    [House Hearing, 112 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                        THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 EPA BUDGET

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

                                    AND THE

                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

                                     OF THE

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 11, 2011

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 112-19

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

                            energycommerce.house.gov
                                    _____

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    72-431 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2012
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
    Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC
    area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104  Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC
    20402-0001

                        COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

                              FRED UPTON, Michigan
                                     Chairman

    JOE BARTON, Texas                    HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
      Chairman Emeritus                    Ranking Member
    CLIFF STEARNS, Florida               JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky                 Chairman Emeritus
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
    MARY BONO MACK, California           FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  ANNA G. ESHOO, California
    MIKE ROGERS, Michigan                ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina   GENE GREEN, Texas
      Vice Chairman                      DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma              LOIS CAPPS, California
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
    BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California         JAY INSLEE, Washington
    CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire       TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    PHIL GINGREY, Georgia                MIKE ROSS, Arkansas
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                JIM MATHESON, Utah
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey            DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin
    BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky              Islands
    PETE OLSON, Texas
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia

                                      (ii)
                        Subcommittee on Energy and Power

                             ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky
                                     Chairman
    JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma              BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois               JAY INSLEE, Washington
    GREG WALDEN, Oregon                  JIM MATHESON, Utah
    LEE TERRY, Nebraska                  JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
    MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas            EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
    BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California         ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana             GENE GREEN, Texas
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   LOIS CAPPS, California
    PETE OLSON, Texas                    MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
    DAVID B. McKINLEY, West Virginia     CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado               HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
    MIKE POMPEO, Kansas                      officio)
    H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia
    JOE BARTON, Texas
    FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)
                                     ------

                  Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy

                             JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois
                                     Chairman
    TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania             GENE GREEN, Texas
      Vice Chairman                        Ranking Member
    ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky               TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin
    JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania        G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina
    MARY BONO MACK, California           JOHN BARROW, Georgia
    JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma              DORIS O. MATSUI, California
    CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire       FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
    ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio                DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
    CATHY McMORRIS RODGERS, Washington   LOIS CAPPS, California
    GREGG HARPER, Mississippi            JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
    BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana              HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex
    CORY GARDNER, Colorado                   officio)
    JOE BARTON, Texas
    FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio)

                                 C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page
    Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Illinois, opening statement....................................     1
        Prepared statement...........................................     3
    Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Texas, opening statement.......................................     6
    Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State
      of California, opening statement...............................     8
    Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Michigan, prepared statement...................................    61
    Hon. Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      California, prepared statement.................................    63

                                   Witnesses

    Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency..     9
        Prepared statement...........................................    12
        Additional comments..........................................    27
        Answers to submitted questions...............................    66

                               Submitted Material

    Letter of March 10, 2011, from Operation Free to Mr. Markey......    37

                        THE FISCAL YEAR 2012 EPA BUDGET

                                  ----------

                             FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 2011

                      House of Representatives,
                      Subcommittee on Energy and Power,
                                     Joint with
           Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy,
                              Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:04 a.m., in
    room 2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John Shimkus
    (chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy)
    presiding.
        Members present: Representatives Barton, Whitfield,
    Shimkus, Pitts, Walden, Terry, Sullivan, Murphy, Burgess,
    Bilbray, Bass, Scalise, Latta, McMorris Rodgers, Harper,
    Cassidy, Olson, McKinley, Gardner, Pompeo, Griffith, Upton,
    Dingell, Markey, Pallone, Rush, Green, DeGette, Capps, Inslee,
    Baldwin, Barrow, Matsui, and Waxman.
        Staff present: Mike Bloomquist, Deputy General Counsel;
    Dave McCarthy, Chief Counsel, Environment/Economy; Maryam
    Brown, Chief Counsel, Energy and Power; Mary Neumayr, Counsel,
    Oversight/Energy; Jerry Couri, Senior Environmental Policy
    Advisor, Environment; Sean Bonyun, Deputy Communications
    Director; Mike Gruber, Senior Policy Advisor; Cory Hicks,
    Policy Coordinator, Energy and Power; Allison Busbee,
    Legislative Clerk; Phil Barnett, Minority Staff Director;
    Jackie Cohen, Minority Counsel; Teitz, Minority Senior Counsel,
    Environment and Energy; Kristin Amerling, Minority Chief
    Counsel and Oversight Staff Director; Alison Cassady, Minority
    Senior Professional Staff Member; Karen Lightfoot, Minority
    Communications Director and Senior Policy Advisor; Caitlin
    Haberman, Minority Policy Analyst.
        Mr. Shimkus. The subcommittee will now come to order. I
    want to thank everyone for attending and showing up promptly.
    We had a few hiccups with some technology stuff. We got fried
    about 15 minutes ago, so that is what we have been working on
    to correct.

      OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN SHIMKUS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                  CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        I want to welcome Administrator Jackson and thank her for
    making herself available to testify today on the EPA's fiscal
    year 2012 budget proposal.
        Getting control of the debt crisis our government faces
    starts with making funding authorizations not just relevant,
    but integral to the budget process. As an authorizing
    committee, it is necessary that we analyze and question the
    details of where our tax dollars go in those agencies under our
    jurisdiction. Only then can we make appropriate decisions on
    where changes need to be made. Through the leadership of
    Chairman Upton, this committee will do its part to rein in
    wasteful and redundant Federal spending. We will not only
    identify what programs should be eliminated, but we will also
    carefully question whether some programs considered to be
    worthwhile can and should live with less.
        The reality is, we are out of money to spend. The American
    public understands this, and they are tasking us with the job
    of trimming the fat. While the proposed budget does represent a
    decrease from last year, it still spends 2 billion more than
    just a few years back under the previous administration. We can
    and must do better. By working together to focus EPA's budget
    on its core competency, I believe we can and will do better.
    This will mean making tough decisions in some cases. These
    decisions are made easier when we put them in perspective of
    what our deficit and debt mean to the economy.
        There is no better way to promote American's resurgence
    than providing a common-sense regulatory climate that fosters
    certainty and eliminates unnecessary and burdensome
    regulations.
        Many regulations can have devastating impacts on industries
    wasting millions in public and private dollars in the process.
    One example is the greenhouse gas rules rejected by the last
    Congress, in no small part because of uncertainty they create.
    This uncertainty ultimately stifles job creation and energy
    expansion. Yet the administration has moved forward on this
    rule seeking nearly $100 million in fiscal year 2012 do so.
        As we found in last month's hearing on Regulations, Jobs
    and the Economy, it doesn't have to be one broad regulation to
    wreak havoc on the economy. Small business owners regularly
    find themselves subject to increasing numbers of overly
    burdensome regulations. Without the expertise or staff to
    navigate through the mandates, costs for entrepreneurs
    skyrocket, leaving little capital left for expansion and new
    hires. Less money to spend demands we make every effort to get
    back to basics.
        We need to understand every new program that EPA proposes.
    We need to see if that program will replace or repackage old
    policy. We need to justify programs based on the severity of
    the national needs. And we need to identify and understand the
    progress programs have made based upon measurable criteria, and
    whether EPA can justify their continuation.
        This will be no easy task. But I look forward to open,
    sincere dialogue with the Agency. It is my intention to work
    together to give the EPA the tools it needs to carry out its
    job in a manner that benefits the environment, the economy, and
    the American taxpayer without unnecessary burdens and wasteful
    spending.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:]

        Mr. Shimkus. And with that I would like to yield 1 minute
    to my colleague from Kentucky, Mr. Whitfield.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you very much, Chairman Shimkus. And
    Administrator Jackson, we appreciate your being here with us
    today and giving us the opportunity to visit with you about the
    EPA budget, and certainly want to have some discussion also
    about the President's January 2011 executive order about
    promoting economic growth, innovation, competitiveness and job
    creation and the impact that regulations have on that. And so
    we look forward to your testimony today and we appreciate your
    being here.
        Mr. Shimkus. And now I would like to recognize Mr. Murphy
    for the remainder of my time, which should be about a minute.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is certainly a
    question we have to deal with today is how do we pay for all
    these things, to clean up our water which we want, and to clean
    up our brownfields which we want, and to clean our air. But I
    am hoping we come up with more creative solutions than the past
    issue of carbon credits, which I liken to ``Seinfeld'' credits.
    The famous ``Seinfeld'' show, a show about nothing, is likened
    to this because when you are trading a carbon credit, you are
    basically asking a company that produces something in a smoke
    stack to trade it in a commodity for a smokestack, maybe no
    smokestack that produces nothing. But these paper carbon
    credits will be traded in the market in such way it will
    increase the cost of electricity, increase the cost of
    manufacturing, send more jobs overseas, and have no net impact
    upon air pollution, which floats back over here.
        I dearly hope that we come up with solutions and means to
    pay for those, because we all on both sides of the aisle want a
    cleaner environment, but also want jobs to function for these
    things. I am hoping that is a key part of today's discussion
    and look forward to these hearings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired. Now the
    chair recognizes the ranking member of the subcommittee, Mr.
    Green, for 5 minutes.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you go for
    holding the hearing today on the fiscal year 2012 EPA budget. I
    want to thank Administrator Jackson for appearing before the
    committee again. And I know you have been before our committee
    several times the past few weeks. And as an aside, I was
    wondering if you had the right it assign your parking place
    when you are not using it to any other member. But I appreciate
    your making time to discuss the EPA budget with us today.
        As a member represents an energy producing district, I
    understand the balance must be struck between clean and safe
    energy production in our environment. The EPA serves the
    important function of monitoring our environmental health and
    safety. The public health protection is a provider and very
    important to our local communities.
        Today we are discussing the budget. Last week I was at a
    hearing for the Health and Human Services budget, and across
    the board, we are making reductions in spending to get the
    budget under control. EPA's budget is no exception, and
    reductions in funding have been reflected in the President's
    budget.
        I have several concerns about what--I have with that budget
    proposal mostly in the area of Superfund accounts. Congressman
    Ted Poe and I have a Superfund site that we share in our
    districts which is leaking dioxin. The EPA is pursuing the
    responsible parties but cuts within the budget make it
    difficult for EPA to pursue responsible parties and to clean up
    the Superfund sites already on the national priorities list.
    This is extremely disconcerting because I know from this
    experience we had with our Superfund site how hard it is for
    EPA to list the sites, to add them to the NPL and actually
    begin cleaning them up, because the Superfund program already
    lacks funds.
        I am pleased the budget adds in funds for the E-waste
    recycling programs. I have been working on electronic waste
    recycling legislation for several years, and I strongly believe
    the United States needs not only a national, but a global
    responsibility to set up national E-waste recycling standards.
    Again, thank you, Madam Administrator, for appearing before the
    committee today and look forward to hearing your testimony.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
    recognizes that all members will have unanimous consent
    requests for their opening statements to be placed into the
    record. The chair now recognizes the chairman emeritus,
    Chairman Barton, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Barton. For 5 minutes?
        Mr. Shimkus. If you want it.
        Mr. Barton. Well, I am going to yield back some of that
    time, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Shimkus. Good.
        Mr. Barton. I am used to 1 minute or 2 minutes. We want to
    welcome Administrator Jackson again, we are going have a good
    dialogue with her. I want the record to show that myself, and I
    think every Republican on this subcommittee, joint
    subcommittee, support a strong EPA and we support strong
    enforcement of our environmental laws. What we don't support is
    an EPA that goes beyond its core mission for what I consider to
    be political purposes. Or pursues strategies that cost
    extremely much more than they do resulting in benefits. One of
    the ways the Congress has the authority to review any Agency is
    to review its budget authority and that is the purpose of this
    hearing.
        Even with the reduction from last year's spending level the
    EPA's requesting over $9 billion. That is a lot of money, and I
    am looking forward to asking some very serious questions about
    where that money's being spent, and how it is being spent, and
    what the results of that spending is. So with that, Mr.
    Chairman, I put my formal statement in the record and I yield
    back or yield to whoever you wish to yield it to.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. The chair
    now recognizes the chairman emeritus, Mr. Waxman, for 5
    minutes.

    OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. HENRY A. WAXMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Mr. Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Today we
    will compare two visions of EPA's budget and the difference
    between them could not be more stark. The President's budget is
    fiscally responsible, yet gives the Agency the resources it
    needs to protect public health in the environment. The
    Republican budget would decimate the Agency and its public
    health mission.
        A common perception is that energy and environmental issues
    are more regional than partisan. Most of my career, that has
    been true. But that is no longer true today. The Republican
    Party in Congress has become the anti-environment party. There
    is no more telling proof that H.R. 1, the Republican budget
    proposal.
        During the debates we have had in this committee on clean
    air in 1990 when we did our revisions, we had Republicans who
    were clearly pro-environment. President George H.W. Bush,
    representatives like Sherry Boehlert, John Chafee, were close
    allies and true environmental champions. And ultimately, after
    difficult compromises, our regional, bipartisan coalitions were
    able to rally around the bill that passed the House 401 to 25;
    in the Senate, 89 to 10.
        But this kind of bipartisanship seems impossible today.
    Republicans in this Congress have an anti-environment agenda,
    and as of yesterday's markup of the Upton-Inhofe bill
    demonstrates, they also have an anti-science agenda.
        It is a Republican mantra that they are pursuing the ``will
    of the people.'' But that is not what they are doing. Their
    anti-science, anti-environment agenda may be the will of the
    Koch Industries but it is not what American families want.
        Americans know that their family's health and quality of
    life depend on a clean environment. They know we need a strong
    EPA to stop oil companies and power companies from poisoning
    our air and water. They know we need a strong EPA to keep toxic
    chemicals out of our food supply and away from our children.
    But instead of giving EPA the resources the Agency needs,
    Republicans are using the budget process to handcuff the
    Agency. The Republican budget is the most sweeping and reckless
    assault on health and the environment we have seen in decades.
    This bill slashes EPA's funding by almost a third, denying the
    Agency the resources it needs to carry out the Clean Air Act,
    the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Food
    Quality Protection Act, and the Toxic Substances Control Act.
        Riders in H.R. 1 block EPA from regulating toxic emissions
    from cement plants, they defund EPA's efforts to reduce
    dangerous carbon emissions, they sought to prevent EPA from
    protecting water quality in thousands of streams and wetlands,
    threatening drinking water supplies for millions of Americans.
        I am glad we have Administrator Jackson here today. I look
    forward to her testimony. She will explain what the
    implications of the Republican budget would be on her Agency. I
    know it is awkward because we are going to hear from her, after
    we have already voted on the House floor for some of these
    very, very damaging cuts and unthought-through riders. But I
    hope members will listen.
        In the weeks ahead, we have time to change course and work
    together to give EPA the resources it needs to protect public
    health and the environment. I yield back the balance--well, let
    me--are you going to----
        Mr. Shimkus. I wasn't and was hoping.
        Mr. Waxman. Well, I would like to yield back the balance of
    my time to Mr. Rush.
        Mr. Rush. I want to thank the ranking member for yielding
    the balance of his time. And I want to thank the chairman of
    the committee for holding this hearing. I certainly want to
    thank the Administrator for being here. Madam Administrator, I
    want to thank you for all your hard work and dedication on
    behalf of the American people to provide all of us with clean
    air, and water, and for protecting the public health in spite
    of all the ridicule and contempt that you have encountered as
    you attempt to do the job that President Obama tasked you to
    do. You are a woman of immense talents, courage and commitment,
    and I want to congratulate you on your resolve and commend you
    on your resolve.
        The President's budget already proposes a 13 percent
    decrease to EPA's fiscal year 2012 budget. And my colleagues on
    the other side of the aisle are attempting to compound your
    challenges by composing Draconian cuts of almost a third of
    your budget as compared to fiscal year 2010 levels. And I for
    one, Madam Administrator, can tell you that my constituents are
    very confused and perplexed that the same Republicans who will
    cut $3 billion from the Agency charged with protecting the
    public health are also the same politicians who will humanly
    resist taking away the $3.6 billion in tax credits from oil
    companies who are making record profits, even as the average
    American struggles to pay for $4 a gallon for gas in most
    stations in this Nation.
        Some programs that are dear and near to me will see
    significant funding cuts, including $550 million reduction to
    the Drinking Water State Revolving and Loan Fund.
        I ask unanimous consent for 30 seconds.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman is recognized for an additional
    30 seconds without objection.
        Mr. Rush. Madam Administrator, I realize that with such
    deep funding cuts you are forced to make some tough choices and
    you prioritize your agenda and work to protect America's air
    and water supply. I want to you know that you have my support,
    my support and we intend to work very, very closely with you to
    work our way through this issue and these problems that we are
    confronted with as a Nation. Thank you so very much, and God
    bless you. I yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. Now the
    chair welcomes the Honorable Lisa Jackson, Administrator of the
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Ma'am, your entire record
    and testimony has been recorded and is on file. You have 5
    minutes for an overview, and welcome again.

