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

79–437 PDF 2013

THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 EPA BUDGET 

JOINT 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 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 28, 2012 

Serial No. 112–119 

( 

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 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

(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 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

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. Ed Whitfield, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Kentucky, opening statement ......................................................................... 2 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 3 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Hon. John Shimkus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 4 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 7 

Hon. Gene Green, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 8 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, opening statement ............................................................................. 9 

Hon. Joe Barton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Texas, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 10 

Hon. John D. Dingell, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, opening statement ....................................................................................... 11 

Hon. Tim Murphy, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 12 

Hon. Brian P. Bilbray, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, opening statement .................................................................................... 13 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 69 

WITNESS

Lisa P. Jackson, Administator, Environmental Protection Agency ..................... 14 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 16 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 70 

(1) 

THE FISCAL YEAR 2013 EPA BUDGET 

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2012 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND POWER, 

JOINT WITH THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND THE ECONOMY, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittees met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in room 

2123 of the Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Ed Whitfield 

(chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Power) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Whitfield, Shimkus, Pitts, 

Walden, Terry, Sullivan, Murphy, Burgess, Bilbray, Bass, Scalise, 

Latta, McMorris Rodgers, Harper, Cassidy, Olson, McKinley, Gardner, Pompeo, Griffith, Barton, Upton (ex officio), Rush, Green, Dingell, Markey, Pallone, Engel, DeGette, Capps, Inslee, Butterfield, 

Barrow, Matsui, Castor, and Waxman (ex officio). 

Staff present: Charlotte Baker, Press Secretary; Caroline Basile, 

Staff Assistant; Ray Baum, Senior Policy Advisor/Director of Coalitions; Anita Bradley, Senior Policy Advisor to Chairman Emeritus; 

Maryam Brown, Chief Counsel, Energy and Power; Allison Busbee, 

Legislative Clerk; Jerry Couri, Senior Environmental Policy Advisor; Andy Duberstein, Deputy Press Secretary; Cory Hicks, Policy 

Coordinator, Energy and Power; Heidi King, Chief Economist; Ben 

Lieberman, Counsel, Energy and Power; Dave McCarthy, Chief 

Counsel, Environment and the Economy; Mary Neumayr, Senior 

Energy Counsel; Andrew Powaleny, Deputy Press Secretary; Tina 

Richards, Counsel, Environment and the Economy; Krista 

Rosenthall, Counsel to Chairman Emeritus; Chris Sarley, Policy 

Coordinator, Environment and the Economy; Peter Spencer, Professional Staff Member, Oversight; Alex Yergin, Legislative Clerk; Alison Cassady, Democratic Senior Professional Staff Member; Jacqueline Cohen, Democratic Counsel; Greg Dotson, Democratic Energy and Environment Staff Director; Caitlin Haberman, Democratic Policy Analyst; and Alexandra Teitz, Democrat Senior Counsel, Energy and Environment. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. I would like to call today’s hearing to order. This 

is going to be a hearing on the fiscal year 2013 budget request for 

EPA. We only have one witness today, and that is the Honorable 

Lisa Jackson, who is Administrator of EPA, and Ms. Bennett is 

there to provide additional information if she needs it, which she 

probably won’t, but we are delighted to have you here as well. I am 

going to recognize myself for 3 minutes for the purpose of making 

an opening statement. 

2 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ED WHITFIELD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY 

This is a joint hearing of the Energy and Power and Environment and the Economy Subcommittees of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and I think it is important that we have this 

hearing because in Washington, it seems like we do become anesthetized to dollar amounts, and when we go home and we attend 

civic clubs and have town hall meetings, people inevitably get upset 

about the many dollars that are being spent in Washington, DC. 

President Obama’s fiscal year 2013 budget request is for $3.7 trillion, and in that there are $350 billion in new program requests 

or new initiatives. 

We are going to be focused only on the budget of EPA and the 

EPA fiscal year 2013 budget request is $8.3 billion, and that is less 

than last year and certain that is moving in the right direction. I 

might add that I think all government agencies at this particular 

time when we have a $16 trillion Federal debt do have to be cognizant and aware of how we are spending these dollars, and as a 

result of that, I might just pat Congress on the back because last 

year, fiscal year 2012, Congress reduced its own budget by 6.4 percent and we anticipate that our budget this year is going to be reduced by an equal amount or very close to it. 

So on that front, I know EPA’s budget request for 2013 is 1.2 

percent less than last year, so I am going to urge them to try to 

be more like Congress on being prudent with these dollars. 

But we look forward to this hearing. It is very important, and we 

look forward to exploring in more detail the five specific goals that 

EPA has set out for fiscal year 2013. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Whitfield follows:] 

3 


79437.001
4 

Mr. WHITFIELD. So with that, I would like to recognize the ranking member of the Energy and Power Subcommittee, Mr. Rush, for 

3 minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOBBY L. RUSH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Madam Administrator, for being here 

today, and I want to thank you for all your hard work, your exceeding dedication on behalf of the American people to protect public 

health. I do not envy your task to try to do your job and try to protect the Nation’s air and water supply when I understand that the 

President’s fiscal year 2013 EPA budget calls for $105 million less 

than the $8.4 billion that Congress appropriated to the agency last 

year. 

And on top of these budgetary constraints, you have to deal with 

the constant partisan demonizing that is going on in this Congress 

about the work that your agency does so valiantly in protecting our 

Nation’s most vulnerable populations. 

Madam Administrator, I want to just commend the EPA on your 

recently issued Mercury and Air Toxic Standards, the first national 

standards to protect American families from power plant emissions 

of mercury and other toxic air pollutants like arsenic and acid gas. 

These rules will protect millions of vulnerable children and millions 

of families from harmful and costly air pollution and provide the 

American people with health benefits that far outweigh the cost of 

compliance. It must be noted that the EPA worked consistently 

with stakeholders including industry and others to minimize costs 

and maximize flexibility before finalizing these standards, and I 

would also note, Madam Administrator, some companies are already scaling back their estimated compliance costs as a result of 

the MACT standards. 

While the MACT rule and other environmental regulations have 

been blamed for potentially causing wide-scale plant retirements, 

upon careful notice, we see the limited facilities that are indeed 

being retired are among the oldest and the dirtiest and the most 

inefficient facilities that are no longer economically feasible in light 

of cheaper and abundant supplies of natural gas and low energy 

demand. 

So Madam Administrator, I strongly support the work you are 

doing. I look forward to your testimony today and I congratulate 

you for being at the helm of one of the better agencies in the government and for the work that your agency does. Thank you. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. You will notice that our clock is not working up 

on the wall, and they are in the process of fixing that, but in the 

meantime, we do have this one that is working, and at this time 

I would recognize the chairman of the Environment and Economy 

Subcommittee, Mr. Shimkus, for 3 minutes for an opening statement. 

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

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just note for 

my colleagues that the green light does go on and the yellow does 

5 

go on when you are getting close to time, so the numbers aren’t, 

but the lights are, working, and I would just like to welcome the 

Administrator, and to my friend, Mr. Rush, good thing we have 

drilling and fracking to recover all that natural gas that is going 

to help us move to a cleaner future. Without that, we couldn’t access these natural gas reserves, and I hope that the Administration 

with its newfound love for natural gas will not inhibit drilling, 

fracking and also regulate the flaring issues to try to stop natural 

gas. 

Your request is for $8.3 billion to fund the EPA in 2013. I have 

been quoted as saying we wanted to go as a committee line by line, 

and unfortunately, the documents that we have been provided so 

far don’t give us a lot of detail about where the money is planned 

to go and how it is to be spent, so hopefully this hearing will help 

us flesh some of that out and hopefully the follow-up documents 

that we request will be provided so we can have an analysis of 

where the money you are requesting is actually designed and destined to go. 

Based upon what I see, only about 1 percent less spending is proposed from last year. With such a minimal decrease from an EPA 

whose funding has skyrocketed under this administration, I am 

concerned we are not committing our maximum effort towards scaling back wasteful spending. Whether it is Clean Air, Drinking 

Water, Solid Waste Disposal Act or Superfund, all these programs 

deserve a complete review, and I hope this Administration is committed to working with us to promote a transparent look into 

where by statute the dollars and cents flow at the EPA. This help 

will go a long way toward assisting our efforts to give confidence 

to the American public that we are protecting human health and 

the environment, trimming unnecessary spending where appropriate, and eliminating duplicative programs. 

Equally as important as the money we are spending is the leftover money we are not spending. In this case, I am referring to billions of dollars EPA has that it will carry over from prior year appropriations, about $3.3 billion, some of it not obligated, and the 

question is, Why can we only find $100 million in savings when we 

have billions of dollars that are not spent in this current year? 

That is not talking about the billions not spent in the obligated 

funds. Rather than sitting on these funds, the EPA should bring 

down spending requests in its budget or work to spend down these 

funds in areas where it makes sense. 

Lastly, activities by this agency, both regulatory and non-regulatory, incur public and private costs. This committee needs to 

know what all EPA activity is costing taxpayers directly from funding we authorize and appropriate in Congress. Even more important, especially during these economic times, is what those actions 

could mean in terms of jobs and the economy. 

Our economy continues to struggle and one of the fastest ways 

for us to get back on course is by providing commonsense regulatory certainty by eliminating unnecessary and burdensome regulations. This will spark American job creators and help develop the 

conditions essential for economic growth and job creation in the 

United States. These companies that want to stay here or come 

6 

back need to be assured that we understand how to balance oversight and public health regulation with innovation and growth. 

Again, I do appreciate Administrator Jackson being here to help 

our understanding as we move forward with this budget. I look forward to having an open dialogue, and we will see how today goes. 

Thank you for coming. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Shimkus follows:] 

7 


79437.002
8 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Green, who is ranking member of the Environment and Economy Subcommittee, for 3 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. GENE GREEN, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. By not having a light, I 

thought maybe we had changed the rules that would allow us to 

go under Senate rules so we could make these hearings last all 

day. I am sure our Administrator would love that. 

I want to thank you for holding this important hearing on the 

EPA’s 2013 budget request. It takes care of our jurisdiction with 

our committee that all of us are concerned about and the oversight 

of EPA. 

This year, the Administration and Congress will once again be 

forced to make some tough choices when it comes to our budget. 

The task of choosing which programs to fund is an unenviable position and I understand it is not an easy task. I reviewed the EPA’s 

request, and I must say, I am extremely concerned and disheartened by the decision to fund many of their programs by drastically 

cutting funding for the Superfund program and the Drinking Water 

State Revolving Fund. 

In our 29th district in Houston, we have two Superfund sites 

that are in close proximity to our district, the San Jacinto Waste 

Pits and U.S. Oil Recovery. San Jacinto Waste Pits was added to 

the National Priorities List in 2008. The EPA has been conducting 

studies and begun the very early stages of cleaning up the site. The 

U.S. Oil Recovery site was listed as a proposed addition to the National Priority List in 2011. From what I witnessed at the San 

Jacinto Waste Pits, I believe the EPA is making great strides in 

the Superfund program, yet at $1.176 billion that Superfund requests for 2013 is the lowest request for the program in the last 

10 years. According to EPA’s Congressional justification, this funding level is so low, it would not allow for any new construction 

projects in fiscal year 2013 and would constrain new construction 

projects in fiscal year 2012. My fear, which I think is very clearly 

shown in the Administration’s budget for the Superfund sites, 

Superfund sites across the country will be abandoned and left to 

contaminate our environment or left for our State agencies to remediate. 

In 2011, only 11 new sites were proposed for inclusion on the National Priorities List but 15 were added and only seven were deleted. These are small numbers, and even if they are an improvement over the past year, the EPA can still do better and should be 

placing a priority on very long-distance Superfund sites that continue to need to be cleaned up even if the EPA does not request 

the funds, and I hope other members with Superfund sites in their 

districts will share my concern with the massive cut in Superfund. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman yields back. Thank you. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, 

for 3 minutes for an opening statement. 

9 

Mr. BARTON. Mr. Chairman, could I defer for a few minutes? I 

want to give it, I just got through with the doctor’s office and I 

want to—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. OK. But you do want to talk? 

Mr. BARTON. I do, but if you could let somebody else go. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Waxman has been very courteous and said 

he is willing to go now, so I would like to recognize Mr. Waxman 

from California for a 3-minute opening statement. 

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

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Jackson, thank you for being here today and 

thank you for your outstanding leadership that you have provided 

to the Environmental Protection Agency. Under your leadership, 

EPA is making our air safer to breathe and our water safer to 

drink. And you are doing so in a way that will strengthen our economy and create jobs. 

Congress should be your partner in these efforts, but since Republicans took control last January, the House of Representatives 

has tried to undermine your efforts every step of the way. 

The EPA budget represents a small portion of the overall Federal 

spending. Under the President’s proposal for fiscal year 2013, EPA 

funding would be less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the Federal 

budget. And EPA would share over 40 percent of these funds with 

the States and tribes to help implement Federal environmental 

laws and achieve national goals. 

But today we will hear that your budget is too big. We will be 

told that we can’t afford investing in clean air and water. These attacks are really part of a broader agenda. 

This has been the most anti-environmental House of Representatives in history. House Republicans have voted over 200 times to 

undermine basic environmental protections that have existed for 

decades. They have voted to block actions to prevent air pollution; 

to strip the EPA of authority to enforce water pollution standards; 

to halt efforts to address climate change. Cutting EPA’s funding is 

just another way to limit the agency’s effectiveness. 

This is an extreme agenda. American families want clean air and 

clean water. They don’t want their health put at risk by exposure 

to toxic chemicals. They understand that stalling action on climate 

change means more intense and frequent heat waves, more 

droughts, more flooding, and more loss of coastline. 

According to the IEA, delaying action until the end of the decade 

will quadruple the costs to the global economy. They understand 

inadequately funding cleanups of Superfund sites will increase 

their complexity and costs. 

One-quarter of 1 percent of our budget is not too much to spend 

on clean air and clean water and a healthy environment. In fact, 

I believe it may not be enough. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

Mr. Barton, are you ready now? 

Mr. BARTON. I am ready. 

10 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 3 

minutes for an opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE BARTON, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you. I want to give the Administrator an A 

for attendance at our hearings. She has always been gracious about 

appearing. I cannot give you an A for your performance because I 

think you have tended to evade some of more direct questions but 

we do appreciate your attitude and willingness to appear before us. 

Today, Chairman Whitfield, Chairman Shimkus and their two 

subcommittees are going to conduct a hearing on the EPA’s 2013 

EPA budget. EPA has over 17,000 employees. They have a budget 

of over $8 billion. You would think that with that much manpower 

and that many dollars, they would be able to answer some of the 

questions that this Congress and this committee and this subcommittee has been asking them for the past year. 

You have to comply with the President’s Executive Order 13563, 

which requires that regulations promote economic growth, innovation, competitiveness and job creation. That order further requires 

Federal agencies to employ the least-burdensome tool for achieving 

regulatory ends, taking into account benefits and costs, both quantitative and qualitative. Repeatedly, the EPA under your direction 

has said that they don’t have to comply with this Executive Order 

or have done so in a most perfunctory way. 

This committee has written letters requesting specific health 

benefits and monetary losses and gains from each and every regulation that you have proposed. To the extent that your agency has 

attempted to answer these letters, they have been evasive and have 

not responded to the specific request. 

In terms of the science and research funding and support activities such as quality assurance supervisory budget and things of 

this sort, your agency has been funding research with grants to 

people who serve on the review committees. Is this a conflict of interest? Almost every single member of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee has been directly or indirectly funded for research. 

This would be similar to myself counting my votes for my reelection. It wouldn’t be a surprise if I won if I am counting the votes. 

Members that serve on these advisory panels are often asked to review other research that they themselves were a party to or were 

on the original research team. Is this the only way or the best way 

to do so-called peer review? 

There is a manual called the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence. This is published by the Federal Judicial Center as a guide 

to research for the reasons to propose new regulations. These 

guidelines are followed by the world’s leading toxicologists and epidemiologists on how to study the health effects for pollution. Your 

agency has refused to follow some of the basic standards in this 

manual. 

For example, it requires that you would justify your studies to 

be unbiased and not include so-called confounding factors. A confounding factor is when another causal factor confuses the relationship between the agent of interest of and the outcome of interest 

such as the utilization of particulate matter PM2.5 instead of merVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:03 Feb 28, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-11~1\112-11~1 WAYNE
11 

cury to justify the Utility Mercury Air Toxic Standard, or MATS 

standard. 

The EPA has not been able to find an ambient air causation for 

toxicity so you use manipulated studies on precautionary principles 

that this Congress and no other Congress has ever agreed to. The 

EPA has taken it upon its own authority to set energy and manufacturing policy by way of manipulated studies, again, overruling 

the Congress. In my opinion, this is unacceptable and should be 

stopped. 

I could go on and on but my time is expired. Suffice it to say that 

you can look forward to an exciting hearing today and a dialog 

when we get to the Q&A period, but thank you for being here. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Dingell, for a 3-minute opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy and 

for recognizing me, and I commend you for holding this hearing. 

First, Administrator Jackson, I want to thank you for visiting the 

North American International Auto Show in Detroit last month 

with me. I hope you enjoyed your tour and the exciting new fuelefficient and advanced-technology vehicles coming from Detroit. I 

think there was a high level of energy at the show, and I thank 

you for taking the time to attend. It was most helpful to our people, 

and I hope the experience was valuable to you and to the EPA in 

understanding all of the problems we in Michigan have. 

The EPA was also kind enough to allow me to testify at a field 

hearing in Detroit regarding the 2017 fuel efficiency standards, 

which I support, for which I commend you. I appreciated the opportunity, and I am encouraged that EPA and NHTSA held these field 

hearings across the country asking for input from the public. Not 

everyone can testify in Washington because the travel costs and 

other difficulties that are imposed on them, and so I believe it is 

important to get feedback from as many Americans as possible on 

issues affecting their day-to-day lives back where they live. 

I hope that my colleagues on this committee will review the 

President’s budget proposal for EPA as a working document that 

includes programs that may need more funding and a few that perhaps could deal with less. Just because members disagree with 

some of the actions taken by the EPA recently doesn’t mean we 

need to defund nor to dismantle EPA. 

As I have said a number of times, the Clean Air Act alone has 

reduced key pollutants by 60 percent since 1970 while at the same 

time we saw the economy grow by over 200 percent. I believe we 

can maintain a healthful environment while creating jobs and 

growing businesses without going back to the days of mercurytainted lakes or smog-filled air. 

I hope that we will have today in this committee a civil discussion where we can find ways to continue growing the economy 

while taking steps to preserve the environment without resorting 

12 

to demagoguery and saber rattling and other similar unfortunate 

behavior. 

I would like you also to know that I do have a few small remaining concerns in that I have requested from EPA and others an explanation of why it is that we have that nice little problem where 

FERC may order people to produce electricity for which EPA will 

then fine them for violating the law. I hope that this is a matter 

that you will give some attention to when you get back down to 

EPA and will look at the questions that I was asking earlier in this 

committee so that you can give us some answers as to why we have 

this curious, unfortunate and I think obviously unfair event going 

forward. 

