it's hurting. i can tell you that. and the 0% hasn't worked in the stimulus money has not worked. the effects are evident from the high unemployment. people are living from paycheck to paycheck. people on food stamps, and frankly larger deficit. we see that. i believe the last thing that we have to fix its economy and turn it around is through small business owners and lower taxes. i think that is what we have left and i am a big supporter of cutting the corporate and cutting the cap gains and dividends into the tax employer and employee, accelerated depreciation, and also inheritance tax. i believe there's places that if we let -- if we reduce all that small business generates a lot of our opportunity to do the great things to make money and frankly small business doesn't save money, they spend money on the infrastructure and hire people and i think that is a big answer to the love of the problems that we have had.

with that being said, my question to you would be what benefits would we be reforming the book and tax code by lowering taxes and tax rates and broadening the tax base on the individual and corporate basis which is revenue neutral as i have indicated? >> congressman, when he and other analysts think that sort of tax reform that could you have described could boost economic growth. but the metal into the first depends specifically on the tax reform that the congress would consider. and we are standing by to do an economic analysis that approaches the tax reform. if you and others on the committee would be interested. >> if you do these things, i'm convinced if you put more people than the job market, more taxpayers and more cash flow, it works. >> we talked a lot about the minimum wage today off and on. my question to be for someone that owns a business, we have raised the minimum wage.

how do i pay for that? >> congressman cohen as i mentioned in the earlier question we are currently doing the analysis on the effect of raising the minimum wage and looking at the effect on the family income and we hope to present that in the congress, and i don't want to get ahead of at. @booktve prices and it could affect the consumer. next question would be we talked about the tax decreases. what would be the effect on the economy of increasing the marginal tax rates? >> we think that, again, it is a widespread view that increasing marginal tax rates would slow down the economy. all else equal. and i would emphasize we have a significant deficit. we think growing deficits we have a high level of debt on the economy. so, unless some changes made to either spending or revenue, the sizable nature that high level

of debt will weigh in on the economy so as you think about the partial tax rate and the spending programs and i think it's important for your colleagues to think about the direct effect on the changes but also to think about the effect on the overall balance and less on the debt and the economic impact on the debt in the economy. >> i agree -- the retailer when you're not selling your project, you don't raise the price cuts the price to get more people by eating and more people in the system. and i kind of think that's where we are. mr. chairman, i yield back. >> mr. chairman and i would ask unanimous consent that we enter into the record the "washington post" article from february that says no cbo did not say

obamacare will kill 2 million jobs. >> without objection. >> i enter that in the record because as i sit here and listen to this for two hours, i have to think of that the figures never lie. but sometimes people with an agenda misinterpreted facts. >> i spent all of yesterday sitting on the ways and means committee going through this name thing. obamacare is causing a deep and jobs i heard over and over again and we are saying the same thing over again. we are blaming private companies are cutting hours on their own volition at the feet of the aca because somehow it is unreasonable to expect a million or billion dollar corporation to provide health insurance for their people to who work slightly less than 40 hours a week.

has anybody bothered to read mr. ellmendorf's report all the way to the end coming and you heard mr. jeffries and others talk about it, but i want to talk about it again. may we read the conclusion in the appendix of the labor market. it is subject to, quote, and these are mr. ellmendorf's words, substantial uncertainty. and they would find this quote even more. quote, in the cbo's judgment, there is no compelling evidence, no compelling evidence that that part-time employment was increased as a result of the aca. so all this disaster, without the airwaves, is simply fear mongering. this speculating about a disaster without evidence and before the reforms are fully implemented, but as a strategy. a political strategy for the campaign. it goes nicely with the classic deficit bogeyman that we have been hearing about for three and

a half years. the affordable care act isn't going to kill any more jobs than our deficit is threatening our economy. our economy is coming back, but i still hear the bogeyman waiting around the deficit, the deficit. paranoid speculation. it might make it seem so come up but the facts do not add up. if you read that article in the "washington post" it is their fact checker that looks at the facts and comes up with the fact of what is being said while all of the headlines in the country it is simply not what the report says three at what is hurting us is the persistent notion that as the economy is asking for a breath we believe we should tighten our belts and ration the air. the only way we will ever get these numbers by investing the education to research, the development of america's resources. we have the knowledge, the

ability and the exception of people to build the economy back up. but we won't do it on scraps. this is a congress then the house of representatives we have with the tax credit expires. we have not asked the transportation bill. we are going to come up to the summer season and there isn't going to be any money in the state to build roads and bridges and all the infrastructure. we have cut research universities and it is an avenue that we say well the aca is killing all the jobs. we cannot train if without the social programs. and mr. ellmendorf, my view is that if you have any kind of subsidy, you are going to have some disincentive to work. we are at 400%, to the senate is talking about 300%. they have a disincentive to work as well, right?

>> yes, this problem is intrinsic in any program that provides benefits to people that don't have a churning in the labor market. and the amount of the effect on people's decision to work, how much to work depends on the size of the benefit and to some extent on the structure of the program. but the basic issue here is the same for any program that would try to provide that. >> let me put you to the end of that. if we had a universal system that they are saying we need a universal system that covers everybody, if we had that kind of system, nobody would go to work, right? >> that's not true. >> if they go to work in different ideals goes to work, right? >> yes, congressman. [laughter] >> thank you mr. tremaine and doctor ellmendorf. it's good to see you today. i want to go to a topic not talked about in the deficit and growing deficit in where we

might be in the future if we do not address that. but social disability, to go back and put some context on this, since 1970 one of the inflation adjusted to disability insurance expenditures have risen from 18 billion to 140 and 100 -- 2014. a portion of the increase is due to two things and we have heard that from testimony before the aging population which we all know and also the entrance of women into the workforce. we have heard that. but if you look at these factors they only account for 6% on the aging side and 17% increase on the entrance of women for the increasing disability caseload. so at the same time, the individuals are self reporting an increase in their help. but it's improving. and so, we see approximately 20 people per 100,000 of the received benefits and 1970 as

compared to now about 80 people per 100,000 today. so the latest projection from the cbo estimate is that social security disability insurance will go bankrupt so by the end, no more dollars, 2018 were bankrupt. notwithstanding the aging population and the women entering the workforce. can you tell me why this spending has grown rapidly in this program? >> i don't have the specific numbers at hand but as you know we have have retained two reports for the insurance trying to document and explain the sources of growth and to offer you and your colleagues some specific alternatives for changing the disability insurance program if you would like to go that route. in addition to the factors of the population and rise of participation to the women in the workforce making them eligible for the disability insurance benefits that they

become disabled. they've also been important changes in the rules for entering the disability insurance program legislated by the congress over the past decade that have pushed up the number of people receiving benefits and the state of the economy matters as well and one thing that has happened in the past several years is people have lost jobs and haven't been able to find new jobs. to find a job to accommodate the disabilities in some cases to enter the disability in the programs into programs that there is a wide array of factors but i do not have on hand at the relative importance of those factors. >> i want to make sure i'm reading those reports because i've read a lot of reports and i want to be sure that i'm reading the reports that you have referenced. what happens when this goes bankrupt? how will this affect the beneficiaries? >> well, congresswoman, the trust fund runs out of money and we think that there will be no

legal authority to pay until more money comes in. as you know the last time the disability insurance was on the cusp of the problem of the congress they should get money from the old age survivors trust fund into disability trust fund in that outcome. but if nothing were done, then i believe that the legal authority on the to pay money in the trust fund, and that would require a substantial reduction in the benefit to fall down at the level of the ongoing income in recent. >> said, -- so,pardon me for interrupting. but for those of the recipients to actually gain the benefits. >> this would have been in 2017 at the trust fund would run out of money to the money to pay the benefits promised under the current law. >> do you reference the consequences that we are seeing in the abuse of the program?

