soil quality of hydraulic fracturing and 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 if 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 increased risk over risk associated with conventional oil and gas development? >> not for certain. that's why we're doing the studies. >> thank you. >> is it known for certain whether or not shale gas development through hydraulic fracturing poses no risk to the environment or to health? >> no, same answer. that's why we're studying it. >> and so what you're doing, you

remember to the study an objective sign 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 henchy and i requested the e pa to do a study to determine the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. now due to the extent and complexity of these studies, the epa established quality assurance plans to ensure the validity of the data; is that correct. >> that's correct. >> the study is currently under way with report of plmry findings due at this year and another in 2014; is that correct. >> correct. >> under your new budget request, the current study will be expanded to address the broader environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing, including ecological, to minimize any

negative impacts not just the chemical component of the fracking fluid; is that right? >> there may be additional studies. >> and you need to do that -- >> air quality, water quality, ecosystem impacts are of concern. >> now, can you comment briefly on the scientific review process for the extended effort that you're talking about, administrator jackson? >> obviously we'd be scoping it and it's contingent on getting the money in the budget. we'd work with the department of energy and we'd look for the same level of rigor as what we're looking for -- >> thank you. mr. murphy asked to you the cost of the study and i want to give some clarification to those numbers. the epa budget request as total of $14 million dedicated to studying shale gas development through hydraulic fracturing; is that correct? >> that's correct. >> 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 toward what you just described, better understanding the ecological effects of waste water discharge and the potential impacts on air quality result frgs hydraulic fracturing; is that correct? >> that's correct. >> the total evenfunding for $1 million comprises 0.169% of epa's 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. geological service; is that correct? >> that's correct. >> now, can you explain the benefits of coordinating the effort between the usgs and the doe? >> we have overlapping responsibilities but we also don't want to be stovepiped. we want to ensure we're only

doing one study to address one issue so we're not doing redundant studies and make sure we're looking at issues collaboratively so we look across the field and are more universal in scope. >> thank you. 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 a 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 because while the technique has been around for a long time, these new ways that they're doing are brand new. and so i really think that this study is important and i would just continue to urge your administrators to make sure that the studies that the agency conducts are done with the highest degrees of scientific

standard and impartiality. thank you. i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from mississippi, mr. harper, for five minutes of question. >> administrator jackson and welcome. good news, you're almost done. i think we're getting close. you've been very patient. i appreciate your attendance here and your insight as we look at these issues. one of the things that's very important to my state and my district certainly are the technical assistance grant program that the chairman has referred to earlier. i had 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. and what all i want to do is make sure i think just follow up on what he said, which was to make sure that the criteria that is set forth by the epa actually

tracks that appropriations language and we're covering all those bases. your agreement as i understood it would be to work with him and check with him to be sure -- >> this on the rural water -- >> yes. >> just want to take a double-check to make sure we're in compliance with that language. >> yes, sir. >> i believe this is a budget hearing. i know we've talked about many other things and things that are here and glood to have you here, too, miss bennett, as we look at these figures. these are difficult times as you know. as we look at this and i know you discussed tough choices and things that have to be done, but when you 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 overall budget cut i'm showing is only 1.2%. is that the krek figure? i'm showing the 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 so now this is the 1.8. you're correct. >> 1.2. >> i'm sorry, 1.2. >> i know we have approximately 17,000 employees. has there been a reduction or increase in the epa workforce? >> it's essentially static. we've had small increases but we've had no -- excuse me, my cfo tells me that we are down this year from 2012. >> all right. you know you said ten regions across the country, 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've looked at ways to maximize and ensure that we remain effective. each one of those regional offices deals with several states and those relationships 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 propose to zero out environmental grant funding. i can grab you the number. >> but you expect in this it's zeroed out? >> yes. many of the programs do education as a component of what they're doing already. so those grants we are not proposing to fund this year.

>> 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 they want to in effect trash the other water, 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 the american people generally do. i think that the -- 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 you believe that's turning back some of the things that you believe in but are you looking at what the cost is? i know you've received many letters from many business groups, too, that i believe that

we've gone -- that we are 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 be sensitive to people and bullpen we get as many letters from citizens who want to ensure the epa is doing its job to keep the air clean. >> do you bleach the xl pipeline should be approved? >> that's my my jurisdiction. i don't have any personal belief. >> that's a good nonanswer. >> i recognize the gentleman mr. en enzly for five minutes. >> i want to thank you for your work. i have a new 3-week-old granddaughter and i don't think

