Hearing Of The Interior, Environment And Related Agencies Subcommittee Of The House Appropriations Committee - Environmental Protection Agency

Statement

Hearing Of The Interior, Environment And Related Agencies Subcommittee Of The House Appropriations Committee - Environmental Protection Agency

Chaired By: Rep. Norman Dicks

Witness: Lisa Jackson, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency

Copyright ©2009 by Federal News Service, Inc., Ste. 500, 1000 Vermont Ave, Washington, DC 20005 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service at www.fednews.com, please email Carina Nyberg at cnyberg@fednews.com or call 1-202-216-2706.

REP. MAURICE HINCHEY (D-NY): (In progress) -- decades ago and how it's still lying out there in a lot of places. And the way in which there are no national health safety standards for this kind of material. I have been working with your operation and a number of others over the last several years, and some progress has been made. And I'm just hoping, and I'm sure that you will be doing some things that are going to be very important.

Back in January of this year the Bush administration finally put out a statement with regard to what should be done with regard to TCEs, but it was fairly weak. And now I see that your agency has withdrawn that memorandum and I believe that you're considering a different standard. And I'm just wondering if you're planning to issue a revised memo on PCE toxicity levels and the health risks that they pose.

Also in July of 2006 the National Research Council recommended the human health risk assessments for TCE be just finalized, something clearly be done about it. As I said, and I quote, "With currently available data so that risk management decisions could be made expeditiously." So does EPA have a schedule of completing that risk assessment?

MS. JACKSON: EPA is working to develop a schedule for TCE and a number of other, I call them marquee contaminants, ones people have heard on but which EPA has yet to speak on in terms of putting out a risk assessment that the American people can rely on.

There are two places where we deal with TCO. Obviously one is the Superfund program. You mentioned that first. A recommendation will be made in the fall of this year regarding non-cancer TCE cleanup values that can be used out in the field by states and the federal government and tribes to do cleanups. In the meantime there is an assessment, and I do expect that we will be moving forward with a risk assessment number for TCE. I don't have a date for you today.

REP. HINCHEY: I hope so, and I know you're focused on that. It's very important that you are. There are a number of places, just in the district that I represent, city of Endicott for example on the Southern Tier just above the Pennsylvania border, another city of Ithaca, and the city of Endicott there are about 500 people, 500 homes, families, who are exposed to the gas the effects of PCE coming up into the air. So what you're doing is very critical, and I'm hoping that you move forward on it very effectively. If there's anything that I can do, we can do, the chairman can do, I'm sure we'll be happy to do everything we can to help.

MS. JACKSON: Thank you. I will look --

REP. HINCHEY: One other thing I wanted to talk about was the hydraulic fracturing and water supply issues. There's a lot of attention now with the price of gas having gone up to drill for gasoline, including the Marcellus shale area that stretches across Pennsylvania and New York. But this hydraulic fracturing which is carried out shoots vast amounts of water, sand, and chemicals, some chemicals including things like benzene, down into the ground and then drills along horizontally.

And unfortunately in that legislation that was passed back in 2005, that Energy Policy Act, Congress exempted hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act which was designed to protect people's water supply from contamination from these kinds of toxic chemicals.

So we have now in many places across the country more than a thousand cases of contamination that have been documented by courts, by state and local governments in places like New Mexico, Alabama, Ohio, Texas, Pennsylvania, Colorado, and elsewhere. So in one case there was a house that exploded after hydraulic fracturing created underground passageways and the methane seeped into the residential water supply and just blew the place up.

So obviously there's a lot of damage and danger that is potential here, and this is something that really needs to be addressed. So I wanted to just ask you a couple of questions.

Is EPA aware of and monitoring the reports of water contamination related to hydraulic fracturing of gas wells in those states that I mentioned, including Pennsylvania? And in 2004 an EPA study concluded that fracturing, amazingly concluded that fracturing did not pose a risk to drinking water; however, the contamination incidents I referred to have cast a lot of obvious significant different attitudes about that, making it clear that this is a very serious problem.

So the report's own body contains damaging information that wasn't mentioned in the conclusion. In fact the study foreshadowed many of the problems now being reported in all of those places, all of those states across the country.

So given this new information, what do you think EPA should be doing? Should it reconsider its earlier findings on fracture risks in drinking water? And should something more effective and aggressive be done here to deal with this serious problem?

MS. JACKSON: Well, obviously as new information comes in, I think you bring up some startling cases of places where EPA should at a minimum, even though we're forestalled by law in acting except when there's I think diesel fuel from hydrofacturing, we could certainly play a role of starting to track and keep information and data on these issues as they come up. I do think that it is well worth looking into. I'm happy to do that in conjunction with you or the committee.

At EPA's prior testimony, I think the last time EPA spoke on this was October of 2007, when at that point the EPA's position was that there was no need for any additional concerns. I think it's probably time to look at that again.

REP. HINCHEY: Well, I hope this Congress frankly corrects all of the serious damage which was done, the one I mentioned, but others which were done in that 2005 Energy Policy Act. That's something that we're going to have to do, and I'm very happy to be able to work with you, and I very much appreciate what our chairman is doing on these issues. So please keep in touch with us about these circumstances and let us know what we can do, what you're doing, what kind of help that we may be able to give to you. And I thank you very much for everything that you're doing.

MS. JACKSON: Thank you.

REP. HINCHEY: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. DICKS: Mr. Olver of Massachusetts.

REP. JOHN W. OLVER (D-MA): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Jackson, this is the first opportunity, well easy opportunity that I have had to congratulate you on your arrival at the administrator's position in your confirmation. Your arrival marks a very significant change in the kind of budget that we are seeing this year. There are some very large increases, rarely does one see an agency get more than a one-third increase in its proposed budget. At the same time, there's some quite significant reductions or removals that also show up.

Let me just ask you, how many administrative people in your agency require Senate confirmation?

MS. JACKSON: I believe the number is 14 including myself.

REP. OLVER: Fourteen including yourself. How many of them have been confirmed now, other than yourself?

MS. JACKSON: I believe it's three.

REP. OLVER: Mm hmm. How many of the remaining, including yourself, you and two others have been confirmed?

MS. JACKSON: No, no, no, four.

REP. OLVER: You meant four in total? So how many of the other 10 names have already been sent up for confirmation?

MS. JACKSON: I believe there are three.

REP. OLVER: Three. So there's still half of your total crew here five months into the administration whose names have not gone up for conformation. Okay.

Coming here down the line, I have just a lot of things that I'd like to sort of comment on quickly and maybe come back for a second round if we have a second round.

One is, I too am very pleased that you're noting the needs of tribes. No question the capacity of tribes is paramount in so many different areas. I happen to chair the Housing and Urban Development and Transportation Subcommittee of the Appropriations Committee. We do 98 percent of the housing that is done on reservations; 2 percent of it is done by the DIA which is also part of the Interior Subcommittee.

