the different parties bring up the case and they speak about it before the justices, those are usually taped already. the tapes are usually made available later. you can also get invited to listen to the arguments. critics say that only allows room for 40 to 50 people inside the chambers to listen to the arguments, whereas if you had cameras, potentially millions of people could watch it. >> we are talking with julian pecquet. in interest of full disclosure, brian lamm did send a letter to chief justice john roberts requesting that cameras be allowed in for the health care debate. we have not heard back from the chief justice. we have heard, julian, from the

justices during the confirmation hearings. does that give us any insight into the cameras in the chambers? >> i went through the articles. there seems to be a breakdown with the newer justices and the one whos who have gone longer. recent justices have had experience at the appeals court level with cameras and didn't seem to think they were a problem. i don't want to say old justices, clarence thomas and anthony scalia and david sutter said cameras would only roll over his dead body. there seems to be a generational

gap. it is important to point out that even the justices who are the most keen to having cameras have made it clear that they would never impose that on their colleagues. if their colleagues are not happy with cameras, they are not going to impose it on them. >> so as you point out, the idea of the legislation has gained momentum. there is support between democrats and republicans in both chambers. where does it go next and what time line could we look at in congress? >> i have heard that the senate might bring it in this spring. most likely after oral arguments. the sponsor of the house bill made an interesting point that it is not accurate in his mind to view it as this is the last hurray. he thinks to the contrary. however the supreme court rules on this issue, there will be

such public outrage on one side or the other if it strikes down or it upholds it that we are going to see this push continuing in the coming years. his point is that the judicial branch is any branch of the government. it imposes its will by congress by striking down law and also on the executive branch to some measure with the decision to allow unlimited funding of campaigns. what we are seeing now. that is certainly impacting the presidential race. you know, his point is -- the supreme court is mixed in politipol polit politics. it is a political branch. there is nothing wrong with passing laws that would shed some sunshine on their proceedings. >> the headline at thehill.com, to put cameras in the supreme court will not pass before the health care challenge.

the reporting of julian pecquet, thanks for being with us. >> thank you. >> this is washington today on c-span radio. tomorrow at the white house, a dinner honoring iraq war veterans and family members. tomorrow morning, a preview. david jackson of usa today will discuss the purpose of the dinner and what the white house hopes to accomplish to pay tribute to those who served in iraq. we will talk about the results in michigan and arizona. a supporter of mitt romney will join us at 7:45 eastern time. a hearing taking place in which federal reserve chairman ben bernanke is testifying before the house financial services committee. a member of that committee, a democrat from new york, will join us. and how would you like to earn $189,000 per hour? that is the subject of a bloomberg business week article. is any ceo worth that amount?

yes, i said $189,000 per hour. you can read this online at businessweek.com. roger lowenstein will join us at 8:15 a.m. that is tomorrow morning "washington journal." thanks for joining us on this tuesday. more primary coverage coming up here live on c-span radio. coming up, a couple of hearings on the president's 2013 budget request. first, lisa jackson, the head of the environmental protection agency. and in a little more than three hours, you will hear from steven chu. then from the world economic r for forum, a panel of what ceos need

to do to compete globally. a budget of $900 million in the red. in shreveport, it is mostly cloudy and 38 at the airport. 38 in menden. you are listening to news radio. >> this weekend, book tv and american history tv explore the history and culture of shreveport, louisiana. author gary joiner on the union army failure in louisiana. the red river campaign of 1864. then a look at the over 200,000 books housed at the lsu archives. then a walking tour of shreveport with neil johnson. then sunday at 5:00 p.m., from

barksdale air force base. a history. then visit the founding fathers autograph collection. then from the pioneer heritage center, medical treatment during the war. shreveport, louisiana. this weekend on c-span. and now environmental protection agency administrator lisa jackson on the president's 2013 budget request. this hearing is a little more than three hours.

>> 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 is needed, 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 insensitive 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 and there's new programs and initiatives in that. we will be focused only on the budget of epa. and the epa fy '13 budget request is $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 to 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 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 power plant emissions and mercury and air pollutants like arsenic and acid gas, this will protect millions of families from harmful and costly air pollution and pry the american people where health

benefits that far outweigh 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 administrator, 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 helm 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 working but the lights are working. i would like to welcome the

administrator and mr. rush. 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.

based upon what i see, only 1% less spending is proposed from last year, with such a minimum decrease from an agency who has been skyrocketing budgets. we are not using our efforts to scale back spending. whether it's clean air, solid waste, disposal, 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. eek week equally as important, i'm referring to the billions of dollars that the epa has that will carryover 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. our reconomy continues to struggle. 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 dialogue and we will see how it goes. >> i would like to welcome mr. green who is the ranking member of the committee, for three minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you, mr. 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 task. 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 the 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 begun the early stages of cleaning up the site. the u.s. oil recovery site was added to the list in 2011. what 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.

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 abandoned 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 priority 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 gentleman from texas, mr. barton for an opening statement. >> 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. >> you do want to talk? >> yes. if you could let someone else go. >> 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 outstanding 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 undermine 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 investing in clean air and clean water. these attacks are part of a broader agenda. house republicans have voted over 200 times to undermine 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 agenda, american families want clean air and clean water. they don't 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 sites 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. three minutes for an opening statement. >> thank you. i want to give our administrator an "a" for attendance for appearing but not for your performance because i think you have tended to evade our more direct 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 -- $8 billion. 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 president'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, for regulatory ends and 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 perfunctory way. letters have been issued to request for monetary losses and gain from each and every regulation that you have

imposed. in terms of the science and research funding and support activities such as quality assurance and 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 surprise if i won if i was counting the votes. is this the only way, or 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 center 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 justify your studies so they are not biased. including with compounding factors. a confounding factor confuses the relationship with the agency of interest and the outcome of interest. the epa has not -- the epa has been able to find ambient air causation. the epa took upon itself to set

energy and manufacturing policy by way of a manipulated study to overrule the congress. in my opinion, this is unacceptable. i could go on and on, but i'll stop since my time has 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 visiting the north american auto show 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 engaged 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 are imposed 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 more 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