live to capitol hill this morning, where epa administrator, lisa jackson will talk about the 2013 budget request. under this plan the epa's budget will decrease by 1.2%.

edward witfield kentucky is presiding. this will get under way in just a few moments.

>> a quick note great hearing gets under way, we will have live coverage tonight as the arizona/michigan primaries conclude, we will have results. tune in for further information on when those will air and on what networks and other platforms here on c-span.

>> i like to call today's hearing to order. this is a hearing on the fy 2013 budget request for epa, we only have one witness today. and that is the honorable lisa jackson, who is the administrator of epa, and ms. bennett is there to provide additional information if she needs it, which she probably won't. we are delighted to have you here as well, i'm recognize myself for three minutes for the purposes of an opening statement. this is a joint hearing of the sub committees of the energy and commerce committee. i think it's important that we have this hearing because in

washington it seems like we do become unsensitive to dollar amounts. when we go home and attend civic clubs and have town hall meetings, people get upset about the many dollars that are being spent in washington, d.c., president obama's fy '13 budget request is for $3.7 trillion dollars and there's new programs and initiatives in that. we will be focused only on the budget of epa. and the epafy '13 budget request is 8$8.3 billion and certainly that is moving in the right direction.

i might add that i think all government agencies at this particular time, when we have $16 trillion federal debt do have to be aware of how we are spending these dollars. and as a result of that, i might just pat congress on the back because last year, fy '12, congress reduced its own budget by 6.4%. and we anticipate an equal amount this year or very close to it. so, on that front, i know epa's budget request for 2013 is 1.2% less than last year. so i'm going to urge them to try to be more like congress on being prudent with these dollars. but, we look forward to this hearing. it's very important and we look forward to exploring in more details, the five specific goals

that epa has set out for fy '13. so, with that, i would like to recognize the ranking member of the energy and power sub committee, mr. rush, for three minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you for being here today, and i want to thank you for all of your hard work. your dedication on behalf of to american people to protect the public health. i do not envy your task in trying do your job and trying protect the nation's air and water supply and i understand the president's fy '13 epa budget calls for $105 million less than the $8.4 billion that

congress appropriated to the agency last year and on top of these budget restraints you have to deal with the constant partisan issues that are going on in in congress about the work that your agency does so well in protecting our nation's most vulnerable population. madam administrator, i want to commend the epa on your recently issued mercury and air and toxic standards. the first national standards to protect america's families from air pollutants like arsenic and

acid gas, this will protect millions families from harmful and costly air pollution and pry the american people where health benefits that far out weigh the cost of compliance. it must be noted that the epa worked extensively with stakeholders, including industry, and others to minimize costs and maximize flexibility before finalizing the standards. as you predicted, madam administrato administrators, some companies are scaling back their cost as a result of the rule. while other regulations have been blamed for potentially causing wide scale plant retirements, upon careful notice, we see the limited

facilities that are indeed being retired, are among the oldest and the dirtiest and the most inefficient facilities, that are no longer economically feasible. so, madam administrator, i strongly support the work that you are doing and i look forward to your testimony and i congratulate you for being at the head of one of the better agencies in the government and for the work that your agency does. thank you. i yield back my time. >> you'll notice that our clock is not working up on the wall. they are in the process of fixing that. but in the meantime we have this one that is working, and at this time, i recognize the chairman

of the environment and economy sub committee, three minutes for an opening statement. >> i would note for my colleagues that the yellow lights go on when you are close to time. the numbers are not bourquing b -- are not working but the lighteds are working. good thing we have drilling and fracking that will have us move to the future, without that we could not access the natural gas. i am hoping that epa will not regulate and try to stop the natural gas. your request is for 8.3 billion to fund the epa, i have been quoted that i want to go line by line, but unfortunately the documents that we have been given does not give us an idea of where the money is planning

to go and how it is supposed to be spent. hopefully this hearing will flush that out and we will get clarification so we know where the money you are requesting is designed and going. 1% less spending is proposed from last year, with such a minimum decrease from an agency who has been skyrocketing budgets. whether it's clean air, solid waste, disposadisposal, all the programs deserve a complete review. and i hope we will work together to have a transparent look at where the dollars are flowing at the epa. it will help the public to know that we are trimming spending where appropriate and