In any event, I want to tell you how much I appreciated the way 

that you have handled the fuel efficiency standards and the uniform standards for the United States and the agreement that we 

have with California. I believe it has been very helpful to all of us, 

and I thank you for your courtesy in being here this morning. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Dingell. 

Our clock is still not working, but now our red light is working 

also, so we have green light, yellow light and red light, and Mr. 

Upton is not here this morning so I am going to recognize Mr. Murphy of Pennsylvania for a 3-minute opening statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TIM MURPHY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that, and 

welcome here, Administrator Jackson. 

One of the things that I wanted to make a statement had to do 

with how Pennsylvania is doing with natural gas. It is an abundant clean fuel, and we are excited about this opportunity. Of 

course, we want to make sure we do it right, that it is done in a 

way that respects the environment, that it is done in a way that 

makes sure we are protecting the air and the land and the water. 

Along those lines, slightly more than a year ago last March, I 

had asked the EPA if they thought that Pennsylvania laws were 

adequate in their strength and adequately enforced. Maybe things 

slipped by. I still think it is important that the EPA does give information on what the States are doing and to give recommendations. I must admit, I am not one that favors that the EPA tells 

every State what to do, but given that many States are involved 

with this, I think it is valuable that the EPA can play a role in 

reviewing what States are doing with fracking and I know that investigations are taking place but also to make recommendations on 

the laws and the regulations of the various States. 

All of us would like us to have some energy independence and 

certainly have clean air and certainly we recognize that natural gas 

is an abundant, clean fuel resource but we also want to make we 

do it right, and I am still hoping that that is something that can 

come out of the Environmental Protection Agency as you work with 

us. 

One other thing that is worth noting, that many of the farms 

that I have visited in my district over the years, I noticed some 

13 

years ago there were certainly ones that in many cases were rundown, with old barns, old tractors, fence lines that were broken and 

farms that were struggling along. Certainly now that they have 

found natural gas on their property from the Marcellus shale and 

Utica shale, I have noticed consistently that these are farmers who 

have been able to buy new tractors, put a fresh coat of paint on 

their barn, build greenhouses so they can grow plants all year long, 

hydroponics and other modern farming techniques and really work 

up to clean their farms on multiple levels. So it has had a benefit 

for the economy with $2 billion of new investment taking place in 

Pennsylvania. 

But above all, I would like to emphasize again, it is important 

that the States and EPA work in partnership on this, and I am still 

hoping that over time we will be able to hear from the EPA on 

their recommendations of State standards with a very specific review of the laws, the regulations States have on the books and recommendations that are being adequately enforced. 

Mr. MURPHY. With that, I would like to yield the remainder of 

my time to the gentleman from California, Mr. Bilbray. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN P. BILBRAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you very much. 

Administrator, one of the concerns I have had as somebody who 

has been involved in the environmental review and regulatory 

oversight is that too often we take the mentality of a cop of looking 

to give tickets rather than as a fire inspector who helps, works and 

is proactive. I would just like to point out items that really I am 

concerned about is how much the EPA can be proactive working 

with other agencies and actually helping people get to an environmentally better option rather than always saying what they can’t 

do and what they must do rather than creating opportunities. 

A good example I think that when we get down to it is that we 

may be talking about nuclear reactors causing harm to invertebrates and aquatic life, but how often do we talk about asking the 

regulatory agencies to take a look at gas-cooled reactors, which totally eliminate that problem, but we take the attitude, well, that 

is not our department, we are just basically on the other side. 

These kinds of proactive approaches, things like looking at why we 

don’t open up more lands for rare earth extraction is going to be 

important if we are going to talk about clean, efficient electrical energy too. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Bilbray. 

I think that concludes today’s opening statements, so I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purpose of asking questions. I am 

so anxious to ask questions, I guess I should let you testify first, 

Ms. Jackson. So I would like to recognize you for 5 minutes for an 

opening statement. 

14 

STATEMENT OF LISA JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for inviting me to testify on the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget for 

the Environmental Protection Agency. I am joined by the agency’s 

Chief Financial Officer, Barbara Bennett. 

EPA’s budget request of $8.344 billion focuses on fulfilling EPA’s 

core mission of protecting public health and the environment while 

making the sacrifices and tough decisions that Americans across 

the country are making every day. 

EPA’s budget request fully reflects the President’s commitment 

to reducing government spending and finding cost savings in a responsible manner while supporting clean air, clean water and the 

innovative safeguards that are essential to an America that’s built 

to last. In some cases we have had to take a step back from programs. This budget reflects a savings of $50 million through the 

elimination of several EPA programs and activities that have either met their goals, or can be achieved at the State or local level 

or by other Federal agencies. 

Let me spend a moment discussing major elements of EPA’s 

budget request. This request recognizes the importance of our partners at the State, local and tribal level. As you know, they are at 

the front lines of implementing our environmental laws like the 

Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act. In fact, the largest portion—40 percent of EPA’s funding request—is directed to the State 

and Tribal Assistance Grants appropriation to support their efforts. 

Specifically, this budget proposes that $1.2 billion— nearly 15 

percent of EPA’s request—be allocated back to the States and 

tribes through categorical grants. This includes funding for State 

and Local Air Quality Management grants, Pollution Control 

grants and the tribal general assistance program. 

The budget also proposes that a combined $2 billion—another 25 

percent of EPA’s budget request—also goes directly to the States 

for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. 

This funding will help support efficient systemwide investments 

and development of water infrastructure in our communities. We 

are working collaboratively to identify opportunities to fund green 

infrastructure, projects that can reduce pollution efficiently and 

less expensively than traditional grey infrastructure. 

Additionally, EPA’s budget request would fund the protection of 

the Nation’s land and water in local communities. Reflecting the 

President’s commitment to restoring and protecting the Great 

Lakes, this budget requests that Congress maintain the current 

funding level of $300 million for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative. This support will continue to be used for collaborative work 

with partners at the State, local and tribal level, and also with 

nonprofit and municipal groups. The budget also requests support 

for protection of the Chesapeake Bay, and several other treasured 

and economically significant water bodies. 

The budget reflects the importance of cleaning up contaminated 

land in our communities by requesting $755 million for continued 

support of the Superfund cleanup programs and maintains the 

agency’s emergency preparedness and response capabilities. 

15 

EPA’s budget request makes major investments in its science 

and technology account of $807 million, or almost 10 percent of the 

total request. This request includes $576 million for research, including $81 million in research grants and fellowships to scientists 

and universities throughout the country for targeted research as 

part of the Science to Achieve Results, or STAR program, including 

children’s health, endocrine disruption, and air monitoring research. Also, as part of this request, EPA includes funding increases into key areas that include green infrastructure and hydraulic fracturing. 

As I have mentioned before, natural gas is an important resource 

which is abundant in the U.S., but we must make sure that the 

ways we extract it do not risk the safety of public water supplies. 

This budget continues EPA’s ongoing congressionally directed hydraulic fracturing study, which we have taken great steps to ensure is independent, peer-reviewed and based on strong and scientifically defensible data. Building on these ongoing efforts, this 

budget requests $14 million in total to work collaboratively with 

the USGS, the Department of Energy and other partners to assess 

questions regarding hydraulic fracturing. Strong science means 

finding the answers to tough questions, and EPA’s request supports 

that work. 

We are making investments to support standards for clean energy and energy efficiency. Specifically, this budget supports EPA’s 

efforts to introduce cleaner vehicles and fuels to expand the use of 

homegrown biofuels. This includes funding for EPA’s Vehicle and 

Fuel Standards and Certification program to support certification 

and testing for all emissions standards. This also includes implementation of the President’s historic agreement with the auto industry for carbon pollution and fuel economy through 2025 for cars 

and light-duty vehicles, including testing support for NHTSA’s fuel 

economy standards. Taken together, the Administration’s standards for cars and light trucks are projected to result in $1.7 trillion 

of fuel savings, and 12 billion fewer barrels of oil consumed. This 

funding will also help support implementation of the first ever carbon pollution and fuel economy standards for heavy-duty trucks. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to testify today. 

While my testimony reflects only some of the highlights of EPA’s 

budget request, I look forward answering all of your questions. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:] 

16 


79437.003
17 


79437.004
18 


79437.005
19 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you very much, Ms. Jackson, and now at 

this time I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for the purpose of 

asking questions. 

The first thing is really not a question, but on February 23rd, we 

sent a letter to the Honorable Jeffrey Zients, Acting Director of Office of Management and Budget, and when I say ‘‘we,’’ 221 Members of Congress, requesting that EPA stop its greenhouse gas rulemaking. So my question is, have you seen this letter, Ms. Jackson? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And so you will take that into consideration as 

you move forward. Is that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, the letter is not to me but certainly I have 

seen a copy that you sent. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. And you have read it, correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, your number-one goal in the budget—it 

states very clearly that the number-one goal is taking action on climate change and improving air quality, and yet in your opening 

statement you didn’t really mention climate change, and I was just 

curious, why not? 

Ms. JACKSON. I actually did, sir. I mentioned it in relationship 

to the clean car standards, and as I said at the end of the statement, there is much in the budget that I don’t have time to highlight, mindful of the clock. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But that still is the number-one goal for EPA? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, we have actually seven goals, but we have 

five that we outlined and it is listed first, and it is certainly one 

of our top priorities. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Now, I know that transparency is very important for all government agencies and for the benefit of our constituents, and we have actually, my staff and others, spent a lot of time 

just looking at the grants made by EPA, and it is extremely difficult to determine the total amount of grants issued by EPA. My 

question to you this morning would be, do you know the total 

amount of the grants given by EPA to foreign entities, foreign companies, foreign charitable organizations, NGOs? Do you know the 

dollar amount of those grants? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe we have—give me one second, please, Mr. 

Chairman. I know it is less than two-third of 1 percent of our funding for grant making in fiscal year 2011. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. But do you have a dollar amount? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I can give you the amount for foreign activities because very little of what is for foreign activity actually goes 

outside the country. That is $844,985. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Repeat that. Eight hundred and forty-four thousand is what now? 

Ms. JACKSON. For activities that have to do with our international programs, sir. Many include—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. That is OK. The reason I am asking this ques- tion is when we have a $16 trillion Federal debt and most economists believe that it is going to be a serious obstacle for economic 

development in the future, you said that eight hundred and some 

thousand for international, and we have found, for example, that 

EPA gave a $718,000 grant to the China State Environmental ProVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:03 Feb 28, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-11~1\112-11~1 WAYNE
20 

tection Administration to help China comply with some of the 

Stockholm Convention agreements. We found that you gave 

$700,000 to the Ministry of Thailand related to methane gas at 12 

pig farms in Thailand. We found that you gave money to Indonesia 

and so forth. Were you aware of this $718,000 given to the government of China? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I am aware that for many years EPA has 

funded grants that are international or trans-boundary in nature. 

We have an international office. As I mentioned to you, I am not 

sure of the year of the particular grants you are citing but oftentimes the proportion that goes outside to outside entities is very 

small. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. For one, I don’t think it is appropriate at this 

time when we have the debt that we have that we would be giving 

money, for example, to China, of which we owe them more money 

than any other country, and yet we are borrowing money from 

them and then turning around and giving it back to them to help 

them with their environmental issues. So I hope that you would 

look into that and take some consideration about that. 

One other question I want to ask real quickly. I saw your presentation to the UC Berkley Law Institute on environmental issues, 

and in that presentation, you made the comment that this allegation that two hundred and thirty-some thousand additional people 

would have to be hired by EPA to implement its greenhouse gas 

regulations if they are implemented. You said that that was—you 

summarily dismissed that and said that is not going to happen because of your tailoring rule, and as you know, there have been lawsuits filed questioning the validity of the tailoring rule. So if it is 

determined that the tailoring rule is not legal, it is invalid, do you 

have money in this budget to hire those two hundred and thirtysome thousand people that you yourself said you would need to enforce the greenhouse gas regulations? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir, because the number you are referencing 

was put forth in arguments by the government to show why the 

tailoring rule is so necessary, why it would be an unworkable result. That case of course is being argued, I believe, this morning. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Well, it is very clear, the Department of Justice 

submitted this, but anyway, I do think that you can’t just summarily dismiss that you are going to win these lawsuits on the tailoring rule. 

So my time is expired, and Mr. Rush, I recognize you for 5 minutes for the purpose of asking questions. 

Mr. RUSH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Jackson, as I indicated earlier, and you know this, 

I am a big fan of the work that you are doing, and I want to commend for your stick-to-it-iveness in protecting the public health and 

ensuring that all Americans have access to clean air and water, especially in light of the relentless attacks against you and the agency you represent, attacks that I think we just heard a few minutes 

ago. 

One issue that was recently brought to my attention is the 316(b) 

rule that protects against the impingement and the entrainment of 

fish in cooling water intake structures that EPA is in the process 

of finalizing, and I don’t want to get too much in the weeds on this 

21 

but I do want to make sure that the EPA is working with industry 

and listening to their concerns and recommendations before finalizing this rule. As you know, my main priority is protecting the 

public health and welfare, and I want to make sure that the EPA 

gets this right and finalizes a rule that we all can live with. I think 

it is very important that we remain mindful of the cost-benefit 

analysis when issuing a final 316(b) rule to make sure that we are 

not imposing undue costs that will in turn customers by unnecessarily raising energy prices. 

So again, Madam Administrator, I just urge you to work with industry and make sure that in the end your agency finalizes a rule 

that makes sense and is fair to all of the relevant stakeholders, especially the human stakeholders first and foremost. I think you understand what I mean. 

We have been hearing over and over again from my colleagues 

on the other side of the aisle about the undue costs associated with 

MACT rules, and I think that they are beginning to sound like a 

broken record over there. 

Madam Administrator, one increase in this year’s request that I 

would like for you to discuss during the remainder of my time is 

your Community Action for Renewed Environment, the CARE program. This is a very, very important and vital program to allow 

communities living in environmental hotspots to come together to 

work and address the dangers in their neighborhood. It is a small 

program, but it makes a real big difference, a small program that 

carries a big punch. Unfortunately, last year the appropriators 

defunded the program, and I am glad to see that the EPA is working to continue this vital program and is included in this year’s request. Can you explain briefly what the CARE program is, who 

benefits and what will the communities be able to do with the $2.5 

million? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Mr. Rush. The Community Action for 

Renewed Environment grants are small grants. They go to community organizations to assist them in activities such as monitoring, 

community education and awareness, assistance. Much of environmental protection now is individual protection, actions that individuals take to either understand threats to their environment or to 

change their own actions, and so they have gone to a variety of 

groups, but they are pretty small grants and they go to nonprofit 

organizations, community groups around environmental issues. 

Mr. RUSH. These grants to local community-based organizations, 

what has been the history, if you can, of the results of these programs? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. The community groups are extremely fond 

of them. I have been asked several times about why they are being 

zeroed out. As you mentioned, they were zeroed out by the appropriators and so in this cycle, we are attempting to put the money 

back in. We have had several examples of beautification projects 

that people undertake to address local environmental issues. That 

can be things like training people to be aware of litter, which is 

still a persistent problem in many, many communities. It can also 

mean understanding specific local issues, whether it be a small 

business that may need some assistance to understand that is having an impact on the community. We have lots of people who come 

22 

together around watershed issues, beloved watersheds, pharmaceutical collection days or hazardous-waste collection days, and efforts to encourage businesses to separate waste in order to [not 

discernable]. I have one from Marquette, Michigan. It is a 2006 

CARE level grant, Earthkeepers Partnership. It included 140 congregations, 25 regional pharmacies, police departments, the 

Keweenaw Bay Indian community, dental offices and the financial 

community all coming together to protect the environment. 

Mr. RUSH. A great program. Thank you. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS [presiding]. The gentleman’s time has expired. I 

thought you may grab my question when you were talking about 

the cooling tower, Bobby. Too bad it is not in our committee of jurisdiction. Otherwise we could work together on that. 

I would like to recognize myself for 5 minutes for my questions. 

Again, welcome, Administrator Jackson. I have got four that I am 

going to try to rush through. It is very difficult, as you know. Lynn 

Westmoreland, my colleague from Georgia, is in the front row, and 

he and I were actually emailing over the weekend based upon a 

budget submission, so I represent rural America, he represents 

rural America. So in your spending guidance for the $212 million, 

it will distribute $15 million in drinking water tech assistance. Do 

you agree that it does not include the Congressional directive to 

prioritize funding that is most beneficial to small communities? 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t agree, sir, but I would have to—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. It is a small amount. I know it might be difficult, 

so if you would get back to us on that because the Congressional 

intent was to make sure small communities would find the technical assistance most beneficial, and we think that if we—— 

Ms. JACKSON. Actually, I have an answer if you don’t mind my 

correcting myself. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. 

Ms. JACKSON. EPA is not requesting funding in the 2013 budget 

for technical assistance because the agency believes that the States 

are best positioned to develop the technical assistance plans. The 

States are allowed to set aside 2 percent of their Drinking Water 

State Revolving Fund for small systems, and most states are using 

that set-aside. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. OK. Well, we are going to follow up on this legislatively to implement a directive asking you to consider small water 

applicants that demonstrate the level of support of small communities. In small town rural America, they don’t have the ability of 

large municipal systems and money, so if we can work on that, I 

think Mr. Westmoreland would appreciate it. We would like to talk 

to you about that. 

Now I want to go Superfund cleanup speed and funding. 

Sandoval Zinc Company was added to the National Priorities List 

in 2011. It is in my district. I have visited it. There are lengthy 

delays obviously when something gets on the cleanup list. Can you 

tell me what percent of remedial budget you spend on physical 

cleanup versus administrative costs? My point is this—and that is 

something you can get back with me too on. The point is, when we 

talk with the region headquarters, I have been told numerous 

times, we can clean this up rapidly when it is initially identified, 

23 

but if it is delayed, then it gets into the whole system. Then you 

have litigation, and the cost-benefit analysis of moving quicker 

versus later is great. 

Let me move to the definition of solid waste issue. Case law and 

the waste statute is pretty clear. Do you agree that RCRA applies 

to discarded material disposed, abandoned and thrown away? 

Ms. JACKSON. The RCRA statute, yes, the waste disposal, I believe that is part of the definition of waste. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Right. Do you agree that recyclable material is not 

discarded for permanent disposal, it is defined for beneficial re-use? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, although as you know, the definition of recycled material is subject to certain regulatory findings. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Well, that is where we are headed. Since we agree 

case law and statute are clear, what specific authority do you have 

to change the definition of solid waste under RCRA? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, we can’t change any statutory definition. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That is exactly what—that is good. We can follow 

up with that. There is a fear that you are, and it affects the recycling industry, the beneficial-use section. 