      STATEMENT OF LISA P. JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
                           PROTECTION AGENCY

        Ms. Jackson. Thank you, thank you so much. Thank you,
    Chairman Shimkus, Chairman Whitfield, Ranking Members Rush and
    Green. Members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me
    go to testify about President Obama's budget request for the
    Environmental Protection Agency. I just want to start to say
    that our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Japan this
    morning. And EPA, along with much of the Federal Government,
    stands ready to assist them and our people as we see the
    ramifications of what is going on there.
        Congress enacted the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and
    America's other bedrock environmental protection laws on a
    broadly bipartisan basis. It did so to protect American's
    children and adults from pollution that otherwise would make
    their lives shorter, less healthy and less prosperous. It did
    so to make the air and drinking water in America's communities
    clean enough to attract new employers. It did so to enable
    America's local governments to revitalize abandoned and
    polluted industrial sites. It did so to safeguard the pastime
    of American's 40 million anglers, it did so to protect the
    farms whose irrigation makes up a third of America's surface
    freshwater withdrawals. And it did so to preserve the
    livelihood of fishermen in America's great waters such as the
    Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico.
        Congress gave EPA the responsibility of implementing and
    enforcing those laws. Each year, Congress appropriates the
    money that makes EPA's implementation and enforcement work
    possible. As head of the EPA, I am accountable for squeezing
    every last drop of public health protection out of every dollar
    we are given. So I support the tough cuts in the President's
    proposed budget. But I am equally accountable for pointing out
    when cuts becomes detrimental to public health. Without
    adequate funding, EPA would be unable to implement or enforce
    the laws that protect Americans' health, livelihoods and
    pastimes. Big polluters would flout legal restrictions on
    dumping contaminants into the air and to rivers and onto the
    ground. Toxic plumes already underground would reach drinking
    water supplies, because ongoing work to contain them would
    stop. There would be no EPA grant money to fix or replace
    broken water treatment systems and the standards EPA has said
    to establish from harmful air pollution form smokestacks and
    tailpipes would remain missing from a population of sources
    that is not static, but growing.
        So if Congress slashes EPA funding, concentrations of
    harmful pollution would increase, from current levels in the
    places Americans live, work, go to school, fish, hike and hunt.
    The result would be more asthma attacks, more missed schooldays
    and workdays, more heart attacks, more cancer cases, more
    premature deaths, and more polluted waters.
        Needless to say then, I fervently request and appreciate
    bipartisan support in Congress for funding the essential work
    that keeps American children and adults safe from uncontrolled
    amounts of harmful pollution being dumped into the water they
    drink and the air they breathe.
        Decreasing Federal spending is no longer just a prudent
    choice, it is now an unavoidable necessity. Accordingly,
    President Obama has proposed to cut EPA's annual budget nearly
    13 percent. That cut goes beyond eliminating redundancies. We
    have made difficult, even painful choices. We have done so,
    however, in a careful way that preserves, EPA's ability to
    carry out its core responsibility to protect the health and
    well-being of America's children, adults and communities.
        We have been reviewing the budget request for more than 3
    weeks, I will save the details for the question and answer
    period. Before turning to your questions, I will address
    Chairman Upton's bill to eliminate portions of the Clean Air
    Act. The most extreme parts of that bill remain unchanged since
    I testified about it a month ago. It still would presume to
    overrule the scientific community on the scientific finding
    that carbon pollution endangers American's health and well-
    being. Politicians overruling scientists on a scientific
    question. You might well be remembered more for that than for
    anything else you do. The bill still would block any Clean Air
    Act standards for greenhouse gas pollution from cars and trucks
    after 2016.
        Alone, the Department of Transportation CAFE standards do
    not achieve nearly as much pollution reduction or oil savings
    as when they are backed up by the Clean Air Act's enforcement
    provisions. All told, nullifying this part of the Clean Air Act
    would forfeit many hundreds of millions of barrels of oil
    savings, at a time when gas prices are rising yet again. I
    cannot, for the life of me, understand why you would vote to
    massively increase America's oil dependence.
        The Clean Air Act saves millions of American children and
    adults from the debilitating and expensive illnesses that occur
    when smokestacks and tailpipes dump unrestricted amounts of
    harmful pollution into the air we breathe. I respectfully ask
    this committee to think twice before gutting that landmark law.
    Thank you, Chairman. I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:]