there's anyone doing more to make sure she has clean air to breathe and clean water 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 2 proposal in relationship to trying to get cellulosic biofuels into the market. i know this is something you've been wrestling with. i wonder if you have any thoughts about how we could help the industry expedite the entry of those products into the market either by rule make organize otherwise? do you have any thoughts about that? >> i do believe epa is through most of its required work on the renewable fuel standard setting the required volumes for various fools from various feed stocks. we've also process nd and i think through reviewsing a request to increase the amount of ethanol blended into gasoline the e-15 waiver. you know, the actual marketing

of gasoline is beyond simply the scope of our agency. pee wee have labels to ensure people don't miss fuel. there's lots of work happening at the u.s. department of agriculture to encourage not only the current generation of buy yof fuels but i know the secretary, he and have i spoken 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. >> i'd like to recognize the gentleman from west virginia, mr. mckinley, for five minutes. >> administrator, thank you very much. i'm sure it's been grueling to go through three hours of this. first question i have, if i could maybe get through a couple quick questions with yes or nos to the extent that we can, have you ruled out regulating cole ash as a hazardous substantial under subtitle c of ricra?

>> we have not made a final rule. that would have to be a no. >> with this notice of intent from head waters resources in filing an action against and i get some environmental groups are also doing the reverse, they're taking an action against the epa on the hazardous ways perhaps, can you give us for the record a commitment that you'll take this into consideration when -- if you were to set that will you will consider the fact that headwaters is also put in a concern and that that will be included in the settlement? >> i'm not familiar with the letter. but this is -- >> it was filed in your office -- it was addressed to you on february the 9th. >> okay. >> it was their notice they want equal protection under this.

are you saying you will? >> in our regulatory action, in our rule making, we loo look at all information presented to us. i think public comment period is closed, we now have a notice of data availability out. 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 they're doing down there, i can't find the amount in there that what we're doing. from what i understand that may be an alternative to the t-clips. if you're looking at that, i'd like to understand how much money you're putting into that. >> we will get that for you. i don't have it. >> and the last, morning importantly, has been a question, i don't know if you're familiar with this report that was presented indoor air quality, indoor air pollution in

california in 2005, various authoritative document in which it points out much the problems that we're dealing with air quality as indoor 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 conditions 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 tonight and really dealing with children in scores with 56 million children are in classrooms every day and i don't -- i don't see a prioritization in your budget for what you're spending in education and mitigation and

labelling for products so you can help. if california is right, they're saying in their own report it's costing the state of california $45 billion a year. now, i don't know how the folks on the other side of the aisle keep arguing about all these. i don't know how they can differentiate between 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 to mitigate our indoor air quality problems. can you help explain that some to us? >> i'm happy to. the president's budget increases our children and sensitive population budgets by $3 million. it is not true that we gave $28 million to foreign governments in grants last year. and we have a program that works

with school disabilities, many of them underfunded, to try to help them address issues of public health for children. and many of them are not mandatory. so these are voluntary programs. education is important, as well as things like siting guidelines and other technical assistance to help for things from ray done to asbestos. so that's in addition to partnering with states who are often working as well. i just have to remind us all that, yes, indoor air quality is very important but outdoor air quality quite significantly as well. so we look at air as a whole, not simply one versus the other. >> the gentleman's time is expired. mrs. jackson, one thing that mr. mckinley brought up and a number of people have brought up is the amount of grants that are given

with epa to foreign entities directly or indirectly. i would just ask that you all provide with us 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, mr. griffith, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. ms. jackson, secretary jackson, today the d.c. circuit is hearing oral argument in the greenhouse gas organization and that involves the tailorring rule. in your brief that has been filed on behalf, it 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, 6 million title 5 permits and a cost to the epa of $21 billion -- on top of the current budget, $21 billion per year.

i'm looking at the brief where i get these numbers and then the sentence right after the paragraphs that lay out these numbers say based on this analysis, epa found applying the literal statuary thresholds on january 2nd 2011 would, quote, overwhelm the resources of permitting authorities and severely impair the functioning of the programs. you would agree with that assessment yes or no? >> yes, sir. >> and that's why you all have defended the tailorring 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 can't practically be implemented, we're given relief. it's a rule designed to give relief. >> wouldn't you agree that the businesses of the united states of america find themselves when they're looking at cement market, boiler market, utility

market, many of the businesses of america find themselves in the exact same position that the epa burdens are too great by our own rules to follow our rules? and don't you think that there ought to be a tailoring act for the job creators of america to assist them in creating jobs for the hard-working taxpayers of america? don't you agree that that would be good policy? yes or no? >> i don't agree with your premise, sir. so i can't agree -- >> so it's okay to have one standard for the epa and another standard for -- >> no, sir, the standard is not for epa. >> all right. now, let me go forward. i made my statements and i only have a few minutes, man. my people are losing jobs. let me say this, as well. when we were here earlier this year and ms. 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 5 years old 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, well, 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 -- boiler mack bill. she said at that time, it was not her position to make a statement as to whether or not she was supporting the bill or not. so i ask you, because 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.

