polluters who otherwise would not have any controls on them. and last but not least that the american people believe that there are lots of laws on the books that aren't enforced. when they look at something like a deepwater horizon spill or other environmental catastrophes they say we are not sure we need new laws. we need people to enforce the laws that are on the books and protect our air and water quality so while i have great respect for the deliberations of this body of course and i'm happy to sit down and meet with any of the members individually or together, i think we also must bring that to bear as we look at what is the appropriate role in an independent agency. >> look as an example at navigable waters. they tend there was to prevent the epa from extending the definition of what navigable waters is to all waters of the united states. ..

>> more than the epa can and

should do is offer clarity in the law. we are not looking to change the law or the supreme court of ruling. we respect them both. we can certainly use our expertise to offer clarity to protect the waters. >> i don't want you out controlling and regulating. the state of idaho can do that. let me ask another question. this has been an ongoing problem that the work force with the mission and goals. this is a management issue. where are you on that and what's your take on that recommendation or that concern by the bao?

>> we are planning and we have moved around in the last budget that i've been involved in our agency talent to address concerns. when we look at programs, part of what we're reflecting is the need to move talent around. i think that we have to manage our people efficiently, and i disagree with the -- i'm so sorry. that we aren't doing that right now. i also think we have to work closely and realize that some of our tools, the 1982 position management system. i don't believe we should be going back to try to make a new one. i think we should look at the programs that we have right now and do what we have done which is constantly strengthening our capabilities and working within

a strategic planning process that we've given real time and attention to assure our resources match up with the priorities. >> but the gao disagrees with you? >> i think they do in part. i don't want to say that i don't agree with them. i certainly believe we've done that consistent with opm guidelines. but we probably have some differences in terms of management and i believe the local management of resources whether here or in the programs or adjustments that we make as part of the strategic planning has done a lot of that work. >> another question, during the debate on the cr, we were criticized for undermining because we took it to the '08 level in the drinking water fund. your proposal decreases by about $1 billion. are you destroying the revolving

loan fund? >> half as much as you. [laughter] >> we will be doing half as many cuts as proposed in cr one. it is found as a tough decision. when we are being asked to cut back, we know there is some money that will hit the streets from the recovery act. it's almost all been obligated. >> much has been obligated but unspent, but it was supposed to be spent what two years ago? >> it's in the state. these with contracting issues. i think it's all under contract. but the actually -- the obligation is close to 100%. the spending might be around 60% -- 75%. >> why did you decide on the deductions? where the number come from?

>> the number was designed to reflect a significant cut, but to try to keep us above the last bush budget which we felt was so low that we increased it in the recovery act as well as in the fy 10 proposals. we are at $2.5 billion for the funds, that's higher than we saw before the president's administration. >> in the recovery act, you got essentially six years worth of '08 funding levels for the state revolving loan fund. as most of it is obligated, some of it, i think about a billion and a half is unspent and obligated. there's still $1.7 billion in unobligated funds that are unobligateed for the state revolving loan fund and last year's appreciation. is the reduction due to the fact that we have all of these

unobligated funds sitting out there? i mean that's what we looked at in the budget. we were trying to find savings. believe it or not, there was a lot of people in government that don't belief this -- >> that you decided to come up with the unobligated funds. >> we can look at the money on the street. it is a pipeline. having run a state agency, the money goes out in loans to local governments, to municipalities, to small systems, if it's not forgiven, in some cases it is, it comes back in. our goal over time will be to provide 5% of the need through a combination of direct appropriations and paybacks. but this is a tough year. we recognize that in a tough year, we may not be able to fund

the 5%. it was a cut. it was simply not intended to be as drastic of a cut as has been discussed in the house. >> mr. chairman, just briefly. >> sure. >> on the revolving funds, this money goes back to the state. and these funds are loaned out and then they are paid back to the revolving fund. so from time to time if you increase the revolving fund funding, they can make more loans, and sometimes when they get more money coming back. you can make a reasonable cut here. there's no question about that. because we added a lot of money in the stimulus bill for the revolving funds. the other thing that the committee agreed to and you as ranking member helped on this was that some of the money can be forgiven for the low income communities. what i worry about is now that we have taken away earmarks for

stag grants, a lot of these poor communities can't -- are going to have a hard time doing the projects without some grant money. so i hope we can figure out a way. maybe the department has already done this, of putting this -- a pot of money together that will be competed for across the country by low-income communities to do projects that will help them deal with their problems. if not, they simply not will do the projects. that's the reality of it. and the environment will suffer from it. i wanted to give that little history. >> i will have some more questions in the second round. mr. moran? >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. administrator jackson, you have testified that from 1990 through 2020 that benefits of implementing the clean air act are projected to exceed the cosby a fact of 30 to one.

benefits 30 times the cost. we also have epa's current report the clean air act will save $2 trillion by 2020. now the growing talking point that we heard on the house floor and so on from the other side that epa's regulations are destroying the economy. we have seen the opposite. in clinton administration, they made serious sides by issuing rules on the ozone, refineries, industries, and et, and yet with all of that environmental protection, regulation, the economy grow at an unprecedented rate during the clinton administration. 23 million new jobs, three successive year of surpluses. the point is we achieved substantial surpluses while very actively enforcing the clean air and clean water acts.

now administrator jackson, could you walk us through the agency cost-benefit analysis. it does seem to me it's the hard of whether this is a prudent investment or not. >> certainly, sir. we have to do this every time we do a rule. the clean air act that you cited talked about $2 trillion of benefits in 2020. in 2010, 160,000 cases of premature mortality avoided, 130,000 heart attacks avoided, 13 million lost workdays avoided. certainly economic impact. 2.4 asthma attacks. essentially, there are two ways that environmental regulation help the economy. first is preventive medicine. we took all of the health care cost, however they are born through our economy and zeroed them out and said now spend all of the money that you would have spent dealing with the asthma,

asthmatic child or your own heart disease issues and put them into the economy. spend that money somewhere. and the other way is that i think it is now generally accepted that the air pollution control sector of our market is a world leader, it is net positive in our u.s. trade balance, it generates $11 billion surplus in our trade balance. we export air pollution control environment to countries like china who need it. because we have invested and have the resources, the innovation, and expertise in this country and have stepped up to deal with air pollution as a challenge. >> thank you. i've got this information, boy, we have wonderful staff. i don't know what we would do without them, mr. chairman. they are so good. but it turns out that the bush administration did an analysis they thought the results were going to be the regulations were more costly than the benefit.

but, in fact, the health benefits alone were substantially greater than the cost. by a ratio of 16 to 1. from 1997 to 2007, the bush white house estimated that epa regulations promulgated during those years cost between $32 and $35 billion. but the health benefits alone were between $83 billion and $592 billion. so interesting. let me ask one of the -- particular question here on the chesapeake bay if i could. you mention the chesapeake and the pugh jet sound and great lakes. i'll mention pugit sound, we have six states working on this because we lost jobs in

crabbing, fishing, tourism and so on. you are aware my colleague passed a amendment that passed the house to stop the funding cleanup for the bay. the total maximum daily loads take control away from the states. he claimed the states were making progress, even though it's taken more than two decades to get to this point. what prompted the issuance of the total maximum daily load standard? if the amendment was included in the final appropriations bill, how many would the localities lose out on on their efforts to clean the bay. [inaudible comment] >> microphone. can you hear me? >> no. >> there you go. push it one more. one more time. >> hello. >> there you go.

