need to defund or dismantel 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 resort to democrat -- demogogory or saber rattling and other similarities. 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 farc 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. 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 is not here this morning. i will 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 protecting the air and the land and the water. along those lines, slightly less or more than a year ago, last march, i asked the epa for information, if they thought that pennsylvania laws were adequate in their strength and adequately enforced. maybe things slipped by, still 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 want energy independence and clean air and we recognize natural gas as an 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 emphasize again that the epa can work with us. i would like to work over time that 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. a good example is when we talk about nuclear reactors causing a take of aquatic life. how often do we talk about asking the regulatory agencies on nuclear to look at gas reactors? that is not our department and we are on the other side. these pro-active approaches with things like that looking at why don't we open up more lands for rare earth extraction. that will be important if we talk about clean, efficient, electric energy, too. 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 as well as the safeguards.

>> 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 implementing our laws like the clean air act. 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 funding for state and local air quality management

grants. 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 request would fund the protection of the nation's land and water in the communities. reflecting the president's commitment to restoring the great lakes. this budget request that congress maintain the current funding level of $300 million for the great lakes initiative. this support will continue to be used for collaborative work with partners at state and local and tribal level and with non-profit and municipal groups.

the budget reflects the importance of cleaning up land by requesting $755 million for support of the super fund clean up programs and maintains the agency's emergency preparedness. epa's budget request makes investments in the science and technology of $708 million or almost 10% of the total request. this request includes $576 million for research. including $81 million in grants for scientists and grants for research in the country as part of the science to achieve results or s.t.a.r. program. as part of the request, we have funding in key areas with green infrastructure. as i mentioned before, natural gas is an important resource which is abundant in the u.s. the ways we extract it should

not harm waterways. this is the study which we have taken great steps to ensure is independent and based on strong and scientific data. building on these efforts, this budget request, $14 million, to work with the u.s.g.s. to assess questions regarding fracking. strong science means finding answers. we are making investments to support standards for clean energy and energy efficiency. specifically the budget supports epa's budget for cleaner vehicles to expand the use of home-grown bio-fuels. this includes the funding for fuel standards and certification programs for certification and testing for all emission standards. this includes the president's historic agreement for carbon pollution and fuel economy.

through 2025 for cars and light duty vehicles. taken together, the administration's standards for cars and light trucks projected to result in $1.7 trillion of fuel savings and $12 billion fewer barrels of oil consumed. this funding will support implementation of the first ever carbon pollution and standards for heavy duty trucks. mr. chairman, i thank you for the opportunity to testify today. while my testimony reflects only some of the highlights of epa's budget questions, i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, ms. jackson. i will recognize myself for five minutes for the purpose of asking questions. first, it's not really a question, but on february 23rd,

we sent to the honorable 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, you did 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 transparency is important for all government agencies and for the benefits of our constituents. we have spent time looking at the grants 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. give me one second, please, mr. chairman. i know it's less than 2/3rd of 1%. >> do you have a dollar amount? >> 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 programs, sir. >> 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 $700,000 to the thailand for methane gas for pig farms. 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. we have an international office. as i mentioned to you, i'm not sure of the year of the grants

you are citing, but often times, the amount that is going to outside entities is very small. >> i don't think it is appropriate at this time that we are giving money for example, china, of which we owe them more money than any other country. yet, we are borrowing money from them and turning around and giving it back to them to help with their environmental issues. i hope you look into that. a question i want to ask quickly. i saw your presentation to the uc berkley law institute 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 tailoring rule and as you know, there have been about 40 lawsuits filed questioning the validity of the tailoring rule. so, if it's determined that the tailoring 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 tailoring 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

summarily dismiss that you'll win the lawsuits on the tailoring rule. my time is expired and mr. rush, i recognize you for questions. >> i 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- to-itevness 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 impingement 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 mindful of the cost benefit analysis, when issuing a final 316-b rule to make sure that we are not imposing undue cost. costs that will harm customers by raising energy prices.

so, i again, madam administrator i urge you to work with industr agency finalizes a rule that makes sense and is fair to all the relevant stakeholders, especially the human stake holders 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 costs associated with the 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.

