the cost of the study. i want to give some clarification. the epa budget requests a total of $14 million dedicated to studying shale gas development through hydraulic fracturing. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> now of that, $6 million is dedicated to completing the reports promised for 2012 and 2014. is that correct? >> i believe that's correct as well. >> and then the $8 million increase will go towards what you just described, better understanding the ecological effects of waste water discharge and the potential impacts on air quality resulting from hydraulic fracturing, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> so i want to point out that the total funding of $14 million in fiscal year 2013 budget. the $14 million is epa's contribution to a coordinated $45 million effort between the

epa, the department of energy, and the u.s. gee logical services. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> now, can you explain the benefits of the effort between the usgs and do snechlt. >> we have overlapping responsibilities. we also don't want to be stove piped. we want to insure that we're doing one study to do one issue. we also want to make sure we're looking at issues collaboratively so we look across the field and are more universal in scope. >> thank you. now mr. chairman, with respect to hydraulic fracturing, this is something we have all these new advances in the way that we're doing oil and gas exploration and certainly for our state like colorado. it can be very, very positive for domestic energy production and for our economy. but we really don't have a lot of data on the environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing. while the technique has been around for a long time, these

new -- these new ways that they're doing it are brand new. and so i really think that this study is important. and i would justin to urge the administrator jackson to make sure that the studies are done with the highest degrees of scientific standards. thank you. i yield back. >> at this time we recognize the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper, for five minutes of questions. >> administrator jackson, welcome. good news. you're almost done. i think we're getting close. you've been very patient. appreciate your attendance and insight as we look at these issues. one of the things that's very important to my state, my district certainly are the technical assistance grant program that chairman has referred to earlier. i filed a bill on that. some of the language that's in

there is of great importance to our state as we look at that and how it affects small communities. i want to make sure that the appropriations language is covered on all the bases. so if your agreement as i understood it is to work with him, check with him on those issues to be sure. >> this is on the rural waters. yes, sir. >> and we just -- just want to make sure we take a double check at that criteria to make sure we're in compliance with that language. >> yes, sir. >> all right. looking at this, i believe this is a budget hearing. i know we talked about many other things and things are here and glad to have you here, too, miss bennett as we look at the figures. these are difficult times, as you know. and as we look at this and i know you discussed tough choices and things that have to be done. but we look at the overall

budget on this, it's difficult for people across the country to say that we've done all that we can on tough choices when the je overall budget cut is 1.2%. is that the correct figure? i'm showing that budget for this year is $8.344 billion which is $105 million below the 2012 figure. i want to make sure i'm using the correct figures. is that right? >> yes, sir. but i'd be remiss -- we took a 13% cut in 2011, 2.6 in 2012. >> 1.2%. have we had -- i know we have approximately 17,000 employees. has there been a reduction or increase in the epa workforce since -- >> it's essentially ecstatic. we have had small increases the but we've had no -- excuse me. my cfo tells me that we are down

this year from 2012. >> all rightment now when we're looking, i know you set up with ten regions across the country. have you look or are you looking at ways to perhaps consolidate, redirect the mission to where you don't lose what you consider to be effective but you continue to look at ways to save money? >> yes, sir. i can assure you, we looked at ways to maximize and insure that we have -- we remain infeeffect. those relations tend to be extremely important. >> you know, we're -- the environmental education grants, how much is in the budget for that? are you able to tell me that? >> in the president's 2013 proposal, we've actually proposed to -- i think zero out environmental education grant funding.

i can grab you the number. >> okay. but you expect it is zeroed out? >> yeah. because many of the programs do education as a component of what they're doing already. and so those grants are not proposing to fund this year. >> you know, it's unfortunate sometimes when we come in here and when there's a discussion on issues it seems to be particularly from some of my friends across the aisle that they want to in effect trash the other party, trash the republicans. i think it's pretty clear that everybody in this room, republicans and democrats, all believe in taking care of the environment and we all want clean air and clean water. you would agree with that, wouldn't you? >> i believe that american people generally do. i think that -- i have gone on record as saying that the voting record of this house has been several votes led by the party that's in the majority right now

against and to turn back environmental statutes. >> and, of course, you believe that's turning back some of the things that you believe in but you -- are you looking at what the cost is? i know you received many letters from many business groups, too, that believe that we've gone, you know, that we're actually hurting the economy in the process. >> sir, when we do our regulatory work, we are careful to do analysis of cost, analysis of benefits, analysis of jobs. we've added in several cases to try to be sensitive to people's concerns about our rules. but we also get as many letters from citizens who want to insure that epa is doing its job to keep the air clean. >> last quick question. yes or no. do you believe that the keystone xl pipeline should be approved? >> sir, that's not my jurisdiction. i don't have any personal belief. >> a good nonanswerment thank you. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i recognize the gentleman from washington state for five