And of course your water issues are all here in this committee. And in these areas where grants are available, and tribal capacity is critical to be able to access those grants and the use of them once they have gotten them. The effective and expeditious administration and completion of the grant process is also critical to being in line for the next time. If you don't have a good history, you're going to be less likely to get the money the next time.

So the capacity in my subcommittee and the capacity in this subcommittee are really critical. But it's also important in other places. I don't need to go into the other places. I, along with Mr. Cole, am very interested in how one builds that capacity and maintains it, sustains it and makes it grow.

I commented that there are very large increases. The amount in the Recovery Act for the STAG Grants is a very large increase. It's two and a half times what has been appropriated year by year. It comes in in the Recovery Act, and the amounts for the Clean Water Fund, the revolving funds which are basically loan funds, those are huge increases in any case. So there are very large increases there.

But I do want to note, as has been done by a couple of the other members including Chairman Obey and Ranking Member Simpson and the chairman of this subcommittee and probably others have made it too, the problem that occurs in those increases for the very small communities. There were in the loss of funds the inclusion of the rural water program for communities of under 3,000 population and the program under the National Rural Water Association. The sum total of those programs is less than $15 million, but it represents a huge need.

What you find, we have thousands of communities in this country which are losing population. When they are losing population, they are almost certain to have lost their capacity to maintain service programs and to pay what are shares. And in moving over to the STAG Grant program and the Revolving Fund Programs, there is a 20 percent match at the state level. Most of the states are undergoing very severe economic problems and would have serious difficulty this year in coming up with those monies. The ARRA funds are 100 percent kinds of money that the process has been waived for the Recovery Act. And in the case of grants, that is not a problem. But in the case of loans, especially going to the very smallest communities many of which -- you know, the thousands of communities that are losing population are huge numbers in certain parts of the country. But there are communities in every state. In Upstate New York there are communities that are losing population. In my original home state of Pennsylvania there are a substantial number of communities losing population. And they fall often in that lower range.

So I'm kind of curious. See they lose economies of scale. The capital costs per product that comes out is much higher in such small communities because there's just no economy of scale. How does the way you have structured, with the huge increases in the basic grants, the STAG grants and then in the Revolving Funds which are grand increases—I mean I think that part of the answer to why we may not have made as much progress over the years as Mr. Obey was commenting, why that has been in his mind limited, half-empty and in your mind half-full, the glass, is that we haven't put enough money into it to keep up these programs and the ARRA program has put a huge amount of money, more than a whole year's for each of the two years in a couple of those programs.

And I'm sort of curious how you're going to substitute for these two rural programs which were called earmarks when in fact not a single community was designated for any of the monies. They were all competitive after they got to the two agencies that were using those monies. And yet they were serving a group that I don't see where they're going to be served appropriately in the situation that has been set up.

MS. JACKSON: I think and share your belief that the National Rural Water Association and Rural Community Assistance monies went to good purpose, that they were monies well-spent. Yes, in the principal elimination of earmarks they are two of the programs that are not in the president's proposed budget. EPA will do the very best it can to ensure that the large increases in SRF distributed fairly to communities. I do believe that the ongoing discussion that's happening now in Congress, certainly the Senate ETW has had lots of discussion about reauthorization of the revolving funds. And I think there is a place where now is a good time to ask ourselves questions about affordability, about small communities, about the economies of scale issue that you mentioned about the original intent of those infrastructure improvements.

And so I'm happy to have those --

REP. OLVER: Do you have actually capacity to -- I thought that the revolving fund dollars and the STAG grants -- well, the STAG grants probably go out on a competitive basis, don't they? They don't go out by formulas to each of the states. But the revolving funds go out by formula to the states, don't they? Capacity --

MS. JACKSON: Revolving funds are distributed by formula, and actually the STAG grants go to state governments, and they often are distributed --

REP. OLVER: They go to the state governments, and those go by formula to the state governments as well. How do you then take into account, what authority do you have to tell them how they are going to then expend the monies?

MS. JACKSON: Right.

REP. OLVER: The way that you described, you might.

MS. JACKSON: Well, right now. But we follow the law, and the law basically says that states have to give to EPA an intended use plan every year. And that plan is largely the province of the states to decide how best and where to put its money. And obviously if a community can't afford to make the match or can't afford the loan, then there is an issue there. It's not one that we can address without probably some legislative changes.

REP. DICKS: Will the gentleman yield?

REP. OLVER: Surely.

REP. DICKS: We changed the language so that the same kind of authority that we had under the Drinking Water Revolving Fund now applies to, what, 40 percent? -- 50 percent of the Clean Water Revolving Fund. So we've already done that. Chairman Oberstar in his bill, we have exactly the same language. And so there now is a way to help these communities, but again I'm hopeful that at some point we can get back to a grant program. Now even in a grant program you have to have a state match, as I understand it.

But we are making some progress. There is some of the money that goes to your state of Massachusetts that there can be a forgiveness on the repayment and so it is like a grant. And that's been there in the Safe Drinking Water for many years. But we have now put that in the other bill, and we intend though it's not in the administration's request, it may have been overlooked, we're going to put it in the bill for 2010 as we did in the Stimulus.

REP. OLVER: If I could reclaim my time?

REP. DICKS: Yes.

REP. OLVER: Is that one year authorization because it's in within an appropriation bill as the AARA?

REP. DICKS: Yes. That --

REP. OLVER: Does that have to be authorized for the long run?

REP. DICKS: We made it permanent. But Mr. Oberstar's bill, which is now going over to the Senate has got the same language in it. So this is a fix. And as I said, I'm not sure it's totally satisfactory but it's a fix.

REP. OLVER: Have you had input into the bill which is being described that's gone over? It has not yet occurred so that you would see that that is going to solve the problem in an appropriate way, or is there authority in that legislation for you to do the oversight that would make certain that it would happen?

MS. JACKSON: Yes, well, once the legislation if passed changes the requirement that allows for grants rather than loans, then I do think a lot of those communities are going to raise their hand and stand up and say, Yes, of course, we would like to have clean water; we can now afford it. And yes, EPA's staff have been, I will personally take a look at the issue. In fact, I just the other day mentioned to my staff that it's time for us to roll up our sleeves because the one year fixes are much appreciated, Mr. Chairman. And the work this committee did in the Recovery Act has made all the difference to many communities. They've said that. And it was a nice marker down. And I do think that if we can resolve it going forward, that would be --

REP. OLVER: My last comment on that is that you almost need capacity building again in very small communities. They have a very hard time standing up and making their voice heard at state levels as well as at national levels if they don't have a major organization that's behind them.

MS. JACKSON: I agree. The only thing I have to point out obviously in these fiscal times is that a revolving fund doesn't revolve if we give the money out in grants. And so that's a serious issue in terms of financing a grant-based program. It's one that certainly I'm going to have to sit down with OMB on --

REP. DICKS: Now the previous administration told us every, day after day -- I know this pains some -- that the revolving funds had all the money they needed. They could reduce the revolving fund. So that's not, that wasn't totally accurate.

