i think a huge thing that could happen perhaps as a result of these hearings or other federal action, would be to awaken the american people to the social need that we' are looking for ad encourage everybody to look around them and give an older person a ride. i think the solution is sitting in driveways from coast to coast. if people will just open their eyes and see -- and i think people are really willing to help each other. but we just don't have a culture of looking around and realizing that older people have this need. so i mean -- and that's right there. that doesn't cost any public money at all. >> is it in your experience that a senior will limit their mobility because they don't want to be a burden on their family members? >> absolutely. absolutely. i mean, i must have heard an older person say i don't want to be a burden about, you know, a

quarter of a million times already. nobody wants to be a burden. i think that's so at any age. >> dr. baldwin? >> one of the innovations i want to bring forward is something that we've been charged with at cdc. that is to think about the connection between clinical medicine and public health. in early september, all the cdc leadership was sent a note saying, how can we improve prevention in health care? he outlined four specific areas that i think crosswalk nicely with transportation. the first was to reduce practice variability. an opportunity in this space is as we get better and better about understanding driver fitness and how to evaluate it, reducing practice variability across health care settings is going to be critically important. the secondary was engaging the entire health care team. so assisting with these screenings, understanding these transitions, engaging allied health, occupational therapists and others and importantly having those professionals connect with these

transportation services. the third area was to leverage health i.t. as electronic health records become more and more ubiquitous in this country, i think there's a real opportunity to leverage those. one of the issues as we all know in older drivers is the issue of medication management. those electronic health records can sort of help understand what the issues are at play. and they can help potentially -- again, i know there are some hippa issues -- with connecting individuals potentially at risk to informing the department of motor vehicle and others. one of the drum beats you're hearing from all of us in this case is remaining patient focused but thinking about the older adult themselves. so what are their needs? using some of the older mobility assessment tools that have been discussed, understanding them and catering services to that end. i think there's a real opportunity to sort of connect clinical medicine and public health. i think that's an untapped

innovation. >> dr. baldwin, how are you all working to promote health and transportation and reaching out between your agency and hhs and d.o.t. >> sure. injuries are the leading cause of death for americans between 1 and 44 and the fifth leading cause overall. this is a priority topic because of both the burden, the availability of evidence-based interventions that can be readily scaled up. as part of that, and i spoke briefly about the strengthening of the connection we made with d.o.t. and the national highway safety and traffic administration, there's some real opportunities there. because transportation impacts so much of us in public health and so broadly, i think that's why one of the other reasons why it's a public health issue. earlier this year the cdc and partners released ageing and

health in america 2013. one of the issues that was spotlighted here by our colleagues in the healthy ageing program at the chronic disease center was, in fact, mobility. so it both cuts into motor vehicle injury prevention, which is the expertise where i reside, as well as our colleagues in chronic disease and environmental health. so it's really a cross-cutting issue. >> and i'd like the two of you to comment. is there anything in the affordable care act that is applicable to stimulate and fund transportation solutioningsronss transportation solutioningsolut? >> sure. the biggest touch point in the affordable care act that impacts us is through our community transformation grants. it has the opportunity to impact over 130 million americans, and we're currently working to improve community design to encourage active transportation, walking and biking, for all ages, including older adults. in the first round of funding in

2011, $103 million were distributed to 61 state and local agencies including tribes and nongovernmental organizations. senator collins, in your state, maine health is working to improve active transportation for up to 57,000 people as a result of ctg, the community transportation grants. >> well, just to maybe complement that from our perspective, as you know, the affordable care act is administered by the centers for medicaid at hhs. in talking with our partners

there, we understand that under the medicaid expansion for household incomes, up to 133% of the poverty line, transportation is a required service. so older adults would be eligible to receive transportation access for medical services within that envelope. very importantly, though, i would like to also mention how hhs has been an incredibly strong partner with fta on a number of levels. very importantly, i mentioned it in my testimony, the ability to leverage the funding sources that we have available for services for seniors for things such as accessing medical care does require by law a match. but what is made available is the fact that unlike in most programs, other federal funds such as hhs funds can be used by

communities to match the transportation funds, and that's very important particularly for communities that may be stretched in terms of their own local sources that might otherwise need to be brought to bear. so it enables a number of the programs that folks might want to pursue with our transportation dollars, including health access. for that to be not such a financial burden because they can deploy the hhs funding to help get those projects on the ground. >> and do any of you want to comment on what this last round of sequestration has done and what you might expect this next round, if enacted january the 15th of sequestration will do. >> i'll comment on that. sequestration required cdc to cut about 5% or more than $285

million from its fiscal year '13 budget, and we applied those cuts evenly across all programs, projects, and activities. this frankly means every area at cdc was impacted. in addition, the prevention and public health fund allocation of fy-'13 was almost $350 million below the fy-'12 number. in total, cdc programs lost about $1 billion or 10% of the entire cdc budget. below fy-'12 numbers. >> well, sequestration had a very direct impact on the research money that goes to supporting the work of the technical assistance centers that we have here. that combined with appropriation pressures really meant that for a number of our centers, we were able to continue funding them for this year, but unless the situation changes for next year, it's going to be very tough to

continue providing the technical assistance that's extremely cost effective in terms of, again, having folks on the ground be able to advance the programs that we're administering. >> thank you, all. >> according to the bureau of labor statistics, the average household spends about 20% of its income on transportation. i will say that was higher than i expected. we tend to think of shelter, food, clothing, when in fact, transportation is right up there after housing as a large part of household income expenditures. so, ms. freund, when you were

talking about seniors being willing to pay the $11, is that because they understand how much a car costs them to maintain, to insure, to drive? >> senator collins, i'm not sure they understand that on any kind of a sort of conscious or cognitive level. but i do think that people truly are willing to pay for service that they need and know will help them remain independently in their homes. even our itn users who use the service very, very, very often are spending far less than it costs to support a private automobile. you know, those numbers are shocking, i know, but numbers are numbers. and reality doesn't go away. those are free consumer choices. people will willingly spend 20%

of household income on transportation, and i think that -- i mean, to me, that's the big pot of gold. to me, that's not bad news. to me, that's good news. all we need to do is provide a service that they want, and they'll pay for it. >> exactly. i think that's why when one at first hears $11 a trip or $6 a trip, you think, oh, is that going to be a barrier? but when you look at what people are already spending, it translates into a very reasonable amount and certainly the demand for your service proves that. but i think it would be helpful for the committee if you were to describe to us a typical itn member in the state of maine. >> sure. i can actually describe a typical itn member in 20 states. >> very impressive.

>> well, the numbers are consistent over many years. the typical member is -- the average age is 80, but the most common age is 85. 80% of our members are women. most of those women are living alone in the community. and most of those women have sort of a lower to middle income range, and they use their rides most commonly for access to medical care but also for shopping and social needs and so forth. >> and what about income levels? could you give us a sense of what the average income level or what percentage she mentioned that you have a significant percentage below $25,000 in annual income? >> well, more than half of the people who use the service have an income of $50,000 or less.

and they use the service between two and four times a week. >> are any of them in rural areas that you go to pick up? >> some are in rural areas, but most are in suburban areas. the service we're developing for rural areas is itn everywhere. that's the next phase of what we're doing. i can also tell you that 50%, a little over 50% of the people we serve have some kind of mobility impairment, either a chair or walker or cane. and 30% are either blind or visually impaired. so we're talking about a frail population. >> and a very vulnerable population that really shouldn't be driving and can't drive. >> 25% of the people who use itn are driving at the time that they sign up and then they

transition voluntarily because they have an alternative. in an evaluation of the project we did for the atlantic philanthropies, we were able to determine that after using the service for six months and again at 12 months, that the amount of mobility people felt themselves to have was equal to the amount of mobility they had when they were driving, which is something that i think nobody thought was possible. but it is possible. >> that's really a terrific result. that's great news. i'm very eager to see you expand into the rural areas can of the state, as you know. >> you can have my credits too then. >> ms. mcmillan, ms. freund said something i thought was very profound when she said the answer is in our driveways

across america and that there's a lack of public awareness that we each could be really helpful by volunteering to drive an elderly person to an appointment or to see a friend or to the grocery store. you mentioned in your opening statement that there are some 400 mobility managers. what do these people do, and where are they? >> well, they're all across the country. what mobility managers do is, again, they're sort of the master ride match service you might say in terms of being able to identify first of all what is the customer constituency you're trying to serve? where do they need to go, and what is the combination of different services that might get them there? whether that be a ride sharing,

volunteer or otherwise service provided by a nonprofit, public transit service, paratransit service. again, an accessible taxicab service. within that community, what are all the various options that might be there? then serve to assist and what we hope more and more through a one-call or one-click web-based service of how, you know, someone can put together the customized ride from a to b they need to have. again, we've been able to fund those under -- in 2005, i believe, one of the important changes in our authorizing law is that those mobility management services can be funded from our core funding programs, both for urban and rural areas. they're coded section 5307 and

