heading here in terms of the rev new deficit impact we have to make up if we want to do this in a revenue make up way, is there a rough rule of thumb as to what it would cost in terms of lost revenue for every percent, you know, reduction from say the 35% rate? i've heard a rough rule of thumb of about $100 billion a year. >> i'll have to check that for you mr. van hollen. we did a coal collation like that in the past couple years, but the enactment of expensing, which changes the business cash flow over a ten year period in which we measured this, changes that calculation, so i'll get a new calculation. >> that would be helpful to sort through this because if we wanted to do this say within the corporate tax code, we have to look at which tax expenditures

we thought we should prune or eliminate in the process. let me just go back, circle back to a question that's been asked of you in different ways, but with respect to scoring, and you mentioned the house rules and i've looked at some of the analysis that you have done with respect to taking into account the gdp effects, and as i understand your analysis, one of the reasons you might be reluctant to include a set rule within the score is that they take into account so many different factors in the economy, what decisions the fed makes, whether or not deficits, you know, the cost of the tax cut is offset. i mean, is that one reason why it's complicated. it complicates being able to have a hard and fast rule on this? >> it -- there's uncertainty,

and the analysis that we've provided to the ways and means committee is just reflective of the uncertainty. >> right. >> one of the points he maid, the uncertainty can arise when you're dealing with changes in tax policy, expenditure policy, what economists call "fiscal policy," and if congress takes a path of fiscal policy, what's the feds' monetary policy? do they accommodate that fully or partially offset that? that affects the

at a level to protect public health including some groups with adequate margin of safety. am i correct? thank you.

in the current annual standard for finding a to do it mattered is 5 micrograms per cubic meter. recent review suggests the epa might lower it further to level 11. >> we have not made regulatory determinations. >> reconsidering a level? >> we are required to review the level of 3 five years. >> these standards are based on review of science. >> correct. >> science and visors are involved in that? >> congress mandated there be an external advisory board, clean air science advisory board. >> epa's recent impact on utility for the air pollution rules, most of the death epa says cost of particulate matter our air quality levels much cleaner than the air that is required. i would like to show a chart with some epa estimates about

air quality. if we could have that on screen we marked the level of current particulate matter and most of the estimated mortality is below standard to the left of that line. to make this easier here is another chart. the tall bar represents the f -- best work there is cleaner than the current ambient air quality standards. the short bar represents estimate of deaths from all causes occurring at levels less clean than the ambient air quality standards. a couple questions on that. epa's documents raise the question. is it true when you estimate the benefit of your regulations you are assuming clean air kills people? >> the point of the national ambient air quality standard is to define clean air. people deserve to know what level of air will make the less sick and avoid those premature deaths. >> i am trying to get to the science.

looks like clean air is in a category of this definition. the epa also says in the particulate matter risk assessment report, quote, we do not have information characterizing, quote, death who's there was determined to be cleaned by national standards. reading bp a's document sounds like there is not evidence clean air is associated with death. please share studies that show a causal or associative relationship between particulate matter and death at levels below the lowest measure level? >> i am happy to provide whatever science we have that shows the correlation which is quite clear. it is not an assumed correlation. when people breathe high-level of soot or moderate levels, that is why we are looking at the national ambient air quality standard. people died before they should. >> thank you. in the past the epa said they

don't necessarily take into account the economic impact toward job impact. you act sensibly on the issue of jobs created by pollution control industries that we expert and grow pollution industry and welders and boilermakers. i would like some clean air power plants in the u.s.. also brought up the gdp had grown 2%. is this a cause and effect that because 200% growth? >> that was not my point. in contrast to those who say the clean air act is a job killer the clean air act has been around for years and the economy has been fine. >> is the cause and effect? are we causing -- here is my question. in the last ten years we lost 2.8 million jobs in july and i think we would all agree only 16 of the 20 most polluted cities in a world are in china and we lost a lot of jobs to china.

air quality standards are not good. my concern is a lot of manufacturers and others who find it cheaper not just air quality, are put that in part of the mix with currency manipulation, reverse engineering, that may be one of the factors involved when cost of energy -- my concern instead of looking at the aspect of jobs being created related to the pollution control industry which i think is important also want to make sure we are evaluating jobs lost if companies are leaving the nation, not only importing products but is that something your agency can give information on? >> we look at job impact especially for the rules that are under discussion this morning. let me also say there are studies by economists that show

the cost of environmental regulation. the kind of things we are talking about are not determinative -- labor costs and currency costs are much more important. these are -- >> i want to make sure we are looking at the import. somewhere in the last century someone referred to pittsburgh as hell with the lid off because of the nasty pollution and that is a remarkably clean city. it also means we don't have a steel mill in pittsburgh anymore. if you could -- one other thing is last march i asked on a different topic related to the natural gas industry in pennsylvania if you could provide information or recommendations if pennsylvania's was regarding natural gas are not adequate or if the enforcement is not adequate i am still waiting for the document if you would give me information on would like to advance to pennsylvania with recommendations. >> the gentleman's time has

expired. the gentlelady schakowsky is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you. i would like to suggest the gentleman from pennsylvania made a very good argument that when we negotiate trade agreements that environmental concerns ought to be part of that. we want to make sure not only are we looking at benefits or detriment to commerce but the world environment is also in those trade agreements. i wanted to get back to the mercury and air toxic rules that are being considered for overturning essentially or at least diminishing on the floor

today. my understanding is there were 800,000 comments in favor of those rules that were submitted and i wondered if you could respond to the reaction to those rules that were offered. >> i can confirm the exact number for you but the idea of cutting mercury pollution is very popular with the american people and most americans are shocked when they find that power plants are allowed to emit unlimited amounts of mercury and other toxics like arsenic and lead into their communities. they want power but they said they understand we need to invest to be sure we have clean power in our communities because they don't want their children exposed to toxic mercury. they don't want those impact on their neurological development. >> that is what wanted to ask you about. if you could describe for us

what are the public health consequences of what we are seeing today? the republican efforts to kill this rule. >> without doubt if this rule is delayed or god forbid killed in any way, there will be more premature deaths, more hospital admissions, more people getting sick because of increased levels of everything from mercury to such as we heard earlier. to arsenic to lead to hydrochloric acid. in the case of prostate air pollution of third of the country which is quite populated, a third or more of the population will be subject to air pollution they can do nothing about because the epa is standardized and not stop upwind sources from affecting people especially our children and

elderly who are most susceptible to premature deaths and asthma and bronchitis attacks. >> we will see adverse affects the wildlife as well, right? >> yes. i don't mean to minimize it. but the environment from those pollutants is harmed. the example most americans know about is acid rain. the idea that that goes into the atmosphere and is found in the former rain that is acidic which changes the acidity of the lakes and harms our forests and plants and wildlife. >> i want to emphasize something unheard you say earlier, that there was a congressional mandate in 1990 to do this. we have failed for 21 years to live up to that mandate. >> we have not until this point been able to make rules that

have survived. everyone of those years of delay, mercury accumulates in the environment. once it is there it is deposited and you eat fish and wait it gets there is it is deposited in a stream out of the air. >> are also want to ask about the cross air pollution rule. why did the epa find it necessary to act to ameliorate cross state air pollution. what would be the impact of republican efforts to repeal this rule? >> as i mentioned first we were compelled to do so by the courts. the courts overturned the clean air interstate rule which was promulgated in the last administration. in the bush administration. and gave it to the epa and set i will let this rule stand because

i don't want to lose the health benefits of this rule and the market because it is a market-based program. the cross state air pollution rule is a replacement for that rule and the reason it is important is because of 13-34,000 premature deaths of voided and 400,000 avoided as much attacks. those are two significant health impact that would be lost if we lose or delay those rules. >> thank you for the work you are doing. >> the gentlelady from tennessee is recognized. >> thank you for being with us this morning. there has been some discussion about the generality and i want to talk with you about the specifics. we have had some discussion of where does the rubber meets the road and how do these rules and

regulations affect companies and affect employees. i have an example of labeling requirements for epa container rules that went into effect on august 17th, 2011. it is a great example of the negative impact that regulations are having on our economy and specifically bachman labs which is an international chemical company located in tennessee. to be compliant with these labeling regulations from the epa container will, they had to change all of their targeted labels and send them to the epa for approval. not surprisingly epa did not send some of the new labels back

until one week before the new regulation went into effect and then bachman labs had to rush the epa approved labels to their clients for approval as well as 50 states where the product was sold just so they could continue to maintain an existing business. this was not a new business but an existing business. to put this into perspective we are talking about a small handful of labels. we are talking about 4,000 labels that had to be reviewed and changed to meet compliance requiring the hiring of temporary employees whose sole job is to work on compliance for this one rule. did this new labeling rules actually change the contents of a product? >> i would have to look