I still have a minute and a half left, and I want to get to—RCRA 

2002 subsection B requires you to review all regulations every 3 

years. You are about to be sued by the environmental community 

for failure to comply with this part of the law. Do we really want 

an agency to go down a very costly path reviewing regulations 

based on an arbitrary date that will be impossible to meet? So the 

question is, Is reviewing all regulations every 3 years even feasible? I mean, you have been there. You are going in your fourth 

year. In this, third year, the end of third, now your fourth year, 

have you been able to review all EPA regulations? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think EPA has a statutory obligation which we 

try to meet, but there are plenty of cases where we are not on—— 

Mr. SHIMKUS. It is actually not feasible. 

And then the other issue, as we are trying to analyze all these, 

can you give me a cost projection of what it is just to try to evaluate all these regulations within a 3-year time frame as statute requires? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, it is not without cost and resources. We are 

in the middle of the review that the President ordered to look for 

outdated regulations. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I think that is an important point. So as we 

talk about this, whether you want to work with us or not, I think 

it would be in both of our interests if we can design a system that 

identifies science problems and then reevaluate those rules versus 

just having an arbitrary 3-year review process that we can never 

meet, that throws us in litigation for not meeting, and it would 

help the Administration try to put aside things that we can’t do 

and not try to accomplish all this stuff that we are never going to 

be able to do. 

I appreciate your time, and with that, I yield back the balance 

of my time. The chair now recognizes Mr. Green, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Again, welcome, Madam Administrator. Like all of us, I have a 

lot of questions in the 5 minutes. My first question is, first of all, 

the sale of fraudulent biodiesel credits has emerged as a serious 

24 

issue affecting the motor fuel sector, and these credits originally 

came from a company called Clean Green Fuels that EPA had been 

investigating for well over a year. It turned out the company was 

a sham and could not produce any actual biodiesel but was making 

money selling fake credits. The problem is, Clean Green Fuels was 

an EPA-approved producer and its credits were listed in the agency’s automated transaction system so it looked like they were legitimate. The EPA did not inform any of the potential buyers of the 

investigation while it was underway, but rather than treating the 

refiners who purchased these fraudulent credits as victims, your 

agency decided to go after them with notice of violation in November of 2011. Why did the EPA go after the good-faith purchasers 

of these credits in November of last year? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, Mr. Green, we understand the importance of 

the RIN market. It is a marketplace and it is important to the marketplace that there be valid credits and that those who are buying 

them, as we say in our rules, ensure that they are buying valid 

credits. There is fraud that is potential in the system, and although 

we enforce to look for opportunities to crack down on fraud, part 

of the system in this marketplace also requires that buyers beware 

and that they ensure that what they are buying, that they make 

some effort to ensure that they are not being subject to fraudulent 

credits. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, obviously, I think that the EPA has them listed 

on the automatic transaction system. You know, punishing the 

good-faith purchasers may be a little over the top instead of going 

after them. Could EPA have done a better job of preventing the 

fraud and protecting those companies who were required to buy 

these credits in order to comply with the law? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, you know, I think EPA did its job in responding to a complaint. We went to the so-called producer of this 

biofuel. There was nothing there in one case. There are two cases. 

In one, there was literally nothing there, and the other, they had 

shut down all the equipment and were selling for fuel they weren’t 

making. So EPA did its job. It certainly had notified those who had 

purchased and it made clear—you know, in order for the marketplace to be fair for those who are doing the right thing, there has 

to be a penalty for those who are not doing the right thing, and 

people need to ensure that what they are buying represents more 

than just a piece of paper. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, I agree, we want to do that, but I want to 

make sure that we don’t end up punishing folks who are trying to 

comply with the law based on the EPA system. Is EPA considering 

changes to prevent similar instances of fraud from reoccurring, 

maybe more immediate investigation and more timely notice to the 

purchasers? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, EPA’s limited enforcement resources are 

spread pretty thin. When we found out about the case, we certainly 

went out and enforced against it, but our rules are very clear that 

it requires both parties, the buyer and the seller, to engage in ensuring that what they are doing is actually not fraudulent but real 

production of biofuels. It is important to the small producers and 

the large oil companies who are buying these RINs certainly have 

resources that they could bring to bear as well. 

25 

Mr. GREEN. I know we have some large oil companies and large 

refiners, but again, in some cases they relied on information from 

the EPA. 

My next question is, the President’s budget for fiscal year 2013 

includes an interagency study that the DOE, EPA and the U.S. Geological Survey are partnering on to examine environmental and 

health effects of hydraulic fracking. Can you explain the purpose 

behind the study and how this is any different and what the EPA 

has been currently doing? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly, Mr. Green. The study is an expansion. 

Right now EPA is doing a Congressionally mandated study to look 

at the impact of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water supplies 

that has been publicly scoped and independently reviewed as we 

are beginning it. This is additional money to work with our partner 

agencies, as I said in my opening remarks, to look at air quality, 

water quality and ecosystem impacts, to ask the hard questions to 

ensure that fracking remains safe. 

Mr. GREEN. I understand that independent peer review will be 

incorporated. Will there be stakeholder input to be incorporated? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, we are just beginning to scope that with our 

Federal agencies, and obviously we have to wait for budget approval, but I think we would look to do a transparent and valid 

study and look for public input as well. 

Mr. GREEN. And I know you and I have discussed in the past. 

Would you agree that there is no way we can develop our vast natural gas resources without the use of hydro fracking? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right. The natural gas resources that the 

country has are in shale rock, and fracking is the way to release 

those resources. It needs to be done safely and responsibly but it 

would need to be done. 

Mr. GREEN. And I think we agree responsibly, but we still need 

the natural gas. 

Mr. Chairman, I don’t know how much time I have, but one last 

question. Not everything is cut in the budget, and I said earlier 

this request included some important programs like the Electronic 

Manifest System. The current system of paper manifest is outdated 

and labor-intensive and simply not as safe as it should be. Administrator Jackson, what is the purpose of the Electronic Manifest 

System? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, to move to a paperless system. It is easier 

for record generation, record retrieval, transparency of information. 

It is about $2 million in our budget, and we think that it would 

be a giant step forward and mindful of the times we are in, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. The cost of the system is $2 million, and did you receive that amount? And I know I am out of time. 

Ms. JACKSON. None, sir. In ’12 we did not, and we are requesting 

it in ’13. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I have run out of time, but I know 

Chairman Shimkus and I have talked about some of the things we 

can do with this, and so I look forward to working with you on it. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Barton, for 5 minutes for questions. 

Mr. BARTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

26 

Madam Administrator, back in October, I think October 12th, 

you appeared before a hearing of this committee, and I asked you 

a question about the number of credit cards at the EPA and what 

the limits were and how much money was spent and what is the 

criteria. We put that in a follow-up letter to your Administration 

on November 1st. We have still not gotten an answer. Can you enlighten us on the status of that query and what the response is 

going to be to it? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think you have your EPA women mixed up. I 

think that was Ms. Bennett’s hearing, and we will certainly endeavor to get you an answer as soon as we can. 

Mr. BARTON. Do you know where it is? Do you know anything 

about it other than we haven’t got any response at all? 

Ms. JACKSON. I know we are preparing a response and you will 

be getting a response soon. 

Mr. BARTON. OK. You have been doing quite a bit of travel, 

which is a good thing, I think. I don’t have a problem with Administration officials traveling. But some of the locations seem a little 

bit, I won’t say puzzling but interesting. You were recently down 

in Brazil at a conference on urban sustainability. Can you tell us 

what urban sustainability is? 

Ms. JACKSON. I accompanied the President of the United States 

when he visited Brazil to meet with President Rousseff and there 

the two presidents decided to focus on sustainability issues in advance of Rio+20 conference, which is a U.N. conference to be held 

in Brazil. Urban sustainability is an issue facing Rio de Janeiro as 

they look at the gains that are coming in the next several years 

and as the large influx of people into cities in much of the developing world, they asked us for information on what cities here are 

doing that help them to be green, to help them to save energy, to 

feed their people, to provide energy and water and waste for all 

those people who are moving in. We are working with the city of 

Philadelphia and they are doing some very innovative wastewater 

work. 

Mr. BARTON. Can you tell us what that trip cost? 

Ms. JACKSON. Not off the top of my head, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. Can you tell us what your travel budget is? 

Ms. JACKSON. We can certainly get you the information. 

Mr. BARTON. Can you tell us who sets your travel budget? 

Ms. JACKSON. Our overall travel budget is down and has been decreased every year. I set our agency’s budget by asking our folks 

to as much as possible—— 

Mr. BARTON. Would you say your personal travel budget is several million a year, several hundred thousand a year, tens of thousands? 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t know. We are happy to get you the numbers. 

Mr. BARTON. You don’t have any idea, and you don’t have any 

idea who sets your budget? Is it just up to you? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I am the head of the agency. I take responsibility for the reductions in travel that have happened every year 

that I have been here, yes, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. I want to ask about your nonprofit grants. We went 

to your Web site, and some of them seem to be absolutely total 

27 

sense—the Air and Waste Management Association, the American 

Lung Association—but some of them are a little bit puzzling. You 

have got a thousand friends in Iowa that you gave $30,000 to. You 

are better off in Pennsylvania. You have 10,000 friends that you 

gave $85,000 to. Alabama People against a Littered State got 

$75,000. But then we come to some that I am very confused. The 

Bible Baptist Church got $200,000. Why would EPA give money to 

a Baptist Bible church for $200,000? 

Ms. JACKSON. Why not, sir? 

Mr. BARTON. How about Camp Kumbaya? Your Administration gave $20,280 to Camp Kumbaya. Can you tell me what that is 

about? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am happy to get you information on any of our 

small community grants, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. I mean, what is the environmental core mission of 

Camp Kumbaya? 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t personally know Camp Kumbaya, sir, I 

have never been there, but I am happy to get you information. 

Mr. BARTON. How about Art from Scrap? 

Ms. JACKSON. Art from Scrap? 

Mr. BARTON. Art from Scrap. You gave $18,000 to Art from 

Scrap. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BARTON. Not you personally. Do you know what the nonprofit budget is for the EPA? 

Ms. JACKSON. We give several grant programs. I am guessing, 

but it is simply an uneducated guess, which you are not supposed 

to do in a hearing. Many of these are under the community act—— 

Mr. BARTON. Is it hundreds of millions? Is it tens of millions? 

Ms. JACKSON. It is more than millions. It is probably several million because the CARE grant program in the past has been about 

2 to 2 1/2 million a year. It was zeroed out this year so we are not 

giving those grants and I can tell you that many communities are 

concerned. 

Mr. BARTON. I would be interested in at least in why Camp 

Kumbaya. That just seems to me to be a little bit difficult to justify. 

Anyway, my time is expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. At this time I will recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Dingell, for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you for your courtesy. 

Madam Administrator, yes or no, I see that the President’s fiscal 

year 2013 budget request for CERCLA, or Superfund, is $35 million less than the current fiscal year. Are you comfortable that 

CERCLA can continue to carry out its responsibilities in the current cleanup obligations without slowing down current efforts this 

reduction in spending? Yes or no. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, but we cannot start any new cleanups, sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. So that may very well slow you down, and I am 

referring to cuts here in both Superfund in general and in enforcement. 

Now, next question. I along with two of my colleagues from the 

Great Lakes region will request the Appropriations Committee 

maintain level funding for the Great Lakes Restoration. I know 

28 

that you have been supportive in the past restoration efforts in the 

Great Lakes. Do you believe that level funding will adequately support Great Lakes restoration and invasive species prevention and 

control efforts? Please answer yes or no. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. 

Mr. DINGELL. Madam Administrator, as you are aware, the State 

of California is moving forward with a level III tailpipe emission 

standard for carbon monoxide, NOX and hydrocarbons. What is the 

status regarding equivalent standards? 

Ms. JACKSON. EPA has undertaken a look at reducing the level 

of sulfur. Those are the so-called tier III standards. They are essentially similar to California’s, and that rulemaking continues. We 

are working still in-house on proposals. 

Mr. DINGELL. Thank you. Madam Administrator, what is EPA 

doing to ensure that American manufacturers, more specifically, 

American auto manufacturers, will not have to worry about a 

patchwork of regulations on these requirements. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, the national car standards, clean car standards, which EPA is proud to have partnered with the Department 

of Transportation on, give one national standard for vehicles for 

both fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions from now until 

the year 2025. We have been told over and over again that those 

reasonable commonsense standards give automakers the ability to 

innovate, to move forward with a clear set of standards so that 

they can go about their business and grow manufacturing and we 

hope grow exports of their product. 

Mr. DINGELL. Regarding the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards, 

if utilities need a 1-year extension, they need to request it from 

their local permitting authorities, in my case, the Department of 

Environmental Quality of the State of Michigan. What assurances 

can you provide that EPA will not override the permitting 

authority’s decision to grant that 1-year extension? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, first, I believe very strongly that State permitting agencies, having run a permit agency myself, are the front 

line and know their individual permittees best, but second, the 

President of the United States at the time that we issued those 

standards ordered an Executive Order for EPA to give the additional year to be lenient and to work to ensure that States did it. 

It is still their ultimate authority as to whether or not to give the 

year but EPA is certainly not posed or poised to override the President’s Executive Order. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Madam Administrator, utilities in the State 

of Michigan are concerned that they will first have to be in violation of the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards before requesting a 

second-year waiver to comply with the new standards. Is that the 

case? Yes or no. 

Ms. JACKSON. No, it is not, but it does bear a little explanation, 

sir. 

Mr. DINGELL. Would you give us some more comment on this for 

the purposes of the record, if you please? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. What we have asked utilities to do, and 

which I believe they are doing, is working with their public utility 

commissions and State regulators now to look forward and put 

forth their plans for their fleets on how they are going to comply 

29 

with the standards. If in doing so they identify plans that they believe need to go longer than that fourth year, then—— 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, we have this concern. If not, what do the utilities in Michigan or elsewhere need to do in order to be given that 

second 1-year extension? That is a matter of great concern to our 

people. 

Ms. JACKSON. I think the earlier that they can come forward, sir, 

and let us know that they believe they are going to need that second year, not waiting until the end when they do face noncompliance, they can and we can work with the State to ensure that 

through an agreement they have additional time. They will have to 

show that they need the time and that there is no other power, but 

those are findings they need to make. 

Mr. DINGELL. Now, Madam Administrator, I understand that the 

New Source Performance Standards are currently being reviewed 

by OMB. Can you tell me if the standards will apply to modified 

sources? Yes or no. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, it is not a good idea for me to speculate on 

rules that are still in review. So I would prefer, respectfully, to ask 

that we wait until those rules are out for public comment. They 

will go through a full public comment. But I can tell you that we 

have endeavored to be reasonable and to reflect the fact that technology is limited for existing sources. 

Mr. DINGELL. You can understand that our people have a great 

deal of concern on this matter. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your courtesy. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

At this time I recognized the gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. 

Terry, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. TERRY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Administrator, I am concerned about the efforts being 

undertaken at U.S. EPA to supplant State regulators as the primary regulators on a number of environmental issues, particularly 

in areas where the States have been sole regulators for decades. 

Quite frankly, I am very proud of my folks in Nebraska and think 

they have done a fine job. 

Since this is a budget hearing, it strikes me as if the Federal 

Government were going to push the States aside so it can occupy 

the regulatory field in a way it never has, that you are going to 

need lots of new bodies in your regional offices and D.C. headquarters as well as new budget authority to pay for these people 

and programs. So I would appreciate it if you would please state, 

the first part of the question, the additional budget authority EPA 

needs to increase its in-house expertise and expand its programmatic and enforcement reach to carry out these authorities, 

especially as it relates to permitting, inspections, technical compliance assistance and regulatory enforcement. 

Ms. JACKSON. In fact, Mr. Terry, in general, the budget goes in 

a different direction. I used to run a State program, and I have 

committed that while I am here we are going to increase grants to 

the States and the tribes so that they can do permitting and enforcement. There is a net $113 million increase in what we call the 

State-tribe categorical grants, even in a tough budget year. It is 

one of the few places we are plussing up—air quality, water polluVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:03 Feb 28, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-11~1\112-11~1 WAYNE
30 

tion tribal grants, information management. Those are computers 

and public water supply. There are a few places where we are cutting, for example, beaches, not a huge concern, I know, in your 

State, but certainly I have heard from some of your colleagues. But 

the money is up because we believe that never should the Federal 

Government supplant the States. 

Mr. TERRY. So the budget increases will be grants part, not the 

personnel within the EPA, particularly in Region 7? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well—— 

Mr. TERRY. Is that a yes or no? I only have 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON. We are not looking—we are looking at overall personnel decreases, I believe, sir. 

Mr. TERRY. Well, I think it is an increase of 25. 

Ms. JACKSON. It is an increase of 25 people across our 17,000- 

plus-person agencies, so we are not talking about—— 

Mr. TERRY. Now, what would be the impact to regulatory uncertainty between the States and the EPA and State primary delegations? 

Ms. JACKSON. Could you repeat the question? 

Mr. TERRY. I am going to go on to the next one. I am sorry. 

In fiscal year 2013, are you planning to propose revisions to the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter? If 

so, when? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, probably. They are due by statute. We have 

not announced a date, and that date has not been set. 

Mr. TERRY. Can we be assured that the EPA will not be proposing any change to the current PM10 coarse particulate standards? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, I have so stated, sir. We do not anticipate 

based on the science that we have seen so far that a change will 

be warranted, but again, the proposal—— 

Mr. TERRY. OK. Does the EPA publish in one publicly accessible 

place a list of all the petitions for rulemaking that are submitted 

to the agency? 

Ms. JACKSON. I do not believe so, sir, but we will double-check 

the answer to my question. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. We haven’t found one if there is. So when 

you check and confirm that there is not one place that the public 

or Members of Congress can go to, will you commit to posting that 

information on the EPA’s Web site starting this year? 

Ms. JACKSON. Of petitions, sir? 

Mr. TERRY. Yes. 

Ms. JACKSON. I think that is a fair request I am happy to consider, sir. 

Mr. TERRY. All right. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Terry. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. 

Pallone, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to welcome Lisa Jackson before our committee. I worked 

with her for many years dating back to her time as the commissioner of the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 

Since you have been at the helm of the EPA, I believe our country 

has made great strides in improving air quality, protecting AmerVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:03 Feb 28, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-11~1\112-11~1 WAYNE
31 

ica’s waters and cleaning up our communities, and these accomplishments are crucial to protecting human health and the environment. 

Unfortunately, the Republicans in Congress and on the campaign 

trail in particular are attempting to argue that protecting our environment is somehow hurting our economy. I don’t think that is 

true. I don’t think you need to choose between a strong economy 

and a clean environment. I think they bolster each other, and I 

think oftentimes my colleagues on the other side made broad generalizations without looking at the facts. According to the nonpartisan Economic Policy Institute, EPA’s toxics rule will lead to 

the creation of 84,500 jobs between now and 2015, and I just mention that as one example about safeguarding our environment can 

help bolster the economy. I know in tough economic times, it is difficult, choices have to be made, but I have confidence, Lisa, that 

your agency will continue its success in protecting human health 

and the environment. 