5311. but the point being that there's an eligibility that was extended to these mobility management options that then can be funded with federal dollars because we'd like to see them more and more. i think we had 325 -- let's see. i'm trying to think. it was $325,000 was being spent when that eligibility first happened back in 2005. now it's over $40 million are being spent per year on these services. so we've seen a huge jump in interest. >> and i think that reflects the growing need, the -- of our increasingly elderly population. but i'm concerned that there's a lack of public awareness about the services and about the mobility managers. this is an issue that because of itn america i've followed fairly

closely, and as someone who represents a state that by median age is the oldest in the nation, i also have a great interest in how we're going to meet this need. prior to this hearing, i was not aware of these mobility managers. so i wonder what is being done to increase public awareness to work more closely with, perhaps, seniors, groups in the states, whether it's aarp or just senior centers in various communities. what are you doing to increase the visibility? >> well, there's a couple of things i would mention. i had mentioned before this coordinated plan that's required to access some of our funding. one recommendation that has been made is there really needs to be an ongoing, coordinating council that involves on an ongoing

basis the very groups you just mentioned, whether it's aarp or senior groups within the community, faith-based organizations that can get the word out that these services are available. one thing that we did when we had our veterans transportation and community living initiative that we funded in fiscal year '11 and '12 that i mentioned, we specifically included as part of that program a marketing program. so there was assistance that was allowed for some folks to come in simply to, as you well observe, be able to get the word out that once we put the service out there for mobility management serving not only veterans and their families but also other community members that needed those same services, that there was a way, as you say, of getting the word out. so it's a very important point that we need to keep in mind

going forward with these programs. >> ms. dize. >> thank you. i think that one of the issues is that there's parallel with the development of mobility management. there's also an increasing amount of effort, i think, within the ageing network and within human services that provide general information and assistance lines to address transportation. because very often, transportation arises out of a pan that plea of needs. the person may initially call about health care or home and community based services and transportation is an adjunct to that need. so it's important that general information lines are equipped to know about the transportation resources and to connect with mobility managers where they exist in the community. i think a lot of that is

happening. i would say that n for a, which is the association i work for, administers an aoa funded service called the elder care locat locator. last year the number one reason why people called was about transportation. we got more than 18,000 calls about transportation between july of 2012 and june 2013. and those numbers are increasing. even though people struggle with financial issues, health care issues and so forth, transportation remains number one. i also think there's a lot going on in communities to increase the expertise and the connectedness between the human services programs and transportation so that when people call, they have the full picture. >> thank you. and finally, ms. freund, in

maine recently, as you know, there have been some problems with contractors who have been hired to provide rides to individuals who receive services through the medicaid program. do you assess as part of itn's evaluation the reliability and quality and customer satisfaction, if you will, of your program? >> we have an annual customer satisfaction survey that we do for itn in maine and across the country. the customer sfrax ratings have been consistent over a number of years. i think 98% of the people who use the service would recommend it. 96% are happy with the service.

about 2% to 3% think that the service is too expensive for the service they receive and by about ten to one, people think it's inexpensive for the service they receive. we do ask those questions. we also do a survey of all our volunteers every year and our affiliates every year. if you're doing something wrong, you want to know it right away, right? >> exactly. well, i think it's such an impressive program, and i've been delighted to see it replicated through your leadership and so many other states. i think it's a great model that we can encourage to be spread. i hope the federal department of transportation, which has been generous in its support in the earl he years, will take notice of the program and the high

satisfaction rates as well. because this is a problem that is not going to go away. and i think for rural states in particular, it poses a tremendous challenge for seniors living in very rural areas where frankly there simply is no alternative to a car. and that's one of the reasons that i'm so grateful to the chairman for allowing us to have this hearing today. i just want to thank all of you for adding to our knowledge. when i heard ms. freund give those satisfaction rates, i couldn't help but think that congress would be happy to have half those rating levels. but they truly are impressive. so thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thank you, all, for testifying. >> well, it's been a great

discussion, and it's a discussion about an obligation of a society to take care of not only the very young but the very old. and so susan

in particular because she was instrumental in designing it for the grand open of the nixon library in number of american 1990. she loved gardening and had a special affinity for roses. she was instrumental in opening up to the white house for garden tours in the spring which is a tradition continued to this day. this is a pat nixon rose developed in 1972 by a french designer. when mrs. nixon was first lady. it's the only rose that will continually grow at the white house. this is a final resting place of both president and mrs. nixon only steps away from the 1910 farmhouse. there's a great story behind the nixons knee --

memorial site, which she choose herself. she wanted to meet the people affected bit devastating earthquake that rocked peru. the reporter said, what good will it do if the people can't understand you? even when people can't speak your language. they can tell if you have love in your heart. watch our program on first lady pat nixon on our website. or see it saturday on c-span at 7:00 p.m. eastern. and the series continues live monday as we look at first lady betty ford. on many campuses young women are taught they live in a society where girls are shortchanged in school, robbed of self-esteem and channeled to low paying fields. once in the workplace they're cheated out of 25% of salary. they face invisible barriers, and also forces that hold them

down and keep them back and the high echelon of power. now this picture just didn't fit reality. it's distorted. it claims that supported have been repeated so many times they have taken on this aura of truth. her critique of late comp -- contemporary feminism. sunday on in-depth live for three hours beginning at noon eastern. and looking ahead to the new year, join radio talk show host january 5th. booktv's in-depth, the first sunday of every month on c-span2 . the head of the environmental protection agency testified two weeks ago before the house science committee. she answered questions about ethanol, hydraulic fracturing,

and whether she signed up for health care under the health care law. this is two and a half hours. [inaudible conversations] the committee on science, space, and technology to come to order. welcome, everyone to today's hearing entitled, strengthening transparency. i'm going recognize myself for five minutes for an opening statement and recognize the ranking member for hers. environmental protection agency like every other governmental institution should answer to the american people. everyone agrees that we need to protect the environment but we should do so in a way that is open and honest. democracy requires transparency and accountability. yet epa's justification for the regulations are cloaked in secret science. it appears the epa bend the law and stretches the science to justify its own objective. americans impacted by the agency's regulations have a right to see the data and

determine for themselves independently if these regulations are based on sound science or a partisan agenda. the epa's effort to expand i.t. regulatory reach across the u.s. represented troubling trend. for example, take epa's current attempt to redefine the jurisdiction under the clean water act. seeks to expand the definition of waters of the tows give the agency unprecedented new authority over private property. according to the reports expansion of epa regulatory power could include almost all manmade and natural streams, lakes, and ponds. this states right and increases federal control of private property and could lead to the epa telling us what to do in our own backyard. the epa's effort to demonize hydraulic fracturing of -- before it takes time to get the fact. the epa claims groundwater con

tom nation but forced to retract the claims when it can produce no evidence. perhaps the most worrisome example of the agency's disregard for transparency and accountability are found in the clean air program. we all agree that in ensuring clean air is essential. but the epa has a responsibility to establish rules that balance our environmental concerns and our economic needs. nearly all of this administration's air quality regulations are justified on the basis of hidden data. these regulations cost billions of dollars but the epa claims that the benefits of these rules justify the cost. these claims can't be verified if the epa uses secret science. more than two years ago, before this committee, the assistant administrator mccarthy said the information was available for independent review and verification. and a few months ago the president's own science adviser took the same position.