>> so, we talked about that, congresswoman. and i -- the issue for the congress is to find the policy to change that. and i think there are some that we talked about in that report. >> i appreciate that and my final question is what is the reduced labor participation would have on the economy? >> the central factor in slowing the economic growth out of the current downturn later in the decade and beyond, the principal reason why we think the economic growth will be less than it was well be a slower rate of growth on the workforce. >> i yield back mr. charan. >> mr. chairman thank you very much and i, like both of my colleagues, appreciate your efforts and the work that you do

because i don't think there is a single member of this committee or anybody in congress who isn't concerned about making sure the economy is growing and we are providing every kind of policy support that increases job growth in any context particularly in a state like mine where we actually have the negative population growth and really struggling for economic growth because we have a higher than national average on the federal investments, but it largely related to the intellectual investment in the laboratory that we haven't figured out that segway to stable out of the economy. i'm interested in both sides of the aisle about what we ought to be doing to make sure that we are focusing on as many policies to give as many opportunities to grow the economy as much as possible and i know we talked

about unemployment and i appreciate that but i want to talk about two more. one is increasing the minimum wage and some of my colleagues are going to argue that the minimum wage earners are mostly teenagers entering the workforce for the first time and they are going to argue that it's a drag increasing the minimum wage on the economy and you might suspect i disagree with that statement and that the average age of the minimum wage workers 35 and these are the adult to bring a significant portion of the family income and a majority of these are women. mostly two thirds of the minimum wage workers are women. while we have you here i would like to get more information on the second plate and really point and really hone in on the impact of the increase in the number of wage would have on the economy. >> you are certainly right that the minimum wage workers stand the age distribution and some are teenagers but many are not.

we are currently trying to complete a report on the effect of the increasing on the minimum wage on the economy taking into account the increases and the wages to income for many people. we hope to finish that report in a few weeks and i don't want, rather enough to offer my sense of that until the analysis is completed, but this is in time to the useful information for you and your colleagues that you consider this legislation. >> the studies have had a positive impact on both the wages, earning, spending and therefore jobs. and certainly it impacts women in my state where you have so many women as a single head of household that is going to be a significant impact on our economy. and as a comprehensive immigration reform has a significant impact on the

economy. not only in new mexico, but on the entire country. can you estimate of the entire immigration reform on the gdp over the next decade? >> we did a very thorough analysis that was passed by the senate to increase immigration and we thought that legislation would reduce the budget deficit in this decade and in the following decade we thought it would increase the size of the economy and overall gdp. i should emphasize that analysis was specific to that piece of legislation and to be situations in the immigration policy might lead to rather different effects that that piece of legislation would, as i said come increase the size, increase the size of the economy and the budget deficit.

it's 832 billion the impact over the few decades is about 850 billion. does that sound about right? >> i don't have the numbers in front of me. >> the point being that again we increase wages and jobs, we increase opportunity and stabilize the economy. which on the other side i'm interested in all of the impacts on health care and the acute care and primary care system in my opinion, with the affordable care act and the future changes are easy. the long-term spending on medicare and medicaid and long-term care and home healthcare and hospice benefits and of the last days days of dying in the hospital, this gives us the opportunity to be thoughtful about those decisions going forward and really making a much it much more than a balanced decision in the economy. >> thank you. >> doctor ellmendorf, thanks for

coming. i always appreciate it. picking up on where my colleague left off, contrary to her assumption or assertion, i want people coming and my party wants people to live the best possible ways to build for themselves that they can. whether or not they vote for us. that is what america has always been upheld. i am for young people having their first job. imf are women actively being part of the workforce. we are not saying no. we are just saying that there is a better way. so in light of that, when you are completing your study, can you tell me if you are going to contemplate any alternatives to the approach of just raising the federal minimum wage across all of the sectors? are you going to look at the effects of the earned income tax

credit for the subsidy in terms of the payroll tax deduction on "the side of things or anything like that? >> this will focus on the effects of raising the minimum wage and we would note other approaches have been discussed in the past and the alternative ways of boosting the tax income on the low income people come and as you know, they have been an analysis of some of the alternatives in the past. >> so i came from an education and workforce committee and we were talking about early childhood education and that is combined with remarks i have heard so far that reminded me of the president's state of the union address, where again he demanded the across-the-board minimum wage but there wouldn't be any effect that i came in being is being replaced by machines or declining of unemployment by his businesses. at the same time, he was calling for head start increasing the

early childhood education program. so if the federal minimum wage that he is calling for a prized programs that he's also calling for like head start, that would increase the administrative costs of the head start programs thereby the number of slots of the kids that need programs like head start. >> i see your point, congressman we will tell you all that we think we've been able to figure out. >> are you going to have particular programs as examples of your analyst is? >> we are not quite finished and i would rather not be specific about exactly what we are doing, but we will try to talk about -- we do intend to talk about how the changes in the minimum wage would interact with parts of the government budget. that is exactly what we will say on how specific we would be on certain things.

>> so, because i was in the other hearing i didn't hear the beginning of your testimony or questions. but did you discuss at all in any depth my program? let me go down that road a bit. the president recently proposed in the same speech, my ra program which would allow all americans who qualify in the u.s. debt instruments similar to the debt instrument similar to what is available to the federal employees through our thrift savings program. it's called the g. fund that is available to the employees and and it is nonmarketable. and the best way that i can describe it is that it provides a subsidized interest rate over the the long term of what is a short-term security. if we apply something similar to the g. fund product to the entire american population or a subset of it within that increase the borrowing cost as a

government? >> congressman, i don't know. as a matter of course we do not affect the particular administrative action. as you know. however we do fault on the administrative action because we need to understand that when we are updating the refund if this particular change is one that we conclude ultimately that has important effects on the budget, then you will see that come through in the next base fund projection but i don't know if at this point we have had any time to stop and look at that. >> just in general in the 22nd i have remaining talking about the deficit versus the debt, i hope you'll understand at this point, that is not going down, right? the debt has increased? >> right. >> is it better to encourage people to work in order to reduce the deficit were to encourage people not to work in order to reduce the government's deficit? >> well, it could be done at no

cost to the budget itself. let me rephrase that debate. people who work all else equal the larger input in the tax revenue into smaller deficit. >> thank you, chairman ryan we started with ryan and we will end with ryan. the report did not say that obamacare would get rid of or cost 2 million jobs, correct? it said that the affordable care act will cost the equivalent of 2 million jobs and that means hours, correct, there will be a reduction in hours? >> we have it in total hours worked but i want to be careful about the word cost. we are trying to draw an important distinction between changes in people's work that it is forced upon them by their employer saying we can't afford to pay you to work or we can't

afford to pay you to work as many hours and the choices the individual workers would make. >> so these are choices that the workers would make because of the coverage that i have, i can choose to reduce. >> the effects that we estimate -- >> of that group, who is the largest group that you would classify as people who will eat that choice? >> so, there are a number of channels to which the affordable care act reduces the incentive to work and thus we think would reduce the work hours. some of them are through the subsidies of, particularly the subsidies for lower income people but there are also some effects on the tax rates of higher income people. >> so who would this be? would this be houses? >> i think a number of groups of people could be affected in that sense would not try to break this down. so it could be spouses, but they could be primary earners do decide to scale back their hours and may not leave the workforce

altogether. it can be older people that decided to retire earlier than they would have been able to otherwise and it also includes younger people. >> so we are talking about a situation where there is a husband and wife and they are both working and they have a baby and one of them decides to not work or to reduce their hours in order to stay home with the baby. they would fall into this category. >> yes congressman. >> so if you worked from 18-years-old to 58 with 60-years-old, retired, now has a little part-time job, low-wage job in order to pay for their health care if they stop working, because now they will have access to health care, that steelworker would fall into this category? >> yes. >> and your analyst as of this, do you account for anyone who is going from, say working three jobs to go down to working two jobs? >> that would fall into this

analysis as well. we haven't tried to break this down. >> someone who has done that, because i remember george bush come at a set mr. president i'm having a hard time working. i have three jobs. he said that's great. what we are saying is we want to try to make it a little bit easier to go from three jobs to two jobs or from two jobs to one job, and i think it's important for us to see those people fall into this number. they will be reducing their hours. if you are a two parent home and you have a sick parent and you say well, i am now because we can afford healthcare, because of the credit or the expansion of medicaid or whatever the case may be, i can reduce my hours i'm working as a husband or wife to take care of a sick parent. and maybe they don't have to go into a nursing home and draw on the medicare program. none of that is factored into the long-term care cost either. you don't say a number of these

people will reduce their hours and they will be able to take care of mom instead of her going to a nursing home. >> i think that's the point. there are so many different scenarios where average people across the country are living with right now, not anymore so much, but have struggled to make an. and the pressure put on these families is being reduced now because of the affordable care act. and i would like to say i think there's been an undertone of disrespect in this hearing as i sat through it about people just don't want to go to work. there's always a few people i'm sure that would find a way even if they work to sca scan the coy or run a scam. there are always going to be people like that. but if there is a job that opens up in our town and the pays well, there are thousands of

applicants that would want a job and we can get away from this idea nobody wants to work everybody just wants to get on and nobody wants to work for a living. that's not true. and the scenarios we discuss i think outline that, and so i appreciate you being very clear this isn't about 2 million jobs this is about average people having an opportunity to reduce the burden on their own family. >> doctor ellmendorf, thank you for your time today. the hearing is adjourned.