I wanted to ask a couple questions specifically about New Jersey. 

As you know, in the State of New Jersey, we have the most Superfund sites in the Nation. We are the most densely populated State, 

and it is crucial that these sites be cleaned up. The President’s 

budget proposes the lowest level for Superfund cleanup in the last 

10 years, and that is going to make it difficult to expedite cleaning 

up these sites. I think it also states in the budget that there will 

be no new construction protections, and this goes back to the issues 

of jobs again. Cleaning up Superfund sites provides quality jobs in 

local communities. 

Before it expired in 1995, the money to clean up the Superfund 

sites came from taxes on polluters but unfortunately, because Congress has not reauthorized the taxes, the burden of funding cleanup now falls on the shoulders of taxpaying Americans. I have introduced a bill, the Superfund Polluter Pays Act, which would reinstate the taxes on oil and chemical companies, and I just wanted 

to ask you, given the fiscal austerity in our current budget, do you 

agree that reinstating the Superfund taxes would enable EPA to 

clean up these toxic sites faster and create more jobs? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. The Administration has come out in favor 

of reinstatement of that tax. 

Mr. PALLONE. Now, I heard you mention the elimination of the 

BEACH grants in the President’s budget proposal. That program— 

actually I was part of the original authorization of the BEACH 

grants and the reauthorization. It was funded at only $10 million 

last year, but these grants have resulted in a number of monitored 

beaches tripling nationwide since the program started, and States 

utilize these funds to monitor water quality, notify the public when 

the coastal waters are not safe. I am just afraid that without these 

grants, the trend will reverse itself and many states will just 

choose to stop monitoring many of their beaches. So I wanted to 

ask you if you think that EPA’s BEACH grants have been successful over the years in expanding the number of beaches tested and 

keeping swimmers out of contaminated waters. Comment on the 

program, if you would. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. As I said, I knew some of the colleagues 

wouldn’t be happy here. 

32 

Mr. PALLONE. I would have asked it anyway, even if you hadn’t 

brought it up. 

Ms. JACKSON. BEACH grants have been very successful, sir, and 

this is one of the tough choices, but it is mindful of the past success, which is what influences our decision. For most of the history 

and thanks to your leadership, the grants helped establish monitoring programs and systems and teams of people who now do that 

work, and this is simply the Federal Government saying that this 

really is a State or local function. It is best done that way. I certainly know that that is how it is done primarily in New Jersey 

and our time for funding this, the seed funding, is over and it is 

time for those communities to take over. 

Mr. PALLONE. See, the reason I disagree, and I really think it is 

important for us to restore the funds, is because you are right that 

when New Jersey had it on its own and you were the commissioner 

at the time, that we did a lot to fund the program and we did all 

the things that we were supposed to do, but the problem is, other 

States were not doing it, and then it becomes an unfair advantage. 

In other words, you know, we are closing our beaches when they 

should be closed; other States are not because they don’t do the 

testing and the monitoring, and I really think that the program 

right now—we have a reauthorization bill to expand it to a lot 

more things than are actually being done now, tests for different 

chemicals and compounds that aren’t tested for now looking for 

sources of pollution. So my fear is that if we eliminate the Federal 

dollars, a lot of States won’t do it and we won’t really know—the 

whole idea is right to know and we won’t really know which beaches should be open and which are not. In fact, a lot of States don’t 

even want to do it because they don’t even want to admit they have 

dirty beaches. In addition to that, I think that the Federal dollars 

can leverage more State dollars to do more things with the program. So I am going to fight hard to try to get that money reinstated, and I appreciate your acknowledging that it is really money 

well spent. Thank you. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. 

Upton, the chairman of the full committee, for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Administrator Jackson, for being here 

this morning. I do have a couple questions. I apologize for being in 

and out. There are lots of different things going on. 

I appreciated the letter that I think Gina McCarthy sent yesterday to Chairman Whitfield, and in that letter on the first page, you 

write in the last paragraph in that first page, ‘‘That is why EPA 

conducted extensive refinery modeling to understand the cost impacts of a variety of fuel requirements. As a result the only fuel requirement we are considering for tier III is one that would lower 

the amount of sulfur in gasoline.’’ So my question is, does that 

mean that you will not look at the Reid vapor pressure or the octane components of a final rule? Is that what I read between the 

lines? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, I think that is pretty much—yes, sir, I agree 

with that. 

33 

Mr. UPTON. Good. Now, we are all concerned about job losses 

across the country, and I know there was a study that came out 

showed a number of refineries that are closing from California, 

New Mexico, New Jersey, Virginia, Pennsylvania and the Virgin Islands that total 5,500 jobs, and they are closing for a variety of different reasons, and one of the reasons is the regulatory burden that 

many of these have, and I know that with the refineries that are 

closing, particularly in Marcus Hook, Pennsylvania, as well as in 

Philadelphia, the Sunoco refineries there, totaling about 2,000 jobs, 

there is a concern that the fuel for those areas will be coming in 

from overseas and will be refined, losing those jobs. 

The question is, have you taken a look, as we all are concerned 

about the planet, have you taken a look at the regulations that our 

refineries currently have versus what they are in some of the new 

refineries that have been built in the world such as China and in 

the Caribbean? Have you actually looked at the difference in the 

regulations between what we have when we close those refineries, 

what in fact that refined oil will have in terms of the regulations 

impacting them? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, generally, yes, I think the program specialists have an understanding of the differences between our regulations and maybe other countries. Of course, the Virgin Islands we 

regulate and have regulated for years and the Virgin Islands government. 

You know, I have to say that those private sector decisions about 

refineries and their decisions to close, I have not seen any of them 

pointing directly to regulatory burdens in their decision making, 

and I think the Administration is going to look carefully, especially 

at the recent decisions and keep an eye on them and also hope that 

they work with local and regional parties to address any shortages 

that might cause. 

Mr. UPTON. Well, as I understand it, one of the main reasons 

that the refineries are closing in the Philadelphia area is that they 

are now going to refine that in Nigeria rather than in the United 

States, and it was in large part because the cost differential between the two. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, again, it is a private sector decision. I don’t— 

I will not speak for them. I will tell you that my understanding has 

been about supply, but I only know what I read of their decisionmaking process. 

Mr. UPTON. EPA was recently criticized in the magazine The 

Economist for how it measures benefits from the expensive MACT 

rules. I don’t know if you saw the story or not. It was just recently 

here, the February 18th issue. The article explains that when analyzing the costs and benefits of the rules, most of the benefits come 

from co-benefits, and the question that I have, why doesn’t the 

EPA take the time to analyze the public health benefits associated 

with most of the pollutants actually being regulated and wouldn’t 

that much more sense? 

Ms. JACKSON. I personally believe that the co-benefits and the 

economic benefits of those are valid and important, but to answer 

your question more directly, in the case of mercury, for example, 

which is a neurotoxin, the social science of economics simply isn’t 

to the point where EPA can put a number on the value of lost IQ 

34 

points or some of the things we would be asking to try to value. 

We certainly know and have good science and data to do things like 

premature deaths from soot pollution or asthma attacks from 

smog-forming pollutants but mercury is admittedly more difficult 

and so we do the best we can on mercury but we don’t ignore the 

co-benefits as well. 

Mr. UPTON. As you know, we passed legislation in the House to 

try and extend the time for these boiler MACT rules to be put into 

effect to allow you more time. The Federal court made the decision 

that they did in January. Are you still—are you at all interested 

in the House or Senate moving such legislation for a delay to give 

you the time to do these right? 

Ms. JACKSON. We are certainly mindful of the work that has 

been done here, sir, and I do hope that you know that we have 

been working in our reproposed rules. The cost of compliance went 

down by 50 percent, mainly because we are taking into account the 

importance of biomass and acknowledging that that is going to be 

important feedstock. So we are looking at—as you know, right now 

the boiler MACT is set for finalization in late spring of this year. 

Mr. UPTON. I see the red light on. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

At this time I recognize the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. Castor, 

for 5 minutes of questions. 

Ms. CASTOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome, Madam 

Administrator and Ms. Bennett. 

Citizens across America value clean air and clean water, so I 

want to thank you and everyone at EPA for what you are doing to 

protect our air and our water and for your partnership with the 

States and local communities. Now, two of the most important 

partnerships with our local communities involve the State clean 

water and safe drinking water loan programs. These are the vital 

dollars that help with stormwater infrastructure, replacing old 

pipes, wastewater infrastructure. It is not real exciting but they 

are important when it comes to keeping our neighborhoods clean 

and our water bodies clean all across the country. They are also 

important job creators too, and the Recovery Act gave us a nice 

shot in the arm to help create jobs while at the same time leaving 

us with a lasting legacy of important infrastructure improvements. 

The issue is that the needs all across the country outweigh the 

resources. How would you characterize the backlog right now in 

stormwater, wastewater infrastructure? What is the magnitude? 

Ms. JACKSON. Independent estimates have put it at around $300 

billion, I believe. 

Ms. CASTOR. Three hundred billion dollars, and I would guess in 

my home State of Florida, it is well beyond a single billion. It is 

probably much more than that. We have these aging water pipes. 

They need improvements. So I am troubled that the budget request 

actually provides a haircut. How do you explain this? 

Ms. JACKSON. Tough choices, Ms. Castor. You know, we balance 

it by the fact that we have—because as you noted, the Recovery Act 

gave such a shot in the arm to these programs. It has been around 

$18 billion during this administration put into water infrastructure 

programs, and it is another cut, tough, tough choices, but we are 

at the point where we don’t really have many places we can cut exVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:03 Feb 28, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-11~1\112-11~1 WAYNE
35 

cept in these infrastructure investments. We are also mindful that 

we would like to get to a place where these are loan programs for 

the most part, where is a revolving, almost self-sustaining point, 

but we are years away from what. 

Ms. CASTOR. Well, I hope the Congress will respond overall by 

giving a boost to these vital clean water and drinking water initiatives that are important partnerships for our local communities 

and the States and find savings elsewhere in the budget. 

Next I would like to ask you about the good news out of the Administration on more fuel-efficient cars. I think this is great news 

for American families and businesses. It appears that you all are 

building on the success that the Congress in 2007 passed the first 

increase in automobile fuel economy in 32 years. That was since 

1975. We boosted mileage to 35 miles per gallon by 2020, and I 

have to tell you, I have a member of the family who last year 

bought one of these fuel-efficient cars. He is getting 50 miles per 

gallon, and he really enjoys driving past these gas stations no matter what their signs have posted. 

Can you summarize for us what next steps are? What is EPA 

doing to work on even more fuel-efficient vehicles? 

Ms. JACKSON. As you noted, Ms. Castor, and thank you, the final 

rules for 2012 to 2016 light-duty vehicles were finalized in April of 

2010. We have proposed rules for light-duty vehicles—those are 

cars—2017 to 2025. Those were proposed in November. We anticipate finalizing those later this year. We signed and published rules 

for heavy-duty vehicles. Those are large trucks. They were published in the Federal Register in September of 2011. 

Ms. CASTOR. And put it in terms of the average American family 

and business. What does it mean? Cash back in their pocket? 

Ms. JACKSON. Absolutely. This means more money in your pocket 

and less trips to the gas station. It means that $1.7 trillion saved 

over the lifetime of the cars going all the way to 2025. Twelve billion barrels of oil will never have to be imported to this country. 

So for the average car owner, as the cars get more and more efficient, up to $8,000 in fuel savings over the life of the car, more 

than made up for a little additional price up front. So we are very 

proud of it because we feel as though it is part of the President’s 

approach, which is we need to have energy but we also need to conserve the energy we have, and it is positioned our automakers to 

compete with automakers around the world. 

Ms. CASTOR. I think it is making a real difference. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentlelady’s time is expired. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Oregon, Mr. Walden, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WALDEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Jackson, it is good to have you back before the committee. 

I wanted to follow up on something that my colleague from Nebraska, Mr. Terry, had raised regarding putting things on the Web 

site, and it is my understanding that, you know, you are an advocate for transparency in the process as I am, having chaired the 

transition for the Speaker here in the House trying to open up our 

process, make it more transparent to the public because that is 

who we both work for at the end of the day. My understanding is 

that there are situations where groups file suit against your agenVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:03 Feb 28, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-11~1\112-11~1 WAYNE
36 

cy, and literally on the same day they are settlements entered into 

by your agency with those groups, and I guess what we are trying 

to get at here is trying to make sure that the public has an awareness of that sort of litigation and so when it is filed against your 

agency, are you willing to notice that on your Web site in a very 

timely manner? This would be the notice of intent to sue so you get 

a notice of intent to sue. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WALDEN. When you get those, is there a way you could just 

put those up on the Web site so that the American taxpayers would 

know? Would that be a hardship on the agency? 

Ms. JACKSON. It would require some minimal resources. We are 

happy to do it. I am not aware of any settling the same day. Usually when we receive a lawsuit, we are almost always called by the 

press and we simply say that we are reviewing it. 

Mr. WALDEN. But when you get the notice of intent to sue? 

Ms. JACKSON. Right. Those are not actual lawsuits. Those are 60- 

day notices. 

Mr. WALDEN. Right. Can you put those up on your Web site? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think so, absolutely, sir. I will look into the resources that are required to put that up, but it seems like a fair 

request. 

Mr. WALDEN. People are interested in that, obviously. 

Ms. JACKSON. My 16-year-old can probably figure out how to do 

it. 

Mr. WALDEN. There you go, and fix the flashing clock on the— 

well, we don’t even have VCRs anymore, do we? 

So I guess that is the part, and when you are going to enter into 

a settlement, is there any noticing that can be done for the public 

to know about that? Because there is this concern that—and it can 

happen on the right, it can happen on the left if you get a notice, 

you know, some day after you are gone and somebody else is there. 

It doesn’t seem fair that a group can threaten to sue, notice of intent to sue, and the agency can then sit down and make it almost 

a friendly lawsuit and reach a settlement and agreement and the 

public really never sees that in a transparent way. 

Ms. JACKSON. I can assure you, sir, EPA does not enter into 

sweetheart settlements, and so if there is information that we can 

provide—when we enter into consent decrees, of course, those are 

subject to public comment before the consent decree is lodged with 

the court, and if there is an administrative settlement, oftentimes 

those are discussed but not subject to public comment. 

Mr. WALDEN. But they could be made public. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I do not know that, sir, but I do think that 

the agency needs to preserve its right to discuss whether it is industry or an environmental group. We get sued by State and local 

governments as well. We need to preserve our right to enter into 

discussions to try to avoid court costs. 

Mr. WALDEN. No, I don’t think anybody disagrees with that. It 

is just when I think the taxpayers feel they may be shut out of any 

of that, and so you get a notice of intent to sue. They don’t know 

that really happens unless you make it public. 

Ms. JACKSON. Usually the group suing us does. They’re the ones 

that initiate it. 

37 

Mr. WALDEN. Right, but not necessarily everybody else knows. 

That is why this thing with modern technology is putting it on 

the—— 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t see any concerns with putting notices that 

we receive up and I am happy to look into it. 

Mr. WALDEN. I return my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Waxman, for 5 minutes of questioning. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Administrator Jackson, the House Republicans have urged you 

not to issue pending proposed New Source Performance Standards 

under the Clean Air Act to reduce carbon pollution from new power 

plants. They argue that the regulations will hurt the economy and 

are not necessary. I could not disagree more strongly. Climate 

change is the greatest environmental threat we face. Although 

these standards will have a modest impact on the overall problem, 

they are critical as a first step in tackling carbon pollution. They 

will boost the economy by providing certainty to the power sector, 

allowing investment decisions to be made and new generation to be 

built. 

Administrator Jackson, you are an engineer, a practical problem 

solver. Does it make any sense to pretend climate change isn’t happening and hope we can deal with it later? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir, it doesn’t. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Denying the science and the facts is, I think, indefensible and putting off action until later is utterly irresponsible. 

According to the highly regarded International Energy Agency, if 

the world doesn’t change course on climate now, within just 10 

years, we will have built enough high-carbon energy infrastructure 

to lock our planet into an irreversible and devastating amount of 

global warming. 

Administrator Jackson, making smart choices when building new 

infrastructure is precisely what these regulations are all about. 

Isn’t that right? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right, sir, and giving standards so people 

have certainty. That is an important part of the regulatory process. 

Mr. WAXMAN. These New Source Performance Standards would 

set limits for carbon pollution that would apply when we invest billions of dollars in new power plants that would be around for half 

a century or more. That seems to be common sense. The reality is 

that the market is already driving these choices. The development 

of huge low-cost natural gas supplies plus uncertainty about inevitable future carbon control requirements is deterring investments 

in new coal plants without carbon controls, but we are hearing the 

same old claims that EPA’s proposed regulations would drive up 

energy prices and destroy the U.S. economy. That is what Republicans said in 2010 about the requirements for Clean Air Act new 

source review permits for carbon pollution. 

Administrator Jackson, the carbon pollution permitting requirements have been in place for over a year now. Is there any evidence that they are harming the economy? 

38 

Ms. JACKSON. None, sir, not that I am aware of, certainly. I believe people are getting permits and applying for them and moving 

forward. In certain jurisdictions EPA is processing those permits. 

Mr. WAXMAN. In fact, these requirements are encouraging new 

sources to be more energy efficient in a cost-effective manner, and 

I think that is going to be good for the economy overall. 

Every week, we see new published scientific studies finding that 

climate change is already occurring, finding new threats to ecosystems, food supplies and human health from a rapidly warming 

planet. Finding the time to avoid a disastrous degree of warming 

is rapidly running out and yet this Republican Congress does worse 

than fiddling while Rome burns; they are actually trying to stop 

anyone else from fighting the fire, and I want to commend your efforts to fight this fire and I urge you to take the critical steps of 

issuing carbon pollution standards from power plant as soon as 

possible. 

Administrator Jackson, EPA is responsible for protecting our air, 

our water, our land. In the next fiscal year, the Administration is 

proposing to achieve its mission with a meager one-quarter of 1 

percent of the Federal budget. This equals 81 percent of the agency’s fiscal year 2010 budget, 56 percent of the agency’s fiscal year 

2009 budget. Clearly, the President is proposing a funding level 

that the agency has to make difficult choices, cut funding for valuable programs and start funding priority goals. I would like to ask 

you about some of these tough choices. 

In the 2013 budget, we have significant cuts to the drinking 

water program. Just yesterday, the American Water Works Association released a new assessment of the state of drinking water infrastructure in this country, and they said in this report our drinking water infrastructure needs a $1 trillion investment over the 

next 25 years if we are to maintain current levels of water service. 

The AWWA concludes that ‘‘The more we delay, the harder the job 

will be done.’’ 

Administrator Jackson, has the agency determined that funding 

drinking water infrastructure is no longer important? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly not, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Does EPA still believe that State revolving loan 

funds are important tools for delivering safe drinking water and 

protecting public health? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. I have other questions along these lines about 

Superfund and radon programs and others but my time is over. I 

would like to submit these questions to you in writing and get a 

response in writing. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Murphy, for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. MURPHY. Thank you. I appreciate you being here, Administrator Jackson. 