        Mr. Shimkus. Thank you, Madam Administrator. And now I will
    recognize myself for 5 minutes for the first round of
    questions. As I do so, I will remind my colleagues that the
    Republican budget hasn't been proposed yet, that is what we are
    doing next month. We are trying to address the Continuing
    Resolution based upon the fact that the Democrats in the
    majority in the last Congress didn't pass a budget. Had they
    done that, we wouldn't be in this CR fight, but that did not
    happen.
        And Madam Administrator, you know that when we do propose
    our budget, you should expect to see--constitutionally, all
    appropriations begin in the House. You should expect to see
    2008 budget numbers come for the Environmental Protection
    Agency. The point being--and the public understands--that in
    2008 we still spent a whole heck of a lot of money. So ``2008
    spending levels'' does not mean we are not spending any money.
    In fact, it means we are spending billions of dollars. And I
    would just give you a heads up that your Agency should be
    prepared for those numbers once we finish our budget process.
        Having said that, I would like to put on a slide two
    statements; one from your Agency, and one from the President of
    the United States. In 2010, June 2010 when you proposed your
    coal ash rule, it stated ``The regulatory impact assessment for
    this proposal rule does not include either qualitative or
    quantitative estimation of the potential effects of the
    proposed rule on economic productivity, economic growth,
    employment, job creation or international competitiveness.''
        Now the President issued an executive order in January
    2011. And in that executive order he states--and that is the
    second, it is one highlighted in red--that ``regulatory reform
    must take into account benefits and costs, both quantitative
    and qualitative, in the interest of economic growth,
    innovation, competitiveness and job creation.''
        So the question, since the executive order says exactly the
    opposite of what you had previously stated during the
    rulemaking process, will you now go back and rescind the coal
    ash rule?
        Ms. Jackson. The coal ash rule is not final, Mr. Chairman.
    It has been proposed. It has been subject to over 400,000
    comments.
        Mr. Shimkus. Reclaiming my time. Let me ask then, will you,
    since it has not been finalized, will you comply with the
    President's executive order and take into consideration both
    qualitative and quantitative estimation of the potential
    effects of the proposed rule?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, of course we will. And let me simply say
    the proposed rule does have cost estimates in it. The piece
    that you exempted from the RIA points out estimates that
    weren't done, but there were several cost estimates done in
    conjunction.
        Mr. Shimkus. So you are agreeing now to make sure that the
    RIA will comply with the President's executive order.
        Ms. Jackson. Any final rule, when it is finalized, and we
    have not announced the date for that rule, has to comply with
    the President's executive orders.
        Mr. Shimkus. Can you outline any other regulations you will
    specifically reconsider, based upon the President's executive
    order?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, the President's executive order has
    several parts, one is a retrospective look at regulations,
    which the Agency is--has already begun in compliance with that
    order. So we will, in effect, be looking back at all of our
    regulations, that is what the executive order asked us to do.
    In addition, it puts requirements on us prospectively as
    regulations are evaluated.
        Mr. Shimkus. Do you have a master plan for your look-back?
    And would you provide a copy for the committee for that?
        Ms. Jackson. We do not yet have it, sir, but we are working
    on it. I believe it is due to the White House in about a month,
    and of course, we will provide it.
        Mr. Shimkus. Do you have any EPA regulations that you feel
    would be exempt from the Presidential executive order?
        Ms. Jackson. Not to my knowledge, sir. I don't believe we
    have identified any exemptions.
        Mr. Shimkus. And what portion of the 2012 Presidential
    budget is being used to carry out the President's executive
    order?
        Ms. Jackson. I don't have a figure specifically for that
    work. It will be done in the base budget for EPA and it will
    span several of the offices.
        Mr. Shimkus. Can you provide that for the committee?
        Ms. Jackson. We can certainly give an estimate of what we
    entail the workload to be, sir.
        Mr. Shimkus. That would be helpful. Thank you.
        My time is nearly expired, so I will now yield to my
    colleague from Texas, Mr. Green.
        Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We, as you know, we
    have a short time, so I will get into the questions, as you
    know, I personally have been very interested in the issue of
    electronic waste, and have been working on the issue. I noticed
    there are some individuals who believe the EPA should spend
    money to build capacity for managing E-waste in developing
    nations. While I agree that the countries do need to develop
    their capacity to manage their own E-waste, I think if we do
    not address the E-waste problem, domestically then it will be
    just an excuse to continue exporting to developing countries.
        That is why I am a little concerned with EPA's budget
    justification focused on EPA partnering with other nations and
    international organizations, such as the UNEP to begin tracking
    the international movement of electronic waste and provide E-
    waste best practices through education and demonstration
    project in developing countries.
        I think it is a little disingenuous for the United States
    to talk to capacity building in these countries if we haven't
    addressed the problem from our own E-waste exports. Plus, given
    that we are in a world with diminishing EPA funding, we simply
    shouldn't be spending money on this internationally. Instead,
    the EPA should be spending time and money to increase
    responsible recycling here in the United States, increasing
    capacity and quality and legal compliance here at home.
        Several weeks ago at a hearing on environmental regulations
    and jobs, Wendy Neu of the Neu Corporation, an E-waste
    recycler, testified that the EPA regulations have added value
    to her business.
        If the EPA focused all the budget amount currently
    designated for international capacity building, education
    demonstration projects, et cetera, on improving our domestic
    capacity for quality of E-waste recycling, wouldn't we then
    actually be adding value to the business of our United States
    recyclers, allowing them to expand their own operations and add
    more jobs for you as workers so any investment by the Federal
    Government in EPA's budget on the front end would be more than
    paid for by the business expansion and job creation on the back
    end.
        I am concerned that the focus on best practices overseas
    sets a precedent of ignoring or problem and absolves us of our
    responsibility to set up our own national E-waste program. That
    is a question that I would like--- do you think that by
    focusing on international cooperation and education, that we
    are actually short-sighted in dealing with our own problems
    domestically?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, they are not exclusive, sir. We are
    doing work domestically with several other manufacturers and
    several of the States have put in place their own regulations
    for E-waste recycling. But the truth of the matter is that one
    of the things we will have do if we want to create a market
    here is stop the illegal export of these wastes. And the only
    way to do that is in the receiving country, because they have
    to come to understand how bad this is for them from the
    standpoint of public health.
        Mr. Green. Well, with our scarce dollars, my concern is we
    might not be doing what we need to do here and maybe helping
    developing countries.
        Let me go on. The second question is on E-manifest. In your
    budget proposal, you also request 2 million for the development
    of electronic hazardous waste manifest systems or E-manifest.
    It is my understanding that the current paper hazardous waste
    manifest system creates a very large administrative paperwork,
    and as well as financial burden on firms regulated under RCRA,
    hazardous waste provisions. Can you discuss the burden of the
    current hazardous waste manifest system creates for businesses
    as well as for the EPA?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, certainly the $2 million investment is
    intended to help to relieve some of that burden, we are
    obviously in the electronic age. The idea is of the electronic
    manifest will help reduce paperwork. It does require some
    amount of training, but the purpose of the manifest system, of
    course, is a cradle-to-grave understanding of where waste flows
    are domestically in our country. So we believe it is an
    investment in modernizing the system that will pay off in
    efficiency later.
        Mr. Green. One of the concerns I have, it seems like under
    our current system when we have it there should be potential
    savings not only the EPA and to businesses, there is excessive
    postal costs because you have to ship each paper on hazardous
    waste manifest. The budget proposal also discusses a
    legislative proposal EPA will submit to Congress on the
    collection of user fees to support the development of operation
    of the E-manifest system.
        For several years, legislation has been introduced in both
    House and Senate to create an e-manifest system funded by user
    fees. Legislation has not been introduced this year and I would
    be interested in seeing EPA's proposal. Do you anticipate
    sending it to Congress?
        Ms. Jackson. We are happy to send technical information and
    support for such a proposal, sir.
        Mr. Green. The EPA is expected in 2012 to finalize a rule
    to allow for the electronic tracking of hazardous waste using
    the E-manifest. Will these rules be issued before or after the
    legislative proposal is sent to Congress?
        Ms. Jackson. I don't know the answer to that question off
    the top of my head, Mr. Green. Let me find out, because we are
    talking about--I think the intent of the budget was to show
    that we have a full proposal, the $2 million investment would
    eventually rely on rules that implement the E-manifest system.
    But we will get a schedule for you.
        Mr. Green. Appreciate the information. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
    now recognize the subcommittee chairman for Energy and Power,
    Mr. Whitfield, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you, Chairman Shimkus. I want to
    further explore a question that Mr. Shimkus had. In addition to
    the fly ash rule in June of 2010, in December of 2010, you
    issued guidelines for preparing economic analysis. And in that
    guideline, it said regulatory-induced employment impacts are
    not generally relevant for cost benefit analysis. And I think
    that guideline would also be in direct conflict with the
    President's executive order. I would ask you are you revising
    the guidelines at all?
        Ms. Jackson. I believe the guidelines called for a separate
    jobs analysis or envisioned a separate jobs analysis. So I
    think what the intent was not to double count jobs analysis in
    the cost benefit. But I would happy to take a look at that
    issue.
        Mr. Whitfield. But in your guidelines now, you do insist
    that you look at the impact on jobs of any regulations?
        Ms. Jackson. We are doing jobs analysis for our
    regulations, yes, sir.
        Mr. Whitfield. And the second question I would like to ask
    you is, do you know how many lawsuits are pending against the
    EPA today?
        Ms. Jackson. How many lawsuits? I do not have the number,
    sir.
        Mr. Whitfield. Would you be able to get that to us?
        Ms. Jackson. Certainly.
        Mr. Whitfield. Because I notice that the legal advice parts
    of your budget exceeds $61 million, which is quite a bit of
    money.
        Ms. Jackson. Well, we are sued quite often, sir, by many
    sides.
        Mr. Whitfield. Also, how much money does the EPA contribute
    to the International Panel on Climate Change?
        Ms. Jackson. Do we--I don't know that we--sir, I will have
    to get that number for you for the record. I am not sure that
    we do contribute but it if we do, I will get that number to
    you.
        Mr. Whitfield. Maybe we don't contribute any money to it
    through EPA?
        Ms. Jackson. We do not know, so rather than give you
    inaccurate information, may I please just get it?
        Mr. Whitfield. OK. Now I notice that in the budget there is
    also about 1.2 billion set aside for categorical grants. And I
    notice that categorical grants can also be given to non-profit
    groups. Would you be able to give me three or four names of
    some non profit groups that have received these categorical
    grants?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, I know just because I saw a letter
    recently from, I believe it is Chairman Upton, that there is a
    request for the entire list. I happened to see another piece of
    correspondence from the State of California, many of their
    local and regional air boards receive those grants.
        So I think you will see a mixture of State and public
    entities, as well as possibly some NGOs, but we are working on
    a response to that letter.
        Mr. Whitfield. So you will be providing a total list of
    those and the amounts?
        Ms. Jackson. That is what the letter requests, sir. And it
    is a fairly substantial piece of work, but that is what we are
    in the process of doing.
        Mr. Whitfield. I notice there is also $195 million in civil
    and criminal enforcements. Are we primarily talking about court
    action to enforce compliance with EPA rules. Is that what that
    195 million basically would go for?
        Ms. Jackson. Many of our actions are administrative, sir,
    so they never reach the courts. They are administrative
    actions, penalty actions and other. Civil enforcement can be,
    obviously, under civil codes, can result in indictments and
    fines, penalties or even jail time.
        Mr. Whitfield. My time is about to conclude here. I want to
    just go back once more, because this job impact issue is so
    important in my view. I just want to make sure in the
    guidelines, you are saying that in some instances you do look
    at job impacts; is that correct?
        Ms. Jackson. We have been looking at jobs impact analysis
    as part of our regulatory analyses. And if you look at any of
    the rulemaking records for recent rules, certainly ones I have
    been involved with, there are jobs analysis that there are
    economically significant rules.
        Mr. Whitfield. Could you say on just about every regulation
    that is going to be issued at EPA now, job analysis impacts
    will be looked at?
        Ms. Jackson. I think we need to look at economically
    significant regulations, EPA has several regulations that
    doesn't rise to that----
        Mr. Whitfield. Economically significant, that would that be
    100 million or more?
        Ms. Jackson. That is one of the tiers that we look at, yes.
    So 100 million or more, yes. Why don't I give you the criteria
    by which we do the jobs analysis. I am happy to do that. I
    agree with you that we need to do as good a job we can looking
    at the job impacts of major rules.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time.
        The chair recognizes the chairman emeritus, Mr. Waxman, for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Administrator Jackson, I am glad that you are here today,
    it gives you the opportunity to set the record straight on
    several matters. Yesterday the Subcommittee on Energy and Power
    marked up the Upton-Inhofe bill to eliminate EPA's authority to
    address carbon pollution and climate change.
        During the markup, Chairman Upton said that EPA's
    greenhouse gas regulations would increase gasoline prices. His
    reasoning was based on a quote you gave in 2009 when you said,
    ``Congressional action on energy and climate legislation would
    be more effective and less costly than EPA Regulations.'' We
    are likely to hear that same claim next week when the full
    committee meets to consider the bill.
        Administrator Jackson, can you tell us whether Chairman
    Upton is accurate in his description of your views?
        Ms. Jackson. No, sir, he is not.
        Mr. Waxman. And how is he inaccurate?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, it is actually the opposite of the
    truth. The bill that passed the committee would actually
    increase the amount of money that Americans have to pay for
    gasoline, diesel. It would increase our oil dependence by
    hundreds of million of barrels. It would do so by blocking
    EPA's common-sense steps under the Clean Air Act on vehicle
    standards, because that bill although it recognizes the past
    standards, undoes the endangerment finding on which those
    standards are based, and then takes EPA out of the process for
    years 2016 and beyond.
        So all those hundreds of millions of barrels of oil
    savings, which come directly from the Clean Air Act enforcement
    provisions, would be forfeited.
        Mr. Waxman. So it is rather Orwellian, you have regulations
    dealing with motor vehicles that reduce the requirement that
    they use--reduce their need to use as much gasoline as
    otherwise would be the case. And they would wipe out those
    regulations potentially, we think they would, which would mean
    we would be using more oil. If consumers are using more oil,
    that is going to drive up the price than if they are using less
    oil, isn't that correct?
        Ms. Jackson. America's demand for oil is down and one of
    the reasons is, I think, because vehicles are becoming more
    efficient, that has been stated many times.
        Mr. Waxman. Well, if that is the best argument Chairman
    Upton can make for his bill, I think he is truly grasping at
    straws.
        I want to ask you about H.R. 1, the Republican funding
    bill. My concern is that the Republican budget would amount to
    a devastating assault on public health and the environment. How
    would H.R. 1, if it became law, affect EPA's ability to protect
    the public?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, as was mentioned earlier, sir, that bill
    cuts EPA's budget overall by 30 percent on the top line. That
    is a fairly dramatic cut. I would say that mindful of the fact
    that the President's proposed budget cuts EPA 13 percent from
    the top line. So those cuts--we understand that cuts have to
    happen, but it is part of my job to say that the core programs
    that EPA implements through the States, Clean Air Act, Clean
    Water Act are proven public health providers. They reduce
    premature deaths, they reduce asthma attacks, they reduce
    cancer incidences, and that is one of our concerns. Of course,
    the riders are another matter, there are several riders on that
    bill that tie EPA's hands in a variety of ways.
        Mr. Waxman. Well, I want to ask you about one of those
    riders. It would prevent you for regulating toxic emissions
    like mercury from cement plants. What would be the effect of
    this provision on public health?
        Ms. Jackson. Actually, that rider prevents us from
    enforcing or even providing assistance to cement manufacturers
    to deal with a rule that is right now on the books. That rule
    was intended to reduce mercury, cadmium, other metals that come
    from the emissions from cement manufacturing. And it is based
    on usable, and doable, and financially affordable technology.
    And what would happen is that EPA would not be able to enforce
    it at all, so there would be uneven enforcement. And
    potentially confusion in the regulated community, which could
    result in higher emissions, and later on at some point, we
    would have to come back and face the accounting for that.
        Mr. Waxman. How much concern should people have about
    mercury, cadmium and other emissions from these cement plants?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, mercury is a neurotoxin as well as a
    carcinogen. The rule was estimated to reduce mercury emissions
    from cement plants by 92 percent. So would you lose potentially
    much of that, if you are not enforcing the rule. Particulate
    matter which is a killer, 11,500 tons, 92 percent reduction
    under the rule.
        Mr. Waxman. What do mercury emissions do to children?
        Ms. Jackson. Mercury is a neurotoxin, it is toxic to brain
    development. And so as our children's brains are developing,
    and as they are in the womb, fetus development as well, it can
    be quite toxic and can cause developmental or other impacts.
        Mr. Waxman. Administrator Jackson, you have a critically
    important job. Your regulations keep kids out of the emergency
    room, avoid birth defects in babies, prevent cancers that can
    devastate families. And I would hope that as we think through
    what your budget should be, that we don't end up keeping you
    from doing this very important job, and block the essential
    regulations or gut the Clean Air Act. I don't think that is
    what the American people want. And if they find out that is
    what is happening, I am sure they are going to be very, very
    angry. I yield back my time.
        Mr. Shimkus. The chairman's time has expired. The chair now
    recognizes Chairman Emeritus Barton for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Barton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My State is in region
    6 of EPA and I think as you know, last summer EPA went in and
    preempted the State's flexible air quality permitting system
    that had been in place since 1993 and revoked the neighborhood
    of 150 to 175 existing clean air permits. Could you give the
    committee the budgetary impact of the EPA having to take over
    those programs for the State for the record?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, yes, certainly EPA----
        Mr. Barton. All right. Will you get that--I don't expect
    you to have that on the top of your head. Just if you could get
    it to us. And could you also get us what the Region 6 budget is
    for the current fiscal year, please?
        Ms. Jackson. Certainly.
        Mr. Barton. OK. Last year as ranking member, Congressman
    Burgess and I sent letters to you asking for your authority
    under Title 42, which is a program which was established by the
    Department of Health and Human Services to get extra salary for
    employees in special cases. We can't tell if there was any
    authority to use this program at the EPA. We got back a fairly
    murky letter in response.
        Could you now, please, submit for the record the authority
    that EPA has to use Title 42 and how many employees currently
    are paid under this Title 42. This allows the Health and Human
    Service to hire doctors and people like that that are above the
    SES pay grade. Could you do that?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Barton. Thank you. So far you are doing great, every
    question I ask. All right.
        Now, they get a little bit murkier now in terms of the
    questions I am asking. I have heard you and others repeatedly
    talk about the number of lives saved because of the Clean Air
    Act and other environmental laws. I voted for the Clean Air Act
    amendments. And I said in my opening statement, I support
    strong enforcement of the Clean Air Act. I have never seen an
    analysis, however, of where you get those numbers about lives
    saved and things like that. Can you provide that analysis for
    the record for the committee?
        Ms. Jackson. Happy to. Those are peer-reviewed analyses. I
    would be happy to provide them, sir.
        [The information follows:]