the democrat senate democrats who are national ice park in washington hearing from president obama and former president bill clinton. what is the significance of the timing of their hearing from president obama? >> well, it is significant because in some ways the senate democrats have been breaking from the president on certain issues, some of that is related to the 2014 elections, and democrats running and states where the president isn't particularly popular like louisiana and arkansas. it's also kind of a big moment, i guess, for legislation in the senate. unemployment insurance still hasn't been revived. that expired december 289th. they're prepared to go forward with a minimum wage increase. i think they are trying to strategize as a party. in the past i feel like congressional aids have been a little bit critical of the coordination between the white house and the democrats. >> i understand there's not a

lot of media coverage coming out of the retreats, but bill clinton. what is his purpose being there? as a cheerleader for the agenda? >> yeah. i've been told, you know, by some sources who are familiar with what is going on in the meetings they don't expect any policy news, political news out of president president clinton's. we're going to hold the senate. we're on the democratic team. i would like more as a team building exercise. >> democrats got ballpark. republicans go to the library. the library of congress for their retreat. what was the focus of their meeting? >> they are going to get on the same page in term of their getting agenda throughout rather than just be opposing the democrats' agenda. i think there's a recognition they're being seen as an opposition party more than the ideas. i think they're going to be looking at how can we offer alternative to raising the money

him wage or offer alternative extending unemployment benefits indefinitely. it's going to be those ideas. >> the house is holding down the legislative on capitol hill today the house budget committee hearing from doug. he tweeted about that saying house republican members have been given a 5 bullet list of talking point for the day. the first is about the 2.5 million jobs. tell us about the fallout the messaging coming out of the cbo hearing today. >> you are lucky the state is out so i was in the thousands get that tidbit today. the member didn't give me them to me but the primary was 29.5 million jobs lost due to the effect of obamacare. the administration and democrats talking point pushback to that is because low-income americans won't feel as obligated to juggle so many working hours. they can have a more comfortable

lifestyle with these insurance subsidies they wouldn't have had without it. >> i'm going back to the senate as we wrap up. you mentioned earlier the unemployment insurance. that issue coming back on the senate floor thursday. what is proposed? >> the democrats have a three-month extension paid for with the changes to federal pension law called smoothing. looks lick that may not get 60 votes but maybe able to get it passed; however, maybe sort of a wink and nod agreement with republicans to repeal cost of living adjustments as part of the budget deal negatively impacted veterans. so there may be some interplay between the two things. right now they're scheduled to take a vote on thursday at 11:00 a.m. there may be a deal in the works to have more votes on amendments because republicans want to have votes on their proposal and alternatives to unemployment insurance extension. >> "politico's" congressional reporter. you can read more at "politico".com and follow his reporting on twitter.

thank you for the update. >> thank you very much. >> our live coverage on the c-span network tomorrow include hear on c-span2 the national prayer breakfast at 8:00 a.m. eastern. a few minutes after 8:00 a "politico" discussion on congress and energy policy. >> that's always been the case. the president has always "the master" mentioned in the book that, you know, each come to sort of the personal.

they direct it to do things secret. they have to worry about the normal congressional appropriations process. it's a overly service seductive tool. >> from the shadows to political controversy. a look at the cia saturday night at 10:00 eastern and sunday at 9:00 on "after words." part of booktv this weekend on c-span2. online at booktv's book club comment on the in-depth guest. several representatives including members of the armed

services committee spoke with reporters for a couple of minutes after the briefing. just concluded a briefing on the defense consequences of the snowden comprise. needless to say, this is highly classified area, and that makes it very difficult to say much or answer questions. but i do want to say that while it is difficult to discuss the details what we learned, it is fair to say that members left the briefing disturbed and angered. snowden's information went well beyond programs associated with

the nsa or data collection. the madam majority of the information he transferred had nothing to do with nsa, but instead specifically works to comprise the military capability and defense of the country. it's part of our responsibility in working with the department. his actions were espionage, plain and simple. turn it to the chairman. >> thank you, i'm chairman of the house armed services committee. i want to thank mr. thorn berry from texas who is the vice chairman of our committee. also, he serves on the house intelligence committee and chairs the intel subcommittee on our armed service committee. i want to thank him for what

he's doing, on this effort. because of the seriousness of this issue and the sensitivity i'm going read my statement. edward snowden isn't a whistle blower. he's a traitor and a criminal. this much is very clear, no matter what opinion the american people hold of the nsa's dpa da that collection programs, they would be shocked and outraged to learn that a substantial amount of the information has nothing to do with the nsa. the damage he has done to our military and national defense programs is not the mark of a whistle-blower. he's given our enemies an edge, and put our war fighters at risk. americans should demand he be brought to justice for his crimes and dismiss any discussion of deal making or congressmen sei is absolutely unacceptable.

thank you very much. [inaudible conversations] earlier today agricultural secretary tom vilsack spoke at the white house briefing on seven regional climate hub assisting farmers in rural communities. here is a look. >> are you seeing farms go under now because of the effect of climate change? is it something focused on the future threat? is it something that the department believes is happening now? >> i can tell you without any he -- hesitant because we didn't have a good assessment and good forecasting and didn't have a disaster assistance program that so. livestock producers in the

dakotas, for example, just couldn't make it. when that snowstorm hit, it didn't wipe out just a few animals. it wiped out the entire operation. nobody anticipated and expected that severe of storm that early. that's one impact. i can tell you the folks who live in the western part of the united states who have been dependent on timber and forestry are deeply concerned about the impact and disease treed. we have roughly 45 million acres of diseased trees because the pine bark beetle was not killed during the harsh winters as in the past. that is having an impact. that is making forest fires significantly more intense. that is creating not just the fire hazard but flooding hazards following the fire. so there are ramifications today that impact. >> severe weather pattern that this is the effect of climate

change. >> when you take a look at the intensity of the storm we have seen recently and the frequency of thement, -- them, the length of drought combined with the snowstorm and the sub zero convinces me that the climate is changing and it is going to have the impact. it is having the impact on agricultural and forestry. if we are not proactive as the president directed, we will find ourselves we have done what we're doing today. wishing we assessed the risk created and identity the vulnerability and created programs and responses to tampen the impact of it. in a few moments the hearing on the safety of drinking water in west virginia. in a couple of hours, we'll reair the comment of the head of the congressional budget office on the economic outlook.

the new c-span.org website makes it easy for you to find and watch all of c-span's extensive coverage of official washington. look for it on our home page in a space called "federal focus." each day you'll find comprehensive coverage of house and senate debates, congressional committee hearings, events with the president and members of his cab innocent, press briefings from the white house, capitol hill, the state department, and the pentagon. plus, selected supreme court oral arguments and appearances by the justices. watch live or on your own schedule. federal focus on c-span.org. making it easy to keep tabs on what is happening in congress, the white house, and the courts. now a hearing on the safety of drinking water in west virginia following a chemical spill last month which left thousand of residents without access of clean water. you'll hear from members of

congress, state representatives, and environmental experts. [inaudible conversations] >> good morning. the subcommittee on water wildlife will convene. i want to thank senator bobber for her cooperation and allowing us to expedite this hearing. senator visitor, i want to thank you also for the leadership of the committee facilitated a very quick and early hearing on what happened in west virginia.

