question. then there's some questions at the front, thank you. this lady here. i'll come to you after that. thank you. >> they told me a month ago that a young man called muhammad committed suicide in tunisia, and this set off the events which is causing this discussion and the world in it's way looking at the whole events of the middle east. what role do you think the press has in this whole event? and what -- what -- how will it actually develop into reporting events beyond the middle east? >> so you mean the press coverage initially from tunisia, how that essentially -- >> yeah, the effect of the whole thing, which only happened what, a month ago? >> a little more. december. yeah, thank you. i'm going to allow you to speak about the power of the arab media of al-jazeera again. >> no, no, i won't mention it

even once again. actually, it can be conceived that way. when muhammad azizi set himself on fire, the image of him and in the hospital went on the web. that came part of the social network. when they got interest, the social, especially arab, media got interested. what started as social networks rooting for social justice became massive demonstrations, spreading through entire cities. it turned into an uprising. it had to be covered by the rest of the world. that became a national uprising. then it became a revolution that will start spreading to egypt and yemen. then no one else could avoid. what started as social networks rooting for social justice because the arabs were invisible

in social media. they were working on various media outlets on what's going on in the world, it caught fire, the world, not the person, putting conditions in the west notably, but also elsewhere under the spotlight. they had to do things, and they started saying things that weren't eloquent. eventually, they did catch up because of the press. because the media did catch up. yes, the bbc, yes, when the cnn folks as they call them in america got beaten up in cairo, believe me it was not longer cultural calculation. >> equally if you look at libya, we are not able to tell the same kinds of stories that do exist. because no one has that kind of access and that kind of ability to operate. david? >> well, i agree with what you have said. but i would just say this is not just the story of the west, it's

also the story of the east. two articles in the arab 199 -- 1989 and sent it to a variety of newspapers. they accepted it. the next day they turned it down on the ground is that chinese policy of what was happening then in egypt was a matter for egypt alone and not an issue for wider concern and consideration. i think right across asia, many of the same points apply. it's not just the west of all ages has in the sense not seen the development and the changing dynamics of the arab world. it has seen in in terms of awe cattic -- autocratic regimes that are stagnant, and they have been stagnant in the academic literature for generations. while it's true, the east also has had little comprehension of what is now going on. and those that pursue their dominance international interest in the area, china, increasingly. >> by the way, china banned

egypt news. >> china, but increasingly in india, they also fall under that. >> thank you. go ahead. another question. thank you. >> i'm a journalist from finland, journally writer, journalist fellow from oxford. i will actually go back to the beginning, and what kind of role does the son of gadhafi play in this situation at the moment? is this a sort of a father/son joint venture thing? or most important allies for gadhafi at the moment? :

but the thing that struck me

the traditions of shakespeare and freud who would have murdered your

from a monolithic state to the private sector and to free thosa those --

on the front and going through the motions before? >> no, i think it was genuine. i think your explanation was that if your father's life is threatened, then you have to make a choice. you will do what you do. most people would. i think there's one point that we should just mention, that speech also contained a promise that there would be a new political dialogue. in other words, he did offer genuinely or not, we can never tell, the process that the iranians began in the dialogue between rulers and people. those watching that speech thought there was precious little chance of the colonel agrees to that. we saw the libyan people that would regard it as far too little, far too late. that is, indeed, what happened. >> the offer of reform in that speech seems to me entirely uncompelling and plausible.

if you are ravaged by a beast or form by any shape or form, and then the beast offered to take you to prada store and buy clothes. what does that mean? the speech was violent and portrayed the protesters of drunks, then the offer is hidden by the language of violence. >> so the choice has already been made? >> absolutely. noman? >> it's very complicated questions. but it's -- yeah, i am 100% support the idea since like 2007, or maybe before that. let's say 2005 when he started to act as a political figure within the libyan scene. i think he took a lot of like very radical actions or moves which is always faces a lot of like obstacles and objections from not just his father, but the radical hard core in the libyan regime.

i know as a matter of fact, not just because of my like personal contact with him, but other people as well, he included from his father they used to label him as someone, his mind being corrupt by liberal values. including his father. they used to label him like this. someone being corrupt with liberal values. because the time he spent outside in australia or -- and in london. anyway. as professor david mentioned, he worked hard on the ground and the people in the west, they know that. they are involved with him in many projects. but it's all -- we should say it's the reform plan. but it was filled within the context of the -- colonel gadhafi's regime. say if you thought at time, maybe it's the safest way, you know, to start to reform the country and at the same time

don't destroy the structure of power. >> okay, so you believe he was june june -- he was genuine at that time? >> yes, definitely. i would like to say what happened on the 17th of february, he decide, that's his decision, and i believe that's a historical decision to, i think, stand not just with his father. it's very simple to say his father, you know, the radical, hard core of the libyan regime, you know? people they still believe they are revolutionary, they are like freedom fighters or whatever. and they decide we should carry on the fight. it's a conspiracy against libya. he decided by himself, i believ? i wish he'd decide otherwise. so now it's his decision. he switched himself to be a warrior rather than a soldier.

>> let me disagree. 100%. just for the held -- hell of it. i would say 80, but for the question. just because i'm talking to this audience. maybe i would talk to the same way to whatever audience that i'm talking to. there's something to say when you talk to one the oldest democracies and one the most ethical democracies in the country, the united kingdom. the people aren't going to solve the intelligence. on this question, i don't know if you are as cosmopolitan as i am, has anybody followed "keeping up with the kardashians"? this was sort of like that. sex, lies, and video tapes, you can add arms to it. the son's safe is the sexier one, the playboy, the one that

hates the servants, the one that cheats on the money. we were keeping up with them for the last seven years. who the hell are they? why does gadhafi -- he doesn't have a single political position. his father that fought the revolution, liberated the country, i don't know his father's buddies. who is he? why does he run a foundation? why does he get on the press conference and speak on the behave of libya? >> because he's from the part of the world -- >> we can't accept the safe value when the son of the dictator can play with money at the university, at the foundation, at the charity. he's giving. it's not his money. there is, aside from the kardashians, there is another thing. and it's not liberal. liberal is something completely different. to be a playboy is not liberal, to be a playboy is not to have any morals in that sense of the world. what's happening in libya is the

same as i said started originally in egypt and tunisia and elsewhere in the arab world and the third world. i will follow from your point, david. we had his father pursuing the regime, and son pursuing the washington consensus. father wanting from the top-down, army, tribes, whole towers, and maybe see how you can do state capitalism. son's graduating from the west, coming back with ideas of the washington consensus, opening up the market, opening up the oil industry, opening up everything, private as it is, giving it all to the british and the french and the italians and the spaniards, and the americans. >> i wish. >> this which wikileaks described the capacity to charm the west at the expense of the libyan people. that's what he did. that doesn't make him a good

guy, a liberal guy, or a guy like his father, it makes him a thug, and a son of a dictator. i'm saying that objectively. not from an opinion point of view. but going through the facts of this guy's being over the last ten or fifteen years, i cannot come up with another conclusion. son of a dictator, like father, like son. >> let's move away from gadhafi. i know there are lots of people waiting for questions. sir, to you, then the questions here. go ahead. >> my name is lana, i'm a freelance journalist. i firmly believe that these uprising throughout the arab world are going to lead to a completely different middle east, and there's no going back. >> keep it a bit closer to your mouth. >> okay. i think they've revealed that the arab people have a sense of

justice and a common policy that's inherent to that culture. they have also revealed the historical hypocrisy of the west and it's dealings with the middle east. the fact that it's a bottom up uprising in all of these countries is very important. because -- sorry. this is kind of distracting me. i'll just move on. can you please comment on the fact that on the one hand america can come around to condemning the dictators, but on the other will not veto -- will not support the condemnation of continued settlement building in israel? when clearly, you know, it has changed and there is no going back from this exposure of western hypocrisy and it's dealings with the middle east? >> okay. richard dalton, as somebody who

served in jerusalem and elsewhere, can i ask you to respond before we move on to the next question? this feeling that you've -- that there would be condemnation of israel settlement policy at the same time as support of these democracy movements? >> of course, they should be. and the american position was idiotic on the one hand vetoing the resolution, on the other hand saying, of course, we do condemn settlement building. if there was a display on the weakness and approach to the major international issue, this was it. on the broader question of high we progress the middle east process of nonpeace, between the israelis and others, i don't think we really want to get into that now. but my view is that we need to turn ourselves around 100%.