when the epa failed to live up to the commitment the committee issues a subpoena. three weeks later they haven't provided the data necessary to verify the agency's claims. let me be clear, it's the epa's responsibility to ensure that the science it united uses is transparent and its claims can be verified independently. recently the epa provided us with copies of letters it received from scientists explaining why they believe the data cannot be release to the public. it's unfortune it took two years and a subpoena to get here. now even the epa knows the truth. the agency itself cannot publicly verify itself own claims. so not only do we have a lack of transparency, we have an agency that is regulating without the facts to back up the claims. we need to know whether the sages telling the truth to the american people. the epa miseither make data public or commit to no longer using secret science to support

the regulations. without this, congress will have no choice but prohibit the epa's use of secret data moving forward. i will introduce legislation in the next few weeks that will stop the epa from basing regulations on undisclosed and unverified information. we can and should continue to look for ways to protect our environment. but these efforts must be open, transparent, and based on sound science. only then can the american people decide whether the cost of epa's regulatory agenda is supported by the facts. now that concludes my opening statement. and the ranking member, the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for her opening statement. >> thank you very much. good morning.

since assuming the position. i think her performance and her integrity speaks for themselves. i thought it was important to review the mission of the agency. first, the mission of epa is to protect human health and the environment. as a member of congress, i think i should be doing all i can to encourage epa as and tempt to carry out a very challenging mission. i think too often epa made a target of funding cuts, and it leadership objected to the -- dem gracious. unfortunately, our own committee has not been -- from employing these tactics. mr. chairman, i'm a texas from

birth to death. and i'm no stranger to the oil and gas industry and the economic benefit dhais bring. or to the pollution and health and environmental impacts those industries can also bring. i know, that epa's actions have consequences companies is a sometimes a negative. i also know that epa's actions have important consequences for health of our constituents. especially those who are young and our elderly. and those consequences have been very positive in over the 40 years that epa has been in existence. we all want to a healthy economy. we also want a healthy quality of life for our citizen i are. and epa's efforts have played a critical role in achieving both these goals since its inception. as members of congress, i think we should strive to educate our

constituents, not scare them. i hope today i can resist the temptation to try for provocative sound byte for my district and use the hearing to better understand what epa has been tasked to accomplished. how it is doing on the task, and how we in congress can help it to do its job more effectively. administrator mccarthy, i know you have a tough job. i want to commend you for your willingness to take it on inspite of all the hurdles that you and your agency face. i look forward to your testimony, and i look forward to working with you to epa the achieve that the nation has asked us to carry out. i thank you and yield back my time. >> thank you. and members who have opening statements can submit them for the record and they will appear at this point. our witness today is the honorable gina mccarthy. prior to her appointment as

administrator, she was the assistant administrator for epa's officer of air and radiation, where she advocated to protect public health and the environment. during her career, which spans over 30 years she worked at both the state and local levels on environmental issues and helped coordinate policies on economic growth, transportation, and the environment. administrator mccarthy received a bachelor of arts degree in social anthropology in massachusetts ands masters of science in environmental health engineering and planning. at this time, i'll yield to the gentlewoman from connecticut for additional comments. >> thank you, mr. chairman. for holding the hearing on the environmental protection agency. i'm pleased to welcome the administrator who served as commissioner of connecticut's department of environmental protection and then as assistant administrator at the u.s. epa. administrator mccarthy, it's wonderful to see you again.

congratulations on your conformation, you have an important role and responsibility as head of an agency charged with protecting the environment and the publics' health. i appreciate all of your hard work to that end, and we are very proud of you in connecticut and very pleased to see you here today. thank you very much. >> thank you. administrator mccarthy. we welcome your testimony, please proceed. >> ranking member -- [inaudible] >> i'm so sorry. good morning, chairmt smith and rehabbing member johnson and other distinguished members of the committee. i'm pleased to be here to talk about the central role that science plays at the united states environmental protection agency. let me begin by stating that science is and always has been the backbone of epa's decision making. the agency's ability to pursue its mission to protect public health environment depends on the integrity of the science

upon which it relies. i forly believe that environmental policy's decisions guidance, and regulation that impact the lives of all americans must be grounded at the most fundamental level in science and sound high quality para science. because we rely on science on mission on behalf of the american people, it must be conducted in ways that transparent that is free from bias and conflict of interest and the highest quality and integrity and qawbility. these qualities are important not just within our own organization and the federal government, but across the scientific community. with its loan established and highly honorable commitment to maintaining strict adherence to ethical research. that bilged upon existing agency and government-wide policy and guidance documents.

explicitly outlining epa's commitment to the highest standards of scientific integrity. the commitment extends to any scientist organization who wishes to contribute to our efforts. all epa-funded research projects whether conducted but epa scientists or outside are collaborated must comply with the agency's regularrous quality assurance requirements. to ensure we have the best possible science, we is have committed to rigorous independent peer review of the scientific data. the model and the analysis that support our decisions peer review can take a number of forum ranging from external review by the national academy of sciences or the epa's federal advisory committees to contract a coordinated reviews. consistent with omb's guidance, we require peer review of all epa research projects, and for all influential scientific information and highly influential scientific

assessments. among the external advisory committees is the epa's science advisory board. sab reviews are conducted by group of independent, epa scientists with range of expertise required for that particular advisory topic. we invite the public to nominate experts for the sab panel and comment on candidates being considered by the sab for epa. the epa evaluates public comments and information submitted about epa sab nominees. the epa's review experts confidential findings is available to ensure there are no conflicts of interest. sab peer review are conducted in public sessions. public comments help to ensure

that all relevance science and technical issues are available for the sab as it reviews the science it will support our environmental decisions. and other -- another example of how well we do science and maintain our integrity is the scientific advise recommittee. which provides independent advise to the epa administrator on the science that supports epa's national quality standards. the case act reviews the epa's integrated science assessment, which delivers science and support of the clean air act. through transparent and open process we are committed to enhancing agencies integrated risk information system assessment program. a strong scientifically rigorous program is of critical importance inspect. the epa's process of enhancing the scientific integrity of the assessments, enhancing the productivity of that program,

and increasing transparency. so that issues are identified and debated early on in the process. in 2009, the epa made significant enhancement to irs by announcing a new seven step assessment development process. since that time, the national research council made recommendations related to enhancing the assessment. the epa is making changes still to the iris program. to enhance our ability to respond to those recommendations and to maintain our science integrity. the exchanges will help the epa produce more high-quality iris assessments each year in a timely and transparent manner to make the needs of the agency and the public. a newly released nrc report is largely supportive of the enhanced approach that epa is now taking to develop the iris assessment in this case for inorganic -- and as i mentioned in my opening statement, mr. chairman,

science is the backbone of our decision making. and our work is based on principle of science, integrity, and transparency that are expected and deserved by american people. i'm proud of the epa's research efforts and the sound use of science and technology to fulfill epa's important mission to protect public health and safe guard the natural environment. i want to thank you for the opportunity to meet with the committee for the first time and to provide testimony and i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> thank you, ms. mccarthy. i recognize myself for the question. when you testified before the committee in september of 2011, you promise the to provide the data behind the health benefit claims. yet, to my knowledge, you have not done that. yet the agency continues to justify major regulations based upon these studies. now you have given the committee

some information. do you agree that the information you have given us so far is insufficient to validate these findings? >> mr. chairman, my understanding is that we have submitted information that you requested. >> the information you have given us sufficient to validate the findings that you've come to? >> it is sufficient for you to understand the peer review -- >> i know stuff understand. but validated independently. is the information you have given us sufficiently to validate independently the findings you have concluded? >> i believe it's e fresh sei to -- peer review. >> we have an letter from the epa saying it was not sufficient. so you might want to check with other individuals within the epa. we have not gotten sufficient information to value candidate the findings. >> mr. chairman, if you are looking to replicate the studies. i will agree with you that all of the information isn't

available to the agency. we have fought get the information for you and provided that information. >> the information you provided, i'll make at the statement again. is validated by a letter we received from the epa is not sufficient to validate your findings. let me go tonight next question. next year the epa is seeking to change the national ozone standards the agency admitses could be the most expensive regulation in history. i think perhaps the cost of $100 billion to the american people. were you -- will you specifically commit to not rely on secret science, and hidden data for the ozone standards. in other words will you make the underlying data public? >> the clean air science advise recommittee that we rely on as a peer review entity to take a look at the national air quality standards ensures that we are public that make our information publicly available for the transparency -- >> [inaudible conversations] information made publicly available but reline the issue. >> in the the same way we have

