chairman -- the vice chairman of my committee, mr. green, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. again, welcome, madam administrator. like all of us i have a lot of questions in the five minutes. my first question is first of all the sale of fraudulent bio diesel credits is affecting the motor fuel sector and the credits originally came from clean green fuels that epa had been investigating for over a year. it turned out the company was a share and cannot practice any p bio diesel, but the problem it was an epa approved producer and it was listed in the automated transaction system and it looked legitimate. rather than treating the row finers, your agency decided to go after them with notice of violation in november of 2011.

why did epa do after the good faith purchasers of these creditors in november of last year? >> well, mr. green, we understand the importance of the market, it is marketplace and it is important to the marketplace that there be valid credits and that those who are buying them as we say in our rules ensure that they're buying -- ensure they're buying valid credits. there is fraud that's potential in the system and although we enforce to look for opportunities to crack down on fraud, part of the system in this marketplace also requires that buyers beware and that they ensure that what they're buying that they make some effort to ensure they're not being subject to fraudulent -- >> well, obviously i think that the epa has them listed on the automated transaction system punishing the good faith purchasers maybe a little over the top instead of going after them. could epa have done a better job

in presenting the fraud and protecting those companies wy we required to buy the credits in order to comply with the law? >> i think epa did its job in responding to a complaint. we went to the so-called producer of this biofuel. there was nothing there. one case there were two cases and one there was literally nothing there. and the other they had shut down all the equipment and were selling for fuel they weren't making. so epa did its job. it certainly notified those who had purchased. in order for the marketplace to be fair for those who doing the right thing, there has to be a penalty for those not doing the right thing and people need to ensure that what they're buying represents more than just a piece of paper. >> well, i agree we want to do that. but i want to make sure that we don't end up punishing folks who are trying to comply with the law based on the epa system. is epa considering changes to

prevent similar instances from occurring, maybe more timely notice to the purchasers? >> sir, epa is limited enforcement resources are spread pretty thin. when we found out about the case we certainly went out and enforced about it, but our rules are very clear. it requires the buyer and the seller to engage in ensuring that what they're doing is actually not fraudulent, but real. real production of biofuels. it's important to the small prodipr producers and they have resources they can bring to bear as well. >> well, i know we have some large oil companies and large refiners, but again, in some cases they relied on the information from the epa. my next question is the president's budget for fy-13 includes the interagency study that the d.o.e. and epa are partnering on the examine environmental and health effects of hydraulic fracking. can you explain the purpose behind this study and how this is any different than what epa has been currently doing?

>> certainly, mr. green, it's an expansion. right now, the epa is looking at the impact of hydraulic fracking on drinking water supplies. that's been independent reviewed as we're beginning it. this is additional money to work with our partner agencies as i said in the opening remarks to look at air quality, water quality and ecosystems impacts to ask the hard questions to ensure that fracking remains safe. >> i understand that the -- hopefully independent peer review will be incorporated. will it be stakeholder input to be incorporated? >> well, we're just beginning to scope that with our federal agencies and we have to wait for budget approval, but i think we would look to do a transparent and valid study and look for public input as well. >> i know you and i have discussed this in the past. would you agree there's no way we can the develop our vast natural gas resources without

the use of hydrofracking? >> that's right. the natural gas resources that the country has are in shale rock and fracking is the way to release those resources that needs to be done safely and responsibly. but it would need to be done. >> i think we agree responsibly, but we still need the natural gas. mr. chairman, i don't know how much time i have, but one last question. not everything is cut in the budget. i said earlier this request included important programs like the electronic manifest system. and it's simply not as safe as it should be. administrator jackson what is's the purpose of the electronic manifest system? >> well, to move to paperless system it is easier for record retrieval and it's about $2 million in our budget. we think that it would be a giant step forward and mindful of the times we're in, sir. >> call to the system is

$2 billion and did you receive that amount? i know i'm out of time. >> none, sir. >> okay. >> in '12 we did not. we're requesting it in '13. >> mr. chairman, i've run out of time. i know chairman shimkus and i talked about some of the things we can do with this. >> at this time i'd like to recognize the gentleman from texas, mr. barton, five minutes for questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. madam administrator, back in october, i think october the 12th you appeared before a hearing of this committee. 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 and what the criteria. we put that in a follow-up letter to your administration on november the 1st. we've still not gotten an answer. can you enlighten us on the status of that query and what the response is to it?