specifically. [talking over each other] >> i will look but i suppose not. >> you are correct. it did not. was there any type of economic impact study conducted before this new rule went into effect and how many jobs it was projected to create? >> i could not be specific. i don't have them in front of me. people got hired which is a good thing. >> what we are seeing is the cost of compliance goes up which means these companies are not hiring new workers. the cost of 4,000 labels, slowing of the process of business. bachman labs and the microbicide issue is the perfect issue of how this slows the wheels of commerce and is an added cost and an added expense for these companies who are trying to

create jobs. this is money that could have been spent on r&d. it is money that could have been spent on additional employees in this process. but they had to go through this compliance. yesterday they receive notice that five more chemical products labeled must be altered to meet the epa label wang would changes that would require them to spend more time and more money to go through the process again. can you see how the uncertainty or do you have an understanding how the uncertainty that your agency is causing is affecting the businesses in my state? >> i would not argue that regulation standards setting for safety and health have impact on business. we are happy to look at this issue but the pesticide laws and

regulations are for users of those pesticides. >> we are all for clean air and clean water and a safe environment. there is no argument about that. what we are looking at is the cost and benefit analysis of this. we are looking at the added burden which indicates it didn't change the composition. it didn't change any of the content. it was an added regulation. this is the point. you can argue about fact that we're all for clean air and a clean environment. what we are saying is the manner in which all of these new regulations, you have put out nearly a thousand new regulations since you went in in the epa. the cost to small business now,

chamber of commerce says is $10,000 per employee. the cost to families who are losing their jobs. we started our job creator listening session the first of the year and working with our small businesses and employers and district's the overreach of the epa comes up regularly and it is of concern to was. i yield back. >> the gentlelady -- dr. christian is recognized for five minutes. >> welcome, administrator jackson. let me say as a representative of a district with one of the highest concentrations of greenhouse gases i thank epa for its support and help to people of the virgin islands and as a member of a racial minority whose communities are often with the most polluting industries are placed we thank you to your

commitment to environmental justice. i had the opportunity to see how you work with solutions which protect health and safety while still ensuring and stimulating economic growth in communities across the country and congressional black caucus look forward to recognizing your work this weekend. despite the agency's tremendous record on sensible regulations that protect the environment while stimulating innovation that drives economic growth that is not what we are hearing from the other side. the public is living in an alternate reality when it comes to environmental regulation. for example in the markup of legislation last week that was stymied in the agency's efforts to protect the air we breathe and bring regulation implementing clean air act into compliance with the law after all this time representative burgess suggested the boiler rule would not provide, quote, one scintilla of improvement in

the air we breathed. the agency's rulemaking process was extensive and issued a 232 page impact analysis. is mr. burgess correct that the rule would not improve air quality one scintilla? >> that is not correct. >> would you care to elaborate? >> for every $5 spent on reducing pollution there are $12 worth of public health benefits in reduced mercury and other toxic pollutants. >> he is not alone in his refusal to accept scientific facts before regulatory action. at hearing earlier this year former chairman barton spoke against the clean air act regulations that would address dangerous emissions of power plants and opposing the regulations suggested mercury emissions which you heard a lot

about this morning are no threat to human health. he spoke about the mercury impact of mercury and the fact that it is cumulative in the environment. would you say something about the impact especially on the health of children? >> mercury is a neurotoxin. affect developing brain cells and can affect those cells whether the child has been born or is still in the womb. lowered iq points surge generally the way impact are measured. epa's science advisory board. the data to show those impacts are real. >> thank you. it is our duty to protect our children against these dangers and the only way to argue otherwise is to ignore decades of science on mercury emissions. denying basic scientific facts seems to be a requirement for the other side of the aisle

serving on the committee. i don't have to remind you march of this year every single republican member of this committee voted to deny the existence of global warming. is there any legitimate scientific debate about global warming? >> climate change, global warming has been reviewed by numerous scientific panels and the results remain the same which is the climate is changing and human activity particularly emissions of global warming gases are a primary cause. >> according to studies conducted by the national academy of sciences 90% of scientists believe not simply that climate change exists but humans are causing it. not withstanding overwhelming scientific consensus my colleagues on the other side are throwing in their lot with a

handful of radical allies in order to block a meaningful governmental action to protect children from rising temperatures, rising tide and devastating consequences. denying the problem is not a way to solve them. would reducing or terminating the, quote, lowest priority programs in accordance with the accountable government initiative result in cost savings significant enough to justify the termination of those programs? >> you would have to be more specific. we are committed to making sure we are as efficient as possible with our budget and our budget is such that we can't fund every program we are required by law to implement. we are making those hard choices right now. >> thank you for your testimony. thank you for being here. >> the gentleman from texas, dr. burgess recognized for five

minutes. >> so much was said on the other side that i need to refute get some things i need to get out here. first off, it would be of great help to me if you would provide the actuarial data you are using to support 34,000 lives would be lost if your regulations do not go forward and i further ask the question i am sure you made the president aware of this. the president does not care about the health of americans by delaying of the ozone rule? >> the president can speak for himself but his statement makes clear why he made the decision he made. >> that is part of the point. there was a recent nobel scientist who resigned his membership in the american physical society because of the position that society took on

global warming and paraphrasing his statement we can sit around for hours and argue about the constant mass of a proton but we are not able to discuss whether or not the validity of the science on climate change is valid or not. people of goodwill and good intention can disagree. ranking member waxman said we don't believe in the science. i believe in god. the science should be proven. if it is true science it should be provable. that is what the argument is about. it is important on the air pollution rule that affects texas and a big way. we were faced with the possibility of rolling blackouts because of the electricity usage during the month of august and now we are told with the introduction of prostate evolution rules in the timeframe provided by the rulemaking of

the epa that 18 power plants may be shattered on january 1st putting a significant restriction on the ability to deliver electricity in the state of texas and argue that has a significant impact on public health because they really can die from large numbers in not air-conditioned homes during the hot summer months. did you coordinate with ferc as to the implementation of this rule has discussions were going forward? >> the department of energy -- [talking over each other] >> how did you coordinate the information? >> epa did it analysis for review and comment on the analysis we did.

>> did we just ignore the recommendations? they don't seem coincident with the decisions you made. >> none at all. in my own personal conversations, we assured them we would work with state and others to assure the clean air act's perfect record of never having caused a reliability incidents in its 40 years. >> will you provide for this committee all the relevant communications that are available? what time frame might we expect? >> as soon as we can. >> i might suggest there is a time frame that could be suggested but i will leave that to the chairman. i have a letter to you from the southwest power pool. bay regional transmission organization on electrical and

reliability. it supports more flexible approach to meeting emission requirements. they cite several operators who were of similar opinion that the epa must allow time to approach and comply with this rule in a reliable and reasonable fashion. as its stands now the pool and its members may be placed in the untenable position of deciding which agency's rules to violate. epa or the ferc? putting them in that position is bad public policy. they suggested the epa delay the rule by a year to allow for investigating, planning and developing solutions. what is the problem with denying for a year? >> the rules as flexible as of market-based program intended to replace a rule that was remanded to epa by the courts.

we are under obligation -- >> people in the industry do not agree with you. >> in 40 years the clean air act never caused a reliability problem. i am confident this rule can be implemented in a way that lets businesses make the decisions they need but doesn't sacrifice public health. >> what if you are wrong? are you infallible? >> of course not but the 40 year history should not be ignored. because of scenarios by those who want to stop public health protections. >> i disagree that want to stop public health protections. that is the overreach the agency is guilty of. will you provide a response to the letter the southwest power pool sent to you? >> of submitted during public commentary we may already have it but i am happy to give you a response. >> the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from michigan is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you for your courtesy.

