they're buying represents more than just a piece of paper. >> i agree we want to do that. i want to make sure we don't punish folks trying to dom ply with the law. is epa considering changes to prevent that from reoccurring? maybe more immediate recommendation in. >> the resources are spread thin. when we found out about the case, we went out and enforced against it. the rules are clear that it requires both parties, the buyer and the seller, to engage in ensuring what they're doing is actually not fraudulent but real. real production of biofuels. it's important to the small producers. the large retailers have resources to bring to bear as well. >> we have large oil companies and large refiners. in some cases, they relied on information from the epa. the next question, the president's budget includes an

interagency study that the d.o.e., epa and others partner on the health effects of fracing. can you explain the purpose behind the study and how this is different from what the epa has been doing? >> the study is an expansion. right now, epa is doing a congressionally man dated study. it's been on public drinking supplies. this is additional money to work with our partier in agencies as i said in my opening remarks to look at air and water quality and eco systems impacts. to ask the hard questions to make sure frak remains safe. >> i understand that the peer review will be incorporated.

>> we have to wait for budget approval. think we would look to do a transparent and valid study and look for public input as well. >> we have discussed this in the past. there's no way we can develop our vast natural gas resources without the use of fracing? >> that's right. the natural gas resources that the country has is in shale rock. fracing is the way to release the resources. it needs to be done safely and responsibly. but it needs to be done. >> i have one last question. not everything is cut in the budget. i said earlier, this request included important programs like the electronic manifest system. the current system of paper manifests is not as good as it should be. what is the purpose of the electronic system? >> to move to a paperless

system. it's easier for record generation, retrieval, transparency of information. it's about $2 million in our budget. we think it would be a giant step forward and mindful of the times we're in. >> the cost is $2 million. did you receive that amount? and i know i'm out of time. >> none, sir. in '12, we did not. we're requesting it in '13. >> i have run out of time. the chairman and i have talked about things we can do. i look forward to working with you. >> i would like to recognize the gentleman from texas. mr. barton. five minutes for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam administrator, october 12th, you appeared before a hearing of this committee. and i asked you a question about the number of credit cards that the epa and what the limits were and how much money was spent,

what the criteria was. we put that in a follow-up letter to your administration on november 1st. we have still not gotten an answer. can you enlighten us on the status of that query? what the response is going to be with it? >> think that was miss bennett's hearing. we'll endeavor to get you an answer. >> do you know where it is? anything about it other than we haven't gotten any response at all? >> i know we're preparing a response. we'll be getting a response to you, sir. >> okay. you have been doing quite a bit of travel, which is a good thing, think. i don't have a problem with administration officials traveling. but some of the locations seem a little bit -- i won't say puzzling. but interesting. you were recently in brazil.

at a conference on urban sust n sustainabili sustainability. can you tell us what they is? >> i acomp nid president of the united states when he went to brazil to meet with their ped. they decided to focus on sustainability issues in advance of the rio plus 20 conference. urban sustainability is an issue facing rio de janeiro as they look at the games coming in the next several years. as the large influx of people into 12is of much of the developing world. they asked us for information on what cities here are doing that help them to be green, save energy, feed their people, provide energy and water and waste for all those people who are moving in. we're working with the city of philadelphia. they're doing some very

innovative waste water work. >> can you tell us what that trip cost? >> not off the top of my head, sir. >> can you tell us what your travel budget is? >> we can get you the information, sir. >> can you tell us who sets your travel budget? >> our overall travel budget is down. it's decreased every year. i set our agency's budget to ask folks as much as possible -- >> is it several million a year, several hundred thousand a year? >> i don't know. we're happy to get you the numbers. >> is your budget up to you? >> i take responsibility for the reductions in travel that have happened every year that i have been here. yes, sir. >> i want to ask about your nonprofit grants. we went to your website. and, um -- some of them, seem to be absolutely total -- total

sense. the american lung association. some of them are bupuzzling. you have 1,000 friends in iowa yaw gave $30,000 to. you have 1240urks friends in pennsylvania you gave $85,000 to. alabama people against a littered state got $75,000. i'm very confused. the bible baptist church got $200,000. why would epa give money to a baptist bible church? for $200,000? >> why not? >> how about camp kumbaya. your administration gave over $20,000 to them.

