transit, roads, siting that would help them be more sustainable over time. >> as communities are anticipating this kind of planning and development, you offer yourselves as partners available to be on consultation with them as they make these chings? >> yes. it's hud and dot and epa. the technical assistance we can provide along with meager financial assistance. hud and dot in their road planning efforts can be of great assistance in sometimes funding to help these 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 but we do have the lights and periodically look up there and if the red line lite is going, your time is up. it time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. jackson, for

being here again. i've got ahings i want to get uld submit questione record. we're still waiting on 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. the epa is one federal agency standing between a lot of asthmatics and an over-the-counter asthma treatment primateen mist. your agency has the ability to provide a waiver so the existing stock of csc could be sold to asthma patients in this country. and it's not a small issue. the prescription hfa containing compound costs about three times

when the over-the-counter cfc pro tellant primatine costs. if you get in trouble in the middle of the night and don't have a prescription, you have to go to the emergency room. that really costs patients. would you grant a waiver so the existing stock containing csf can be sold? >> no, sir, we have not granted the waiver. >> will you grant waiver so asthma patients can at least have the ablt of the stuff that's already made. it's in warehouses. if something is going to happen to it at some point, the csc is not going to stay bolted up forever, could you not make that available to patients in the country snp. >> i'm happy to look into it but i will not answer yes or no. in 2008 the fda set out to let people know they needed to phase out of the cfc. >> i'm so frustrated with the

sirk u to us nature of this. it goes back and forth between your agency and the fda. i'm just asking for help from the patients who are asthma sufferers. >> are 19 safe and effective asthma treatment alternatives, sir. 19. >> let's move on. i have questions about title 40. you and i have talked about this in the past. are you wear that the government accountability office has recently put out a study and hhs has put out new guidelines and advise roun title 42 pay. are you aware of that gao work in progress? >> i have not seen it personally, sir. but thank you. >> they put out some advisories and they have asked there be a cap placed on the title 42 positions in 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 had 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 often times are -- we're looking for people with very specialized -- >> 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 agent i? >> we don't have a tremendous number of title 42 employees. i'm happy to provide the justification to you, mr. burgess. >> well, i've been waiting on some of those questions that we've submitted last time.

i will resubmit some today and 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 a cap. i'm sorry. so we're using 17 out of the 30, which is our cap. >> are you going to adhere to the fact that those are to be temporary or time limited position sfs. >> i will look into the issue, sir. i will not concede it here. >> clearly, mr. chairman, this is a reason why this authorization committee needs to take a greater role in the oversight of the money spent bit environmental protection agency. let's go -- miss bennett was kind enough to be here and talk to some of the issues as to the e pa suspending last year. i'm so glad she's here today. last october i think we had a hearing here and there was concern because of unobligated funds that were sitting in the

epa's bank account. just purely as an example we had i think -- i think we had $15.6 billion and we've been provided a little bit of granularity from the office of the management of the budget on this. but are you going to provide us detail on what you're doing to unwind those unobligated funds? you're asking for the same amount of money you got last year and yet the american people look at your budget and see this money just sitting in limbo in your account and it hard to justify expending the same amount of money when you've got money sitting there. >> the vast majority of those unexpended fund, the majority are in superfunds. when you run construction you have to have the themoney job, b and you don't -- >> some are in super fund but

not all. we need more action on that. >> the gentleman's time has expired. at this time i recognize the gentleman -- i forgot to tell you we didn't have a clock, did i? this time i recognize the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey, 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 standard, prohibiting it, '95, '96, '97, '98, '99. then george bush took over as president and they did not add the rider anymore because bush was 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 standard to 35 miles per gallon within in decade and increase it dramatically beyond and kbifs the authority to announce the new standard is 54.5 miles per gallon for our country by 2026. 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 the congress. if they had not prohibited it but put stronger standard on the books, we'd be telling iran right now, we'd be telling the saudi arabians we don't need their oil any more than we need their sands but they prohibited. though sew 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 increasing in the efficiency of the vehicles that we drive, of the boats, of the planes, of the trains, of everything. they go right back to business as usual digging this hole, violation of the first law of holes, which is when you're in one, stop digging, okay? so that's the mess, the mess, thech the republicans have put us into his torely. then we say, ah, ah, we have a strategic petroleum reserve. let's start to deploy it so we can tell iran as they're holding this oil weapon over our head that we mean business and we're going to be tough going back at you. they say don't deploy the strategic petroleum reserve. then they want to pass the keystone pipeline bill and i say