miss jackson, welcome. thank you for your visit to southeast michigan last month and your tour of the ford river international refuge. i have a number of questions to which i hope you answer yes or no. does epa take public comments into consideration during its rule making? >> yes. >> does epa allow industry representatives to provide comments during the rulemaking process? >> yes. >> does epa take into account during the rulemaking process the cost analysis of the proposed rules on industry and cost of that? >> yes. >> as i remember the writing of the legislation the epa is required in writing these rules

to come first to its decisions on the basis of health and come to for decisions on how the rule will be implemented on the basis of other things as well. things like cost and impact on industry and things of that kind. >> that is correct. >> if i am correct the train at will change the sequence of those things the first decision would be cost. the second is about to rule and the second decision would be how the health of people will be affected by different circumstances in which the rule is corrected. >> that is right. it may be the latter amendment that would amend the train act

to do that. >> would you briefly state what effect there would be if the cost basis analysis is done before the scientific health benefit analysis? >> it would require the american people to be kept in the dark about what is happening to their health and what is clean air. it is analogous to a doctor not given a diagnosis to a patient because the patient might not afford treatment. american people have the right to know whether the air they breathe is healthy or unhealthy. >> how are you going to assess the cost if you don't know what the problem you are addressing might be? i am trying to understand. we have a big procedure to define cost and after we have defined cost we will decide about the health and what we are going to do. i find this rather curious. how are we going to assess the cost if we don't know what is

going to be required to be done? >> i am not sure. i don't know. >> for my own curiosity there have been a lot of changes proposed to the clean air act and i am sure you will remember over the years i have not been entirely happy about the clean air act or the administration of it by epa but how many times have you been called by congress to testify on these proposed changes? >> it is approaching a dozen but we can get you the exact number. >> please if you would. as i mentioned my colleagues on the committee and i have had major disagreements over the rules. there are serious issues that need to be addressed in the clean air act and other policies. from time to time i have been worried that the industry will bear an undue burden as a result

of epa rules. those concerns still exist today. i am disappointed that this committee has decided not to address these issues head on through legislation and specific courses of action. instead we follow falls paper trails taking issues of context, ignoring policies already in place instead of finding a legitimate balanced solutions to protect the economy and the environment and having hearings in which we address the concerns of industry to find what the specific concerns are and what particular actions the committee should be to address those concerns and see to it we are addressing with proper focus and diligence the questions of protecting the economy, dogs and the problems of the environment. my time is up and i thank you

for your courtesy. >> the gentleman from georgia recognized for five minute. >> thank you for appearing before the committee. your response to the gentleman from michigan in regard to what comes first in consideration of the epa rulemaking an your response was health and protecting the health of the american people comes first and i think your response to what comes second was other things including cost. is that correct? was that your response to the gentleman from michigan? >> with respect to the national ambient air quality standards and the clean air act. >> that is required in the statute which caused a lot of trouble. >> i appreciate that. this is the reason i bring this

up. the epa counts benefits from protecting people from clean air. they don't actually believe there is a risk at those levels but they are counting the benefits. we are concerned about overstating the benefits in regard to health and understating the risk to the economy. is it true the administrator of the epa has the responsibility to set ambient air quality standards to protect public health including subgroups with an adequate margin of safety? >> yes. >> is it true the administrator considers advice from epa staff and from the science advisers on the clean air act, science advisory committee in setting those standards? >> yes. >> epa staff in their particulate matter reports say there is no evidence of health

effects at levels much lower than the level epa calls the, quote, lowest measured level. is that your understanding? >> that would make sense that below the lowest level vermeil be no affects that would be hard to attribute because you could measure the pollutant. >> so the answer is yes. according to the most recent particular matter risk assessment epa estimates, quote, total particular matter, 2.5 micron premature mortality ranges from 63,000 to 88,000 each year below the measure the level. that is a large number. would you agree? 63,000 to 88,000? >> it is a lot of premature death. >> it represents between 3% and 4% of the deaths of the united states annually. now i turn to for recent rule we

have concerns over at its estimate of benefits which involved almost all particulate matter and note that the benefit range between 130,000, and 320,000 deaths per year. that is quite different from bp a's integrated science assessment. how do you explain that? let me say it again. the most recent transport rule to its estimate of benefits which involve almost all particulate matter and note that the benefits range between 130,000 to 320,000 deaths per year. that is quite different from 63,000 to 88,000 from epa's integrated science assessment. how do you explain that? >> the number i have is 13,000 to 24,000 avoid premature deaths.

perhaps our numbers should be reconciled but that is what i have and i believe that is from the rules and regulatory impact. >> i would like for you to clarify that for me and i would appreciate that very much. the question becomes as i said at the outset is the epa modifying numbers to exaggerate the benefits? is the epa claiming benefits below the level where the data supports such claims? how can the epa promulgate rules and put out numbers that represent threefold increases over the agency's own scientific assessment? would you agree that this does raise legitimate questions about overestimating the health benefits? >> no respectfully because i don't agree with your numbers. i can't agree with you.

scientists who study fine particle pollution said if you could reduce the levels down to levels that would be considered durable technologically -- [talking over each other] >> let me interrupt you. i do respect you. i have only -- i am a little overtime. it is kind of like this business of the stimulus bill saving jobs. it didn't grow jobs but saving jobs. you put up numbers to saving lives that is much more important and has to be accurate. thank you for getting that information to me and a timely manner and i know i have gone over. >> recognize the gentlelady from florida, this canister. >> thank you, madam administrator. coming from florida we really appreciate our clean water and

clean air because jobs and the economy are directly tied to having clean air and clean water. this past week on monday was the 1-year anniversary of closing off the bp deepwater horizon well and there's no better example what rational regulations need to be in place to protect not just the environment but when the environment is tied to the economy and jobs. the last 30 years we have seen a predictable pattern when the epa goes to carry out the direction of the congress under the law and the will of the american people there is this tug-of-war that ensues. you will propose a regulation, certain industries will weigh in

and local citizens, the heart and lung association and this is very healthy. i think a robust exchange of ideas and looking at these regulations is essential to getting to the right results. it can be messy and contentious and sometimes folks in washington have high paid lobbyists that can weigh in and it is important to have a balanced -- people at home often don't have the same voice. but if epa sticks to the science and you fairly consider all industry points of view and rational alternatives, is there a less costly alternative, if we follow the science we will get to the right point. when the epa announced plans to control benzene emissions from

chemical production plants remember that industry claimed pollution controls would cost $350,000 per plant. in stead technological innovation lead to replacement of benzine with other chemicals and compliance costs turned out to be zero. is this the sort of innovation unusual in the face of new environmental regulation? >> to the contrary. it is the pattern. the industry overstated because of the acid rain trading program by a factor of four. once industry puts its mind to comply instead of fighting they learn to do it in a way that is more cost-effective than the current technology and we get cleaner air and water and jobs. >> there's a great example in the home district from decades ago.

we had a coal-fired power plant by the local electric company. they were in litigation. rather than proceed litigation business took a hard look at the new technology available to clean the air and to settled that they invested in the new technology on scrubbers. this has been the best business decision. not only earned them great pr but the health of tampa bay has improved. we don't have as much atmospheric deposition coming down to the water. oftentimes the science and technology proved to be the best business decision. when epa announced rules on fluorocarbons in air-conditioned as the auto industry insisted they would add 12,000 -- $1,200 to the price of every car but the real cost turned out to be as low as $40.

in that case the benefits to eliminating 4 of rabin's -- chlorofluorocarbon the way the cost. >> i don't know the exact ratio but they are weighted when we propose the rule but a happy coincidence is it is much cheaper than we expected. >> why do you think this is the case? why do affected industries and their high paid lobbyists overestimate the cost? >> there has become this dance in washington where we propose public health protection in accordance with the law and the cost is overstated and even though history shows that is not the impact, it seems to me that the void of concern for real people who would be most affected is the american people

who want clean air and clean water and jobs and luckily we can have all three. >> they are not mutually exclusive and these examples prove them out. >> the gentleman from california. >> is there district anywhere in the country, not in the world, that reduce total emissions more than the south coast air base in los angeles? >> i can double check that but they have made significant reductions. they still have significant challenges. >> is there a non attainment area anywhere in the country that has more regulatory control over its mission that los angeles airbase? >> california has older and more

well-established evolution regulations in general. >> are you aware california and the air districts have been the leader not just nationally but worldwide in air pollution reduction? >> and technology and moving forward on trying to address public health issues. >> we have one of the highest, secondly to nevada, unemployment. 12 point plus. both sides can talk about denial of impact. anybody who straight faced says we can do these regulations and they will help the environment and drive the economy is still playing in our 1970 illusion that there isn't an impact on both sides. i don't think either side should

be in denial that there is cost to the economy and benefit to the environment. if you retreat on these environmental issues there is going to be an impact on the environment and benefit to the economy. the concept we can pull this off we have been playing long enough. we have done extraordinary things in california to make it both work out. there is a cost both ways. seriously when you address that. let me ask -- the dialog is polarized. there is cost and benefit. don't deny the cost, don't deny the benefit. in the 1970s isn't it true that through environment regulations the federal government drove the private-sector toward diesel operation for five or six years? converted their fleet to a large

degree to diesel? >> i can't confirm that. >> i will confirm it because those who are old enough to remember that will remember the experience. that was an environmental regulation that drove the private sector to diesel which you and i know is a very toxic emission. a very big health issue and it was a major economic and environmental mistake and there are impacts on that. i would like to shift from the other side as someone who has been on the rulemaking, what is the participation of local, state and county government operations in the implementation of these rules? you are the environmental protection agency. you are not the e d a, up the economic destruction agency. what is the local and state