chiefly in israel, but also in the united states. >> okay. gentleman at the back there. >> steve summerville, freelance. would any members of the panel, includes former ambassador, like to give any credit at all to tony blair in his dealings in the dark in the tent in the desert in persuading colonel gadhafi to disabling his nuclear question? and supplement question, did he ever had a nuclear program? and are there any vestages of it to our knowledge? >> did he have a nuclear program? >> yes. and the government's involved in that negotiation. british and the united states and libyan deserve credit. i think the important thing in the history of involvement with libya is to look back over the slow and study way in which this change in libya's international

behavior established itself from the mid 1990s, i won't give you a history lecture, but just register that much press writing about how it all happened all of the sudden in 2003 on the weapons of mass destruction issue is nonsense. and the second thing that's also nonsense is that somehow tony blair had a special role. he was one the last european heads of government to go to libya. and to talk -- >> what about he said he went further than he had to. the foreign office wasn't saying you have to go personally. you know, he kind of did and decided to go further than others. >> that's not how i remember it. i mean i was in tehran at the time. but plain fact of the matter is that after the suspension of the sanctions in 1999, negotiating with the libyan government for oil concessions was legal and it

was in the interest of europe to do that. and that's why everybody did it. while also the united states did it. and the way libya and other countries work whether there's a heavy political element to trading is that on the biggest issues, the heads of government need to get involved. now it's entirely free to all of us to go to our members of parliament and say we don't like life if that's what life requires. so please stop it. don't, david cameron, go around the world with businessmen in training. that's not your job as our representative. if that's how you believe, you've got to use your own democratic system to establish that. >> thank you. i'm going to try to get a few more questions. then i think you had a couple of questions here at front. and yes. we'll take your question there. and then can we get the other microphone to the front? thank you. >> my name is samaya, i'm a

phd student studying about tehran. i'm wondering egypt, the new role that egypt might play in mideastern politics. do you think it's too early to see a stance from egypt on hamas and israel and iran? >> you know, the question has always been as we were speaking earlier, it's not who will replace mubarak, but what will replace the mubarak regime. although we have an affirmative on the first question, the second question is still a work in progress. what will replace the mubarak regime? just in the last 72 hours, there have been changes. assets being frozen, ministered being kicked out, prosecutor acting independently and so on and so forth. so there has been some movement. there's two ways of judging what egypt can do.

once with the dominant role of the arab world, it can play like brazil or role of china, in a more positive way than china, more like brazil. second to the domino effect. if it happened in egypt, it will continue to happen. even if libya poses to be a bit more difficult. i think sooner rather than later, they will have to lift the city of gaza. you can't have freedom for egyptians, and not freedom for palestinians. sooner or later, they will be rattled and they will have to start requesting the intelligence of the egyptian people more than the intelligence of mubarak, i think something will happen in the united states, washington in particular, it will start treating those countries like egypt and new sisters of tunisia and so forth, not like clients, but countries with whom they will have mutual interest and

perhaps mutual security, mutual respect as president obama put it. >> thank you. i'm going to ask you to pass that microphone to the gentleman here and come to the front row. >> i'm a freelance journalist. we've been hearing gadhafi talking repeatedly about an al qaeda threat. what do you make of that? and is it just another lie? or is there something else behind? >> is there an al qaeda threat, david, i was going to ask all of you briefly. noman? >> yeah. >> it's a refrain in the last few days. >> yeah, i think it's a symbol of that. first of all, i believe it's a pasteless statement. and just before that, let's say like four weeks ago, everybody knows and libya itself prides itself on one of fewest countries to get rid of al

qaeda. how come out of the sudden al qaeda appears as the driving force behind it? i would like to put it in a different framework. now we have a coin with two faces, you know? there's opportunity and there's a tip as well. the opportunity is for the libyan society with the help from the west as well or the international community to help the libyans to achieve what they want. which is like democratic states. so i think when we tlk to the p, this is the message that we need to deliver. when we talk about the other side, i'm not naive to say no, it's safe. when you have chi -- chaos, especially like now, there's opportunity for al qaeda and aqim near the doors now and statements which are crystal clear. we don't need to go through arab lists, i believe they have force claimed when they said two days

about the aqim we will help fight in libya. it's what gadhafi is using now. there is a threat. i strongly suggest we don't need to talk about threats to the media, it will undermine the libyan revolution, all of the lives being sacrificed and the main issue of people protesting outside looking for freedom and the symbol of that and to start to talk about threats. we need to talk about threats, but behind closed doors. what is behind the libyan revolution, it's the libyan people. it's 100% transparent referendum from libya. >> later here, then i'll come to you. >> i'm from a news agency. gadhafi seems to have closer ties to subsahara and afghan countries, we have reports of

him arming local tribes. how does that change the dynamic of the uprising in libya to the others that we've seen? and on a wider question, egypt, yemen, libya, they are all presidents. what happens -- what the likelihood of success in the uprising in countries where they have essentially going against a ruling family? a royal family? >> okay. the links to subsahara africa, was that always there? i mean he's been nelson mandela in the past has called him his friend. >> yes, nelson mandela was crucial in persuading libya to hand over the trial in the netherlands in 1999. and if there was to be an attempt to persuade gadhafi, it would have to involve african states, and it would have to involve people that gadhafi may still respect and through the

african union have an institutional connection with him. the libyan -- gadhafi wants a stage. and he decided that he was never going to be to make it big on the arab stage after the bad history that so many arab countries have had with him. so he created an african stage for himself, in so doing, reviving the au, and turning it in a constructive direction through the creation of african union. whereas, while he listed some resentments for the way in which he tried to strong arm the african countries, on the whole, it's something that has resounded to his credit in africa. and the second issue, of course, is that if the hand of a libyan central authority is weakened for a prolonged period of time, we may get a resumed search of

economic migrants, thinking this is diplomatic territory. >> all of the african leaders that have been polled in recent days, noman, is it your understanding, i'm conscious that actually that we haven't talked much about that. i wonder whether there was initiative that is we missed? >> to be honest with you, i don't think it's the other way around. he's always telling gadhafi how he sees it. especially the african subsahara, sharing the borders with libya, they are in the position to influence colonel gadhafi's decision. he would say in libya, he would never want to leave. i think the most important thing regarding the african subsahara, not just the libyans, but other cities there, because we have

two kinds there. some of them are libyans, there's a vast majority of them they have no stats. they have cards, but they not are not libyan. some of them move. algeria is getting angry about that and the army near the border. if the situation carries on, we will start to see other conflicts there. >> let's talk briefly about the second part of the question. is he operating different in different parts if it's a ruling or monarchy essentially that a ruling family that people are up against. can we have a different tone? jordan and bahrain? >> i started to see the similarities, but i do' a common threat. it's baffling that the