MS. JACKSON: I wasn't there. I don't know exactly what they said, but I'm saying if we switch the revolving funds to a grant program, when you know they revolve because loan repayments pay back the money, and obviously to the extent you increase more, we all know that there are literally hundreds of billions of dollars of need out there. And one of the things about the Recovery Act that I can honestly say is that there has been a clamoring for communities across America to get their hands on the Revolving Fund money that's in there.

REP. DICKS: And if you're going to do the Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, and Puget Sound in San Francisco, they need these projects. In other words, you're not going to get the cleanup of these great bodies of water or other bodies of water if the local communities adjacent to those great bodies can't fund the projects. See, this is so it's part of the solution to the issues we were talking about earlier.

Mr. Pastor.

REP. ED PASTOR (D-AZ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, congratulations, and welcome. My interest is in the 404 permitting process. But as questions were being asked of you, one kind of popped up as I was preparing for the testimony this morning and I saw that in the U.S./Mexico border program that in the '09 Omnibus Bill we had about half a million, maybe a little bit more, of congressionally directed funding that you eliminated, or somebody eliminated. And my chairman Ober brought up the issue of earmarks and I guess the rural fund. The debate we're having and have had with other administrations, what is your philosophy, of congressionally directed projects? And how will you treat them as the law, you say following the law, as the law comes with you, with possibly a few congressionally directed projects?

MS. JACKSON: Well, sir, I've taken an oath to uphold the law. If Congress directs me to do something, I'm going to do it to the best of my ability.

REP. PASTOR: Well, happened in following the law in the Omnibus Bill?

MS. JACKSON: Well --

REP. PASTOR: When you reduced all these projects?

MS. JACKSON: Well, those are --

REP. PASTOR: Those weren't the law?

MS. JACKSON: In the president's budget, you mean?

REP. PASTOR: No.

MS. JACKSON: The proposal?

REP. PASTOR: As I understand in the Omnibus for 2009 for the U.S./Mexico Border program, you basically eliminated all the congressionally directed projects, 640,000. This is according to the papers I received.

REP. DICKS: Isn't this in the 2010 budget request? The ones that are in the 2009 --

REP. PASTOR: I guess my question more generally is, since that happened in the past and I don't know whether the law was followed or not, what is going to be your future action of congressionally directed projects for the 2010, 2011 bills?

REP. DICKS: I think she answered that. I think she --

REP. PASTOR: I don't think she has.

REP. DICKS: We passed the bill and the money is in there just like it's always --

REP. PASTOR: Well, maybe I'm hard of hearing. Maybe I didn't hear her say that.

REP. DICKS: It's just not in the budget request.

MS. JACKSON: Right. It's not in the president's budget request.

REP. PASTOR: Well, the question I think is more general than that.

MS. JACKSON: Okay.

REP. PASTOR: And once we do our bills, there will be congressionally directed projects in your bill. Since past action, at least from what I've seen in the Omnibus bill you reduced all the earmarks on that particular program, is that going to be what you're going to be doing in the future? Or what are you going to do in the future because you are going to get them. They are going to come to you.

MS. JACKSON: I understand the question now, Mr. Pastor. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be so --

REP. PASTOR: No, no, that's fine.

MS. JACKSON: Yes. The administration reduced the amount of money that was set aside in the Omnibus Bill. It may well make decisions like that going forward. Those discussions are ones I'm happy to have with you on the larger issue of whether the U.S./Mexico border program needs funding and needs attention. I would say absolutely it does.

REP. PASTOR: Okay. Actually, it's more general than that. If you reduced them because they were congressionally directed earmarks and you felt that you were following the law, or you could put them aside, you are going to get more congressionally directed projects in various programs in the bill that deals with EPA. I guess the question is, in general how are you going to view them? Are you going to follow the law and accept them? Or are you going to give and take? Or -- so I guess as a new administrator there, what is going to be your position?

MS. JACKSON: This one is a new area for me. I would work with the Office of Management and Budget and the administration to carry out the wishes of the administration, understanding that Congress has spoken through the appropriations process.

REP. PASTOR: Thank you.

MS. JACKSON: Thank you.

REP. PASTOR: On the 404 permitting, probably right now is a good time to relook at that. In the past the Corps of Engineers got the permit request. They went through a series of studies, reviews, etcetera, and they either approved or disapproved. But before they could do that, EPA, Region 9 at least that's my experience, would relook at it and then decide whether or not they agreed with the Corps, if there was disagreement, etcetera.

And two issues that I learned from that experience. One is that coming from the arid Southwest sometimes creeks, rivers, etcetera, carry water maybe once or twice a year at best if there's rainfall. And yet they're treated in a fashion that may reflect what maybe the general description. And much to the consternation of people that were submitting the full for permitting they felt that EPA for whatever reason was either second-guessing or trying to develop their own definitions and so at the process was extended longer than possibly was economically feasible.

And so the question is, Is EPA going to continue looking at these 404? And if you are, what are you going to do to work with the Corps of Engineers so that possibly the time for their approval or denial will be shortened in order so that the applicant has a better idea of knowing to proceed or not proceed in that? And right now is probably the time to do it because many of the developers are not developing right now, and maybe this is the time to look at that process.

MS. JACKSON: Certainly. You bring up a good point. The regulated community just wants certainty. They want to know that a permit application is going to be reviewed in a timely manner, that they'll get an answer and that it's an answer that will stick. I'm committed to working with the Corps of Engineers on 404 permits in general, on field permits to try to give one consistent set of guidance.

Obviously there are times when EPA's review, which is focused on water quality, brings to bear new or different information than the Corps' review made. That's why we're there; that's why the laws and regs were set up that way. That being said, I do think the process can be improved. We should coordinate and in a timely fashion.

REP. PASTOR: Yes, because I think if there was initial coordination when the applicant came in and as the Corps was reviewing the application, if there was some involvement with EPA to possibly you could streamline the process so the applicant would have a better determination, or would have a determination in a quicker amount of time. All right. Thank you, and congratulations.

MS. JACKSON: Thank you.

REP. DICKS: Mr. Price.

REP. DAVID E. PRICE (D-NC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Madam Administrator, let me add my congratulations and welcome to the subcommittee.

MS. JACKSON: Thank you so much.

REP. PRICE: I am glad to see you here and I appreciate your testimony. This is an ambitious budget that you've submitted, the highest in EPA's 39 year history, but it's not just a big budget. I think it's also in most ways a very discriminating budget. And I compliment you on the work that's gone into it.

I want to ask you questions about two major aspects, water infrastructure and research.

Virtually everybody this morning has mentioned the revolving funds and the major increase that you're highlighting there -- 157 percent increase, I believe it is, in the 2010 budget request for the clean water and drinking water state revolving funds.

When you add that to the $6 billion provided in the recovery bill, we're talking about major increases in these funds, of course, admittedly against a fairly low base, because we've not done too well with those funds in recent years, but they're on the way back and this is very promising.

