information, if they thought that pennsylvania laws were adequate in their strength and adequately enforced. maybe things slipped by, still any it's important that the epa does give information on what the states are doing to give recommendations throughout that. i must admit that i'm not one that favors that the epa tells every states what to do, but given that there are many states involved in this. it's important that epa keeps an eye on what the companies are doing with fracking and making sure there's laws and regulations within the various states. we all wants energy independence and clean air and we recognize natural gas as an a abundant clean resource. but we want to do it right. one of the thing that is worth noting, many of the farms that i visited in my district over the years, i noticed some years ago,

there were ones that were in many cases run down, old barns and old tractors and farms that were struggling along, now that they found natural gas on their property, i have noticed consistently that these are farmers that have been able to buy new tractors and build greenhouses to grow plants all year long. and really work to clean up their farms on multiple levels. so it has had a benefit for the economy as $2 billion worth of new investment has taken place in pennsylvania. but above all, i would like to stress that over time i am hopeful to hear about the state standards with a specific review of the laws and recommendations they feel that they are being enforced and directed. i'll yield to the gentlemen from california.

>> thank you. one of the concerns i had is somebody who has been involved in the environmental review and regulatory oversight is that too often we take the mentality of a cop, of looking to give tickets. rather than let's say as a fire inspector who helps and proactive. i want to point out items that i'm concerned about. one is how much can the epa be proactive in working with people to help them get to where they need to be. instead of saying what they must do. when we get down to it, we may be talking about nuclear reactors taking aquatic life, but how many times do we look at gas cool reactors that eliminate

those issues? these kind of proactive approaches, things like that looking at why don't we open up more lands for rare earth extraction. i yield back. mr. chairman. >> thank you. i think that concludes today's opening statements, so, i will recognize myself for five minutes for the purpose of asking questions. i'm so anxious to ask questions, i guess i should let you testify first. i would like to recognize you for five minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you mr. chairman and thank you for inviting me to df to budget for the epa, i'm joined by the agency's chief financial office barbara bennett. we focused on fulfilling the core mission of protecting

public health and the environment while making the tough decisions that americans across the country are making every day. epa's budget reflects the president's commitment to reducing government spending and finding cost savings in a responsible manner. and supporting clean water and clean air -- >> ms. jackson, excuse me one moment. some of the members are having a hard time hearing you. >> i'll get closer. in some instances we to take a step back from some programs. there's been elimination of programs that have either met the goals or can be achieved by other agencies. let me spend a moment discussing major elements of the epa's budget request. it recognizes the importance of the state and local and tribal level. they are at the fronts lines of enacts the laws. 40% of the funding request is

directed to the state and tribal assistance grants. it proposes nearly 15% of the request be allocated back to the states and tribes through grants. this includes fund forgive state and local air quality management grants, pollution grants and the tribal general assistance program. a proposed additional 25% goes to the state for clean drinking water. it will support development of water infrastructure in our communities and we are working to identify opportunities to fund green infrastructure projects that can reduce pollution efficiently. additionally the funding of the nation's land and water protection in local communities is included. reflecting the president's commitment to protecting the great lakes. the current funding level is

requested to remain for the great lakes restoration in addition -- initiative. the budget also requests support for protection of the chesapeake bay and several other treasured bodies of water. $755 million is requested for the super fund programs and maintains the agency emergency response and preparedness capabilities. major investments of science and technology is 10% of the total request. this is $576 million in research. and granltss to t s to the scie and universities.

also as parts of this request, epa includes funding into areas that have green infrastructure and fracking. as i mentioned before, natural tant resource, but we cannot risk the safety of public water supplies. so this will support studies, it is independent, and based on scientific date a this budget requests $14 million to work with the usgs, the department of energy and other partners to assess questions regarding hydraulic fracking. we are making investments to support standards for clean energy and energy efficiency, this budget supports the efforts to introduce cleaner vehicles.

this includes fuel standards and certification programs to support certification and testing for all standards. this is in line with the president's historic agreement through 2025 for testing support for fuel economy standards. taken together, it's will result in $1.7 billion and 12 billion barrels fewer of oil consumed. we will have the carbon and fully mission standards for heavy duty trucks. i thank you for the opportunity to testify today. while my testimony ereflects only some of the highlights. i plook forward to answering all of your questions. >> thank you ms. jackson and

i'll recognize myself for five minutes for the purpose of asking the questions. first, it's not really a question, but on february 23rd, we sent to the honor able jeffrey zints, office of management and budget. when i say we, members of congress were asking that epa stop the greenhouse gas rule making. my question is, have you seen this letter? >> yes, sir. >> and so you will take that in consideration as you move forward? is that correct? >> well the letter is not to me, but i've seen the copy that you sent me, thank you. >> and you have read it? correct? >> yes, sir. yes, sir. >> okay. now, your number one goal in the budget here states very clearly that the number one goal is