done it before, mr. chairman. >> the same way before wasn't sufficient. i'm wondering for you're saying if it is . >> we are relying on thousand of studies. we provide an integrated science assessment. that is they are rowly looked at. >> you said that the information would be made public that you data you rely upon for the issue. >> the same way we have done it always, mr. chairman. >> okay. we have to disagree on that. i don't think you have always done it. if you say you'll do it now i'll take your word. >> have you given the committee all the subpoena data and epa's possession? >> i'm sorry we have a number of subpoenas. >> i'm talking about the one for the -- have you given the committee all of the information that we have subpoenaed that is in your possession? >> i believe we have as of

september 20th. >> okay. >> those were related to some specific studies. one was outstanding until september 20th. so we could make sure that we had looked at confidentially. >> will the epa produce all the response with outside entity regarding effort to comply with the subpoena. it would include e-mail, text, and other electronic communications. >> i believe we are responding to the request today, mr. chairman. if you have further question about the response you don't believe it's adequate. we'll certainly get staff together and converse it. >> is that correct? >> we are going to respond to

your question for that. >> thank you for that. my last question is this. epa has a draft clean water act rule that can give epa unprecedented authority over private property. the law clearly states a the the time such appropriate is sent to other federal agencies it must also be made available to epa science advisory board. the sab for peer review inspect. september sent the proposal for inner agency review. according to your sab, the draft has not been made available to the board. why didn't you comply with this requirement before formerly proposing the rule? be mr. chairman, i want to assure you we are going to be and complying with our statutory obligations. what you're referring to is a rule that is very, very early in the process. >> right. you submitted to -- according to the law you submitted omb to the science advisory board.

>> we have a process that is established at epa for how we communicate with the science advisory board on the issues. it's a process agreed to. we have -- submissions are supposed to be current. yet you submitted the rule to omb but not the science advisory board. are you expected do it immediately? >> again, the scienced a -- advisory board have an towbt look at the science that underpinned the rule. if you have to submit to the advisory board at the same time you give it to the other agencies. you haven't done that. i'm wondering why. >> well, it's not a question we haven't done it. it's a question that we have a process in place. >> so you -- [inaudible conversations] so you have my submitted -- >> you have submitted the rule to the advisory board? >> as far as i know i don't believe the advisory board has the rule. we are early in the process. unfortunately you may have it.

they are likely to have it as well. it's been publicly released. theres a law that said you are supposed to submit it immediately. you haven't done it. it's not following the proper process. mr. chairman, i'm happy to supply you with the articulated process that we use to comply with that. we believe -- >> the process is very clear because the process required by law that you're not following at this point. i hope you will. that concludes my questions and the ranking member is recognized for hers. >> thank you very much. i'm a little confused myself. i'm seeing stacks huge stacks of materials submitted. i don't know what is missing that you have access to that have been requested. is it -- downside what --

do you understand what is being requested? >> we believe we do and believe we have complied with the best of our ability. epa provided thousand of pages of material that have been requested of us. we have done it because we agree with this committee. and its mission to ensure we have sound science and transparency. that is a commitment of this agency. and we will fulfill that commitment. >> thank you. i'm trying to follow the line of the question of the chair to understand exactly what the real problem is. how are you interpret what the questions have been for you understanding and what else are do you think can happen what can be given? >> well, we have provided information -- when we do rulemaking like

national air quality standards. we look at the thousand of peer reviewed studies that are available to us. that underlying data is available to us. we have done that. there is much information we look at that is peer review literature. which is really how science works, ranking member. new we rely on rigorous peer review data. epa relooks at that to make sure it's been peer reviewed before we rely on it. we continue have the wealth of data underneath all of the thousand of studies. but clearly researchers including epa can enter in to agreements to gather that data. but much of it ends up confidential or private.

we have obligations under statutes as well as omb guidance to protect the privacy. in this case, we have the data on-air quality, we have the can that on deaths. what we don't have available to us with the full breadth of raw data is the culprit data which follows individuals. when we have that data we stro protect it. we don't need to see the wealth of raw data under every study to know it's been rigorously peer reviewed and rely on it for decision making. >> has there ever been a time when the congress asked raw data that is unique? >> we did actually face similar questioning with, frankly, sent about the exact same issues. the pm studies, the particular matter studies studies from harvard university and american cancer society.

we were asked similar questions back in the early '90s, is my understanding, and we funded through a contractor 30 researchers to look for three years at all of that underlying data. they had available because they could enter to a confidential contract with the researchers to access that data so the private information was protected. they did a complete reanalysis of that data in the methodologies used and they came out with the same types of conclusions. so we have verified even with that underlying data available that these studies that can be relied on. these are, in fact, studies that the world relies on. not just epa. they're well done, they are credible, and they have not changed their methodology substantially since the last time we even looked at the raw data. we're very confident in the underlying science and done the right thing and paid attention to that.

which is what epa is supposed to do. >> on june 27, 2012. you sent a letter to me real toift issue of ethanol and the waiver on e15, and i asked a question, does the epa remain confident that e15 will not damage car engines from vehicle of model years 2001 and later. they responded the epa remains confident in the technical basis for the e15 partial waiver decision. this question can be answered simply yes or no. you remain confident in the technical basis for the e15 decision? >> i do. >> okay. here is what others are saying. ford says, ford doesn't support

the introduction of e15 to the marketplace for the legacy fuel. for it is not approved in the owners manual as consider misfueling and any damage resulted from misfueling is not covered by the warranty. hermercedes-benz it will harm emission control system in the engines. pleading -- creating significant problems. honda, vehicle engines were not designed or it built to higher concentration of ethanol. there appears or to be the posh for engine failure. aaa the automotive engineering expert reviewed research and believe assessment is warranted but -- sustained use of e15 in both newer or older vehicles will cause significant problems.

and false check engine light and the coast guard. increasing the blend to e15 can be expected to exacerbate any fuel systems being reported with e10 blend gasoline. fuel leaks cause an unacceptable risk of fire and explosion. now my question to you is, are the auto manufacturers the aaa, the small engine makers and the u.s.a. coast guard wrong? how can the epa continue to ignore the concerns? >> congressman, i'm not going to speak to their issues that particularly the problem manufacturers might have relative to their liability and warranty considerations. what i can tell you is that epa, with d.o.e. did extensive testing of e15 on cars. we understand there are challenges prior to 2001, which is when some new more robust

engines were required in those vehicles. >> saints not what the manufacturers say. it's no what the aaa says. they don't make cars. they represent motorists' interests. that's not even what the coast guard said. we are dealing with small engines including marine engines, lawn mower, snow mobile. >> madam, i'm going ask you a question. >> i'm sorry. >> okay. >> i'm sorry going ask a question. i have a limited amount of time. you would make a good senator if you like to filibuster. i have a bill that the committee reported favorably out. require the national acomad --

science surrounding e15. there seem to be enough questions relating to epa's conclusions on this. why don't you support further testing of e15 and opposed to having an unbiased referee making call for the fuel? there's a disagreement on whether the epa conducted unbiased research. how about having another look at this before people's engines get wrecked? >> additional research that is done credible belie and transparent is always welcome. >> fine. i would appreciate a letter from the epa and from you supporting my bill and then maybe we can

put it on the floor. >> i feel we have sufficiently done our analysis. and i can -- >> then i guess having an unbiased view is something that you won't always support. i yield back the brans of my time. .. >> the work has not progressed as expeditiously as it should, and when we met to discuss the issue, you had yet to be confirmed as administrator, but we had a productive conversation and encouraging conversation

about increased cooperation between the eps headquarters, and the local stake holders, and so far, i've seen positive signs of that happening, and i wanted to say that i look forward to working with you and the e. pa to, we hope, finally take care of the super fund site in the harbor. thank you for the work on that. >> thank you. >> on the top of the epa protecting public health, in your testimony >> in a hearing held by the subcommittee earlier this year, a look at the state of the environment. one witness said that looking