I do have one question about the way this is going to be administered. As I understand it, you've had a requirement in the recovery bill that states are required to provide at least 20 percent of their grants for green projects, including green infrastructure, energy or water efficiency, and environmentally innovative activities.

I wonder if that's a method the agency plans to replicate with the regular year funds and whether you are or not, what's your experience thus far in terms of the states' ability and determination apply their funds in these ways?

On the research budget -- I'll just ask all this at once and then you can respond in sequence -- on the research budget, here too you're making some very promising proposals, I think. I have a particular interest in that budget as the representative of the Research Triangle Park in North Carolina, which is home to the premier EPA research facility, which I think everybody there knows was a nine-year project to get that funded and built, and we're reaping very rich benefits from that investment as we speak.

Your research increases mainly are focused on green water infrastructure, on biofuels, on integrated risk integration systems, and on the computational toxicology research program, non-incremental increases in all those areas.

The ecosystem side of the research has not received comparable increases. I'm not certain why. That's really what I want to ask you about. I know we can't do everything at once, and maybe you can offer me some broader overview of research priorities. But as you know, the budget for ecosystems research has declined something like 36 percent over the last eight years, from $111 million in fiscal '99 to $71 million this year.

Healthy ecosystems is a major goal of the EPA research budget. You're proposing an increase of $5 million for fiscal 2010, which, of course, is movement in the right direction, but rather modest when compared to some of these other research investments. Again, I'm not suggesting we can do everything at once, but I am looking here for your rationale for where the research budget is focused, and in particular the treatment of the ecosystem component.

MS. JACKSON: Well, thank you.

Yes, I do agree. We'll start with research lessons. Then we'll do the green infrastructure you asked about.

First, it is a matter of priority-setting, and we have quite an agenda ahead of us. There are large increases in our research budget, and that money is going to be very helpful in dealing with sort of the issues of the moment. Biofuels, as you may have heard earlier, an issue of major concern. We will continue to regulate the use of and assess the greenhouse gas and energy implication of biofuels, and so there's money for that.

There's money for the Integrated Risk Information System, IRIS, which, as you heard earlier, questions about TCE. It's the IRIS assessments that people are waiting for and computational toxicology, this idea that I barely understand that you can assess chemicals based on non-experiment -- you don't have to necessarily experiment on animals or others in order to assess the toxicology. You can guess about whether certain chemicals will be toxic. That guides R&D efforts in the private sector. And green infrastructure gets money as well.

I do agree with you that an ecosystem-based approach is really the key to sustainability and sort of a holistic environmental protection focus. I will go back and look at that both for the 2010 budget for the 2011 as well. The need for research is great, and we are guided by not only our own scientists -- and I'm eagerly looking forward to the nomination of a head of research and development by the president -- but also by outside scientists on our FACAs and other advisory boards.

With respect to green infrastructure --

REP. PRICE: Let me just interrupt you there. I would appreciate your taking another look at that, and maybe furnishing the committee with any supplementary information you might have about the basis on which you've prioritized these items.

I am a new subcommittee member. I don't have as full a sense as I would like to have of what the costs have been of that -- the research costs, the costs in terms of output of that 36 percent decrease over the last eight years and then what it takes to build this back and what, within this budget item, what the priorities are. So I would appreciate your filling that out a bit.

MS. JACKSON: Yeah, I'm happy to do that, Mr. Price.

With respect to green infrastructure, I'll just say quickly that here's another area where the Recovery Act, you know, shows a potential path forward that communities and grantees are interested in pursuing. I don't have much to report yet on that. The green infrastructure requirement is a 20 percent set-aside. States can ask for permission to essentially waive it and use it for traditional non- green infrastructure projects.

Those waivers have not come in, and we intend to hold a high bar, because we believe that there are communities out there who've already started to look at ways to cut their carbon footprint, their energy use, and have a win-win, because consumers end up paying for energy in their bills over time. And so I'm looking forward to seeing whether or not that's a model that will take hold, and I appreciate Congress's interest.

REP. PRICE: But your immediate plans for 2010 are not to impose a similar condition or to set a similar threshold. Is that true?

MS. JACKSON: It is -- hang on one second; I'm just getting the information from my head of the water program. There is a 20 percent green infrastructure set-aside as part of the 2010 budget request.

REP. PRICE: Very similar to what's in the recovery bill. That's what I'm was asking. Thank you.

MS. JACKSON: Thank you.

REP. DICKS: Mr. LaTourette.

REP. STEVE LATOURETTE (R-OH): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And welcome, Madame Administrator.

Is former Administrator Browner at the agency, or does she have some other post? I'm lost on my reading. Carol Browner.

MS. JACKSON: Carol Browner is a special adviser to President Obama for energy and climate change.

REP. LATOURETTE: Okay. So she's not in the EPA.

MS. JACKSON: No, she's physically -- her office is in the Eisenhower Executive Office.

REP. LATOURETTE: Perfect.

And Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask you, on the last administration, do you have an anticipated statute of limitations on -- (laughter) -- I noticed, you know, you got about 50 years out of Herbert Hoover. (Laughter.) I mean, I'm just wondering how long we're going to go with the previous administration, because, quite frankly --

REP. DICKS: Just as long as it resonates. (Laughter.)

REP. LATOURETTE: I would say, I was interested in Mr. Olver's discussion of the revolving loan fund. And we all remember in hailing the 1972 Clean Water amendments, but one of the big problems that cities, at least in my part of the country, have is that while previous administrations who were not Republicans, who were delighting in passing new rules and regulations, there was no more money to keep up with the SSOs and CSOs, and so on and so on; just a rhetorical question.

REP. DICKS: I think this is one where there's bipartisan blame.

REP. LATOURETTE: Excellent. All right, I just wanted to get that out there.

REP. DICKS: And truly we need a bipartisan solution --

REP. LATOURETTE: Right.

REP. DICKS: -- which I hope we can reach and work together on.

REP. LATOURETTE: Mr. Chairman, I'm all with you.

Madame Administrator, I don't want to -- I know that Chairman Obey asked questions about the Great Lakes Initiative, and if I repeat those, just put your hand up and tell me to stop asking the questions. But we had the secretary here last week, and that figure in the president's budget is $475 million.

And I did not bring my notes from the secretary's hearing, but there were some -- apparently some decisions made by the EPA as the lead agency in that task force or interagency group, and I think it was 10 and a half million (dollars) for the National Park Service. There was money for Fish & Wildlife. And the chairman chimed in and indicated that there was money for the Corps. And I'm just wondering, is all the $475 million accounted for, I mean, in terms of -- have you figured out where it's all going to go?

MS. JACKSON: EPA staff have worked hard with the other agencies to come up with a funding schedule that was based on an agreement that there be no pre-established allocation, that we would use criteria to get strategic and measurable environmental outcomes.