republicans with the willing family. republicans with the willing families and contradiction in term. they have absolutely no problem creating inheritance for the rule to be divided among the on, that's the first layer, and then the end row and the second layer, or the tribe on the third layer. they call it a republic. there's something that republics we've seen will weather it's yemen, they were hoping for it, in egypt they were planning for it, in syria, it's happened. in libya, of course, it was happening and so on and so forth. you have the republics that have created de facto ruling families, not too different than monarchies. because they have the real monarchies, one actually more capable as in morocco and saudi arabia to hold on to power. while the absolute phony

republics ruled by pseudoruling families, the gadhafi ans, to to say. they were to transparently aggressive and democratic, and so transparently unrepublican. >> we begin to see a reform movement in morocco, jordan, iran, and saudi arabia. they published a manifesto for constitutional change in saudi arabia. if this is happening on saudi arabia now, on the serge, i think it's going to go a lot further than we currently anticipate. i think in morocco, the king has initiated a more liberal regime over the last several years. his position, i think, is

relatively secure. but there will be significant constitutional changes on the back of this. the big change may affect that everyone thought the gulf wasn't going to be affected. no one imagined that 1/3 of the bahrainian citizens would be on the street. now with the manifesto for change in saudi arabia, would they affect saudi arabia? would have enormous repercussion s for us. >> sorry. you have been waiting. >> yeah, we talked about arab and the social contract and the uprising have happened in countries where there was less transparency and worst regime. given the power that social networking that we talked about and satellite media, i'd be interested to hear the panels and ambassadors thoughts about how far the social uprising

might well spread. i guess i'm talking about different regions, such as iran, given the social attention that we've seen there, do you see this as encouraging renewed social upsizing from the ground roots up, and on the flip size, encouraging reform from the top down which may have it's own lead into revolution again coming up from the bottom as say in the form of soviet union. >> well, iran is one the countries that's been blocking some of the coverage of the events in egypt. >> that's the general point. electronic media facilitates oppression, and once the movement has begun, it helps inspire people, yes. but you are constantly trying to keep ahead if you are organizing the effect of a police state's ability to use those same tools

against you and your fellows. second question -- second point. iranians like so many others in the middle east have family living in completely different situations from the ones which they are experiencing. they know from annual visits what it's like to live under those poverties. so it's not the medium that makes the change to the arab spring. because this technology has been out there they are mall treated and there's a better way of doing things. it's the barrier of fear. and that has happened as a result of the success of revolutions beginning with tunisia. so, yes, i believe that an academic who spoke at chatham heist maybe right when he says this means the end of the stability. because the barrier of fear is down. now in iran, a present, the

forces of the establishment are well ahead of the current of protest and rejection of clerical rule. and short of some tremendous misstep by the authorities, such as major slaughter in a public care or group demonstrations, i think it'll be some time before the barrier of fear comes down far enough to get the people who are shouting on the roofs in anonymity in the dark into a more coherent, political force. it'll come. but whether it comes in a year or five years or ten years is impossible to say at the present. >> okay. david? >> yes, i would just add briefly that the -- the emergence of the i.t. revolutions and the new forms of social communications is just the beginning.

these technologies are only ten, 15 years old. and new implications emerge from them all the time. they clearly have an extraordinary impact on the authoritarian regimes. because authoritarian regimes want to control the information. once you get the network linkages, the capacity for the control of implications breaks down. this has implications for all autocratic regimes whether they are not middle east, iran, and further into the east. i should also say it's has radical implications to be worked out in the west as well. democracies on many respects. but the implications are not just autocracies. they are also for the west. if the united states is the model, or one the most advanced model of democracy, it lived with a congress which is gridlocked where most political issues can't find a winning coalition of support. this affects everything from

climate change to financial reform. the impact on the technologies, i predict would be just as significant as the impact of the old. >> i'm going to ask for closing thoughts on noman and wrap it up. >> just to say when we talk about the region, we have officially 22 countries, arab countries, you know, members of the arab countries. i'm wondering if anyone would disagree with me, none of them is a democratic modern state. none of them. all of them, they belong to the history who should be very afraid either we talk about republicans, or kingdoms, all of them in terms of the legitimacy, they belong to the history. but this is one the pain that we have to deal with as an alternative, otherwise we have to go to the iraqi situation or what's going in libya. if it's a real concept and values that we believe. you know why, because of one

thing, the civic culture doesn't exist there. so to build a civic state, this is first of all i would like to clear it up. there's something very significant here about libya and why the battle here is very strategic. you know why, what colonel gadhafi is doing now, how he countered the wave will not just affect libya. if he succeeds, it's stopping the wave. it's not going to be peaceful anymore. and it will really, really, i think, affect what's going to happen in iran and syria as well. if he managed to be a civil war, and started to be an international conflict, i think he will be capable of stopping this wave to be spread as a very peaceful, people will get further and they don't accept so-called the social contract or corrupt contract. in terms of like, okay, provide to us security and accept as a subject.

this is the situation. what's going on now, i would like to say the people, they decide because all of the past like experience, it's failed. like nationalist, markettist, they have failed. they decided to go out and claim the nation's states. >> noman, thank you. manwar, i know you can do this. you have 30 seconds. i wouldn't do this to the others. to you, i think it's fine. >> yeah. let's just say i'm very optimistic about what's going on. this is good new. it's good news in the sense that it happened. it's good news in a sense that it's a work in progress. we are moving in the right direction. there are no guarantees. this would be a long way. actually the hard work is ahead of us, not behind us. but we are here and we are heading in that direction. it's not simply because there's social media and there's young people. suddenly there's nothing sudden about it. i think we should pay respect

due to the hundreds of thousands of arabs who were tortured, jailed, picketed, demonstrated with the hunger strike. why the arab world were not reported, those are the invisible arabs. the hundreds and millions that were displaced by their regimes from iraq to morocco, those -- the torture, the prison, the strike, the activist, the young and the old, the man and the woman, they are the ones who should be thankful. i think in that sense, that's why i'm hopeful and optimistic that's it's going in the right direction. >> okay. thank you. [inaudible] >> everyone, thank you for being here. thank you for taking part in the debate. i wish we had more time. please join me in thanking your panel for tonight. [applause] [applause]

>> next, administrator lisa jackson testified before the house appropriations committee about the 2012 budget for the environmental agency. :

environmental protection agency urges congress not to cut the epa budget. a bill passed by the house more than doubles the cuts proposed by the president. a big part of the house appropriations subcommittee hearing also centers on the epa's authority to regulate greenhouse gases under the clean air act. this is three hours. >> hearing will come to order. good morning and welcome to fired meeting and the first budget hearing of the 2012 season for the subcommittee on interior environment related agencies. i'm pleased to kick off the 2012 debate with the environmental

protection agency whose programs and funding are of interest to the subcommittee. administrator jackson, thank you for being here this morning and testifying on the 2012 budget proposal. we find ourselves at a critical juncture as we begin to focus on our work for fiscal year 2012 while we continue to finish the 2011 budget. the over spending has gone on too long and it's titan to belts. a difficult decision awaits the subcommittee and appropriations committee in general. the house took the necessary first steps to the degree 19th bypassing $100 billion in discretionary spending reductions, the package includes 4.4 billion in cuts from agencies funded through the subcommittee of which 3 billion came out of the epa budget. we did so by reducing the clean water drinking water steve revolving funds buy almost 2 billion in order to return the programs to the 2008 funding levels. the s. res received 6 billion