this is very, very important and vital program has allowed the communities living in environmental hot spots to come together and address the dangers in their neighborhood. it's a small program. but it makes a real big difference. a small program that carries a big punch. unfortunately, last year the appropriators defunded the program and i'm glad to see that the epa is working to continue this vital program and has included it in this year's request. can you explain briefly what the care program is and who benefits and what will the communities be able to do with the $2.5 million? >> thank you, mr. rush. the community action are small grants and they go to community organizations to assist them in activities such as monitoring, community education and awareness, assistance. much of the environmental protection now is individual

protection. actions that individuals take to either understand threats to their environment or to change their own actions and so they have gone to a variety of groups. but they're pretty masmall gran and they go to 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 these programs? is there -- >> yes, sir, the community groups are extremely fond of them. i have been asked several times about why they're being zeroed out as you mentioned. they were zeroed out by the appropriators and so in this -- in this cycle we are attempting to put the money back in. we have had several examples of

beautification projects that people undertake to address local environmental issues that can be things like training people to be aware of litter, which is still a persistent problem in many communities. it can mean understanding local issues whether it be a small business that may need some assistance to understand it's having an impact on the community. we have had lots of people come together on watershed issues. pharmaceutical collection days or hazardous waste collection days. and efforts to encourage businesses to separate waste in order to give -- i have one from marquette, michigan. it was a 2006 care level grant. earth keepers partnership included 140 congregations, 25 regional pharmacies, police departments, the indian

community. dental offices and financial community. all coming together to protect their environment. >> great program. thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the gentleman's time has expired. i thought you may grab my question when you were talking about the cooling tower issue, bobby. otherwise, we could work together on that. i'd like to recognize myself for five minutes ago. i have four i'm doing to try to rush through. it's very difficult as you know. but my colleague from georgia is in the front row and we were e-mailing over the weekend based upon the budget submission. so i represent rural america. he represents rural america. so in your spending guidance for the $212 million, it will distribute tech assistance. do you agree it does not include the prioritizing the funding that's most beneficial to small

communities? >> i don't agree, sir, but i would have to -- >> yeah. it's a small amount. i know it -- if you would get back to us on that because the congressional intent was to make sure small communities would find the assistance most beneficial. we think that -- >> i actually have an answer. if you wouldn't -- >> okay. >> epa is not requesting funding for technical assistant because the agency believes that the states are best positioned to develop the technical assistant plans. the states are allowed to set 2% of the drinking water revolving fund and most are using that set aside. >> okay. well, we would -- we're going to follow up on this legislatively to implement a directive asking you to consider small water applicants to demonstrate the level support or -- and in small town rural america they don't have the ability of large municipal systems and money. so it's -- if we can work on

that, i think mr. westmoreland would appreciate it. we'd like to talk about that. now, i want to go to the super fund clean-up speed and funding. there was a company added to the national priority list in my district and i visited it. they are lengthy delays. obviously, when something gets on, the clean-up list. can you tell me what percent do you spend on physical clean-up versus administrative cost? my point is this, that's something you can get back to me on. when we talk to the region headquarters i have been told numerous times we can clean this up rapidly when it's initially identified, but if it's delayed then it gets in through the whole system. then you have litigation. long, long terms and the cost benefit analysis of moving quicker versus later is great. let me move to the definition of

solid waste issue. case law and state statute is pretty clear. do you agree that to material thrown and abandoned? >> the rcra statute -- yeah, i believe that's part of the statute. >> do you believe that recyclable material is destined for reuse? >> although, the definition is subject to certain regulatory findings. >> that's where we're headed. since we agree case law and statute are clear, what specific authority do you have to change the definition of solid waste under rcra? >> we can't change any statutory definition. >> that's what i wanted. that's good. we can follow up with that. but we -- there is a fear that you are and it affects the recycling industry. the beneficial use section. let me -- i still have a minute and a half left. i want to get to rcra 2002, sub

section b requires you to review all regulations all three years. you're about to be sued for failure to comply with this part of the law. do we really want an agency to go down a very costly path reviewing regulations based on arbitrary date that will be impossible to meet? so the question is in reviewing all reclations -- is reviewing all regulations every three years even feasible? i mean, you're going on 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? >> i think epa has a statutory regulation which we try to meet, but there are plenty of cases where we are not on -- >> yeah, it's actually not feasible. and then the other issue as we're trying to analyze all these, can you give me a cost

projection of what it is just to try to evaluate all these regulations within a three-year time frame as statute requires? >> it is not without cost and resources. we're in the middle of the review that the president ordered to look for outdated regulations. >> so, yeah, i think that's an important point. so as we talk about this whether you want to work with us or not, i think it would be in both of our interests if we can design a system that identifies based upon science problems and then re-evaluate those rules versus just having an arbitrary three-year review process that we can never meet, that throws us in litigation for not meeting. and that could help -- it would help the administration trying to put aside things that 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 and with that, i yield back the balance of my time. chair now recognizes the