available to patients in this country? >> sir, i'm happy to look into it. i will not answer yes or no. in 2008 the fda sent out a rule letting folks know, including the makers of the mist that they needed to phase out of the cfc. >> i got to tell you, i'm so frustrated with the nature of this. it goes back and forth between your agency and the fda. i'm just asking for some help here for the parents who are asthma sufferers in this country. you have the ability to provide that help. >> there are 19 safe and effective asthma treatments, sir. >> you and i talked about this in the past. now are you aware that the government accountability office has recently put out a study in hhs put out new guidelines on advisory on title 42. are you aware of that gao work in progress? >> i have not seen it personally, sir. thank you. >> they put out advisories and

they have asked that there be a cap placed on the title 42 positions and their agency. have you discussed this with anyone at hhs? >> i have not personally. i did when i became administrator ask to understand our title 42 hiring process. congress raised it as an issue in fy-2011. i believe we had 17. and hired a total of five more. >> and these are designed to be temporary employees, are they temporary employees on your balance sheet? >> i believe that they are designed to meet certain needs. we have them mainly as heads of our national labs. those national centers are state of the art research and oftentimes are -- we're looking for people with very specialized skill. >> but by definition, these are designed to be time limited and hhs has now agreed to a cap on

title 42 employees. are you looking at providing a similar sort of cap in your agency? >> we don't have a tremendous number of title 42 employees. and i'm happy to provide the justification to you. >> well, i've been waiting, again, on some of those questions from last time. i'll resubmit today. i am looking forward to that. since we have the cfo with you today -- >> i'm sorry, we have authority for 30 positions. so we do have them. and we're using 17 out of the 30 which is our cap. >> and are you going to adhere to the fact that those are to be temporary or time limited positions? >> i will look into the issue, sir. >> clearly, mr. chairman, this is a reason why this authorization committee needs to take a greater role in the oversight of the money spent by the environmental protection agency. let's go -- mr. bennett is kind enough to be here and talk to the issues related to line items and the epa suspending last

year. i'm so glad that she's here today. last act i thioctober i think w hearing here and there was concern because of unobligated funds that were sitting in the epa's bank account. just as purely as an example, we had i think -- i think we had 3 -- $15.6 billion. and we've been provided a little granularity on this. but are you going to provide us detail on what you're doing to unwind those unobligated funds? i mean you're asking for the same amount of money you got last year. and yet, the american people with your budget and see this money sitting in limbo in your account. and it's hard to justify expending the same amount of money when you got money sitting there. >> yeah. the vast majority of those unexpended funds, the majority of them are in super fund

balances. they're construction funds. as you know, when you run a construction account, you have to have the money in place so you can bid the job, complete the job and you don't always expend it or obligate it on a precise fiscal year. >> some are if super fund but not all. >> mr. chairman? mr. chairman. order. >> we need more. >> the gentleman's time has expired. at this time recognize the gentleman -- i forgot to tell you we didn't have a clock, didn't i? at this time i recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. marky for five minutes of questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. a little bit of history. back in 1995, newt gingrich took over as speaker. first thing the republicans did was attach a rider to the budget each year prohibiting an increase in fuel economy standards. prohibiting it. 95, 97, 98, year.

then george bush took over as president. they did not add the rider anymore. bush wasn't going to do it anyway. and so we go all the way to 2007. and you have a case, massachusetts versus epa. and you have my language which is going to increase fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon within this decade. and then increase it dramatically beyond. which gives the joint authority to epa and ntsa to now announce that the new standard is 54.5 miles per gallon. which by the year 2030 will back out 3.4 million barrels of oil a day. we're in a mess because the republicans were prohibiting that increase from 1995 until after they finally lost to