stimulus funding equivalent to a five-year -- equivalent to five years of appropriations the 2008 level. i think we can all agree five-year infusion of funding in one year is an influx for any program to absorb and i raise this not because i'm opposed to the srf, but as the clearest example in this bill of too much too fast which could be the mantra for the epa whether we are talking about spending or regulations. the house also country into 3 million from the geographic programs including 225 million from the great lakes restoration initiative. this is another program that struggled to put something on projects within a year following a staggering sevenfold increase in 2010. the sea are also cut 68 million in climate change funding and term limit reductions to the epa's air, water and policy offices which continue to develop what i believe to be job killing regulations. we also put a halt to that

legislation on a number of policies including greenhouse gases and navigable waterways. should it to congress what the administration to determine whether and how to begin the greenhouse gases the litany of overreaching the regulations doesn't stop there. jobs in the cement industry are under attack by the rule and the oil and gas industry has been unable to obtain permits to work in the outer continental shelf in the alaska and the culture is under attack as the epa considers whether or not to regulate farmfest. the coal industry which is of great importance to chairman rogers is under attack on multiple fronts whether it's we're in the stricken place the materials with a request may now be labeled as hazardous waste or whether a company may be able to use existing permits to work in napoli shut and keep lines open. we put a hold on the regulations in the house passed cr to relieve the burden on the industry and to give our offer risers' the opportunity to address these issues in a more comprehensive fashion this year. the epa 2012 budget request

provides 8.973 billion, a 12.9% decrease from the 2012 and acted level. generally speaking the epa 2012 budget is balanced on the backs of states as the state grants have been reduced by 22% while the epa operations research budgets have received only 8224% reduction in order to reduce spending by 1.3 billion from current levels. the 2012 budget cuts, 947 million from the state, from the clean water and drinking water state revolving funds, 112 -- 125 million from the great lakes restoration initiative comes 70 million from the superfund program which cleans up the top surface the cut toxic waste sites and 7 million for your marks as any administration does. this is not a blueprint for a reduced debt reduction of the american people and congressional republicans are demanding in stark contrast we've cut more spending out of the srf and the house passed full year cr than has been proposed in the entire 2012

budget. the demand for 2012 is simple. spend less and regulate less. furthermore i question the rationale for the 2012 proposals most notably delineating the diesel emissions reductions granted to retrofit old diesel engines while proposing a new start program to regulate greenhouse gases. i'm not sure that it makes sense to eliminate the grant program with proven quantifiable benefits in favor of new programs with no demonstrated benefits. i'm also not sure that it makes sense to eliminate a grant program with broad bipartisan support and the support of the states and in the street in favor of climate change initiatives that you know are most likely dead on arrival in the house. as my good friend and colleague said on the floor during the cr debate, the program is a win-win. so either the president -- either the president is playing politics with his budget or this further illustrates the epa is out of touch. we have a number of issues that i know all members are interested in discussing with you today, so i will save

additional remarks for the questions following the testimony and now yield to the distinguished ranking member. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i really appreciate your commitment to the important programs contained in this bill, and i certainly want to welcome the administrator jackson and ms. benet, the chief financial officer for the epa. you represent the best of our civil service and i don't take that lightly. i mean it and it's a high compliment. the agency has worked so hard on behalf of all of the american citizens to protect the nation's environment and public health and for that, you certainly deserve the praise and appreciation of all americans. the epa budget request though is $9 billion. $1.3 billion or 14% below fiscal

year 2010. and below the current continued resolution levels. that's too low. wilander stand the budget request aims to reflect the fiscal constraints all agencies must operate on. i'm troubled most of the epa reduction comes at the expense of the clean water and safe drinking water state revolving fund as the chairman has referenced. they were collectively reduced by $947 million or 27%. these are prudent investments that help maintain the infrastructure that makes clean and healthy water available to all americans which we have all taken for granted. i guess when most governors have claimed the federal stimulus money was wasteful spending then they won't object to the reduction in these important grant programs wouldn't you think although i'm not sure that's going to be the case.

i suspect most of the governors are hoping that we will take all the heat and yet provide all that money for them, but if we don't, i don't see how they come up with it. when i had the privilege of chairing the subcommittee last year, i suspected at the behest of local and state governments members from both sides of the aisle, and i know the chairman is aware of that, they requested more than 1200 projects just in fiscal year 2010 for water and waste infrastructure. that source of funding has now dried up. it's gone. so you make the cut to the state revolving funds are a much larger issue for state and local government. but the reduction in the federal commitment, i don't know who tackles these problems. certainly individuals can't do it unless they want to start, you know, digging wells in the

backyard and we go back to the of houses or something. and the governments don't have the money themselves. this is our national planning system. and like our home plumbing it doesn't get noticed until that backs up and makes a mess. cutting billions from clean water and safe water drinking programs is ignoring a problem that will cause -- will require much more expensive investments in the crates to the water resources online. weigel the appropriations kennedy has the authority and the duty to exercise the congress's constitutional role and providing funds to the executive branch, the appropriation bills have become ground zero for the contentious policy debates. i ask the distinguished gentleman from kentucky if he remembered that for days this is out of order because of sludges leading an appropriations bill. i didn't get a full response but i know he's fully aware of that

issue. the continuing resolution we call h.r. one included 22 amendments that were hostile to the epa and other government agencies current work on the climate change, wetlands, air toxics, renewable fuel standards and mountaintop mining. and most of them were adopted on the house floor. beyond this, several writers were included in the face bill. one would stop the epa from updating rules or guidance pertaining to the definition of u.s. waters that would perpetuate de lis and permits and land-use decisions. we are hearing from a number of people in the private sector say look, this isn't helpful. we need to have clarity. we need to know what is appropriate and not to read a lot of the builders are saying we can't move forward until we have clarification and permits that allow us to do our work. the epa needs to be allowed to carry out the law but the

congress and the court has authorized and to carry out. the bush administration's epa administrator as well as you, ms. jackson, determine the greenhouse gas emissions do in fact endanger the health of our citizens. ms. jackson, you've done your job and actually issued an indian term and finding and are now required as we know to regulate emissions. the law requires you to. if congress no longer wants them cleaned up to improve america's health in congress should stop the fecund vba otherwise the epa is violating the law by not enforcing it. and actually you want to cut costs in this country you should allow the clean air act to do its job, the report released tuesday by the epa estimates the benefits of the ground level ozone pollution under the 1990 clean air act amendment will not reach $2 trillion in 2020 while

saving 230,000 people from early death in that year alone. to entered 30,000 people in one year will live longer because the clean air act. it's still my hope this committee will refrain from controversy policies and leave these issues to the authorizing committees where they belong so that we can return to the bipartisanship that has defined the appropriations committee in previous years. glad we've been joined by mr. dix. i know he feels strongly about this as i do. on this side of the aisle we are going to continue to try to pursue that tradition because it's time we start enacting our appropriation bills. we understand the more we work together, the better chance these bills have in moving forward in the senate and getting this kind law by the president. so administrator jackson, we all look forward to receiving your testimony, and again, thank you for your leadership. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. >> we also tried to do by the

full appropriations committee, chairman rogers, and i think him for taking the time to contribute to this important conversation. do you have an opening statement? >> thank you mr. chairman and congratulations by the way on your elevation to this great post. we know you will be great job. this is truly a historic time. i don't need to remind us that the nation has found itself at a crossroads. the 100th of congress has been so focused on reining in out of control spending getting the economy back on track in getting americans back to work. it's all about all this. i reiterate, getting our economy back on track to provide opportunities. with unemployment still hovering around 10% under this administration, this is our top priority as a country and our chief responsibility as