minutes. >> thank you, administrator. i want to first thank you for your work. i have a new granddaughter, 3 week old granddaughter zoey and i don't think there is anybody this this town doing more to make sure she has clean air to breathe and clean watter to drink and swim in. i just want to thank you for your work. and i want to ask you a question about the rfs to proposal and relationship to trying to get celulostic biofuels into the market. i know this is something you've been wrestling with. i just wonder if you have any thoughts on how we can help the industry expedite the entry of those products into the market either by rulemaking or otherwise? any thoughts about that? >> well, i do believe that epa is through most of its required work on the renewable fuel standards setting the required

volumes for various fuels from various feed stocks. we've also processed and i think are through reviewing a request to increase the amount of ethanol blended into gasoline, the e-15 waiver. you know, the actual marketing and -- of gasoline is beyond simply the scope of our agency. we have labels to insure that people don't miss fuel. there's lots of work happening at the u.s. department of agriculture to encourage the current generation of biofuels but i know the secretary, he and i spoke many times about his plan. it's a comprehensive plan for the next generation of biofuels, to keep that industry alive and well. >> thank you for your work. >> thank you. and congratulations. >> thank you. >> at this time like to ro recognize the gentleman from west virginia for five minutes of questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and administrator, thank you very much.

i'm sure this has been grueling to go through three hours of this. first question i have, if i can maybe get through a couple quick questions with yes or noes to the extent that we can is, have you ruled out regulating coal ash as a hazardous substance? >> we have not made a final rule. that would have to be a no. >> the second, with this notice of intent from headwater resources, in filing an action against and i guess environmental groups are also doing the reverse, they're also taking an action against the epa on some of the hazardous waste perhaps. can you give us for the record a commitment that you'll take this into consideration when -- if you were to settle, that you will consider the fact that headwaters is also put in a concern and that they'll be included in this settlement?

>> i'm not familiar with the letter. but this is on -- >> it was filed in your office, addressed to you on february 9th. >> okay. >> it was their notice that they want equal protection under this. are you saying you will? >> in our regulatory action, in our rulemaking, we will look at all information presented to us. i think public comment period is closed. we now have a notice of data availability out. and i do -- i'm aware that environmental groups are suing. >> the third question is the epa is apparently in a funding with vanderbilt university and perhaps others this new leaf environmental assessment framework program that they're doing down there. can you -- i can't find the amount in there that what we're doing. it's from what i understand that may be an alternative to the tee

clips. so if you're looking at that, i'd like to know how much money you're putting into. that. >> we'll get that for you. >> and last and more importantly, there's been a question -- i don't know if you're familiar with this report that was presented indoor air pollution in california in 2005. very authoritative document in which it points out much the problems that we're dealing with with air quality is indoors since we're spending approximately 90% of our time indoors. so when all the folks are talking about asthma attacks, premature deaths, heart attacks, whatever, i think very well could be traced back to their positions inside since they're spending 90% of their time indoors. but i don't see anything -- i can't find in your budget a priority for where the epa could be stepping up and really dealing with children. again, in schools with 56

million children are in classrooms every day and i don't see a prioritization in your budget for what you're spending in education and mitigation and labelling and things for products and others so you can help. if california's right, they're saying in their own report it's costing the state of colorado $45 billion a year. now i i don't know how folks on the other side of the aisle keep arguing about all these -- i don't know how they can differentiate between this getting sick from indoors versus outdoors. but it's a convenient thing to challenge us on. but i'm curious, what can we do on that? and especially given the fact that you're spending $28 million last year giving grants to foreign governments instead of using that to help educate our

states in ways and mitigate our indoor air quality problems. can you explain that? >> the president's budget increases our children and sensitive populations budget by $3 million. it is not true that we gave $28 million to foreign governments and grants last year. and we have a program that works with school districts, many of them underfunded, to try to help them address issues of public health for children. many of them are not mandatory. so these are voluntary programs, education is important as well as things like siting guidelines. we were asked to put forth school siting guidelines and other technical assistance to help for things from radon to s asbestos. out door air quality impacts indoor air quality as well. so we look at air as a whole,