responsibility in addressing air pollution and toxic emissions and what is their major goal in participation in this process? >> at a minimum state governments are responsible for implementation of most aspects of the federal clean air act. some have their own laws and local and county governments. >> how much reduction have we had in government operations and procedures in emissions a non attainment area like the l a airbase in comparison to the private sector reduction? wouldn't you agree overwhelmingly in the 90% that the private sector has reduced their emissions and a reduction has been in the private sector and the public sector has been less than aggressive that reducing emissions to reduce our footprint? >> i don't understand the question. they have not done

involuntarily. >> the epa had a scientist of can this telling you you could reduce emissions from auto by 20% with a single regulation. don't you think the epa would be interested in implementing those rules? >> we're always looking. >> what are you doing about indirectly the mobile forces caused by inappropriate traffic control by city and county government? >> we are implementing the clean air act and we allow states to come up with implementation plans to determine how to reduce most forms of evolution. the mercury and air toxics standards are different because they're under a different section of the clean air act. >> local government -- the job is to make the private sector clean up their act were you can't get identified sources that government control, that we

have done nothing as a comprehensive approach to reducing because we focus on cracking down on the private sector who are the job generators and give them a free ride. that 20% that we could reduce in government is 20% the private sector wouldn't have to do while they are laying off employees. that is the responsible environmental strategy. >> the gentleman's time is expired. the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for five minute. >> this week the republicans have stepped up their assault on clean air and clean energy. both this committee and the full house have become a legislative repealathon that denies the science and denies the health and security of millions of americans. take today's for action. we are having 100 year flood debris two years. we have had tornadoes ripped

through the country killing people and destroying property. hurricanes have caused floods and massive power outages and death. texas is on fire. 48 states have made emergency declarations of far this year. we have set all-time records of 83 major disasters declared this year with three months of the year still left to go. the planet is warming and the weather is worsening. we see it here with hurricane, floods, fires and tornadoes. we see it overseas where famine in somalia threatens civil war. how does the tea party respond? maybe we confined the money, they say, for disaster relief for people who are suffering whose lives are altered permanently by these disasters. but we are going to make the taxpayer pay. the republicans say we will pay by cutting hundreds of billions of dollars we spend on the nuclear weapons program because we all know we don't need to

build any more nuclear weapons. they wouldn't do that. are we going to cut the tens of billions of dollars in subsidies we give to big oil and coal as the report record profits? we can't touch those. we can't even talk about cutting those programs. what can we talk about? we can cut the clean car factory funds and cutting the incentives to make superefficient cars that don't need the oil sold by potentates in saudi arabia and ceos in texas. we can cut the program that could remove the need for the same oil that creates the greenhouse gases that are warming up the planet and causing the disasters that costs more and more money to remedy as each year goes by. as if this wasn't enough republicans are waging an all-out war on the clean air

act. this committee and the house passed registration to prevent the epa doing anything to reduce the amount of oil used by cars and trucks. this week in this committee and on the floor we are considering bills that require endless study of the cumulative impact of all epa regulations on all industry and for good measure we pass legislation that repeals the regulations that have already been set. extend deadlines for implementation and weaken the underpinning of the clean air act. the republicans are providing the american people with a false choice. we do not have to choose between air quality and air-conditioning. we do not have to choose between concrete and cancer. we do not have to choose between manufacturing and mercury

poisoning or cardiac arrest. we do not have to choose. in their insistence that we consider the cumulative impact of all these regulations there are some other cumulative impacts of their actions that republicans refuse to acknowledge. republicans are cutting programs to and defend devise development of vehicles that can run without using a drop of oil. they have passed legislation preventing epa from moving forward to require a 54.5 miles per gallon fuel economy standard by 2025. when you look at this cumulatively as republicans say we must do you think these actions would help or hurt our efforts to reduce dependence on foreign oil and back up that which we take from opec and fund those country's governments? >> efforts to make as more dependent on gasoline heard our

nation's energy independence. >> cumulatively what are the benefits of cleaning up particular matter? does that help or hurt our efforts to battle cancer and the impact on the health of people in our country? >> particulate matter is the cause of premature death. doesn't make you sick. it is directly call to dying sooner than you could. the impact of delaying efforts, cost-effective efforts to address particular matter are more people dying sooner than they should. >> how do you compared to the fight against cancer? >> if we could reduce particular matter to healthy levels it would be like finding a cure for cancer. >> say that one more time. >> if we could read this particular matter to levels that are healthy we would have an identical impact to finding a cure for cancer. >> that is a pretty good cumulative impact. >> we know how to do that.

>> republicans are proposing to delay and weaken standards that would remove toxic chemicals like cancer causing dioxin and lead from industrial polluters. when you look at these health effects cumulatively as republicans insist we must and the tea party insist we must would we be avoiding thousands of deaths that otherwise would occur? >> the last $2 trillion in health benefits beginning in 2020. that is just some of the rules. >> i am glad he finally got to his question. >> let me just say this. bilbray did not ask his question until 1:05. if you notified them as well, i

would have understood what the rules were. >> you can do what you want. mr. griffith from virginia is recognized. >> when you say reduce particular matters, what is that level? >> we will get it to you. >> when you are getting that information at one point in history we were at that level? is it not true a lot of particular matter exists from natural causes? >> some fine particular matter but most of the natural causes of particulate matter are coarser. >> give me a date when the earth achieve the maximum healthy level i would appreciate that. in regard to mercury we heard a lot about mercury today by the department of energy says when it goes back and looks at

mercury, this was found on the department of energy website that in 1995 coal-fired power plants contribute less than 1% of the world's mercury in the air and since that time we dropped. my question because we hear this all the time, we must be against clean air and we don't support all the epa proposals we must be for dirty air the chairman emeritus said yesterday. it is dirty air week. the republicans declared this dirty air week. even though i know the answer in advance i have to ask, you would not submit that being opposed to some of your regulations mean you are against clean air? >> depends on the regulation. >> you would not submit the

president is against clean air because he proposed your toes don't rule? >> no. >> or clean water. when people say some of the suppose an epa regulation that does not mean we are in favor of dirty air? >> depends on the regulation. >> on the other side we wouldn't have been in that category. regard that was a comment earlier that somebody wanted to know -- job killing regulations they want to know where the jobs are and i can submit some jobs from the ninth district of virginia that have been lost by a virtuous and proposed regulations as they go into effect. ..

>> various power plants across the country have already announced shutdowns of power plants and a net loss of jobs? >> many of those plants are making business spent are you a where they are laying off people? >> i am aware plants need to make business decisions so that they can stop polluting the air. >> can i then assume you are not, i'm just asking a simple question. [talking over each other] >> i am aware of the announcements. i don't necessarily believe their announcements are always fair or accurate. >> but you are aware that the announced layoffs and communities are concerned of the layoffs. high-paying jobs are not common. you would agree with that?

>> i'm aware, i know what's in their announcements sometimes is inaccurate. >> you think the department of energy is accurate and fair winds is only 1% of the mercury in the world atmospheres coming from coal power, coal fired power plants in the united states of america, are you aware of that? >> i heard you say you. i would like to see their website before i agree to it. >> how do we do this, mr. chair? but do you all the data that indicates similarly that since 1995, without these regulations going into effect, the amounts of mercury in the air in the united states has diminished? >> is a good point. almost half of the power plants in this country currently comply with the regulations that we are scheduled to adopt in november

so it can be done. it can be done cost effectively. it's a matter of fairness. some plants are emitting mercury and others have already addressed that pollution. >> some of that deals with miniscule waist, and that is, i've never been one of those who says the epa doesn't have a purpose or does any good and that's part of the recent merger is dropped in this country. but we are already at 30 levels and the balance we have to make as policymakers, as your president made is between deciding whether the gain is worth the cost, and when the cost, people not having jobs and being in poverty as we've seen that rising this country, you can understand why many of us are concerned about the rising poverty. you can agree that that is negative, which is not? >> in your considerations i would ask to look at benefits that are between 59 and $140 billion for a rule that cost 10 billion in the year