at that has to stay in the united states. oh, no, that doesn't have to stay in the united states. then we have a vote that says they can drill the oil companies off the coast of new england, florida, california. and so i have an amendment that says that oil and natural gas has to stay inside of the united states. and all the republicans vote, no, it doesn't have to stay in the united states. it can go overseas. this is a dream scenario for saudi arabia, for iran, for these countries. okay, dream. it's beautiful for the american petroleum institute, okay? but anything that placates iran 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 of the savings of oil because of the national clean cars program is 12 billion barrels, mr. markey. >> and what would happen -- what would happen to -- what does the total per day -- what does that translate into in terms of per day con sums 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 imports in recent history is because of the efficiencies of these automobiles and the energy information administration assumes that our use of oil will -- >> the average consumer today has to spend about 7% of their income on gas loon. now if the tough standard stay on the books to increase

efficiency, there's a dramatic reduction in the amount of oil people have to purchase to put into their gasoline tanks over 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 efficiency in the vehicles which they drive. what would this do in terms of your ability to be able to protect those consumers from that dramatically higher oil price they would have to pay? >> without a national standard, we would lose the benefits we assume those to be $1.7 trillion over the life of the program. >> okay. so from the perspective of the -- of this debate, the republicans want to keep the oil tax break, $4 billion a year on the books for oil companies, even they they made $137 billion last year and you can put an infinity sign next to what the oil companies are going to make this year. but those tax breaks stay on the books. they're advocating an expiration of the tax breaks for wind

industry this year, which is going to lead to its collapse and it's all part of an ongoing profile that there basically is a rear view mirror view of how powerful america can be technologically in telling saudi arabia and opec we don't need their oil any more than we need -- >> the gentleman's time is expired. i recommend the gentleman from california for five minutes. >> quickly the gentleman from massachusetts was giving as you history lesson. i'd like to remind him in 1995 i introduced a bill that was to eliminate the mandate that ethanol had to be in the fuel stream and his own state of massachusetts supported the california reformulated gasoline as cheaper and cleaner than the federal mandated. every member of the california delegation, every member supported that legislation except for the ranking member of this committee. the deals that were cut in washington were more important than energy independence or about clean air. by going back to what is the percentage of the cafe standard

that we mandated -- >> we doubled the fuel economy under president obama. >> in what period of time? >> well, it will be between 2012 and 2025 model year cars. >> how much in your booj today? how much is committeed to requiring more traffic management and fuel efficiency through traffic control? >> we don't have any requirements on traffic control. >> so in order, it easy for those of us in government to point fingers at the private sector and say you've got to make your cars more fuel efficient and we got study coming out of places like university of kansas that shows 22.6% of all emissions and fuel consumptions inappropriate traffic control, stop signs, could be yield sign, roundabouts 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% because we're focused on mandate on the private sector but not asking those of us that are in fellow government agencies to clean up our act and stop requiring consumers to stop every two blocks because we find it easier to do that. 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 got to go stop sign just because it's easier for government to say, no, you have to stop here rather than being intelligent. doesn'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? isn't it time that we start requiring the local governments, the states and the counties to start looking at how we're doing business and start changing the way we're doing it and go to smart traffic management as much

as we're requiring the private secretary sector to go to private -- >> i think it happening because they're using -- >> ma'am, i'm going to stop you right there. city council member pointed out he said there's no financial reason for our city to do that. give us a financial incentive to that that. we pay the auto industries to go to a more fuel efficient or did we tell them they've got to reduce emissions and fuel consumption? if we do that with the private sector, damn, it why do we hold cities, counties and private counties immune for it? and how can you say that we're doing everything we can to have fuel efficiency and clean a gve take a free ride on this one? >> well, sir, i would refer you to drpt of transportation who i

think in their smart transportation and planning doin courage local governments and ordinances -- >> administrator, i've administered the clean air act like you have. in nonattainment area, isn't it true when you allow one group in a nonattainment group to pollute, somebody has to offset it, right >> a new source has to offset its submission. >> when government is allowed to force cars to pollute, it's the stationary sources that take the biggest hit because they're the easiest to regulate, aren't they? >> no, sir. >> are you trying to tell me that mobile sources are as easy to regulate as stationary sources? >> we just did. the national clean car standard are regulation of mobile sources, light duty vehicles, heavy duty vehicles -- >> ma'am, you were in connecticut, weren't you? >> i was in new jersey, sir. >> new jersey, excuse me. all those little states get mixed up for us out west. >> you have a big one, sir, for sure.