>> i'm just going to leave it on from here on out. i'm so sorry. the tml, the total maximum daily load was a result of daily lawsuits which was joined by the chesapeake bay foundation and others who said that our progress was woefully inadequate on meeting the goals that had been set by the epa for improvements in the bay. we've seen some slight improvements. but i don't think -- i would characterize that we have turned the corner on the issues that we have. the tmdl is meant to assign a load. it's your diet. here's how much pollution you can put into the bay and see it improve. that's our job, it's a regional approach. then it relies on the states through the water shed implementation plans to meet those numbers. we are not every day working inside the states. the states are. i want to salute the states that

have taken a leadership role to come up with the water shed implementation plans. about 60%, almost 2/3 of it goes back to the states where the water shed implementation plans. we are also working very closely with usda. because as you might expect, agriculture is a significant player. not the only player here. so states have really done an amazing amount of technical work, and i would hate to see us lose time on the chesapeake bay. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i've got a number of questions on greenhouse gas. i suspect that we want to try to get everybody in the first round. i'll yield back. thank you. >> mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in june 2009, epa signed a men ran dumb -- memorandum of understanding with the corps of engineers to reduce quote the

environmental affects of appalachian mining. end of quote. in conjunction, epa later released what was called guidance. which putting in place unachievable thresholds for water quality measurements which everyone but you believe are arbitrary based on the unsound science, it preempted the state water quality programs, targets only coal mining. specifically, appalachian coal mining. when the clean air -- clean water act applies to industries such as road construction, development, farming, construction and the like, a senate committee told us that these so-called guidances is quote having a deleterious affect on rule jobs and small businesses in appalachia, quote.

190 permits were expected to produce 2 billion tons of coal, support over 80,000 jobs and 81 businesses, and yet the 190 applications has been practically all denied. only six permits issued since 2009. one company in that district still doesn't have a permit after waiting through three army corps colonels at least six epa reviewers, they have invested an additional $1.5 million to deal with epa regulatory hurdles. the longer the permitting process takes, the higher the cost become. on average, coal companies can expect to pay two to $3 more to mine coal with a five-year permit process.

guess who pays of cost of that? the people that use electricity. according to your web site, there are 79 permits that are being flagged. the senate committee says there's 190. whatever, you've only issued six. in years. in your budget request, you are asking for more reviewers. i think four or five people. thanks a lot. howhow much faster will these people be able to process the permit through the regular order? >> i can't commit to a time frame, sir. we are working very diligently on those permit requests. >> who's working on them? >> primarily staff in our regional offices, but also staff

in our washington offices. >> mmm. can you explain why you -- why there's only been six permits issued out of 190 applications in over two years? >> the enhanced coordination process covered approximately 79 permits. we are own to, i think, maybe two to three dozen permits. many have been withdraw, a few have been issues, and many have gone back and are working diligently through the state and epa, especially in your state, mr. chairman, to try to find ways to reduce the environmental impacts. this is about clean water and impacts on water, and, sir, i have to say this is not unscientific at all. it's the result of pure-reviewed -- peer-reviewed studies that have gone through the advisory board and independent scientist that said without intervention, there would be irreversible harm to waterways in the region.

>> since the issues of the so-called guidance in june 2009, you've only issues six permits. that's a drastic change, is it not? >> we are not waving permits through, we are reviewing them with states and with the corps of engineers and with the applicants to try to decrease their impact on water pollution. >> question is, it is quite a change. >> sir, i absolutely agree with you, that the enhanced coordination has changed the landscape in that part. >> and it changed -- it was a substantive change from prior regulations. >> this is guidance that has been out for comment, and will be finalized quite shortly, i think. >> but the guidance does represent a big change from prior regulations; correct?

>> yes, it reflects the latest science that shows that the way that permits were being issued was not protective of water quality. >> and that's why a lot of people are saying that when you issued those guidances, you violated the law on how you come up with regulations. because there were no hearings, there were no advanced notice, no one had a chance to weigh in on this substantive change in your prior regulations. that's why you are being sued by the state of kentucky, the national mining association, several other states and co-operators on the grounds that the guidance constitutes a violation of the administrative procedures act,apa, which requires any changes of existing regulations must go through a formal rule-making process to include public comment and peer-review science, and in

january, the u.s. district court for d.c. ruled that they have challenged you on this apa violation would ultimately succeed on merit. so what do you say about the charges that you violated the administrative procedures act? >> mr. chairman, i don't agree with them. i wouldn't want to violate it. it is guidance, it is subject to public comment. in fact, we just concluded a lengthy public comment period. our responsibilities have not changed under the clean water act. it is simply a matter of ensuring that as these permits are issued, we are not trading future water quality for issuance of permits hastily today. >> now the industry, the coal mining industry that provides over half of the power that

lights our electricity around the country. it's being shaken to it's boots because of a issuing in logan county, west virginia, where you repealed retroactively a mining permit and shut down a mine even though they had -- they had been granted a permit previously by the corps of engineers in 2007 after a 13-year, 1600 page environmental review by state and federal agencies, including epa, you said it's okay. you got the permit. three or four years you come back and say we're going to revoke the permit. now every construction company that's building highways, every coal mining company, and everybody that does the business

that has to be done is unsure of themselves. it's having a very destabilizing impact on this industry. where do you think, where do you claim to have the authority to retroactively go back and undue a permit that's already been issued for several years? >> mr. chairman, respectfully, i think it's inaccurate to say there's a retroactive undoing. epa has the authority to veto a permit issued by the osar mother corps of engineers if we believe it is not protective of water. that's what the clean water act. the reason the first comment has been hanging around since 2007 is that it was in litigation. when it was issued by the u.s. army corps of engineers not with the concurrence of epa and, in fact, without taking into account significant comments made by epa, it was litigated.

and in the course of that litigation, epa was asked to determine whether or not to -- excuse me, epa had to determine, we were not asked to, we had to determine whether or not we would stand behind a permit that we did not degree -- not agree with. instead we chose to use the veto authority under the clean water and air act. >> the permit issued by the corps, had approval of epa. >> no, sir, the epa commented on several versions of the permit discussions. i know the permit applicant has said over and over again that we approve. we did not. our comments were taken. many of them were not addressed. and the final permit issued by the corps in our opinion was not protective of public health, not protective of the water quality, not consistent with the language of the clean water act. i do admit that is being

litigated still. >> i don't guess you know this during the debate on the cr a couple of weeks ago, 240 members bipartisan voted to strip epa of your authority to retroactively veto existing permits. i don't guess you noticed that. >> sir, of course i did. i certainly noticed the vote. >> well, i'm sure there are others that want to ask questions. i'll reserve. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member, dicks. >> administrator, again, welcome. the only thing that i wanted to bring up is is i think we're making some real progress in the state of washington on the pugit sound geographic program. i appreciate the fact there's money in the president's budget for this program. i wish it were at the higher

level that congress had approved. and i just want you to know that we have developed in washington state an action agenda, a scientifically credible plan for restoration. and it really depending now on being able to get state and federal funding to make this thing work. and, you know, i know that the administration has a tremendous interest in the chesapeake bay. but the difference in funding between the chesapeake bay, not the chesapeake bay, but the great lakes, and i wish -- i wish they had a similar positive view of the chesapeake bay and pugit sounds. we feel like we are the orphans here. these are two extremely important bodies of water. it's been obvious that the administration can't spend all of the money that has been given to the great lakes. i mean it's just not -- it's

going out the door. so i just hope, one, that you will insist that both -- and in the chesapeake, i love the chesapeake, but they need an action agenda too. they need a scientific credible plan. and they need, you know, epa now is in charge of the recovery in the chesapeake bay. and i hope that we will take that seriously. and a lot of the runoff issues that have been neglected by the states should be addressed. and i know you are trying to do that. but again -- >> will the distinguished ranking member yield? >> yes. >> you are not suggesting to take money away from the great lakes for pugit sound, are you? >> no, that would be wrong. >> okay. thank you. >> i would like to see them give pugit sound more help. i would love to see the great

lakes have an action agenda, a plan. i don't think they have a plan yet. that is -- wait a minute. that is scientifically credible and verified by independent sources. that's what i think you need to do. that's what we did in the state of washington. >> i would just say that the distinguished former chairman now, ranking member that when the pugit sound had 20% of the worlds fresh water, perhaps you could make the case to take money away from us. not now. >> when we have -- the most endangerrered species in the country in pugit sound, it also is a priority as well. all i'm saying is let's try to be fair and the administration's budget, i don't think was fair to pugit sound. he's working hard. but we have been the forgetten party. it's always been the great lakes, the chesapeake bay, and the everglades, and pugit sound