        Mr. Barton. All right. You used in your opening statement
    the term ``carbon pollution.'' Would you care to define that
    briefly?
        Ms. Jackson. Sure, carbon pollution is shorthand for carbon
    dioxide pollution; it is to cover the class of greenhouse gas
    emissions, carbon dioxide being the one that is most--the
    highest volume.
        Mr. Barton. So you are just trying to use a shorthand
    version of CO2, or carbon dioxide. My good friend,
    Mr. Inslee yesterday, used the term black carbon pollution,
    which refers to particulate matter. The table in front of you
    is made of carbon. If had you had a diamond in your wedding
    ring, it would be made of carbon. Carbon itself is not
    obviously a pollutant. I would hope that the Administrator of
    EPA would be more precise, especially since you have a
    chemical--I believe a chemical engineering degree. If anybody
    should know what greenhouse gases are, I am looking at her
    right now.
        Ms. Jackson. Let me qualify, black carbon soot is, in and
    of itself, is a pollutant. There are many naturally occurring
    substances that are not good for you, arsenic being one that we
    can talk about, mercury we just did.
        Mr. Barton. Let's talk about mercury. My good friend, Mr.
    Waxman, asked about mercury. What is--are you going to be more
    exposed to mercury if a CFL breaks in your home or from the
    trace elements of mercury that come out of a smokestack at a
    power plant? Which is the largest exposure?
        Ms. Jackson. I have not seen a comparison of CFLs. If you
    are asking me whether CFLs have trace amounts of mercury, they
    certainly do. There are tons and tons of mercury emissions that
    come from power plants.
        Mr. Barton. You might want to check your record on that.
    The amount of mercury that comes out of a power plant stack,
    given the power plant, is in pounds per year, not tons per
    year.
        Ms. Jackson. Well, speaking cumulatively, sir, across the
    country.
        Mr. Barton. I am talking on an annual basis. OK, tons is a
    misnomer when used with mercury. You are an engineer, OK. The
    metrics matter, metrics matter. We can talk tons of
    CO2, we can do that. But in terms of mercury, trace
    elements come out of a power plant stack, and it is not tons
    per year, it is pounds per year per plant.
        Ms. Jackson. Per plant, yes, sir. But if you aggregate them
    and add them up, you get pounds and 2,000 pounds equal a ton.
        Mr. Barton. That is true.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
    now recognizes the chairman emeritus, Mr. Dingell, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Dingell. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy and
    commend you for this hearing. Madam Administrator, welcome to
    the committee.
        I am very much concerned about the President's budget
    request. I am very much concerned about the Great Lakes and
    about the severe issues of pollution and restoration and
    invasive species. I am noting that if this gets a 20 percent
    cut in this year's budget proposal, the Great Lakes Restoration
    Initiative coordinates efforts to remediate contamination,
    reduce ongoing pollution and lessen the impact of a basic
    species in this place, which is 20 percent of the world's fresh
    water.
        I am very much concerned, however, that H.R. 1, the
    spending proposal for 2011, would cut the spending in this
    program for $225 million. And I have seen on a number of
    occasions, including when Mr. Leavitt was in Michigan, that he
    was up to announce what a great job he was doing, when in point
    of fact, he was coming up to announce cuts in this particular
    program.
        Can your Agency meet its obligation to the Great Lakes and
    to our people up there who depend on this resource with the
    funding levels contained in H.R. 1, yes or no?
        Ms. Jackson. The cuts in H.R. 1 are 225 million, you said,
    sir?
        Mr. Dingell. I am sorry?
        Ms. Jackson. I couldn't hear. The cuts to the Great Lakes
    are 225 million?
        Mr. Dingell. I am sorry? 225 million it is.
        Ms. Jackson. In my opinion, the President's budget
    recommended less cuts because we believed we needed more money
    in the Great Lakes.
        Mr. Dingell. Did you meet your responsibilities, yes or no?
        Ms. Jackson. Not to the extent that we think we should, and
    that is why we didn't propose----
        Mr. Dingell. And remember that the Great Lakes are a
    geological institution, one which has been there since--for
    about 10,000 years. What will be the practical impact of these
    cuts on the Great Lakes? If you wish, you may submit that to
    the committee in writing for insertion into the record.
    According to the most recent report, I would note that with
    regard to drinking water infrastructure needs, EPA estimates
    that 334.8 billion is needed to insure public health and
    economic well-being for our cities, towns and communities. That
    report is based on 2007. Have the needs in drinking water
    infrastructure increased or decreased since 2007.
        Ms. Jackson. I would imagine they have increased, sir.
        Mr. Dingell. All right. Would you submit to us also,
    please, the real number now, because the $225 billion number is
    dated 2007.
        I note that H.R. 1, the spending proposal passed by the
    House cuts safe drinking water rotating fund from 1.387 billion
    to 830 million. Would you state for us the impact of these
    cuts? I assume they cannot be beneficial.
        Ms. Jackson. No, sir, that money is used to spend in
    communities large and small to invest in sewage treatment
    plants, green infrastructure and drinking water.
        Mr. Dingell. Would you submit a statement on that for the
    record, please?
        Now I note similarly, according to an EPA report on
    wastewater infrastructure for 2008, the need is 298.1 billion.
    Am I correct in assuming that wastewater needs have increased
    since 2008?
        Ms. Jackson. That is probably a good assumption, sir.
        Mr. Dingell. Will you give us a real number for the record,
    please, and submit that at the earliest time that you can
    comfortably do so.
        Now H.R. 1 also cuts the wastewater revolving fund from 2.1
    billion to 690 million. Would you please submit to us what
    would be the practical impact of these cuts?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Dingell. Thank you. I think, in summary, you can tell
    us though that these cuts are going to be extremely destructive
    to the well-being of the Great Lakes and to the protection of
    that absolutely wondrous treasure. Am I correct or incorrect?
        Ms. Jackson. The larger the cut, the less we can afford to
    clean up and protect the Great Lakes, sir.
        Mr. Dingell. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield
    back 3 seconds.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back. The chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Pitts, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Pitts. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Administrator, a
    couple of questions regarding EPA's staff resources. Your
    inspector general says that you need better Agency-wide control
    over staff resources. But in April of 2010, you disposed of the
    position management and control manual. In response the EPA,
    OIG stated, ``Without an Agency-wide position management
    program EPA leadership lacks reasonable assurance that it is
    using personnel in an effective and efficient manner to achieve
    missions results.''
        In light of this, considering the productivity gains
    throughout the economy, how can we be confident that all 18,000
    FTEs are required for the core mission?
        Ms. Jackson. Just over 17,000 FTEs, sir, are--what we did
    was get rid of the manual because it was outdated. And rather
    than start from an outdated piece of work, what we have done is
    focus on strategic planning and made decisions to align our
    resources with our needs. There is lots of local work that is
    done in the regions and individual offices to ensure that our
    workforce is efficiently used.
        Mr. Pitts. How many employees are D.C.-based versus field
    based?
        Ms. Jackson. Are D.C. Based--I believe 40, 45 percent of
    our employees are actually in the D.C. Metro area, not
    necessarily in D.C. Proper.
        Mr. Pitts. And what percentage of employees Agency-wide are
    eligible to retire this fiscal year?
        Ms. Jackson. I don't know that number off the top of my
    head, but it is significant. Probably close to 20 percent but
    we will get you a number for the record.
        Mr. Pitts. How many employees regulated to regulatory
    enforcement mission?
        Ms. Jackson. Regulatory enforcement? We will get you the
    number as we sit here, sir.
        Mr. Pitts. All right. And what are the job demands that are
    heaviest; legal enforcement, investigation, can you give us a
    breakdown?
        Ms. Jackson. Certainly, just roughly we spend a significant
    part of our budget on funding State programs, but our internal
    FTE are split between research and development, which is a
    rather large investment. Our enforcement program and our
    regulatory programs are, of course, large as well.
        Mr. Pitts. In case of a hiring freeze or other steps to
    achieve a reduction in force, what percentage of employees
    could be reassigned and meet essential workforce needs?
        Ms. Jackson. I am sorry.
        Mr. Pitts. What percentage of employees could be reassigned
    to meet essential workforce needs?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, you said in case of a reduction in force
    or a shutdown?
        Mr. Pitts. Or a hiring freeze, yes.
        Ms. Jackson. Or in the case of a shutdown? In the case of a
    shutdown, EPA has faced that obviously once before and looked
    to keep a staff that was mainly available to respond to
    emergencies. We have a hazardous waste and chemical emergency
    function, and that probably is the most essential of what we
    do. Then we keep the rest of our staff to try to keep the place
    running in terms of computer systems, that kind of thing.
        Mr. Pitts. A couple of questions on your workload. After
    Congress passed ARRA, grants made with stimulus funds went out
    quickly. The President signed the Recovery Act in February
    2009. By September 30th of 2009, EPA had awarded 6,483,000,000-
    plus in grants, and over 302 million in contracts. How did the
    Agency handle this increased workload?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, we were fortunate under ARRA in that the
    grants went to places where we already had systems set up. So
    for the State Revolving Funds, that money goes out by formula
    to the States. Under the Superfund and Brownfields program, we
    had active contracts already that we could tap to continue or,
    in some cases, start new cleanups. And the diesel emission
    reduction program was a competitive program plus a formula-
    driven program.
        Mr. Pitts. Were temporary contract employees hired to
    manage any of the ARRA fund requests?
        Ms. Jackson. Were temporary workforce hired? Not to my
    knowledge, sir. We will double-check that.
        Mr. Pitts. Did ongoing pre-ARRA contracts suffer?
        Ms. Jackson. I don't know that they would. You mean from a
    management perspective. It certainly took resources to manage
    the new money. But, again, because so much of it went through
    programs we already had, it provided an opportunity to ensure
    efficient use of resources.
        Mr. Pitts. Do you know how many permanent new private
    sector jobs were created?
        Ms. Jackson. We do have those estimates, sir, and we will
    be happy to get them to you.
        Mr. Pitts. Does the EPA analyze the cost and quality of its
    contract services?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, sir. There have been GAO reports,
    inspector general reports, on our largest contracts which are
    under the Superfund Program and EPA. And in this administration
    we have taken yet another look at trying to find ways to
    efficiently use that money. For the rest of our contracts, yes,
    of course, we have to comply with government procurement, which
    requires review of contracts.
        Mr. Pitts. My time has expired. Thank you.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
    recognizes the ranking member, Mr. Rush, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rush. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Administrator, your testimony references the EPA's
    budget request for an additional $6.4 million to conduct pilots
    in disadvantaged communities to evaluate and reduce risks from
    toxic air pollutants. Can you describe how toxic air pollutant
    emissions may disproportionately impact disadvantaged urban
    areas?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, the issue isn't the people; it is the
    sources, sir. What we know, it is a statement of fact, is that
    there are a concentration of sources in areas that tend to be
    poorer. It is always the chicken and egg, which came first. But
    it is just the way it happens.
        What happens over time is that you have large emissions of
    toxics. Mercury is a great example. A significant portion of
    the mercury emitted stays close to where it is emitted. So
    those communities just have a higher burden. They are places
    that in general have higher levels of air pollution.
        Mr. Rush. If the Republican budget cuts are enacted, what
    additional programs would need to be cut? What would be some of
    the consequences on these cuts as it relates to protecting the
    public health?
        Ms. Jackson. We have not done a full analysis of H.R. 1. We
    heard some of the major cuts I happen to know are in the State
    Revolving Fund. So that is less money that goes out to invest
    in water and wastewater facilities. And there is certainly
    still a huge need, as we heard earlier, in many communities
    around the country. There is a cut to the Great Lakes program,
    obviously important to you, being from Illinois; and, I think,
    the Chesapeake Bay program, another national treasure, if you
    will.
        There are cuts to our Office of Research and Development,
    to our science programs--which I think I have committed that
    science should be the backbone of our work at EPA--and other
    cuts which are smaller in various places.
        Mr. Rush. I agree, these are draconian cuts that would
    negatively impact millions of Americans as well, a Nation who
    are in desperate need of your services and your programs.
        What are the numbers in terms--maybe you haven't done a
    study on this, but let me ask the question. Have you all
    studied the impacts of urban youth--how asthma impacts urban
    youth and other illnesses as it relates to toxic emissions?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, we know that air pollution is a
    contributor to asthma attacks. We know that asthma rates have
    gone up, especially in certain populations. The Puerto Rican
    population, asthma rates are very high; higher than the
    national average. The African American population, asthma rates
    are higher than the national average. Of course, one of the
    good-news items is that the ability to treat asthma attacks has
    gotten better, so you can hopefully avoid some hospital visits
    just through treatment. But the prevalence of asthma has
    continued to increase. In some populations, it is staying
    steady.
        Mr. Rush. Continuing in the area of public health, there
    was a recent study by the American Lung Association on public
    health impacts on coal-fired power plant emissions. As you
    know, my State is a coal-producing State. The coal won't go
    away. But we have to figure out a way of using the coal and
    making it less invasive in terms of being a pollutant or making
    a nonpollutant, if possible. Are you aware of this study by the
    American Lung Association and what is your reaction to the
    study?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, sir, I am aware of it.
        Mr. Rush. What is your reaction to the study?
        Ms. Jackson. Not having reviewed it line by line, I can
    simply align myself with the idea that there are toxic
    emissions that come from burning coal. The good news is that
    they can be controlled. We have developed scrubbers in this
    country to deal with acid rain. We have developed SCRs to deal
    with ozone pollution and smog. We have developed opportunities
    to deal with mercuries, cadmium and hydrochloric acid gas. All
    those opportunities are there, but it does require an
    investment in those plants.
        Mr. Rush. Mr. Chairman, I have about 4 seconds. I just
    wanted to use those last seconds to say you have done a fine
    job, Madam Administrator, and I think you should be applauded
    for the work that you are doing.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
        For my colleagues, we are supposed to expect a series of
    votes at 11:20. What I would like to ask, if you all would
    agree upon, I am going to send a member over to the floor, and
    this is for you, Administrator, also, to figure out your time
    schedule. So that it is a 15-minute vote, then there will be a
    motion to recommit, then another 15-minute vote. So I think we
    can keep the hearing going while this process continues. And if
    that is agreeable to both sides, that is what we would like to
    do. We will try to do that then.
        The chair now recognizes the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr.
    Terry, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Terry. Thank you, Administrator Jackson, for being here
    again. The EPA has decided to propose and finalize greenhouse
    gas regulations for power plants and refineries by entering
    into a consent agreement with environmental organizations. And
    I have heard statements from the EPA that they are looking at,
    or you guys are looking at several ``categories'' for new
    source performance standards. So outside of power plants and
    refineries, what specific source categories is EPA reviewing
    for greenhouse gas regulations?
        Ms. Jackson. Those are the two, sir.
        Mr. Terry. That is the only two? The EPA is not looking at
    other sources?
        Ms. Jackson. No, sir. We actually faced lawsuits to
    promulgate four other sectors. I am aware of one for several
    manufacturing sectors. And when you look at greenhouse gas
    emissions, they are largest from power sectors and refineries.
    So rather than start with the small sources----
        Mr. Terry. So it would be accurate to say the EPA is not
    looking at electric arc furnaces as a new source.
        Ms. Jackson. Electric arc furnaces used in manufacturing
    various metals. No. No. I do believe we have lawsuits--I just
    need to be clear--from groups asking us to promulgate those
    requirements. We do have new source----
        Mr. Terry. What is your opinion on the likelihood of the
    success of those lawsuits?
        Ms. Jackson. The likelihood is high----
        Mr. Terry. Successful in that you will have to regulate
    them as a new source?
        Ms. Jackson. We will have to come out with a schedule at
    some point to regulate them. But we believe that we don't need
    to do that in the immediate future.
        Mr. Terry. All right. Is the EPA looking at diesel engines
    as a new source?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, mobile sources are different. We are in
    the process of looking at truck and light-duty vehicle rules.
    So diesel----
        Mr. Terry. Under the President's order on CAFE.
        Ms. Jackson. That is right. And Clean Air Act, yes. Sir?
        Mr. Terry. And large diesel engines.
        Ms. Jackson. Yes, indeed, it does. For trucks.
        Mr. Terry. In previous times you were here, even though I
    represent an urban-suburban area of Nebraska, the rest of the
    State I care about, and we are an ag economy in the State of
    Nebraska. I am concerned about the EPA's figures that 37,000
    farms are above the threshold of a major source. You have
    previously stated that there is no intention by the EPA of
    regulating them for greenhouse gases. Is that still true today?
        Ms. Jackson. That is absolutely true, yes. There is no
    intention.
        Mr. Terry. But, just like in our first discussion on other
    sources, one lawsuit away from regulating them. Is that a fair
    statement?
        Ms. Jackson. As you heard earlier, we face lots of
    lawsuits. It is my job as----
        Mr. Terry. Has there been a lawsuit already filed to force
    you to regulate those 37,000 farms for their carbon emissions?
        Ms. Jackson. Not that I am aware of.
        Mr. Whitfield. Would the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Terry. I will yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
        Mr. Whitfield. My understanding, lawsuits have been filed
    to invalidate the tailoring rule. Is that true or not?
        Ms. Jackson. I believe that is true, sir.
        Mr. Whitfield. Thank you.
        Mr. Terry. The last part is in particulate matters. Is the
    EPA reviewing farm practices regarding particulate matter?
        Ms. Jackson. EPA is required under the Clean Air Act to
    look at particulate matter pollution every 5 years and
    potentially adjust. As you know, the Clean Air Act right now
    regulates particulate matter.
        Mr. Terry. And you understand many of our farmers have to
    plow, and that raises dust.
        Ms. Jackson. I do indeed, sir.
        Mr. Terry. Is there an attempt by the EPA to recognize the
    reality of farming and dust and exempting our farms?
        Ms. Jackson. There is indeed a recognition at EPA that dust
    happens. But----
        Mr. Terry. That would be a good bumper sticker: Dust
    happens.
        Ms. Jackson. That is better than some I have heard. So what
    I would like to say is we have had several listening sessions
    already on particulate matter with stakeholders in rural
    America, in farm country. We have more to do. We do have a
    determination to make about the current standard. But I have
    committed that we are going to listen before we do that.
        Mr. Terry. Listening is good. Exempting them, better.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr.
    Markey, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Administrator, yesterday we held a subcommittee
    markup of the Republican legislation to overturn the scientific
    finding that global warming pollution endangers public health
    and welfare and prevents EPA from setting greenhouse gas
    emission standards.
        Do you agree that this legislation will dramatically
    increase our dependence on foreign oil because it prevents EPA
    from taking actions to reduce oil use from cars, trucks,
    planes, boats, trains, construction equipment, or large
    industrial users of oil?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes.
        Mr. Markey. Yesterday, retired senior military officers
    sent Congress a letter on this legislation. I would like to ask
    unanimous consent to insert a copy of that letter into the
    record.
        Mr. Shimkus. Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information follows:]