congress. if they had not prohibited it but put stronger standards on the books, we would be telling iran right now, we would be telling the saudi arabians we don't need their oil anymore. but they prohibited it. so they get back in power again. it's 2011. what's the first thing they do? they pass legislation through this committee on the house floor stripping epa of their authority to look at increases in the efficiency of the vehicles that we drive, of the boats, planes, trains, of everything. they go right back to business as usual digging this hole. violation of the first law which is when you end one, stop digging. so that's the mess, the mess that the republicans have put us into. then we say ahh. we have a strategic petroleum reserve. let's start to deploy it so we can sell iran as they're holding

this oil weapon over our head, you know, that we mean business and we're going to be tough going back at you. they say oh, don't deploy the reserve. then they want to pass the keystone pipeline bill. and i bring up my amendment on the house floor and say well that is to sustain the united states. they go oh, no. it doesn't have to stay in the united states. then we have a vote on the house floor two weeks ago that says that they can drill the oil companies off the coast of new england, florida, california. and so i have an amendment that says but that oil and natural gas, it has to stay inside the united states. all the republicans go, no. it doesn't have to stay in the united states. kit go overseas. this is a dream scenario. it's b

it's beautiful for the institute. but in terms of what the message is we're sending in terms of the amount of oil that, you know, we're going to say we don't need from them anymore. so let me ask this of you. what would that mean if there was a repeal, madam administrator, of your authority to look at how to increase the efficiency of the vehicles which we drive in the united states? >> our estimate on the savings of oil because of the cleaner the national clean cars program is 12 billion barrels. >> and what would happen -- what would happen to -- what is the total per day, what does that translate into in terms of per day consumption of oil in the united states? >> i actually don't have that number right in front of me, sir. but we know that one of the reasons that we are at the lowest level of history is becae efficiencies of these

automobiles and the energy administration assumes our use of oil -- >> the average consumer today has to spend about of their income on gasoline. now, if the tough standards stay on the books to increase efficiency, there is a dramatic reduction in the amount of oil that people have to purchase to put into their gasoline tanks over in the years ahead. and that's a big tax break for ordinary consumers if they have to purchase less gasoline at the tank because of the increased deficiency in the vehicles which they drive. what would this do in terms of your ability to be able to protect those consumers on that dramatically higher oil price that they would have to pay? >> well, without a national standard, we would lose the benefits. we assume those to be $1.7 trillion over the life of the program. >> so perfect the perspective of this debate, the republicans want to keep the oil tax

breaks,ed 4dz billion a year on the books for oil companies. even though they made $137 billion last year. but those tax breaks stay on the books. they're advocating an expiration of the tax breaks for wind industry this year. that is going to lead to the collapse. and it's part of an on going profile that basically is a rearview mirror view of how powerful america can be technologically and telling saudi arabia and opec we don't need their oil anymore. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i recognize the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. quickly, the gentleman from massachusetts was giving us history lesson. i'd like to remind that you in 1995 i introduced a bill that was to eliminate the mandate that ethanol had to be in the fuel stream. his own state of massachusetts supported the california reformulated gasoline as cheaper and cleaner than the federal mandate. every member of the california

delegation, every member supported that legislation except for the ranking member of this committee. because what the deals that were cut if washington were more important than energy independence or about clean air. but going back to what is a percentage of the cafe standard increase have we mandated in the last few years? total? >> well, we have doubled fuel of time? >> well, it will be between 2012 and 2013. >> what -- how much in your budget today, how much is committed to requiring governments to do more traffic management and fuel efficiency through traffic control? >> we don't have any requirements on traffic. >> in other words, it's easy to point fingers at the private sector and say you have to make your cars more important, more fuel efficient. and we've got studies coming out of places like the university of

kansas that shows 22.6% of all emissions and fuel consumptions and inappropriate traffic control, stop signs that could be yield signs, round abouts that would replace stop signs and traffic control. but in your budget, you're walking away from the opportunity of reducing fuel consumption and pollution by 22.6%. and because we're focused on mandate on the private sector but not asking those in fellow government agencies to clean up our act and stop requiring consumers to stop every two blocks because we just find it easier to do that. i mean my god, ma'am, you can't even get the blinking lights in congress out here to be turned to amber. behind this building, you have to go stop sign just because it's easier for government to say no, you got to stop here rather than being intelligent. now don't you think, administrator, especially coming from your local government background, that isn't it time we ask government to start participating in the answer?