>> i'm sorry, i just tell you i can't believe anybody that's done air regulation can say mobile sources are as easy. all i'm saying is we still have a major source of pollution and it's government. when will we finally, democrats, republicans, come together and say we need to lead through example, not through -- not point fingers at everybody else. we're talking about spending tabs pairs' 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 embaxt fuel efficiencies in our operations. why can't we do that much? do cities and counties have too much control? >> they're balancing safety considerations, sir. the traffic signals and stop signs for safety and they're balancing their need tone sure public safety -- >> excuse me, i heard that -- >> gentleman -- >> i heard that about cars for

years, the fact that safety meant you have to -- >> let me just say i'm trying to be a fair 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 have gone a minute or so over. so we're just try tock as fair as we can be. this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from north carolina, mr. butterfield, for five minutes. >> let me thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for your even handed leadership of this super committee. when i was a trial judge of 15 years back in north carolina after a session of cross-examination like, this would i simply tell everybody just to take a deep breath and count to ten. and so i'm certainly going to do that and ask others to do the same. let me thank you, straightor, 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 all of you 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 today a budget that in my opinion seeks to protect our communities and promote sound science. 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 resolving fund, the drinking water, state revolving fund, mr. waxman spoke to that earlier has provided states with the authority to give extra assistance in the form of extended loan terms and low are interest rates or principal forgiveness to disadvantaged communities and i live in a disadvantaged community and you know that very well.

because of that the srs has been an esession source of financing for small and disadvantaged community, water systems that are unable to finance infrastructure projects at market rates. but until the passage of recovery act, states had complete discretion to decide whether to exercise their authority and provide disadvantaged communities with such assistance. 14 states had decided not to provide the assistance. an additional six states reserve less than 4% of their funds over the life of the program for these disadvantaged communities. recovery act funding of the 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 6,093 drinking water assistance serving over 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. these 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 argue et 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. and thanks for your comments. i agree that the 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. we'll have to work through the states to change the prioritization system. we'll do that collaboratively but in a time decreasing resource, we have to look at the system 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 in srf funding may discourage states from providing 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 small and underserved communities? >> it likely will, sir. in all honesty. they are revolving funds so the amount a state has available in any given year depends what loans are repaid so 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. >> 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. this time i recognize the gentleman from ohio for five minutes of questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman and administrator. thanks for being with us today. i'd like to talk about ozone for a little bit here. in your fiscal year 2013 budget looking down the road, do you intend to pro-pose division for the national air quality standard for ozone? if not in 2013, what's the epa's current schedule? >> the current schedule is to make a proposal in calendar year 2013, probably toward the end of the calendar year. i believe that's fiscal year 2014. >> let me ask this, then. does the epa propose to expect a

rule similar to the 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 weeks have to wait for a scientific review. >> it's very, very important. with the rule that was proposed last year and withdrawn, the estimated cost between $90 billion annually, in a state like ohio, we would have had a great number of our counties go into noncompliance. so when you're considering these standard, it's very, very important to people like me who represent 55,000 manufacturing jobs, which is the largest in the state and the largest number of manufacturing jobs on this committee. we have to have some idea what that stick are price is go to be throughout. when i'm home, one of the things i hear from my constituents is what's happening here, especially with the epa is the number one driver of the cost of them back home. but you have no idea where

you're going to be going with that at this time? >> i can't speak to that. it's proposed, we take public comment on it. there will be ample opportunity for folks to see it, comment and offer -- >> let me switch gears a little bit then. in looking at your booj it says you plan to spend another $80 million in enforcing environmental laws. it raise as couple of question. one is where does the money go that the epa collects in fines? >> fine money goes into the treasury, sir. >> goes right back to the treasury, okay. >> let me go back to where dr. burgess was if i could go back to the question about the reuse of deobligated funds. and i assume that as you're here today really for our benefit, your benefit that there's total transparency in the budget planning and that we need to have the epa in your plans and in your spending.

the gao testified before this committee that epa reuse as sizable amount of funds that has deobligated from past years but does not report this reuse in its budget justifications. in 2010 it reported reuse of funds of $160 million more than the epa's spending cuts proposal this year. at present since the epa is not reporting how much money it plans to reobligation and use nerks year, were you aware the epa was 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. i'm happy to take a look at the issue. but when we deobligate money, obviously we're reporting that. >> what the gao was telling us,

especially with the reuse of these funds being reported to congress, the epa budget justifications, that's supposed to be reported. if could you get back to us on written comment, i'd really appreciate that. >> yes, sir. i believe they're reported in our financial reports but we're happy to get back to you. >> again, switching gears real quick here, i see the clock and i'm trying 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 that 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 in the state revolving funds. the states, we give them money

once a year. how quickly they draw that down is a different question. >> do you have any idea how much money was budgeted for state grants? >> 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 travel grants. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman my time is expired and i yield back. >> at this time i recognize the gent gentlelady from colorado. >> 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 has enabled to us have oil and gas production in many, many new areas of the united states. and as a consequence, many of us have been hearing from our constituents about issues like impacts on the ai