legislators, policymakers and yes, administrators. chairman simpson elude to solve our concerns about your 9 billion-dollar budgets. the epa third largest in history. while we are borrowing 42 cents on every dollar we spend, we are borrowing 42 cents on every dollar of the 9 billion that you're asking for. that staggering figure is in and of itself this concerning. i have to tell you i'm not confident the budget you're defending today or frankly your agency's actions in the last two years. whether or important goals of creating jobs and opportunities in fact i believe you've been of great interest. the epa is headed in the wrong direction. with an aggressive and overzealous regulatory agenda that far exceeds the authority

of this congress that you've been given to read and i can't we have a responsibility to bring you in. the committee on oversight and government reform recently released a report identifying over 60 regulatory actions recently taken by the epa that could have negative impact on job creation. 60 different ones. i have to wonder whether you are taking heat of the president's january 21st executive order to account for the accumulated costs of regulations. because the epa is running absolutely roughshod over our country's small businesses. the very engines that propel our economy forward and provide most of the jobs. and you've hit every sector of the economy. agriculture, manufacturing, construction, transportation,

and the lifeblood of my region of the country, the appalachian coal mining. wrongheaded greenhouse gas regulations, so called guidance on surface mining. the retroactive call permit that has undergone more than a decade of environmental review. reopening the longstanding definition of, quote, fuelled material, quote, that could have devastating impact on the mining sector nationwide. all represent constitutionally dubious legislation by regulation. i think you exceeded your authority by far. a number of these are being adjudicated by the courts even as we speak. we've corresponded, you in dhaka, on a number of these topics and so you are aware my

people feel like epa has taken dead aim at an industry that sustains 20,000 high-paying jobs in my state of kentucky. and supplies to fuel to power 50% of our nation have a low cost. our speaker in recent weeks has reiterated the need for adult conversations about the fiscal challenges that confront the country. and i hope that is what we can accomplish here today, an adult conversation. thank the chairman. ..

glad to see the administrator jackson submitted the reasonable request to allow substantial monetary. that is in stark contrast to the long-term continuing resolution approved by the house two years ago, h.r. one. doubt both country and built at epa vendor new delhi 30% includes 22 environmental writers to defund epa and other government agencies that dvds ranging from limiting greenhouse gases to reducing water pollution. those are done without any hearings. they were just put into this

though and they all legislative that have a negative impact. i'm also pleased that the request includes language started by the committee that allows the use of the drinking water, steve funds for loan forgiveness in the workability tools, green infrastructure, water or energy efficiency improvements or other innovative activities. i do however have concerns about the budget request, but not as much with h.r. one. my biggest concern is we are shifting the problems of today for bigger problems tomorrow. we talk about settling our children with debt that concerns me greatly. by cutting these important environmental infrastructure programs like the drinking water and wastewater revolving fund, we were saddling with an infrastructure that would cost more to fix if we did it now. christine todd whitman, the republican governor of new

jersey as the administrator of epa said we have a $680 billion backlog on ways treatment facilities. a group of scientists look at all the things that happened in civilization that made the greatest difference in help to the world. it was wastewater treatment facilities. you think about africa. and i think what we have -- the united states if i was on the staff appear when richard nixon when we passed the clean water act, the environmental protection act and the national environmental policy act. all of those things are passed bipartisan and signed by a republican president. and the country is better today because of environmental

protection than it was 40 years ago. remember when we had these rivers on higher. think of how terrible those things were. now we turn this thing around. and i think what you are doing on climate change is absolutely essential. some people are just turning their head away from the scientific reality and just saying it isn't going to happen. they are saying they care about the children's future. if we don't deal with climate change, if we don't deal with pollution acidification, the world is going to be a disastrous place in safety to 100 years. and to say this is the next list is just preposterous. i mean, the best scientists in the world have said this phenomenon is going on. we asked, can you give a -- can you give us to depart service in the fish and wildlife service and the usgs, all the features

these quakes can you tell us on the ground, can you see manifestations of global warming already? they said yes, the fire singing are longer, oceans are rising. we're having more drought, more infestation because of this. we are watching what is happening and they are good. i don't know how people understand the importance of these issues and addressing this issue. i am going to fight every step of the way against efforts to weaken and take back the environmental improvements we have made, starting with richard nixon in the congress back in the 60s and 70s, when people work on a bipartisan basis and cared about the environment. these writers got to go. and were going to fight them to the end. don't be intimidated.

you are doing your job and you have to do it under the law. the supreme court said you had to do certain things. don't be intimidated. do your job. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. appreciate that. and again, thank you for being here administrator jackson and would like for to to your proposed 2012 budget and not for those warm welcoming remarks from all of us. the floor is yours. >> thank you, mr. chairman. good morning to you, ranking member moran and members of the subcommittee. thank you for inviting me to testify about president of office 2012 budget request for the environmental protection. congress enacted the bedrock environmental protection month in a broadly bipartisan basis. it did so to protect american children and adults from

pollution that otherwise would make her life short or, less healthy and less prosperous. they did so to make beer drinking water in america's community cleaned enough to attract employees. we did so to enable america's local governments to revitalize, abandoning polluted site. he did so to safeguard the 40 million anglers. it did so to protect the farms as irrigation makes up a third of america's freshwater withdraws. and it did so to preserve the likelihood of the men and women america such as the chesapeake in the gulf of mexico. [inaudible] >> and the great lakes. congress gave epa the responsibility of implementing and enforcing those laws in each year congress appropriated the money that makes epa's implementation and enforcement were possible. as head of the epa come i am accountable for that we squeeze every drop of public health protection under the every dollar we are given.

so i look forward to cuts in the president's proposed budget. but i am equally accountable for pointing out woodcuts become detrimental to public health. without adequate funding come epa would be unable to implement or enforce the laws that protect american south, livelihood and pastimes. daily restrictions with contaminants in the air, onto rivers and on the ground. they would already reached reeking water supplies because there'd be no epa grant money to fix and replace broken monitor system and the standards epa is set to establish harmful air pollutants from smokestacks and shale pipes would be missing from a population static are growing. congress' last epa funding concentrations of harmful pollution and increase from current levels in the place of american lives, work, go to school, fish, hike and hunt. the result would be more new schools and work days, more

heart attacks, more cancer cases, more premature deaths and more polluted waters. needless to say, i fervently request and deeply appreciate continued bipartisan support in congress for funding the essential work that keeps america's children and adults say from uncontrolled amount of harmful pollution being dumped into the water they drink in the air they breathe. president obama believes that our federal government to spend less money. decreasing federal spending is no wonder just a prudent choice. it is an unavoidable necessity. accordingly, the president has proposed cuts. epa's budget nearly 40% from its level. the cut goes down eliminating redundancies. we've made difficult, even painful choices. we have done so however in a cowboy that preserves the peace ability to carry out its core responsibilities, to protect the health and well-being of america's children, adults and

community. even her very and the budget request for two weeks now so i will not march throughout the details or rather, that you provide a few examples of the difficult choice we have made while preserving fundamental safeguards. this request provides $2.5 billion from a decrease of 947 million for the clean water and drinking water state revolving fund. future budgets for the srs, taking into account repayments to the funds. epa water systems will build on successes while working towards the fiscal year 2012 goal of ensuring that over 90% of the population served by community water systems receives drinking water that it's all applicable health centers. the budget request with an additional $6.4 million to conduct integrated pilot projects in several communities including disadvantage when to evaluate and reduce risk through regulatory enforcement and voluntary effort. an additional $3.7 million will

improve our monitoring of toxic air pollution and dissemination to state, local and tribal government. the budget can train three and $50 million to programs and projects chosen to target the most significant environmental problem in the great lakes ecosystem. that represents a cut of $125 million from fiscal year 2010, which was the first year of the initiative. we'll implement the most important projects to the great lakes restoration and achieve visible results. what this budget $60 million investment enhancing chemical initiatives, we will take action to reduce chemical risk and increase chemical hazard assessments and provides the public with greater access to information on toxic chemicals. we'll use of funds to implement chemical risk reduction that address impacts on children's health and disadvantage low in, indigenous population. thank you, mr. chairman. i look forward to the subcommittee question. >> thank you.