americans have a right to expect that when they turn their tap on, the water they get is safe. and safe to drink. that expectations is our responsibility to make sure it is, in fact, carried out. both the federal, state, local governments. it is a primary responsibility of government to protect the public safety of the people of our community. the system did not work on january 9th in west virginia. the system failed. yes, the reckless conduct of private company freedom industries was responsible for the spill, and failure to report properly. but our system needs to be adequate to protect against all contingencies. it was not in this instance. so i think we need to look at how we can strengthen our laws to make sure that the public, indeed, has a safe drinking water. and i want to congratulate and

thank senator boxer, senator manchin, senator rockefeller for introducing quickly legislation that deals with some of the fundamental issues that we have to be concerned about. the current law requires a risk assessment, but does not -- of chemicals maybe in the area that could jeopardize say drinking water. but it does not require an update of that information nor does it require that there be a plan on using that information to protect the safety of the people of our community. so our laws are just not strong enough to deal with the current situation. yes, we can take a look at the fact there's been a risk assessment. the last risk assessment that was done in this area in west virginia was done in 2002. it was down in 2002 because of 9/11.

we asked all communities to reassess the chemical vulnerability. west virginia and the state did a proper risk assessment in 2002. there was a different owner of the company at this time, and it did not list the risks of the chemical that was involved in this particular episode. so risk assessments need to be updated. in a more timely way. how do we use the information? we want to mitigate the risk factor to drinking water. in west virginia, there would have been waying in which we could have had better retaining walls, better setbacks, a lot of different thing could be done if the information was available and if we acted on that information and we want to be prepared for all contingency. the public expects for us to be able to act quickly. i want to put my full statement in the record. we're holding people to time limits because we have a large panel here today. i want to, first, thank the

responders, the people of fema, national guard, and many others who did incredible work to provide the safety and information to the people of west virginia. and minimize the otherwise catastrophic impact of this episode. i also want to point out that we need to look at the cost issues. the company involved is call filed bankruptcy. they're trying to avoid full financial impact. which means that the rate payers of west virginia. and many homeowners will be suffering. what do we do about that? i also want to look at the issue of federalism. i know, that the senate in west virginia has acted on legislation, and i know it's under conversation both the house and the senate and the state. we this is an issue of federalism. the water we drink here. this tap water that came out of the tap that we hope is safe comes from the plateau mick water water shed named after

senator jennings from west virginia. it comes from west virginia, maryland in to d.c. yes, federalism says the state needs act. but the federal government needs to act to make sure the tap of safe drinking water for all the people of our country. so i'm pleased we have our colleagues here from the house and senate. we have many people on our panel, next panel that are experts in the area. i hope we can move forward together like the legislature in west virginia, i hope that the congress can move forward in a bipartisan manner. my understanding the senate was anonymous vote. i hope you can move forward in a bipartisan manner to change our laws and oversight to make sure that we keep our people safe. with that, let me turn to senator vitter. >> thank you, chairman card, and boxer for convening this subcommittee hearing today on the west virginia chemical spill. and my thoughts, also, certainly

go out to the more than 300,000 individuals directly affected bit accident. of today's panel can help us better understand the circumstances surrounding this spill. i certainly want to commend senator manchin, all of those who have worked tirelessly in the wake of this spill. senator manchin with others introduced legislation in response to the spill. while i have specific issue with it that we're working through i'm completely supportive of the effort and hope to come to a positive resolution of the specific issues very soon. a crucial part of the legislative process is undertaken at the committee level where traditionally bills are brought to mark up for an open and transparent discussion. and members from both sides of the aisle are allowed to voice their opinions and offer amendments to be voted on.

i want to thank chairmanboxer for agreeing to a markup later this week. i fully support that process. but i also want to encourage more on that, more markup where there is significant bipartisan work going on. senator machin's bill, along with other important pieces of legislation, like our chemical safety improvement act should be brought before the committee in a markup to allow the legislative process to play out inspect. in an age where comprise is so rare, it's unfortune that any bill which has significant support throughout the senate would not move expeditiously. multiple bipartisan bills in addition to the chemical safety improvement act like the bill that continued to wait for a markup, i certainly support action in all of those areas. in this incident, it's clear that important information was not readily available on certain chemicals which got to the ilk river further highlighting the need for forming our nice's

outdated law that assesses chemical risk. the 38-year-old toxic substance control act. i'm proud to introduce the first-ever bipartisan reform bill with the late senator lautenberg. as many of you know, that's currently sponsored by 25 senators from both parties spanning the entire political spectrum. for the last six months senator udall and i along with other members of the senate worked tirelessly to improve that already bipartisan agreement. and we have made significant strides in this regard. the bill we have now is not the bill that we initially introduced. because we have carefully listened to stakeholders and made significant immeasurable improvements. a vast majority of states, west virginia included, have resource constraints and need the certainty of a strong federal

program that develops risk assessments and regulations based on sound science. it's important to explain how they unequivocally help states and the american people with greater access to information. aiding in the understanding and response to such an incident as this. i guess the bottom line in that regard is that the lack of health and safety data on any of the chemical compounds, which spilled in west virginia, would have been enough under our bill for epa to have classified them as high priority. requiring a full and robust safety assessment and determination. our bill would have granted greater authority to epa to ensure assessment and determination be informed by new studies ordered by epa without having to duo-- go through the formal rulemaking process or may find the chemical may pose an unreasonable risk.

the bill would also reduce barrier for the agency that exists now. it would also allow for greater sharing of considerable information between epa and state and local governments as well as first responders and health prak tickses. finally, i want to welcome all of our witnesses today. in particular, the members they recognize as we look to what happened in their state of west virginia. and i look forward to an important discussion. thank you. >> senator boxer. >> thank you for your great leadership. senator vitter, thank you. welcome, all. i want to make a statement about it. but most of my statement will not be about it. i want to put in to the record this article entitled "the chemical safety involvement act will not solve the problem illustrated bit west virginia chemical spill ." put that in the record, please. >> without objection. >> i want to note it's not designed to address the

inspection of chemical storage tank finance deals with classifying 80,000 chemicals. it with -- i look forward to a strong bill. but the current bill, this is what is so important, my scientific experts say this particular chemical would be classified as low priority and under the bill that we have before us the vitter bill, the one we're working on and senator vitter we'll be giving you a response next week to the bill. there would be no ability for the state to act. once chemical is stated low priority. they would be precluded from acting and would be no lawsuits allowed for the constituents of senator manchin and my colleagues here under the bill. no citizens could ever sue and the state would be preexampled. so we're going to work on a tough bill. and one that is worthy of the name.

but here is where we are. we're going focus on what happened in west virginia and what we can do now. not some classification time and preemption of state law and preemption of lawsuits for those injured. we're not dealing with that today. we have set that aside today. we are going act on how to fix the problem. now, i so appreciate all the electives that are here today, and those who have come today from the state because you have suffered from this. and the impacts are ongoing. residents are still concerned whether the water is safe to drink. businesses don't feel the pain of the spill. you will tell me about the real impacts your families have been going through. i won't stress those hear. we know that the cbc advised pregnant women avoid drinking tap water until there are no

longer detectable system. some businesses closed. some restaurants with buying bottled water. here is the situation, here we had a tank filled with a chemical right near a drinking water supply. because the risk assessment in the safe drinking water act was not used. no one knew what to do. the manchin bill, which i'm proud to be a part of, along with senator rockefeller, in the senate, what we say is this; if there is any type of a storage facility that has a chemical in it, which is near a drinking water supply, that particular tank, that facility must be inspected, we must know everything there is to know about the chemical. regardless of any other law, which may be in place to help us. we need to focus on what the

real problems are. remember, there's 80,000 chemicals out there. there's just a few of them in this tank. and we need to know what they are. the sadness is there hasn't been inspections since the early 2000 and we really miss this. i am so sorry about that and unhappy about that. i want to work with my colleague to fix it. this legislation which we worked hours on, and our staff. puts in one place -- from chemical spill. it establishes state programs, which parties from both sides support that provide for regular inspections of these facilities, set the standard for the tank, establish a emergency response plans, and provide information to drinking water utility to respond to future disasters.