has been, i think, not as important to the administration. it should be. this is a very important body of water. again, i used my time up. again, we want to work with you on this. but we'd hope to get that budget request up in the future. i think it's totally justified and can be -- and i think we've done what we need to do out there with the action agenda and the pugit sound partnership is moving forward. so i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i can assure you with the ranking member, pugit sound will not be forgetten. in the meantime, administrator ken calvert and i, the gentleman sitting to my left, represent the empire in southern california. years ago, when i first became involved in public affairs for

something over 250 days a year, you could not see the mountains that surround this valley for almost 360 degrees. it's a beautiful valley. and over many a year, many of us have been involved in air quality questions because of that. because you can see the mountains almost every day of the year. but, indeed, i'll never forget taking a trip. it's been a whole month one weekend in detroit. a whole month one weekend in detroit to talk to the big three about air quality questions and what the american automobile industry was not doing in terms of improving the impact of autoto -- autoemissions on air quality. it was not until they produced car with better gasoline mileage that there was a change. that's contributed significantly

to the cleaning of our air. i'll never forget during those years, there were voices heard, including my own that we should be very cautious as we go forward with developing regulations and policies in the arena of air quality. often times we don't know what we're talking about. it's easy to point to the big smokestack and say if we can solve that problem, we'll solve 90% of the problems. forget about the rest. you and i know that the automobile continues to be the problem. i'll be very interested in what epa is thinking about, or what your experts are thinking about relative to have a direct impact upon how people deal with their own transportation needs. automobiles, et cetera. please don't talk to me about high-speed rail, that's hardly a solution to some of these problems. in the meantime, the air quality

research center, which was then located at university of california riverside helped us a lot in dealing -- trying to deal with some of these problems. i once converted a very beautiful and wonder convertible that i had to propane. the car never ran again, by the way. but that was my way of legislation that was moving that was suggest that we ought to take all automobiles that have a stationary source, major pools of cars, and convert them experimentally to propane to see the affect. the research came to me and said the bill is moving. jerry, we ought to be cautious about this. our research is beginning to show us some things we didn't anticipate. as it would appear that propane when it goes through the combustion process, creates a thing called propylene, and the emissions of that form maybe worse than the standard automobile emission that we're concerned about. we talk a lot about scientists

and research and independent peer review, et cetera. often times we don't know what we're talking about. if we're going to promote regulations that dramatically impact people's lives and spend a lot of money in doing it, we should know what we're talking about. just by way of asking you to comment on that general area, let me mention also that back in those days, a community known as -- a community known as chino was in my district. they had the largest cow heards in the country. numbering cows in numbers of thousand per farm, et cetera. and i note that within your air quality arena, you talk about animal gases. i must say it astonishing me and

i would really like to see the background of those experts who talk about animal gases who are indeed the people chino would wonder whether we know what we're talking about. so thank you, madame administrator for being here and i'd be very interested in your thoughts and where you are taking us research and otherwise relative to air quality. >> thank you. mr. lewis, just a few things, i think to begin by hailing your state as being one of the engines that has driven us towards cleaner vehicles in this country. epa's history including things like taking the led out of gasoline, which i think single-handedly made a tremendous difference in children's health. but also enabled the catalytic converter, which is an invention on cars all over the world which has made our cars run cleaner. >> the -- california has a

history with leading the country with respect to vehicles, sir. absolutely. of course, there's a large market. the clean air act actually recognized california's leadership by giving that -- your state a special role. i simply would say this, we have probably a million more cars on the road than 1970. just in absolute numbers. and the emissions from all of those cars is much lower than the emissions from 1970. that means we're driving more cars, but they are much, much cleaner and fuel efficient. that was the genesis of the fuel efficiency greenhouse gas deal, the car deal that was worked out last year. as cars become cleaner, americans, of course, as the population grows, i have two young sons, both of whom want to be driver sooner than i'd like. we need to continue to push that envelope to make our cars cleaner. you asked about research. i am a scientist by training. i just recently visited our ann

harbor laboratory which sadly is in the state of california, but is an impressive place. i think one the things we'd invite you to see it. if you ever have a chance to see it, you are struck by what an engine of economic development that is. many car locate the emissions near us as they do in parts of california, because they know that they are going to have to design cars that continually ramp down on efficiencies. the last thing i'll say is that with respect to animal emissions, i assume you mean greenhouse gas, methane emissions, e. -- epa has no plans to regulate that. the number required to report the emissions is zero. that has been discussed and it is a source of worry. i find myself often giving some amount to reassurance to ranchers about that matter.

[inaudible comments] >> i -- i really want to hear from you how you think this committee can help you accomplish epa's mission without overly impact the mission of the air quality. without overly impacting our very fragile economy. there's little doubt that we could take a small piece of the money that some people are touting for high-speed rail, and at the other end of that line use that small piece of money and buy more buses than we would know what to do with to replace that high-speed rail. move a lot more people and help clean the air in that fashion assuming we could get those engines to operate considerably more efficiently. please tell us how we can help.

>> i'll be happy to work with you any way that i can, mr. lewis. i think my colleague, secretary ray lahood, your former colleague, i think very, very highly of. i think what his work and epa's work closely with d.o.t. as he looks at the transportation acts of the future, we're happy to share with you the information that we are sharing with him. i think that communities are differently situated when it comes to transportation choices. and our interest is simply to ensure that we are not going to sacrifice air quality, and my belief is with technological innovations, including mass transit, we don't have to do that. >> i haven't thought about asking ray lahood to talk to you about that. excuse me, mr. chairman, for this, but indeed, those buses at

the other end hopefully cleaner driven engines as it were, you could perhaps put together a major study to help us change the pattern of what people are willing to do in terms of transporting themselves. we can buy those buses. but we can't get folks to ride in them in southern california. it's an incredible challenge. and we are a long, long ways away from turning that corner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. representing the great lake state of lake superior, the gentleman from lake erie were here first. i respect seniority, and i respect their ability to make my life miserable if i went first. [laughter] >> yup. representative. >> be nice to me, now. >> okay. that was faster than i thought.

thank you very much, appreciate it. first of all, it's a great pleasure, administrator jackson to be here with you and to be involved in it situation. with you. i want to commend you for the courageous way in which you have led the epa. and the kinds of things that you've been able to do quickly already in the context of the kinds of circumstances that you inherited and had to deal with. your mission is to protect human health in the environment, and that is exactly what you have been working to do. so i deeply applaud you for it. i think your work on the clean air act particularly is saving lives, keeping people healthier, and as a result, providing environment benefits across the country in communities across the country and in our economy. so as you know, very clearly, we need a strong epa to safeguard our children, safeguard the communities, safeguard our future. this was a recent article, series of articles in the "new

york times" which are absolutely fascinating and producing a significant amount of new information that is presented in ways that are more understandable than they had been in the past. for many people. and, in fact, stories like little or no testing for radioactive levels and the radioactivity of the levels can be important. i just want to ask you a few questions along the lines. among the many issues raised in the time serious was the hydraulic facturing waste water containing radioactivity at levels much higher than previously known. it is being sent to waste water treatment plants that cannot safely remove the radioactive materials. these plants are then dumping this contaminated waters into rivers and streams, and those rivers and streams supply drinking water. as a result of that, there's a threat to the health of millions of people.

such material such as barium, radioactive elements, little or no testing is going on. so i'm wondering if there is anything that can be done to deal with this. given these reports, will the epa, for example, order immediate testing of water from these facilities that accept fracking waste, as well as testing drinking water intake systems downstream from these treatment plants. >> thank you, mr. hinchey. i think that epa is very interested in ensuring that we get data on radioactivity in flowback water. the only hesitance that i have to say is an absolute yes we'll order the testing, i would like to have an opportunity to speak to the states involved, specifically pennsylvania, who has done some amount of work. i actually intend to go tomorrow to our office in philadelphia to have those discussions. but i do believe additional information is due to the public as a result of that series.