REP. LATOURETTE: Okay. Who at your agency are you going to task with being the lead decision-maker in terms of -- I think Chairman Obey asked you questions about to make sure that they're based upon science. I'm sure you will. Who's going to figure out what gets done and what doesn't get done?

MS. JACKSON: Well, at the end of the day, I will remain personally involved in it. The head of the water program -- right now that's Mike Shapiro, the acting assistant administrator; Pete Silva has been nominated by the president but has not yet been confirmed. And we are considering in-house the idea of adding someone to advise me specifically on the Great Lakes, given the importance.

REP. LATOURETTE: Well, I said, when the secretary was here, I really appreciate the president putting this in the budget because we sort of limped along with the Great Lakes Legacy Act of $50 million a year. And you know that there are remaining areas of concern in the Great Lakes. The costs are astronomical in terms of cleaning those up. And $475 million is a lot of money, but it's not enough to get the job done. And I hope that the administration continues to value the Great Lakes as the Congress valued the Everglades a number of years ago, with real money to get the real problem taken care of.

My concern was, as I look at the spread sheet -- and it looks like 49 percent of that money is going to be kept within the EPA -- what are you going to do with that money?

MS. JACKSON: EPA's programs will include cleaning up legacy pollutants. It will also include potential grants for some amount of accountability, monitoring, communications with stakeholders and partnerships there. EPA is investing in invasive species work, in near-shore health protection and habitat and wildlife restoration.

I have to just -- this sounds a little general, and part of the reason for that is that these are initial allocations based on discussions among all the agencies about where the money would be best spent. But there are not specific projects yet.

REP. LATOURETTE: Right. No, I know that. I guess I would just voice my concern with -- the EPA does wonderful work, but when you're actually talking about -- I mean, the new expression is shovel-ready. The Corps has a great responsibility in actually helping in the cleanups and re-establishment of habitat, and so forth and so on.

They're only down, if I'm reading this chart right, to a little under 10 percent, while the EPA is keeping the lion's share of 49 percent. Are you indicating that as you move forward and these additional people get into place that the EPA is going to get off some of that 49 percent and perhaps give it to the Corps, give it to Fish & Wildlife, or give it to whoever's actually boots on the ground doing the work?

MS. JACKSON: Well, these allocations are preliminary, based on projects and ideas that people brought forward to a group. Again, my instructions to my staff were that there was nothing pre-set. There was no general rule that EPA had to keep the majority. In fact, EPA is keeping just under 50 percent, so we don't have the majority. And all agencies were asked to bring to the table their best ideas for projects that would make a measurable difference in those waters. We didn't have a favorite agency or a favorite project.

REP. LATOURETTE: I got you.

Last question: The Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure program -- we've heard for a while from DOD that they haven't gotten around to it because they didn't have the funding, and so forth and so on. Can you just make a brief comment about how the EPA and DOD are working together to make sure that the compliance is going to be complete by this summer's target date.

MS. JACKSON: The spill prevention -- the SPCC rules, I know EPA has delayed the effective date on till January of 2010. That's because there was a new rule-making right in December of 2008, and EPA has been reviewing it to determine whether or not it is effective enough. I don't have any specific information on DOD compliance, but I would imagine DOD right now would be like the rest of the regulator community, who are eagerly awaiting EPA's rule-making.

REP. LATOURETTE: And so am I incorrect that the compliance date was extended to July of -- this July? Are you saying we're going into next year?

MS. JACKSON: That's on the rule-making. I think you may be talking about a specific project, and so I reserve the right. Why don't you and I make sure we coordinate on that and I get you an answer?

REP. LATOURETTE: I would like that very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MS. JACKSON: Thank you.

REP. DICKS: In March you announced an initiative to monitor air quality and measure levels of toxic pollutants around our nation's schools. Your 2010 request includes $3.3 million, five FTs, for this effort. I understand that you will be again after this year and that you have already selected 62 schools.

Has the monitoring begun at any of these schools? And if so, can you discuss the results?

MS. JACKSON: Mr. Chairman, the monitoring has begun at only two of the those schools. The delay is in selection and purchasing and procurement of equipment. We expect a big slug of that to happen actually in the next two to three weeks. And so there are no results yet to report. I did commit last week, and I do again today, that as results come in we will not hold up individual school results if there is information that would be of concern to parents and teachers. We would get that out as we could. And then at some point when we get results en mass, we can analyze what we're learning about the country as a whole and our schools.

REP. DICKS: Last month, this subcommittee held a series of hearings for public witnesses. One of the witnesses represented a group concerned with protecting our children from environmental toxins. I understand that the Clinton administration issued an order requiring EPA to specifically consider children when it issues regulations, sets guidelines and produces assessments and research. Is this order still in effect? And how are you planning to implement it?

MS. JACKSON: To my knowledge, that order is still in effect, Mr. Chair. I have personally said that revitalizing and raising the stature of children's health issues within the agency is important to our credibility with Americans. I have since appointed Peter Grevatt to head the Office of Children's Health at EPA. Peter has been charged with bringing back to me a plan for elevating the stature and requests for whatever resources he might need.

The Children's Health Program at EPA works, first, in concert with all the other programs. To be effective, it really needs to work inside well as an advocate and outside with places like the Centers for Disease Control and NIEHF. Those partnerships will be very important to us.

REP. DICKS: In the past, EPA has funded children's environmental health research centers of excellence. What is the status of this program? And can you describe the research results achieved by these centers in the last 10 years?

MS. JACKSON: I believe they are considered an unqualified success, not only here but internationally as well. When I was recently in Italy, members of the G8 pointed to those centers as models that they were using in their own countries. And so, obviously, they are probably doing good, not only in this country but abroad. I don't have the figure directly in front of me for funding them, but it is our intention that they will remain an integral part of our work.

REP. DICKS: And why don't you put that in the record. In the past, EPA also participated in national children's studies which strives to asses the links between exposure to toxins and health effects on children. Does EPA still participate in this long-term study?

MS. JACKSON: We are a lead partner in the National Children's Study. That's a major NIH effort. And we've provided funding and partnerships and helped them recruit participants this year.

REP. DICKS: Mr. Simpson.

REP. SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And just a quick follow up on a few questions that were asked earlier. We talked about enforcement earlier and being a former enforcement officer. In a March 2009 report, the GAO stated that enforcement activities primarily occur in EPA's 10 regions which possess considerable autonomy, causing significant variations in enforcement activities from region to region.

As you and I talked in my office, not only enforcement procedures but also interpretation of regulations and so forth and how those are applied. Companies talk to me and say, you know, that have facilities in various states across the country and different regions, say that one regulation is interpreted one way in one region and another way in another region. What they really want is some consistency. Do you agree with the GAO report? Is that a concern of yours? And are you going to address that?

MS. JACKSON: Certainly, it's a concern, Mr. Simpson. You and I talked about the fact that it's the agency's job as a whole to make sure that EPA means the same thing across the country, that's with respect to enforcement, certainly. It means leveling the playing field, and you can't do that if it's not a common level.