        Mr. Markey. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Do you agree that the views of these heroes that the
    legislation undermines EPA's regulatory authority that is
    critical to reducing the clear and present danger to the
    security and welfare of the United States that our oil
    dependence represents?
        Ms. Jackson. I certainly agree with the sentiment, sir.
        Mr. Markey. Last week the New York Times reported that
    radioactive wastewater from hydraulically fractured wells in
    Pennsylvania and West Virginia has been sent to sewerage
    plants, even though the radiation levels could be as high as
    2,000 times the EPA water standards. This radioactive water was
    reported to be dumped into rivers; in some cases, within a mile
    of drinking water intake facilities. I know that you
    immediately went to Pennsylvania to look into the matter. And I
    commend you for your leadership.
        In response to the Times series, on Monday the Pennsylvania
    Department of Environmental Protection released results from
    seven water samples taken downstream fromwastewater treatment
    plants that show radiation was not elevated. Do you think that
    seven water samples are enough to fully understand the impacts
    from hydraulic fracturing in the State of Pennsylvania?
        Ms. Jackson. Sir, our regional scientists responded with a
    letter. No. The short answer is no. I think those are one-time
    samples. And it depends on flow rate and flow rate in the river
    as to whether or not there could still be potential radiation
    entering those wastewater treatment plants.
        Mr. Markey. Do you think that all drinking water systems
    that are located near wastewater treatment facilities that
    accept drilling waste should monitor intake water for
    radioactivity and other potentially hazardous byproducts of
    these activities?
        Ms. Jackson. I think unless there is proven evidence that
    radiation isn't entering into those treatment plants, then that
    is a good, prudent move, to be monitoring more frequently.
        Mr. Markey. So you believe that they should all be
    monitored.
        Ms. Jackson. Certainly, monitored. Again, if no one is
    sending wastewater to the treatment plants, then you could
    stop. But the concern is related to the transport of
    wastewater.
        Mr. Markey. So if they are accepting drilling waste, then
    there should be monitoring. Is that what you are saying?
        Ms. Jackson. Right. If the treatment plants are accepting
    drilling waste and unless you can prove without a shadow of a
    doubt that there is no radiation there, monitoring is our key
    to give the public confidence.
        Mr. Markey. There is no question that families do not want
    polluted water coming into their children's bodies at an early
    age. It can have a dramatic impact upon their development. So I
    agree with you, the water should be monitored.
        Is diluting the drilling waste by disposing of it in rivers
    or streams a permissible way to treat wastewater that contains
    radioactive or other hazardous materials?
        Ms. Jackson. Generally, that is not the way the system
    works. We prefer to see treatment or removal of the pollution
    before it enters the waterway. That is not to say that some
    amounts of radiation in the waterway wouldn't happen naturally
    or even through the treatment process.
        Mr. Markey. Do current EPA regulations allow forwastewater
    treatment facilities to accept wastewater from drilling
    operations if they do not know what materials are in it?
        Ms. Jackson. No. The pretreatment standards under the Clean
    Water Act require that you know what you are accepting and have
    adequate characterization of that.
        Mr. Markey. So if it is illegal, does EPA plan to tell
    States that they should stop allowing this to occur, as it
    seems to have occurred in Pennsylvania?
        Ms. Jackson. I believe that EPA is working right now to
    understand whether this is still going on and to what degree.
    There have been pretreatment standards. I think EPA in its
    letter requested that Pennsylvania basically relook at every
    permit for any facility that may be accepting thatwastewater.
        Mr. Markey. Given the findings in the New York Times, what
    are the plans that the EPA is making, if any, to change the
    processes at the Agency in terms of worker safety, impact on
    children, the pollution, the radioactive chemicals, other
    contaminants in wastewater? Are there any other changes you are
    making?
        Ms. Jackson. I think we can certainly improve. At EPA we
    are proud of our record in having $6 million in this budget to
    look at hydrofracking, but we have also said at the same time
    that if we become aware of public health threats, they need to
    be addressed. So EPA needs to work. The State has a huge role
    to play here in ensuring that their citizens are safe. We would
    like to be in the process of supporting them. But we certainly
    can take actions on our own if we need to.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired. The chair
    recognizes the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Walden. Administrator Jackson, thanks for being here
    again today. We appreciate it. I have got a couple of questions
    I would like to run past you as well. One involves the utility
    MACT that your Agency is working on. I wonder if EPA is going
    to provide any flexibility for coal plants that have agreed to
    State-approved, federally enforceableshutdown dates for their
    operations: To-wit, it is the PGE plant in my district,
    Portland General Electric, that entered into an agreement with
    the State to shut down, and they will install 60 million
    mercury and nitrous oxide scrubbers and all before 2020 when
    they close. Now, that is still 20 years before the life of the
    plant runs out. But the deal they reached was: Close it down.
        They are concerned that your Utility MACT would force an
    additional installation of $510 million worth of equipment
    between now and when they are already set to close it down in
    2020. And so it is obviously an important issue.
        Ms. Jackson. Well, two things. First, the utility air
    toxics rule has not come out. It hasn't been proposed. It is
    due next week. And then it will go through public comment
    before finalization. So I really can't comment on what that
    rule will say or won't say until it is absolutely done. What I
    can also say is I am aware of this matter. It was brought to my
    attention by one of your colleagues. And there is certainly
    potential for discussions about this specific incident that I
    think----
        Mr. Walden. This is a situation they reached an agreement
    with the State, they are complying with the environmental rules
    in existence, they are phasing out their plant 20 years early.
    They are installing $60 million in recovery already, trying to
    look at jobs, economy rates. And if they were to shut it down
    early because of this--earlier than that--then you have got a
    problem on the grid, I think, in terms of replacing that power
    abruptly. So I am glad you are flagging that. If you want to
    make a note, that would be really good.
        And then the other issue involves--and there is been some
    discussion about this--the cement rule. I have a facility,
    imagine that, in my district that has done its best. I think
    they have spent something like $20 million to reduce--to put in
    new scrubbers and all to reduce their emissions. I think they
    are pushing 90 percent reduction today. They have got 116
    employees. Three years before the EPA standards take effect,
    they have reduced their emissions by 90 percent, and before the
    rest of the cement industry has to comply.
        The concern is that the cement rule, that they don't have
    the technology available to them to get much above that 90
    percent. And the way this is playing out, they may end up
    having to close. That is a rural county; got 116 jobs.
        Meanwhile, I know there is a huge, big, new construction
    project at Intel over in Oregon; I am told they are buying
    their cement from China. And I think your own data from EPA's
    road map for mercury in July of 2006 said three-quarters, or 86
    percent, of the mercury deposited in the U.S. originates from
    international sources.
        When I go home and try and explain what is happening from
    back here to those folks who are looking at losing their 116
    jobs, biggest employer in a little county, and they just put
    $20 million in scrubbers, and then they see most of the mercury
    is coming in from overseas anyway, or internationally. We are
    kind of like on the West Coast where tsunamis end and stuff
    comes in the air. I am just wondering if there is any
    flexibility that you might be able to make a note on and help
    us on.
        Ms. Jackson. When the cement toxics rule was promulgated
    there was lots of consideration of sources--individual sources
    that were putting on controls early and doing everything they
    could to bring down their emissions early. I am happy to have
    my air office take a look at this specific source. I really
    don't have the details.
        Mr. Walden. Right. We tried to get a subcategory, which I
    think is allowed under the Clean Air Act. That was rejected.
    But if you could, I would appreciate that.
        Ms. Jackson. I would be happy to.
        Mr. Walden. I want to associate myself with the comments of
    my colleague, Mr. Terry of Nebraska. My district is very rural,
    very dry. We do dryland wheat. We do cattle. My guys, ranchers,
    are very concerned about the particulate dust rule that is
    being considered. Cattle ranchers tell me you couldn't drive
    down an eastern Oregon gravel road and not probably trigger
    enough dust to maybe violate it. And the wheat guys are saying,
    We may have to drag some sort of mister behind our equipment to
    tamp down the dust. If we had that much water in eastern
    Oregon, I guess we wouldn't have dryland wheat. So as you
    listen to these comments I hope you will take that into
    consideration.
        Finally, we have got a chart here that just I think
    reflects the concern that is coming our way in terms of just
    the multitude of regulations that different industries are
    having to deal with all at once or in a fairly short timeline.
    This is potential air regulations affecting the forest products
    industry.
        I am just wondering, do you do a cumulative impact look at
    all these regulations on an industry set and do any kind of
    economic analysis of what that may mean? Because, boy, I am
    hearing it back the other direction right now.
        Ms. Jackson. We are required under the President's
    executive order to look retroactively at our regulations to
    determine whether there are more effective ways to regulate, to
    get the clean air and clean water benefits we all want, and
    also look at costs and impact. We are happy to do that. I have
    seen those charts. Industry produces them. They come out every
    few years. This one is not unique. But if you look at what we
    are required to do under law to update our standards, many of
    those things are not regulations but science and health
    standard.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Mrs.
    Capps, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Capps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
    Administrator Jackson, for being with us and for your
    testimony.
        It is well documented that the Nation's water utilities
    will have to address hundreds of billions of dollars worth of
    infrastructure needs over the next few decades. EPA, for
    example, found in 2007 that drinking water systems alone will
    have to spend $335 billion to maintain and replace their
    infrastructure over the next 20 years. But these estimates do
    not take into account additional costs that water utilities may
    incur as they are forced to react to the impacts of changing
    climate conditions on their communities and their water
    supplies.
        In fact, a 2009 study by the Association of Metropolitan
    Agencies and others estimated that adaptation measures could
    cost America's water systems up to $900 billion through 2050.
        Are there some programs in place--that you are putting into
    place at EPA at helping State and communities adapt their
    operations and infrastructure to changing climate conditions
    over the next several decades?
        Ms. Jackson. EPA has a focus on what is kind of--the buzz
    word is green infrastructure; the idea being that as much as
    possible, you work with nature. You understand that in those
    places where you might have wetlands, or wetlands in the
    future, those provide an opportunity to filter water. I know
    New Orleans has a pretty innovative project that way.
        So we do try to work with systems, but it would be unfair
    for me not to say that that is a significant issue facing water
    and wastewater systems as our climate changes.
        Mrs. Capps. I am just curious. Are you getting into that
    topic as you assess infrastructure needs? Is it compounding the
    way you are making it--more complex as you the way you are
    looking at the future as you think about infrastructure needs
    just based on current situations?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes. Yes.
        Mrs. Capps. So your model is including adapting.
        Ms. Jackson. Well, yes. But our cost estimates, the numbers
    you gave, the $335 billion doesn't really look at adaptation
    costs. But we know that costs are going to increase
    dramatically if you project out 10, 20, or 30 years in terms of
    need.
        Mrs. Capps. Are you trying to put a dollar on that?
        Ms. Jackson. I will check to see what we have.
        Mrs. Capps. I would be interested to know how you are doing
    that.
        Mrs. Capps. Another topic. EPA has a long history of
    providing categorical grants to States and tribes to implement
    environmental laws. These grants are designed to help States
    clean up hazardous waste, enforce drinking water standards, and
    reduce exposure to toxins such as leads and PCBs.
        In these economic times, State budgets are spread way too
    thin and these funds that they may have allocated maybe have
    been squandered for other needs. I know we both agree that
    these are essential grants. The President's 2012 budget
    requests an increase for these grant programs. Would you talk
    about the ways that that might fit into the States' budget
    woes?
        Ms. Jackson. It is a recognition, Congresswoman, that
    States are strapped and that States are the primary deliverers
    of environmental protection. They write the vast majority of
    permits, inspections, and enforcement. Many States implement
    their own hazardous waste cleanup programs, air, water quality;
    tribal assistance also. So we felt that in these tight times it
    was a prudent investment to invest in the States, even though
    we are having to cut back.
        Mrs. Capps. And that leads to a follow-up question, which
    the Republican continuing resolution, H.R. 1, cuts funding for
    these very grants by $60 million from 2010 levels and $220
    million from the Agency's 2011 request. And we are doing this
    believing that doing--the majority thinks they are doing the
    right thing for the Federal Government's response to our
    deficits. But what we are doing to States is leaving them high
    and dry.
        In general, would you specify what the impact of this kind
    of decrease would have on the States' ability to address, for
    example, public health?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, ECOS, the Environmental Council of the
    States, they are very concerned about cuts to State programs.
    As I said, this is the meat and potatoes of environmental
    protection. These are the folks who are on the front line
    having to respond to a plant who wants to expand but needs an
    air permit in order to do it.
        So you will have an impact on public health because you
    will either have unpermitted expansions, which is not good, or
    you will have an impact on economic development because they
    can't get timely action. So we are trying to invest in State-
    level environmental protection.
        Mrs. Capps. OK. I have another question but I will yield
    back in the interest of getting to more people before we vote.
    Thank you very much.
        Mr. Shimkus. The chair thanks our friend from California.
        The chair now recognizes the chairman of the full
    committee, Mr. Upton, for 5 minutes.
        TheChairman. Let me just defer.
        Mr. Shimkus. The chair now recognizes the gentleman from
    Pennsylvania, Mr. Murphy, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Murphy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Madam Administrator, I assume you are committed to good
    scientific knowledge and a commitment to communication with
    States. But let me ask you a couple of things. Have you read
    the whole New York Times series on fracking from Pennsylvania?
        Ms. Jackson. I have, sir.
        Mr. Murphy. Was it fully scientifically accurate?
        Ms. Jackson. No, I think----
        Mr. Murphy. Did you respond in any public way to challenge
    the scientific accuracy of anything in that article?
        Ms. Jackson. Me personally, no. I----
        Mr. Murphy. Were you aware that although the reporter
    extensively quotes former Pennsylvania Secretary John Hanger in
    the article, that he never actually talked to him?
        Ms. Jackson. Yes. I have read Mr. Hanger's blog on this.
        Mr. Murphy. Who is the EPA employee or consultant that
    spoke anonymously with the New York Times for this article, and
    will you give us their name?
        Ms. Jackson. They are anonymous, sir. How would I know?
        Mr. Murphy. Just trying to get scientific data here. Can