>> well, i appreciate you saying that. i think that's absolutely true. a lot of these states are doing things that are not really strong enough. and pennsylvania, i think, is one of them. there's an awful lot of drilling going in pennsylvania, and the rapid increase of that drilling is going on over the course of the next few year. it's going to cause a whole host of problems, particularly if there's no oversight. if you live close to pennsylvania, like, for example, in new york, and you find that pennsylvania is dumping a lot of these radioactive materials and other toxic materials that are on the border of your state, you got to be concerned about it too. leaving these situations open to individual states is not going to do it. that's part of it. i'm glad that you are very interested in this. let me just ask you something else. the narrowing of national fracking study and the squelching of other researchers. again, in the times, they also raise serious concerns about the process behind epa study on

hydraulic fracturing. in general, i believe the epa has put forward the study advisory panels that are positive. i commend the agency for not falling into the industry's trap of narrowly defining the drilling process. and we're seeing that all over this country. in state after state where these things are going on. and they are doing this, the industry's trap of narrowly defining the drilling process. you were able to over come that because you were under some real pressure to do so. however, it is what has been left out of the study scope that i would like to discuss. what is outside of that study scope? according to the "times" initial version of the study scope recommended research on a number of dangers. dangers of toxic fumes, the risk of con dominated runoff from land fills where drilling waste is disposed, whether rivers can

sufficiently dilute hazardous waste water that discharged from treatment plants and more. a whole host of other things. along with the scoping document sent to the advisory board last -- late last month including money of these topics, interestingly enough. so agently officials express concern about the public's reaction if it was discovered that the study scope was being narrowed and staff were discouraged from putting anything in writing about the national study. unless, vetted by managers. so it could not be in the freedom of information act, for example, one regional administrator apparently instructed his subordinates to not spell out their grandest visions about what the study should examine. less the public see all of these concerns. these are the kinds of things

that we know are very, very dangerous. and we know there's a lot of activity that is are going on to try to keep adverse circumstances too quiet. now epa did have recommendations on congress what it should study. specifically, drinking water. but if the agencies scientist felt there were additional areas to examine because of concerns over human health, such as with air emissions, then the public in congress should have been made aware of those. contrary to assertions from the industry, the report language was a congressional recommendation, not an order. and epa had the authority to ignore, or expand on it. instead, what we see here are deliberate attempts to shield from the public additional concerns expressed by epa's scientist. there's a lot of positive things going on, by the scientist particularly in epa.

under your leadership and under your direction. so there are clearly other risks worth examining that have come to light since this report language was first drafted in june of 2009. shouldn't the public and congress be made aware of all of the concerns epa's scientist had about the risks fracking poses? the risk that fracking poses to public health? why would epa managers believe this information should be withheld? why is that? why would epa not allow the additional topics to be submitted to the advisory board? furthermore, at a january meeting in washington, regional directors were informed that the national study would be the only forum for research on hydrofracking. while i understand the agency might want to ensure there's no redundancy, there is absolutely no justification to stop

research outside the scope of this study. so one other issue, should the national study be the only forum for research on fracking? even if regional offices and other scientists and researching risking outside the scope of the study in response of public health concerns just keep rising and getting more serious. >> why don't we give the administrator a chance to answer that? >> thank you. >> there were several questions. thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, mr. hinchey. on the issue of public having access to what we know. absolutely, i have committed the agency to transparency in information. i'd like to point out that the issues seem to stem from some concerns that are really located in philadelphia. we have ten regions, we have ten different offices of epa across the country. the one that handles new york is in new york city. i think they have submitted strong and principalled comments to the spade on it's draft eis.

we await the states action on the eis. many of the states are very involved in the issue. it's affecting them now while we do the big study. it's going to take about two years. texas, we've actually taken enforcement actions there and we're in something of a dispute with the state. because our belief is that we needed to take those actions to assure protectiveness. i want to first start by saying we believe natural gas is important. it's a homegrown source of energy. it must be sustainly and responsibly produced. future generations shouldn't bare the burden of a rush to produce it. we think it can happen. you asked about withholding information. i want to clarify one thing. the article, the series is very important. we are looking at radioknew lee aids as the study.

the reporter study said it was left out of the study. that's not true. i'm sure it's just an inaccuracy. or something he said. the study is with our advisory board, we have used the transparent-based process to scope the study. we expect the advisory board to have a meeting on study parameters. all of that have been open, we have vetted the people to make sure they don't have undo conflicts of interest and folks later worry the study was skewed. with all of the safeguards that we have put in place, i am certainly not going to be closed minded to say we don't need to look to make sure we are doing everything right. so i am -- that's why i'm going to go tomorrow to pennsylvania. to philadelphia, to our office to try to understand what the state of play is there. your last question was about the national study. the budget this year called $6 million for the national study.

i think congress last year or the year before, i can't remember, for authorizing it and for ensuring that we have the study money. the only thing i'll say is we have to spend study wisely. i will say the national study should be the only study served. after the process that opened that transparent and vigorous to try to outline the study, i want my research and development to understand what additional work is happening so we are not being redundant. we don't want to stifle science. we want to make sure if we are doing work, we are not doing the same work over here. i think it's fair. it's a wise use of money. otherwise, we should certainly not be tieing the hands of our scientists and trying to understand this, while at the same time, recognizing maybe the article didn't do the greatest job of portraying that many states who are used to drilling have done significant work in regulating the fracking and

drilling and natural gas recovery process. states have sort of taken a timeout to get it right. >> i deeply appreciate that. if i could respond briefly. i deeply appreciate that. i know you are doing a lot of things that are very, very important and need to be done. but also there's a lot of damage that's being taken place right now. that damage is going to increase dramatically, rapidly over the course of the next couple of years. if nothing is being done to try to control and oversee there's going to be a lot of damage to a lot of people. all of that is important. there are a number of things that could be done by the congress. one the things that could be done and should be done by the congress is to go back and correct a piece of legislation that took out an important federal act put into place in 1974, to regular -- regulate the drilling and make sure whatever frack drilling is being done is being done honestly and not

being done in ways that are corrupted and corrupted quietly so that nobody knows about the corruption and danger and what's going on. including what is being injected into the context of this drilling. >> i thank the gentleman for his congress. mr. calvert. >> i thank the chairman. i wanted to call up on mr. lewis' comments regarding nonstationary sources. i think jerry has creditability on this. he wrote the clean air act in the state of california. which is probably the most stringent clean air regulations in the united states. we understand that nonstationary sources are the problems, automobiles, trucks, trains that cause significant part of pollution, especially pretick late solution. one the programs that have been very successful, i think, of the epa has been the dura program,

the diesel emissions reduction action. i have been supportive of the program because it's removing engines, old diesel engines which has an affect on pollution. we know that's a program that works. there's a lot of things we do in government that don't work. a lot of us are concerned when you zeroed out the d.e.r.a. program. i want to bring that to your attention. my home state of california, as you mentioned we have our own environmental laws. in almost every case -- every case, we meet or exceed federal standards. we have a process in california called ceqa, the california environmental quality act, which exceeds the requirements almost in every requirement in the

state of california. one agency after the other, obviously we have a significant job problem in california, our unemployment is 12%. one out of every four are either out of work or under employed. and the nepa requirements are causing delays in processes in order to get projects under way. have you ever given any thoughts to states such as mine where permit applications, document that is are submitted by the states, such as california which exceed nepa requirements that nepa can be waved by states such as california and other states that -- but i don't know. i can't think of a state that has more stringent environmental laws in the state of california. don't you think that's a way that we can work towards getting these projects under way quicker? >> sir, i haven't focused on the nepa process, you know, that's

run out of the council and environmental quality from the white house. so it's not really entirely within our jurisdiction. we comment as part of the nepa process, but it is not mine to manage. >> wouldn't epa certainly have some input into this in supporting a new process in which nepa can potentially be waved? >> well, i'm happy to take a look at it or discuss it along with the chair or the council. i will say this, obviously, for our environmental permits, like our clean air act permits, the state of california almost across the board is delegated the permit authority for those issues. so there is no duplicity, you know, we can't issue the permit and california issue one permit. >> any comments on the d.e.r.a. program? >> yes, sir, i do not disagree with you in terms of both the popularity and the effectiveness of the program. i think it's around 13 or 14 to

one health confidents to dollars spent. the only -- it is a tough, tough budget full of tough choices. and the only consideration i would offer for you, sir, is that there was d.e.r.a. money included in the recovery act. and that money is about 60% spent, i believe. so the thought was in a year of tough budget choices that we could let that money hit the street, if you will, and retrofit more engines. so that was the basis for the very difficult decision to not add money to the program this year. :