When you were here last year, and I had asked for a list of concerns with Pennsylvania’s oil and gas production. I am disappointed I haven’t heard back and I hope that that is something 

39 

you can still contact people with in your agency to be back in touch 

with us. 

But since this time, Pennsylvania has also made some changes 

to regulations. I am not sure if you read Pennsylvania’s Act 13, 

which just passed into law, so you may not have, but it contains 

a number of provisions in there including ways to handle violations. It has a requirement that unconventional well operations 

must have DEP-approved water management plans for water withdrawals and a whole host of other regulation changes that Governor Corbett signed into law. Now, I would ask, as I don’t know 

if you actually had a chance to read that, I hope so, but what concerns me is I still would like to hear from you with regard to if 

anything remains for Pennsylvania. I won’t put you on the spot 

right now, but if you could get back to me. Would you be able to 

do that? 

Ms. JACKSON. We are happy to. Just keep in mind, sir, we are 

in the middle of a 2-year study that is specifically to look at the 

impact of fracking on drinking water, and so what I have said is 

anything we learn from that study, the first audience will be the 

States because they are really on the front lines of trying to protect 

their people and regulate these industries to keep them safe and 

responsible. 

Mr. MURPHY. I appreciate that. Well, given that you are still in 

the middle of a study, a February article in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, your agency said you began a multimedia investigation of air 

and water hazards, material impacts which you had not previously 

acknowledged. In late September when onsite testing was done, 

and according to the paper it said you were in the ‘‘initial stage of 

possible enforcement actions,’’ so I am concerned about a couple of 

things. So you are in the middle of enforcement actions but you 

have not yet completed a study, and I also question, is there a statute that gives the EPA authority to regulate oil and gas production 

or is it water and air? I am confused here. 

Ms. JACKSON. Certain aspects of production are regulated under 

a number of statutes, whether it is the Clean Air Act, the Clean 

Water Act, general duty clause under the Clean Air Act. There is 

spill prevention and containment regulations that are separate, so 

there a number of statutes. I cannot comment on the validity 

of—— 

Mr. MURPHY. But not specifically to gas production? You are saying it has to do with the water on site or the air on site? 

Ms. JACKSON. It has to do with the environmental impacts of certain operations that might be associated with the drilling, but the 

actual drilling and, as you know, the actual injection of fracking 

fluid are not—are generally exempt from many of the major—— 

Mr. MURPHY. As you go through this, do you have petroleum engineers working on this study for you and reviewing these things 

in Pennsylvania? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. The study and its scope was peer-reviewed. We put together panels. We had public meetings. 

Mr. MURPHY. I am aware of that. I am just wondering if you 

have on your own employed petroleum engineers who have some 

expertise in this area. 

40 

Ms. JACKSON. We can certainly get you the list of folks, but the 

study is being done by our Office of Research and Development, so 

I believe there are engineers of all types involved in the study. 

Mr. MURPHY. I would appreciate knowing that. 

As you know, in fiscal year 2010, Congress directed the EPA to 

carry out a study on the relationship between hydraulic fracking 

and drinking water using a credible approach that relies on the 

best available science with independent sources. Now, I have been 

looking at your fiscal year 2013 budget, and you want an additional 

$14 million to expand the scope of your study to cover potential 

ecosystem issues. Now, on this study you spent $1.9 million in fiscal year 2010, $2.5 million in fiscal year 2011, $9.7 million in 2012. 

In 2013, you want to spend another $14 million. It puts the cost 

of this whole study at $28.1 million and expand it beyond the original scope. 

I want to comment here. A recent study in Pavilion, Wyoming, 

linked groundwater contamination to a well site that used hydraulic fracturing but there has been a number of scientific concerns 

among them on that. Among them have to do with the pH level of 

the water involved there. Are you familiar with that question about 

the pH values in that study? 

Ms. JACKSON. Generally. 

Mr. MURPHY. There wasn’t going to be math today, so don’t 

worry. 

Ms. JACKSON. W? 

Mr. MURPHY. I said there are no math questions involved. But 

one of the issues here has to do—and I would appreciate you getting back to me on this. But I understand in the case of drilling, 

there were some test wells drilled. This was not the actual water 

wells but they were test wells drilled by EPA and so it wasn’t actually testing the water there but there was concern about a high recorded pH level of 11.5 in these monitoring wells. But the soda ash 

that is used in the drilling has a very high pH level of 11.5, and 

I wonder also if you can get back to us if you are not aware today 

if even the process of drilling your monitoring wells, if chemicals 

were added in that process which may have influenced that. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir, I am happy to. Two things. As far as the 

study, it really is an expansion of the Congressionally mandated 

study. We are going to include additional scientific questions, working with USGS, with the Department of Energy. That is our response to the President’s call that we not shy away from investing 

in good science. We believe that will make the natural gas industry 

more robust if we look to answer these questions. 

As far as Pavilion, I have spoken to the Governor several times. 

We have agreed to review and move forward together on additional 

investigation. Certainly, the use of some caustics like soda ash 

could raise pH but we believe that when you look at the blanks and 

duplicate samples that our work is valid, but we are also agreeing 

to move forward collaborative to take additional samples. 

Mr. MURPHY. I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

At this time I recognize the gentlelady from California, Ms. 

Capps, for 5 minutes. 

41 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your 

testimony, Administrator Jackson. 

I want to begin with a brief comment. I was disappointed with 

the decision to eliminate BEACH Act grants, and I find EPA’s justification absurd. Without funding, county environmental health officials will have to drop testing. In San Luis Obispo County, we 

have seen 11 occasions when conditions were so bad that officials 

closed a stretch of shoreline to all contact. The possibility of cutbacks is not good news. We can’t assume local jurisdictions will be 

able to replace lost grant funding. EPA needs to partner with our 

local communities, not leave them out to dry. 

Now onto questions. Last year when you appeared before us to 

discuss the Administration’s 2012 budget request, you noted that 

adaptation to changing hydrological conditions is, and I quote, ‘‘a 

significant issue faced by the Nation’s drinking water and wastewater utilities.’’ Unfortunately, the cost of these adaptation needs 

is not currently included in EPA’s infrastructure replacement cost 

estimates for water and wastewater systems, and since that time, 

EPA’s budget has further experienced cuts but data continues to 

accumulate demonstrating the scope of adaptation challenges faced 

by water systems. For example, a report recently released by the 

Johnson Foundation at Wingspread, American Rivers and Ceres 

concluded that our Nation’s drinking and wastewater infrastructure is not prepared to deal with extreme weather events including 

persistent drought, shifting precipitation patterns and declining 

snow pack. More frequent occurrences of these events will strain 

water systems to previously unknown levels and impose drastic 

costs on local communities across the country. 

However, since last year I have taken steps to address this issue 

by introducing the Water Infrastructure Resiliency and Sustainability Act. This legislation would offer competitive matching 

grants to help local water systems build their resiliency to these 

changing hydrological conditions and I am pleased that this legislation enjoys wide support in the water utility community. My question, given these well-documented challenges facing the Nation’s 

water and wastewater systems, do you think this type of cooperative approach to promoting infrastructure adaptation and resiliency 

among Federal, State and local stakeholders can become an effective first step to address this issue? 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, Ms. Capps. Although I can’t speak on 

the specifics of that legislation, I think that you bring up a good 

point. Adaptation and the issues it is going to mean for our infrastructure are significant and are going to require a collaborative 

approach in terms of engineers as well as folks who are interested 

in providing water but also folks who are interested in lowering 

costs and in community and public health protection. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And is there a structure within the budget to deal 

with this? 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t believe so. I don’t believe we have anything 

in the current budget. 

Mrs. CAPPS. So we will have to be innovative in figuring out 

ways to be cooperative in this area. 

Ms. JACKSON. We are happy to work with your staff. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I would be happy to do that to. 

42 

I want to turn to your work in advancing the Sustainable Communities Initiative, which is something I commend, and I was 

pleased to see the President again made this important initiative 

a priority in this budget. This funding helps empower local communities to plan more sustainable communities with more housing 

and transportation choices so that families can live close to where 

they work, shop and go to school. This dramatically reduces commuting times, which is not only good for economic growth but also 

for energy independence. Do you see this type of sustainable development as an effective way for communities to help insulate themselves even from the rising gas prices? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. As communities choose, and it is a voluntary 

program, but for those communities who are choosing to look at 

those issues of transportation, energy, water and efficiency and environment all together, they are finding win-win solutions. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And are there some examples just for the record of 

how this type of development impacts a community’s energy independence? 

Ms. JACKSON. Oh, absolutely. You know, it can be a large city 

like Philadelphia where we are working with them. I should probably pick one in California. I apologize. 

Mrs. CAPPS. That is OK. 

Ms. JACKSON. But they are in my mind because of a previous 

question. Or it can be a smaller community or even a rural community who are looking at issues associated with development or potential new development as their economy improves and making 

choices about locations, transit, roads, siting that would help them 

be more sustainable over time by cutting their energy use and their 

carbon footprint. 

Mrs. CAPPS. So as communities are anticipating this kind of 

planning and development, you offer yourselves as partners available to be in consultation with them as they make these changes? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes. It is HUD and DOT and EPA, and the technical assistance we can provide along with some meager financial 

assistance, but of course, HUD and DOT in their road planning efforts can be of great assistance and sometimes funding to help 

these communities maximize increasingly limited dollars. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you very much. I look forward to working 

with you on this. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

I would like to remind everyone again that we still don’t have a 

clock but we do have the lights and just periodically look if their 

red light is going and your time is up. 

At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from Texas, 

Mr. Burgess, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BURGESS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Administrator Jackson, for being here again. 

I have got a number of things I want to get through. If I don’t 

get to them all, I will submit questions for the record. I would appreciate a response. We are still waiting on some responses from 

your last trip here. 

But we hear from your agency, from yourself, from Gina McCarthy in your agency how you care so much about people in this country with asthma, and as an asthmatic, I appreciate that concern, 

43 

but I have to tell you, I mean, the EPA is the one Federal agency 

that is standing between a lot of asthmatics and an over-thecounter asthma treatment, Primatene Mist, that has been available 

for forever. I get the fact that the Food and Drug Administration 

plays a role in the approval of the new HFA propellant in 

Primatene. I get that. But your agency has the ability to provide 

a waiver so that the existing stock of CFC-containing Primatene 

Mist could be sold to asthma patients in this country, and it is not 

a small issue. 

The prescription HFA-containing compound costs about three 

times what the over-the-counter CFC propellant Primatene costs, 

but the big issue is availability. If you get in trouble in the middle 

of the night and you don’t have a prescription, you have to go to 

the emergency room, and that really costs patients. So I am just 

asking, will you grant a waiver so the existing stock of Primatene 

containing CFC can be sold? It is a yes or no question. 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir, we have not granted the waiver. 

Mr. BURGESS. Will you? Will you grant a waiver so that asthma 

patients in this country who depend upon this product can at least 

have the availability of the stuff that is already made? It is in 

warehouses and something is going to happen to it at some point. 

The CFC is not going to stay bottled up forever. Could you not just 

make that available to patients in this country? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I am happy to look into but I will not answer 

yes or no. In 2008, the FDA set out a rule letting folks know, including the makers of Primatene Mist, that they needed to phase 

out of the CFC. 

Mr. BURGESS. I have to tell you, I am so frustrated with the circuitous nature of this. It goes back and forth between your agency 

and the FDA. I am just asking for some help here for the patients 

who are asthma sufferers in this country. You have the ability to 

provide that help. 

Ms. JACKSON. There are 19 safe and effective asthma treatment 

alternatives, though, sir, 19. 

Mr. BURGESS. Let us move on. I have some questions about Title 

42. You know, you and I have talked about this in the past. Now, 

are you aware that the Government Accountability Office has recently put out a study and HHS has put out some new guidelines 

on advisory on Title 42? Are you aware of that GAO work in 

progress? 

Ms. JACKSON. I have not seen it personally, sir, but thank you. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, they have put out some advisories, and they 

have asked that there be a cap placed on Title 42 positions in their 

agency. Have you discussed this with anyone at HHS? 

Ms. JACKSON. I have not personally. I did when I became Administrator asked to understand our Title 42 hiring process. Congress 

had raised it as an issue. In fiscal year 2011, I believe we had 17 

and hired a total of five more. 

Mr. BURGESS. And these are designed to be temporary employees. Are they temporary employees on your balance sheet? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe that they are designed to meet certain 

needs. We have them mainly as heads of our national labs. Those 

national centers are state-of-the-art research and oftentimes we are 

looking for people with very specialized skills—— 

44 

Mr. BURGESS. But by definition, these are designed to be timelimited and HHS has now agreed to a cap on Title 42 employees. 

Are you looking at providing a similar sort of cap in your agency? 

Ms. JACKSON. We don’t have a tremendous number of Title 42 

employees, and I am happy to provide the justification to you, Mr. 

Burgess. 

Mr. BURGESS. Well, I have been waiting again on some of those 

questions that we submitted last time, and I will resubmit some 

today and I am looking forward to that. Since we have the CFO 

with you today—— 

Ms. JACKSON. I am sorry. We have authority for 30 positions, so 

we do have a cap, Dr. Burgess. I am sorry. And so we are using 

17 out of the 30, which is our cap. 

Mr. BURGESS. And are you going to adhere to the fact that those 

are to be temporary and time-limited positions? 

Ms. JACKSON. I will look into the issue, sir. I will not concede it. 

Mr. BURGESS. Clearly, Mr. Chairman, this is the reason why this 

authorization committee needs to take a greater role in the oversight of the money spent by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Ms. Bennett was kind enough to be here and talk to some of the 

issues related to line items in the EPA spending last year. I am 

so glad that she is here today. Last October, I think we had a hearing here and there was concern because of unobligated funds that 

were sitting in the EPA’s bank account. Just purely as an example, 

we had—I think we had $15.6 billion and we have been provided 

a little bit of granularity from the Office of Management and Budget on this, but are you going to provide us detail on what you are 

doing to unwind those unobligated funds? I mean, you are asking 

for the same amount of money you got last year and yet the American people look at your budget and see this money just sitting in 

limbo in your account and it is hard to justify expending the same 

amount of money when you have got money sitting there. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, the vast majority of those unexpended funds, 

the majority of them are in Superfund balances. They are construction funds. And as you know, when you run a construction account, 

you have to have the money in place so you can bid the job, complete the job, and you don’t always expend it or obligate it on a precise fiscal year. 

Mr. BURGESS. Some are in Superfund but not all, and again—— 

Mr. RUSH. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts, Mr. 

Markey, for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A little bit of history. Back in 1995, Newt Gingrich took over as 

Speaker. The first thing the Republicans did was attach a rider to 

the budget each year prohibiting an increase in fuel economy 

standards, prohibiting it, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, year after 

year. Then George Bush took over as President and they did not 

add the rider anymore because Bush wasn’t going to do it anyway, 

and so we go all the way to 2007 and you have a case, Massachusetts versus the EPA, and you have my language, which is going 

to increase fuel economy standards to 35 miles to the gallon within 

this decade and then increase it dramatically beyond, which gives 

45 

the joint authority to EPA and NHTSA to now announce that the 

new standard is 54.5 miles per gallon for our country by 2056, 

which by the year 2030 will back out 3.4 million barrels of oil a 

day. We are in a mess because the Republicans were prohibiting 

that increase from 1995 until after they finally lost the Congress, 

and if they had not prohibited it but put stronger standards on the 

books, we would be telling Iran right now, would be telling the 

Saudi Arabians, we don’t need their oil any more than we need 

their sand, but they prohibited it. 

So they get back in power again. It is 2011. What is the first 

thing they do? They pass legislation through this committee on the 

House Floor stripping EPA of their authority to look at increases 

in the efficiency of the vehicles that we drive, of the boats, of the 

planes, of the trains, of everything. They go right back to business 

as usual digging this hole, violation of the first law of holes, which 

is, when you are in one, stop digging. So that the mess, the mess, 

the technological mess that the Republicans have put us into historically. 

Then we say we have a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Let us start 

to deploy it so we can tell Iran as they are holding this oil weapon 

over our head, you know, that we mean business and we are going 

to be tough going back at you, they say, oh, don’t deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Then they want to pass the Keystone 

pipeline bill, and I bring out my amendment on the House Floor 

and say, well, that oil has to stay in the United States, and they 

go, oh, no, it doesn’t have to stay in the United States. Then we 

have a vote out on the House Floor 2 weeks ago that says that they 

can drill, the oil companies, off the coast of New England, Florida, 

California. And so I have an amendment that says if we have got 

oil and natural gas, it has to stay inside of the United States, and 

all the Republicans vote no, it doesn’t have to stay in the United 

States, it can go overseas. This is a dream scenario for Saudi Arabia, for Iran, for these countries. It is a dream. It is beautiful for 

the American Petroleum Institute, but it is something that placates 

Iran, you know, in terms of what the message is we are sending 

in terms of the amount of oil that we are going to say we don’t 

need from them anymore. 

So let me ask this of you: what would that mean if there was a 

repeal, Madam Administrator, of your authority to look at how to 

increase the efficiency of the vehicles which we drive in the United 

States? 

Ms. JACKSON. Our estimate of the savings of oil because of the 

National Clean Cars program is 12 billion barrels, Mr. Markey. 

Mr. MARKEY. And what would happen to—what is the total per 

day? What does that translate into in terms of per-day consumption of oil in the United States? 

Ms. JACKSON. I actually don’t have that number right in front of 

me, sir, but we know that one of the reasons that we are at the 

lowest level of imports in recent history is because of the efficiencies of these automobiles. The Energy Information Administration assumes that our use of oil will—— 

Mr. MARKEY. The average consumer today has to spend about 7 

percent of their income on gasoline. Now, if the tough standards 

stay on the books, the increased efficiency, there is a dramatic reVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:03 Feb 28, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-11~1\112-11~1 WAYNE
46 

duction in the amount of oil that people have to purchase to put 

into their gasoline tanks in the years ahead, and that is a big tax 

break for ordinary consumers if they have to purchase less gasoline 

at the tank because of the increased efficiency in the vehicles which 

they drive. What would this do in terms of your ability to be able 

to protect those consumers from that dramatically higher oil price 

that they would have to pay? 

Ms. JACKSON. Without a national standard, we would lose the 

benefits. We assume those to be $1.7 trillion over the life of the 

program. 