too close at the problem, one looks something to ugly to gawk at. considering public health, it's hard to imagine because it's small or microskoppic, it should not be evaluated to determine the impact on public health. surely our con stitch wents are harmed by pollution they cannot see. can you talk about the process epa determines when a problem is severe enough to address through public action, and i want to save time for another question. >> we address the signs in many different ways depending upon what we're actually focusing on and where our authorities lie. epa doesn't agree with the statement that we shouldn't be focused both on mission as well as appropriately doing our jobs that congress gave us. we look at both doing independent reviews of the science. we do that rigorously, have the

iris process, a health assessment that underpins many decision we do to help us understand what the science implications are, what the health implications are to people exposed to chemicals in other hazards in the environment. it's extremely important for us to look at those issues. we look at the responsibilities congress gave us and what we have and look at that to address those. that is how we make improvements in public health and how we've successfully done that for 30 years. >> thank you. in march of this year, there was a hearing on the advisory board, and since then, there's legislation modifying the makeup of the boards, and throughout the process, some on the committee say they are not represented and that interests dominate and others of us

technology that the industry perspective should be heard, but we're concerned about making sure we don't have conflict of interest. you discussed in in the opening testimony, but say how industry sciences contribute to the board while also avoiding conflicts of interest and how do you, as administrator, ensure the advice you receive from the bodies are not tainted with policy-related judgments? >> the science -- for the science advisory board, we believe epa meets and exceeds responsibilities. our legal requirements and transparent and look more closely to ensure that we look at the government board as well. we're proud of this, and when we do panels and put them together, we publish the consideration of the panel members, ask for

comments on that that, and make sure the penalties put together are well-balanced and have all range of expertise we're looking for as well as a variety of perspectives. >> discuss the conflict of issue issue because i want to get that. >> we actually look very closely at conflict of issue which we look at both whether or not there are financial problems that are real or appearances there and do a thorough analysis of investment opportunities, of financial considerations. we recently established the new process looking at that externally, and we look at issues whether they are perceived or real, do them publicly, transparently, take comment the every step of the way to ensure the panel has the credibility it needs to speak from a sound science and transparency perspective. >> thank you very much. my time expired.

thawfng, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the gentleman from california, the vice chairman of the committee, is recognized for his question. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and following up on the line of questioning, i appreciate her staff and appreciate you being here with us today. >> thank you. this is about the science boards, and there's serious concern that regulatory science is somewhat of a closed loop setting regulatory goals base on whatever motives the dpoals -- goals are based upon and develops the funds and science that it needs to justify the goals. the session creates regulations and solely responsible for interpreting the regulations.

making matters worse, the courts largely defer to the epa, especially when questions involve the analysis of science. therefore, the most critical requirement for america to trust this regulatory policy or system , especially regulations set forth by the epa is scientific integrity. unfortunately, as i say, there are worries, and at least i believe there seems to be some very serious reasons for being worried about this being a closed loop, a closed loop is not going to give us the type of science that we need. we believe that there, especially this is evident in a matter that you were just discussing that our colleague from oregon, independent peer

review of the epa science, and we believe and i want to ask questions about whether or not this has been compromised. you are responsible for pointing members of the epa scientific advisory boards, and let's take a look. science advisory boards such as number one, the science advisory board and the clean air, number two, the clean air science advisory committee, and you called these panels independent review boards. your predecessor described them as being made up totally of independent expert scientists. that's pretty well with what you agree? acknowledging that's still what your goal is and what we're trying to do? i would like to put into the record some information prepare ed by the congressional research service that calls into serious question the

independence of the experts that sit on the committees. >> without objection, made part of the record. >> according to crs, almost 60% of the members of these two panels have received epa grants since 2000, totaling taxpayer funded grants worth roughly 140 million. perhaps worse, a majority of the members of the clean air science advisory committee, the panel tasked with critically evaluating the epa's particlat matter standards that finalize this at the end of 2012 received epa grant directly related to particlate matter since 2010. you have someone investigating

or you pass judgments on things that they, themselves, have been given grants and been involved in the research. they are supposedly overseeing, and the -- mr. administrator, in the past, we heard points of view that scientists, who have receivedded epa grants are somewhat immune from any potential conflicts associated with these grants they are involved in or future grants. do you consider that, the recipient of epa grants, do you consider that that, if someone is actually involved, had a grant, and done studies about something they are supposed to now review, that that would compromise that person's ability to have an independent judgment? >> no, not in and of itself as long as we have procedures to ensure they are fair minded, there because of their expertise. >> welfare minded just --

well, fair minded just means they don't have any means. you're talking somebody who was given a grant, reached conclusions, we can trust them to have an up biased view after we paid them in order to have a biased view? >> mr. chairman, there are concerns expressed about that, and we understand others expressed concerns about having people who are in the industry we're discussing -- >> that's correct. that's something to be concerned about. do you think government plays are immune from the same sort of bias you find -- >> no, i'm not saying they are amiewn, but we have a process in which we rigorous loy pursue issues to ensure they are there to represent their expertise and that the panel is balanced, that it's fair. it meets our requirements, ethical and technical. >> bias is not balance. question is whether there's members who are involved, sometimes at very high levels

and guiding the direction of the panels who actually have a built-in bias in that they've already been granted grants to make a conclusion before you now are asking them for an unbiased conclusion, and, in fact, sometimes, they are asked to give assessments of their own work. in other words, we are now paying someone to give an unbiased assessment of something that's his or her work. >> the time expired. the gentleman from washington is recognized for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you for coming to take our questions. >> good to be here, thank you. >> i have a question regarding epa funding and priorization. i represent washington state boarded by the pacific ocean and pew pugot sound.

i want to commend the work of your agency and federal agencies and the state of washington for the work done to protect our resources, but there's a lot more to be done. ocean, storm water runoff, restoration, just a few of the issues we're beginning to understand, not to mention the effects that these issues have on a marine industry and on the pugot sound's economy. based with the task, myself and representative denny heck with several colleagues created the pugot sound recovery caucus to gather support and figure out what we can do on a federal level to solve direct problems we face and how to be proactive in issues that are just beginning to emerge. with a limited federal budget receiving funding for the vital problems is an uphill battle that we're still climbing, and we need to continue to climb. not just because it affects our

environment, but because it affects jobs and our economy. i realize the issues that we face in the pugot sound are similar to issues across the nation, and we want to find ways not only to highlight the sound, but get process and projects off the ground and fix problems we need to ensure the vitality of the sound and not just now, but into the future, so first, there's an invitation and a few questions. i want to invite your partnership with our caucus. i'd love to invite you to meet with the member and invite you to come out and meet with the folks who are working on this in our state. can you give insight into how we make process, especially in light of the budget environment, how we fast track to give greater priority to efforts like this where the science is clear, the need is clear, and we need to start making progress? >> well, i do hope that the indiscriminate way that sequesteration impacted all

agencies is something that's looked at in the budget, upcoming budget discussions so that everybody can agree in a more sensible and common sense way to make reductions necessary and implement the budget effectively. i do know that we have folks working in the area, and there's nobody in the world that knows more about the issues that you've just identified than he does. we can look at grant funding, work on the issues together, and i have an opportunity over the next three years to make sure we enhance those partnerships so i look forward to it and we'll have a discussion how to do it. >> great, thank you very much. i yield back. >> thank you. the gentleman from texas, the chairman amother toc of the

committee is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i thank you for being here today and the committee's work for several years to ensure sound scientific processes in transparency at the epa. i think we need a study on epa's lack of transparency and accountability sometime, and you would be the witness we want you back again. one of the areas that concerns us is epa's poor track record related to science and hydraulic fracturing. they are 0 for 3 on this. you said the fracturing had been responsible for elimination and three times the agency had to back away from the allegations after proper animal -- analysis and review exposed this to be totally unfounded. we had a number of regulators

testify where you said today, testified here, and also testified in the energy and commerce committee, nearly all of those that have set before us have confirmed the safety of the unconventional oil and gas techniques. not once is there an incident of ground water from fracking, not one of them. we received testimony from both the president's science adviser as well as the president's assistant secretary sitting where you are under the oath that you've taken with the department of energy. he said there's not been a single documented case of ground water contamination from fracking in this country. you will not be surprised i reference once again in a comment that you made in 2011 that i gave you a chance to take back. i've not seen where you made any apologies for it when you said, and i hope you backed off since then saying, i certainly don't want to give the impression that