>> there was a story in "politico" about hearings that took place in other committees, and there was a story in here, and i refer to it. it talks about what happens when we as a nation were working on controlling and removing ozone

depleting efc's. some of the quotes were air-conditioning and refrigeration institute warned shut downs of equipments in supermarkets. went on to see we'll see shut downs of cooling machines that cool the hotels and hospitals, but according to the epa, the freeze out happens five years faster than predicted and cost 30% less than expected, and i was working for a company that is called sears, and it was major appliances and doom and gloom what was going to happen. people got it when they came in to buy refrigerators. they understood they were making the air better for their children. i never heard a consumer complaint about what was moving forward, and, in fact, it caused a lot of great increased

technology and that, so thank you for the work that you do, and i think lots of times we focus on what our problems as people are trying to understand regulations and why we're moving forward, and we don't celebrate our successes. i do want to talk about something that i am concerned when you're talking about balancing your budget, and i think the chairman's been very thoughtful on how we work to coordinate climate change and other things to make sure, and you were mentioning that too by using the best science and not duplicating it, but yesterday we heard from the inspector general about the increasing new demands on the epa within the reports. you didn't have to deal with this a few years ago like cybersecurity, contaminants in our water, so one of my two questions is the epa's budget significant to address these issues as well as working on

past issues in, you know, the mandate that you have in front of us. i think you can roll this together. i'll do my second one. we heard from the gao and inspector general. the difficulties that the epa has in regulating toxic chemicals due to the fact that the for-profit chemical companies don't have to fully disclose health and safety data information. this puts the burden on the epa, the taxpayers to prove the safety of the chemicals sold for-profit. this is in contrast to the european union's approach. you have made safety one of your priorities, but i'm concerned how you will do that with a decreasing budget and fulfilling all the other things we heard about today, backlogs, involving

water counts and the concern that the gentleman had from kentucky with ongoing litigation. my questions i think go to together. how will you carry out your safety initiatives begin to the epa, not the chemical companies, to determine the safety of these chemicals. >> well, thank you. the reason i smiled when you said sears is my dad worked there in hardware for many years, and it brought back many memories. >> i was in division one, two, and three, so you can tell him. >> the challenges we face is the management challenge in trying to put together this budget. we understood the president's strong call, and actually i very much agree with it that we just to have find deficiencies and do what americans are doing which is trying to find ways to get our job done on lower budgets. that's fair, and i think we should be at epa embracing that

and be a part of it. i just want to know for example on toxics which we do and we identify it as an area of concern and modernizing our nation's chemical laws. i'm still hopeful we'll get around to that soon, that congress will take up continuing work there, but we've increased our funding for toxics in the proposed budget. this plus-up of $16 billion to deal with the issues you mentioned including and we're proud of using the existing law to challenge confidently clauses where we can and open up the window shades if you will and let scientists see what's in the products. that takes legal resources though because there are challenges under the law, so we have made cuts, but we've tried to preserve and actually in some

areas increase those places where we believe with the challenges we see before us we really need to increase our resources. >> mr. chairman, i was in the cab today, and the cab driver didn't know what i did for a living, but he asked where i was from. i said minnesota. he asked if i fished. i said i did. he gave me a smile, and we have no idea what kind of fish we have here. a cab driver used the word indicated disrupter. [laughter] >> jim's message is getting through. >> we have our work to do to protect future generations. thank you. >> mr. cole is next. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i have a couple specific questions, one in particular a colleague asked and a more general one asked to put to

you. this is mr. young from alaska. i'll read the question. "due processes and basic notions of fairness considered when you were given a permit on the desert rock power plant. if built, this plant would be the cleanest plant in the united states. if this doesn't meet standards, can any coal plant going forward?" i don't know the answer, but i wanted him to have the opportunity to address it. >> in new mexico, does that sound right to you, sir? >> i wish i could tell you more, but he just said the desert rock power plant. >> title v in the four corners region. >> this has innative american -- this has a in this casive american -- this has innative american case to it too. >> we had concerned raised by

the state of new mexico and down wind areas that were very concerned that this plant would contribute to regional haze, the visibility issues over the grand canyon as well as some significant additional pollution issues. i can get more information for you. >> please do, i'd appreciate that very much. i got one other specific question, and that's on drinking water issues. what's the epa doing right now to assist small water systems in meeting compliance on the safe water drinking act? >> well, our work there continues. i've had many discussions with the chairman about that very issue. we have two roles. first is to put out health based standards, but the other act acknowledges there's affordability issues. we are working on both. we have encountered some resistance from communities because i choose to live in a

small town doesn't mean i choose to have water that dent mean federal standards. that's a tough, tough spot to be in. we try to bring resources in to meet the standards, although we are looking at providing guidance on affordability as well. i don't think we finalized that guidance. >> i don't mean this to be adversary yal, but just an opportunity to state a broader case. as was mentioned earlier in some of the questions, we had an awful lot of amendments on cr1 aimed obviously at epa, and i can just tell you, you know, when i go home, i get more questions about your agency and concerns than i do any other agency in the federal government, and they sort of run the gamet. if it's farmers, they are worried you want to regular late dust in the air. well, you can't farm without having dust in the air. if it's oil and gas people, and

again, my friend and i disagree on hydraulics, as a matter of fact, we always disagree to be fair, but again, i recognize the issue that he raises particularly in areas that haven't had oil and gas activity on the scale they're seeing for decades. in oklahoma, we have hydraulic manufacturing that's not a new technology. we regulate it well. used it since the late 1940s. we think they should talk to other people at the state level with other people who do this. but i have a lot of people worried about having a federal regime they never had to deal with imposed upon them when it's a practice they've been doing safely for a long time, and i got communities that come to me saying they keep raising the standard on water, and we get unfunded mandates. while you pointed out in your testimony, the environment is bipartisan, nixon created the

epa, roosevelt with the national park system, drinking water is better than it was years ago, and i think everybody appreciates that, but somehow this administration whether deliberately or not, you know, stumbled into a situation where it's becoming very ideological and partisan, and is that because you think the science and technology changed so much, i mean, or is it, again, you know, we clearly have a clash here in an area that we don't need a clash. are you being more aggressive or going further? i ask you to sort of reflect a little bit about why all this political controversy is happening around the agency. >> i wish i had the benefit of history to look back and reflect on these times, but i'll say this, it is fair to say there's a backlog of -- especially under the clean air act, but not only under the clean air act, standard settings

that have been overdue for awhile either because the previous administration, and again, not to be adversary, set the standard and the courts overturned it. that's the case for mercury and other toxins in the rare, or transport of pollution from the western half of the country, because the air blows west to east. >> it's north to south. >> in general, i should have said in general. there's always exceptions. so there's 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 the analysis show they are done in a way that's transparent, that protect first and foremost public health, but don't surprise business, but give them a clear set of rules to operate by. we've been in sort of the shortage in that area for quite some time. the other issue quite frankly and many of them, and i make

this offer with some trepidation, but many have to do with our ability to communicate with what's really going on inside the walls of epa with people who shouldn't be worrying about that, especially with the agriculture community. we have endeferred to redouble our efforts to communicate better. for example, in course particlat matter which most people call dust in rural america. there has been no regulatory change proposed. there has been a study, and the study interestingly enough says it gives equal weight to retaining the current standards as it does to changing them. there's been absolutely no regulatory decision made, and we've 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 because i absolutely agree