i appreciate your being here today. because of the interest in us, we're going to try and enforce the five minute rule. we have a timer. we'll keep time with as the beacon of of several rounds of questions about possible. first let me just make a general comment and question. during the debate on h.r. 1 that it's been mentioned a peer by just about everybody, we talk about the recent appropriation bill. most of these amendments were legislation that were limited to funding to be used for certain things, which is appropriate within appropriation bill. i also noticed after all the criticisms about some of the underlying writers at the low over greenhouse gas provision in dealing with navigable waters, but i don't bring the amendments being offered by anyone to remove those from the bill. if they were of such can learn

to the chairman and ranking member, i would've thought maybe the ranking member of the full committee and the senate committee that maybe there would've been an amendment to remove. i wonder why that was. i think you and i have discussed many times the concern i have about what i hear when i go home, not just on businesses are trying to operate in trying to do the right thing. if you want to pollute the air and water. but from cities, counties and the state government about the concerns and direction to epa is gone. i was wondered if it was in my region or if there america was the country. now honestly i was surprised by the number of amendments that were offered to address the epa concerns from representatives all over this country. i am wondering up to debate in the 22 amendments, probably no other agency had that been a member directed at them for their actions if you will.

i wonder what message he took from a good >> there's been a number of discussions, some of them on the hill, some of them outside in the countryside. i spent a lot of my time meeting with people in dealing with people around the country. i think overwhelmingly they were also some other truisms that i cannot get the 90s the american people believe epa plays a very valuable role in safeguarding the health of their families and communities. and that the american people believe the clean air act, clean water act, other things that the safe drinking water act are there to protect them from polluters who otherwise would not have any controls on this. and last but not least of the american people believe there are lots of laws on the books that aren't enforced. when they look at something like the deepwater rights in scale or protest these committees they were not sure we need new blood.

we need people to enforce laws on the books that protect our air water quality. i have great respect for deliberations of the body of course i'm happy to sit down and meet with any members individually or together. i think we also must bring back to bare as they look at what is the appropriate role of an independent agency. >> you look at as an example, navigable waters. the intent was to prevent the epa from extending what navigable waters is too well what waters of the united states. to sound as if the waters are not regulated at all. they are regulated by this date. now the epa, by removing navigable, or attempting to remove navigable, expands what epa controls instead of the states. i'm not the problem and not what concerns me and many other people. in the mr. chairman, that is not the intent. about 46 implement the clean water act under delegations from

epa. the epa has a couple rolls. first concerts in the armies of the playing field is level for businesses and citizens across the country. the second is to look at issues that are regional. so whether we look at capuchin and there's genuine confusion right now about what is covered jurisdictional and at the clean water act and what is not. it stems in part from two supreme court cases that are good murky in terms of when he put them together what they mean. one of the things epa can and should do is offer clarity within the law. we're not looking to change the law. we are not looking to change the supreme court ruling. but we can certainly use her expertise to offer clearly to protect headwaters. if you don't protect headwaters, the water downstream almost certainly be polluted. or not i would suggest states do a good job of that in most areas. i don't want to controlling and regulating drainage and irrigation ditches.

the set of idaho can do that. i may ask another question. we heard from the inspector general yesterday the one of the problems that the apa's workforce alignment and this has been kind of an ongoing problem that the workforce hasn't been aligned with the roles and missions and goals of the epa. this is a management issue. where are you on that and what is your take on that recommendation were that concerned by the gao? [inaudible] [inaudible] -- workforce planning has to be local. we have moved around in the last budget that i've been involved in addressing the concerns.

we look at custom programs, part of what we are fighting is the need to move around. i think we have to miniature people efficiently and i disagree with the idea -- sorry. that we are doing that right now. i also think we have to work closely and realized that of our tools, and in 1882 position management system. i don't believe we should go back to try to make a new one. i think we should look at the programs we have right now and do as we have done, which is constantly strengthening our capabilities and working within the strategic planning process, that we could in real time and attention to ensure they match up with their priorities. >> but the gao disagrees with you. the mac i think they do in part. i don't want to say i don't approve them that it's important to manage people effectively. i certainly believe we've done not inconsistent with opium guidelines, but we probably have

differences in terms of management at the agency and i believe the local management of resources, whether here in the programs or adjustments that we make as part of our strategic planning has done a lot of that were. >> another question. during the debate on the air we were as undermining and destroying the long fun because we took a back to the fairway bubbles at $2 billion reduction in the clean drinking water fun in the state revolving wheel fun. your proposal decreases by about a billion dollars. are you destroying the revolving loan fund? >> how this matches you. [laughter] >> but you are destroying it? >> well, destroying, i don't know what that word means. we will be doing half as many cuts has proposed in h.r. 1 and i was a tough decision, made based on the fact we are being asked to cut back away to another know there is somebody that will hit the streets from

the recovery act. it's also been obligated, but hasn't all been spent. >> how much has been obligated but unspent? >> well cometh in the states. i think it's all under contract, but the actual test the application is close to 100%. the actual spending they think might be around 60% -- 75%. >> how much -- why did you decide $947 in reductions on the oil fund? where did that number come from? >> the number was designed to reflect a significant cut, but to try to keep it above the last bush budget, which we felt was so low that we increased in both the recovery act as well as their fy 10 proposal. so we are at 2.5 billion for the two combined funds. that is still higher than we thought before the president

administration. >> in the recovery is coming out essentially six years worth of oa funding levels for the state revolving loan fund. as most of it is obligated, some of it, a billion and a half or something like that is unspent at, but its obligated. there's still about 1.47 billion i'm obligated funds from a shared better i'm obligated for the state revolving loan fund in last year's appropriation and is the reduction due to the fact we have all of these i'm obligated funds sitting out there? that's overlooked that wrinkly when we were looking at h.r. one and trying to reduce the overall budget. we were trying to find savings because believe it or not there's a lot of people in government who don't believe this. a lot of people in congress don't believe this, but the fact with $1.26 trillion deficit is we have to reduce spending. if that's how you decided to come up with $1 billion that you

had all these i'm obligated funds from a share? >> i think that something worth considering. i don't agree with you that we can look at the money industry. it is very much a pipe i know. so having run a state agency, having seen how the funds were committees are revolving funds. the money goes out of most local government to municipalities, two small systems and is not forgiven in some cases it is that comes back in. our goal over time will be to find about 5% of the need annually through a combination of direct appropriation paybacks. but this is a tough year and we recognize and attach your remain appeal to fund the 5% would like to. so it was simply intended not to be as drastic of a cut as has been discussed in the house. >> mr. chairman, just briefly, on this revolving funds come as some the newer members may not