epa is in the business to create jobs. >> a cruel statement,ic, to the families who can't support their children or make a car payment because according to 2012 study by the research company, ihs global insight by investors daily estimated 1.7 million jobs in the united states. that number's projected to grow to 3.5 million jobs by 2035, and according to the energy information administration, natural gas production is expected to rise an estimated 44% through 20 # 40. without the use of hydraulic fracturing technologies, the nation's energy security and the economy seriously would be compromised and millions of jobs lost. with that in mind, you stated recently in the interview with the boston globe that, quote, there's nothing inherently dangerous in fracking that sound engineering practices can't

imlish, so do you agree that the fracturing is safe and not been a single documented case of ground water contamination from fracking, yes or no? >> i can't answer that way. >> well, then, you if you can't answer it that way, you.coop know -- >> i meant i want to explain it. >> i'm not asking for the explanation, just for yes or no. >> i do not know of a documented case. >> all right. i'm going on. i'll take that as you don't know or don't care because you did know, and you didn't care about people having jobs back then. that was a terrible statement. >> actually, it was taken out of context. >> it was not taken out of context. i read it exactly out of the cr. you know that. why don't you admit it? >> well, it was actually celebrating the fact that we have been successful in reducing environmental pollution -- >> don't filibuster me now. let me go on. you agree that this hydraulic fracturing is safe. do you agree to that?

>> i cannot agree. >> okay. you have not agreed. these experts that testified before you also agreed that state regulators have expertise, confidence, and experience necessary to oversee hydraulic fracturing. do you agree state regulators are quite knowledgeable about local, geologic conditions in the drilling operations they oversee? yes or no? >> i believe they are knowledgeable, and they often seek epa's technical advice. >> thank you, your answer to that would be yes. do you think the epa is better suited to regulate hydraulic fracturing operations than the state regulators who are already? yes or no? >> i believe that with water quality, the state is the line of first defense -- >> i'm not asking you to filibuster anymore. yes or no. >> i'm trying to understand how -- >> well, you're not making me happy. maybe i can't understand anything you say -- >> okay. >> you're hard to believe, ma'am. do you believe that natural gas prices would remain low if they

promote regulation that restrict production, yes or no? >> i actually think that a large component of the nation's energy security relies on the safe and responsible development of oil and natural gas, sir. >> the nation depends on all of the above energy strategy and the use of technologies like hydraulic fracturing are an important role in achieving energy security, we need to support it, not detour the efforts. >> and i would hope not, sir. >> i yield back my time, mr. chairman. >> thank you. the gentleman from connecticut is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you, administrator, again. connecticut, as you know, exceptionally well, has been the beneficiary of substantial improvements to health through the clean air act, and so i'd like you to talk about the situation now. many installed pollution control devices on the facility. if they were to pull back on clean air regulations governing

you tillties, do you believe they'd have an incentive to run these pollution controlled devices, and what would be the associated impact on air quality and public health, particularly for those of us on the eastern sea board who, with west to east winds are the recipient of what's burned in indiana, ohio, and elsewhere. >> well, we know even with the control equipment working that the power sector remains the largest single stationary source sector in terms of the amount of pollution that it emits. we are working hard with them, but there's no question that there is financial incentive to bypass equipment when it's available to be done, so i would assume that if we were to pull back on our regulations, what you're going to see is increased emission, and that increased emission results directly in public health impacts that are as severe as thousands of premature deaths.

>> we've seen asthma rates rise substantially in the city, and those costs born primarily by state governments who have to pick up the tab and buy insurance companies -- >> many because of pollution that comes to you from for a minutes run far away. >> exactly. if we can turn for a moment to the scientific review process. certainly, we heard commentary today and elsewhere from members of congress that stated or suggested that epa develops regulations based on salty sign tiffing evidence. can you explain to us in a little more detail, and i'll ask my question, then listen, how the scientific process that underpins epa regulations is peer review, what the importance of the process, and flush that out for us more, please. >> yeah, the process that we use is to actually establish peer review panels. we can do theme by seeking add vies from the national academy

of sciences, establish it through science advisory board, and we can use consultants that follow similar processes and establish, again, transparent, robust balanced peer reviews. the science advisory board is a transparent, professional entity. we are a faca, comply with regulations, and we also comply with ethics requirements. we follow all guidance given to us in the directives by the office of management and budget in how to do our work. i believe that we are ad model for transparent, high quality science. if -- the clean air agent science advisory committee was mentioned. they were looked at by our own ig, our office of inspector general, who just issued a report commending us for how solid our panel was in the ate

to have that balanced and appropriate. now, we're always working to enhance that, but i'm proud of the science this agency relies on, and i know the high quality of the science is what is going to keep epa relevant and make us and allow us to do the right thing in our mission, which is public health protection. >> and, if i may, i'm shuttling between hearings, and currently in the transportation and infrastructure hearing, we are talking about the cost of sandy and underwater rail lines through the state of connecticut, newark, new jersey, the impacts of the severe weather we see. can you talk a little bit about how in epa other than the cur bing of greenhouse emissions, what other work are they doing to look at the scientific and real economic impacts i have to say on the eastern sea board we see from climate change and severe weather conditions?

>> in 2012, the cost associated with disaster response topped $120 billion. that's not planned expenses. that's what happens. in what we know in the face of a changing climate, these types of disasters are going to be more and more prevalent if we don't reduce greenhouse gases. look at the work of the agency. we have not only been funding efforts at the local level and the state level to look at how you can adapt to a changing climate, but we've put out a plan that requires and shows the pathway forward to look at how it does business working with communityings looking at the changing climates and factor that goo sour decision making in our ability to work more carefully and collaboratively with local communities and states moving forward. my heart out to connecticut. it was hard hit, and it is my home away from home.

>> thank you. i yield back. thank you. the gentleman from texas is recognized for his questions. >> well, thank you, mr. chairman. administrator mccarthy, thank you for appearing before this hearing today. >> thanks for inviting me. >> i have several questions, and if you could keep the answers short and direct. first, as you know, stating the levels for the new performance standards, the clean air act requires you to select the best system of reductions for technology that's adequately demonstrated. >> uh-huh. >> we had several hearings in the committee with testimony whether the ccs technology necessary to meet the standards has been adequately demonstrated at the full scale power plants. i've asked the colleagues from the department of energy on a number of occasions if they could give me examples of where full scale power plants are

located, and their testimony is none of them are operating anywhere in the world. if this is true that power plants operating now are not operating with ccs technology, how can you say it's been adequately demonstrated? >> we believe, sir, that ccs technology is -- has been adequately demonstrated. the technology is proven, it's available, and, n., the coal technology is in facilities you see being constructed today are actually utilizing ccs. >> so can you give me, provide an example of a full scale power plant currently operating with the technology in >> i can give examples of two that are 75% completed and give you an example of others that are coming up in the planning stages, so ccs -- >> so what would those be? what would those be? >> we have the kemper facility. that's 75% complete, and there's

another project in canada also utilizing it at levels much higher at type of reductions that epa proposed in its new source standards. >> the facilities you mentioned receiving ensps funding? clean coal power initiative funding? >> it's my understanding there have been -- that there's been funding supported by doe. doe continues to have funding available for these types of projects. >> so they are receiving clean power funding? >> yes. that's my understanding. >> well, it is interesting then because the policy act of 2005 clearly states that projects receiving funding from this program can't be used to prove technology is adequately demonstrated, so the examples you are using are receiving funding in the 2005 agent that says you can't use those, so can you explain how you're logic on

that? >> actually, sir, i think we are regulating and proposing this regulation under the clean air act, which is very specific in both its intent as well as its history of application. there is no question that ccs technology is available. the components of ccs have been in place and demonstrated for decades. the question really is, is it reasonable in cost, and is it available for this sector? epa believes it is, but we have proposed that, we're welcome and open to comments. we will be getting to that public comment process shortly, but i think through the public comment process, you will see that this technology is well-known. it's available. it's being invested in today, and it's going to work, and it's going to be a pathway forward for coal into the future. >> i think what to summarize what you said, one, there's no tule scale power plants operating today; is that