not simply one versus the other. >> the gentleman's time expired. >> ms. jackson, one thing that mr. mckinley brought up and a number of people brought up is the amount of grants that are given by epa to foreign entities directly or indirectly. i would just ask that you all provide us with a list of those over the last three years. last three years. at this time i recognize the gentleman from west virginia -- i mean from virginia for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. miss jackson, secretary jackson, today the d.c. circuit is hearing oral argument? the green house gas litigation and that involves the tayloring rule. and in your brief that has been filed on behalf that indicates in that brief that there would be a need to hire 230,000 full

time employees that there would need to be an additional 81,000 psd permits per year, six million title five permits and a cost to the epa of $21 billion on top of the current budget, $21 billion per year. and then the sentence right after the numbers, based on this analysis, epa found that applying the literal statutory thresholds on january 2nd, 2011 would, joy overwhelming the resources of permitting authorities and severely impair the functioning of the programs." you would agree with that ass s assessme assessment, yes or no? >> yes, sir. >> and that's why you all have defended the tayloring rule based on a theory that there is a theory of law that says if it's not practical, you can -- you don't have to do it. isn't that correct? >> no, sir. we say if the result is absurd or increases administrative burden where it really can't

practically be implemented, then we were giving relief. it's a rule designed to give relief to -- >> but wouldn't you gr he that the businesses of the united states of america find themselves when they're looking at cement amount and boiler amount that many of the businesses of the united states of america find themselves in exactly the same position that the epa finds itself on this case where you said the burdens are too great and don't you that i there ought to be a tailoring act for the joob creators of america to assist them in creating jobs for the har working taxpayers of america? don't you agree that would be good policy? >> i can't agree. >> so it's okay to have one standard for the epa and another standard -- >> no is. the stand aard is not for epa. >> all right. let me move forward. you know, i do get passionate about this. my people losing jobs.

and let me say this as well. when we were here earlier this year and miss bennett was kind enough to be with us, she indicated that some of the money that had already been committed but had not yet been spent, some of which was more than five years old was a -- was there because of various reasons, perhaps even other permitting requirements or other requirements by the epa or other agencies. but she indicated some of those were more than five years old. i asked her at the time why wouldn't you all back the ability to move to five years for businesses in america because they need that and that's in the bill, hr 2250, she said at that time that was not her position to make a statement as to whether or not she was supporting the bill or not. so i ask you. i believe it is within your prerogative. why wouldn't you adopt and accept the fact that the businesses of america can't comply with the time requirements even if we can argue about regulations? there are numerous businesses in this country that cannot meet

the three-year plus one standard currently in the code. why have we seen nothing from the epa that says, okay, you know what? maybe we need a longer time line to get these things accomplished? >> it's not true. you haven't seen anything. epa is reconsidering the boiler mack rule to give greater clarity to reduce the cost of compliance. >> but, ma'am, i am correct that epa is not backing any legislation to change the time limit in the law. isn't that correct? >> that is correct, sir. >> thank you. let me talk about another subject briefly. you have, i believe you would agree or that you would feel that the epa is doing a better job today than it did, say, in 2001? >> i don't have any feeling on the subject, sir. i believe we're doing a good job today. >> all right. because i look at the -- i have a chart here that says you have about 1,000 less employees now

than you had then. and i'm wondering if there was ever a study done to show where there's a -- as there was a study done to show, as happens in many cases, a diminishing return on investments. sometimes you get too many folks and can't be efficient. has any study been done at the epa of exactly how many employees you need to be most efficient in accomplishing your tasks? >> there have been workload studies done in the past, sir. we can certainly get those to you. >> okay. if you could get those to me. look, i know you can go to absurdity. you can't go to one employee and be more efficient than you are with a certain number of employees. i do know it appears you're doing a lot more with a lot less already. i'm wondering where the breakpoint is. we're trying to find money. i hope you appreciate that. my time is up. i yield back. >> thank you. at this time recognize mr. engel of new york for five minutes.

>> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i know i want to reiterate and mention some of the topics that have been mentioned. i want to emphasize that. before i do that, i want to thank you for the job you've done, excellent job you've done. you're on the hot seat. it's a tough job. the work you do is so important. one of the frustrations i've had with this job in congress, the attacks on epa and clean air and water and all these things are very, very frustrating to me, because i believe that the role you play is such an important role and we ought to be facilitating the things you do rather than impeding them. i want to thank you personally for the job you've done. i'm glad you're agency is there and glad you're doing the work the american people want us to do. people wan clean air and clean water and all these other things. i just want to state that.