taking action on climate change and improving air quality. and yet, in your opening statement, did you not really mention climate change and i was just curious why not. >> i actually did, sir, i mentioned in relationship to the clean car standards and as i said at the end of the statement, there's much in the budget that i do not have time to highlight mindful of the clock. >> that still is the number one goal for epa? >> well, we have actually seven goals but we have five that we outline and it's listed first and it's certainly one of our top priorities. >> okay, i know that tra transparency is important for all government agencies and for the benefits of our constituents, we have spent time looking at the granltss made by epa and it's difficult to

determine the total amount of grants issued by epa. my question to you this morning would be do you know the total amount of the grants given by epa to foreign entities? foreign companies? foreign charitable organizations, ngos? do you know the dollar amount of those grants? >> i believe we have, giver me a second please mr. chairman. i know it's less than 2/3rd of 1%. i can give you the amount of foreign activities, because very little of what is for foreign activity actually goes outside the country. that is 844,985.

>> repeat that, it's for what? >> for programs that have to do with the international community. >> the reason i'm asking the question is when we do have a $16 trillion federal debt and most economists believe it's going to be a serious obstacle for economic development in the future. you said that 800,000 or something for international. and we have found, for example, that epa gave us $17,800 grant to help china comply with stockholm convention agreements. we found that methane gas at 12 pig farms in thailand received money. we found you gave money in

indonesia and so forth. were you aware of the money given to china? >> i'm aware for many years epa has funded grants that are international or transboundary in nature. as i mentioned to you, i'm not sure of the year of the grants you are siting, but ochbts -- often times the amount going out is small. >> with the debt that we have, we would not be giving money to china, we owe them more money, we are borrowing money from them and turning around and giving it back to them for environmental issues. i hope you look into that. a question i want to ask quickly. i saw your presentation to the uc berkley law snuinstitute on

environmental issues. in that presentation you made the comment that this allegation that 230,000 additional people would have to be hired to implement the greenhouse gas regulations, if they are implemented. you dismissed that and said, that is not going to happen because of our tayloring rule and as you know, there have been about 40 lawsuits filed questioning the validity of the tayloring rule. so, if it's determined that the tayloring rule is not legal, it's invalid, do you have money in the budget to hire the 230,000 people that you yourself said you would need to enforce greenhouse gas regulations? >> no, sir. because the number you are referencing was put forth in arguments by the government to

show why the tayloring rule was so necessary. why it's an unworkable result. that case of course is being argued i believe this morning. >> well, it's very clear that the department of justice submitted this, but anyway, i do think that you cannot just sumarily dismiss that you'll win the lawsuits on the tayloring rule. my time is expired and mr. rush, i recognize you for questions. >> want to thank you mr. chairman, administrator jackson, as i indicated earlier, and you know this, i'm a big fan of work you are doing and i wants to commend you for your stick toitivness in ensuring that all americans have access to clean air and water in light of the relentless attacks against you

and the agency you represent. attacks that i think we just heard a few minutes ago. one issue that was recently brought to my attention is the 316-b rule that protects against the impingment of fish and cooling water intake structures that the epa is in the process of finalizing, i don't want to get too much in the weeds who which, but i want to make sure that the epa is working with industry and listening to their concerns and recommendations before finalizing this rule. as you know, my main priority is protecting the public's health and welfare and i want to make sure the epa gets it right and finalizes the rule that we all can live with. i think that it's very important

that we remain mindsful of the cost benefit analysis, when issuing a final 316-b rule to make sure that we are not imposing undue cost. so, i again, madam administrator urge you to work with industry and in the end, your agency finalizes a rule that makes sense and fair to all the relevant stakeholders, especially the human stakeholders first and foremost. i think you understand what i mean. we have seen -- we have been hearing over and over again from my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, about the undo cost societied with rules and i think that they are beginning to sound like a broken record over

there. madam administrator, one increase in this year's request that i would like for you to discuss during the remainder of my time is your community action for renewed environment. the "care" program, it allows communities living in environmental hot spots to come together and work to address the dangers in their neighbor. it's a small program but it makes a big difference. a small program that carries a big punch. unfortunately the program was defunded last year and i am glad to see the epa is trying continue this vital program and has included in this year's request, can you explain briefly what the "care" program is, who benefits and what will the communities be able to do with the $2.5 million dollars?

>> the grants are small granlts that go to assist activities in monitoring and community education and awareness, and distance and supporting individual actions that they take to understand threats to their environment or change their own actions. so they have gone to a variety of groups. they are small grants and they go to nonprofit organizations community groups around environmental issues. >> these grants to local community-based organizations, what has been the history, if you can, of your -- of the results of the programs.