2016. that's what the benefits of the nurturing and air toxics rule are estimated to be. >> the gentleman's time has expired. mistress cleese is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you administrator jackson. i told my aco -- [talking over each other] [laughter] the packers game was a little rough but we have redemption against the bears and we will do well this weekend, too. >> right. >> i'm glad we can agree on that. i think we definitely do. i wanted to ask you, we've been talking about clean air, clean water and all of us i think it's been like a very clear, all of the support clean air and clean water. i think we were trying to get out here is where is the balance and has to been a crossing of the balance as it relates to some of the rules and regulations we have seen coming out of epa? i know as i'm equally concerned

about clean air and clean water, i'm also concerned about jobs. during the break a lot of us went back home, got to meet with a lot of our small business owners, talking to people who were there on the front line of job creation. there was a recurring theme i heard from every small business owner i talk too. you ask them what kind of thinking to happen, what can we do to help you create jobs? and surprisingly, it seemed the recurring theme was they said regulations and laws coming out of washington and this administration are the biggest impediment to creating jobs. so it's very important that we look at these regulations are coming out and saying, what is the justification? and it seems that a lot of times these numbers are attached and each rule and regulation will save lives and each rule and regulation is going to stop people from being sick. those are all lofty goals, but, unfortunately, it seems like

numbers are arbitrarily thrown out just to justify a radical regulation that has nothing to do with improving health and safety. and i'll start with the ozone ruling. what were the justifications that you made when you came out with the proposed rule. how many lives was that going to save? how many sick days was that going to prevent? >> the standards are based on peer-reviewed data that look at the health impact. so it is made based on determining what constitutes a safe level. >> so for that ruling did you have numbers assess the how many, whether it was lives saved, how many people were not going to have to go to the emergency room? did you have numbers like that for that will? >> as i recall, but we'll double check in get that day. what we look at is trying to detect, assess where whether the number of be 75, 70, what have

you, where in the spectrum you protect human health with an adequate margin of safety. >> i would imagine you can met with a rule, you said this is going to do some things to protect public health, right? >> the implementation of the standards over time. so we heard earlier, take the health-based standards and then over time you implement the standard to achieve that level. >> right. so i'm using that as an example because for those of us that agree with it, before the president made his decision and came out with his executive order saying we're not going to go forward with that, there would've been people under the site he said y'all just don't care about that. look at all those lies we would've saved, y'all are trying to block the road from coming out. then all of a sudden the president says he went too far. that role, that regulation would not have done those things. i've got to imagine, i'm not going to speak for the president, i've got to measure the present have to disagree

with your assessment that that would've saved lives or improve health because he wouldn't have rejected that rule if he that rejecting that rule would make people more sick. and so i which is hope as the time goes forward, that as we're looking at these rules and regulations that we know are killing jobs, our job craters after across the country are telling us how many jobs in each of their businesses these rules are killing. you want to talk about health and safety these are people don't have jobs and they don't have health insurance. they don't have a lot of things because they don't have that job. then you look at the assessments that are made by epa and even the president acknowledged clearly that the things you're saying were not accurate, at least to his belief, our belief, because he rescinded the rule. he wouldn't have rescinded the rule if he thought that was going to do something to improve health. i hope as we're looking at these rules we can at least have an understanding that all these things should be put on the table. just because someone comes out and said we will save 20,000

hospital visits, that doesn't mean you will save 20,000 hospital visits. you said that about other things. >> would the gentleman yield? right now with the way the economy is, the way the jobs are, now is not the time, and in all fairness he's missing some in the future spirit i will reclaim my time. what the president is saying, if the president without implementing that rule would save lives or improve people's health and stop people from going to the emergency room, i don't think he would've gone forward with a. he can correct me. you can correct me. >> i'm not going to speak for the present. i will simply say that not every deregulatory push works out well for the country or the environment. in 2009 a company called another federal agencies rules and unnecessary burden. the agency was and epa. it was mineral management service. that company was transocean and we know what happened. >> they cut corners but that had nothing to do. they cut corners. they actually did [talking over each other] 's. they protesting regulation of their work.

[talking over each other] >> play but all of the rules and they been shut down today even if they did anything wrong. [talking over each other] >> while you may want to carry out your agenda, even the president acknowledged you have gone too far. we've got to be concerned about jobs. i just want to put this into the record and ask a final question as my time is running out. talk about the countermeasure rule that has been extended to farms and your agency is going to if i the implication. your agency rolled out back or expedited it and sitting two years they've got to comply, meaning november this year our small farmers out of the container, they don't know how much it will cause, containment measures that are commissioner has asked your agency over a month ago if you would review, the commissioners to chew on that, if you would review presenting the rule or give them an extension. they haven't heard back. i would hope you look at that. i would be happy to give you a copy of the letter. what kind of impact that

regulation will do to our local farmers. >> the reason that i think we're looking at it very hard is because the flooding in the midwest and other parts of the country, a lot of folks have not had time to comply with it. but it is an oil spill prevention rule as well. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> i hope you look at that letter. i'm sure others are out there. i appreciate it. yield back the balance of my time. >> i think the minority would look at your document first he for we ask unanimous consent to do so. >> reserving the right. >> madam administrator, we'll go around a second round. you've been kind enough to be here. oh, the gentleman from colorado. i thought you would spoken. sorry. is recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you, administrator jackson for your time today. i've been told epa's office of compliance and enforcement assurance is asking act of hard rock mines to voluntarily grant blanket access to epa personnel

to conduct site investigations. they have been described, representatives of epa have described the inspections as part of an ongoing national enforcement initiative focused on hard rock mining. are these inspections related to epa stated intention to promulgate a rule in hard rock mines? >> not by your description, sir. it sounds more like this is as is a of a national enforcement initiative to reduce pollution from interprocess. but i can doublecheck that. >> they're not a part of the financial assurance? >> not to my knowledge but i can confirm that. >> can you clear up confusion? on the part of the national enforcement initiative or a big part of the rulemaking is because i believe that are the former but i will -- >> is there any link between the two? >> not to my knowledge but i'm happy to check on that for you. >> i would appreciate that. how do these inspections relate?

>> i don't believe they are related but i will doublecheck that for you. >> would you provide with a record copies of policies, guidance or the documents or records would development by epa of any program or initiative to identify hard rock mining, sites that may be inspected or visit by epa representatives and/or any contractors of epa under section one owe four be, or as part of the development of a rule that would impose financial assurance requirements in hard rock mining industry? >> certainly expect to happen at any of that material with you today? >> no, sir. >> i know committee had called the office and worn this course was coming. will any of the data or information gathered during these inspections be is in the rule making process under section 104(b)? >> sorry, could you repeat the question? >> will any of the information gathered during these inspections be ruled in the process because i don't believe

so. >> how much money right now has been budgeted for this national hard rock mining enforcement initiative for fiscal year 2012? >> let's see if i have any of the background i have. i don't know that i have a line item for that. we're happy to get it for you. budgeted under our office of enforcement. >> thank you. that would be great but do you have any idea what is budgeted for the rulemaking? >> we'll get you that as well. >> thank you. i've been told as well that these companies may be facing some inspections and the companies expected to spend considerable time working with epa and contractors and other showing them on sight, resources necessary, et cetera. will these inspected counties be expected to bear any other cause, the direct costs are epa personnel, any pay contractors to visit the sites, inspected under these? >> enforcement cases are

generally brought for violation of the law. when are the penalties are generally assessed as penalties, but not, not necessary unless there are court costs. >> so these are just inspections it are you aware of this initiative at all? >> certainly generally every year the epa acknowledges what it's federal priorities are for reducing pollution and for enforcement. it's one of our priorities. >> is this just an inspection or an enforcement action? >> you do an inspection and nothing is wrong there's no need for enforcement. >> is this a plan to go into the number of these minds for different regions just to go into and inspect? >> certainly. part of our authority allows us to go in and determine compliance with federal laws. >> okay. is this initiative a part of the effort? >> i believe they would look for violations of all environmental laws including potentially

violations of cercla law but it would not be limited necessary to the. it could be the clean air act. >> do you have a listing of the mind that you intend to inspect? >> i don't know if such a list exist but if it isn't may will be enforced confidential. since telling someone you're coming is a good way ensuring you may not get a true picture of what they are really doing. >> and then just a couple of questions on energy prices. do your regulations have an impact on electricity price? >> yes, sir. >> what is an acceptable price increase for electricity? >> well, what we generally do is look at a price increase to determine impacts on the economy and also on reliability issues. so what we need, i can at your question, but what we know is that the rules that been discussed this morning both five and proposed have very low impacts on electricity price.

