[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:]