so senator carden, you're right. the current clean water act does contain authority to deal with this, but it is loosey goosy. we need to make sure that in all of our states, if we have a chemical that could leak to a drinking water supply, we know everything about the chemical. we know what to do if something happens. we have the standards in place to make sure it's stored safely. i'm happy you did this. we're going have a further hearing with the chemical safety board to look at -- to continue to focus on this. it's not a one-day approach. it's the first day approach. and i thank you for being here. >> senator udall. >> thank you, senator cardin. let me welcome everyone here today from west virginia and in particular my colleague in the senate and my former colleagues in the house.

both of whom i enjoyed serving with very much and i'm looking forward to hearing from you today. you know, americans expect modern water services to be always available. if they're not, there are serious public health consequences. the west virginia spill clearly highlights the huge impact that accidental releases of chemicals can have on our health and our well being. our hearts go out to the citizens of west virginia who have suffered enormous anxiety for weeks now in the face of uncertainties about the risk posed by contact with mchm and the additional chemos that are impacting the state. .. ..

>> we must he vigilant to ensure that these cleanup costs are met by the company. corporate shell game should not be able to avoid responsibility. finally wife the information about the chemicals we so

limited and so secretive. osha says that it is hazardous and why hasn't more testing been done about these chemicals for the we know about it and the likely health effects. this seems to be a key failure over nation's chemical law. talked to substances control act. americans still confident that the government is reviewing and regulating all chemicals. these chemicals are not only in industry but also in products and all of us including children and pregnant women come into contact with every day. members of the committee are well aware that the late senator lautenberg and senator vitter introduced the chemical safety improvement act. the first bipartisan bill to reform this ever. i believe that we should capitalize on i.t. development and finalize the bill that can have broad support in the

senate, including by our chairman and chairman boxer. we have been working earnestly with stakeholders and engaged in serious discussions over the past eight months to strengthen and improve the key bipartisan bill. i would like to take a moment to clear the air and say to everyone here that regardless of where you stand on that bill and how it could have lessened the impact of this in west virginia. first and foremost we need to ensure the reform address the chemicals that lack sufficient information to determine their safety. furthermore we need to ensure that adn health officials have quick and easy access to any existing and available information when such tragedies

happen like this. these are all solvable and i think the solutions are here to a great i am not going to speak for anyone else decides myself very but i hope that we can publicly circulate an updated version addressing many of these issues soon so that we can move beyond talking about an outdated bill as it is introduced and we need to remind ourselves that every american comes in contact with chemicals on a daily basis. not just during times of accident. i am confident that the ongoing discussions on this reform are headed in a positive direction and can allow americans to know the consumer-products invite into their homes on a daily basis hours it. if we can do that and help protect communities at risk from spills like these come i think that all of our constituents will thank you very much. so we thank you and we appreciate you doing this. >> let me thank my colleagues

for their participation. this is the subcommittee and we would like to concentrate on the safe drinking water act to make sure that we have safecracking water and honestly it affects the chemicals in america. but i would hope that we would focus on the adequacy of the state drinking water act and particularly legislation that it had been suggest that by our colleagues. just as a matter of reference my staff has a chart that shows the aerial view, if we could just share that. just so we know the elk river and the west virginia water intake facility is located there on the left. freedom industries where this occurred is an hour and a half upstream from the intake and you can see how close all of this is to the areas involved in i thought that would be helpful so that we just have a visual of

the two particular areas involved. i would like to now turn to my colleagues and i would like to thank my colleagues for their extraordinary leadership on this issue and on their help with this committee and working to get a part of today's hearing. it's nice to have two of my former colleagues here with us including when i was in the house of representatives and when i got to the house i was appointed to the transportation committee and there was a congressman to help me understand the importance of what we do in the congress as it relates to the infrastructure in the country. so we have a former colleagues here and here all statements will be part of the record. we'll start with senator rockefeller. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you chairman boxer. thank you so much.

we'll just refer to the as drinking water. drinking is one very small part of what this toxic water does. it causes people who have money enough to have a vacation home somewhere to get out of that area and go there so they can take a bath. i know several people who commute on a daily basis just to be able to do that. those people don't have those second homes and they are left to deal with the horror of what this is and i can tell you, mr. chairman, that there are a number of people that i could go wilmont name is said that they are considering moving out of west virginia because they have young children and they have no confidence in the future or in the regulatory scheme.

and how did this happen and is the water now save? there are various views on that. what are the long-term health consequences. senator udall mention that in sonorously important. you wake up everyday thinking that it might come back. not being sure. that's a horrible feeling for bringing up the family in this way. and finally how do we make sure that this never happens again? at my request, mr. chairman, i call the chemical safety board and they are investigating this and they are good at it. they are very good at it. the state is also addressing us in the criminal investigation that is going on. mentioning the fact that freedom had taken bankruptcy and that was convenient for them, wasn't it? we have a building that will no

doubt be beaten by corporate interests in this congress. by saying that they should be fined with every single nickel to clean up the mess that they made. not just in people's lives but lederle institute. it's a good bill. look past bonus money trumps all? i'm not sure. and so despite the government assurance that the water is safe, it lingers and it's in the nature of people. too many unanswered questions. state and federal officials are working hard but it is replete with in a regulatory structure. and i have been to be something called a democrat. i believe in spending money on infrastructure and i think it is important that we do that. that is not the motive this congress or the congress to stop

anything from happening. investing in schools and clean water and roads and all of those things which are part of safety for either in writing of water or anything else you might do. it costs money. does that mean user taxes and there might be more taxes? oh, no, that will never happen. there has never been a part in the 30 years that i have been in the senate. but it is now and people say let the industry take care of it. that is an appalachian met. sometimes i see appalachia in ways that are different than others. but the idea that god had within his plan to make sure that industry is going to make life safer you, not true. industry does everything it can and gets away with it almost all the time whether the subject of your hearing or water or

whatever. they will cut corners and they will get away with it. regulation is often west virginia. it has always been soft and frankly when you put that together with sequestration and government shutdowns and the whole ideology, don't cause anyone to do anything which would cause water to be cleaner, bridges to be safer, and all the rest of. and so that is the story as i see it right now. i'm down to at the freedom, as you say, the timely part of this that is eating away with this unusual bankruptcy. all they want to do is say that we don't want to pay. the appalachian culture, a little bit of it. scotch and irish, a little bit, i am sorry to say. the world is that as it is, and

you accept the world as it should be a menu make it conform to that posture. so i'm here and angry and upset and shocked and in their this would happen to 300,000 absolutely wonderful people who work and don't give me into that subject. but they are depending upon the fruit of the land, whatever they may be. wherever they may be for survival. they are making it, but barely. and i think that i will stop there for my own good. >> thank you, senator. we always appreciate your passion on these issues. >> thank you, chairman cardin.

thank you ranking member for holding this hearing today. i really appreciate it. for bringing national attention to this issue. it's the only thing we can do here in congress read i want to thank the chair woman who has worked tirelessly and she jumped right in here with me after the spell and never hesitated or bowling and her staff worked around-the-clock around the clock until he had a piece of legislation that we ought would help cure the problem and prevent this from happening anywhere in the country. and that is our goal. on january 9, less than four weeks ago we had a week from a storage tank into the elk river with 1300 west virginian president. in our state we work hard and we have really worked hard to reduce the energies of chemicals that we take every day. we are proud of the work we have done this great country. i cannot come without a cost. we have a need for access to safe and clean drinking water and the safety of the people of west virginia.