to give greater clarity to reduce the cost of compliance. >> but, ma'am, i am correct. the 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 that you had agreed -- 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. i look at these -- i have a chart here that says that you all have about a thousand less employees now than you had then. and i'm wondering if there was ever a study done to show where -- as it happens in many cases -- a diminishing return on investment? or at some point, you just get too many folks and you can't be as efficient. i wonder if any study has 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. and we can certainly get those to you. >> okay. if you could get those to me. because, you know, look. i know you can go to absurd day. you can't go down to one employee and be more efficient than you are with a certain number of employees. but it appears that you're doing a lot more with a lot less already. we're trying to find money. and i hope you appreciate that. and then, i -- my time is up. i yield back. >> at this time, i recognize mr. engle of new york for five minutes. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. i want to reiterate and mention some of the topics that have been mentioned. i want to emphasize that. but before i do that, i want to thank you for the job you've done -- the excellent job you've done. you're on the hot seat. it's a tough job. but the work that you do is so important.

and one of the frustrations that i have had, frankly, with this majority in congress is that the attacks on the epa and the attacks on clean air and water and all of these things are very, very frustrating to me. i believe that the role that you play is such an important role and that we ought to be facilitating the thing that is you do, rather than impeding them. so i want to thank you personally for the job you've done. and i am glad that your agency is there and i am glad that you're doing the work that the american people want us to do. people want clean air and clean water and all of these other things. and i just wanted to state that. i wanted to add my voice to ms. castor who spoke about the reduction in the 2013 budget of $359 million for the clean water and drinking water state revolving funds. i hope there might be a way to try to restore some of that

money because my state of new york has received many millions of dollars to protect our watersheds and make upgrades and repairs to our sewer systems and epa's most recent drinking water infrastructure survey indicates that new york will require $29.7 billion over 20 years to ensure continued delivery of safe, public drinking water. so i want to emphasize that. and i hope you can find some way to restore those cuts. >> i want to talk about frocking. that is something in my state that is sahh hot topic. we have many, many people who are fearful of fracking. we don't want it to contaminate the drinking water or have fracking by the watersheds. that is sahh concern that i have. on the other hand, it has the potential to create many jobs in western new york, as it has been doing in western pennsylvania. and i know mr. green had spoken

with you about it. with the -- with the study. i think the study is a good idea. we have to wean ourselves off of middle eastern oil and venezuelaen oil with countries that don't wish us well. but i do think that, um, the fracking is something that many people remain fearful of and we need to look at. i wish you well in your study and i hope you 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 ballasts in new york

city schools over the next decade. could you please explain epa's role in that mediation project and provide for me an update on its status? and could you also please 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 -- the lighting ballasts were leaking and they were leaking pcbs. and those inspections found numerous leaking ballasts with pcb concentrations exceeding 600,000 parts per million. the city stepped up to replace all pcb lighting ballasts in 772 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 about $708 million in its budget to implement their plan over ten years. epa has reviewed that plan and told city officials that five

years would be a more reasonable time frame to address the ballast issue as part of the larger plan. well i know five years -- i know new york lawyers have recommended two years. and i know things are difficult to be done in two years. pcb contamination in our schools, as you know, is widespread and threatens the health of hundreds of thousands of school children, certainly in new york city. and the exposure in children has been found to decrease iqs and increase risks of a.d.d. among other things. so would the ten-year timetable -- well, okay. i made the point. it's hard without the clock ticking, but, again, i hope you'll look into that and, again, i want to emphasize. thank you for your very, very good work. >> thank you.

at this time, i'll recognize the gentleman from kansas for five minutes. >> correct. thank you, mr. chairman. and thank you for being here today, secretary jackson. i want to talk about enforcement. we haven't had a chance to talk about that at all and your enforcement policies. you've asked for an extra increase in your budget for the office of enforcement and -- i'll get the name right, office of enforcement compliance. so you've asked for a $33.5 million increase there. and i've heard lots of concerns from my district about enforcement policies at epa. i thought i'd do it in the micro today. you mentioned something called the general duty of care a little bit earlier. can you tell me if you have adopted any epa-wide policies or guidelines with respect to the definitions inside the clean-air act related to the general duty of care? >> i'm not aware of any, sir, but we can certainly talk to the office of enforcement on that. >> there's a -- there's a