and in time do we start requiring the local governments to states and counties to start looking at how we're doing business and start changing the way we're doing it and going to smart traffic management as much as requiring the private sector to go to smart cars? >> but i think that's happening. in the recovery act, i spoke -- >> wait a minute. wait a minute. it's happening voluntarily? >> it's happening because local governments are looking at their energy impact and using investments like in the recovery act to make investments. >> ma'am, i'm going to stop you right there. city council members and i pointed out there is no financial reason for our city to do that. give us a financial incentive, pay us to do this. all i'm saying is did we pay the auto industries to go to a more fuel efficient or did we tell them they've got to reduce their emissions and their fuel consumption? if that with the private sector, then why do we hold cities, counties and

federal government immune from it? why don't we set the same standards for those of us in government that we're setting on the private sector? and how can you say we're doing everything we can to have fuel efficiency and clean air when we allow the government to take a free ride on this one? >> sir, i would refer you to department of transportation who i think in the smart transportation and planning do encourage local governments to put in place ordinance and small traffic. >> administrator, i have administrated the clean air act. and you know, isn't it true that when you allow one group in a nonattainment area to pollute, somebody has to off set it, right? >> a new source has to offset it. >> whoa! i'm saying when government is allowed to force cars to pollute, usually it's the stationary source that's take the biggest hit. they're the easiest to regulate, aren't they? >> you are trying to tell me that moenl sources are easy to regulate as stationary sources? >> we just did. the national clean car standards

are regulation of mobile sources, likt duty vehicles -- >> ma'am, you were in kansacan connecticut? >> new jersey. >> sorry, all the little states get mixed up for us. >> you have a big one, sir. >> i'm sorry, i just tell you, i can't believe anybody that's done air regulation could say that mobile sources are as easy. all i'm saying is still have a major source of pollution and it's government. when will we finally, democrats and republicans, come together and say we need to lead through example, not point fingers at everybody else. we're talking about spending taxpayers money. but we're not willing to change regulations that government is operating rather than throwing money at the problem. why aren't we getting smarter as government to reduce the emissions and extend the fuel efficiencies in our operations? why can't we do that much?

>> the gentleman's time has expired. >> they're balancing safety. you know, traffic signals and stop signs for safety and balancing the need to insure public safety -- >> excuse me. i heard that about -- >> mr. chairman. bring to order, mr. chairman. >> you have to be fuel inefficient. >> mr. chairman, bring to order. >> let me just say that i'm trying to be fair, mr. chairman. we don't have a clock. i've let some people on your side go a minute and a half over. some people on this side are gone a minute or so over. so we're just trying to be as fair as we can be. at this time, i'd like to recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for your even handed leadership of this subcommittee. when i was a trial judge for 15 years in north carolina after a session of cross-examination like this, i would simply tell

everybody to just take a deep breath and count to ten. and so i'm certainly going to do that. and i ask others to do the same. let me thank you, administrator, for coming forward today with your budget and thank you for all that you do for our country. as the president has said now for years and i'm sure he tells you all of this every day, that we've got to make some tough choices. we've got to make tough choices in our budgets and clearly you have given us to day a budget that in my opinion seeks to protect our communities and promote sound science. and so i support your efforts. and i believe in what you're doing to say the least. however, on a brief note, i am a little concerned about the impact to critical infrastructure that will be caused by the proposed cut of $359 million from state revolving funds. the drinking water, state