>> i'm happy to get you information on any of our small community grants. >> what is the environmental core mission for camp kumbaya? >> i don't know. i've not been there. >> how about art fra scrap? >> art from scrap? >> art from scrap. you gave $18,000 to art from scrap. not you, personally. do you know what the nonprofit budget is for the epa? >> we give several grant programs. i'm guessing. it's an uneducated guess. you're not supposed to do that in hearing. many of them are under the community -- >> sit hundreds of millions, tens of millions. >> it's more than millions. it's probably several million. because the c.a.r.e. grant program in the past has been about $2 million to $2.5 million

a year. it was zeroed out this year. many communities are concerned that we're not giving them. >> i would be interested in why camp kumbaya. that seems to me to be a little bit difficult to justify. my time is expired. >> thank you. this time recognize the gentleman from michigan. >> thank you for your courtesy. madam administrator, yes or no, i see that the president's fiscal year 2013 budget request for the superfund is $35 million less than the current year. are you comfort b8 it can continue to carry out its obligations without slowing down current efforts with a reduction in spending? yes, or no? >> yes, but we cannot start any new cleanups, sir. >> so, that may very well put

you down. rather slow you down. and i'm referring to cuts here in both superfund in general and in enforcement. next question. i, along with two of my colleagues from the great lakes region will request that the appropriations maintain level funding for the great lakes initiative. i know you have been support nif the past of the efforts in the great lakes. do you believe that level funding will adequately support this program? please answer yes or no. >> yes. yes, sir. >> are you aware -- rather, as you are aware, the state of california is moving forward with a level three tail pipe emission standard for carbon monoxide and hydro carbons, what is the status?

>> epa has undertaken a look at reducing the level of sulfur. the tier three standards. they're similar to california's president that will rule maiking continues. we're working still in house on proposed rules. >> thank you. what is epa doing to ensure that american manufacturers, most specifically, auto manufacturers will not have to worry about a patch work of regulations on these requirements? >> the national car standards, clean car standards, give one national standards for vehicles for both fuel economy and green house gas e missions from now until the year 2025. we have been told over and over again that those reasonable comments and standards give automakers the ability to innovate, move forward with a clear set of standards to go

about their business and grow manufacturing. we hope grow exports of their product. >> regarding the mercury and air toxic starnlds, if utilities need a one-year extension, they need to get from the the local permitting authorities. in my case, the department of environmental quality of state of michigan. what assurances can you provide that epa will not override decisions like this? >> first, i believe strongly that state permits agencies, having run one myself are the front line. and know their individual permitees best. second, the president of the united states, at the time we issued the standards, ordered for the epa to give the additional year, to work to ensure that state's did it. it's still their ultimate

authority. the epa is not posed or poised to override the president's executive order. >> now, you tiutilities in the of michigan are concerned they'll have to be in violation of the mercury and air tax standards before requesting a second year waiver to comply with the new standards. is that the case? >> it is not. but it bears a little explanation. >> would you give us more comment on this for the purposes of the record, if you please. >> yes, sir. what we have asked utilities to do and i believe they're doing is working with the public utility commissions and state regulators now to look forward and put forth their plans for their fleets on how to come ply with the standards. if, in doing so, they identify plans that need 20 go longer

than the fourth year -- >> if not, what do the utilities in michigan or elsewhere need to do in order to be given that second one-year extension? that's matter of great concern to our people. >> think the earlier that they can come forward, sir, and let us know they believe they're going need that second year, not waiting until the end when they do face noncompliance, they can and we can, work with the state to ensure that through an agreement, they have additional time. they'll have to show they need the time and there's no other power. but those are findings they need to make. >> now, i understand that the new source performance standards are currently being reviewed by omb. can you tell me if the standards will apply to modified sources? yes, or no? >> sir, it's not a good idea for me to speculate on rules that are in review. i would ask that we wait until

