and economic benefits of those are valid and important. but to answer your question, more directly. in the case of mercury, for example, a neuro toxin, it's not to the point where epa can put a number of the value of lost iq points or some of the things we would be asking to try to value. we certainly know and have good science and data to do things like premature death from soot pollution or as thma attacks. >> we passed legislation in the house to try to extend the time for the boiler mac rules to be put into effect to allow you

more time the federal court made the decision they did in january. are you still -- are you all -- at all interested in the house or senate moving the legislation to give you the time to do these right? >> we're mindful of the work done here, sir. i do hope that you know that we have been working in our repro posed rules. the cost of xom appliance went down by 50%. we're taking into account the importance of bio mass in acknowledging that is going to be important. we're looking, as you know, right now, for finalization in late spring of this year. >> i see the red light on. i yield back. >> this time, i want to recognize the gentle lady from florida. >> citizens across america value

clean air and clean water. i want to thank you and everyone at epa for what you're doing to protect our air and water and for your partnership with states and local communities. two of the most important partnerships with our local communities involve the state -- the clean water, and safe drinking water loan programs. these are the vital dollars that help with storm water infrastructure, replacing old pipes, waste water infrastructure. it's not real exciting. they're vitally important when it comes to keeping our neighborhoods clean and our water bodies clean across the country. they're also important job creators, too. the recovery act gave us a nice shot in the arm to help create jobs and leaving us with a

lasting legacy of important infrastructure improvements. the needs across the country outweigh the resources. how would you characterize the backlog? >> independent estimates put it at around $300 billion nationwide. >> i would guess in florida it's well beyond a single billion. it's probably much more than that. we have these aging water pipes. they need improvements. so -- i'm troubled that the budget request actually provide harris cut. how do you explain this? >> tough choices. miss castor. we balance it by the fact that we have, as you noted, the recovery act gave a shot in the

arm to the programs. it's been about $18 billion in this administration. it's another dut. tough, tough choices. we're at the point where we don't have many places we can cut except in these infrastructure investments. these are loan programs, for the most part. there's a revolves, almost self-sustaining point. >> i hope the congress will respond overall by giving a boost to these vital clean water and drinking water initiatives that are important partnerships for our local communities and the states and find savings elsewhere in the budget. next i would like to ask you about -- the good news out of the administration on more fuel-efficient cars. think this is great news for american families. and businesses. it appears that you al are building on the success that the

congress in first increase in u automobile fuel economy in 32 years. we beasted mileage to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. i have to tell you. i have a member of the family who last year bought one of these fuel efficient cars. he's getting 50 miles per gallon. he really enjoys driving past these gas stations, no matter what the signs have posted. can you summarize for us what the next steps are? what is epa doing to work on even more fuel-efficient vehicles? >> the -- as you noted, and thank you, the final rules for 2012 to 2016 light duty vehicles were finalized in april 201037

we' -- 2010. and 2017 to 2025. we anticipate finalizing those later this year. we signed and published rules for heavy duty vehicles. large trucks. they were published in the federal register in september. >> put it in the terms of the arch american family and business. what does it mean? cash back in their pocket? >> absolutely. more money in your pocket and less to a specific gas station. $1.7 trillion saved over the lifetime of the cars going 2025. 12 billion barrels of oil that will nef have to import into the country. as the cars get more and more efficient, up to $8,000 in fuel savings over the life of the car. more than made up for a little additional price up front.

we're very proud of it. it's part of the president's approach. we need to have energy. we need to conserve the energy we have. it's positioned our auto makers to compete with automakers around the world s. >> at this time, i recognize the gentleman from oregon. >> good to have you back before the committee. i wanted to follow up on something my colleague from nebraska, mr. terry, had raised. regarding putting things on the website. and it's my understanding that, you're an advocate for transparency in the process. take it more transparent to the public. that's who we both work for at the end of the day. my understanding is that there are situations where groups file suit against your agency. and literally, on the same day, there are settlements entered