Mr. MARKEY. So from the perspective of this debate, the Repub- licans want to keep the oil tax breaks, $4 billion a year, on the 

books for oil companies, even though they made $137 billion last 

year, and you can put an infinity sign next to what the oil companies are going to make this year, but those tax breaks stay on the 

books. They are advocating an expiration of the tax breaks for the 

wind industry this year, which is going to lead to its collapse, and 

it is all part of an ongoing profile that basically is a rearview mirror view of how powerful America can be technologically in telling 

Saudi Arabia and OPEC we don’t need their oil anymore. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

California, Mr. Bilbray, for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Quickly, the gentleman from Massachusetts was giving us a history lesson. I would like to remind him in 1995, I introduced a bill 

that was to eliminate the mandate that ethanol had to be in the 

fuel stream, and his own State of Massachusetts supported the 

California reformulated gasoline as cheaper and cleaner than the 

Federal mandate. Every member of the California delegation, every 

member supported that legislation except for the ranking member 

of this committee because the deals that were cut in Washington 

were more important than energy independence or about clean air. 

But going back to what is the percentage of the CAFE standard 

increase have we mandated in the last few years? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, we doubled the fuel economy under President 

Obama. 

Mr. BILBRAY. In what period of time? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, it will be between 2012 and 2025 model year. 

Mr. BILBRAY. How much in your budget today, how much is committed to requiring governments to do more traffic management 

and fuel efficiency through traffic control? 

Ms. JACKSON. We don’t have any requirements on traffic control. 

Mr. BILBRAY. So in other words, it is easy for those of us in government to point fingers at the private sector and say you have to 

make your cars more fuel efficient and we have studies coming out 

of places like University and Kansas that shows 22.6 percent of all 

emissions and fuel consumption is inappropriate traffic control, 

stop signs that could be yield signs, roundabouts that would replace stop signs and traffic control. But in your budget, you are 

walking away from the opportunity of reducing fuel consumption 

and pollution by 22.6 percent because we are focused on mandate 

on the private sector but not asking those of us in our fellow govVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:03 Feb 28, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-11~1\112-11~1 WAYNE
47 

ernment agencies to clean up our act and stop requiring consumers 

to stop every two blocks because we just find it easier to do that. 

I mean, my God, ma’am, you can’t even get the blinking lights in 

Congress out here to be turned to amber behind this building. You 

have to go stop sign just because it is easier for government to say 

no, you have to stop here rather than being intelligent. 

Now, don’t you think, Administrator, especially coming from your 

local government background, that isn’t it time we asked government to start participating in the answer? Isn’t it time that we 

start requiring the local government and the States and the counties to start looking at how we are doing business and start changing the way we are doing it and going to smart traffic management 

as much as requiring the private sector to go to smart cars? 

Ms. JACKSON. But I think, Mr. Bilbray, that is happening. In the 

Recovery Act, I have spoken to—— 

Mr. BILBRAY. Wait a minute. You think it is happening voluntarily? 

Ms. JACKSON. It is happening because local governments are 

looking at their energy impact and using investments like in the 

Recovery Act to make investments in smart—— 

Mr. BILBRAY. Ma’am, I am going to stop you right there. A city 

council member pointed out, he said there is no financial reason for 

our city to do that. Give us a financial incentive, pay us to do this. 

And all I am saying is, we pay the auto industries to go to a more 

fuel efficient standard or did we tell them they have to reduce their 

emissions and their fuel consumption. And if we do that with the 

private sector, then damn it, then why do we hold cities, counties 

and Federal Government immune from it? Why don’t we set the 

same standards for those of us in government that we are setting 

on our private sector, and how can you say that we are doing everything we can to have fuel efficiency and clean air when we allow 

the government to take a free ride on this one? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I would you refer to the Department of Transportation, who I think in their smart transportation and planning 

do encourage local governments to put in place ordinances and 

smart traffic controls. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Administrator, I have administered the Clean Air 

Act just like you have. You know in non-attainment areas, isn’t it 

true that when you allow one group in a non-attainment area to 

pollute, somebody has to offset it, right? 

Ms. JACKSON. A new source has to offset its emissions. 

Mr. BILBRAY. I am saying when government is allowed to force 

cars to pollute, usually it is the stationary sources that take the 

biggest hit because they are the easiest to regulate, aren’t they? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir. I think that—— 

Mr. BILBRAY. Are you trying to tell me that mobile sources are 

as easy to regulate as stationary sources? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, we just did. I mean, the National Clean Car 

Standards are regulation of mobile sources: light-duty vehicles, 

heavy-duty—— 

Mr. BILBRAY. Ma’am, you were in Connecticut, weren’t you? 

Didn’t you do the air strategies? 

Ms. JACKSON. I was in New Jersey, sir. 

48 

Mr. BILBRAY. New Jersey. Excuse me. All those little States get 

mixed up for us out in the West. 

Ms. JACKSON. You have a big one, sir. Sure. 

Mr. BILBRAY. You know, I am sorry, I am just telling you, I just 

can’t believe anybody that has done air regulation could say that 

mobile sources are as easy. All I am saying is, we still have a major 

source of pollution, and it is government. When will we finally, 

Democrats and Republicans, come together and say we need to lead 

through example, not point fingers at everybody else? We are talking about spending taxpayers’ money but we are not willing to 

change regulations that government is operating. Rather than 

throwing money at the problem, why aren’t we getting smarter as 

government to reduce the emissions and extend the fuel efficiency 

in our operations? Why can’t we do that much? The cities and 

counties have too much control? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, they are balancing safety considerations, sir. 

You know, the traffic signals and stop signs are for safety and they 

are balancing their needs to ensure public safety. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Excuse me. I heard that about—— 

Mr. RUSH. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BILBRAY. Excuse me. I heard that about cars—— 

Mr. RUSH. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BILBRAY [continuing]. The fact that safety meant you had to 

be fuel efficient. 

Mr. RUSH. Regular order. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Let me just say that I am trying to be fair as 

chairman. We don’t have a clock. I have let some people on your 

side go a minute and a half over. Some of this side have gone a 

minute or so over. So we are just trying to be as fair as we can 

be. 

At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from North 

Carolina, Mr. Butterfield, for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for your evenhanded leadership of this subcommittee. When I 

was a trial judge for 15 years back in North Carolina after a session of cross-examination like this, I would simply tell everybody 

just to take a deep breath and count to 10, so I am certainly going 

to do that and ask others to do the same. 

Let me thank you, Administrator, for coming forward today with 

your budget and thank you for all that you do for our country. As 

the President has said now for years and I am sure that he tells 

all of you this every day, that we have got to make some tough 

choices. We have got to make tough choices in our budgets, and 

clearly today you have given us a budget that in my opinion seeks 

to protect our communities and promote sound science and so I 

support your efforts and I believe in what you are doing, to say the 

least. 

However, on a brief note, I am a little concerned about the impact to critical infrastructure that will be caused by the proposed 

cut of $359 million from State revolving funds. The Drinking Water 

State Revolving Fund, Mr. Waxman spoke to that earlier, has provided States with the authority to give extra assistance in the form 

of extended loan terms and lower interest rates or principle forgiveVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:03 Feb 28, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-11~1\112-11~1 WAYNE
49 

ness to disadvantaged communities, and I live in a disadvantaged 

community and you know that very well. 

Because of that, the SRF has been essential source of financing 

for small and disadvantaged community water systems that are 

unable to finance infrastructure projects at market rates, but until 

the passage of the Recovery Act, States had complete discretion to 

decide whether to exercise their authority and provide disadvantaged communities with such assistance. Fourteen States have decided not to provide the assistance. An additional six States reserve 

less than 4 percent of their funds over the life of the program for 

these disadvantaged communities. Recovery Act funding of the SRF 

made a significant difference for millions of Americans, and you 

know that record very well. In fact, according to EPA, Recovery Act 

funds provided through the Drinking Water SRF brought 693 

drinking water systems serving over 48 million Americans back 

into compliance with the Safe Drinking Water standards. Fortyeight million Americans got safer water. And at the same time, 

good-paying construction jobs were created. There is still a significant need for this funding to improve drinking water quality and 

spur job growth. These cuts will be hard on all water systems but 

particularly small and underserved communities who need the 

funding the most. 

Question: The budget in brief express the intent of the Administration to target SRF assistance to small and underserved communities. How will you do that? 

Ms. JACKSON. It will require us to work with the States, as you 

know, Mr. Butterfield, and thank you for your comments. I agree 

that the Recovery Act changed the world for certain communities 

and we don’t have the same legal authority to direct money. It goes 

to the States. So we will have to work through the States to change 

the prioritization system. We will do that collaboratively, but in a 

time of decreasing resources, we have to look at the systems which 

really could not through rate increases or any other way finance 

these infrastructure improvements. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. In the last Congress, this committee passed bipartisan legislation to reauthorize the SRF. That legislation would 

have required States to provide some additional assistance to disadvantaged communities. Unfortunately, that bill did not become 

law. States once again have discretion to choose not to provide special assistance to small and rural systems and cuts in SRF funding 

may discourage States from providing that assistance because returns on loans made by State funds will become more important. 

Second question. Do you foresee these cuts to the SRF having an 

impact on the amount of assistance States make available to small 

and underserved communities? 

Ms. JACKSON. It likely will, sir. In all honesty, they are revolving 

funds so the amount that a State has available in any given year 

depends on what loans are repaid so from, you know, how much 

of the principle they are getting back. But less money we believe 

will potentially impact their ability to make these loans and/or 

grants. 

Mr. BUTTERFIELD. All right, Mr. Chairman, I see the amber light 

on. I suppose means that we are winding down, so I am going to 

yield back the remainder of my time. 

50 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Butterfield. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Latta, for 

5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Administrator, 

thanks for being with us today. 

I would like to talk about ozone for a little bit here. In your fiscal 

year 2013 budget when you are looking down the road, do you intend to propose revisions to the National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards for Ozone, and if not in 2013, what is the EPA’s current 

schedule? 

Ms. JACKSON. The current schedule, sir, is to make a proposal in 

calendar year 2013. It will probably be towards the end of the calendar year so I believe that is fiscal year 2014. 

Mr. LATTA. Let me ask this then. Does the EPA expect to propose 

a rule that is similar to the rule that was withdrawn last year? 

Ms. JACKSON. I can’t speak to what we will do in the end of 2013. 

We are waiting on the science. As you know, we have to wait for 

a scientific review. 

Mr. LATTA. Well, because it is very, very important because, you 

know, with the rule that was proposed last year that was withdrawn, you know, the estimated costs out there are between $19 

billion to $90 billion annually. In a State like Ohio, we would have 

had a great number of counties go into noncompliance. So when are 

you considering these standards, it is very, very important to people like me who represent 55,000 manufacturing jobs, which is the 

largest in the State, and by coincidence, the largest number of 

manufacturing jobs on this committee. You know, we have to have 

some kind of an idea what that sticker price will be out there, especially because when I am home, one of the things I hear from my 

constituents is what is happening here, especially with the EPA, is 

the number-one driver of the cost to them back home. But you have 

no idea where you are going to be going with that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, I can’t speak to it. I can say that it is proposed, we take public comment on it, so there will be ample opportunity for folks to see it, comment and offer—— 

Mr. LATTA. Let me just switch gears a little bit then. You know, 

in looking at your budget, it says here that you plan on spending 

about another $830 million more in enforcing environmental laws. 

That raises a couple questions. One is, where does the money go 

that the EPA collects in fines? 

Ms. JACKSON. Fine money goes into the Treasury, sir. 

Mr. LATTA. It goes right back to the Treasury? OK. 

Let me go back to where Dr. Burgess was, if I could, going back 

into the question about release of deobligated funds, and I assume 

that you as you are here today that, you know, it is for our benefit, 

your benefit, there is this total transparency in the budget planning and that we need to have the EPA and your plans and your 

spending. The GAO testified before this committee that EPA receives a sizable amount of funds that has deobligated from past 

years but does report this reuse in its budget justifications. In 

2010, the unreported reuse of funds amounted to $160 million more 

than EPA’s spending cuts proposed this year. At present, since the 

EPA is not reporting how much money it plans to deobligate and 

51 

reuse next year, were you aware that the EPA is not reporting this 

information? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am sorry, sir. I was trying to get background. 

Please forgive me. We do report our deobligations in our financial 

statements, so I am happy to take a look at the issue, but when 

we deobligate money, obviously we are reporting that. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Well, because again, what the GAO was telling 

us is that, you know, especially with the release of these funds 

being reported to Congress, EPA budget justifications, that we need 

to—you know, that is supposed to be reported. So if you could get 

back to us on that in written comment, I would really appreciate 

that. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. I believe they are reported in our financial 

reports but we will be happy to get back to you. 

Mr. LATTA. OK. Switching gears real quick here, because I see 

the clock is on, I am trying to be cognizant and helpful to the chairman—— 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The yellow light comes on when you have a 

minute left. 

Mr. LATTA. I understand that. Time is running down. Do you 

know how much of the money that is grant money for States that 

have not yet been distributed? Any idea on that? 

Ms. JACKSON. There are large unobligated balances and unliquidated balances. They are two different things in the State Revolving Funds. The States, we give them money once a year, I think 

on time to the States, but then how quickly they draw that money 

down is a different question, so that’s a large balance. 

Mr. LATTA. And real briefly, do you have any idea how much 

money was budgeted for State grants? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, there is a number of grants. The State Revolving Funds are about $2 billion. We have the categorical grants, 

which are $1.2 billion. About 40 percent of our budget goes to State 

and tribal grants. 

Mr. LATTA. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My time is expired and I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you. 

At this time I recognize the gentlelady from Colorado, Ms. 

DeGette, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and Administrator Jackson, thank you for coming here today to talk to us. 

As you know, there been a little discussion about this, we have 

had great advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing 

over the last few years, which have enabled us to have oil and gas 

production in many, many new areas of the United States, and as 

a consequence, many of us have been hearing from our constituents 

about issues like impacts on the air, water and soil quality of hydraulic fracturing and they want to know whether the local and 

Federal laws and regulations are sufficient to protect their families. 

And so I want to focus my questioning on the funds proposed in 

the EPA’s fiscal year 2013 budget for understanding and minimizing potential environmental health and safety impacts of this 

really promising shale gas development. So if you can keep your 

answers brief, I would appreciate it. I have got a lot of questions. 

52 

The first question is, do we know for certain whether or not shale 

gas development through hydraulic fracturing poses an increased 

risk to human health or the environment over the risks associated 

with conventional oil and gas development? 

Ms. JACKSON. Not for certain. That is why we are doing the studies. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. Is it known for certain whether or not 

shale gas development through hydraulic fracturing poses no risk 

to the environment or health? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, the same answer. That is why we are studying 

it. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And so what you are doing, you referred to the 

study, an objective science-based understanding of the potential 

risks is really going to be the first step for Congress to figure out 

how we can develop unconventional shale gas resources. So last 

year, as you know, Congressman Hinchey and I requested the EPA 

to do a study to determine the potential impacts of hydraulic fracturing on drinking water. Now, due to the extent and complexity 

of these studies, the EPA established quality assurance plans to 

ensure the validity of the data. Is that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And the studies currently underway, as I understand, with the report on preliminary findings due at the end of 

this year and another one due in 2014. is that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. Correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now, under your new budget request, the current 

study will be expanded to address the broader environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing including ecological impacts as well as 

waste to minimize any negative impacts, not just the chemical composition of the fracking fluid. Is that right? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is right. They may be separate studies but 

there will be additional studies. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And you think that you need to do that as an 

agency to get an understanding as to the environmental impacts of 

hydraulic fracturing? 

Ms. JACKSON. Air quality, water quality, ecosystem impacts are 

of concern. 

Ms. DEGETTE. OK. And now, can you comment briefly on the scientific review process for the extended effort that you are talking 

about, Administrator Jackson? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, obviously we would be scooping it, and it is 

all contingent on getting the money in the budget, but we would 

work with the USGS, we would work with the Department of Energy to scope studies that are not redundant. They will do some as 

well. And we would look for the same level of rigor as what we are 

looking for—— 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. Now, Mr. Murphy asked you about the 

cost of the study, and I want to get some clarification to those numbers. The EPA budget requests a total of $14 million dedicated to 

studying shale gas development through hydraulic fracturing. Is 

that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now, of that, $6 million is dedicated to completing 

the reports promised for 2012 and 2014. Is that correct? 

53 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe that is correct as well. 

Ms. DEGETTE. And then the $8 million increase will go towards 

what you just described, better understanding of the ecological effects of wastewater discharge and the potential impacts on air 

quality resulting from hydraulic fracturing. Is that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. So I want to point out, the total funding of $14 

million for the hydraulic fracturing studies comprises 0.169 percent 

of EPA’s fiscal year 2013 budget. The $14 million is EPA’s contribution to a coordinated $45 million effort between the EPA, the 

Department of Energy and the U.S. Geological Survey. Is that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is correct. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Now, can you explain the benefits of coordinating 

the effort between the USGS and the DOE? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, we have overlapping responsibilities but we 

also don’t want to be stovepiped. We want to ensure that we are 

only doing one study to address one issue so we are not doing redundant studies, and we also want to make sure we are looking at 

issues collaboratively. So we look across the field and are more universal in scope. 

Ms. DEGETTE. Thank you. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, with respect to hydraulic fracturing, this is 

something—we have all these new advances in the way that we are 

doing oil and gas exploration, and certainly for a State like Colorado, it can be very, very positive for domestic energy production 

and for our economy, but we really don’t have a lot of data on the 

environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing because while the 

technique has been around for a long time, these new ways that 

they are doing it brand new. And so I really think that this study 

is important and I would just continue to urge you, Administrator 

Jackson, to make sure that the studies that the agency conducts 

are done with the highest degree of scientific standards and impartiality. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. Harper, for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. HARPER. Administrator Jackson, welcome, and good news, 

you are almost done. I think we are getting close. You have been 

very patient and I appreciate your attendance here and your insight as we look at this issues. 

You know, one of the things that is very important to my State 

and my district certainly is the technical assistance grant program 

that Chairman Shimkus referred to earlier. I had filed a bill on 

that. Some of the language that is in there is of great importance 

to our State as we look at that and how it affects small communities, and what I want to do is make sure I think to follow up on 

what he said, which is to make sure that the criteria that are set 

forth by the EPA actually track that appropriations language and 

we are actually covering all those bases. So your agreement, as I 

understood it, would be to work with him, check with him on those 

issues to be sure? 

Ms. JACKSON. This is on the rural water assistance—— 

Mr. HARPER. Yes. 

54 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. HARPER. And I just want to make sure we take a double 

check at that criteria to make sure we are in compliance with that 

language. 

Looking at this, and I believe this is a budget hearing, I know 

we talked about many other things, and we are glad to have you 

here too, Ms. Bennett, as we look at these figures. These are difficult times, as you know, and as we look at this, and I know you 

have discussed tough choices and things that have be done, but we 

look at the overall budget on this. It is difficult for people across 

the country to say that we have done all that we can on tough 

choices when the overall budget cut I am showing as only 1.2 percent. Is that the correct figure I am showing, that the budget for 

this year is $8.344 billion, which is $105 million below the 2012 figure? I want to make sure I am using the correct figures. Is that 

right? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir, but I would be remiss if I didn’t—you 

know, we took a 13 percent cut in 2011, 2.6 in 2012, so now this 

is the 1.8. You are correct. 