those rules are out for public comment. they'll go through full public comment. we have endeavored to be reasonable. >> you can understand that our people have a great deal of concern on this matter. >> thank you. at this time, recognize the gentleman from nebraska, mr. terry, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i'm concerned about the efforts being undertaken at u.s. epa to supplant state regulators as the primary regulators in a number of issues. particularly where the states have been sole regulators for decad decades. i'm proud of my folks in nebraska. they've done a fine job. since this is a budget hearing, it strikes me as if the federal government were going push the states aside so it with occupy the regulatory field in way it never has that you're going need

lots of new bodies in your regional offices and d.c. head quarters as well as new budget authority pay for he's people a -- these people and programs. the dashl budget authority epa needs to increase its in-house erks p expertise and complete -- especially as it pertains to regulatory enforcement. >> the budget goes a different direction. i used to run state program. i've committed that while i'm here, we're going increase granlts to the states and the tribes to do permitting and enforcement. there's a net $113 million increase in the state tribe categorical grants, even in a tough budget year. it's one of the few places we're

plussing up. information management, computers, publicwater sup ply. there's a few places we're cutting, beaches, not a concern in your state. the money is up because we believe that never in the federal government could it supplant the states. >> the budget increases will be in the grants part, not personnel within the epa, particularly in region seven? >> um, well -- >> is that a yes or no? >> i only have five minutes. >> we're looking at overall personal decreases, i believe. >> think it's an increase of 25? >> an increase of 25 people across our 17,000-plus person agency. >> what would be the impact to uncertainty between the states and the epa and state primary delegations? >> could you repeat the question? >> i'm going on to the next one.

if fy 2013, are you plans to propose revisions to the ambient air quality standards? if so, went? >> yes, probably. they're due by statute. we have not announced date. it has not been set. >> can we be assure add that the epa will not pro those any change to the current course? >> yes, i have so stated, sir. we will not -- we do not anticipate based on the science we have seen so far, that a change will be warranted. >> does the epa publish in one publicly accessible place a list of all the petitions for rule maiking that are submitted to the agency? >> i do not believe so, sir. we'll double check the answer. >> we haven't found one, if there is. so when you check, and confirm that there is not, one place

that public or members of congress can go to, will you commit to posting that information on the epa's website starting this year? >> petitions sir? >> yes. >> think that's a fair request. i'm happy to look into it. >> i yield back. >> we recognize the gentleman from new jersey. >> i want to welcome lisa jackson to the committee. i've worked with her before. since you have been at the helm of the epa, i believe our kubt has made great strides in improving air quality. these are crucial to protecting human health and the environment. the republicans in congress and on the campaign trail in particular are attempting to argue that protecting our environment is somehow hurting our economy. i don't think that's true. i don't think you need to choose

between a strong economy and a clean environment. i think they bolster each other. i think people make broad generalizations. epa's toxics rule will lead to the creation of 84,500 jobs between now and 20125. that's one example of how safeguarding our environment can safeguard the economy. i know in tough tirnlgs it's difficult. cours choices have to be made. i wanted to ask a couple of questions specifically about new jersey. as you know in the state of new jersey, we have the most superfund sites in the nation. we're the most densely pop lated state. it's crucial that these site bs cleaned up. the president's budget proposal

is the lowest budget for superfund cleanup in the last ten years. that will make it difficult to expedite cleaning up the sites. it says there will be no new construction projects. this goes back to the issue of jobs. cleaning up superfund sites provide jobs. before it expired in '95, the money to clean up superfund sites came from taxes on polluters. because congress has not reauthorized the taxes, the funding cleanup now false on americans. i have sbrintroduced a bill. do you agree that reinstating the superfund taxes would enable epa to clean up the sites faster and create more jobs. >> yes, sir. the administration has come out in favor of reinstatement of that tax. >> i heard you mention the

elimination of the beach grants in the president's budget propos proposal. that program, actually, i was part of the original authorization of it and the reauthorization. it was funded at $10 million last year. they've resulted in the number of monitored beaches tripling nationwide since the program started. states use these systems. i'm frad that without the grants, the trend will reverse itself and many states will just choose to stop monitoring many of their beaches. i wanted to ask you if you think epa's beach grants have been successful over the years in keeping swirms out of contaminated waters. comment on the program, if you would. >> i knew some of the colleagues would be happy. >> i would have asked it any way. >> beachntery