eliminating duplicate programs. there's left over money we are not spending. i'm referring to the billions of dollars that the epa has that will carry over from the prior year appropriations. some of it not obligated why can we find just a billion dollars in savings when we have billions of dollars that were not spent this year. rather than sitting on the funds, epa should bring down spending requests in its budget or work to spend down these funds. the actions incur public and private cost. this agency needs to know what this agency is costing taxpayers. more important, especially during the economic times is what those actions could mean in

terms of the economy. we need to get on course with certainty. this will spark american job creators and help develop the conditions important for job creation and economic growth in the united states. these companies want to stay here or come back, they need to be assured that we can balance public health and protection with administrative growth. i thank you for being here today and we will open a dialog and we will see how it goes. >> i would like to welcome mr. green, for three minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you, ms. chairman, i thought without the lights, we were going go under senate rules

so we can make this go all day. i want to thank you for holding this important hearing on the epa's 2013 budget request. one, it takes care of our jurisdiction with our committee, that all of us are concerned about in the oversight of epa, this year, the administration and congress will again be forced to make tough choices, the task of choosing which programs to fund, and i understand it's not an easy statistic. i reviewed the epa's request and i must say i'm concerned that many of the programs are not funded by cutting programs for if super fund program. our 29th district, we have two super fund sites, the waste pits and u.s. oil recovery. the waste pits was added to the national priority list. epa has been begun the early stages of cleaning up the site.

the u.s. oil recovery site was add d to the list in 2011. when i have witnessed, the epa is making great strides in the super fund program, yet at $1.176 billion is the lowest request for the program in the last ten years. kooshds -- this funding level is so low it will not allow for any new construction projects in 2013. my fear which i think is clearly shown in the administration's budget is shown in the super fund sites across the country, will be abandon and left to contaminate our environment or left for our state agencies to remediate. in 2011 only 11 new sites were requested for and -- epa can do

better and should be placing a proprietor on a long list of super fund sites that need to be cleaned up even if epa does not request the sites. i hope members with super fund sites will share my concern in the cuts in super fund. i yield back my time. >> gentlemen yields back. thank you. this time, recognize the gentlemen from texas, mr. barton for an opening sdamt. >> mr. chairman can i defer for a few minutes. i want to give it, but i just got done at the doctor's office. >> oh. >> mr. waxman said he will go now. i would like to recognize mr. waxman. >> thank you for being here today. and thank you for your out standing leadership that you have provided to the environmental protection agency.

under your leadership, epa is making our air safer to breathe and our water safer to drink and you are doing so in a way that will strengthen our economy and create jobs. congress, should be your partner in these efforts, but since republicans took control last january. the house of representatives, has tried to under mine your efforts every step of the way. the epa budget represents a small portion of the overall spending. under the president's proposal for fiscal year 2013. epa funding is less than one quarter of 1% of the federal budget and epa shares over 40% of these funds with the states and tribes to help implement federal laws and achieve national goals. but today we will hear that your budget is too big and that we cannot afford investeding in clean air and clean water. these attacks are part of au

auto -- part of a broader agenda. house republicans have voted over dwo 00 -- over 200 times to under mine protections that have existed for decades. they have voted to block actions to protect air pollution and to strip the epa to enforce water protection standards. cutting epa's funding is just another way to limit the agency's effectiveness. this is an extreme alleged, american families want clean air and clean water, they do not want their health put at risk. they understand that stalling action and climate change means more intense and frequent heat waves, more droughts, more flooding, more loss of coastline. according to the iaea, or the

iea, delaying action until the end of the decade will quadruple the cost of the global economy. they understand under funding super fund costs will effect the environment. it's not too much to spend on clean air and clean water and a healthy environment and i believe it in fact may not be enough. >> mr. barton, are you ready now? >> yes. >> governor from texas. >> i want give you an "a" for attendance for appearing but not for your performance because i think you have tended to evade our more directs questions. today, chairman whitfield, and the two sub committees will

