back, and i'm hoping you to be back in touch with us. but pennsylvania has made changes to regulations. i'm not sure if you've read pennsylvania's act 13 was just passed into law. but it contains a number of provisions in there including ways to handle violations and a has a requirement that unconventional well operation must have dep approved water management plans and a host of other regulation changes that the governor signed into law. now, i would ask then as i don't know if you actually had a chance to read that, i hope so, but what concerns me is i'd still like to hear from you as if anything remains with pennsylvania. i won't put you on the spot to have memorized that but get back to me. would you be able to do that, ma'am? >> we're happy to -- just keep in mind, sir, we're in the middle of a two-year study that is specifically to look on the impact of fracking on drinking water. what i said is anything we learned from that study, the first audience will be the

states because they're really on the front line of trying to protect their people and regulate the industries to keep them safe and responsible. >> given that you're still in the middle of a study, a february article from the "pittsburgh post gazette," you began an investigation of -- air, water and hazardous material impacts. in late september, according to the paper, it said you're in the, quote, middle of enforcement action or actions. i'm concerned about a couple of things. you're in the middle of enforcement and have not completed a study. is there a statute that gives the epa authority to regulate oil and gas production or is it water? i'm confused here. >> certain aspects of production are regulated under a number of statute, the clean air act, the clean water act, general duty clause under the clean air act, there is spill prevention and containment regulations that are separate.

there are a number of statutes. i cannot comment on the validity of -- >> not specifically to gas production. you're saying it has to do with the water and air on site. >> it has to do with environmental impacts with certain operations that might be associated with the drilling. the actual drilling and the actual injection of fracking fluid are generally exempt from any of the major law. >> as you go through, do you have petroleum engineers working on the study for you in reviewing these things in pennsylvania? >> yes, sir. the study in its scope was peer reviewed. we put together panels, had public meetings. >> i'm aware of that. i wonder if you on your own employ petroleum engineers that have expertise in this area. >> we can certainly get you the list of folks. the study is being done by the office of research and development. i believe there are engineers of all types involved in the study. >> i'd appreciate knowing that.

as you know in fy 10 congress directed the epa to carry out a study on the relation between hydraulic fracture and drinking water using a credible approach relying on the best available science as independent sources. i've been looking at your fy 13 budget and you want an additional $14 million to expand the scope to cover potential eco systems. you spent $1.9 million in fy 10, $9.7 million in 2012. it pufts the whole cost at $28.1 million and expanded beyond the original scope. a recent study linked grand water contamination to well site that used hydraulic fracturing but there's been a number of scientific concerns, among them that have to do with the ph level of the water involved there. are you familiar with that question about the ph values in that city? >> generally, yes. >> there wasn't going to be math

today, don't worry. >> what did you say? >> there's no math questions involved. >> i would appreciate you get back to me on this. i understand in the case of drilling there was some test drill wells drilled. this was not the actual water wells drilled but test wells drilled by epa. so it wasn't actually testing the water there. but there was a concern about a high recorded ph level of 11.5 in these monitoring wells. i'm sorry, it's around there. but the soda ash that's used in the drilling, i just sent out some confusing information. the soda ash used in the drilling has a very high ph level, this 11.5. i wonder also if you can get back to us if you're not aware today if even the process of drilling your monitoring wells that chemicals were added in that process which may have influenced that finding. >> two things. as far as the study, it really isn't an expansion of the congressionally mandated study. we're going to include

additional scientific questions working with usgs with the department of energy. that's in response to the president's call that we not shy away from investing in good science. we believe that will make the natural gas industry more robust if we look to answer these questions. as far as pavilion, i've spoken to the governor several times, we've agreed to review and move forward together on additional investigation. certainly the use of some caustic soda ash could raise ph. but we believe when you look at the blanks and duplicate samples that our work is valid. but we're also agreeing to move forward collaboratively to take additional samples. >> yield back. >> at this time i recognize the gentlelady from california ms. kapps for five minutes. >> thank you for your testimony. i want to begin with a brief comment. i was disappointed with the

decision to eliminate beach act grants. without funding county environmental health officials will have to drop testing. we've seen 11 occasions when conditions were so bad officials closed the stretch of shoreline to all contact, the possibility of cutbacks is not good news. we can't assume local jurisdictions will able to replace lost grant funding. epa needs to partner with our local communities, not leave them out to dry. now on to questions. last year when you appeared before to us discuss the administration's 2012 budget request, you noted adaptation to changing hydrological conditions is, quote, a significant issue faced by the nation's drinking water and waste water utilities. unfortunately the cost of these adaptation needs is not currently included in epa's infrastructure replacement cost estimates for water and waste water systems. since that time epa's budget has further experienced cuts but data continues to accumulate demonstrating the scope of adaptation challenges faced by water systems.