with you. you know, americans don't want dirtier air or farmers who rely on clean water for their livelihood, but we just need to be able to ensure that we're doing everything we can to communicate with usda, but also in the states. >> well, i'm going to have a series of questions later. my time is about up. i would just ask you to recommit and think through that in the agency. i can assure you that the political backlash is real. it has real consequences, and so i don't know if we're going too far too fast, and i was opinion on these things individually where i well differ with the epa, but atmosphereically, there's a reason why all this is happening, and so, you know, sometimes you can be too zealous or too quick, not you personally, but just in general,

agencies or people in government can get ideas and move further and faster than the public wants them to go, and i think we're in that situation now where the epa is concerned. we'll continue to have clashes in congress unless we find a more cooperative way to move forward, and we've done that in the past and hopefully can do moving forward. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and it's an honor to be a member of the subcommittee. >> it's an honor to have you here. >> it only took me 21 years. [laughter] before i begin, let me just ask my questions. let me just say, in those 21 years, i always realize that every day you learn more or hear things differently. for instance, listening to the gentleman going back and hearing from farmers and hears from people who are drilling for oil or whatever, gas and so on, i don't have in the south bronx any oil wells, and i don't have

farmers. we enjoy the results of the hard work they do, but i don't. on the other hand, in looking for a balance in dealing with the epa and all that, i have the highest asthma rates in the nation, and so i 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 you have a river in the middle of the bronx? yes. the bronx river. a great name for it. most of you live in communities where riverrings and ponds and waterways are just a way you take for granted. well, if the whole community cleaned up that river and that river became a very special place, it's important that epa played a major role making sure that fish came back to the river and animal life in the

neighboring area that didn't exist before, and so some say that's a little dramatic, but in the middle of a city with cement, that's extremely important, and 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 events as -- advances we've made, and that's just my comment. thank you for your work and service, and i know the next couple of years will be rough ones, but we all stand here ready to assist any way we can. i'm working with the epa on finding ways to address the public health impacts of pcv's in both window cocking and valances in our school. new york city announced they are moving forward with a ten year plan to remove and replace all pcv contaminants within the school systems. i have three quick questions.

based on current science and epa guidance issued on december 2010, do you think that in order to protect our school children that the city needs to resolve this problem sooner than the announced ten year time period? secondly, as you know, separately from the light fixture problem, there's the immediate and real concern about the pcv's contained in window cocking in our schools. could you take a moment to update me on your efforts and new york city also addressed this issue as well when the safety of our children is at risk, we can't afford further delays. lastly, is this something that is in new york more than any other places or affecting the nations as a whole? >> i'll start with the last question because i just wrote down this is not a new york city only issue. it has to do with the generation of the building.

to quickly summarize pcb's cancer causing lights, and they can be found in cock. they were a component of cock until phased out in the 1970s i believe, so i do think we were gratified to see the city's announcement they are moving forward to address the issue. the reason it came to be is because the city signed up to do an investigation. pcb was showing up in air, and they came to understand, i think, through very quick sampling that the bigger problem might well be these pcb's in the valance. it's a concern. i think our next move is to lead with the city and encourage them to -- ten years is part of the budgetary impetus and they are

looking at an energy deficiency and updating revamp that's beneficial to the schools in terms of their operating costs. they can do this work, replace the lights and it may nearly pay for itself overtime. we will encourage them to focus on the places where we think there's contamination leaking so we don't have some child or teacher who ends up being on the ten year side of that. we'd like to get some assurance that they are triaging this situation. it's a tremendous step forward. the city in general has been dealing with this issue, other areas around the country, we have guidance up on the internet site. it's not a requirement, but to help school districts dealing with cock or pcb's. >> you answered the last question. has the city been cooperative, and you feel that they have. do you still -- well, maybe you

don't feel that they have, so let me ask you a question. has the city been cooperative in moving ahead on this, and again, do you -- ten years may be a budget piece, but do we -- can we wait ten years? should this be dealt with at a much quicker pace? >> i think when you're talking about health issue, especially one that the children's health issue, young bodies, still developing, we don't have a lot of data of how pollution or toxins affect them more or less than adults. emergency is called for. i have not been dealing with the city in day-to-day negotiations. where they are now is a good thing. they stepped up after some period of time to say we now know and understand we need to be aggressive here, and i don't think we should discount that. our goal now is to ensure that

they improve even their ten year plan which is a wonderful improvement and a step forward to make it as effective as it can always with children in mind, always with children and doing it within their budget. i mean, the city schools have their own set of challenges, and the mayor and officials are quick to point that out, and so we're trying to help them deal with this issue any way that's protective, but also mindful. >> all right. thank you so much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. flake. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you ms. jackson. the theme seems to be at least from on this side of the aisle there seems to be, and i don't know how it can be classified otherwise, and we saw this in response on the cr to overreach by the epa, and just to give you an example, just a couple weeks

ago the "wall street journal" talked about a new rule by the epa finalizing the rule that subjects dairy producers to the spill, control, and counter measure program. this was created in 1970 i believe to deal with oil spills near shorelines and waterways. this is done, i believe, as the epa put it, because of the percentage of animal fat which is a nonpetroleum oil in milk. my understanding is this requires mitigation standards be put in, dairies train first responders, build containment facilities, berms, dikes if possible. i grew up milking cows, and i would have loved to tell my dad,

sorry, there's no berm here. it's not safe. how, with a straight face, can anyone in the epa say that begin 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 have new rules like this? we understand it's not costing the epa much, but it cost the dairy industry and farmers a lot. those who produce cheese, and other milk products are required to be in this as well. i mean, what's next? sip py cups in the cafeteria? please, explain how that is not overreach. we seem to deflect any criticism of anything the epa is doing that's not overreach, we're not going too far. is this not overreach? >> that's not accurate. i can just read to you 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 proposed to exclude milk storage tanks from the spill prevention program. this common sense decision was announced months before the "wall street journal" chose to write their inaccurate article. moreover, epa stated enforcement pending the final agency action. it's known that epa will take action on this this spring, and i can give you a personal update. epa already sent the draft's final exclusion to the white house. we are on schedule to do that that we announced months ago. i have no idea why the "wall street journal" chose to inaccurately report. we tried to fix the record, but i don't believe they published it. >> it sounds like the rule is promulgated, and you it's like you want to make exemptions to

it. is that accurate? >> that's not entirely accurate, sir. when we promulgated the rule, we made clear we were announcing an exemption. it takes time for the regulatory process to ensure the exemption is threw, and to ensure no producer was subject to a priewl that we did not intend for them to be subject to, we also announced we won't enforce it. there's been in period of time where anyone has been subject to worry about whether milk and spilled milk was going to be regulated. we announced we don't believe that's an area where regulation is required. >> it would be accurate to say the epa spent a considerable amount of time. >> the rule is for oil, oil facilities that need containment to ensure the waterways are protect the, but we wanted to ensure there's an exemption from

milk and the fats in milk. >> there's no effort to include or subject dairy producers to the spill, prevention control, and counter measure program then? no effort, then in >> no, sir. there's an effort to exempt them, but there are rules under sfpc if we can use the shorthand to deal with preventing spills of large amounts of oil into inland waterways. that's the requirement. because this unintended consequence come up, we announced this exemption so there's no confusion. >> it's still inaccurate to say this is not considered by the epa and time was not spent to subject because there was some -- there is a rule to subject dairy producers to this, but now is exempted? >> at the same time the rule was finalized for oil containment and storage facilities, large

ones, i think over a million gallons, but i can double check that, epa ensured to propose milk was exempted. there's been time and effort in my mind, my opinion, spent on just the opposite of overreach which is underreach. we made it clear through our rules that we were not going to or intending to have milk, milk as a substance regulated regardless whether it's over a million gallons. you ask why i cannot entirely buy into this idea of overreach, many of the things that epa are accused of in my mind are attempts to misinform people about what is actually happening. what is happening on the ground is we are not intending nor do i believe will ever regulate milk as soon as the rule becomes final. that will be clear. >> arizona counties, municipalities are very worried about this review of ambient air

quality, lowering the course particlat standards. you talked about that before, ten it's being -- and it's being considered. the advisory committee recommended that the standard be bettered i 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 that it is equally -- i don't have the exact quote. i'll try to find it. it's equally like possible to retain the current standard. there is a standard now, or to lower it. as far as i know they have not made a determination or recommendation to lower the standard of epa. we know that they have recommendation, and is it safe to say epa often follows recommendations of the scientific advisory committee?