revolving fund. mr. waxman spoke of that earlier, has provided states with the authority to give extra assistance in the form of extended loan terms and lower interest rates or principal forgiveness to disadvantaged communities. i live in a disadvantaged community. you know that very well. because of that, the srf has been an essential source of financing for small and disadvantaged community ward assistance that are unable to finance infrastructure projects at market rates. but until the passage of the recovery act, states had complete discretion to decide whether to exercise their authority and provide disadvantaged communities with such assistance. 14 states decided not to provide the assistance and an additional six states reserved less than 4% of their funds over the life of the program for these disadvantaged communities. recovery act funding of srf made a significant difference for millions of americans and you know that record very well. in fact, according to epa,

recovery act funds provided through the drinking water srf brought 693 drinking water systems serving 48 million americans back into compliance with the safe drinking water act standards. 48 million americans got safer water. and at the same time, good paying construction jobs were created. there is still -- there is still a significant need for this funding to improve drinking water quality and spur job growth. the cuts will be hard on all water systems. but particularly small and underserved communities who need the funding the most. question -- the budget in brief expresses the intent of the administration to target srf assistance to small and underserved communities. how will you do that? >> it will require us to work with the states as you know, mr. butterfield. thank you for your comments. i agree that recovery act changed the world for certain communities.

and we don't have the same legal authority to direct money. it goes through the states. so we'll have to work through the states to change the priorities. we'll do that collaboratively. but in a time of decreasing resources, we have to look at the systems which really could not through rate increases or any other way finance these infrastructure improvements. >> in the last congress this committee passed bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the srf. that legislation would have required states to provide some additional assistance to disadvantaged communities. unfortunately, that bill did not become law. states once again have discretion to choose not to provide special assistance to small and rural systems and cuts and srf funding may discourage states from trying that assistance. because returns on loans made by state funds will become more important. second question, do you foresee these cuts to the srf having an impact on the amount of assistance states make available

to smam and underserved communities? >> it likely will, sir. in all honesty, they are revo e revolving funds. the amount that a state has available in any given year depends on what loans are repaid. so from, you know, how much of the principal they're getting back. but less money, we believe, will potentially impact their ability to make these loans and/or grants. >> all right. mr. chairman, i see the amber light on. i suppose that means we're winding down. so i'm going to yield back the remainder of my time. >> thank you mr. butterfield. >> yes. >> at this time i recognize the gentleman from ohio for five minutes of questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, administrator, for being with us today. i would like to talk about ozone for a little bit here. in your fiscal year 2013 budget and when you're looking down the road, do you intend to propose revisions to the national air quality standard for ozone? if not in 2013, what is the

epa's current schedule? >> current schedule, sir, is to make a proposal in calendar year 2013. it will probably be towards the end of the calendar year. so i believe that is fiscal year 2014. >> let me ask this then -- does the epa expect to impose a rule that was withdrawn last year? >> i can't speak to what we'll do in the end of 2013. we're waiting on the science, as you know. we have to wait for a scientific review. >> because it's very, very important. you know, with the rule that was proposed last year and with that was withdrawn, the estimated cost throughout is between 19 and then $90 billion annually. in a state like ohio, we would have had a great number of our counties going to noncompliance. so when you're considering these standards, it's very, very important to people like me who represent 55,000 manufacturering jobs which is the largest in the state. and it is the largest number of

manufacturing jobs on this committee. you know, we have to have some kind offed in what that sticker price is going to be out there especially when i'm home, one of the things i hear from my constituents is what is happening here especially with the epa is the number one driver of the cost for them back home. so you have no idea where you're going to be going with that? >> yeah, i can't speak to itment i can say that it's proposed. we take public comment on it. so there will be ample opportunity for folks to see it, comment and offer -- >> let me just switch gears a little bit then. you know, looking at your budget, it says here you plan on spending another 830 million more dollars in enforcing environmental laws. raises a couple questions. one is when -- where does t epa in fines? >> fine money goes to the treasury. >> goes right treasury. okay. okay. let me go back to where dr. burgis was going back into the