into by your agency with those groups. i guess what we're trying to get at here is trying to make sure that the public has an awareness of that sort of litigation. and so when it's filed against your agency, are you willing to notice that on your website? in a very timely manner? this would be the notice of intent to sue? you get a notice of intent to sue. >> yes, sir. >> so when you get those, is there a way you can put those up on the website so the american tax pairs would know? would that be a hardship on the agency? >> it retires minimal resources. we're happy to do it. i'm not ware of any settling the same day. when we receive a lawsuit, we are almost always called by the press. we simply say we're reviewing it. >> when you get the notice of intent to sue. >> those are not actual

lawsuits. those are 60-day notices. >> can you put those up on the website? >> think so. absolutely sir. i'll look at the resources. it should be a fair request. my 16-year-old can probably figure out how to do that. >> and fix the flashing clock -- oh, wait, we don't have vcrs anymore. is there any noticing to be done for the public to know about settlements. there's a concern and it can happen on the right and the left. you get a notice, some day after you're gone and somebody else is there, it doesn't seem nart a group can threat on the sue, notice of intent to sue, and the agency can sit down and make it almost a friendly lawsuit and reach a settlement and the public never really sees that in a transparent way. >> i can assure you.

epa does not enter into sweetheart settlements. if there is information we can provide. when we enter into consent decree, those are subject to public comment. if there's an administrative settlement, often times those are discussed but not subject to public comment. >> but they could be made public? >> i do not know that. i do think that the agency needs to preserve its right to discuss. we get sued by state and local governments. we need to preserve our right to enter into discussions to try to avoid court costs. >> i don't think anybody disagrees with that. i think the taxpayers may feel they get shut out of that. you get a notice of intent to sue. they don't know that happens unless you make it public. >> usually, the group suing us

does but -- >> so you and they know. but not necessarily everyone else. >> i don't see any concerns with putting notes that we receive up. and i'm happy to look into that. >> okay. i return my time. >> thank you. at this time, recognize the gentleman from california, mr. waxman. >> the house republicans have urged you not issue pending proposed new source performance standards. they argue that the regulations will hurt the economy and are not necessary. i could not disagree more strongly. climate change is the greatest environmental threat we face. though the standards will have a modest impact on the overall problem, they're critical as a first step in tackling carbon

pollution. they'll boost the economy, allowing investment decisions to be made. you're an engineer. a practical problem solver. does it make sense to pretend that climate change is not happening and hope we can deal with it later? >> no, sir, it doesn't. >> denying the science and facts i think is indefensible. putting off action until later is utterly irresponsible. according to the international agency, if the world doesn't change course of climate now, within ten years, we will have built enough high carbon energy infrastructure to lock our planet into a devastating amount of global warming. making smart choices when building new infrastructure is precisely what the regulation about? isn't that right? >> that's right, sir. and giving standards so people

have certainty. that's an important part of the process. >> these new source performance standards would set limits for carbon pollution that would apply when we invest billions of dollars into newer power plants that will be around for half a century or more. the reality is that the market is already driving these choices. the development of huge low-cost natural gas sup plies. plus inevitability of future requirements is spurring investments in new coal plants without carbon controlled substance. we're hearing the same things that this would drive up energy prices and destroy the u.s. economy. republicans said that in 2010 about the requirements for clean air act. the carbon pollution permitting

requirements have be in place for over a year. is there evidence that it's hurting things? >> none. none, sir. epa is processing the permits in certain district. >> they're encouragkournlcourag sources to be more -- we see studies finding that climate change is occurring. finding new threats to ecosystems, food supplies and human health from a rapidly warming planet. finding the time to avoid a degree of warming is rapidly running out. this republican congress does worse than fiddling while rome burns. they're trying to stop anyone else from fighting the fire. i want to commend your efforts to fight this fire. i urge you the take the critical steps of making emissions

standards for power plants of carbon as soon as possible. the next fiscal year, the administration's proposing to achieve its mission with a meager amount of the budget. 56% of the fiscal year 2009 budget. clearly, the president's proposing a funding level that the agency has to make difficult choices, cut funding for valuable programs and start funding at priority goals. i would like to ask you about some of the tough choices. in the 2013 budget, we have significant cuts to the drinking water program. just yesterday, the american water works association released a new assessment of state of drinking water infrastructure in the country. they said, our drinking water infrastructure needs a $1 there