>> would and will increase such as 5%, would that be acceptable to? >> it would depend on the rule. we look at cost and benefits and we also look at how those costs and benefits roll out over time. >> so it might be acceptable, fight it% might be acceptable? >> it could potentially speed up what about 10%? >> there's a hypothetical that assembly cannot answer. >> who bears the burden most in our society with an increase of electricity prices? who do you think it hurts the most? >> the ratepayers pay for electricity. >> doesn't hurt for more than a distortion share of our popular? >> of course, then -- >> the answer is yes? it increases for more? the gentleman's time has expired. >> you're welcome to answer that. >> yes, it can do if it's a greater portion of their disposal income used for energy than they can be hurt,

certainly. >> we ought have now finished the first trumpet will have another round pick as you can see there's less members are able go quicker. i will start with my questions. a small business person came up to me and talk to me about the epa rule called a muggle but i'm not sure you're anybody else knows about it. in the event of construction site there's storm water that is storm water that washes off army wash off. bp-husky belated exactly how construction site, including the layout of the mud, has to be. and, of course, this increases the cost of construction. and creates liability. particularly in light of the fact epa says if you don't comply its 37,500 every day for every infraction. don't you think those kind of penalties are what determine business operations and it's important with the struggling economy that you don't put that

fear, that you get 37, almost 40,000-dollar a day feet for how you structure mud when you're dealing construction for a storm water washout that may or may not occur? >> the majority of water pollution in this country is caused by storm water runoff. and so the nation's clean water act ask epa to develop national standards. it's important to note a couple of -- >> do you know about the mud will? >> i know -- >> i wouldn't be surprised if we do know about it spent of course i know about storm water regulations. >> no. the module. but you think it is the storm water rule? >> sure. because when you mix water with earth, some people would call that mud i guess spirit but in light of the fact you just said yourself we have had 40 years of impact, the clean air bill and it worked pretty good, and yet you seem to be pretty strong on increasing more regulation even with your own admission that the

clean air act has been working for over 40 years. i mean, but in time to give you an example. specific example where the storm water act is really treating problems and scaring for small people that are construction. >> the 37,000 or whatever figure you cite it per day, i would be happy to talk to them but those are probably the statutory maximum penalties under the clean water act. and i am not aware of any specific incidents where that has been levied. certainly i'm happy to look into your -- >> how many employees do you have? >> with somewhere over 17,000 i think we may have 18,000. >> what is your yearly budget? >> depends on you, but i believe our budget this year is 8.4 or 8.5. >> in those 18,000 employees come do you do town hall meetings? to advocate drugs he was as 18,000 employees, do you have a strong feeling those 18,000 people are needed? i mean, we just had, do you

think we need to continue to have 18,000 employees at the epa? >> i think we should operate -- >> do you think you should have more? >> no, sir i'm not advocating for more employees. in fact, i'm sure as you will see an budget discussions epa has been losing employees. >> would you agree the epa has responsibility to communicate with the appropriate experts when assessing the impact of its rules? i think you would agree with that. >> yes, sir. >> would you agree the federal energy radio great commission is a story on electric love billy and the federal government? would you agree with that? >> i think that's fair speak with mac do you think the epa has the same level of expertise, in jenin skills and knowledge of electricity as train elevenths that? >> nobody to think we know our rules better than ferc step which requires us to work together to look at speakers so

you don't think 9/11 knows the rules better than you've. >> no, no, no. i said our world. i think we know our rules and i then went to work -- [talking over each other] spent i think i dislike here. i think it is like number five. is that up? if you look at the estimates, do you have a copy to? she does. i think we just give you a copy. look at the estimates from ferc. assessing punitive impacts of the epa power sector rules compared to epa's analysis. what should the public trust? >> i know the chairman has already testified that it is based on that information but it looks that proposed rules that were never adopted and it looks at worst-case scenarios that are not accurate. so i don't think that it should look at this data as being

accurate. >> mr. chairman, where did this chart come from? it doesn't have attributions. >> is there an attribution for the chart? i think, i think it is ferc's staff gave us this. it's possible. let me just before a finisher, just just make an observation. on this side of the outcome of the democrats keep saying the republicans don't care about clean air, clean water because we oppose some epa regulations but i will give you the mud will for example, were republicans to object to that. but the president himself has come out against these proposed ozone rules, and could you say under that scenario with the democrats are saying just because the president comes up with against the ozone rule, is a present against clean air, against clean water? of course not. but the question is, the president and i think

republicans agree to continue fading in this economy and epa regulations are continuing to hurt, hurt its economy and costing us jobs. and has to be a balance. and i think republicans drink the same water, we breathe the same air as democrats. so does the president. we don't accuse him of the things the democrats are accusing us. and, frankly, the president recognized as republicans do that we need to throttle some of these regulations so that we can get this economy going again. >> the president supports the merger and air toxics standards. >> i understand that this ozone rule that you want to propose which he has asked you to stop is an indication to me that he can't be, because of this, you can't accuse him of being against clean air, clean water is what my point is. the democrats are juicing because work in some of these regulations including something like the mud rule, you know, it just doesn't make sense.

without i recognize the gently from colorado. >> sorry mr. chairman. we're trying to figure out the genesis of the slides that you guys have been using today. we will keep working on that. spent i think this attribution in all of them. >> no does not but we'll figure that out. >> most of them. >> i don't want to take my time. i want to ask you, ms. jackson, my friend from northern colorado was asking you about, do utility rates, if they go up to the disproportionately affect the poor. obviously that's true if they paint a larger% of their income. i wonder if you can talk very briefly about the effect of pollution on the health of poor people. >> well, -- >> does, other types of pollution disproportionately affect the poor, and if so, why?

>> you mean their budgets of course. and so for the same reason, for those who are poor, who don't have as much money to spend on health care, on either prevention or dealing with the health effects of pollution, asthma, bronchitis, of course premature death. it has huge toll in lives and in sickness and in this days of work, mysteries of school. missed opportunities to learn. >> also as you know i represent a very urban district. and there are large pockets of poor people in my district, and i've seen numerous studies over the years that indicate poor people are disproportionately affected by pollution because they live in areas that tend to have more factories. and, in fact, we have several superfund sites in my district, neighborhoods that have been contaminated by factories, and the children have higher incidences of asthma and other

kinds of illnesses because they are closer to industrial areas. are you aware of the studies? >> im, and i agree that they show that poor people are disproportionately impacted by pollution because of where they live and because of sources of pollution in their communities. >> now, mr. gingrey had asked, i noticed a trend today of the similar question gets asked after the time has expired, thereby limiting your response to that question. and mr. gingrey asked you a question about the health effects of particulate pollution but they didn't let you answer the question. so i want to ask you, if you can tell us right now what your answer to that question is, about the health effects of lowering the amount of particulates in the air. >> without a doubt it is the fact that has been proven by independent peer-reviewed science that particulate pollution kills. it causes premature death, and

that has been, that is not epa scientist. those are independent sciences. subject to peer review which is the standard by which good science is judge, and it is backed up by topic health officials. >> now, when your agency promulgates rules, do you make up for scientific studies to support those rules, or do you rely in promulgating rules come independent scientific analysis? >> we rely on independent, peer-reviewed, often we reviewed scientific analysis. >> in my initial set of questions, i think i asked you, you also make a cost-benefit analysis, direct? >> that's right. all of our rules do with information on cost and benefits, and we're very proud of the fact that under this administration we also do jobs announces. >> no, the rules official promulgated, did a cost-benefit analyses seem to indicate that a

large number, many more jobs would be lost in the health benefits to americans? >> no. in fact, the job losses when they occur or estimated under these rules are minimal, and in some cases, for example, the mercury rule, the proposal, there was a 31,000 short-term construction job estimate, and 9000 net long-term utility job increases. so those are actual job increases. >> when you do these cost-benefit analyses they also account for the number of jobs that would be created in industries that develop and manufacture the technologies to comply with rules, or are those just additional jobs that come outside of that cost-benefit analysis? >> when we do the job benefit analysis we look at that, but in the benefits and else's i don't believe we look at jobs benefit. will look at public health benefits. i will doublecheck that. >> that would be helpful.

one last question. mr. bilbray seemed to imply that because unemployment is high in california right now, it's because of the environmental standards that were enacted by the state of california some 20 or 30 years ago. has the epa's in any connection to current unemployment in california to the california environmental standards? >> i'm unaware of, i'm not aware of any economic study or any economist who is trying to link the current unemployment status in california or anywhere in this country to epa regulatory action. >> thank you very much. ..