The previous administration had something called the state review framework. I think that was a good start at looking at states, making them accountable back to EPA to make sure that their enforcement programs are consistent with a national standard that we set. We need to be set up. We need to continue to make sure that we are being honest brokers and evaluating states.

REP. SIMPSON: One other question. In talking about -- to follow up on Mr. Cole's question on the Superfund taxes. In March 2009, the EPA's acting inspector general was prepared to testify before this committee about the high available balances in so-called Superfund site-specific special accounts. According to this draft testimony, the acting inspector general found on California Superfund site had a special account balance of 117.8 million (dollars), including interest. He goes on to say that the Superfund special account funds often exceed anticipated future site needs and sit idle.

Given the high leftover balances in these site-specific accounts, are you having trouble spending those funds? Because if you are, we're really good at it. And if there's anything we can do to help, would you let us know?

MS. JACKSON: (Laughs.) Absolutely. Through the end of FY 2008, special accounts had a non-obligated balance of $1.3 billion. That may sound high but, as you know, the cost of Superfund cleanup is certainly not going down. The complexity of the cleanup is such that that money almost always tends to be needed.

I would be very hesitant to say anything bad about such special accounts. What they are evidence to me of is an enforcement program that's working, of the polluter-pays principle that at some point EPA settled with or recovered money and put it in an account to be used as the Superfund was intended, from those polluters to use to clean up that --

REP. SIMPSON: Why aren't they being used to clean it up then?

MS. JACKSON: Well, it depends on where the site is in the cleanup process. They may be awaiting a record of decision in order to decide on a cleanup remedy. There could be contracting outstanding. Sometimes there's litigation. So the money is there and waiting and, it's my opinion, preferable to have it there and waiting rather than to have to use appropriated taxpayer money because that money came from recovery associated with that specific site.

REP. SIMPSON: Final question, Mr. Chairman.

Your 2010 budget includes $19 million in anticipation of implementing a not-yet-authorized cap-and-trade program. Two weeks ago, I would have said I don't know that we're going to get a cap-and- trade bill passed. But it seems like we're creating enough exemptions, whether they're region specific or industry specific, that more and more people are buying onto it. I guess that's how you do that by not looking at what you're trying to do but by looking at the exemptions that you're going to create. One of the concerns I have -- first of all, what are you going to do with this $19 million if cap and trade doesn't pass?

And secondly, as you and I many others have talked about, in that same GAO report of March of 2009 when it talked about some of the challenges facing EPA, it said, addressing emerging climate change issues, in GAO's view, the federal government's approach to climate change has been ad hoc and is not well-coordinated across government agencies. For example, the federal government lacks a comprehensive approach for targeting federal research dollars toward the development and deployment of low-carbon technologies.

This is what really concerns me. I fully believe we need to do what we can in terms of climate change and trying to address climate change and carbon emissions and so forth. But it seems like every budget that comes up here has something to do with climate change, and I don't know how well it's coordinated. And GAO kind of confirmed that for me. How are you working with the other agencies?

National Parks Service has $10 million for climate change. Almost every agency -- you know, several years ago, it was you had to have something related to homeland security, and then you were going to get funded. Now it is you have to have something related to climate change, and it's going to get funded.

In fact, I think OMB probably has a requirement that in every paragraph when somebody testifies, green has to be mentioned a certain number of times. That's how you get funding. What are we doing to coordinate the hundreds of millions of dollars we are spending on climate change?

MS. JACKSON: Fair enough, sir. And you'll never hear me complain about green in every sentence of every paragraph. That's actually my job, so that's a good thing, from my perspective.

REP. SIMPSON: (Laughs.)

MS. JACKSON: Just to answer the smaller questions first. There is actually $19 million for climate-related work for the greenhouse gas reporting rule for Energy Star, a very successful EPA program American people have embraced. Five million (dollars) of it is for cap and trade, and that 5 million (dollars) is for the offsets program. The idea that oftentimes one of the things that you can do to control costs is offset emissions of carbon from one source with another. Landfills, gas methane comes up. In your part of the country, forestation efforts at forestation, adding forests, preserving forests, expanding forests, all very good stuff. So EPA will continue to do that work.

In general, EPA's work is what I would call more applied research. It's modeling. It's information that drives or guides our rule-making. There is some amount of work on climate and energy that might be considered more research and development. The vast majority of that, both in the recovery act and in the president's budget, is found and coordinated through the Department of Energy, unprecedented amounts of money to move us forward, to actually put us not only in the race but hopefully towards the front of the pack in this clean energy technology that the president has called for.

REP. SIMPSON: I appreciate that. And just as an example, the arts were up here one day explaining to us what a green job in the arts was. And I, you know -- everybody that testifies talks about green jobs. And we tried to get them to explain to us what a green job is in the arts, and I still don't know what it is other than you mix blue and yellow together.

MS. JACKSON: You're not asking me to explain that?

REP. SIMPSON: No, I'm not.

MS. JACKSON: (Laughs.)

REP. SIMPSON: Thank you for being here today.

REP. DICKS: You might have a theater that was built to (lead ?) standards. That would be green jobs.

MS. JACKSON: That's it, a theater to (lead ?) standards, energy (efficient ?).

REP. DICKS: Quite simple. (Laughter.)

Mr. Hinchey.

REP. MAURICE HINCHEY (D-NY): Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.

I just want to follow up on what was just said on the issue of climate change and once again just congratulate you on everything that you're doing. I think the major steps that are moving forward on this issue now to deal with the issue of global warming is exemplary. The information today that you're adopting what appears to be the policy in California to upgrade the issue to deal with emissions in vehicles, all of that is very, very important.

A central feature of the issue here is cap and trade, and that's a central feature of the bill that is working its way through the Congress here. And this bill seems to be developed in a very effective way. It seems to be going to make a major, positive difference, contributing to all the major, positive differences that you're making.

You're requesting $17 million in your budget for greenhouse gas registry to support the cap-and-trade regime. And I'm just wondering if that's enough, if you think that is adequate and if there is anymore funding that could be put into place that would be more helpful.

And the other --

REP. DICKS: If the gentleman would yield just for a moment.

REP. HINCHEY: Yeah.

REP. DICKS: This was an initiative of our subcommittee. We put the original money in for this I think last year. So we're pleased to see this increase.

REP. HINCHEY: Good. Very good. Okay.

MS. JACKSON: Yes, the greenhouse gas reporting rule is out in draft. EPA staff did a great job of first responding to Congress' call to start to have reporting of greenhouse gas. Those rules had not been put out until the Obama administration, and we're certainly proud of that, but they're out for public comment. But also that we tried to do something that some people think alludes us, which is use some commonsense and deal with the largest sources and minimize the burden on small business. So that rule requires reporting by larger entities, those that emit over 25,000 metric tons per year of CO2 or CO2 equivalent. And by doing that, we looked at the trade-off. We don't get 100 percent coverage of every single emission, but we get well-over I think it's close to 90 percent, 85 or 80 percent, I think. Between 80 and 90 (percent), how about that? And so we got the maximum amount of reporting, and we didn't have to touch small sources.