question about the reuse of deobligated funds. and i assume that as you're here today that, you know, it really for -- it's our benefit, your benefit that there is total transz pa transparency in the budget planning and we need to allow the epa and in your spending. the gao testified before this committee that epa uses a sizable amount of funds that deobligated from past years but has not report this reuse in the budget justifications. in 2010, then reported reuse of funds amounted to $160 million more than the cuts proposed this year. at present, since the epa is not reporting how much it plans to deobligate and reuse next year, were you aware that the epa is not reporting this information? >> i'm sorry, sir. i was trying to get background. please forgive me. we do report our deobligations

in our financial statements. so i'm happy to take a look at the issue. but when we deobligate money, we're obviously reporting that. >> okay. again, because again with the gao is telling us is that, you know, especially with the reuse of these funds being reported, the epa that we need to -- you know, that is supposed to be reported. if you get back to us in a written comment, i would really appreciate that. >> yes, sir. i believe they reported in our financial reports. but we will have that for you. >> okay. >> you know, again, when we're talking about the switching gears real quickly and real quick here, i see the clock is on. i'll try to be cognizant and help the chairman. >> the yellow light comes on, you have a minute left. >> i understand. time is running down. do you know how much of the money is granted -- that is grant money for states that have not yet been distributed?

any idea on that money? >> there are large unobligated balances and unliquidated balances. there are two different things and the state revolving funds. we give them money once a year i think on time to the states. but then how quickly they draw that money down is a different question. so there are a large -- >> briefly, do you have any idea how much money was budged for state grants? >> well, there's a number of grants. the state revolving funds are about $2 billion. we have the categorical grants which are $1.2 billion. about 40% of our budget goes to state and tribal grants. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i yield back. >> thank you. at this time recognize the gentle lady from colorado for five minutes. >> thank you so much, mr. chairman. and administrator jackson, thank you for coming here today to talk to us. as you know and there's been little discussion about this. we've had great advances in

horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing over the last few years which have enabled us to have oil and gas production in many, many new areas of the united states. as a consequence, many of us have been hearing from our constituents about issues like impacts on the air, water and soil quality of hydraulic fracturing. they want to know whether the local and federal laws and regulations are sufficient to protect their families. and so i want to focus my questioning on the funds proposed in the epa's fiscal year 2013 budget for understanding and minimizing potential environmental health and safety impacts of this really promising shale gas development. so if you can keep your answers brief, i'd appreciate it. i've got a lot of questions. the first question is do we know for certain whether or not shale gas development through hydraulic fracturing poses an increase risk to human health or the environment over the risks associated with conventional oil and gas development?

>> no, not for certain much that's why we're doing this study. >> thank you. is it known for certain whether or not shale gas development through hydraulic fracturing pose noes risk to the environment or the help snj. >> same answer. >> okay. and so what you're doing, you refer to the study and objective science based understanding of the potential risk is really going to be the first step for congress to figure out how we can develop unconventional shale gas resources. so last year, as you know, congressman hinchy and i initiated requests that the epa did a study to determine the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. due to the extending complexity, the epa established quality assurance plans to insure the fa lid ti of the data. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and the studies currently under way, as i understand, was a report on preliminary funding due at the end of this year and another one due in 2014.

is that correct? >> correct. >> now under your new budget request, the current study will be expanded to address the broader environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing including ecological impacts as well aways to minimize the e-negative impacts, not just the chemical composition of the fracturing fluid. >> that's right. they may be separate studies but there will be additional studies. >> you think you need to do that as an agency to get an understanding as to the environmental impacts? >> air quality, water quality, ecosystem imepacts are of concern. >> okay. now, can you comment briefly on the scientific review process for the extended effort that you're talking about, administrator jackson? >> obviously, we're swo are sco itment we work with the usgs, department of energy to scope studies that are not redundant. they'll do some as well. and we would look for the same level of rigor as what we're looking for. >> thank you. k