this bill should have never happened and it is our responsibility and congress working with the states to do everything that we can to keep it from happening again. not just in west virginia but anywhere in america. that is why the drinking water protection act, i think senator rockefeller, my colleague from west virginia for helping me be so instrumental in this and i appreciate that in our bill would iyer stated actions of chemical storage facilities and those facilities located near drinking water sources. including minimum standards that they must meet including construction and we protection requirements and containment standards and the development of energy response plans and financial responsibility acquirements. additionally companies must inform the state and the federal epa in the local water system of

chemicals that they store it. that information is only so helpful and we don't have adequate health and safety data and that is why am a cosponsor of the really committed to the safety improvement act which i know everyone is working or in the best interest that they can and i appreciate that. under the chemical safety improvement, the states could request that the epa test for specific chemicals even if they are not detected to be free of hazmat, including those held near waterways which specifically we should know everything and anything other than drinking water. and for chemicals like this, the overall bombing lack of data is part of this. the bottom line is that no west virginian or american should have to worry about the water supply from a chemical spill and i will do everything in my power to enact legislation to protect

us. these two bills would go a long way in ensuring that every american has access to safe clean water and if god for bid and incident comes like this again, we have the tools to respond as quickly and effectively as possible and savanna mall west virginians that the epa, the cdc, and all of those involved to please join me in pledging to make sure that the water in this valley is the cleanest and safest and america and that should be our goal here today and i want to think the cdc and the epa working with all of our state officials and restoring the confidence back. making sure that i just pray that no one goes through this and it's a wake-up call for all of us and that it would be a weight on call for us to act. >> thank you, senator manchin. >> thank you. i appreciate you allowing myself

and our colleagues to speak to you and the full committee chair about the recent invents in west virginia. i'm going to be very brief because i know that you have a panel of expert following our panel and i want to thank my senators along with chairman boxer for the tremendous work that you have done on legislation to bring forward this. senator rockefeller mentioned that this domain has dedicated his entire career to the public health and safety of the people of appalachia. edwards would never be adequately enough to say thank you to our senior senator for what he has done for the people of west virginia and i want to publicly express that i have an appreciation for that today. the recent chemical spill has not only caused well-founded concerns with it has created a

lot of anxiety. there is certainly a great deal of mistrust in the air as much as there is a suspicion about what is in the water. factual information in the wake of that bill is critical. too many unanswered questions for which we all need answers and the recent information that has come to light after this bill has only exacerbated the mistrust the people already had for government and that certainly has gotten worse since the spell. so i think it's proper that congress understand the facts and the limits of congressional action before rushing headlong into something that we will not regret but can be much work later on. when state authorities arise at the freedom industry site, they encountered those that were unaware of a leaking chemical or unwilling to admit that they had

a problem. when they reported that the company dragged its feet on a good reported, they mischaracterized the seriousness of the situation and the threat it posed to our people. certainly the congress can require a better understanding of the risks of chemicals and help states improve emergency response and preparedness. i'm not sure that congress can ever completely legislate away your responsibility and the disregard for public welfare recently exhibited and whatever other operations were set up. west virginians do care about the health and safety of our families and neighbors in our state legislature as you have already referenced, mr. chairman, working on this with legal loopholes to regulate the chemical storage tanks and it will not repair the damage done to the coverage trust of government that emanate from

this city. and oversight at all levels where they feel that they have been let down. the epa has become and it tells us what cannot be done rather than helping us to discern how we can do those things that we need to do better. my hope is that the federal government rather than acting from on high and imposing broad solutions listen to our concerns. if you were here to tailor the response accordingly. as i conclude and i thank you for this hearing and asked that this committee work with my elf in our committee on the house side and the transportation and infrastructure committee that will be conducting a hearing in charleston, west virginia next monday. we hope to find a way to protect our people and to keep this from happening again. we thank you. >> thank you.

representative? >> thank you chairman boxer and senator udall. i think it is important for you to know that in west virginia we have been proud of our star individuals and this has really rocked us. this affects my home and my family and restaurants. it affects folks who work for him were not able to work for this time and i think the long-term effects are still under question. as senator rockefeller said, i think we want people to be held accountable for what has happened here and we want to present these accidents from happening again and we want to know that the water that we are drinking is safe. many questions about the spell

are still lingering and we are going to have a hearing to try to answer some of these questions and examine most importantly the federal laws. one of the things that really rocked me is the cdc said you can drink water and then they come back two days later and say that if you are a pregnant woman you probably have recommended you not to drink the water. what does that send to anybody? particularly in young families. the senator and i then wrote a letter asking for the testing protocols and how they were making decisions and what involvement might be tightened up and made under so that if you're going to give someone assurances to drink the water that you actually have the assurance that he. the other thing is that the slow bleed of misinformation and it comes out that it was not just one individual of this but

another chemical at the same time that was leaked into the seminal valley. that does nothing to the confidence of any family living there that the situation is under control at all and it's very disheartening. so the company did not accurately report says. and we had to wait for someone to smoke something close by before they called an official and then and only then did the company say that something is leaking and then it came out later that it was before anyone had this going on and it has rocked our confidence and is absolutely unacceptable that there was not better information with our first responders. as has been said the state legislature is moving quickly and i congratulate them and i support them with these state-level efforts and i think we need to examine changes at the federal level and i

understand the fear and the trepidation that people feel because i feel it as well and we have to get to the bottom of this. because people are trusting that their tap water is taken that won't happen again. we have this was on stability and i congratulate the committee and look forward to our house hearing in charleston and i thank you for the impact and the interest of it in this bill. >> let me thank all four of our colleagues. includes in senator rockefeller. he has been a treasure for us in the united states than in and we know we still have room for another year and we are not rushing to. he has been an incredible voice on behalf of the people and we appreciate you coming to me thank all four of you. let's go on for second panel.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> let me welcome our second panel here today. we are very pleased to have the experts from west virginia that are with us today you can help us sort out what happened earlier this year. we welcome the secretary of state of west virginia.

the secretary of the west virginia department of environmental protection. this includes eric olsen, the senior strategic director for health and the defense counsel. including president of environmental compliance of united order red mr. michael mcnulty, the general manager in west virginia and a partner in hollingsworth and mr. peter weaver, the vice president of government affairs international liquid terminal association. we will start with mr. tenet. >> mr. chairman. >> i have a lot of family in west virginia who have been

adversely affected and please don't think that i'm not interested. it is great to see the secretary of state and i'm delighted to be here and we look forward to hearing from all the witnesses. >> i think it's obvious that the members of the senate that there are many committee hearings going on including the most important committees and for our witnesses will be part of our record. so the written testimony will be made part of the record and you may foresee it as you wish. so we ask that you keep your comments to the i've minute mark and with that we will start with natalie. >> thank you so much. it is good to see you all again.

and to all the members of the committee who will be reading mr. work. thank you for holding this hearing and thank you for inviting me to share the challenges that west virginia families and businesses have been racing and to continue to face. i also want to thank you, madam chair commander was rigidness editors who we have said so much about. mr. jay rockefeller and joe manchin were introducing a chemical safety intricate water protection act of 2014. lack of information has been our greatest challenge in west virginia. that piece of legislation will go a long ways towards providing the much-needed transparency that we will have in the future. but i must say now that at this time west virginians need answers now. the water ban has been lifted, but too many west virginians are wondering if their water is really safe area for stuff we hear that it won't chemical. then we hear that it is to chemical.