    you get us the unpublished EPA report from 2009 that is
    referenced in the article?
        Ms. Jackson. Certainly.
        Mr. Murphy. Continuing on with the scientific accuracy of
    the article, the article says that DEP employees doubled in the
    last 2 years who would look at fracking. Do you have any idea
    how many that was?
        Ms. Jackson. I just spoke to former Governor Rendell, who I
    think said it went from 85 to 200-plus employees.
        Mr. Murphy. It went from 88 to 202. That is not doubling.
    Did you meet or call or otherwise directly communicate with the
    Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
    Protection, Mike Krancer?
        Ms. Jackson. I attempted to, sir, but he didn't----
        Mr. Murphy. Are you aware that your Regional Director
    Garvin has also not spoken to Secretary Krancer until moments
    before the public letter was released?
        Ms. Jackson. That is because Secretary Krancer canceled the
    call that we had set up with him----
        Mr. Murphy. A letter was nonetheless released. Are you
    aware of the content of that letter that says basically that
    EPA is claiming jurisdiction on a number of water issues and
    telling Pennsylvanians what to do about this?
        Ms. Jackson. That is not at all true. I have the letter,
    sir; I am happy to share it.
        Mr. Murphy. I have it, too. What specific actions--are you
    aware of what specific actions DEP----
        Mr. Waxman. Will the gentleman yield?
        Mr. Shimkus. The chairman emeritus will not interject. The
    gentleman from Pennsylvania has the time. The gentleman from
    Pennsylvania will continue.
        Mr. Murphy. Do you have a list of what specific actions DEP
    is doing or not doing which you believe is in violation of
    water standards?
        Ms. Jackson. Sir, we haven't claimed that DEP is in
    violation. If you read the letter, it talks about necessary
    sampling to ensure public health and safety.
        Mr. Murphy. The letter does indeed claim--and I will submit
    it for the record, if that is all right. It says: The EPA will
    take additional steps, directly using our authorities. And it
    goes on to claim those. So it does do that.
        Ms. Jackson. That is out of context, sir. It talks about
    the State. But it assures the State that we will take the steps
    if necessary to----
        Mr. Murphy. But I would still like you to provide this
    committee wit a list of what specific things you are claiming
    the DEP is doing or not doing.
        Now, on the issue of radiation, the New York Times article
    claims it is hundreds or thousands of times the level of
    radiation. Do you have information you can provide this
    committee on naturally occurring background levels of radium
    that occurs when someone drills a water well or when someone
    digs a basement for a house; can you provide that information
    so we can compare it with these claims. Will you do that?
        Ms. Jackson. Certainly. I think it is going to be based on
    DEP sampling, Pennsylvania sampling. Certainly.
        Mr. Murphy. Is the Department of Environmental Protection
    in Pennsylvania tolerating the dumping of untreated water now?
        Ms. Jackson. I don't know that to be the case, sir. I know
    the article alleges that, but I don't know that to be the case.
        Mr. Murphy. Yet the EPA has not made any public statements
    regarding the scientific----
        Ms. Jackson. We are attempting to get data with the State--
    --
        Mr. Murphy. You have sent a letter to Pennsylvania,
    claiming jurisdiction of actions you are going to take.
        Ms. Jackson. No, we have not, sir.
        Mr. Murphy. Prior to your regional director, or you, you
    still have not spoken with our Secretary.
        Ms. Jackson. I reached out to the Governor, who did not
    take my call, and we reached out to the director. We actually
    had a call scheduled.
        Mr. Murphy. I was meeting on Monday with the Secretary of
    DEP who said he would be glad to take your call but you haven't
    called him.
        Ms. Jackson. Well, same. I would be happy to take his if he
    would like to speak to me.
        Mr. Murphy. Given you haven't reviewed the New York Times
    for scientific comment or its accuracies or inaccuracies, you
    have not spoken to the Secretary of DEP, your regional director
    only spoke with them after this letter was publicly released--
    we don't have the scientific data on that--it begs the
    question: Do you believe the Federal and the Environmental
    Protection Agency cares more about Pennsylvania's families than
    Pennsylvanians do?
        Ms. Jackson. No, sir, not necessarily.
        Mr. Murphy. Then I would certainly hope that you would
    start to communicate with Pennsylvanians and our DEP and ask
    them what they are doing and review that before EPA----
        Ms. Jackson. That is precisely what the letter does, sir.
        Mr. Murphy. The EPA claims they are taking action there.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms.
    Matsui, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Matsui. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to
    thank you, Administrator, too, for being here with us today,
    and thank you for your leadership on embracing environmental
    stewardship.
        In my home district of Sacramento we have over 220 clean
    energy companies that are selling and manufacturing advanced
    technologies. I routinely hold clean energy roundtable and
    convening forums with CEOs, utilities, colleges, and local
    business leaders in Sacramento. And they all are eager to see
    national energy standards.
        It is critical that we continue to invest in the future of
    our clean energy economy to create jobs, preserve the
    environment, and to establish energy independence. And I
    believe the EPA's budget does just that.
        More than half of the total renewable energy supply to
    electricity users in Sacramento last year came from biomass
    waste and residues. EPA recently announced it would defer for 3
    years greenhouse gas-permitting requirements for industries
    that use biomass. I understand the Agency intends to use this
    time to further analyze scientific issues associated with
    carbon dioxide emissions from biomass-fired sources. How does
    EPA's budget proposal address the planned study and rulemaking
    associated with biomass?
        Ms. Jackson. The budget proposal envisions using that time
    to do a peer-reviewed study--I believe with the National
    Academy of Sciences, but let me confirm that for you--to look
    at the carbon footprint essentially of various forms of
    biomass.
        Ms. Matsui. So would cuts to EPA's budget affect the
    Agency's timelines to determine rules on biomass?
        Ms. Jackson. I think there are some concerns that,
    depending on the cut and also potential rider language that we
    have seen, that there could be some impacts. But it is not
    intended in the President's budget that there be any impact.
        Ms. Matsui. Certainly. I hope you will be able to provide
    regions like Sacramento regulatory certainty soon on this
    biomass issue as we look to increase our use of renewable
    energy resources.
        In Sacramento, businesses with projects that are potential
    sources of air emissions are currently required to obtain
    permits from our local air district and separately from the
    EPA. I understand the implementation of the State
    Implementation Plan for the Sacramento region would streamline
    the administrative process and help prevent this dual-
    permitting requirement. Does your budget address the timely
    implementation of SIPs? If so, how?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, our budget does include funding for
    States for development of SIPs and for the air programs review
    of SIPs. Although we are trying to do more and more with less
    and less, I believe that the money we have is adequate to fund
    our needs in that manner.
        Ms. Matsui. During the CR debate we saw a number of
    amendments that would block any EPA action on anything to do
    whatsoever with any greenhouse gas. From my understanding of
    the impacts of this provision, this would have serious
    unintended consequences for job creation and public health
    throughout the country. Could you explain how H.R. 1 would have
    affected the greenhouse gas reporting rule?
        Ms. Jackson. Certainly. I believe there is a rider in H.R.
    1 that would have prevented EPA's implementation of the
    reporting rule for all major sources. Actually, for all
    sources. We simply would not have had implementation.
        Ms. Matsui. So what would happen to new projects seeking a
    preconstruction permit in States like Arkansas, California,
    Wyoming, and Oregon, that have Federal implementation plans for
    permitting for greenhouses gases? Would they still be able to
    get a permit if EPA is stopped from taking action; or to the
    Energy Star program, which saved consumers $17 billion in 2009?
        Ms. Jackson. With respect to the Energy Star program, the
    original language in the rider that had to do withgreenhouse
    gases appeared to put in jeopardy implementation of Energy
    Star. I am not sure that new language would do that. Actually,
    excuse me; in the riders, yes, it would put into jeopardy the
    Energy Star program. As far as permitting, yes; major source
    permitting would be in jeopardy, depending on the rider that
    passed.
        Ms. Matsui. I thank you.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentlelady yields back her time. The chair
    now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Burgess, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Burgess. Madam Administrator, I thank you for being
    here. As you recall when you were here before, a month ago, I
    submitted to you a list of six or questions, obviously still
    waiting on the answers of those. I won't revisit them today,
    but just to emphasize that I would like to have answers to
    those questions.
        Let me spend a minute and give you a chance to clarify some
    of your testimony that you gave a response to Ranking Member
    Waxman's questions to you. Perhaps you could define what you
    mean by the ``opposite of true.''
        Ms. Jackson. The opposite of truth is untruth, a lie, not
    accurate, fiddle-faddle.
        Mr. Burgess. Did you mean to imply that the chairman of the
    full committee had lied?
        Ms. Jackson. It is not true to say that greenhouse gas
    regulation of automobiles, which has already been successfully
    accomplished in this country, has had any impact on gas prices.
    And, further, it is just the opposite. It----
        Mr. Burgess. Here is the deal. The bill could not be more
    clear, because it explicitly preserves the Car Rule. There is
    no secret here. There is nothing done to disturb the Car Rule.
    In fact, it is the chairman's stated goal that the rule will be
    protected and proceed. The language contained in his bill was
    carefully drafted and vetted to ensure that the Car Rule
    remains effective.
        I would encourage you to reevaluate your comments in light
    of the fact of what is actually contained within the bill. And
    I will be happy to provide you a copy of the bill if that would
    be helpful to you.
        Let me ask you a question. Perhaps we are going to run out
    of time because of the vote.
        Ms. Jackson. I would like to be able to respond, but I will
    do it on the record.
        Mr. Burgess. I would very much like for you to clarify the
    record because that is important. I don't think you meant to
    say what you said.
        Mr. Burgess. Let me ask you a question about your tenure at
    the EPA. There have been a lot of court cases that you have
    settled with environmental groups where the settlement resulted
    in a new rulemaking. Do you have an idea of how many times that
    has happened?
        Ms. Jackson. I know it happens. It is not unique to my
    tenure at EPA, but it certainly happens quite often we settle
    cases rather than litigate them.
        Mr. Burgess. It would be, I think, instructive for this
    committee to see how the number of cases that you have settled
    in this way compared with predecessors. It seems like we are
    quick to cite judicial reasons for the making of the new rules.
    But how many rules have been promulgated absent a judge's order
    under your tenure? Do we have an idea about that?
        Ms. Jackson. I can certainly get you that. We promulgate
    many minor rules but our major rules are either under court-
    ordered deadline because prior rules were thrown out--those are
    the Clean Air Act rules--or the results of settlements or
    litigation where EPA had a clear duty to propose a rule to
    protect human health, but had not---
        Mr. Burgess. Generally, is it more cost effective to enter
    into an agreement with the parties in a dispute or go to
    judicial action?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, that goes to litigation risk. That is a
    determination made by the Department of Justice and EPA
    together.
        Mr. Burgess. Whether it is fair or not, the implication is
    that your administration tends to go more quickly the
    judicial----
        Ms. Jackson. I don't know that is fair. I think that is not
    a fair conclusion. All administrations of the----
        Mr. Burgess. I would like, I don't know about the rest of
    the committee, but I would like to see the data to be able to
    make that determination.
        Let me ask you a question. Are you familiar with a case
    that has occurred down in Texas, in Parker County, dealing with
    a drilling company known as Range Drilling and the appearance
    of methane gas in some water wells?
        Ms. Jackson. I am generally familiar.
        Mr. Burgess. Are you familiar with the Railroad Commission
    of Texas, that they held a hearing in January and they recently
    published their report from that? Have you a copy of that?
        Ms. Jackson. I don't have a copy but I am generally
    familiar with their findings.
        Mr. Burgess. Can I encourage you to get a copy? Because
    your regional administrator went on television in early
    December with some fairly inflammatory remarks. The result of
    the investigation, in which the EPA did not participate, I
    might add, although it was requested by the State Regulatory
    Agency for the EPA to participate, but the EPA chose not to,
    but the conclusions that were put forward on the television
    remarks were in fact not accurate. The source of the gas
    present in the water wells in question was from an entirely
    different geological strata than the strata that has been used
    for extraction of natural gas with hydrologic fracturing.
        So I think it is so important that the EPA work closely and
    not in an adversarial relationship with the State agency. Texas
    is a big State. You can't possibly be everywhere all the time.
    In my opinion, you should rely on the State agencies to help
    you rather than be always at a 90-degree angle. This activity
    by your Region 6 administrator in December I found to be very
    injurious. And I would like for you to look into that and
    provide us your evaluation of those activities.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Murphy [presiding]. The chair recognizes the gentlelady
    from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin.
        Ms. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your
    testimony, Administrator Jackson.
        EPA's mission, which you know well, is to protect human
    health and the environment, on which we all rely. It is a
    mission that is critically important to children and families
    in communities across America. In my home State of Wisconsin,
    we treasure and cherish our environmental resources. We rely
    heavily on groundwater and fresh water from abundant lakes
    through the State. We believe in protecting our wetlands and
    ensuring our air is clean to breathe.
        The means by which you carry out your mission is by
    enforcement of laws and regulations.
        Briefly, about the budget. At first review, I believe the
    President's budget recognizes the importance of EPA's mission
    while responsibly cutting spending. These cuts have been
    proposed after serious evaluation and careful consideration.
    And they demonstrate an effort to responsibly reduce the
    deficit during these very difficult economic times.
        In sharp contrast, H.R. 1, as passed by the House
    Republicans, would cut EPA's overall budget by 30 percent this
    year. It is the largest cut to any Federal agency. It would
    impose deep cuts to State drinking water and clean water State
    Revolving Funds, programs to clean up brownfields and Superfund
    sites, and efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions and
    other pollutants. In fact, I believe H.R. 1 strips EPA of its
    ability to meet its basic and important mission.
        Now, I am certainly not naive. Times are tough. The economy
    is struggling to recover from a deep recession. And I agree
    with my Republicans colleagues that we must reduce the deficit
    and bring our budget into balance. But we have to be smart
    about it. We have to be smart about it. We can't halt efforts
    to ensure clean air, safe water, and the sustainable
    environment by putting our heads in the sand and blindly
    cutting critical programs. Such action is irresponsible.
        I agree with our President when he said in the State of the
    Union that if we are to win the future, we mustout-educate,
    out-innovate, and out-build the rest of the world. By making
    sound investments in our environmental resources, we are
    creating jobs, growing our economy, and protecting our national
    security.
        These days, it seems that every regulation has folks and
    industry crying wolf about the dire consequences that such
    regulations will have on our economy. For decades now we have