will investment over the next 25 year ifs we're to maintain current levels. the amwa declares the more we delay, the marrieder the job will be done. has the agency determined funding drinking water infrastructure is no longer important? >> certainly not. >> does epa still believe that state revolving loan funs are important tools? >> certainly, sir. >> i have other yesquestions al these lines. my time is over. i would like to submit these questions to you in writing and get a response in writing as well. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> i would like to recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy. >> when you were here last year, i referenced that, i asked for a list of concerns with

pennsylvania's law and oil and gas production. i'm disappointed i have not heard back yet. since that time, pennsylvania has made changes to regulations. i'm not sure if you have read pennsylvania's act 13. it was just passed into law. it contains provisions in there. including ways to handle violations. dep approved water management plan for water withdrawals. governor corbett signed it into law. i don't know if you had chance to read that. i hope so. but, what concerns me is i would still like to hear from you if anything remains. i won't put you on the spot. if you would get back to me. would you be able to do that? >> we're happy to. we're in the middle of a

two-year study. that is specifically to look at the effect of fracing on drinking water. anything we learn from the study. the first audience will be the states. they're really on front line of trying to protect their people and regulate the industries to keep them safe. >> given that you're in the middle of a study. a february article from the pittsburgh post-gazette, your agency is starting a large study that you had not previously acknowledged. according to the pain erks it said that you're in the initial stage of possibly enforcement action or actions. i'm concerned on a couple of things. you're in the middle of enforcement action but you have not yet completed a study. is there a statute that gives the epa authority to regulate oil and gas production or is it water? >> certain aspects of production are regulated under a number of

statut statutes. the clean air act, the clean water act. spill prevention and containment regulation that are separate. there are a number of statutes. i can't comment on the validity. >> it's the water on site or air on site? >> the environment al impacts of certain operations that might be associated with the drilling. the drilling and the actual injection of fracing fluid are generally except from the major laws. >> do you have petroleum engineers working on the study? >> yes, sir. the study and its scope was peer review. we put together panels. had public meetings. >> have you on your own employ, petroleum engineers who have expertise? >> we can get you the list of folks. the study is being done by the

office of research and development. >> i would preecht knowing that. as you know in fy-10, congress directed epa to carry out a study on the relation between hydraulic drinking water and what lies in the approach of the best available science as independent sources. i've been looking at your fy-13 budget. you want an additional $14 million to expand the scope of your study to cover potential ecosystems issues. in this study, it's been 1.9 million in fy-10. 2 $2.5 million in fy-11, puts the cost at $28.1 million. groundwater contamination was linked to well site that used hydraulic fracturing. but there is a number of scientific concerns among them. some have to do with the ph

level of the water involved there. are you familiar with that question about the ph values and that study? >> generally, yes. >> all right. there wasn't going to be math today. >> i'm sorry? >> i said there is no math questions involved. but one of the issues here has to do, and i would appreciate you getting back to me on this, but i understand that in the case of drilling there was some test drill wells drilled. this was no the actual water wells drilled but test wells drilled by epa. and so it wasn't actually testing the water there. but there was a concern about a high recorded ph level of 11.5 in these monitoring wells. i'm sorry, around there. but the assets used in the drilling, it has a very high ph level, 11.5. and i wonder also if you can get back to us if you're not aware today if even the process of drilling your monitoring wells, the chemicals are added in that process which may have

influenced that point. >> yes, sir. i'm happy to. two things. as far as the study, it really is an expansion of the congressional mandated study. we're going to include additi additional scientific questions. that's in response to the president's call that we not shy away from investing in good science. we believe that will make natural gas industry morrow bust if we look to answer these questions. as far as to the other queeval times. we agreed to move forward together on additional investigation. certainly the use of some caustic like soda ash can raise ph. we believe when you look at the blanks and duplicate samples that our work is valid. but we're also agreeing to move forward collaboratively to take additional sample. >> i yield back. >> the gentleman's type has expired. i recognize the gentle lady from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your testimony,

administrator jackson. i want to begin with a brief comment. i was disappointed with the decision to eliminate the grants. i find the epa's justification observed. without funding, county and environmental health officials will have to drop testing. we've seen 11 occasions when conditions were so bad that officials closed a stretch of shoreline to all contact. the possibility of cutbacks is not good news. we can't assume local jurisdictions will be able to replace lost grant funding. epa needs to partner with our local communities, not leave them to dry. now on to questions. last year when you appeared before us to discuss the administrati administration's 2012 budget request, you noted that add daptation to changing conditions is a significant issue faced by the nation's drinking waters and waste water utilities. unfortunately, the cost of these add daptation needs is not currently included in epa's replacement cost estimates for water and waste water systems. since that time, epa's budget