successful, sir. and this is one of the tough choices. but it's mindful of the past success. which is what influns ourfomost thanks to your leadership, the grants helps establish monitoring programs and systems and teams of people who now do that work. this is simply the federal government saying this is really a state or local function. it's best done that way. i know that's how it's done primarily in new jersey. our time for funding this is seed funding is over. and it's time for those communities to take over. >> the reason i disagree, and i real tling it's important for us to restore the funds, is because you're right, that when new jersey had it on its own, and you were the commissioner at the time, that we did a lot to fund the program and we did all the things that we were supposed to do. but the problem is, other states were not doing it. then it becomes unfair advantage.

you know, we're closing our beaches when they should be closed. other states are not because they don't do the testing and the more or thing. think that the program right now, we havezation bill to expand to it do a lot more things that are actually being done now. tests for different chemicals and compounds that are not tested for now. my fear is that if we eliminate the federal dollars, a lot of states won't do it. we won't know. which beaches should be open and not. a lot of states don't want to do it. they don't want to admit they have dirty beaches. in addition, think that the federal dollars can leverage more state dla things for the frprogram. i'm going to fight hard to get that reinstated. >> at this time, recognize the

gentleman from michigan for five minutes of questions. >> thank you, administrator jackson for being here this morning. i do have a couple of questions. i apologize for being in and out. lots of things going on. i appreciated the letter that think gina mccarthy sent yesterday, or maybe it's -- yeah, yesterday, to chairman whitfield. in that letter, on the first page, you write in the last paragraph on that first page, that is why epa conducted extensive refinery modeling to understand the cost impacts of a variety of fuel requirements. as a result, the only one we're considering for tier three would lower the amount of sulfur in

gasoline. so my question is, does that mean that you will not look at the read vapor pressure or the octane components of a final rule? is that what i read between the lines? >> yeah, think that's pretty much, yes, sir, i agree with that interpretation. >> good, now -- we are all concerned about job losses across the country. and i know there was a study that came out that showed a number of refineries that are closing. from california to new mexico, new jersey, pennsylvania, and the virgin islands. the total, 5,500 jobs. they're closing for a variety of reasons. and -- one of the reasons is the regulatory burden that many of these have. and i know that with the refineries that are closing in

marcus hook, pennsylvania, as well as in the philadelphia -- the sunoco refineries there, totalling about 2,000 jobs, there's a concern that they are -- that the fuel for those areas will be coming in from overseas. and will be refined. losing those jobs. the question is, have you taken a look as we all are concerned about the planet, have you taken a look at regulations that our refineries have versus what they are in the new refine rirs built in the world, such as china, and in the -- um -- caribbean? have you looked at the difference in the regulations between what we have and what we have when we close these refineries? what, in fact, that refined oil will have in terms of the relg

lag regulations impacting them? >> generally, yes, think the program specialists have an understanding of the differences between our regulation and other kuntds. the virgin islands we regulate and have for years. i have to say that those private sector decisions about refineries and their decisions to close i have not seen any of them pointing directly to regulatory burdens in that decision making. think the administration will look at the recent decisions and keep an eye on them and also hope that they work with local and regional parties. to address any shortages that might cause. >> as i understand it, one of the main reasons they're closing in the philadelphia area are that they're now going to refine that in nigeria rather than in the united states. and it was in larm part because

the cost differential between the two -- >> sir, again, it's a private sector decision. i will not speak for them. i'll tell you that my underst d understanding has been about supply. i only know what i read about their decision making process. >> epa was criticized in the magazine "the economist." for how it measures profits on the mac rules. it was here in -- february 18th issue. the article explain that when analyzing the costs and benefits of the rules, most of the benefits come from cobenefits. and the question that i have is, why doesn't the epa take the time to analyze the public health benefits associated with most of the pollutants. >> i