So yes, I do believe that we have the resources we need to do it. Yes, we stand ready to do it. And we do believe it's going to be very important. Thanks to this committee for supporting it because you can't regulate what you don't measure, you can't control what you don't have. And so it's a very important (thing ?).

REP. HINCHEY: Thanks very much. I think that as another aspect of this issue that is somewhat controversial and always debated, there are a lot of people who believe that carbon tax will be much more effective than cap and trade. So cap-and-trade issue is moving forward, and I pretty much understand why, you know, that's moving forward. I wonder if you have any comments to make or any insight that you might provide as to, you know, why we're focusing so heavily on cap and trade rather than a carbon tax which might be simpler and more effective?

MS. JACKSON: Certainly. There are several things that argued for a cap-and-trade regime and I supported, as the president does. He called for it certainly during his campaign. First, there is the cap part of cap and trade. A cap actually means that there are targets and time lines that address the pollution that we're worried about. In this case, CO2 and its equivalents. We certainly have a proven track record with respect to the acid rain program in the northeastern United States, a smaller program that only deals with utilities, but many of us hearken back to the fact that it was actually EPA, was the United States that came up with the whole concept of cap and trade, piloted it and used it in the acid rain program.

It allows for a transition period. It allows for a market to be developed that prices carbon. And that's what those who make their life's living understanding the economy -- economists and people like them -- say is necessary to really spur private investment.

True, through the Recovery Act and the budget, we're putting public investment in clean energy and renewables. What we really need is for the private sector to know that we're in this game, we're in this race. We're going to -- there is profit, money to be made in green and clean energy. I don't want to use green, because I'm going to get in trouble. Okay -- clean, clean is good.

REP. HINCHEY: Well, no doubt about it. It's going to move us in the right direction. I think that's very clear and I appreciate everything you're doing. I think that this bill is moving forward very effectively.

There are other issues -- yeah?

REP. DICKS: Can I just?

REP. HINCHEY: Yeah.

REP. DICKS: I want to just try to -- I want to finish -- make sure everybody gets a chance.

REP. HINCHEY: Okay. Just one --

REP. DICKS: And I want to get the administrator out of here by 11:30, because she has to be at the White House.

REP. HINCHEY: Okay, 30 seconds.

REP. DICKS: Go ahead.

REP. HINCHEY: Black carbon and hydrofluorocarbons -- HFCs -- are also issues that we really need to deal with.

Can you tell us what is going on with them? What kind of initiatives that may be taken or what suggestions that you would make for us to move on that -- on those issues?

MS. JACKSON: The hydrofluorocarbons is being discussed first in the context -- I think it's still in the (ASA ?) legislation. There is a good model out there that I know we're evaluating as an administration, which is the Montreal Protocol, which was used to phase out CFCs -- extremely efficient and effective mechanism for doing that. It's going to require an international effort just like the CFCs. That's one model certainly being discussed.

Black carbon is an air pollution problem that certainly -- black carbon is a greenhouse gas, but it's also a horrible air pollutant in developing countries where it's an indoor air pollutant and probably has much more immediate impact than its global warming potential, which is also significant.

I think you can address it in either way. The current bill doesn't address black carbon or soot, but I don't think that that means we couldn't partner with many developing countries to address it on a separate track.

REP. HINCHEY: Thanks very much.

REP. DICKS: Thank you.

Mr. Cole.

REP. TOM COLE (R-OK): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I didn't mean to go this way, but I want to make just a quick statement for the record, because I am a tremendous skeptic of cap and trade -- and that's putting the carbon issue aside.

There's a terrific article by David Sokol today in this morning's Washington Post and he's chairman of MidAmerican Energy Holding Company; it's a Berkshire Hathaway subsidiary. Last time I looked, the principal associated with that firm was a very strong supporter of the president.

But very skeptical about what's going to happen when we get into the marketing and what's going to happen when hedge funds are buying these things and banks are buying these things and investment -- people who have actually no relationship at all with the energy end of it.

I mean, my instinct would tell me we're going down cap and trade because those of us that believe in taxing carbon, frankly, either don't think we can get the votes or don't want to have the vote. And that's why we're going to use cap and trade in my opinion.

It's going to be a big disaster. A lot of people are going to get very rich and markets are going to get manipulated. There are serious problems in the mechanism by which we've chosen to go about confronting the issue of carbon.

So I mean, I would actually argue -- my friends who have the concern on carbon -- and it's a legitimate concern -- would look at a carbon tax as opposed to this. But in my opinion -- but I didn't want us to stray down that line.

I actually had another thing I wanted to ask you about that is in your testimony. And that's the -- you know, it seems almost risque to use the term LUST fund, but I will, since it's the Leaky Underground Storage Tank Program.

If I'm correct, we put $200 million in that fund in the stimulus. Is that accurate?

MS. JACKSON: Yes, that's right.

REP. COLE: And then I also think that we added $112 million in the FY '09 omnibus as well.

So I guess I have two questions. One, what's roughly the current balance -- because it's a good program and I have no particular problem; and two, given those levels of expenditures, do we really need another $15.4 million for fiscal year 2010? I mean, we've made a pretty big hit here as it is.

MS. JACKSON: Well, as of September 30th, '08, the fund balance was $3.2 billion from '03 -- FY '03 to 2008 annual new receipts averaged slightly over $200 million.

REP. COLE: So that wouldn't include the stimulus money or --

MS. JACKSON: That's right. That was prior to the Recovery Act.

REP. COLE: -- or the funding from the omnibus.

MS. JACKSON: States fund the majority of leaking underground storage tank cleanup activities from their own resources. So although that is a huge amount of money -- and certainly prior to EPAct, you know, EPA didn't have anywhere near those resources.

I think that leaking underground storage tanks are a pollution -- are a real threat to water quality in this country. I was looking quickly over here to see if there was any estimate of the total need, but I know it is much greater even than the unexpended balance. So as a manager, I look at that money and ask myself why it's still sitting there, but I don't have an answer.

REP. COLE: Well, I'd appreciate it if you could get back to us on that particular point, because you know, 37 percent increase is a good increase. And I particularly appreciate, frankly, the focus that you have on water and water infrastructure. I think it's absolutely the right place to go with the additional money that you've asked for -- and don't disagree with the program. I actually helped put a program like that together in my home state in Oklahoma.

But I'm just wondering, given the budget constraints we have, whether or not we really need that $15 million this year and whether or not that's really just a placeholder, more or less, for a program. So I would just ask you to look at that and see if that's a place that appropriately savings could be made.

MS. JACKSON: I will certainly look at it. That fund requires appropriates, so I'll definitely look at the appropriation versus the requested funds.

REP. COLE: I appreciate that.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

REP. DICKS: Mr. Olver.