    heard that regulations to address, for example, lead in paint
    or acid rain or CFCs would cause great suffering. And today we
    are often hearing the same story about regulating greenhouse
    gases, air hazards, and toxic chemicals. We hear cries that
    they will force firms out of business, et cetera.
        Administrator Jackson, can you speak to this doomsday
    scenario that we are hearing all around us? Historically
    speaking, when EPA regulations have gone into effect, have the
    economic costs been on a par with the estimates? Just broadly.
        Then I would like to address a couple of specific
    historical regulations.
        Ms. Jackson. Historically, the costs are much, much less
    than industry estimates, and often less than EPA's. The Acid
    Rain Trading Program was 20 times cheaper than what industry
    said it would be. We already know that we hear often times--I
    remember with the stratospheric ozone program that when we
    switched CFCs it would cause a quiet death for the
    refrigeration industry. Nothing of the kind happened. We saw
    the industry thrive.
        So over 40 years of the Clean Air Act, GDP is up 207
    percent and air pollution is down 50-plus percent. I think you
    can have both economic growth and clean air and public health.
        Ms. Baldwin. So when the Energy and Commerce Committee was
    considering the Clean Air Act's Amendments of 1990 and industry
    estimated that the measure would cost between $51 and $91
    billion, was that accurate?
        Ms. Jackson. No. I know that the estimates were much, much
    less than the 1990 industry estimates. It was not accurate at
    all.
        Ms. Baldwin. Utilities estimated that SO2
    allowances would cost $1,000 to $1,500 per ton. Did that end up
    ringing true?
        Ms. Jackson. No, that was not true either.
        Ms. Baldwin. I was going to go on to another question but I
    see I only have 15 seconds left. So I think I will rest there
    and submit that separately in writing. Thank you.
        Mr. Murphy. The chair recognizes Mr. Latta of Ohio.
        Mr. Latta. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And,
    Administrator, thanks for being with us today. Good seeing you
    again. I appreciated our meetings that we have had in the past.
        If I could, I know it has kind of come up already on the
    clean water and drinking water revolving funds, if I can bring
    that up a little bit. On page 2 of your testimony you said
    that: Because of the constrained fiscal environment, the budget
    decreases the State Revolving Fund by nearly $950 million while
    supporting a long-term goal of providing about 5 percent of the
    total water infrastructure spending and spurring more efficient
    systemwide planning.
        But when you are cutting $947 million from these funds and
    you are allocating at the same time about $252 million in
    climate change, and even though we have been talking about that
    $252 million is an increase of $56 million from those that were
    enacted in fiscal year 2010, it is getting to the point, as we
    have talked, that these localities just can't afford this.
        I guess my question is that, as we are increasing funds for
    the climate fund programs that Congress has made clear for
    weeks you don't have the authority to regulate, my question is:
    What are we going to do for these communities out there that
    are really suffering?
        Ms. Jackson. We continue to fund in the President'sproposed
    budget the State Revolving Funds. The goal is to try to get to
    a point--remember, they are revolving. So there are loan
    paybacks that come in that also go into the funds to get to a
    point where we are funding about 5 percent of need on an annual
    basis, not the cumulative need. And there are tough choices, I
    would certainly admit that. But after unprecedented
    expenditures in the Recovery Act, we had $6 billion there, plus
    the President had a huge increase in the SRF in his 2010 budget
    in a tough year. It seemed that we just would not be able to be
    as generous this year.
        Mr. Latta. Also, I know some other members have brought
    this question on the green side. Under your budget proposal for
    the Agency, it mandates that no less than 10 percent of the
    Drinking Water Fund capitalization grant be made available for
    projects that include these green infrastructure water or
    energy-efficient improvements or other environmentally
    innovative projects.
        Again, when the communities back home don't have the
    dollars to comply right now, what do I tell them when they call
    me saying, How are we going to comply with the mandates?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, the State Revolving Funds are meant to
    supplement communities, especially small communities. We work
    very hard with rural communities, the rural associations, as
    well to put money to try to help communities comply. But
    obviously the vast majority of systems are paid for by fees. So
    this money which goes out in low-interest loans for large
    systems can be grant forgiveness. I admit that there is a huge
    need out there. But we can only invest what we can in tight
    budget times.
        Mr. Latta. Could you define for me what are spurring more
    efficient systemwide planning as a goal of providing 5 percent
    of the water infrastructure spending and spurring more
    efficient systemwide planning?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, I think in many cases you have
    opportunities, I just know this from my State experience, to
    look at regional opportunities where you might have a municipal
    system, rural systems nearby that might be able to hook in so
    that you don't have to make the same expenditures. The money is
    intended to try to get communities to look at the most cost-
    effective way to deliver clean water and wastewater services,
    recognizing the Federal Government simply cannot pay the whole
    tab, and not even the majority of it.
        Mr. Latta. The way you described it right there, when I
    think about my area and a lot of the districts out there, we
    have a problem, of course, that we are very, very rural in a
    lot of areas and there is absolutely no way one community can
    say, Well, we are going to work with another community because
    it would be just too expensive to try to get one to have ``a''
    system for that area.
        I guess when you are looking at using 5 percent of those
    dollars for that, wouldn't that be, in some cases, more
    beneficial to be using those dollars to help these communities
    that don't have the money? I had a courthouse conference
    recently in one of my counties. I had the mayor there. I can't
    tell you how many citizens. They are all talking about the same
    thing; they cannot afford this. It is going to drive everybody
    out that can get out, if they can sell their homes now, because
    the cost is going to be so great on the water and the sewer
    site. But I am very, very concerned about these communities not
    being able to meet these goals that the EPA has mandated on
    them.
        Ms. Jackson. Sir, the standards for drinking water are
    Federal standards that are intended to protect health. My
    belief is every community should have clean water. But I also
    recognize that some communities are financially strapped. So it
    is incumbent upon us, not just as EPA but as a government, to
    try to help those communities. But not to say--not tell them
    what the standards are either for drinking water or discharge
    of raw sewage. Those things impact our water quality.
        Mr. Latta. I yield back.
        Mr. Murphy. The gentleman's time has expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr.
    Pallone.
        Mr. Pallone. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is good to see
    Lisa Jackson here this morning. I have known her from her days
    as the Commissioner of the New Jersey DEP, and I am proud to
    have her at the helm of the U.S. EPA.
        I know we are here this morning to discuss the fiscal year
    2012 proposed budget, but I wanted to put the issue in a
    broader context. EPA has a very simple but important mission to
    protect human health and the environment. As Administrator
    Jackson noted in her testimony, without adequate funding EPA
    would be unable to implement or enforce the laws that protect
    America's health.
        When crafting this budget, President Obama had to make
    tough choices. But the proposed EPA budget will provide EPA
    with the funding it needs to meet its core mission. The same
    cannot be said, unfortunately, about the draconian cuts
    included in H.R. 1, the continuing resolution crafted by the
    Republicans. I wish I had time to go through all the misguided
    budget cuts and anti-environmental riders, but I only have 5
    minutes.
        So I wanted to cite two examples. First, with regard to a
    rider on the issue of mountaintop mining, H.R. 1 contains a
    provision that would block EPA's oversight of mountaintop
    removal mining. In January, EPA took the rare action of vetoing
    the Clean Water Act permit application for Spruce Mine number
    one. I sent a letter to the administrator late last year,
    signed by 50 of my colleagues supporting her efforts to curtail
    mountaintop removal mining under the Clean Water Act.
    Mountaintop removal mining is a dangerous practice that is
    harmful to our environment and unsafe for those living in
    nearby communities. And EPA must have the tool to regulate this
    practice. But essentially H.R. 1 would take it away.
        Now, let me talk about brownfields. H.R. 1 also cuts $30
    million from EPA's brownfields program. Over the years, EPA has
    invested approximately $1.5 billion in brownfields site
    assessment and cleanup, leveraging 12.9 billion in cleanup and
    redevelopment dollars, a return on public investment of 8.5 to
    1.
        EPA's brownfields program has resulted in the assessments
    of more than 14,000 properties, helped to create more than
    60,000 new jobs. These numbers only tell part of the story, as
    communities across the country report that brownfields projects
    are often linchpins to spurring larger revitalization efforts,
    increasing local tax revenue, and bringing new vitality to
    struggling neighborhoods and communities.
        My colleagues on this panel know that the brownfields
    program was created with bipartisan legislation, myself and
    Representative Gilmore, signed into law by President George W.
    Bush. So I was rather shocked to see the cuts in this program
    in the continuing resolution. H.R. 1 cuts the budget for EPA's
    brownfields revitalization grant program by $30 million
    relative to the fiscal year 2010 enacted budget, and by 68
    million relative to the President's fiscal year 2011 request.
        I wanted to ask two questions of Ms. Jackson
    aboutbrownfields. First, if you would, what would the cuts in
    the CR mean for cleanup and redevelopment under the brownfields
    program? And then, what would those cuts mean for private
    investment in redeveloping these sites?
        Ms. Jackson. The CR has, I think, a 30 percent cut in the
    brownfields funding for fiscal year 2011. We haven't done an
    impact on sites specifically, but I will simply say that
    studies have shown that up to 20-to-1 is the leverage of
    private money to public money. So for every dollar spent of
    brownfields grant funding, usually by a local community, they
    can leverage that to investments as high as--not always as high
    as 20-to-1, but as high as 20-to-1.
        Mr. Pallone. The thing that bothers me is what we should be
    doing with the Federal dollars is trying to create jobs. I know
    this isn't for you to comment on, but it disturbs me because
    whether I go to the Health Subcommittee or I go to the
    Environment Subcommittee or the Energy Subcommittee, I just
    don't see any effort on the part of the Republicans here or on
    the floor to create jobs. And we have a very good program here
    which really was--I am not going to say it was a Republican
    program, but it was touted by President Bush in the beginning
    of his term. He thought it was a very good environmental
    program because of the fact that it brought money back to
    communities and invested and leveraged the private dollars to
    create jobs, create new businesses. And I just cannot see any
    justification for slashing funding for brownfields and other
    programs that create private sector jobs in this economic
    climate.
        It is cuts like this that lead many economists to say that
    the Republican CR would simply destroy hundreds of thousands of
    jobs. And this is a perfect example of it. I think it is wrong.
    And I think that there are many other situations like this.
    Brownfields is only one example.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Murphy. The gentleman yields back.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from New Hampshire, Mr.
    Bass.
        Mr. Bass. Thank you. I want to thank you, Administrator
    Jackson, for your testimony here this morning.
        As you know--as you may know, I represent the Second
    District of New Hampshire. It is a district in thenortheastern
    State where biomass is a vital part of our clean renewable
    energy strategy, both as a fuel for the generation of
    electricity from biomass as well as an alternative heating
    fuel. We are 86 percent dependent on heating oil in Maine and
    New Hampshire and, I would assume, also Vermont. We use it to
    heat houses, businesses, and so forth.
        I want to express my appreciation for your flexibility in
    delaying the consideration of how biomass CO2
    emissions will be regulated under the Clean Air Act through
    your December announcement regarding the so-called tailoring
    rule.
        Secondly, I also want to express my appreciation in your
    recent release of the boiler MACT rule, which allows for far
    greater flexibility and more realistic and economically
    achievable regulation in meeting emissions targets, especially
    the part that raises the exemption of smaller boilers up to 10
    million--I think it is 10 million BTUs.
        Getting back to the tailoring rule, I believe also in that
    December announcement--yes, the December announcement, you
    discussed that in July, the Agency would be rolling out their
    rules or proposed rules include involving the long--what I
    would consider the long held and internationally recognized
    presumption that biomass is a carbon neutral energy source. And
    I am just wondering if you could share with me any observations
    that you have concerning what that announcement may be and what
    base assumptions the EPA will be making, if any, involving the
    carbon neutrality of biomass.
        Ms. Jackson. Thank you, Mr. Bass.
        Well, we are committed to the 3-year study we believe there
    will be very likely be biomass sources that carbon neutral,
    there may well be some that are carbon positive, if you will.
    They actually are sources that are greenhouse gas positive in,
    terms of the sequestration of carbon and sort of the anyway
    affect that if you just left that biomass there, it would still
    release carbon as it decayed. The July rulemaking we remain
    committed to, it will almost certainly move to ensure that
    biomass sources to not fall subject to greenhouse gas
    regulation while we complete that study.
        Mr. Bass. Biomass resources don't fall, what do you mean by
    that?
        Ms. Jackson. Don't become subject to regulation.
        Mr. Bass. Oh, in other words, what you are saying is the
    assumptions are likely to presume that sustainably harvested
    biomass resources will be likely to be considered biomass
    neutral--I mean, carbon neutral.
        Ms. Jackson. It will defer, for 3 years to allow to us to
    complete the study. But what we wanted to ensure didn't happen
    is that biomass sources not become regulated while we have time
    to get the science to make further determinations. So it is
    intended to be a deferral, so biomass sources will not be
    regulated come July.
        Mr. Bass. But at this time, you are not in a position to
    talk about assumptions brought to that study involving the 3-
    year deferral if you will?
        Ms. Jackson. No, I can say, Mr. Bass, that we would not
    have gone so far as to propose a deferral to invest in the
    study had we not agreed that some sources are most certainly
    going to turn out to be carbon neutral, and that there may be
    some sources that are of concern, but we believe there is a
    good chance that many sources are not at all a concern.
        Mr. Bass. I would appreciate the opportunity to continue to
    communicate with you on this and to assure--my interest is
    obviously to assure in a State where there is no gas, no coal,
    no oil, we have a little sunlight in the summer and quite a lot
    of wind, we need to make sure that in America, our biomass
    resources are, to the extent it is at all possible and
    appropriate, that they are considered carbon neutral and a
    renewable energy resource. And I thank four your attention to
    that. I yield back.
        Mr. Murphy. The gentleman yields back. The chair recognizes
    Mr. Cassidy of Louisiana.
        Mr. Cassidy. Hello fellow Louisianian.
        Ms. Jackson. Hello, Mr. Cassidy.
        Mr. Cassidy. Nice to have you here. And thank you for being
    so patient with us. Because we are both from Louisiana, you
    will be familiar with this,
        Region 6, Chairman Barton brought up in the past.
    Louisiana, Baton Rouge, has been under a nonattainment order
    for maybe 3 to 5 years, even though we achieved attainment 3
    years ago.
        Now, I have here that we have been in the 8-hour ozone
    standard for over 3 years, and this has been communicated to
    region 6, that apparently two of the five criteria to be
    designated attainment area have been fulfilled, but that we
    can't get a decision on the other three.