a report recently released by the johnson foundation concluded that our nation's drinking and waste water infrastructure is not prepared to deal with extreme weather events including persistent drought and declining snowpack. more frequent occurrence of these events will strain water systems and impose drastic costs on local communities across the country. however, since last year i've taken steps to address this issue by introducing the water infrastructure resiliency and sustainability act and offer competitive matching grants to help local water systems. i'm pleased this legislation enjoys wide support in the water utility community. given these well documented challenges facing the nation's water systems do you think the cooperative approach can become an effective first step to address this issue?

>> thank you. although i can't speak on the specifics of this legislation, i think that you bring up a good point. adaptation and the issues it's going to mean for our infrastructure are significant and will require a collaborative approach in terms of engineers as well as folks who are interested in providing water but also folks who are interested in lowering costs and in community public health protection. >> and is there -- is there a structure within the budget to deal with this? >> i don't believe so. i don't believe we have anything in the current budget. >> so we'll have to be innovative in figuring out ways to be cooperative -- >> we're happy to work with your staff. >> we're happy to do that, too. i want to turn to your work in advancing the sustainable communities initiative, which is something i commend, and i was pleased to see the president again made this an important initiative, a priority in his budget. this funding helps empower local communities to plan more sustainable communities with

more housing and transportation choices so families can live close to where they work, shop and go to school. this dramatically reduces commuting times which is good not only for economic growth but also energy dependence. do you see this sustainable development as an effective way for communities to help insulate themselves, even from the rising gas prices? >> yes. as communities choose. and it is a voluntary program, but for those communities who are choosing to look at those issues of transportation, energy, water, efficiency and environment all together, they're finding win-win solutions. >> good. are there examples just for the record of how this type of development impacts a community's energy independence? >> oh, absolutely. you know, it can be a large city like philadelphia where we're working with them. i should probably pick one in california. i apologize. they're in my mind because of a previous question. or it can be a smaller community

or rural community who are looking for potential new development as their economy improves and making choices about location, transit, roads, siting that would help them be more sustainable over time by cutting their energy use and reducing their carbon footprint. >> 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 changes? >> 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 light 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, administrator jackson, for being here again. i've got a number of things i want to get to. i would submit questions for the 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.you, the epa is the one federal a t of asthmati an over-the-counter asthma treatment, prime teen mist. that's been available forever. i get that the epa plays a role in the approval. i get that. your agency has the ability to provide a waiver so the existing stock of cfc 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 what the over-the-counter cfc propellant primatene 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. i'm asking, will you grant a waive sore the existing stock of prime matene can be sold? >> no, sir, we have not granted the waiver. >> will you grant a waiver so asthma patients can at least have the ability to get 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? >> i'm happy to look into it but i will not answer yes or no.

in 2008 the fda set out a rule including the makers of prime teen mist that they needed to phase out of the cfc. >> i'm so frustrated with the circuitous nature of this. it goes back and forth between your agency and the fda. i'm just asking for help for 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 42. you and i have talked about this in the past. are you aware that the government accountability office has recently put out a study and hhs has put out new guidelines and advisory on 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. knows national labs are state-of-the-art research and 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 agency? >> 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 positions? >> i will look into the issue, sir.ll n 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 epa 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's 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 superfund balances. when you run construction you have to have the money in place to bid the job, complete the job

and you don't always expend it or obligate it on a precise fiscal -- >> 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, didn't 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 standards, prohibiting it, '95, '96, '97, '98, '99. then george bush took over as president and they did not add the rider anymore because 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 increase it dramatically beyond which gives 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. 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, 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, the technological mess that the republicans have put us into historically. 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. off the coast of new england, florida, california. so, i have an amendment that says that oil and natural gas that has to stay inside the united states and all the republicans vote no. doesn't have to stay in the united states. can go overseas. this is a dream scenario for saudi arabia and iran and these countries. 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 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 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 gasoline. 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 recognize 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 in the last few years. total. >> 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 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 control. >> so in other words, it's easy for those of us in government to point fingers at the private sectorer and say you've got to make your cars more fuel efficient and we got studies 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's 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 pay us to do this. 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, 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 air when we allow the government to take a free ride on this one? >> well, sir, i would refer you to the department of transportation who i think in their smart transportation and planning do encourage local governments to put in place 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 submissions. >> 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 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 fuel efficiencies in our operations. why can't we do that much? the 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 to ensure 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 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 trying to be 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 subcommittee. 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.