -- equally possible to retain the current standards. there is a current standard now or to lower it so as far as i know they have not made a determination or erect iraq in the nation to lower the standard to epa. >> we know that they have made recommendation. is it safe to say that epa tries to or often allah's recommendation from the scientific advisory committee? >> we are required by law to consult with the case that. there's only been one case when epa did not follow the recommendations. that was the ozone promulgated at the end of the administration which we are now considering. >> this clean-air advisory.

>> scientific advisory council. >> they recommended that epa establish a new course particulate standard for broback does but my understanding is the epa rejected that information. is that correct? >> my understanding sir and i will get the backup is that their recommendation says that they support either retaining or revising so they did not take a position but i will make sure and get you those exact language is. >> the concern would be that epa is following one recommendation and not following the other recommendation. the one recommendation would pose considerable, considerable cost and the other recommendation made might spare the cities and municipalities that cost. the new standard or the separate standard for rural dust was to be adopted so i concern would be that the epa would be picking and choosing which recommendations to follow and

only following those that impose significant costs and the problem is we have been through this again and again. pretend epa comes in and says we are going to change the standard there has already been lawsuits. there are far defends actions forcing cities, counties to take action to reach a new standard and while they are in the middle of trying to comply with us here comes the epa again saying you might have a new standard. and it would behoove all of us to sit back and say all right can we have a tenure standard or whatever and here are the benchmarks and here is what we have to reach instead of putting the cities and counties through this wringer every couple of years that they find very difficult to comply with. that is my concern on that but i will wait for the next round for the others. thank you chairman. >> thank you mr. chairman and i don't have much of a voice today. thanks for your tolerance. i would like to start

ms. jackson by associating myself with the remarks of mr. kohl. i have never heard the vitriol during town hall meetings that i hear towards the epa from everyone from coalminers to ranchers to people who do believe clay bits are changing but believe that the epa's have heavy hand towards regulation of greenhouse gases will put us out of business and suspend those jobs and to countries that do not have environmental regulations that match ours, thereby causing greater pollution elsewhere in the world that will eventually get to us as well. most of us have more confidence in our own country's ability to manage environmental issues with

the latest technologies that is capable elsewhere in the world. so i think that we should concentrate in trying to keep jobs and technology in the united states so we can actually be the leader in those areas and export those technologies elsewhere in the world. so please do take careful heed of mr. kohl's remarks. i believe they were right on target. i do have some questions for yot in writing. how many regulatory actions is your agency currently undertaking under the clean air act or the clean water act? >> i don't have the exact number in front of me. we classify regulations according to their economic the economic significance. i believe over the course of the year. are you asking me be about this year?

>> yes, maam. >> i think we have two or three economically significant requirements, maybe 400 clean air act that are in our regulatory calendar. >> are you complying with president obama's january 18 executive order that requires agencies to take into account, and this is among other things, the costs of cumulative regulation? >> yes, maam. >> and you have some data that you can share on that? >> will we have been asked to do a look back, a retractable of backup regulation to determine impacts and we have begun that scoping process but i don't have anything to share at this time burkas be and when will you? >> i can't give you a date today but we will get you a date. >> and when you get is a date could you also give us the information? >> we will get you a date when

we have information, absolutely. >> thank you. what criteria do you use to determine when a regulatory change must follow the open rulemaking process for word guidance is provided? i can tell you we hear a lot of concerns that guidance has trodden the scope of the clean water act in ways that skirt the rulemaking process. >> we follow the administrative procedure act in determining what should be a regulation and of course once we have a regulation we make a determination about a regulation. it goes through full public comment, usually a very long and detailed ross us. and we are pretty proud of the fact that we have been given a transparent rulemaking process. the guidance is those issues which generally where epa needs to offer guidance and clarification doesn't rise to

the level of the rule and increasingly epa's guidance is subject to public comment as well. for example you heard perhaps earlier discussion about the mountaintop removal mining and surface mining guidance. >> thank you. i want to follow up on the conversation on hydraulic fracking. some of it occurs commonly in my state and there is never been a connection of proof and in spite of frequent visiting of the hydraulic fracking issue between a diminution and water quality and modern hydraulic fracking techniques but also point out to those that are concerned about it that especially those that are concerned about "the new york times" article that the former director of the pennsylvania department of environmental quality and the former governor, governor