>> we're required by law to result with the case fact. there's one case where we did not follow the case. that was the ozone prom l gages that we are now reconsidering. >> they recommended that epa establishes a new course standard for rural dust, but my understanding is that the epa rejected that recommendation; is that correct? >> my understanding, sir, and i'll get the back up, is that they said their recommendations says that they support either retaining or revising, so they did not take a position, but i will make sure and get you the exact language. >> all right. well, the concern would be epa is following one recommendation and not the other recommendation. the one recommendation would impose considerable, considerable costs, and when the

other recommendation made might spare the cities and municipalities that cost, the new standard or separate standard for rural dust to be adopted. my concern would be epa would be picking and choosing which recommendations to follow, and only following those that impose significant cost, and the problem is, and we've been through this again and again, every time the epa says we're changing the standard, there's lawsuits forcing cities and counties to take action to reach the new standard. while their in the middle, there's epa again saying there's a new standard. it would bohoo all of us to hear the benchmarks and instead of putting the cities and counties through this ringer every couple of years that they find very difficult to comply with, and

that's my concern on that, but i'll wait for the next round for the others. thank you, mr. chairman. >> ms. lummis. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i don't have much of a voice today. thanks for your tolerance. i'd like to start, ms. jackson, by associating myself with the remarks of mr. cole. i've never heard the -- heard that during the town hall meetings, but i hear words from epa from everyone to coal miners to ranchers do people who do believe climates are changing, but believe that the epa's heavy hand torts regulation of greenhouse gases will put us out of business and just send those jobs into countries that do not have environmental regulations that match ours, thereby causing

greater pollution in other parts of 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 than is capable elsewhere in the world, so i think we should concentrate on keeping jobs and technology in the united states. we can actually be the leader in those areas and export their technologies elsewhere in the world, so please do take careful heed of mr. cole's remarks. i believe they were right on target. i do have some questions for you, some of which i'll submit 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 significance. i believe there was close to a year, are you asking maybe about this year? >> yes, ma'am. >> i believe we have two or three economically significant requirements, maybe four under the clean air act in the regulatory calendar. >> are you complying with president obama's january 18th executive order that requires agencies to take into account, and this is among other things, the costs of accumulative regulation? >> yes, miss. >> and do you have some dairy producers to to -- data to share on that? >> we've been asked to do a

retrospecktive look back, and we have begun that scoping process, but i don't have anything to share at this time. >> and when will you? >> i can't give you a date today, but i will get you a date. >> when you do, can you get us the information? >> when we have it, and we'll give you a date when we can have information to share. >> thank you. do you have degrees to determine when a regulatory change must follow the open roll making process and will guidance suffice? we hear a lot of concerns that guidance has broadened the scope of the clean water act in ways that skirt the rule making process. >> well, we follow the administrative procedure act in determining what should be a regulation, and of course, once we have a regulation and make a

determination, it goes three for public comment, usually a very long and defailed pro-- detailed process. we are proud of that. we a transparent rule making process. generally where epa needs to offer guidance and clarification doesn't rise to the level of a rule, and increasingly, epa's guidance is subject to public comment as well. for example, you heard perhaps earlier the discussion about the mountain top removal mining guidance. >> thank you. i want to follow-up on the conversation on hydraulics, something that occurs commonly in my state, and there's never been a connection proven in spite of frequent revisiting of the hydraulic issue between water quality and modern

hydraulic techniques. i also point out to those who are concerned about it that especially those concerned about the "new york times" article that the former director of the pennsylvania department of environmental quality and the former governor, governor rindale submitted a rebuttal to the "new york times," but the "new york times" wouldn't print it because it was too long, but it addressed many of the concerns raised in the article, and, of course, the article also was not a peer reviewed scientific expression of hydraulic. i refer those concerned about it to those to the former governor and director in the state. following up on that, using that as a segue, can you tell me what does the epa do that states are

incapable of doing through their own departments of environmental quality? >> well, ma'am, as you know, water moves between states, and air between states and countries. the most important role over history, epa often helps states to set up their program. now we've 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 made tremendous progress and where we have work to do is on regional issues, places, for example, the pollution transportation from the midwest to the east, and quality that are regional in nature that require the cooperation of several states. i think a body, as well as

research, epa has a wholesome research budget. most states can't afford that. i used to run a state program, and we just didn't have the money to put in the research we'd like. we still set international standards for risk assessment, and our work still, i'm always amazed wherever i go internationally, almost every slide is attributed to the scientists and researchers at epa. cost standards, i could go on and on and on, but the states are extremely important in the day-to-day implementation of our environmental laws. they write permits. they enforce the law, but the epa's role is one of oversight as well as scientific knowledge and working on regional issues. >> do you believe that research is your highest priority expendture at epa? >> our mission is protection of public health and the environment, and so i wouldn't call it the highest priority,

but increasingly environmental issues are so complex that you need very, very good science, and so we spend a lot of money and a significant portion of our budget on science issues whether in applied research or in grants to do research on environmental issues. >> making positions about prioritizing your funding. do you look at what states can do versus what they cannot do or you believe they are incapable of doing and prioritize for the epa to do those things that you believe that those dates are incapable of doing as well as epa is doing it? >> we have seven priorities that i established at epa. one is working in partnership with the states and tribes because many managers including myself came from state management. we know there's this synergy.

the laws carve out roles for the laws that we must also uphold. we are ultimately accountable for the laws. >> there are state and tribal groups that form commissions such as the grand canyon air visibility -- transport commission. that's not the exact name of it, but it was the western governor tribes near the grand canyon and others who work together to address the quality issues in the air shed around the grand canyon, and i know there's similar intrastate and intratribal and agency efforts around the country. do you look to those as a primary driver, or do you look

more to the federal government as the primary driver? >> no, of course, and, in fact, those groups if they are the ones i'm thinking of are authorized under the clean air act. they realized this is a regional problem, and so there are several regional haze groups that protect class i visibility areas around the country, and they are authorized under law, and we work very closely with them. >> since president obama became president, is looks in terms of percentage increases, the epa received the highest percentage increase in its budget. do you agree? >> certainly we received the high #*es increase of -- highest increase of epa budget under president obama, yes. >> as i understand it it's 39% over the previous administration's budget, and so your current proposed 13% cut

really amounts to a 24% increase over previous epa budgets. do you agree with my faith? do you agree with my math? >> top line, yes. >> you're still dealing with a quarter increase over previous administration's budget. >> a vast majority of that money goes to states either for the great lakes or water and wastewater infrastructure grants. what the president thought was very important is investing in water and wastewater infrastructure, but in a tough year, we've had to basically get some of that back, reluctantly, but we're part of the team, and we think we have to make those tough choices. >> among those were the re-- >> almost out of time. >> i know, you've been generous. i will want to pursue that if

there's another round. >> gentleman from ohio. >> i want to thank you for the curtesy you extended to me personally and my constituents, and also on the issue of the great lakes, i want to commend the president and you for the emphasis placed on the great lakes. i'm sorry that the distinguished ranking member of the full committee suspect here anymore, but i think he was engaging in revisionist history. it's actually this administration that is the first administration that put real money behind the great lakes cleanup in additiontives. we got 50 million here and there, and the president's original vision of $475 million would have actually let us move forward in a lot of important areas, and, you know, if the gentleman from washington is short on species, we'd be happy to send him the variety of fishes to repopulate some of his areas.