correct? >> i'm aware of these components being -- >> no, i didn't say components. there's no full scale power plant operating with these -- >> no, but the one -- >> that's right. >> higher levels than required. >> and then you're using federally funded ccs projects to argue technology is adequately demonstrated, yet the 2005 act prohibits you from doing that. >> actually, we think it has been adequately demonstrated, but the support -- >> but not on the full-scale basis; right? >> the technology -- >> not on full-scale. >> it's op full scale and other applications. >> but not on these -- >> it's only -- it is invested in today in two facilities that are 75% complete on the way. >> what you saying is there's no new coal plants built without utilizing the technology, and we don't know that it's adequately demonstrated for these plants because we don't have a full

scale model. >> we believe it's been add combat withly demonstrated. >> but not on full scale models. >> it's been fully utilized in other industry sectors. >> but not these coal plants. not on full scale coal plants. >> i indicated to you we know of two that are constructed today in -- >> being constructed, but we don't have any history that that technology is, one, accomplishes that, but, secondly, that it beats a cost benefit analysis, do we? >> the cost benefit analysis, is that what we're talking about, sir? >> no, but that would be a part of that. you don't know for sure because you don't have a model for the technology. >> no, but we know that the industry ccs technology is a pathway forward, and we also see it as one that is available to it and one that we hope with doe assistance will continue to progress, get less and less

exceptive, and that's how technology gets developed, but in this case, all components of ccs as well as those together have been demonstrated over and over as being viable and effective and we believe that they will be be the path forward for coal. coal is a big part of our energy supply. i know it's going to continue to be a part of the supply. we try hard to look at the technologies available to us today so it continues to have a path forward. >> we don't use research funds for things that have already been determine, adequately demonstrated, and so we're using research funds to prove this up, and you use it as an example that it's adequately demonstrated. that doesn't make sense to me. >> actually, we are coordinated closely with doe, and if you listened and heard from the doe folks today, you know they share our opinion about its availability and that it has

been demonstrated, but it's exciting to think that we could make it more cost effective moving forward and expand the range of sequesteration opportunities, so they are actually working harold with the industry to continue to move technology forward. that is only good news, sir. that's not bad news. >> you don't know whether it's adequately demonstrated. >> the yes -- gentleman's time expired. thank you. pursuant to the discussion earlier about the sufficiency of the data provided by epa related to the committee's subpoena, i ask concept to enter into the record a letter from the committee received last week making clear, quote, that the data provided to date lacks information making it impossible to duplicate the findings was epa. without objection, it's a part of the record, and we go to the gentlewoman from maryland. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

thank you, administrator, i appreciate your being here and your patience. we heard described on this committee and throughout the congress, frankly, questions about epa's reliance on faulty and secret science, questions about epa's transparency and accountability. first of all, thank you for the transparency and accountability the epa provided for the volumes of data correspondence that this committee received, and i'm curious that sometimes the correspondents ask for information, sometimes for documents or data evidenced by testimony by questions here today. i'm a stroke sporter of congressional authority, but i'm concerned about whether we may be overstepping our authority in terms of what we're requiring of the agency. we're just one committee of many who is making these types of

requests to the epa. can you tell me how much time and energy is spent by you and the colleagues at the epa in responding to volumes of requests? >> we know how important it is to be transparent and do our best to respond to any request brought to us. it is a significant burden in terms of resources, but i don't mean "burden" in a negative sense. we want to be open and responsive, but we receive thousands of these requests. we do our best to answer them as expeditiously as we can. i think the times when we had difficulties is when we have to release data that the epa does not have availability to it, and them it becomes a -- an extra effort for us to try to make sure we bridge those gaps with science, and we fully expect researchers themselves access

that data as they've always done and work it out that way. let me just ask you this because we've sort of had a discussion of conflicts of interest, and i can understand, and we've heard testimony in the committee that when you're forming -- when there's peer review done and you're delving into some area of expertise, it's a very narrow area with only so many folks out there who have the kind of experience that you can draw upon. some may be app industry, some of those may be academics who received grants. when you assess conflict of interest, and i'm just a chief lawyer, and i always thought that the idea that is behind conflict is revealing conflicts, having them assessed, and making a determination whether that conflict would prohibit performance, adequate performance and independence performance in a peer review situation. is that how the epa looks at conflict of interest?

>> that's exactly how we do that. you're right. there's opportunities or instances where we have a very narrow expertise that's not represented that's critical to a thorough look at the science question or a technical question, and in that case, we do a thorough investigation, post the results of that so that people can know the background, and we can make sure it's balanced, fair, equitable discussion, and that it's as transparent as we poly can be. we do that both for folks, the scientists, as well as folks bringing history and industry to the table. >> and is there anything necessarily exclusionary whether a person receives billions of dollars in profit from an industry or whether a person receives thousands of dollars from the administration in terms of research? anything exclusionary about that

that would prohibit service on a scientific advisory panel? >> i don't believe so. what it means is we must have a rigorous and transparent peer review process, and we must rigorously share that information with the public so they -- before the panel is impaneled, they offer suggestions, comments, and criticisms, and we have the most robust comprehensive science available to us. >> thank you. i want to ask you about your work on climate change because there's a lot of discussion also. is it your view, from the administration, that you is sufficient data to back the work you're doirng around climate change that, in fact, it's happen, and there are certainly causal effects to do rule making in the area? >> i believe i have a wealth of data that is more than

efficient. i believe the supreme court agreed with me, which is nice. >> great. and so can you tell me about the rule making you're engagedded in in going in that direction and relate that to the mission of epa of protecting our public health and the environment. >> yes, the president's climate action plan identifies mitigation opportunities, reductions in greenhouse gases as well as addressing adaptation, and then international issues. epa is involved in all three, but i think the most important that i want to get at is our opportunity to reduce greenhouse gases so we can try to mitigate significant impacts associated with increased emissions and higher levels of climate change. what we are really looking at is first and foremost regulating greenhouse gas emissions from the power sector, both for new facilities and existing. we have already issued a

proposed rule for new facilities and beginning listening sessions and discussions on how we best put out a proposal next june for existing facilities. the reason why we want to do this is that climate change is not an environmental problem. it's a serious public health and economic problem as well as an environmental challenge. what happens when a changing climate is the weather is harder. when the weather is harder, the oh zone levels increase, when they increase, your kids go to the hospital more often with asthma. in this country today, one out of ten children have chronic asthma. we're talking about a serious public health challenge. allergy season extend. we are seeing health impacts from different types of mosquitoes and other diseases moving north as the weather gets

warmer. things are changing not for the best in public health in a changing climate. it threatens the health, safety, and well being of communities and individuals. it's something we must address and now. >> thank you very much for your testimony, and thank you so much for the work that you do to protect all of us. thank you. >> thank you ms. edwards. the gentleman from illinois is recognized for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, administrator, mccarthy for testifying today. i believe what you are doing is important. that being said, i have a number of problems with how epa does it job putting forward rules without stake holder input or negative impacts proposed rules have on regular americans. it's important to point out how far we've come according to the own data. since the implementation of the clean air act, emissions dropped by 72%, all while energy consumption increased by 47%. vehicle mile travel increased by 165%, and most importantly, gdp

increased by 219%. that is why i'll continue pushing your agency to base regulation on sound, scientific principles and practices, and and there's statistical measures and methods in which epa seemed adverse to when the facts do not necessitate what often appears to be a politically predetermined regulatory approach. as you know, section 316b of the clean water act requires best technology available to minimize harm of organisms living in water withdrawn through cooling water intake structures for power plants. for the last three and a half decades, states permitting authorities studied necessary controls on a site specific basis, but, unfortunately, it appears the epa is again attempting to rewrite rules to expand your power. when relying on science, epa has not been able to justify the

rule making because the costs always outweigh the benefits. your agency recognized there will be no benefit to human health and the economic benefits from potential improvements to commercial fisheries and recreation bodies, the youth benefits, will not justify the new rules east costs either. since the agency is unable to justify rules with their standard method, i'm trouble with the idea of nonuse benefits that you are now attempting to put in place. even more troubling is the way epa intends to assign values to the benefits, pulling. i think every member in the room can attest to the inaccuracies of pulling, and it's troubling to me that the epa turns from science to a public opinion poll to have regulations. when epa did a survey how much money the public was willing to spend and save given a number of fish, the numbers came back inflated. epa punted the issue to the science add -- advisory board. the rule could be interpreted to