REP. OLVER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Fifteen seconds on my previous comments: I fully realize that the increase in the revolving funds, the two revolving funds, are more than -- more than 100 times what the reductions are in those directed -- that have been directed to the very rural communities. But I don't know how those rural communities really are going to get much of the hearing in this process. It's very difficult for them to do so. So I wish you would pay special attention to that.

In your brownfields program, you have 175 million (dollars) -- a 3 percent increase, basically -- from previously. And a very large portion of that is in the brownfields state tribal assistance grants.

From your testimony -- I'm now reading from your testimony -- "For brownfields assessment, revolving loan fund, clean up and job training camps."

What does the revolving loan fund in that instance do?

MS. JACKSON: As I recall, that is the idea that it can be used as seed money for states and tribes to lend out money to developers or communities that can then be paid back as the development becomes profitable.

REP. OLVER: Okay. And how much of it is being used for the revolving loan fund?

MS. JACKSON: I'm trying to see if I have that figure, sir. If I don't, I'll get it to you.

REP. OLVER: You can get it to me.

And then later you say the program designed to help and so forth "to assess the safely clean up and reuse the brownfields." Well, the reason I asked that question is that in the budget in HUD, we have had removed the one program -- about $15 million or so -- that was specifically used for reuse.

Now, apparently, we've had this discussion back and forth over -- there are lots of brownfields that could be reused. Your revolving loan fund -- there's a question of how much of that ends up being something that can be used in a revolving way -- has been the argument, I guess, as to why our reuse fund has been -- which was a grant fund -- has been removed from consideration.

So I would like to have some discussion, maybe, with the person who is in charge of this area. If you would have -- identify him or have him identify himself to me as being involved in that brownfields fund to understand why -- what the overlapping is, finally, because we've had the argument before.

And the last thing I'd like to ask -- on your research and development, your development fund is up by 7 percent. And I'm kind of curious -- I see computational toxicology. Well, I'm old enough to think that computers can be toxic. I don't think that that has anything to do with computational toxicology. (Laughter.)

But in any case, in that whole section, you also get into biofuels. And I'm wondering, do you have research programs, research grants, a competitive research grant program somewhere that looks at -- that gives out some money to do remediation of toxic sites -- whether it comes from the production of biofuels, since you have a biofuels section there, which refers to biofuels research and sustainability analysis -- that could deal with remediation of such sites by bioagents -- essentially biological means -- which could go not in the major nuclear waste sites, for instance, probably couldn't go -- but in small spills and such could be -- could be used in some PCB cases?

You know, the cost of -- the cost is huge to do the Hudson River, as my colleague on my left talked about earlier, to do it by dredging and treatment and so forth. For simple cases there are biological agents that can deal with PCBs and all these other things -- including PCEs and so on, as he put it.

All those can be done, including probably some impact in places where there are coal ash situation. They had a huge coal ash spill in Tennessee that I don't think can be handled in any reasonable period of time in a biological way.

MR. : (Off mike.)

REP. OLVER: Okay. Is there such a research program and if not, why not?

MS. JACKSON: Yes. Super Fund -- the Super Fund Hazardous Waste cleanup program has a technology innovations staff whose entire focus is to try to move forward on how we clean up sites.

A couple of things I just have to say -- calling back on my old -- many years in the Super Fund Program as a cleanup manager and some of them on PCB contaminated sites -- there are certain types of sites which don't lend themselves to bioremediation, which is what you're referring to. They tend to be sites that have large concentrations of heavy metals. Metals are toxic to bacteria for the most part. They --

REP. OLVER: Some of them love them.

MS. JACKSON: Yeah, well, that is true. I shouldn't speak in generalizations, because there's always an exception.

But often times, bioremediation is not the first thing you think about if there are heavy metals. It depends on the metal. And PCBs, I know -- just because I worked in Region II where the Hudson River site is -- there were for many years allegations that you could use in situ bioremediation to clean that up. I think the region has done a tremendous job of looking at that issue and deciding that that is not a feasible way of cleaning up that particular site.

PCEs are different, obviously, and may lend themselves easier to a bioremediation effort. And we're happy -- happy to get you some additional information on specifics.

REP. OLVER: Does this fall in the same area as the brownfields cleanups? Some of those could be done. Some of those are relatively small sites.

MS. JACKSON: Certainly! And one of the places --

REP. OLVER: But when you get to -- to Super Fund sites, which may be the clean up of a whole harbor or some other thing like that.

MS. JACKSON: Very good point. Yeah, you're absolutely right that it doesn't have to be these huge scales. I do believe one of the places we see bioremediation a lot is in underground petroleum spills where there's a proven history that bioremediation can work -- biosparging, different technologies.

REP. OLVER: Do we have a research program in these areas?

MS. JACKSON: Yes. And we're happy to get you --

REP. OLVER: Without finance in that area?

REP. OLVER: All right. I'm going to -- I appreciate the chairman's -- very good questions.

I want to wrap this up. I wanted to say one thing. You know, Mr. Obey brought up the question on the Great Lakes. And I'm a supporter of this program -- though I do believe, after listening to -- and I asked Gary Gulezian to come in and he did a very good job of explaining what the program is and a lot of the work that's been done on this. Okay, but I still have concerns.

And my basic concern is -- and I believe that in order to make this thing to be a success, you and I talked about this, we have to have a credible science plan. And it can't just be the agencies doing the science plan. It has to be an outside group -- an independent group of scientists that look at this.

Now, I understand every two years they come in and review what's going on, but I'm not talking about that. And that's very helpful, I think. And I think everybody can learn from that.

What I want to see is that we have an independent group of scientists who look at a plan. And I understand that they're going to -- in 2011 you're going to develop a new plan. I think we ought to do it in the context of a new plan and have a scientific group that reviews it and says if they in fact do these things, that we will clean up the Great Lakes.

Now, whether you have a plan for each one of the five lakes, that might be an idea, because they're each different and each have different problems and it's such a huge area. You know, I'm leaving that up to you. But I still am not convinced that we have in place a scientifically credible plan.

And also, I think we need to be looking at these projects. What we do in our salmon recovery work in the Pacific Northwest, we have an independent scientific review group. Every single one of the projects that are approved for funding are reviewed by the science group. And the science group says, yes, this is credible. They turn some of them down. So you know, it isn't just a rubberstamp.

So I just want to continue to have this dialogue. We have a few weeks here. You've got a lot of language that you want in the bill and we'll have a discussion about that. But again -- and as I said, we're going to support the funding, but we want to make sure we get this thing set up right. Because you know, we have a long history -- this thing has gone back to the '70s. And there hasn't -- there's been progress, but not enough progress to really restore the Great Lakes or the Chesapeake or Puget Sound or any of the rest of these things.

So I think we have to keep working on trying to figure out the approach to the program so that we get it right.

MS. JACKSON: I appreciate that.

REP. DICKS: And with that, we're going to adjourn and let you get down to the White House for your announcement.

MS. JACKSON: All right. Thank so much.

Source