then we hear it is 7500 pounds. then we hear it is 10,000 gallons. one day we are told that the water is safe and the next day we are told that the pregnant women should not drink it. it doesn't add up. either safe or it is not eight. i frankly people are fed up and angry and they are scared. i have families telling me that they are melting snow just to be able to give their children's bath. as a mother of an 11-year-old daughter in our county i show those things to be of concern. as secretary of state, i demand answers and i asked this committee could please help me get those answers. i have called on the centers for disease control and prevention to explain to west virginians how they determine what levels of our drinking water are safe. and i launched a petition for west virginians to join in my call for those answers on friday. as of this morning we had 1264 people who have signed on to

that. each of these signatures as a mom or a dad or a friend or a neighbor and they deserve to know that what is coming out of their office is not going to hurt their families. just this weekend i met with a doctor of the charleston health department and he is proposing a 10 year study to monitor the long-term health impact of the people who have been exposed to this chemical. and i am asked committee to could please work with us to provide those resources that we need to begin that study right away. as one father wrote me last week. he said that we are accountable to our children's health and future. and i agree. we owe it to our children to start a study today. as secretary of state, my office is on the frontline with as mrs. everyday in west virginia. businesses like this bistro, which is famous in charleston for the sunday breakfast that day. now, the managers told me that

they lost $40,000 during the do not use ban and they are continuing to spend an extra $500 per day to bring in bottled water because customers don't trust what is coming out of the tap. ..

thank you for allowing me to be here and speak for west virginia. >> thank you for your leadership on this issue. >> secretary huffman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. state of west virginia and -- i'm sorry. thank you. the state of west virginia and its department of environmental protection appreciate and welcome the opportunity to address this committee. i'm hopeful that by sharing west virginia's experience from the perspective of an environmental regulator and not a public health official, i can provide insight to you and other states as we seek to provide a more comprehensive regulation. so as to better protect human health in the environment and minimize the risk associated with the industrial activity. on january 9, 2014, they received a complaint concerning an odor around the tank farm. at 12:05 p.m. freedom industry employee reported the spill to depp's emergency response spill

hotline and stated they discovered a whole in one of the tank containing four mchm. they set down the site and instructed them to take all necessary measures to contain, recover, and remediate the spill. the incident highlights an issue that exists not only just in west virginia but all over the country. all states have substantially similar regulation for underground storage tanks based on regulations promulgated bit epa the same is not true for service situated counter part. they don't have regulation contained to all above-ground storage tank. the states that regulate them do so in a myriad of ways. one similarity most state sha's have above-ground storage tank regulation have them as a result of an event similar to what happened in west virginia. most states focus primarily on petroleum products or materials regulated.

this leads virtually unregulated in universal pollutants. it's easy with time sight to see a potential threat existed on the river and that clarity sharpens our focus looking forward. according to the epa the chemical inventory, there are approximately 84,000 known industrial chemicals being used today. 20,000 have been added to the list in the last 30 years with the little change in the list of regulated chemicals. most are not currently classified we simply don't know enough about them. the material that leaked to the river on january 9th is one of those chemicals. the west virginia legislature is considering legislation that help to fill the void that currently exists in the regulation of above-ground storage tanks. the bill discussed in the legislature today requires thing important from the perspective. one of the most important is to have a register professional engineer or other qualified individual to inspect and test the tanks and secretary

containment annually and certify the integrity. on the federal side we support the manchin-boxer proposal. by requiring epa to establish minimum acceptable standards by which the states will be held accountable we can significantly reduce the risk of similar problem in the future. the program was developed in the late 1980 they recognized over 2 million systems estimated to be located at over 700,000 facilities nationwide existed with little or no oversight and that over 75% of the existing systems were made of unprotected steel, a type of tarng system proven to be the most likely to leak and thus great greatest potential. the success of the program nationally undisputable. the tbof ground stonch tank

universe is not nearly as well known. it's regulated by registering. or leek detection monitoring either. the registration requirement in current legislation is the key to us getting a handle on the universe of structures that are currently underregulated. we are optimistic that the legislation currently pepping in west virginia will of this type of incident and we can serve as an example to other states to be more proactive in the regulation of these structures that do not find themselves in the situation which we are currently dealing with. thank you for the opportunity to be here and speak to you about the water prices in west virginia. this crisis reminds of how basic and fundamental clean water is to a stable society and

vulnerable our water supplies are not only in west virginia but across the country. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for the committee and full committee ranking member for the opportunity to testify today. as we have heard, it went throughout charleston as a result of this order to not only not drink the water but not even bathe in it it. data that existed if are the chemical mchm and learned twelve days later pph was upstairs. officials trying to find a safe level have little information to deal with. basically retracted that with respect to pregnant women saying, quote, biewns of caution

pregnant women drink bottle water. this is yet another fundamental reason that residents were wondering whether it was safe for kids, pregnant moms, for anyone in their family. as my colleague highlighted and discuss my written testimony, the posedly safe level was not protective of vulnerable population. last weekend i had the opportunity visit with a lot of folks in charleston and appreciated the courtesy of west virginia american water company who gave me a tour of the drinking water facility. ly say that the residents i spoke with remain deeply dismayed about the safety of their water and very skeptical about reassurances that the water is safe. i heard about parents and pregnant moms who really wonder about the long-term effect of bathing or drinking this water. storing still advertise across the city bottled water and some proclaim they cook with bottled water.

i met a couple who owned a small indian restaurant and a store within sight of the dome of the capitol. they told me they shut the restaurant for five days and had to toss a huge amount of food. they had borrow money to meet the payroll. they had to ask people to hold checks. and spend lot of money on professional cleaning and replacement food. and their store lost quite a bit of money because people stopped cooking so perishable commodities had to be tossed. i heard people drove as far away as kentucky to get bottled water during the crisis and families stayed away with friends or relatives and drove as far as 60 miles just to shower. parents really are angry and they are angry especially that so. recent tests, some came in as recently as friday showed the chemicals in the schools were higher than expected. i want to say it's not an isolated situation. they -- water intake at charleston simply cannot be shutoff.

they can't shutoff the water when a spill occurs. this is true not just in charleston, but i'm learning in water utility as cro the country. they don't have the capacity to shut off when there's a spill because they need to continue pumping water. charleston's treatment technology also -- as i learned, was unable to deal with the spill of this magnitude. it was simply overwhelmed. it could not deal with it. as my testimony highlights there are hundreds of other water youties across the country. large and small using surface water that cannot deal with a spill like that. we all remember in 1988 a huge spill of oil that contaminated a million people's drinking water in three states. it leaves -- some communities are doing something about it. cincinnati, ohio installed state-of-the-art treatment basically acted carbon in deep beds like that in the fish thank removes virtually all of these

organic. the cost is $20 per household per year. northern kentucky utility knead same switch. you've got to do this if you have the situation. >> what we need is the drinking water act. we heard the source water assessments were done. nothing was done about them after they flagged major risk. in this particular situation just for charleston, 53 potentially significant con tom nation association -- were eitherred. 26 so close they were in the zone of critical concern yet it appears that virtually nothing was done about that or specific rights to take action. i also want to address briefly the manchinboxer bill that was rempsed earlier. we feel that is on important step forward and i mentioned my testimony if you tweaks we troamed this.

move the inspection to annual similar to what the west virginia passed. we certainly agree it is broken and needs to be fixed. however, we need real reform of that law. as my testimony highlights and i ask we enter to the -- some of the attachments to my testimony be entered to the record. this bill that is pending, the csia would altogether bipartisan would not fix the problem. as i highlight in the testimony. it's unlikely this particular chemical would have been flagged as a high priority, and it is quite likely that state action would have been preempted if this actual had been enacted. so although we do support reform, we believe that the reform needs to be strong. it needs to fix the problem, and we stand ready to work with the

members of this committee with senator boxer, senator vitter, senator udall and others to reform the law in a meaningful and real way. so in conclusion, we strongly support moving forward with legislation. we support the manchin,boxer, rockefeller bill with the tweaks we mentioned. and we need comprehensive solutions to source water protection across the country. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you chairman cardin for holding this important meeting this morning. i appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning. i'm currently employed with a trial firm but until last week i served for the last four years as senior executive for united water with a responsibility for overseeing the provision of safe, clean, drinking water for over 5 million people.