rendell, submitted a rebuttal to "the new york times" that "the new york times" wouldn't print because it was too long. but, it addressed many of the concerns that were raised in the article. and of course the article also was not a peer review or scientific expression of hydraulic fracking. so i would refer to those who concerned about it to former governor rendell and the former director in the state. following up on that in using that as a segue, can you tell me what does the epa to that states are incapable of doing through their own departments of environmental quality? >> well, maam as you know water moves the claim states in the air moves between states and countries and so i think epa's

most important role and over its history epa often help states to set up their program. now we have moved more into a role where we oversee programs to ensure that the clean water act is implemented the same way for example across the country. but where i think epa has made some tremendous progress and where we have work to do is on regional issues, on places for example that transport pollution from that went west to the easter water quality issues that are regional in a chirp that require the cooperation of several states. i think the national environmental body as well as research. epa has a very fulsome member mental research budget. most states can afford that. ice to run a state program and if we didn't have the money to put in research we would like, we still set international standards for risk assessment and our work still, i am always

amazed where. c-span: internationally almost every slide is an environmental issue attributed to many of the scientists and researchers of epa. car standards, could go on and on but the states are extremely important in in the day-to-day implementation of armor and the laws. they write permits and they enforce the law but the epa is one of oversight as well as scientific knowledge and working on regional issues. >> you believe the research is your highest priority expenditure at epa? >> our mission is protection of public health and environment so i wouldn't call it our highest priority but i would say increasingly environmental issues are so complex that you need very good science. so we spend a lot of money and a significant portion of our budget on science issues weather and applied research or in grants to research. >> are there issues about pirates pirate geisinger

funding? look at what states can do versus what they cannot do or what you believe they are incapable of doing and prioritize for the epa to do the things you believe the states are incapable of doing as well as epa is capable of doing it. >> we have seven priorities that i establish at epa. one of them is working in partnership with our states because many of our managers including myself came from state government and know very well that there is a synergy, a synergistic relationship. there are also times quite frankly where we don't agree and the laws carp out of role for epa and implementation of environmental laws that we must also uphold. we are ultimately accountable for implementation of those laws. >> there are state and tribal groups that form commissions

such as grand canyon, air visibility and transport commission. that is not the exact name of it but it was the western governors tribe near the grand canyon and others who work go gently together to address the quality issues in the air shed around the grand canyon and i know there are similar interest date and enter tribal interagency efforts around the country. do you look to those as a primary driver lord. look more to the federal -- as a primary driver? >> the true -- the ones i'm thinking of are authorized. there is a regional problem. visibility is a regional problem and so there are several regional groups that protect

class 1 visibility areas around the country and they are authorized under law and we work closely with them. speeding since president obama became president looks to be in terms of percentage increases the epa has received the highest for senate increase in its budget. do you agree? >> certainly it is the highest increase of any epa budget under president obama in fy10. yes. >> so as i understand it was about 39% to the previous administration's budget and if we are currently proposing a 30% cut it really amounts to a 24% increase over previous epa urges. do you agree with my math? >> topline, yes. it is essentially so, yes. >> you are still dealing with about a quarter increase over previous administrations.

>> the vast majority of that money going out of the states either for the great lakes or for water and wastewater infrastructure grants, with a person that was important as investing in water and wastewater infrastructure but in a tough year we have had to basically give some of that back reluctantly but we are part of the team and we think we have to make those tough choices. >> among those were the revolving funds? >> that is what i was referring to. excuse me. you are being very generous. i will yield that. i do want to pursue that in another round. thank you. >> the gentleman from ohio. >> thank you mr. chairman. it is nice to see a madam administrator can them and want to thank you for the courtesy you extended to me personally and to my constituents and also on the issue of the great lakes and want to commend the president and you for the emphasis placed on the great lakes. i am sorry that the

distinguished ranking member of the full committee isn't here anymore but i think he was engaging in a little bit of a revisionist history. is actually this of that is the first administration that has put real money behind the great lakes cleanup initiatives. we sort of limped along at 50 million here and 50 million there and the president's original vision of 475 million would have actually let us move forward in a lot of important areas. if the gentleman from washington is short on species we would be happy to send him and they see lamprey or the carp and perhaps he can repopulate some of his areas. i would say to the distinguished ranking member of the subcommittee that i will bring him one and maybe we will check it out. [laughter] >> out that it is a tough one to pull