relate money goes back to the state and these funds are loaned out and then they are paid back to the revolving fund. so from time to time, if you increase the revolving fund funding, they can make more loans and sometimes when they get her money coming back. so you can make a reasonable cut it here. there's no question because we added a lot of money in the stimulus bill for these revolving funds. the other thing that the committee agreed to in u.s. ranking member helped on this, but some of the money could be forgiven for the low-income communities. what i worry about is now that we've taken away earmarks, a lot of these poor communities are going to have a hard time doing the projects without some grant money. so i hope we can figure out a way, maybe the department authority to miss, of putting a

pot of money together that will be competed for across the country by low-income communities to do projects that will help them deal with problems. if not, they simply will not do the projects. the reality of it and the environment will suffer. but i just want to give that little history. >> i will have similar questions in in the second round. mr. moran. >> thanks very much, mr. chairman. administrator jackson cameo testified that from 1890 through 2020, the benefits of implementing the clean air act our project due to exceed the cost by 30 to one. benefits 30 times the cost. we also have epa's current report that the clean air act will save $2 trillion by 2020. another growing talking point that we heard and saw from the other side is that epa's regulations are destroying the

economy when we in fact it seemed quite the contrary. during the clinton administration, carol browner made very serious strides in cleaning the environment by issuing rules on the go zone, air toxics from the chemical industry, refineries come industries, if better. and yet with all the environmental protection, regulation, the economy grows at an unprecedented rate. 23 million new jobs. three successive years of surpluses. so the point is we've achieved substantial surpluses while very actively enforcing the clean air and clean water act. now, could you walk us through your agencies cost benefit analysis because it does seem to me that the heart of whether this is a prudent investment or not. >> certainly, sir.

of course we do do these analysis every time we do a rule. the clean air act report you cited talks about $2 trillion in benefits by 2020. in 2010 alone, 160,000 cases of her mature mortality avoided. 130,000 heart attacks avoided. 13 million lost work days avoided, certainly in the economic impact or 2.4 million estimate to. so essentially there is to raise the environment regulations help the economy, not heard it. the first is this prevented anything. but we took off as health care costs, however they are going to our economy and zero them out in sadness than all the money you would've spent dealing with you're as not child or your own heart disease issues and put them into the economy. spend that money somewhere. any other way is that think it is now generally accepted that the air pollution control sector of our market is the world

leader. it is positive in the u.s. trade balance. it generates $11 billion surplus in our trade balance. we export air pollution control equipment to countries like china who need it because we have invested another resource and innovation and expertise in this country and not stepped up to do with air pollution as a challenge. >> thank you. i got this information. what we have wonderful staff. i don't know what we would do without them, mr. chairman. but it turns out the bush administration did an analysis. they thought the results are going to be that the regulations were more costly than the benefit. in fact, the health benefits alone were substantially greater than the cost by a ratio of 16 to one. from 1997 to 2001, the bush white house estimated that epa regulations promulgated during this year's costs between 32 and

35 billion, but health benefits alone were between 83,000,000,592,000,000,000. so interesting. but the house of another particular question here on the chesapeake and if i could. you mentioned the chesapeake and the great lakes. all mentioned petrus found when mr. dicks is up again. we've got six days in the district of columbia working on this as we lost so many jobs. the crab and fishing tourism and so on. you are wearing sherbet collet virginia, mr. goodlatte sponsored an amendment that passed the house to stop federal funding for the claimant of the day. this thing was a total maximum days take control away from the

states and the states a claim the states are making progress, even though it's taken more than two decades to get to this point. where is the and clean. what prompted epa's issuance of the total mac among those and are? and if the goodlatte amendment was included in the final appropriations bill, how much of that 67 million with localities without him in terms of their efforts to clean up a quiet [inaudible] >> hello? i was just going to leave it on. so sorry. the total maximum daily load from the day was the result of lawsuits, which are basically joined by the chesapeake a foundation and others who said

progress was woefully inadequate in meeting the goals that it didn't set the epa for improvements in the day. we've seen some slight improvements, but i don't need -- i would not characterize the we've turned the corner and the issues we have. the deal is meant to assign to each state. here is how much pollution you can put into the bay and see to improve. it's a reasonable approach. it lies back on the states that are called watershed implementation plan to meet those numbers. so we are not everyday working inside the states. the states are. i want a solution state to taking a leadership role in step to come up with watershed implementation plans for the $67,000,000.70 million plus of about 80%, almost two thirds of it goes back to the states for the watershed implementation. are also working very closely

with usda because as you might expect agriculture is a significant player, not the only player here. so states have really done an amazing amount of technical work and i would hate to see us lose time in the chesapeake bay. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i've got a number of questions a greenhouse gas, but i suspect we want to get everyone in the first round. >> mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. in june 2009 come epa signed a memorandum of funders and being with the corps of engineers and the interior department to quote reduce the harmful environmental effects of oscillation surface coal mining. and in conjunction come epa later released but was called guidance, which puts them plays in achievable thresholds for water quality management, which everyone but you leave or

arbitrary and based on unsound science. preempted, well-established state water quality programs targets only coal mining, specifically appellation call my name. when the clean water act a price to industries such as road construction development, firming, construction on the lake, a senate committee told us that these so-called guidances misquotes having a deleterious effect on rural jobs, energy production and misquotes having a deleterious effect on rural jobs, energy production and misquotes having a deleterious effect on rural jobs, energy production and in appalachia, quote. 190 permit or expect good to release 200 lands of coal, create 80,000 jobs in 81 businesses and yet the 190th occasions has been cracked the

quayle denied. only six permits issued in 2009. one company in my district still doesn't have a permit after reading through three army corps colonel, at least six epa reviewers. they've invested an additional $1.5 million to do with epa regulatory hurdles. and the longer the permitting process takes, the higher the costs become. on average, coal companies can expect to pay two to $3 more per ton to mine coal with a five-year permit process. and guess who pays the cost of that? it's the people that use electricity. according to your website, there are 79 permit that are being flagged. the senate committee says there's 190.

whatever. you've only issued six in over two years. in your budget requests come you are asking for more reviewers. i think four or five people. thanks a lot. how much faster will these people be able to process these permits to their regular order? >> i can't commit to a time frame, sir. we're working very diligently on this permit request. >> who is working on them? >> are merely staff and are regional offices, but also sat in her washington office. >> can you explain why there's only been six permits issued a 190 applications in over two years? >> the enhanced ordination process covered approximately 79

permits. we are down to a think maybe two to three dozen permit. many have been withdrawn. if you have been issued in many of cronbach and are working diligently through the state and to epa, especially in your state, mr. chairman, to try to find ways to reduce the environmental impacts. this is about clean water and impacts on water. unser, i have to say this is not unsympathetic at all. it is the result of peer review study that dr. epa scientific advisory board who agree that without intervention there would be irreversible harm to waterways in the region. >> since the issuance of the so-called canadians in june 2005 the issued experiment. that's a drastic change, is it not?