has further experienced cuts. data continues to accumulate, demonstrating the scope of challenges faced by water systems. for example, a report recently released by the johnson foundation, american rivers concluded that our nation's drinking and waste water infrastructure is not prepared to deal with extreme weather events including persistent drought, shifting precipitation patterns and snow pack. this the strain water systems to previously unknown levels. and impose drastic costs on local communities across the country. however, since last year i've taken steps to address this issue by introducing the water infrastructure, resillency and sustainability act. this would offer competitive matching grants to help local water systems build their resillency to these changing hydrological conditions. and i'm pleased this legislation enjoys wide support in the water utility community. i question given these well documented challenges facing the nation's water and waste water

systems, do you think type of cooperative approach to promoting infrastructure adaptation and resillency among the stake holders can become an effective first step to address this issue? >> thank you. although i can't speak on the specifics of that legislation, i think that you bring up a good point. adaptation and what it means for the infrastructure are significant. and they're going to require a collaborative approach in terms of engineers as well as folks who are interested in providing water but also folks who are interested in lowering costs and in community public health protection. >> and is there a structure within the budget to deal with this? >> i don't believe so. i don't believe we have anything in the current budget. >> so we'll have to be innovative in figuring out ways to be cooperative? >> we're happy to work with your staff. >> i want to turn to your work in advancing sustainable communities initiative which is

something i commend. i was pleased to see the president again made this an important initiative, a priority in his budget. this funding helps empower local communities to plan more sustainable communities with more housing and transportation choices so that families can live close to where they work shop and go to school. this reduces commuting times which is not only good for economic growth but also for energy independence. do you see this type of sustainable development as an effective way for communities to help insulate themselves even from the rising gats pris price? >> as communities choose. but for those communities choosing to look at those issues of transportation, energy, water and efficiency and environment altogether, they're finding win-win solutions. >> good. >> and are there some examples just for the record of how this type of development impacts a community's energy independence? >> oh, absolutely. you know, it can be a large city like philadelphia where we're working with them. i should probably pick one in

california. apologize. but they're on my mind because of a previous question. or it could be a smaller community. even a rural community who are looking at issues associated with development or potential new development as their economy improves and making choices about locations, transit, roads, siting, that will help them be more sustainable over time by cutting their energy use and their carbon footprint. >> so they're anticipating this planning and development. you offer yourselves as partners available to be on consultation with them as they make these changes? >> yes. it's hud and dot and epa. the technical assistance we provide along with meager assistance, but hud and dot can be of great assistance and sometimes funding to help the communities maximize limited -- increasingly limited dollars. >> thank you very much. i look forward to working with you on it. >> thank you. i would like to remind everyone again that we still don't have a

clock. we do have the lights. periodically look up there and red light is going, then your time is up. this time i would like to recognize the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for being here administrator jackson. i have a number of things i want to get through. i will submit questions for the record. i would appreciate the response we're still waiting on some responses from your last trip here. we hear from your agency and yourself how you care so much about people in this country with asthma. as an asthmatic, i appreciate that concern. i have to tell you, i mean the epa is one federal agency that is standing between a lot of asthmatics and an over the counter treatment that has been vab available forever. i get the fact that fda plays the role in the approval of the new propellant. i get that. but your agency has the ability

to provide a waiver so that the existing stock of cfc containing this medicine can be sold to asthma patients in this country. and it's not a small issue. the prescription containing this compound costs about three times what the over the counter cfc propellant costs. but the big issue is availability. if you get in trouble in the middle of the night and you don't have a prescription, you got to go to the emergency room. and that really costs patients. i'm just asking will you grant a waiver so that existing stock of this medicine containing cfc can be sold? it's a yes or no question. >> no, sir, we have not granted the waiver. >> will you? will you grant the waiver so that asthma patients in this country could depend upon this product and can at least have the availability of the stuff that's already made. it's in warehouses. something is going to happen to it at some point. the cfc is not going to stay bottled up forever. coyo