i wanted to add my voice to miss castor who spoke about the reduction in the 2013 budget, $29 million for drinking water, state revolving funds. i'm hoping there might be a way to restore some of that money. my city of new york has received many millions of dollars to protect water sheds, make upgrades to our sewer system. epa's most recent drinking water infrastructure need survey indicates new york will require $29.7 billion over 20 years to ensure continued delivery of safe public drinking water. i want to emphasize that, and i hope you can find some way to restore those cuts. i want to talk about fracing, because that is something, in my state, that is a hot topic. we have many, many people who are freearful of fracing.

obviously we don't want to contaminate drinking water and have fracing by water sheds. that is a concern i have. on the other hand it has the potential to create many jobs in western new york as it has been in pennsylvania. i know that you had -- mr. gatt and mr. green had spoken with you about it with the study. i think the study is a good idea. i think we have to know what we're dealing with. i think it's important to wean ourselves off middle eastern oil and venezuelan oil, with countries that don't wish us well, but i do think the fracing is something that many people remain fearful of and we need to look at. i wish you well in your study and i hope we can have the results of that soon. finally i want to mention a

topic that hasn't been mentioned. that is pcbs in schools. last february new york city embarked on a ten-year $700 million plan to replace all the old light in new york city schools overtime next decade. could you please explain epa's role in that mediation project and provide for me an update on its status? could you also provide an update on efforts to address window caulking in schools as well. >> certainly, sir. in 2011 epa inspected new york city schools for leaking. lighting ballasts were leaking and they were leaking pcbs. those inspections found numerous leaking ballasts with pcb concentrations, some exceeding 600,000 parts per million. the city stepped up and announced a plan in 2011 to replace all pcb lighting

ballasts in 727 schools. i believe it's part of their capital budget plan to make schools more energy efficient, the lighting being part of that. the city has allocated $708 million to implement the plan over the next 10 years. epa reviewed the plan and told city officials five years would be a more reasonable timeframe to address the ballast issue as part of the larger plan. >> i know five years -- i know new york lawyers for the public interest have recommended two years, and i know things are difficult to be done in two years. pcb contamination on schools is widespread and threatens the health of hundreds of thousands of school children, certainly in new york city. the exposure in children has been found to decrease iqs and increase risk of add, among other things.

would the ten-year timetable -- i made the point. it's hard with the clock ticking. again, i want to emphasize thank you for your very, very good work. >> thank you. this time recognize the gentleman from kansas mr. pompeo. >> thank you, thank you for being here today secretary jackson. i want to talk about environment. we haven't had a chance to talk about that at all, environment policies. you've asked for an increase in your budget in the office of environment -- i'll get the name right office of environment compliance, $3.5 million increase there. i've heard lots of concerns from my district about environment policies at epa. i thought i would do it in the micro today. you mentioned general duty of care a little earlier in answer to the question part of the clean air t. if you've

adopted any epawide policies or guidelines with respect to definitions inside the clean air act related to the general duty of care? >> i'm not aware of any, sir, but we could certainly talk to the office of environment on that. >> there's a term in there called extremely hazardous chemicals. you have the risk mitigation plans, which require certain chemicals are stored at manufacturers or producers. but as i understand your environment policy, even if the chemical is nautilused as one of those chemicals that requires a risk mitigation plan you can ding the producer or manufacturer under this general -- not very well-defined general of care. is that right? >> that's right. it happened that manufacturers have to be proactive, to have that extra duty of care. >> all right. this is a place i'd love to work

with you all. i'd really -- this is congress's fault. they gave you really undefined termed and general authorities and said you need to put some definition to it. you've chosen not to do that by regulation or policy memorandum and you've left this open. whether it's acetone whatever it might be they have no idea what you might come after them. i'd like to work with youtoner . frankly i'd like to get rid of section 112r plenty of authority under r & p to decide which is potentially dangerous. >> why don't we have our folks talk about that, if there's specific issues in general. >> i'd be happy to do that. do you reward people inside your agency for performance, how many finds they get or how successful they are for injunctive value? >> we do find and track

injunctive relief. large cases that are difficult, it wouldn't be unusual for a manager, i used to run a program for epa years ago for a manager to note hard work and diligence. not specifically. you're not tied to how many money you bring into the treasury or how many actions you take. >> all that money goes into the treasury, employees don't get it as incentive, you don't get it as a good job, epa doesn't get it, just back to the treasure privilege penalty and fine money. the exception is oil pollution act there's been lots of discussion about this. >> i appreciate that. i will tell you in region 7 at the end of 2010 there was a press release issued that sounded like -- i'll read it to you. this was from region 7 on december 6, 2010. it says, "environmental compliance and environment activities conducted by region 7 during fy 2010 sets a new record securing more than $3 billion in investments in pollution control and cleanup