>> either with time or the market-based mechanisms -- >> well, answer the question, which is better? because that's the question that hundreds, if not thousands of individuals in the private sector are going to be deciding in the coming years if all these proposed epa regulations go into effect. >> well, our job analysis doesn't show that, sir. >> in my home state of texas, just last week one company, one company, announced the closure of two coal mines and probably two coal-fired power plants in or near my congressional district. that's last week. >> i realize that, and i realize what the company said, and i

know the company is -- human plant, and i know that has financial issues that date far beyond the epa -- >> but answer, i mean, that is the $64 question, madam administrator. is there, is there any evidence of any criteria pollutant that's currently regulated by the clean air act that is increasing in frequency in the united states? >> is there any -- could you, i'm sorry, could you repeat it? >> is there any evidence, monitored data evidence of any criteria pollutant under the careen air act that is -- clean air act that is increasing in density, in other words, that the air is getting dirtier anywhere in the united states? >> no, but -- >> no, no. >> -- this is where there's not

attainment in the criteria. and houston being a great example, dallas being another, sir. >> in both of those cases, if the epa had not strengthened the ozone standard in the last several years, those would be in compliance. and in any event, they are coming into compliance. so, you know, this republican initiative in this congress is not to roll back regulation, we're not lowering standards, we're not reducing standards, we're basically saying let's take a timeout until the economy can regain its footing. and that's what the president acknowledged when he pulled back on the ozone standard that you had announced. on that standard, madam administerrer, did you support the president's decision to pull it back, or did you oppose it? >> i respected the decision when he made it, and we are

implementing -- >> i know that. but which -- before it was made you had some input into whether, into his decision. did you, did you support him rolling it back, or did you oppose him rolling it back? >> that's not the accurate question. >> it's the question i'm asking you. >> i respect his decision. >> okay. so you opposed his decision. >> no, no be, no, that's not right. i am implementing the decision -- >> i understand that. >> i made a different recommendation, that's no secret, but i am implementing -- >> what was your recommendation? >> i recommended it a level lower than the current level of 75, sir. >> i'm sorry? >> it was 70. >> you recommended a different level? >> that's right, sir. >> okay. now, i want to comment on something that chairman waxman said about the amendment, the whitfield amendment. we have a requirement in that that is regulations are proposed, they used monitored data when available.

why would you oppose using monitored data when it's available as opposed to model data which is not based on the real world? >> it's not whether i oppose it if it's available, it's saying only monitoring data. in that case you set a standard for role making. let me just answer the question, mr. barton, that is impossible to meet. and so you would forgo all the health benefits -- >> that's not true. >> -- for the eastern part of the country. my expert belief as head of the epa is you would not have -- >> is it monitored 24/7? >> yes, but to determine whether or not the sulfur dioxide emissions in texas are effecting louisiana or -- we do modeling. >> that's not what the amendment says. you can use a model, but you input monitored data. you input real data into the model. you don't use modeled data.

that's what we're trying to get at. and in the case of this, this cross-state air pollution rule for texas, it's the epa model data, not the monitored data in the be state of texas or in illinois or michigan. the monitored data says they're in compliance. the epa model data says in two cases they may not be. >> the model data show that the transport from the plants in texas are affecting and causing, will cause noncompliance downwind. air blows across the country from west to east, and the emissions in texas, the second highest source of so2 in the country, effects places other than texas. >> most of the time in texas the prevailing winds are from the north to the south, madam administrator. >> not the south to the north. >> okay, my home area of new orleans. yes, but it does blow. the wind blows pollution across and around the country. >> my time has expired. >> thank the gentleman. gentle lady from illinois,

ms. schakowsky is recognized for five minutes. >> i want to, first, to correct what i think is, was implicit, mr. chairman, in what you were saying that somehow ferc opposed the rules that are affecting power plants. and i just want to quote some of the testimony at a september 14th hearing of our energy and commerce committee. the experts did set the record straight. the federal, the federal energy regulatory commission chairman john wellinghoff told the committee, quote, we do not need to stop these rules from going forward. i think these rules are appropriate, these rules, in fact, do what needs to be done in this country. and ferc commissioner john norris testified, quote, i believe that the epa has adequately addressed reliability

concerns and its statutory obligations with the rules established to date, and i have no reason to believe that it cannot continue to do so as it finalizes proposed rules. we had former doe assistant secretary for policy saying there's no reason to delay the implementation of the clean air transport rule or utility toxic rule. so we had, um, actually heard testimony that i think counter the implication that you were making. but here's what i want to ask you, um, madam administrator. you identified 35 regulations that will be subject to a near-term review process designed to streamline and update the rules administered by the epa, is that right? >> um, that is right. >> and i'm wondering if you might be able to highlight a few

of the rules that you intend to update. >> um, we have 16 short-term reviews that we're taking work on this calendar year, 2011. those include equipment leak detection and repair rules to reduce the burden, that suggestion came from api, the american petroleum institute; increasing regulatory certainty for farmers, that's working with usda and states; electronic reporting which, i believe, came in from the regulated sector under a variety of statutes; vehicle regulation; harmonizing of requirements, and the list goes on. i could certainly submit -- >> no, that -- and, actually, i would like to make sure that part of the record does include, mr. chairman, a list of the, um, 35, um, regulations that will be subject to near-term reviews. >> does the gentlelady have a

copy of those? >> can we get those? >> i can certainly -- can i just keep them until the hearing's over, and i can -- >> you can certainly send them in to us. >> sure. i guess the point i wanted to make is that regulatory efficiency and effectiveness is a part of your agency's processes, always has been, if i'm right, a part of your processes. is that correct? >> it has been, but we're also complying with the president's order to do a retrospective look back, and that will be done every five years. >> so, um, can you us the how that -- can you discuss how that retrospective makes the regulatory process more efficient? >> well, as the president said, regulations are on the books, and it makes good sense for agencies to constantly be scrubbing through them to insure that as technology changes, as we've moved into a computer age, for example, or as a great

example, cars that now have secondary vapor recovery on their gas tank, having it on the actual pump, it just becomes redundant. so there's, clearly, opportunities which we found in our 20 public meetings and two public comment periods for places to make our rules more efficient and less burdensome. >> so there was some question about whether industry has that kind of input, and you actually went out and solicited that not just in the common periods, but beforehand? is. >> yes. we had 20 different meetings around the country to solicit input. we also had a web site that went up early on, and we had two public comment periods. >> i also just wanted to point out that in your testimony you report that agency reforms proposed or finalized prior to the president's executive order are going to save $1.5 billion over the next five years. so i want to congratulate you on an impressive record.

and i think -- and, again, any implication that the epa is looking just to maintain in place or even propose regulations that are redundant, in any way not necessary to your mission, just not true. thank you very much. >> gentlelady's time is expired. the gentleman from texas, dr. burgess s recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and, again, ms. jackson, let me thank you for indulging us a second round of questions today. you may be familiar that members of the texas delegation, a bipartisan basis on this committee, met with mr. sunstein of office of management and budget right before the august recess concerning the cross-state air pollution rule and the seeming insensitivity to the problems that exist in our state. so have you communicated with mr. sunstein and the office of the management and budget about

these regulations and the burden that they impose? >> i'm aware that the meeting happened, and i believe we had staff from other relevant program at the meeting. >> and so what should members of the texas delegation expect as a result of your discussions with mr. sunstein? >> well, we've also, not me personally, but my deputy, met with, i believe, members of the delegation -- i believe that's right last week, but i know he also met with the tcq, we've had several meetings i've been in, too, with luminant, and we also have companies like nrg in texas who say they can comply, so we're in discussions with a number of entities in texas. >> will you probe side us, the committee staff w the minutes, e-mails of those meetings between yourself and the office of the management and budget. >> i didn't say i did not have a personal meeting -- >> but your staff has, the agency has, and can we have the

access to that information, the committee staff here? >> um, i believe so as long as it exists, we can get it to you. >> let me -- you testified in response to an earlier question about the, i think -- >> and to be clear, you mean minutes of the meetings with the texas delegation. >> no, minutes between -- >> oh, between us and the white house? that i'm not sure we can provide, but -- >> it seems as if white house is serious about regulatory reform, this is something where all parties should be anxious to work together, and it shouldn't be this adversarial relationship to try to get a problem solved. so people ask us to work together, i'm asking you if we can work together to get this information so we can see how to solve a problem that is going to exist in my state. we were faced with several afternoons of possible blackouts haas month -- last month. i don't want us to face real

blackouts next summer because of the closure of coal-fired power plants to comply with the cross-state pollution rule. does that seem unreasonable? >> no, not at all. >> very well. >> but i cannot promise you documents that may exist, that are white house documents. we can get you minutes of meetings we've had with err rot, tcq in the event that we're not in negotiations with them. >> i would appreciate that. the white house is the one that issued rules for regula story relief earlier this year. you testified to a question by chairman sustains about the number of employees at epa, can you tell us how many employees have been hired under title 42 provisions? >> i don't have the number directly with me, but we'll get it to you. i think we already have gotten it to you before, sir. >> will you provide us that information?