Mr. HARPER. One point two. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sorry, 1.2. 

Mr. HARPER. I know we have approximately 17,000 employees. 

Has there been a reduction or increase in the EPA workforce? 

Ms. JACKSON. It is essentially static. We have had small increases but we have had no—excuse me. My CFO tells me that we 

are down this year from 2012. 

Mr. HARPER. Now, when we are looking—I know you are set up 

with 10 regions across the country. Have you looked or are you 

looking at ways to perhaps consolidate, redirect the mission to 

where you don’t lose what you consider to be effective but you continually look at ways to save money? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir, I can assure you, we have looked at ways 

to maximize and ensure that we remain effective. Each one of those 

regional offices deals with several States, and those relationships 

tend to be extremely important. 

Mr. HARPER. You know, the environmental education grants, how 

much is in the budget for that? Are you able to tell me that? 

Ms. JACKSON. So in the President’s 2013 proposal, we have actually proposed to, I think, zero out environmental education grant 

funding. I can grab you the number. 

Mr. HARPER. But you expect in this it is zeroed out? OK. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, because many of the programs do education 

as a component of what they are doing already, and so those grants 

we are not proposing to furnish. 

Mr. HARPER. You know, it is unfortunate sometimes when we 

come in here and when there is a discussion on issues, it seems to 

be particularly for some of my friends across the aisle that they 

want to in effect trash the other party, trash the Republicans. I 

think it is pretty clear that everybody in this room, Republicans 

and Democrats, all believe, you know, in taking care of the environment and we all want clean air and clean water. You would agree 

with that, wouldn’t you? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe that the American people generally do. I 

have gone on record as saying that the voting record of this House 

55 

has been several votes led by the party that is in the majority right 

now against and to turn back environmental statutes. 

Mr. HARPER. And of course, you believe that that is turning back 

some of the things that you believe in, but are you looking at what 

the cost is? I know you receive many letters from many business 

groups too that believe that we have gone—you know, that we are 

actually hurting the economy in the process. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, when we do our regulatory work, we are careful to do analysis of cost, analysis of benefits, analysis of jobs we 

have had added in several cases to try to be sensitive to people’s 

concerns about our rules but we also get as many letters from citizens who want to ensure that EPA is doing its job to keep the air 

clean and the water safe—— 

Mr. HARPER. Last quick question, yes or no, do you believe that 

the Keystone XL pipeline should be approved? 

Ms. JACKSON. Oh, sir, that is not my jurisdiction. I don’t have 

any personal belief. 

Mr. HARPER. A good non-answer. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Washington State, 

Mr. Inslee, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you, Madam Administrator. I wanted to first 

thank you for your work. I have a new granddaughter, a 3-weekold granddaughter, Zoe Inslee, and I don’t think there is anybody 

in this town doing more to make sure that she has clean air to 

breathe and clean water to drink and swim in. I just want to thank 

you for your work. And I want to ask you a question about the 

RFS2 proposal in relationship to trying to get cellulosic biofuels 

into the market. I know this is something you have been wrestling 

with and I just wonder if you have any thoughts about how we 

could help the industry expedite the entry of those products into 

the market either by rulemaking or otherwise. Any thoughts about 

that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I do believe that EPA is through most of its 

required work on the Renewable Fuel Standard, setting the required volumes for various fuels from various feedstocks. We have 

also processed and I think are through reviewing a request to increase the amount of ethanol blended into gasoline, the E15 waiver. You know, the actual marketing of gasoline is beyond simply 

the scope of our agency. We have labels to ensure that people don’t 

misfuel. There is lots of work happening at the U.S. Department 

of agriculture to encourage not only the current generation of 

biofuels but I know the Secretary, he and I have spoken many 

times about his plan. It is a comprehensive plan for the next generation of biofuels to keep that industry alive and well. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you for your work. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, and congratulations. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I would like to recognize the gentleman from West Virginia, Mr. McKinley, for 5 minutes of questions. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Administrator, 

thank you very much. I am sure it has been grueling to go through 

3 hours of this. 

56 

First question I have, if I maybe get through a couple quick questions with yes or no to the extent that we can. Have you ruled out 

regulating coal ash as a hazardous substance under subtitle C of 

RCRA? 

Ms. JACKSON. We have not made a final rule, so that would have 

to be a no. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. Second, with this notice of intent from Headwaters Resources in filing an action, and I guess some environmental groups are also doing the reverse, they are also taking an 

action against the EPA on some of the hazardous waste perhaps, 

can you give us for the record a commitment that you will take this 

into consideration if you were to settle that you will consider the 

fact that Headwaters has also put in a concern and that they will 

be included in the settlement? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am not familiar with this letter, but this is on 

coal ash? 

Mr. MCKINLEY. It was filed in your office on—it was addressed 

to you on February 9th and it was their notice that they want 

equal protection under this, so are you saying you will? 

Ms. JACKSON. In our regulatory actions, in our rulemaking, we 

will look at all information presented to us. I think public comment 

period is closed. We now have a notice of data availability out, and 

I am aware that environmental groups are suing to try to get—— 

Mr. MCKINLEY. The third question is, the EPA is apparently in 

funding with Vanderbilt University and perhaps others this new 

LEAF environmental assessment framework program that they are 

doing down there. I can’t find the amount in there. From what I 

understand, that may be an alternative to the TCLPs. So if you are 

looking at that, I would like to understand how much money you 

are putting into that. 

Ms. JACKSON. We will get that for you, sir, don’t worry. 

Mr. MCKINLEY. OK. And then lastly, more importantly is a question. I don’t know if you are familiar with this report that was presented, Indoor Air Quality, Indoor Air Pollution in California, 2005, 

a very authoritative document in which it points out much of the 

problems that we are dealing with air quality is indoor since we 

are spending approximately 90 percent of our time indoors. So 

when all the folks are talking about asthma attacks, premature 

deaths, heart attacks or whatever, I think very well could be traced 

back to conditions inside since they are spending 90 percent of 

their time indoors. But I don’t see anything—I can’t find in your 

budget a priority for where the EPA could be stepping up and really dealing with children in schools. Fifty-six million children are in 

classrooms every day and I don’t see a prioritization in your budget 

for what you are spending in education and mitigation and labeling 

of products and others so you can help. If California is right, they 

are saying in their own report, it is costing the State of California 

$45 billion a year. Now, I don’t know how the folks on the other 

side of the aisle keep arguing about all these. I don’t know how 

they can differentiate between getting sick from indoors versus outdoors but it is a convenient thing to challenge us on. 

But I am curious, what can we do on that? And especially given 

the fact that you are spending $28 million last year giving grants 

to foreign governments instead of using that to help educate our 

57 

States in ways to mitigate our indoor air quality problems. Can you 

help explain that? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am happy to. The President’s budget increases our children and sensitive populations by $3 million. It is not true 

that we gave $28 million to foreign governments in grants last 

year, and we have a program that works with school districts, 

many of them underfunded, to try to help them address issues of 

public health for children. Many of them are not mandatory so 

these are voluntary programs. Education is important as well as 

things like siting guidelines. We were asked to put forth school 

siting guidelines and other technical assistance to help with things 

from radon to asbestos. So that is in addition to partnering with 

States who are often working as well. 

And I just have to remind us all that yes, indoor air quality is 

very important but outdoor air quality impacts indoor air quality 

quite significantly as well and so we look at air as a whole, not 

simply one versus the other. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Ms. Jackson, one thing that Mr. McKinley brought up and a 

number of people have brought up is the amount of grants that are 

given by EPA to foreign entities directly or indirectly. I would just 

ask that you all provide us with a list of those over the last 3 

years. 

At this time I recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Griffith, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Jackson, today the D.C. Circuit is hearing oral argument in 

the greenhouse gas litigation and that involves the tailoring rule, 

and in your brief that has been filed on behalf of EPA, it indicates 

in that brief that there would be a need to hire 230,000 full-time 

employees, that there would need to an additional 81,000 PSD permits per year, 6 million Title V permits, and a cost to the EPA, on 

top of the current budget, $21 billion per year. I am looking at the 

brief where I got these numbers, and then the sentence right after 

the paragraphs that lay out these number says ‘‘Based on this 

analysis, EPA found that applying the literal statutory thresholds 

on January 2, 2011, would overwhelm the resources of permitting 

authorities and severely impair the functioning of the programs.’’ 

You would agree with that assessment? Yes or no. 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. And that is why you all have defended the tailoring rule based on a theory of law that says if it is not practical, 

you don’t have to do it. Isn’t that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir. We say if the result is absurd or increases 

administrative burden where it really can’t practically be implemented, then we were given relief. It is a rule designed to give relief. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. But wouldn’t you agree that the businesses of the 

United States of America find themselves when they are looking at 

Cement MACT, Boiler MACT, Utility MACT, that many of the 

businesses of the United States of America find themselves in exactly the same position that the EPA finds itself in on this case 

where you all have said the burdens are too great by our own rules 

to follow our rules, and don’t you think that there ought to be a 

58 

tailoring act for the job creators of America to assist them in creating jobs for the hardworking taxpayers of America? Don’t you 

agree that that would be good policy? Yes or no. 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t agree with your premise, sir, so I can’t 

agree. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. So it is OK to have one standard for the EPA and 

another standard for—— 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir, the standard is not for EPA in the tailoring rules. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. You know, I do get passionate about this 

because my people are losing jobs, and let me say this as well. 

When we were here earlier this year and Ms. Bennett was kind 

enough to be with us, she indicated that some of the money that 

had already been committed but had not yet been spent, some of 

which was more than 5 years old, was there because of various reasons, perhaps even other permitting requirements or other requirements by the EPA or other agencies, but she indicated some of 

those were more than 5 years old. I asked her at the time, well, 

why wouldn’t you all back the ability to move the 5 years for businesses in America because they need that and that is in the Boiler 

MACT bill, H.R. 2250. She said at that time that was not her position to make a statement as to whether or not she was supporting 

the bill or not, so I ask you because I believe it is within your prerogative, why wouldn’t you adopt and accept the fact that the businesses of America can’t comply with the time requirements, even 

if we can argue about regulations. There are numerous businesses 

in this country that cannot meet the 3-year-plus-one standard currently in the code. Why have we seen nothing from the EPA that 

says OK, you know what, maybe we need a longer timeline to get 

these things accomplished? 

Ms. JACKSON. Mr. Griffith, it is not true that you haven’t seen 

anything. EPA is reconsidering the Boiler MACT rule to give greater clarity, to reduce the cost of compliance—— 

Mr. GRIFFITH. But ma’am, I am correct that EPA is not backing 

any legislation to change the time limit in the law. Isn’t that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. Thank you. Let me talk about another subject 

briefly. You have, I believe and you would agree that you would 

feel that the EPA is doing a better job today than it did, say, in 

2001? 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t have any feeling on the subject, sir. I believe we are doing a good job today. 

Mr. GRIFFITH. All right. Because I look at these, I have a chart 

here that says that you all have about 1,000 less employees now 

than you had then, and I am wondering if there was ever a study 

done to show where there is a, it happens in many cases, a diminishing return on investment or at some point you just get too many 

folks and you can’t be as efficient. I am wondering if any study has 

been done at the EPA of exactly how many employees you need to 

be most efficient in accomplishing your tasks. 

Ms. JACKSON. There have been workload studies done in the 

past, sir, and we can certainly get those to you. 

59 

Mr. GRIFFITH. OK. If you could get those to me because, you 

know, look, I know you can go to absurdity. You can’t go down to 

one employee and be more efficient than you are with a certain 

number of employees but I do note that it appears you all are doing 

a lot more with a lot less already, and I am just wondering where 

the break point is because we are trying to find money, and I hope 

you appreciate that. 

And then—my time is up. I yield back. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Thank you, Mr. Griffith. 

At this time I recognize Mr. Engel of New York for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to reiterate and mention some of the topics that have 

been mentioned, but before I do that, I want to thank you for the 

job you have done, the excellent job you have done. You are on the 

hot seat. It is a tough job. But the work that you do is so important, and one of the frustrations that I have had with this majority 

in Congress is that the attacks on the EPA and the attacks on 

clean air and clean water and all these things are very, very frustrating to me because I believe that the role that you play is such 

an important role and that we ought to be facilitating the things 

that you do rather than impeding them. So I want to thank you 

personally for the job you have done, and I am glad that your agency is there and I am glad that you are doing the work the American people want us to do. People want clean air and clean water 

and all these other things, and I just wanted to state that. 

I wanted to add my voice to Ms. Castor, who spoke about the re- duction in the 2013 budget of $359 million for the Clean Water and 

Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. I hope there might be a 

way to try to restore some of that money because my State of New 

York has received many millions of dollars to protect our watersheds and make upgrades and repairs to our sewer systems, and 

EPA’s most recent drinking water infrastructure needs survey indicates that New York will require $29.7 billion over 20 years to ensure continued delivery of safe public drinking water. So I want to 

emphasize that and I hope you can find some way to restore those 

cuts. 

I want to talk about fracking because that is something in my 

State that is a hot topic. We have many, many people who are fearful of fracking. Obviously we don’t want it to contaminate the 

drinking water or have fracking by the watersheds, and that is a 

concern that I have. On the other hand, it has the potential to create many jobs in western New York as it has been doing in Pennsylvania, and I know Ms. DeGette and Mr. Green had spoken with 

you about it with the study. I think the study is a good idea. I 

think that we have to know what we are dealing with. I think it 

is important to wean ourselves off of Middle Eastern oil and Venezuelan oil, quite frankly, with countries that don’t wish us well 

but I do think that the fracking is something that many people remain fearful of. So I wish you well in your study and I hope we 

can have the results of that soon. 

Finally, I want to mention a topic that hasn’t been mentioned, 

and that is PCBs in schools. Last February, New York City embarked on a 10-year, $700 million plan to replace all the old lighting ballasts in all New York City schools over the next decade. 

60 

Could you please explain EPA’s role in that remediation project 

and provide for me an update on its status? And could you also 

please provide an update on efforts to address window caulking in 

schools as well? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly, sir. In 2011, EPA inspected New York 

City schools for leaking. The lighting ballasts were leaking and 

they were leaking PCBs, and those inspections found numerous 

leaking ballasts with PCB concentrations some exceeding 600,000 

parts per million. The city stepped up and announced a plan in 

2011 to replace all PCB lighting ballasts in 772 schools. I believe 

it is part of their capital budget plan to make schools more energy 

efficient, the lighting being part of that. The city has allocated 

about $708 million in its budget to implement their plan over 10 

years. EPA has reviewed that plan and told city officials that 5 

years would be a more reasonable time frame to address the ballast 

issue as part of the larger plan. 

Mr. ENGEL. Well, I know 5 years, I know New York lawyers for 

the public interest have recommended 2 years, and I know things 

are difficult to be done in 2 years. PCB contamination in our 

schools, as you know, is widespread and threatens the health of 

hundreds of thousands of schoolchildren certainly in New York City 

and the exposure in children has been found to decrease IQs and 

increase risk of ADD, among other things. 

Again, I hope you will look into that, and again, I want to emphasize, thank you for your very, very good work. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from 

Kansas, Mr. Pompeo, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. POMPEO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for being 

here today, Administrator Jackson. 

I want to talk about enforcement. We haven’t had a chance to 

talk about that at all, and your enforcement policies. You have 

asked for an increase in your budget for the Office of Enforcement 

and Compliance. You asked for a $33.5 million increase there. And 

I have heard lots of concerns from my district about enforcement 

policies at EPA, and I thought I would do it in the micro today. You 

mentioned something called the general duty of care a little bit earlier in answer to a question as part of the Clean Air Act. Can you 

tell me if you have adopted any EPA-wide policies or guidelines 

with respect to the definitions inside of the Clean Air Act related 

to the general duty of care? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am not aware of any, sir, but we can certainly 

talk to the Office of Enforcement. 

Mr. POMPEO. There is a term in there called ‘‘extremely hazardous chemicals’’ and you have the risk mitigation plans which require that certain chemicals are stored at manufacturers or producers, but as I understand your enforcement policy, even if a 

chemical is not listed as one of those chemicals that requires a risk 

mitigation plan, you can ding the producer or the manufacturer 

under this sort of not very well defined general duty of care. Is that 

correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe that is right. It happened after Bhopal, 

I believe, that they added this idea that manufacturers have to be 

proactive in looking to have that extra duty of care. 

61 

Mr. POMPEO. So this is a place I would love to work with you all. 

Really, and this is Congress’s fault, they gave you these really undefined terms and very general authorities and said hey, you need 

to put some definitions to it. You have chosen not to do that by regulation or by policy memorandum so you have left this wide open 

and now whether it is acetone or whatever it may be, producers in 

warehouses have no idea which chemicals you may come after 

them for under this general duty of care standard. I would love to 

work with you to develop cleaner standards. Frankly, I would rather get rid of Section 112(r). I think you have got plenty of authority 

under the RMP program to decide which chemicals are truly dangerous. 

Ms. JACKSON. Why don’t we have our folks talk about that? If 

there are specific issues or in general, I would be happy to help. 

Mr. POMPEO. I would be happy to do that. Do you reward folks 

inside your agency for performance for how many fines they get or 

how successful they are at obtaining injunctive relief by value? 

Ms. JACKSON. We do track fines and injunctive relief. I think 

large cases that are very difficult, it would not be unusual for a 

manager—I used to run an enforcement program at EPA many, 

many years ago—for a manager to note hard work and diligence 

but not specifically—you know, you are not tied to how much 

money you bring into the Treasury or how many actions you take. 

Mr. POMPEO. And all that money does go to the Treasury? The 

employees don’t get it as an incentive compensation? You don’t get 

it because you have done a good job? 

Ms. JACKSON. No. 

Mr. POMPEO. EPA doesn’t get it as part of their budget, it just 

goes back to general revenues for the Treasury? Is that correct? 

Ms. JACKSON. Penalty money and fine money goes back to the 

Treasury. The exception is the Oil Pollution Act. There has been 

lots of discussion about that. 

Mr. POMPEO. I appreciate that. I will tell you that in region 7 at 

the end of 2010, there was a press release issued that sounded 

like—and I will read it to you. This was from region 7 on December 

6, 2010, and it says, ‘‘Departmental compliance and enforcement 

activities conducted by region 7 during FY 2010 sets a new record, 

securing more than $3 billion in investments in pollution control 

and cleanup as a result of legal action taken against polluters.’’ It 

then brags that it collected fully 31 percent of EPA’s fines all 

across the country. Two thoughts. One, is that the kind of press release you think is appropriate, bragging how much money you have 

taken out of the United States economy? And second, 31 percent 

from a single region, region 7, do you think that suggests there is 

differential enforcement or the regions are just that different? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, enforcement fines are oftentimes somewhat 

serendipitous. They depend on, one large case in one region could 

make all the difference. If there is a fine, for example, with respect 

to the BP incident, that could make one region’s fines look huge. 