although i'm testifying today i offer supporting statements and recommendation by the national association of water companies. i can assure you it's an issue that it takes very seriously as do other public water suppliers. while new regulations may not stop accident like this from happening. i believe there are few targeted common sense things we can do to ensure that the continued protection of our drinking water sources. overall we need a more integrated, sustainable approach to managing water and water sheds. a concept my good friend president of the u.s. water alliance refers to as a one water management approach. but first, this is about keeping harmful chemicals out of our nation's drinking water. there are tens of thousand of

chemicals with as we've heard this morning, currently in commerce each of with had the potential to impact a drinking water source for someone, some community, somewhere, at the same time. the best thing we can do and where the greatest focus i believe needs to be placed is keeping these harmful chemicals out of our drinking water sources. truly in this case, an ounce of prevention would have been worth a pound of cure. it's clear we wouldn't be here today, mr. chairman, had the storage facility in this particular incident provided adequate storage and secondary containment. and in light of the catastrophic release there are many calls, robust inspections that control bulk chemical storage facilities particularly those located close to waters that serve as drinking water sources. and united water joins with those calls, those that are calling for additional measures for additional support. second, prompt information to of the spill that threatens the

water supply is absolutely critical. service water receiving timely information to about a spill can make a bad situation less bad and mitigate the most significant risk to the public. without prompt notification a water provider may no way to detect and respond until it is too late and already in the distribution system. for these systems, having two hours, one hour or even a half hour, for that matter, can make a big defense prepare farring slug of chemicals that be heading toward the water intake. simply closing, a water intake structure waiting in l a threes passed by is not possible. these can be difficult decisions to make often made with

imperfect data and in the mist of a emergency situation. broad category of risk rarely if ever the public water providers provide a specific data about chemical stream if released could affect the water system. it's a common sense change that needs to be made.

sloorly the clean water act require any facility that experiences a release to in excess of a reporting quantity to immediately notify the national response center and local emergency responders. there's no requirement that a nearby water provider be provided similar notice. lastly, i offer a cautionary note. a water system is welcome additional support that do no good to simply dump ream of paper and data on the system and expect the water to go away. rigorous assessment of the risk from multiple upstream sources can be a complex process requiring significant resources and expertise which many systems not possess. the most effective solution will necessarily involve greater public education, collaboration, communication, epa and all stakeholders within a water shed about the importance of source water protection. an important concept i mentioned earlier in a one water approach. thank you. >> thank you very much.

i live in charleston and my family and 300,000 residents have been dealing with the con tame nation of our drinking water for the past 26 dais. i'm here to talk about water prerks and preventing drinking water i want to thank senators rockefeller, manchin, congressman, and governor for their assistance during this crisis. for the sake of time, i'll amaze the six essential policy principles include maryland my written testimony needed to promote effective protection plan. the best is one developed by local officials who know there are particular vulnerabilities and implemented with constant

vigilance. we have completed an extensive emergency contingency plan and detection plan to protect our population. however a plan to work, you can't sit on the shelf the local officials who implement it must believe in it and let it influence their daily conduct and attitude. our water shed map with potential sources is displayed here. minimize the effect of a minimize the effect of a essential spill and establish emergency contingency including interconnection with neighboring water supplies.

excuse me. one of the most important element of our plan is constant monitoring of our resource water to detect them. including any similar those charleston's water. if we do not -- if we find them none of the presource water test were federally mandated. this is why rural water association have been advocating to adopt protection measures for decades. they directly assist communities like my own technical resources to implement a protection plan. over 1,000 communities have completelied the rural water process and actively protecting their source water consider how many i will close with the

suggestion of federal response in the aftermath of the charleston crisis that allows for immediate protection and does not require any grabbed spending program or expansion of unfunded mandates on local governments. a few years ago congress provided a small package of funding to the state agency that protect groundwater a list of communities that adopted protection plans and copy of each protection plan. such an enterprise would empower the people who benefit from the clean and safe environment to take responsibility for securing it. well, every state and locality believes that it is doing the best job possible. this system would allow the public to make sure their claims are accurate. thank you, mr. chairman, and on behalf of small and rural

communities, we're grateful for your attention and assistance. >> thank you for your testimony. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm a lawyer practicing here in washington, d.c., and i want to make it very clear that i am not representing a client or any organization here today. i'm not being compensated for anything i'm saying here today. i've simply respond to the committee's invitation as a concerned citizens. i want to rise, if i may, altogether i'm sitting here, to speak to the chairman's concern of federalism. to sound a note of caution among the interest in the intensity of the work that is being done here in this committee. indeed i suspect throughout the entire nation within a nation's

chemical industry as they intensely look at the concerns that this situation has raised. there are a great many factors in addition to regulation that influence what america's chemical industry does. it was a great many factors other than laws that do so. there are human factors that investigations they have undertaken. they're a trade association issues that have been raised. i'm sure regarding this situation. there 0 other matters the committee may are or may not have been brief on here. certainly i don't know necessarily the extend of that should influence some caution before we rush in to the federal legislation. with this focus that is being placed under the magnifying glass of this committee's inquiry as well as other activities that are surely going on in the country, should we really rush immediately in to federal legislation? i think we should be cautious.

complex accidents generate a fog of some kind simply burdened by the sheer weight of information nixed with the shock and alarm and confusion and sometimes that can on secure clear deliberations in dealing with incidents like this. it is important as this committee is doing today to give the state and local authorities a full opportunity to fully investigate to deliberate, and decide what their future actions should be. sometimes when that fog clears, federal intervention may be unnecessary. for example, we all know, as of the discussions today that the west virginia legislature is actively considering bills and laws to deal with this situation. and once those are passed, our nation's states, our laboratories of democracy may

decide to develop solutions for their own unique operation which is may be different from west virginia. those solutions may be complimented by voluntary programs developed by industry. a stowp down management situation of federal solutions may actually displace some protective systems of state and local laws regulations and voluntary industry practices that already exist. and for those reasons, i think we should be cautious. we said another way the presence of the federal regulatory gap doesn't necessarily mean a hazard exists uniformly across the nation. some may be dealt with by other restraint. a one-size-fit-all federal approach may sometime even reduce safety by preexampling broader, more effective, or carefully tailored solutions that are already working. again, it calls for cautious

consideration and deliberation. i know, this committee is doing it. i simply rise to suggest they continue to do so. keep these factors in mind. spill prevention is a recurring concern regarding chemicals and regarding all sorts of substances that are stored. west virginia and other states as well as the epa have issued guidance gowments on the subject. they provide common sense information and advice that could have prevented the tragedy in west virginia. for example, if we simply look at west virginia's guy dense documents regarding a aboveground storage tank they suggest and refer to existing regulatory standards which if obeyed, regarding groundwater protection would have prevented the spills in to the surface water through effective secondary containment according to their specify cases. like many trajt i dids, this

failure cannot necessarily be claimed on the absence of a law. we need to be cautious as we work to the situation and work through the issues. not every problem requires federal legislation. but every problem, especially serious ones deserve the careful consideration the empowered intervention, the educate assistance of responsible and politically accountable community members. people the closest people to the problem. and i applaud the communities' efforts here. i applaud the efforts of west virginia and cooperating with the committee and i applaud this committee's work as it dealt ofs to the difficult problems and simply suggest restraint and caution as we move forward. >> thank you very much for your testimony.

>> good morning. i'm vice president of government affair at the international liquid terminal association. i've been with them since 2006 representing the interests of the owners and operators of storage terminal. our 80 corporate members with approximately 800 domestic terminal handling automatic manner of all liquid commodity. freedom industry is note a member. before joining i held position in product develop and marketing for one of our nation's chemical manufacturers, i've served as an office in the marine and began my career with the engineering department of an il cia founding company along the mississippi river. i should note that my wife and i now have a sailboat on chai's peek bay next to our dog's favorite swimming beach and assures that no one is harming

our nation's water way is a personal priority for me, my family, and our closest friends. regulatedded enforced serious of laws and regulation. at the federal level rule for environmental protection are prom all gaited in response to the numerous laws. all member facilities are -- and secondary payment to prevent spills from my immigrating should a tank fail. some state laws carry additional requirements. . .

and plans must be certified by professional engineer. second epa regulations stemming from the emergency planning and community right to know act or title iii requires the facility to inform their merchants a planning committee the state emergency response committee and local fire department of all hazardous materials in their possession. i should add the newly