actually, the information was provided to the, a member of the national treasury union in response to a freedom of information act request. the follow-up question of that is can you provide us with a forward-looking statement as to how many title 42 employees you are going to require in the future, how many do you anticipate having to hire within the next fiscal year? >> well, some of that will depend on, you know, when people decide to leave which we can't know until they make those announcements, but from the, from a general standpoint title 42, which allows us to pay certain rates to very highly qualified scientists, is very closely controlled in our agency, and it goes through a process of approval to insure that we are just -- >> and we as the oversight committee would like to insure that those rules are being, that compliance is in existence, and some of the job descriptions or job titles don't suggest that

they're highly qualified scientists. they may be, forgive me, but relatively run of the mill scientists. so be if we're paying top dollar for biologists in this employment environment, maybe we ought to have an additional look at that. mr. chairman, i'm going to ask, i have a couple unanimous consent requests. the first is to have the letter from the southwest power pool meter to administrator jackson made part of the record. >> mr. chairman, perhaps mr. burgess could provide us with copies of those letters to review, and so pending that i'll reserve my right to object. >> very well. and also the letter to a member of the national treasury employee union, chapter 280, from the environmental protection agency about the title 42 question. i'd also like to have that made -- >> once again, i'll reserve the right to object. >> -- part of the record. thank you, mr. chairman. i will reserve the right to

submit additional questions in writing. >> gentleman's time has expired. >> thank you, mr. chairman. aren't you concerned that the epa rule published on march 21, 2011, that defines secondary materials when burned is going to create a disincentive to burn boilers or kilns? some. >> i have had discussions with my staff about potential unintended consequences about that rule, and we are discussing it as recently as this week. >> and so you would agree it's probably not the best environmental result to suddenly throw lots of landfill material like tires and tons of biomass that could have been used at paper mills into the solid waste system or into the landfills? is. >> sir, we are still discussing it. i would agree that we need to be careful that there are no unintended consequences like those you may be describing. but i also want to make sure that air pollution, that air quality is protected.

>> yes, ma'am. and let me, let me stretch out a little bit. let me ask you this, did the solyndra plant in california have to comply with any epa regulations that you're aware of? is. >> sir, i'm happy to look, but i don't know off the top of my head. >> if you would look at that and also look to see if there were any delayed implementations or modifications of any epa regulations, i would appreciate that. >> happy to give that information to you. >> and along those lines, were you involved in any discussions at the white house or the doe in regard to solyndra prior to 2011? >> none, sir. >> all right. i appreciate that. and, um, i'm just wondering if you had an opportunity to see the commerce department's analysis in regard to some of the epa rules and regulations, because while it's not available to the public, apparently, there's a commerce department analysis that's being circulated that would indicate, particularly in regard to boiler mack, that job losses could be

between 40 and 60,000. have you seen that document? >> i have seen references to unfounded studies, but i can tell you our rage is 6500 jobs created to 3,000 jobs lost. >> and most of the jobs lost if they're creation jobs are going to be jobs in retrofitting the boilers, their not going to be new manufacturing jobs, isn't that correct? >> well, they're boilermakers, but there could be manufacturer of the equipment, back houses. i actually met yesterday with a company that's building a factory, they make back houses, and that is one of thtechnologies that would be put in place. they're hiring thousands of people in north carolina. >> all right. and did i gather from your answer earlier that you all are still working on the situation with the definition of materials that are solid waste in regard to boiler incinerators? >> i have nothing to tell you today, but you asked whether we,

whether i had concern, and we are still continuing those discussions. >> okay. and have you all acquired the relevant data you need to make those decisions? >> if you have any, we're happy to take it, sir, especially from you. but i believe the staff has lots of data from the industry and have heard their concerns. >> all right. i appreciate that and yield back my time, mr. chairman. >> all right. the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. i think we've finished, we just have some concluding remarks by the ranking member and myself, but we have a number of documents that we want to put in the record by unanimous concept. i will allow the gentle lady from colorado to indicate which ones she's approved, and we'll put them in by unanimous be consent, if you don't mind. >> thank you, mr. chairman. just to make a record, we've got the documents that mr. burgess had just referred to. one of them is a letter dated september 20th, 2011, from the

southwest power pool. the other one is a document, title 42, hiring practices at the u.s. epa that was, apparently, produced as the result of a foia request. so we won't object to those documents. there's a letter from the louisiana department of agriculture and forestry dated august 11th, 2001, that mr. scalise had requested, and we don't object to that. um, there's a looks like a page from the doe web site about mercury emission control, r&d, we don't object to that. then we have what appear to be three portions of epa documents. we've got a cover sheet on each one, and then we've got portions of the documents. i must say that, um, i was tempted to object to these on

the basis that they're just incomplete, they're just portions of it, but as long as it's with the caveat that we all understand that they're just select portions of these documents, i won't object to those. and then finally, we have a little packet that was given to me, and they're kind of different things. so i'm going to reference each one. the first one is a chart, um, it says figure 614, percentage of total pm-related mortalities avoided by baseline air quality level. this appears to be one slide -- >> is it possible you could approve these without -- >> no, sir. no, i want to give a record -- >> i mean, just list them, but you're now giving your interpretation for each one. >> well, in be that case, i'll just object to having it put in the record. >> well, i don't see why to object, these are all sources of -- >> i'll tell you why, because they're from different places, and i don't want people to give an inaccurate view of where they're from. the first document is one slide

from a larger document on the epa. the second page of that is a graph that was prepared by, um, the majority committee staff. the third and fourth pages of this tock can unit -- of this document are just charts or just quotes taken out of other documents prepared by the majority committee staff. and the final page 5 of that document is, apparently, a chart that was provided to the committee by ferc. so they're all from different sources. i just want to make that record, and with that caveat, i won't object to those, to that document. and then i've got, um, a couple of documents as well. the document, august 2011, by the u.s. environmental protection agency, improving our regulations, final plan for periodic retrospective reviews of the regulations. this contains all of the different regulations that someone had asked the

administrator to provide to this committee, so i'd ask unanimous consent that that be place inside the record. >> by unanimous concept, all the documents you've named will be place inside the record. >> okay. then i have two final documents that i talked about in my opening statement, and we've showed those to your staff, and i'd ask unanimous consent -- >> and they all have sources, right? >> yes, sir. >> okay. by unanimous concept, so ordered. we have concluded questioning, we're going to adjourn shortly. um, does the gentlelady from colorado have any concluding remarks? >> yes, sir, i do. i just want to reiterate our thanks to the administrator for coming today, and i'd also like to note after having sat here for, now, almost three hours i haven't heard any evidence that the epa regulations that are being proposed are, um, actually having a detrimental effect on

jobs in this country and, in fact, as the studies i just entered into the record indicate, thousands of new jobs in the clean energy, um, environment will be created education in to the -- in addition to the thousands and thousands of lives that will be saved because of a better environment and the millions of people whose other respa story-- respiratory illnesses. it's easy to talk about regulatory reform, and nobody in this room including administrator jackson beliefs that we should have overly burdensome regulations. on the other hand, we need to work clearly at science when determining what those regulations should be, and we need to balance in a scientific and careful way job creation and the preservation of public health. i think that's what the epa's trying to do. i commend them for a very difficult, difficult evaluation, and i urge them to keep it up because we need to protect the health of meshes while at the

same time -- of americans while taims preserving jobs. >> i thank the gentlelady. i would just say in many conclusion that the fact that the president opposed the epa's proposed ozone rule would demonstrate what the gentlelady indicated earlier, that the president also is worried about overregulations coming from epa, and he had to step in. and i think republicans are glad that he shares our same opinion. i think it was clearly demonstrated by mr. barton from texas that the epa has hurt jobs in texas. he's cited a couple power plants the eps administrator thinks is not true, but the evidence is it's killed two large companies over there, and he also talked about plants in his congressional district. i think the third point we pointed out that is that no one is accusing anyone of trying to dirty america with whether it's water or air. we're all on the same team, but we believe that overregulation by the epa is 18,000-plus

employees could damage the economy, and obviously, the president agrees. what we worry about is epa might be justifying regulation by claiming benefits much, much larger than the science advisers' estimates of public health risk. and that violates the executive order and kills jobs. the president issued a edict from the white house saying he wants to roll back regulations. epa is making an effort. i ask them to continue to do so, and with that, this subcommittee is adjourned. i'll keep the record open for any additional questions. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> you're watching c-span2 with politics and public affairs, weekdays featuring live coverage of the senate. on weeknights watch key public policy events and every weekend the latest nonfiction authors and books on booktv. you can see past programs and get our scheduled toes at our web site, and you can join in if on the -- in the conversation on social media sites. >> we take you live, now, to the u.s. capitol as the senate