force power plant owners to monetize the benefits and perform willingness to surveys tore specific control technologies on a site-specific basis. although 316b is epa's first attempt to justify rule making with the willingness of surveys, i'm worried this controversial methodology encroaches into other rule making. if this happens, public opinion polling 1 the backbone of regulations rather than science. i think it's important that states are allowed to continue exercising permits discretion. i'm asking, could you confirm the epa's final 316 rule will not require states to consider nonuse benefits or require plant owners to conduct willingness to pay surveys in the npdes permitting process? >> the final 316b is office of management and budget constrained to getting into too much detail, but we heard similar comments during the

public process. the survey that we did was appropriate object national level to get a handle on people's willingness to pay for the types of improvements that these technologies would bring. we don't expect that to be the way in which states and committees make case by case decisions. >> the most important is to base it on science, not opinion polls. ask us how we feel about public opinion polls and accuracy of them, certainly to be basing scientific decisions and significant costs on them is troubling. i have another quick question i hope to get answers regarding when epa plans on publishing rules adjusting the volume requirements for the renewable fuel standards. as you know, with the predictions made when designing the rfs not realized, the productions have not been realized, the agency is to the farmers and everyone else downstream get answers from regarding the early adjustment frustrate requirement. everyone was pleased the adjustments were timely bringing certainty for all parties

involved. the final rule for the 2011 adjustment was published in the beginning of december 2010, and in 2012 # rule came in january of that year. what is troubling is how long it took epa to issue their final rule for 2013. it didn't happen until the middle of august. it's important businesses and farmers plan made for this. can you give the committee insurance policy that there's a final rollout and give a date or time frame when you expect to have the rule published? >> the rule to establish limits for 2014 is soon to be proposed. it will take some time. we did tee the issue up on the 2013 proposal, but i want to make sure the committee is aware of is the levels that we're talking about for renewable fuels to get into the system in 2014 are not predictions, but congressional mandates that we are dealing with in trying to

understand the authorities given to us. >> my time is winding down. we have to bring certainty to businesses and formers. earlier over the last few years, this happened quickly, i will ask you for my farmers, for my businesses to get this as quickly as possible. i yield baubling. >> thank you. e -- gentleman from california is recognized. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your testimony today before the committee. i have to tell you it's frustrating to me to listen to my colleagues beat up on the ep organization. we have seen firsthand how epa -- my constituents and i, have seen firsthand how the clean air act improved this in the district.

nationally, the stories were just as compelling. a study shows that by 2020, the benefits of the clean air act outweigh the costs by more than 30-to-1. they helped improve public health by cutting down cases of asthma, heart disease, and infant mortality, and by 2020 expected to prevent 17 million loss workdays because people are healthier. i believe the epa is driving innovation, pushing industry to adopt standards that protect the environment and improve public health and create jobs in emerging fields. administrator mccarthy, could you go into detail about how the epa rules created jobs that -- and what structures grow because of epa action? >> thank you for asking that. it helps me to put the job code into more perspective. i think you would see, as we

have, a considerable amount of analysis as we do with every rule about every significant rule looking at job implications. we have will been able to make considerable pollution reductions at the same time as we have been able to continue to grow the economy here in the u.s.. we are looking at the pollution control technology in the industry that tops around $2 billion annually. we are leaders internationally in those issues. it's because we've been moving at a concerted pace to get better and better at how we reduce pollution, and we do it in a way that's affordable, and that's extremely beneficial to the public health. we are talking about saving millions of lives. we are talking about really improving the health of our most vulnerable populations, the children and elderly. i mean, we are talking about growing jobs, not taking them away, and we can provide you with significant more detail, congressman, but i appreciate your asking the question because

epa is about public health, but we do it always conscious of how we can reduce economic impacts in actually building the economy at the same time. >> i just want to clarify. my colleagues critted a crs report that indicated a conflict of interest found among academic members of the advisory committees; however, this report that i have right here made no such conclusion. rather it noted these grants are actually to economic institutions where the member is employed. >> yeah. >> and not the member, only a small portion, if any of the grant, is paid for to a member. is that your understanding as well? >> yes it is. yes, it is. thank you, congressman, for raising that. >> yes. with the inclusions to -- with the discussion of the subpoena regarding the harvard and

american cancer society studies, i'd like to enter into the record letters that the chairman received on october 30th from harvard young university, acs, and the american cancer society, and the health effects institute. these letters highlight the serious legal ethical and policy concerns regarding the release of individual health information. okay. without objection, the letters will be made a part of the record, but for clarification, the letters were addressed to the epa, not to me. >> okay, thank you, mr. chairman. if i understand the science advisory committees, the industry, in your opinion, is the industry adequately remitted for full balance of views? >> we -- the members on these panels don't represent specific sectors. they do represent expertise, knowledge, and experience, and

from my experience and working with these panels is that folks workedded in the industry usually provide a perspective that's necessary on these panels, and it's a broad and balanced panel when we pull them together. that's required under law, and we go above and beyond to ensure that's the case. >> so there's no loop, that these are open minded panels that are not contained by a particular ideology? >> that's exactly what we are required to do under the law, andic we do a very good job ensuring it's not at all closed, but open, and we look for good expertise for the best science. >> thank you, mr. chairman. my time expired. >> thank you. the gentleman from georgia, mr. brown, is recognized for his questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. administrator mccarthy, i have a limited amount of time and have many questions. answer as quickly as you can to get through. i'm a physician. i want to make sure we are on

the vaim page about basic principles of toxicology, one of which those -- a good example is two aspirins relieve a headache, 50 is a toxic dose. do you agree that the dose makes the poisen? yes or no? >> i don't want to -- >> yes or no -- >> the dose is very important to us. >> so the answer's yes. even emissions dropped 5 # 5% over the last two decades. it's noted on your website for air quality trends, your agency's been concerned with the health effects associated with low doses -- low levels of matter of pm. it's been the basis of most of your recent clean air act regulations. agency analysis suggests that hundreds of thousands of americans die from pm exposure every year. according to the website, quote,

numerous sign tisk studies link particle pollution exposure to premature death, cancer, nonfatal heart attacks, and aggravated asthma. does science suggest that pm can cause cancer? >> i do not know. i can't answer the question, sir, sorry. >> okay, well -- >> i don't know what the word "suggest" is, and i don't know how scientists interpret that. i wait until they tell me. >> well, okay. the recent assessment of pm stated that there was, quote, strong evidence linking short term exposure to pm as measured in cardiomortality. is that true? >> i believe so. >> okay. if the dose makes the poisen as you indicate you believe they did, and i do too, do you think that hundreds of thousands of people die from fine levels at

the lowest level? why hasn't your agency conducted a serious of human tests in north carolina that exposes unknowing volunteers, that have no knowledge of exposure including those with preexisting issues and asthma to con accept traitions as high as 750 micrograms. that's more than 60 times the standard. would you explain, please. >> to my knowledge, we have not done that. >> yes, ma'am, you have. in fact, inspector general has been invest gaiting this, and weapon found out about it through freedom of information act. were the individuals informedded they were subjected to pollution that epa thinks causes mortality and cancer especially since many came from susceptible populations? >> it's my understanding that

the human studies work we are doing was recommended by the national academies, done with the highest ethical standards. we -- >> ma'am, i disagree because these people, according to the knowledge we've gotten is they were up knowing that they were exposed to the high levels of exposure, and as far as i'm concerned as a physician, as a scientist, this is unethical and unacceptable. one more question because the time is running out. are you signed up for obamacare? >> no, i'm not. >> why not >> >> well, i'm lucky as in the federal government that i have health care available to me which i've signed up for. in a few years, when that's not the case, i'll be happy to have other -- >> our president sayings that obamacare is much better than than forcing most federal employees into obamacare, and if

you're not signing up, you don't think it is. mr. chairman, i ran out of time. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman brown. the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. kennedy, is recognized for questions. >> [inaudible] >> try that one. >> okay, this we go. thank you, thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, madam administrator, for being here. i apologize for the raspy voice. welcome. it's nice to see you another member of red sox nice here today. ..