conduct a hearing on the epa's 2013 budget. epa has over 17,000 employees, they have a budget of over eight billion dollars. you would think that with that much manpower and that many dollars they would be able to answer some of the questions that this congress has been asking of them for the last year. you have to comply with the presidents's order that requires that regulations promote economic growth, innovation, competitiveness and job creation that requires other agencies to employ, and i want to highlight, the least burdensome tools, taking into benefits and costs both quantity and quality. repeatedly the epa under your direction has said that they got have to comply with this executive order or have done so

in most prefunctory way. letters have been issued to request for monetary losses and gain from each and every regulation that you have i am pos posed. in terms of the science and research funding and support activities such as quality assure answer supervisory budget and things of this sort, your agency has been funding research with grants to people who serve on the review committees. is this a conflict of interest? almost every member of the clean air science advisory committee has been directly or indirectly funded for research. this is similar to myself counting my votes for my re-election, it would not -- it would not ab surprise if i won if i was counting the votes.

is this the only way, tore best way to do so-called peer review? there's a manual called the reference manual on scientific evidence, this is published by the federal judicial centser as a guide to research, these guidelines are followed by the world's leading scientists on how to study the health effects for pollution. your agency has refused to follow some of the basic standards in this manual. for example, it requires that you justfy your studies so they are not biassed. including with compounding factors. such as the -- it requires that

the epa has not -- the epa has been able to find am beent air particles. the epa took upon itself to set manufacturing policy by way of a manipulated study to overrule the congress, in my opinion, this is unacceptable. and should be stopped. i could go on and on. but my time is expired. you can look forward to an exciting hearing today and that dialog when we get to the q and a period. thank you for your attendance. >> we will recognize mr. dingell for an opening statement. >> mr. chairman, i thank you for your courtesy and for recognizes me and i commend you for holding this hearing.

first, ms. jackson, thank you for going the tour with me last weekend and i hope you enjoyed seeing the high efficiency cars that are coming out of detroit. i thank you for taking the time to attend, it was helpful to our people and i hope the experience was valuable to you and to the epa to understand all the problems we have in michigan. epa was kind of enough to allow me to speak at the fuel efficiency standards meeting and i am engejed that these field hearings were held asking for input from the public. not everyone can testify in washington, because of travel costs and other difficulties that arism posed on them. it's important to get the feedback from as many americans

as possible. i hope my colleagues in this committee will review the budget proposal as a working document and include programs that may need for funding and a few that perhaps could deal with less. just because members disagree with some of the actions taken by epa recently doesn't mean we need to defund or dis mantel epa, as i said a number of times the clean air act has reduced pollutants and at the same time we saw the economy grow by over 200%, i believe we can create a healthful environment and create jobs without going back to the days of smog filled air. i hope we will have today in this committee, a civil discussion where we can find ways to continue to grow the economy while taking steps to preserve the environment without

resorting to saber rattling and other similar blare. i would like you all to know that i have a few small remaining -- in that i requested from the epa and others to explain why it is that we have a nice little problem where furc may order people to produce electricity for which the epa will fine them for violating the law. i hope this is a matter that you'll give attention to when you get back to epa and will look at the questions i was asking earlier in the committee, so you can give us answers to why we have this event going forward. dm any event. -- in any event, i appreciate the way you have handled the fuel efficiency standards and the uniform standards for the united states and the agreements that we have with canada and california. i believe it's been helpful to

all of us and i thank you for your courtesy in being here this morning. >> thank you mr. dingell, our clock is not work but our red light is working. so we have a red, yellow and green light. mr. upton and not here so i'll recognize mr. murphy of pennsylvania for a three-minute opening statement. >> i appreciate that. welcome. one of the things that i wanted to make a statement on was how pennsylvania is a doing with natural gas. we are excited about the opportunity, of course, we want to do it right. and do it in a way that respects the environment that it is done in a way that makes sure that we are preskting the air and the land and the water. along those lines, slightly less more than a year ago, last march, i asked the epa for