>> we are not leaving permits through. we are reviewing them with the state and with the corps of engineers on trying to decrease their impact on water pollution. >> the question is is quite a change. >> circa my absolute agree with you the enhanced ordination has changed the landscape. >> and it changed -- it with a set of change from prior regulations. >> it is guidance that has been up for comment and will be finalized quite shortly i think. >> the guidance does represent a big change from prior regulations, correct? be my guest. to reflect the latest science that shows the way that permits were being issued was not protect live of water quality. >> that's why a lot of people are saying when you issue those cadences, you violated the law

and how you come up with regulations because they were not carrying, there were no advance notice. no one had the chance to weigh in on this substantive change in your prior regulations and that's why you're being sued by the state of kentucky, national mining association, several others they think operators on the grounds of the guidance constitutes a violation of the administrative procedures act, epa, which says any changes to the same regulations must go through a formal rulemaking process to include public comment in peer-reviewed science. in january, the u.s. district court for d.c. ruled that and this challenge to view on this epa violation but ultimately exceed on their end.

so, what do you say about the charges from the administrative procedures act? >> mr. chairman, i would want to violated. it is subject to public comment. in fact, we just concluded a lengthy public comment. and our responsibilities have not changed under the clean water act. it is amply a matter of ensuring that as these permits are issued we are not treating future water quality for issuance of permit. >> now the industry, the duo mining industry that provides over half of the power the lights out electricity around the country is being shaken to its boot because of a ruling that you issued in logan county, west virginia, where you repealed richer rack of lee a

mining permit and shut down online, even though they had been granted a permit previously by the corps of engineers into the seven after a 13 year 1600 page environmental review by state and federal agencies, including epa. he said it's okay, you've got the permit or three, for your site or come back and say we're going to revoke your permit. not every construction company that's building highways, every coal mining country and everybody that does the business that has to be done is unsure of themselves and us having a very destabilizing impact on this industry. where do you think -- what you claim to have the authority to

retroactively go back and undo a permit to 30 been for several years? >> mr. chairman, i think it's inaccurate to say there's a restaurant when doing. epa has authority under the clean water act to be to a permit issued by the u.s. army corps of engineers if we believe it is not protective of water. that's what the clean water act says. the reason the permit has been hanging around since 2007 dissenters in litigation. where is issued by the u.s. army corps of engineers not with concurrence of epa and in fact without taking into account significant comments made by epa was litigated. in the course of the litigation committee p. was asked to determine whether or not -- epa had to determine. we were not asked to. we had to determine whether or not we would stand behind a permit we did not agree with and instead we chose to use their

veto authority under the clean water act. >> well, the permit issued by the core in 2007 at approval of epa. no, sir. epa commented on several versions of the permit discussions. i know the permit applicant has said over and over again that we approve, but we did not. her comments were taken. many were not addressed in the final permit issued by the court in our opinion was not protect the public health do not protective of water quality and not consistent with the language of the clean water act and i do admit that his being litigated. >> i guess you didn't notice during the debate, 240 members of bipartisan voted to strip epa

authority to retroactively to existing permits. i don't guess you noticed that. >> sera, of course i did. i certainly noticed them both. >> well, i am sure there are others who i trust questions. >> ranking member dicks. >> administrator, again welcome. one thing i wanted to bring up is i think we are making some progress in the state of the sound geographic program. i appreciate the fact that winning the presidents budget. to assure the higher level that congress had approved. i want to know we've developed in washington state inaction agenda, a scientifically credible plan for restoration.

japan's on getting state federal funding to make this thing work. i know the administration has a tremendous interest to the chesapeake bay, but the difference in funding between the chesapeake bay, not the chesapeake day, but the great lakes. and i wish they had a similar positive view on the chesapeake bay. we feel it with your friends here these are two extremely important bodies of water. and it's been obvious that the administration can't handle the money that has been given to the great lakes. i mean, it's just one out the door. so i just hope one, the u.n. says that the chesapeake, but they need inaction agenda. they need a scientifically

credible plan in epa now is in charge of the recovery in the chesapeake bay and i hope you will take that seriously. a lot of the run if issues that are neglected by the state should be addressed in the know you're trying to do that. >> distinguished ranking member yield? spinnaker not suggesting to take away from the lakes? >> i just like to see the budget gives more hope. and i'd also like to see -- i would love to see the great lakes have an action plan. cannot think a have an action plan yet. this scientifically credible and verified they independent sources.

that's what you need to do. but we didn't state state of washington. the mac advocacy to the former chairman, ranking member when the sun is 20% of the world's precious water, perhaps you could make the case for many come up and not now. >> the most endangered beasties in the country also is a priority as well. all i am saying is let's try to be fair and the administration's budget again i don't enquist sayer. he's out there and working hard, but we have been the forgotten party. it's always been the great lakes, chesapeake bay in the everglades. in puget sound has been not as important. this is a very important body of water so anyway, i -- we want to work with you on this, but we hope to get that budget request that in the future he attended

totally justified and i think we've done what we need to do with their action agenda and the partnership is moving forward, so i yield that. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i can assure you this will certainly not be forgotten. >> in the meantime, ken calvert and i represent the inland empire in southern california. years ago when i first became involved in public affairs for something over 250 days a year, you could not see the mountains that surrounded this valley from almost 360 degrees. it's a beautiful valley. over many years, many of us have been involved in air quality questions because of the pair

today you can see those mountains almost every day of the year. indeed, i'll never forget taking a trip. i spent the laments one weekend in detroit, a whole month one weekend in detroit to talk to the victory about air quality question and what the american on the mobile was not doing in terms of the impact on air quality questions. it was not until cars with better castling mail and chat a bit of her change and that contribute significantly to the cleaning of our air. but also, i'll never forget it there were voices including my own that we should be very cautious as we go forward for developing regulations and policies in the quality because

oftentimes the plane don't know what were talking about. it's easy to point to the big smokestack that they were going to solve the problem with a 95% of the problem, so forget about the rest of it. you cannot admit straighter and i know that the automobile continues to be the problem and i'd be very interested in what epa's thinking about her which are experts are thinking about relative to having a more direct impact and deal with their own transportation needs. please don't talk about a speaker at some of these problems. in the meantime, the air quality research with them located at the university of california riverside, helped us a lot entrenched it was some of these problems. i once converted a wonderful convertible i had to propane.

the car never win again by the way, but that was my way of legislation that would suggest we have to take all automobiles to have a stationary source of the major folds of cars and convert them experimentally to propane and see what effect it might have. they said jerry, we have to be cautious about this because i research is beginning to show us things we didn't anticipate. it would appear that propane creates a thing called propylene in the emission and not form may be even worse that we're concerned about. the talk a lot about scientists in independent peer review. if you're cheap about regulations that dramatically impact people's lives.

we should know over talking about. by way of asking you to comment on the general area, let me mention also back in those days, the community known as -- the community known as chino, numbering codes and numbers. i note that within your air quality arena, you talk about animal gases. i must say it astonishes me. and i agree it's like to see the background of those experts who talk about animal gases who are indeed the people of chino would wonder whether we know what we are talking about. so thank you for being here and

interested in our thought and reuptake us in terms of research and otherwise relative to air quality. >> thank you, mr. lewis, just a few things. let me begin by showing your state as being one of the engines that is driven by stores cleaner vehicles in the country. epa includes things like taking the lead out of gasoline, which i think single-handedly made a tremendous difference in children's health, but also enabled the catalytic converter, an american invention know them personally with a rope that is near cars run cleaner. the california has a history of that in a country with respect to vehicles, sir. and of course the clean air act actually recognizes california's leadership by giving your status special rule. they simply would say this. we had probably a million

workers in the road than we had in 1970, in absolute numbers are the emissions from office cars are much lower than the emissions from 1970. that means we are driving more cars, but they are much cleaner and more fuel-efficient. that was the genesis of the fuel efficiency, greenhouse gas deal that was were out last year. as cars become cleaner, americans, the population grows. if two young sons who both want to be drivers, we need to continue to push that envelope so we make our cars cleaner. i am a scientist or training. i recently visited our ann arbor laboratory, which sadly isn't in the state of california, but in person please. i think we invite you to see it come up if you ever have a chance to see it come your start of the dimension of economic

development that is eliminate the car come to locate parts of the research lab t