[laughter] >> is that fish edible? it's a heck of a big fish. what can you do with it? >> i'll bring him one, and maybe we'll check it out. [laughter] >> i bet it's a tough one to filet. [laughter] >> it's about six feet long, some 100 pounds. i hope it's good eating. with those thanks, there's a couple things of concern of me, and i want to get through the five minutes if i could. one is something that we sent you a letter on, and it was a draft pr notice, and you didn't send the letter back to me. it was the assistant administrator, and u.s. pea draft notice has to do with false or misleading pesticide product brand names, and here's my concern. there's two companies in ohio.

one is scotts which is well known, and the other i didn't know about until the dust upstarted, and that's anderson's golf pro. the pr notice which will not go through rule makes, but guidances as you discussed with others, wants to take a look at trademark names. i have a lot of problem with that from the legal standpoint, but on the draft guidance that comments are being solicited on, names that apparently the agencies can have problems with a eradicators, germ shield, safe, safest, and green. when i was growing up, green was a color. [laughter] if somebody has gone through the process of having its fertilizer trademarked, i have no problem with the epa looking what's in

the bag to make sure it's safe for human health and everything else, but obviously a lot of time and money, these trademark names have been around the 1960s. scott's lawn pro. i have troubles on a couple levels. i don't find anything deceptive about the name, and two, i have trouble with the epa proposing without the rule making process to move forward with a dpie dance that says the word pro is inappropriate. in the anderson's company, the reason they signed the letter is they made a product called anderson golf pro. apparently, they are advised because it can be used on your front lawn and not just the golf course, that they find the word "golf" as deceptive. they have to call it andersons because they can't call it golf

or pro. the problem is moving forward, i said to the people in scotts in ohio, i said, you know, you're just scratching the surface when you talk about pro and green and everything educational. the one product i use is miracle grow, and how the heck will they will able to establish a miracle occurred when they put their stuff, you know, all these little old ladies taking their tomato plants to rome to present them to the cardinal to determine whether a miracle occurred. that's the trouble i have with this thing. i would hope that at the very least because we are dealing with trademarks and the fact that they've been in place for a long time. i could argue it's an uninstitutional taking of property without due process of law, but i hope because i find you to be a reasonable person that maybe you could pull back the people who want to take the word green and pro and everything else out of the

trademark, and if you proceed in this direction, you put it through the rule makes process and not the guidance process. your letter, again, the letter from the assistant administrator at the end of january indicates that that's not the position of the agency, but that's my request. if you would take a look at this and if you want to really get into what lawn care products are called, that it go through the rule making process, not just solicit comments from people, but also let'ses the congress weigh in and make some observations, so that would be request number one. request number two has to do with fly ash, and you know that there was an amendment during the cr, a new member, mr. mckinly, offered the amendment to deny funding to the epa relative to declaring coal ash to be a hazardous material. i think that passed, but i'm not

a fan of amendments limiting funding, but the history of the fly ash or coal ash to my understanding is there was a series of studies, the devil studying, that the agency had a regulation that coal ash should not be regulated as a hazardous material, and in and now without the congress, the epa is about to do a 180 degree turn. one, i have the same problem. why is congress directing the epa to have a study and a recommendation only to have the epa go in the other direction? two, just the folks that engage in waste tell me that if you increase the amount of fly ash that needs to be treated as a hazardous material, it's 140-150 million tons a year that will exhaust our landfill space in

just a couple of years. your comment on miracle grow and on fly ash would be greatly appreciated. >> i believe in miracles. >> i do too. >> i will take a look at the issue you raised seriously, sir. i'm sorry for the joke. on the second issue, on coal ash, let me say a couple things in terms of where we are. epa continuing os to support the beneficial use of that material. we proposed a rule, the rule did not make, did not take a favorable approach. the approaches were to regulate it under subtitle c, the hazardous precisions of the law or subtitle d which was a solid waste provision. either way, increased regulation which i believe is warranted because there's real and potential public health and environmental issues. all this in the aftermath of the failure of the big impalement in

houston, tennessee. we received over 450,000 comments on the proposal, and that's going to take quite a bit of time to work through, and so we remain committed to mule making on this mat -- rule making on this matter, and we're going to analyze that information and make a final decisions based on comments, science, and the law, but we will certainly not do that this calendar year. i think it's going to take quite a bit of time. >> i understood you had three proposals to comment on, c, d, and d prime, and there were three different ones. the only concern i have if you look at the tennessee incident which was obviously serious, it seems to me that it's a matter of engineering and studying and dams and things of that nature, but to just reclassify fly ash as a hazardous material is a big

step. just like in the case of the fertilizer, i hope you, leader of the agency, reach the conclusion that that's the direction you'll go in and at least consult with the united states congress before moving in that direction. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. murran. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i hope that that's not your alexandria lawn where you use that stuff. natural green products go on my property in virginia. thank you for asking. we have that getting into the water supply and spend the taxpayer's money to clean it. >> i think that's how you got the dog head fish. >> i suspect so. we're trying to find the neighbors accountable for that. anyway, that's not what i wanted to focus on here, but thanks for

raising it. we'll send the lawn police out after you. first of all, greenhouse gases. you know, we have heard so much from so many people on how aggressive you've been on agree house -- on greenhouse gases. we have this coal fired power plant that's redundant, and we still can't get it closed down. some of us would like a little more aggressive action, but i know how defer renne issue you want to be to the industry and you want to make sure everything is done right, but there is another point of view from the one that has been expressed particularly on the floor of the house when we were considering the cr, and during consideration of the cr, mr. poe from texas, the author of the amendment to stop epa's regulation of

greenhouse gases, and i quote, "this amendment will rain in the epa and prevent them from the cap-and-trade philosophy." other members said they were trying to implement cap-and-trade. do the greenhouse gas regulations finalized in december actually institute cap-and-trade, and do you intend to implement cap-and-trade in the future? >> that's no and no. epa has establish -- has not established the program and doesn't intend to do so. we do not -- >> so without congressional action, you're not going to be acting on that, so thank you, ms. jackson. we heard also from mr. barrton, the ranking member on the congress committee that carbon

dioxide is not a pollutant, so epa has no authority to regulate that. is that true? >> no, sir, that is untrue. >> okay. just so all the members are clear, what have you asked of industry in the greenhouse gas regulations, and have you seen evidence of refineries and power plants actually going out of business as a result of your actions? >> no, sir. actually, we've seen some permit activity that's encouraging i think. we have had about 100 applications that are now in process. psd are clean air act permits needed before either undertaking a new facility or a significant modification that raises the amount of greenhouse gases quite significantly. 26 of the 100 have done their analysis for greenhouse gas emissions, and that's before the permit house writers. two already received their

greenhouse gas permits. i believe one is in louisiana, and the other is in california. >> okay. now, on clean waters. this dump truck of a bill hr1 -- >> what? >> a dump truck, because we dumped -- you guys dumped everything you can imagine into it, and weighing it down so, we're having trouble getting it passed, of course, but it contains language that prohibits epa from rules and guidance pertaining to the deaf nation of waiters under the clean water act. without question that there's two supreme court decisions, one in 2001 and another in 2006 that have credited confusion and uncertainty, but the prohibition in hr1 is antireal estate and antibusiness given the past

position of industry groups that they support a rule making process that would provide all sides with clarification, with ample opportunity to participate in that regulatory process, so i ask you, administrator, how would the prohibition dumped on to hr1 impact the permit process and epa's future action limiting water pollution? >> well, i believe it would be, it would prevent epa from offering clarification to state -- to permit writers who work for epa, the corp., or authorized states under the clean water act, and that level of con dpiewtion is having a -- confusion is having a real world impact on implementing and enforcement, and in my belief is having or will have an impact on water quality if not addressed. if we are prohibited from making any clarification possible, it

will have an impact on our ability to move as we try to develop and invest money as we try to create jobs. >> well, that was what i was concerned about. we're trying to grow the economy, and people who have plans and have worked out with the locality, a number of smart growth ideas in metropoll tan areas, and we're told we can't move, and they're asking you to do it and now stop because of hr1. one last question with regard to hr one, section 1746. it would fund the government through the remainder, fiscal year, but would stop epa from e limbuating greenhouse -- eeliminating greenhouse gas emissions. what's unclear is the renewable fuel standards, so i want to ask you, is