U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

72–431 PDF 2012

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 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

Chairman 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Chairman Emeritus 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

LEONARD LANCE, New Jersey 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

BRETT GUTHRIE, Kentucky 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

Ranking Member 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

(II) 

(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

Chairman 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

Vice Chairman 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

DAVID B. MCKINLEY, West Virginia 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

MIKE POMPEO, Kansas 

H. MORGAN GRIFFITH, Virginia 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

Ranking Member 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

Chairman 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

Vice Chairman 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio 

CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS, Washington 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

BILL CASSIDY, Louisiana 

CORY GARDNER, Colorado 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan (ex officio) 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

Ranking Member 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California (ex officio) 

(V) 

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 

(1) 

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 

2 

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:] 

3 

4 

5 

6 

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 

7 

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. 

8 

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. 

9 

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 

10 

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 

11 

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:] 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

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? 

20 

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. 

21 

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 shortsighted 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 interVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:24 Feb 14, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-019 EPA BUDGET-SUBMIT FOR OK 1-25\112-019 EPA BUDGET PDF MADE WAY
22 

ested 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 Emanifest. 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? 

23 

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. 

24 

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 

25 

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. 

26 

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:] 

27 

28 

29 

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 

30 

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? 

31 

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? 

32 

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. 

33 

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, 

34 

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? 

35 

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. 

36 

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:] 

37 

38 

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 radiVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:24 Feb 14, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-019 EPA BUDGET-SUBMIT FOR OK 1-25\112-019 EPA BUDGET PDF MADE WAY
39 

ation 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. 

40 

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. 

41 

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 fuVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:24 Feb 14, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-019 EPA BUDGET-SUBMIT FOR OK 1-25\112-019 EPA BUDGET PDF MADE WAY
42 

ture 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. 

43 

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. 

44 

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 

45 

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 

46 

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 

47 

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? 

48 

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 

49 

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, outinnovate, 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 longterm goal of providing about 5 percent of the total water infrastructure spending and spurring more efficient systemwide planning. 

50 

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 

51 

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 

52 

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. 

53 

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 

54 

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, beVerDate Nov 24 2008 14:24 Feb 14, 2012 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-019 EPA BUDGET-SUBMIT FOR OK 1-25\112-019 EPA BUDGET PDF MADE WAY
55 

cause 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. 

56 

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—— 

57 

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, 

58 

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? 

59 

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 

60 

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:] 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

71 

72 

73 

74 

75 

76 

77 

78 

79 

80 

81 

82 

83 

84 

85 

86 

87 

88 

89 

90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 

104 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

117 

118 

119 

120 

121 

122 

123 

124 

125 

126 

127 

128 

129 

130 

131 

132 

133 

134 

135 

136 

137 

138 

139 

140 

141 

142 

143 

144 

145 

146 

147 

148 

149 

150 

151 

152 

153 

154 

155 

156 

157 

158 

159 

160 

161 

162 

163 

164 

165 

166 

167 

168 

169 

170 

171 

172 

Æ