In terms of bragging on investment in cleanup and investments 

in—those are generally injunctive relief where we require a company not as much to pay the fine but to do the work to come into 

compliance, and we think it is important that the American people 

know that there is an environmental cop on the beat. It deters peoVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:03 Feb 28, 2013 Jkt 037690 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\112-11~1\112-11~1 WAYNE
62 

ple from violating, and that is an important part of an enforcement 

program. 

Mr. POMPEO. I would suggest that when the agency uses the 

term ‘‘polluters,’’ I guess that some of those were by agreement, 

some of that injunctive relief was probably with agreement with a 

particular business or individual. Is that probably right? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, but they probably—but that agreement came 

as a result of an enforcement. 

Mr. POMPEO. And they probably in their agreement said this 

agreement doesn’t indicate any wrongdoing, it simply says we are 

willing to cooperate with the EPA and yet you use the term ‘‘polluters,’’ which I would tell you in Kansas, we view that as a negative term. We think of polluters as being folks that we don’t think 

very highly of and yet your agency uses that kind of term in a 

press release for their neutral enforcement powers, and I would 

just suggest you ought to talk to folks about not using language 

like that. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. At this time I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Cassidy, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Hi, Ms. Jackson. 

Ms. JACKSON. How are you, sir? 

Mr. CASSIDY. You are always well prepared and unflappable, so 

even though we often disagree, let me just compliment you on just 

how your kind of whole presence is, so—— 

Ms. JACKSON. I am worried about the other shoe that is about 

to drop. 

Mr. CASSIDY. There is no other shoe. It is truly a compliment. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. CASSIDY. The CARE grants, I don’t understand these well, 

but I am told that CARE grants which go to community organizations, the science that they generate or at least the press releases 

they generate is not peer-reviewed science. The State’s DEQ does 

not look at it, you do not look at it, but I can tell you they get headlines, and sometimes in our kind of media-driven society, that 

headline has an impact. So, one, is that true, that when these community groups get grants from EPA, there is nobody at EPA responsible for vetting the validity of the claims? First, is that true? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, we certainly don’t vet their press releases. 

We ask them to use sound science and we expect and hope they 

will, but because they are community groups, we don’t hold them 

quite to the same standard we might a governmental entity or, I 

hope, ourselves. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, I will tell you, that is a fair statement, but 

on the other hand, does anybody look at the responsibility of these 

community groups in general? Are they periodically audited to 

make sure that the science they are putting out or the claims they 

are making are actually justifiable or hyperbole? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe, sir, they are more audited to look at 

their fiscal responsibilities and taking—— 

Mr. CASSIDY. That is a fair statement, and I could believe that. 

On the other hand, I will tell you that when people put things out 

in the press, if it is read, people believe it sometimes even if there 

is no validity. Let me just suggest that if we are going to hold you 

63 

or a State DEQ or an industry group responsible for the validity 

of their science, these groups should be as well. I mean, they certainly influence the debate as much as a major employer would 

who happens to have an emissions issue. Would you agree with 

that? 

Ms. JACKSON. I think it is fair that if there are claims being 

made that someone could ask EPA whether or not we agree with 

that data, so in general, I see your point, sir. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Thank you. Secondly, the President in his State of 

the Union speech spoke of natural gas being used as a transportation fuel and hoped to encourage such. I am not aware of any initiative, though, that he has proposed, certainly nothing legislatively. Do you know of such an initiative? 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t believe there is a legislative initiative right 

now, sir. 

Mr. CASSIDY. And is there an administrative initiative? 

Ms. JACKSON. I seem to recall that he talked about a corridor in 

California that could be made to be natural gas friendly, and I 

thought that was voluntary with the State of California but I can 

check that for you. 

Mr. CASSIDY. Now, one thing that has been proposed is a use of 

natural gas to create methanol from it to use it as a fuel additive, 

and so I really kind of pursued this because it seemed like it would 

be a wonderful way to come up with a low-cost way to supplement 

oil and gas, particularly with the ratio of cost of natural gas to oil, 

and I went so far as to meet with people from industry fairly high 

in research units at industry. They told me it will take 15 years 

conservatively for something such as methanol to be thoroughly 

vetted through EPA’s regulations as to be safe for use, and it is not 

methanol per se but rather it was the agents to make it mixable 

within gasoline. Now, that said, and this is someone who has been 

currently working on ethanol and so he kind of knows of that 

which he speaks because this is the process they are going through 

with ethanol, if we are trying to use our natural gas as another 

way of transportation fuel, is there any way we can make that less? 

That is so daunting as to mean it is never going to happen. 

Ms. JACKSON. Sure, it would be off-putting. I am happy to meet 

with or have my experts—you don’t want them to meet with me 

but my experts in the fuels group talk to them about methanol in 

particular, and of course, natural gas in and of itself without a 

transformation is, I believe, what the President was more directly 

addressing in terms of a potential transportation fuel. 

Mr. CASSIDY. But he has done—no offense, I am not being derogatory, he has just done no initiative on it, so it sounds really great 

and I actually think it is great, it is just nothing has happened. 

Now, the methanol could be a fuel additive just as ethanol is but 

again, I am told that the regulatory process is just so long as to 

mean it will never happen, which is a potential denial, if you will. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, I think it is worth having a discussion with 

those who are interested in pursuing methanol. 

Mr. CASSIDY. You have been very responsive to me in the past 

on a certain issue. If you don’t mind, I would like to meet with 

them just because frankly my industry groups are afraid of you. 

Ms. JACKSON. Are afraid of me? 

64 

Mr. CASSIDY. Well, afraid of your agency. They are afraid they 

are going to be penalized by regulation. 

We are tight on time. I will yield back. And again, you are 

unflappable and prepared. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you for your kindness. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. We do have one vote on the floor, but 400 people 

still have not voted, so Mr. Scalise, I am recognizing you for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank the Administrator for coming, and I want to specifically thank you, Administrator Jackson, for your support of our 

efforts to restore the Gulf of Mexico as it relates to dedicating the 

BP fines to Gulf Coast States. As you know, we passed a portion 

of the RESTORE Act here out of the House just a few days ago, 

and we are working with our Senate counterparts to try to get the 

entire piece of legislation, the RESTORE Act, truly bipartisan legislation, through the entire process. I don’t know if you want to 

make any comments on the RESTORE Act but I want to thank you 

for your efforts. 

Ms. JACKSON. I will simply say it is extremely important that 

those resources return to the Gulf of Mexico, so thank you for your 

leadership, sir. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you. I want to talk about your budget. I 

know there has been some talk about what the President’s proposal 

is and whether it is a reduction from current level. If you look at 

what we were given, the view over the 4-year period since you had 

come in, of course, there was a big spike through the stimulus bill 

in fiscal year 2010, which would represent about a 35 percent increase in your budget, and then it is tailored down a little over the 

years, but even with the President’s budget request, it still would 

represent about a 9 percent increase from when you took office. I 

want to make sure that these numbers are the same that you are 

using because under these numbers that I am looking at, you started off with about a $7.6 billion budget, you go to an $8.3 billion 

budget, which represents still a $700 million increase over that 4- 

year period. I just wanted to point that out and make sure that 

was an accurate number. 

Ms. JACKSON. Just two things, or maybe three. We continually 

increased the amount of money that is going to States and tribes 

even in a budget that is down 1.2 percent. A large part of that big 

jump you saw was for SRFs, which goes directly to the tribes and 

States. That was $2 billion and 475 for Great Lakes, so what has 

really happened is an erosion of those increases back, so we have 

heard a lot about infrastructure funding. 

Mr. SCALISE. Right, but I just want to point out, some people are 

suggesting that there are big cuts. Actually there has been a $700 

million increase over the 4-year period. I don’t know how some people characterize that as a cut around this time but I think that is 

an increase, in fact, a high percent increase. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, they are cuts in fact from prior year budgets, 

but it is also really important to point out that the agency itself, 

40 percent of our dollars head straight out the door to State and 

tribal grant programs and we are preserving those, so we are doing 

that at the expense of other agency efforts. 

65 

Mr. SCALISE. Right, and again, when you look at when your 

agency started your second year, I guess, with a 35 percent increase, that came at a time when many States and businesses were 

cutting back their budgets. So I just want to keep that in perspective. 

On the hydraulic fracturing issue, I know my colleague from 

Texas has brought this up with you. I would strongly encourage 

your agency to allow the States to do what they have been doing 

so well for decades, and that is to do State regulation of hydraulic 

fracturing. I know it has worked very well in Louisiana in protecting not only our aquifers but allowing for a dramatic increase 

with this new technology in the amount of natural gas that our 

country can provide not only to our States, which we are pretty 

much self-sufficient on natural gas production in America, but with 

all these fines, not only does it provide opportunity for us to pull 

other vehicles off of gasoline and increase America’s energy security but it has created thousands of new jobs. And so there is a real 

concern among the community in the natural gas industry that 

EPA is looking at getting into an area where the States have been 

very successful in regulating that process, so I just wanted to mention that. 

On a local issue, I know you have worked with Nucor, which has 

built a plant in south Louisiana. They are currently pending a permit from the EPA, and that one permit alone would equate to 

about 700-plus jobs, and I wanted to know if you can give me the 

status of that permit. Do you have any kind of timeline of when 

that permit could be approved? Because about 750 jobs are waiting 

on it. 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe we have approved the permit, and then 

there was litigation that was filed. I believe that is correct, Mr. 

Scalise, but I will check on that. I seem to recall that we actually 

issued the greenhouse gas permit for Nucor sometime last year. 

Mr. SCALISE. I think there was one permit, but there is another 

permit that they are waiting on right now. That is my understanding. 

Ms. JACKSON. I will check on that. 

Mr. SCALISE. But I think there may be another one that they are 

waiting on right now that would be a second part of their expansion, which that alone would be over 700 jobs. So if you could give 

me a timeline of what the likelihood of approval of that would be? 

I know my time is running short, so finally, on refineries, are you 

planning on regulating greenhouse gases at refineries? 

Ms. JACKSON. There are no current rules under development on 

that issue. We have said in the past as part of our overall greenhouse gas strategy that the first big source is utilities, refineries 

are next, but we are not at this point—— 

Mr. SCALISE. As refineries are next, if you could just keep in 

mind, the Small Business Administration recently did a study that 

showed that the average cost per family of regulations as a whole 

comes out to about $15,000 a year per family for the cost of regulations, and this isn’t just your agency, but when I talk to small businesses, many of them cite EPA as the worst offender in essence of 

this $15,000-per-family cost, so if you could keep that in mind as 

you—— 

66 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time—— 

Mr. SCALISE [continuing]. Looking at these additional regulations, I would appreciate it. Thanks for coming, and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

Mr. Gardner of Colorado, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you as well, 

Administrator Jackson, for your time and patience to be with us 

today. I appreciate that. 

And a question for you regarding regional haze, and I am sure 

you have heard this before from others either on this committee or 

other committees. Since the Clean Air Act authorizes each State to 

draft its own State-specific plan, a SIP, to address regional haze, 

do you foresee the EPA approving Colorado’s SIP given that it has 

cross-spectrum support from electric utilities to environmental 

groups? It has been endorsed by Governor Hickenlooper, a Democratic governor. It has been approved by the split-control Colorado 

legislature, the Speaker of the House, split control and has the support in a letter that we went to the EPA of our two Democratic 

Senators, our three Democratic House members and four Republican House members. 

Ms. JACKSON. I can’t say yes or no but I will say this. I am aware 

that Colorado has done amazing work on looking at some of its 

haze issues, and I believe there are some issues on dates for certain units to put on controls versus shutdown. I think the region 

is working very closely with the State on that. 

Mr. GARDNER. And I think right now the deadline is March 8th, 

I believe. Do you know if that going to be hit or miss at this point? 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t have it in my notes, sir, but I will be happy 

to get back to you on that. 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you. And has the EPA used health standards to reject the SIPs of New Mexico and North Dakota? 

Ms. JACKSON. EPA is still working with North Dakota and I believe a decision is due, if not today, tomorrow, and so we have— 

on regional haze, the issue is less about health but visibility. 

Mr. GARDNER. So you are not using health standards on regional 

haze? 

Ms. JACKSON. I am not aware that we are but I can certainly 

check. On North Dakota, I am more familiar because I have been 

dealing with that issue very recently with the delegation. 

Mr. GARDNER. Thank you. And are you familiar with kinesthetic 

dance movements? 

Ms. JACKSON. Kinesthetic dance movements? I know what the 

words may mean but I have never done them. 

Mr. GARDNER. Kinesthetic learning? 

Ms. JACKSON. Excuse me? 

Mr. GARDNER. Kinesthetic learning. Are you familiar with kinesthetic learning? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, sir. 

Mr. GARDNER. One of EPA’s primary activities is giving grants. Last December, EPA awarded $25,000 to the Repertory Dance Theater in Salt Lake City to educate youth about the impacts of air 

pollution. On EPA’s Web site, there is a document describing what 

this money will be used for. The projects intends to, and this is a 

67 

quote, ‘‘The project intends to produce innovative lectures, demonstrations and movement classes in 10 elementary schools. Kinesthetic learning will be used to examine air quality issues and encourage youth and their families to adopt healthy living practices.’’ 

What is this program? 

Ms. JACKSON. You know, I have read about it, and we are reviewing it. It is an Environmental Justice grant program in Utah, 

as you mentioned. It is with a very well-respected group, a repertory group that uses dance to educate. Apparently they have a 

long history of doing this and are quite well respected, but we are 

reviewing it at the request of I think one of the members. 

Mr. GARDNER. Why is the EPA giving $25,000 to a dance company? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, the Environmental Justice grant program is 

about educating communities about interventions in communities 

where there is large populations, for example, that may have asthma. I don’t know if this is the case here. Self-education is an important part of getting those—— 

Mr. GARDNER. Given the testimony that you have talked about, 

funding shortages across the government, can you assure us that 

you are not going to make these kind of grants? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, as I said, we are reviewing the program because of when this came to light. 

Mr. GARDNER. Perhaps we can talk a little bit further about kinesthetic dancing and whether EPA ought to be funding that. 

Ms. JACKSON. I am certainly not the expert, but I do think that 

it is fair to say that we can review the program, and I will be 

happy to tell you what the results of that are. 

Mr. GARDNER. Your budget proposal says EPA, and I know others have touched on this today, Mr. Latta and Mr. Burgess have 

touched on this, it says the EPA would reduce spending by $105 

million but in previous years EPA has reused deobligated funds to 

do so. If EPA deobligates and reuses funds approaching $160 million amount like last year, EPA is really not reducing spending at 

all in 2013. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, this came up in an earlier question, Mr. 

Gardner. You know, we do deobligate funds. We report on those 

movements of funds and we are happy to follow up—— 

Mr. GARDNER. Do you report on those before you actually make 

the expenditure? Is it in the budget justification? 

Ms. JACKSON. It is in the budget justification—in the financial 

statements. Excuse me, sir. 

Mr. GARDNER. But not in terms of—I believe GAO actually said 

that Congressmen want EPA to submit information on recertifications in his budget justification documents. You are not doing in 

the budget. 

Ms. JACKSON. We are doing it as part of our regular financial reporting. 

Mr. GARDNER. So you are telling us that you spend it after you 

spend it? 

Ms. JACKSON. I don’t know whether it is after or before. I believe 

what we do is as we—— 

68 

Mr. GARDNER. But would you agree as a matter of principle that 

we ought to know if you are reobligating funds that we know before 

you do that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, in general, I think we have worked very well 

with Congress over the years to ensure that are spending the 

money as Congress intends. 

Mr. GARDNER. So you agree that it is helpful for Congress to 

know about this use of funds in its justifications? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I am telling you that we deobligate money 

from time to time. I would bet all offices do. And when we do, we 

report it. We are not trying to hide anything. 

Mr. GARDNER. But we would appreciate that getting that beforehand. Do you believe that this actually, deobligating these funds 

and reusing them actually decreases the need for new budget authority in the relevant accounts? 

Ms. JACKSON. No, not necessarily, sir. 

Mr. GARDNER. Do you think this money ought to be returned to 

the taxpayer if it is deobligated? 

Ms. JACKSON. It depends on the issue, sir. I mean, we are living 

within the budget and obligations that we have but it depends on 

the issue. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. The gentleman’s time is expired. Thank you. 

Mr. RUSH. Mr. Chairman, I invite my friends to join me in doing 

the kinesthetic cha cha. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. When and where? 

Mr. RUSH. We have a kinesthetic club in Chicago. 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Oh, OK. 

Ms. Jackson, thanks very much for being with us today. Before 

I let you go, I want to ask one additional question. Under the Renewable Fuel Standard law, EPA is required to publish the required volume obligations for certain fuel categories, and the proposed volume of biomass-based diesel specified in the June 2011 

proposed rule was omitted from the final rule published in December, so what was there in June for the volume for diesel biomass 

was not in the final report in December, and I was just curious, 

was that an oversight or was there some other explanation for 

that? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I know I don’t have a fact sheet on that. Can 

we get you an answer to your question after the hearing? 

Mr. WHITFIELD. Yes, I would appreciate that very much if we 

could get that answer. 

Thank you again for being with us. We appreciate you and Ms. 

Bennett taking the time to be here. 

With that, the hearing is adjourned, and the record will remain 

open for 10 days for any additional materials to be submitted. 

[Whereupon, at 1:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 

69 


79437.006
70 


79437.007
71 


79437.008
72 


79437.009
73 


79437.010
74 


79437.011
75 


79437.012
76 


79437.013
77 


79437.014
78 


79437.015
79 


79437.016
80 


79437.017
81 


79437.018
82 


79437.019
83 


79437.020
84 


79437.021
85 


79437.022
86 


79437.023
87 


79437.024
88 


79437.025
89 


79437.026
90 


79437.027
91 


79437.028
92 


79437.029
93 


79437.030
94 


79437.031
95 


79437.032
96 


79437.033
97 


79437.034
98 


79437.035
99 


79437.036
100 


79437.037
101 


79437.038
102 


79437.039
103 


79437.040
104 


79437.041
105 


79437.042
106 


79437.043
107 


79437.044
108 


79437.045
109 


79437.046
110 


79437.047
111 


79437.048
112 


79437.049
113 


79437.050
114 


79437.051
115 


79437.052
116 


79437.053
117 


79437.054
118 


79437.055
119 


79437.056
120 


79437.057
121 


79437.058
122 


79437.059
123 


79437.060
124 


79437.061
125 


79437.062
126 


79437.063
127 


79437.064
128 


79437.065
129 


79437.066
130 


79437.067
131 


79437.068
132 


79437.069
133 


79437.070
134 


79437.071
135 


79437.072
136 


79437.073
137 


79437.074
138 


79437.075
139 


79437.076
140 


79437.077
141 


79437.078
142 


79437.079
143 


79437.080
144 


79437.081
145 


79437.082
146 


79437.083
147 


79437.084
148 


79437.085
149 


79437.086
150 

Æ 


79437.087