is there a -- >> yes, sir, the community groups are fond of them. i have been asked several times about why they're being zeroed out. they were zeroed out by the appropriators. in this cycle, we're attempting to put the money back in. we have had sempbl examples of beautify occasion projects that people undertake to address local environmental issues. training people to be aware of litter, still a persistent problem in communities. it can mean special local issues. a small business that may deed assistance to understand that it's having an impact on a community. lots of people come together around watershed issues, pharmaceutical collection days or hazardous waste collection

days. encouraging businesses to separate wastes. i have one from marquette, michigan. earth coopers partnership included 140 congregations. 25 regional pharmacies, police departments, the quinoa bay indian community and others coming together. >> great program. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman's time is expired. i thought you may grab my question when you were talking about the cooling tower issue, bobby. too bad it's not in our committee jurisdiction. i would like to recognize myself for five minutes. welcome, administrator jackson. i have four that i will try to rush through. but lynn westmoreland is in the front row. we e-mailed over the weekend. we both represent rural america.

if your spending guidance for the 2012 dollars, it will distribute $15 million in drinking water tech assistance. do you agree it does not include the congressional directive to prioritize funding that is most beneficial to small communities? >> i don't agree, sir. but i would have to -- >> it's a small amount. it might be difficult. if you would get back to us on that. the congressional intent was to make sure that small communities would find the assistance most fen visual. >> epa is not requesting funding for technical assistance because the epa believes the states are in the best position to develop the plans. the states are allowed to set aside 2% of their revolving funds for that assistance. >> we would -- we're going to follow up on this legislatively

to implement a directive asking you to consider small water applicants to democrat. strait the level of support or small communities. in smalltown, rural america, they don't have the big ability of large municipal systems and money. it's -- if we can work on that, think mr. westmoreland would appreciate it. now i want to go to superfund speed and cleanup. i visited a site in my district. there are lengthy delays in when something gets on the cleanup list. can you tell me what percent of remedial budget do you spend on physical cleanup versus administrative costs? >> um -- >> my point is this. that's something you can get back with me, too. when we can tahave talked with region head quarter, i've been

told, we can clean it up rapidly if it's initially identified. when it's delayed, it gets through the whole system, you have litigation. the cost benefit nail sis of moving quirk versus later is great. let me move to the definition of solid waste issue. case law and state statute is clear. do you agree that recra applies to discard, abandon and thrown away waste? >> i believe that's part of the definition. >> do you agree that recycleable material is not for permanent disposal. it's destined for beneficial rejuice? >> the definition is subject to certain regulatory findings. >> that's where we're headed. since we agree case law and statute are clear, how with you change the definition? >> we can't change statutory

definitions. >> that's good. we can follow up with that. there was a fear that you are. it affects the recycling industry, the beneficial use section. let me, i still have a minute and half left. i want to get to recra 2002, subsection b. you have to look at all regulations every 24r50e years. you're about to be sued for failure to come ply with this part of the law. do we want an agency to go down a very costly path reviewing regulations based on arbitrary date that will be impossible to meet? the question is, in reviewing all regulations -- wait, is reviewing all regulations every three years feasible? you're going in your fourth year. in this third year, the end of the third, now your fourth year, have you been able to review all epa regulations?

>> think epa has a statutory obligation we try to meet. there are plenty of cases we're not on time. >> it's actually not feasible. then the other issue, as we're trying to analyze all these, do -- can you give me a cost projection of what it is to try to evaluate all these regulations in a three-year time frame? >> well, it is not without cost. and resources. we're in the middle of the review that the president ordered to look for outdated regulations. >> and i think that's an important point. as we -- as we talk about this, whether you want to work with us or not, think it would be in both of our interests if we could design a system that identifies based upon science, problems, re-evaluate the rules. versus an arbitrary three-year review process that we can never meet. that throws us in litigation for

not meeting. and that would help the administration, trying put aside things we can do and not try to accomplish all the stuff that we're never going to be able to do. i appreciate your time. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. we recognize mr. green now. >> welcome, madam administrator. i have a lot of questions. my first question is first of all, the sale of fraudulent bio diesel credits is a serious issue. these credits originally came from a campaign called clean green fuels that epa has been investigating for over a year. it was a sham and could not produce bio diesel but was making money selling fake credits. it was an epa-approved producer. it looked like they were

legitimate. the epa did not inform any potential birs of the investigation as it was under way. your agency decided to go after people with notes of violation in november 2011. why did the epa go after the good faith purchasers of the credits in november of last year? >> mr. green, we understand the importance of the market. it's a marketplace. it's important to the marketplace that there be valid credits. those who are buying them, as we say in our rules, ensure that they're buying valid credits. there is fraud that is foenl in the system and though we enforce to look for opportunities to crack down on fraud, part of the system in this marketplace also requires that buyers beware.

they make some effort to make sure they're not subject to fraud. >> i think that the epa has them listed on the automatic transaction system. punishing the good faith purchasers may be over the top. could the epa have done a better job of protecting the companies retired to buy the credits? >> think epa did its job in responding to a complaint. we went to the so-called producer of this bio fuel. there was nothing there. in one case, there are two cases. in one, there was literally nothing there. in the other, they were selling for fuel they were not making. epa did its job. notified those who had purchased. it made clear -- in order for the marketplace to be fair for those doing the right thing, there has to be a penalty for those not doing the right thing. people need to