        Now these were submitted in 5/9/05, 12/20/05 all the way up
    until last year. It apparently is region 6, because I have
    documentation here that the other regions are processing these
    sorts of requests to transition from nonattainment to
    attainment in half the time or less. Most recently, we were
    told that our decision published in the Federal Register on
    February the 25th. And all that was published was that there
    will be another VISSA, public comment period. It is sort of
    like Waiting for Godot, it never happens.
        In the meantime, of course, Mr. Pallone, my colleague, was
    concerned about jobs. We have industry which cannot expand
    because we are nonattainment, that is what I am told. That
    projects that could convert to cheaper feed stock are not
    taking place. Products to produce new grades of products at the
    request of customers on short deadlines are not happening.
    Products to increase production on a unit by small amount with
    minimal process changes are not happening the jobs that are
    going with them.
        Now frankly, when you say that you need more money because
    otherwise there will be a delay on the permit, I have to say
    based on our experience in region 6, it doesn't matter how much
    money you have, clearly error bummed up your funding
    tremendously, because we still are not getting our stuff
    processed and there has been a cost in jobs. Now I guess it is
    a twofold question, what is happening in region 6? Why are we
    always being told, wait a little longer and it never happens?
        And secondly, that is what gives your agency a bad name.
    People do their best to fulfill the regulations and it just
    never happens. So your comments.
        Ms. Jackson. I can't comment specifically on the SIP,
    although I am happy to look into it and make sure our staff
    follow up from my office.
        Mr. Cassidy. If you would, please. We will give you a copy
    of the letter and by unanimous consent, I will submit a copy
    for the record.
        Secondly--oh my gosh, you and I are so concerned about the
    oil spill. When I look through your budget bill, I recall one
    of the issues is that EPA had not allowed there to be a test
    spill in the past, that had done that off the coast of Norway
    taking, I think, 500 barrels down to 500 feet, released it and
    saw what happened. And so when the spill happened in the Gulf
    of Mexico we were ill prepared. And obviously although we had
    approved dispersants, we had no real-time study of the affect
    of such. I don't see in your budget any research as regard that
    now. Is that in there and I just didn't see it?
        Ms. Jackson. I believe we have $2 million for research on
    dispersants that we achieved through another piece of
    legislation, so we don't have--for this year--we are spending
    it this year.
        Mr. Cassidy. Next. The Gulf of Mexico you mentioned that in
    your budget as one of the areas that you have concern, and
    laudably there is increased funding for the Mississippi River
    Basin, but there is like tremendous cuts for the Gulf of
    Mexico. So I see you are on a Presidential Commission to
    address the environmental issues. Lake Ponchartrain is losing
    500 million, Gulf of Mexico is, I think, losing 1.5 billion. If
    you assume people's priorities of where they put their money,
    it doesn't seem like a heck of a lot of priority--do you see
    what I am saying?
        Ms. Jackson. I certainly understand. And having grown up in
    the shadow of Lake Ponchartrain, a beautiful water body made
    incredible progress in cleaning itself up. The Commission and
    the Foundation have done a wonderful job. We certainly continue
    to support them. Our work on the Gulf Coast task force with the
    President, we just had a meeting in New Orleans to talk about
    clean up opportunities.
        Mr. Cassidy. Now with all the money that is obviously in
    the Gulf Coast region from penalties, from Clean Water Act
    penalties, et cetera, would you support channeling, since there
    is a cutback in the Federal support, and since the Gulf of
    Mexico is obviously hit, would you support directing that money
    toward the States most affected by the oil spill?
        Ms. Jackson. The President has said he supports a
    significant amount of the penalties from the BP oil spill being
    returned back to the Gulf Coast region.
        Mr. Cassidy. Thank you, Ms. Administrator. I yield back.
        Mr. Murphy. The chairman now yields back. The chair now
    recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr. Bilbray, for 5
    minutes.
        Mr. Bilbray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me say as
    somebody who married a young lady from New Orleans a block
    uptown from Domilises's.
        Ms. Jackson. Ah, nice.
        Mr. Bilbray. Spent a lot of time over there with the Zephyr
    back when it was still operating. Let me suggest one thing when
    you talk about the issue that one wanted to risk putting oil in
    the environment and thus doing testing on it. The Gulf of
    Guinea has plenty of places that we could test and we talked
    about that before. You had more oil spills happening in one
    area than all the rest of the world combined. And it should be
    a great opportunity for international--and I know in the
    science community, we raise this issue. You don't have to do it
    there, why don't you go over and work with the international
    effort.
        What is the cost for greenhouse gas management, or
    greenhouse gas reduction, in this year's proposed budget?
        Ms. Jackson. The President's proposed budget, I believe,
    has $202 million. I will confirm that amount for climate change
    altogether.
        Mr. Bilbray. Now, are you planning on in the next 10 years
    basically that being a flat level or are you talking about
    increasing?
        Ms. Jackson. We haven't--I don't think the President budget
    speaks to a 10-year forecast for that figure, sir.
        Mr. Bilbray. But you can pretty well predict that at least
    that would be maintained over the next decade?
        Ms. Jackson. No, I can't say that, sir.
        Mr. Bilbray. OK. Then let me ask you this: What is the
    percentage of reduction that you are projecting with this 200
    investment?
        Ms. Jackson. Well, I do believe that we will need to invest
    in greenhouse gas science, research, permitting. Some of that
    money is for States for permitting issues as well.
        Mr. Bilbray. What is your--what I am asking is, if you
    implement this, what is the reduction that you are planning on
    getting within the decade on with the strategies at this cost
    annually?
        Ms. Jackson. I see. In greenhouse gas emissions, you mean?
        Mr. Bilbray. Yes.
        Ms. Jackson. I am sorry, I thought you meant budget. I
    apologize. We estimate that we can make moderate reductions in
    greenhouse gas, but primarily we can't estimate----
        Mr. Bilbray. What moderate--what is your term ``moderate''?
        Ms. Jackson. I can't estimate it, sir, because----
        Mr. Bilbray. 10, 15, a 2?
        Ms. Jackson. The rulemaking has yet to be proposed, sir. It
    is not going to come out until July. The only rulemaking for
    greenhouse----
        Mr. Bilbray. I know when we promulgate a rule, there is a
    target. And the whole rule is designed for hitting certain
    targets. That is one of the great breakthroughs of the Clean
    Air Act is it was outcome-based. Are you saying that we do not
    have a projected reduction within the decade with the plan that
    has been proposed by EPA?
        Ms. Jackson. Only because the rules have yet to be
    proposed. We finalized rules for cars, that is a million tons
    of greenhouse gas pollution----
        Mr. Bilbray. But the low-lying fruit is the stationary
    sources, but you don't have a projection right now? Will it be,
    can you give me any idea at all, 5 percent, 10 percent, 20
    percent?
        Ms. Jackson. We are in the middle of listening sessions
    around the country on the rules that we would propose.
        Mr. Bilbray. Madam Administrator, I really have a problem
    with--you are giving us a price tag, but you are not even
    willing to give us a target of the benefit of the price tag.
        Ms. Jackson. Business would not like me to sit here and
    tell them the outcome of the rule----
        Mr. Bilbray. I am not asking about business. I am asking
    about what we are going to give the American people for what is
    being projected. This is just the government expense. But you
    cannot tell me that what you are proposing to spend, you can't
    tell me even a ballpark figure of what the reductions are going
    to be, where the benefit is. Because let me tell you something,
    when we do ozone reduction, we go after toxic missions, when we
    go after dioxin, we basically project here is the cost, here is
    the benefit--the reduction, and here is the benefit in health.
    You are telling me with this strategy we don't even have a
    ballpark figure?
        Ms. Jackson. No, no, no. I am telling you that as we
    develop the rules, we will be happy to put out what the
    ballpark figures and what the costs are----
        Mr. Bilbray. In other words, give you the money first, and
    then you will tell us what the--pay the price and tell us what
    the product's going to be.
        Ms. Jackson. No, no, no, sir. The money goes among other
    things to helping us develop those rules, to have the listening
    sessions, to be able to make informed rule----
        Mr. Bilbray. I have a real problem with that. Let me just
    tell you something, I don't think that at the ARB, staff would
    ever be given a budget at least if there wasn't a projection of
    the problem, the answer and what the benefit was.
        Let me quickly say one thing. You brought up an issue
    about--do you believe that secondary sewage mandate should be
    universally applied in this country?
        Ms. Jackson. Secondary treatment for----
        Mr. Bilbray. Yes, the activated slugs, secondary mandate
    under the Clean Water Act.
        Ms. Jackson. I believe that we are required under the Clean
    Water Act to do sec----
        Mr. Bilbray. Are you required to mandate it even if science
    tells you otherwise?
        Ms. Jackson. The regulations currently in effect mandate
    it, I suppose if science tells us otherwise----
        Mr. Bilbray. I just want to say I want to put a plug in,
    California has the National Academy of Science and the Scripps
    Institution of Oceanography, that has said not only the
    implementation of the Clean Water Act secondary mandate at the
    San Diego outfall will not only not benefit, will be adversely
    impacted.
        And that finding was so clear that EPA and the County of
    San Diego's Health Department sued EPA--the Sierra Club, and
    the local Health Department sued EPA to stop a mandate that is,
    in theory, good, but the ability--let me just tell you, 20
    years later, we are still going through that. And my question
    is this: If science tells you not to implement a reg, does that
    have the same weight and science telling you you should
    implement a reg.
        Ms. Jackson. Science is science, sir. We should follow
    science. I absolutely agree with that. I do know that there is
    still a problem with the San Diego outfall and water qualities.
        Mr. Bilbray. And what is the problem?
        Ms. Jackson. I do believe that there is still water quality
    concerns.
        Mr. Bilbray. Let me tell you what the water quality
    concerns are, as Mexico is being allowed to dump into our non
    point source, a Federally-owned flight control channel and that
    the major water quality problem in the area, it is a Federal
    responsibility.
        Mr. Shimkus [presiding]. The gentlemen's time expired. The
    chair now recognizes the gentleman from Colorado, Mr. Gardner,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gardner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you,
    Administrator Jackson, for your time today.
        I wanted to follow up on a conversation that is disturbing
    to me because I am troubled by the misrepresentation you have
    made regarding statements made by our chairman and the
    misunderstanding of the legislation that is currently moving
    through this committee. We have argued before and accurately
    that the regulations that the EPA is currently proposing will
    drive gas prices up even further.
        The reports that I have seen on previous carbon
    legislation, carbon greenhouse gas legislation, show that gas
    prices in my district alone will increase by over 60 cents a
    gallon. That is as a result of greenhouse gas legislation. We
    know that your proposals will increase the price of fuel of
    gasoline. We have heard it from the refiners, we have heard it
    time and time again from witnesses in this committee.
        A major reason for this is because your proposed regulation
    will hit those refiners which convert oil to gasoline. If we
    drive up costs for refiners, we drive up costs to consumers. It
    is as simple as that. We can have a debate about whether the
    regulatory threat from your agency has already chilled
    investment, and I think it probably has. But no one can argue
    that impending regulations will not affect those refiners.
        I also would like to point out that your point you are
    comparing mixing apples to oranges in your comments about the
    effect of EPA regulations on those gas prices. The car rule
    that you mentioned for model years 2012 through 2016 has not
    increased gasoline prices. I agree they have not. No one said
    they did. That is why our legislation expressly and clearly
    preserves this rule and makes it the law. Like it or not, this
    rule is in place and we believe it is imperative to maintain
    certainty for auto manufacturers.
        Our legislative experts agree that the car rule is
    preserved in the bill. If you have a different legal opinion we
    can certainly discuss it, but let's not attack the individuals
    or question the integrity of individuals on this committee.
    Thank you.
        Ms. Jackson. Are you going to let me respond, Mr. Gardner?
        Mr. Gardner. I would like to have a couple of questions.
        Ms. Jackson. May I respond? May I respond?
        Mr. Gardner. I think you have made your position clear and
    again----
        Ms. Jackson. May I respond, please?
        Mr. Shimkus. The time is of the gentleman from Colorado, so
    the gentleman my proceed.
        Ms. Jackson. But it deserves----
        Mr. Shimkus. Madam Administrator, Madam Administrator, the
    time is a Member of Congress's, the gentleman from Colorado,
    and he may proceed on his time.
        Mr. Gardner. Thank you. Administrator Jackson, earlier in
    front of this committee, you testified that there are
    tremendous opportunities in rural America for the economy to
    continue to grow as it has thrived over the past several years.
    Further you said that rural America's economy has done fairly
    well as the rest of the country has seen the housing market and
    economy really do poorly.
        Seventeen mostly rural counties in my State of Colorado
    have seen the population decline according to the 2010 Census.
    With population decline comes economic decline, and my question
    is do you believe that rural America is in a position to absorb
    the costs associated with EPA's proposal to regulate greenhouse
    gases?
        Ms. Jackson. Sir, EPA's regulations on greenhouse gases
    have not impacted rural America to date. Any EPA regulations
    that come out will be----
        Mr. Gardner. They won't impact rural Colorado?
        Ms. Jackson. I didn't say there will be no impact, sir.
    There will be a cost analysis that will explain how those
    regulations might impact any American, including rural
    Colorado.
        Mr. Gardner. How much of your budget is currently set
    aside, you have about $219.5 million for climate change. How
    much of that is set aside for economic impact benefit--economic
    cost benefit analysis?
        Ms. Jackson. I am happy to get you details of how the
    budget deals with economic impact.
        Mr. Gardner. Going to the State Revolving Fund for Drinking
    Water a couple of years ago, the funding was tied to certain
    wage requirements that has increased the cost of local water
    projects. I was wondering if you knew whether or not the
    States--what total costs have increased by State water projects
    as a result of the language on wage requirements.
        Ms. Jackson. I don't have any estimate of that, sir.
        Mr. Gardner. Is there any way EPA would provide what it
    costs around the country in terms of increase costs to local
    water projects.
        Ms. Jackson. I don't know if we have it. If we have it, I
    am happy to have the data. But I can't do that study if I don't
    have it.
        Mr. Gardner. Any way you could ask the people who received
    funding through the State revolving fund of what their costs
    have increased as a result of that requirement?
        Ms. Jackson. I don't know if we have the authority to do an
    information request like that, but if we have the data, I am
    happy to get it.
        Mr. Gardner. In Colorado, we saw tremendous cost increases
    as a result of those requirements on the State revolving fund.
    Some increased by as much as 20 to 25 percent. And I would like
    see that information of what it costs around this country. And
    with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.
        Mr. Shimkus. The gentleman yields back his time. Seeing no
    other members the hearing is now adjourned.
        The chair reminds members they have 10 business days to
    submit questions for the record to the chairman. Your
    compliance is appreciated. Thank you, Madam Administrator.
        [Whereupon, at 12:23 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
        [Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:]