>> i think you have your epa women mixed up. i think that was ms. bennett's hearing and we'll get you an answer as soon as we can. >> do you know where it is? do you know anything about it other than we haven't gotten any response at all? >> i know we're preparing a response and will be getting a response to you, sir. >> okay. you have been doing quite a bit of travel which is a good thing i 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 down in brazil at a conference on urban sustainability. can you tell us what urban sustainability is. >> i accompanied the president of the united states when he visited brasilia to meet with the president, and there the two presidents decided to focus on

sustainability issues in advance of the rio plus 20 conference which is a unconference to be held in brazil. urban sustainability is an issue facing rio de janeiro as they look at the gains that are coming in the next several years and as the large influx of people into cities in much of the developing world they asked us for information on what cities here are doing that help them to be green, to help them to save energy, to provide energy and water and waste for all those people who are moving in. we're working with the city of -- >> can you just -- >> they're doing innovative waste water work. >> can you tell us what that trip cost? >> not off the top of my head. >> can you tell us what your travel budget is? >> we can certainly get the information, sir. >> can you tell us who set your travel budget? >> our overall travel budget is

down and has been decreased every year. i set our agency's budget by asking our folks to -- >> would you say your personal travel budget is several million a year, several hundred thousand a year? >> i don't know. we're happy to get you the numbers. >> you don't have any idea who set the budget? is it up to you? if you want to go somewhere -- >> well, i take credit for the reductions every year. >> i want to ask you about your nonprofit grants. we went to your website and some of them seem to be absolutely total sense. the air and waste management association, the american lung association. but some of them are a little bit puzzling. you've got 1,000 friends in iowa that you graave $30,000 to.

in pennsylvania you gave 80 thousand dlaollars. the alabama people against a littered state got $75,000. but then we come to some that 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, sir? >> okay. how about cam kumbaya? your administration gave $20,280. can you tell me what that's a about? >> i'm happy to get you information on the small community grants. >> what's the environmental core mission of camp kumbaya? >> i don't personally know camp kumbaya, i have never been there. but i'm happy to get you information. >> how about art from scrap?

>> art from scrap? >> art from scrap. you gave $18,000 to art from scrap. >> yes, sir. >> not you personally. but -- >> thank you. >> do you know what the nonprofit budget is for the epa? >> we give several grant programs. i am guessing but it it is simply an uneducated guess, but many of these are under the community -- >> is it hundreds of millions, tens of millions? >> it's more than millions. it's probably several million because the care grant program in the past has been about $2 million to $2.5 million a year. it was szeroed out this year. >> i would be interested at least in what happened -- to why camp kumbaya? that seems to me to be a little bit difficult to justify. anyway, my time is expired, mr. chairman. >> thank you. at this time i recognize the

gentleman from michigan, mr. dingell, for five minutes of questions. >> thank you for your courtesy. madam administrator, yes or no, i see that the president's fiscal year 201 b request is $21 million less than year. are you confident that it can carry out without slowing down without the reduction in spending? yes or no? >> yes, but we cannot start any new clean-ups, sir. >> all right. so that may very well put you down. rather slow you down. and i'm referring to cuts here in both super fund in general and in enforcement. next question. i along with two of my colleagues from the great lakes

region will request the appropriations committee maintain the great lakes initiative. i know you have been supportive in the past efforts in the great lakes. do you believe that level funding will adequately support great lake restoration and prevention and control efforts? please answer yes or no. >> yes. >> madam administrator, as you are aware the state of california's moving forward with the level three tail pipe emissions standards for carbon monoxide and hydrocarbons. what is the status of epa's efforts regarding equivalent standards? >> epa is -- has undertaken a look at reducing the level of sulfur. those are the so called tier 3 standards. they are similar to california's in that rule making continues. we are working still in house on

proposed rules. >> thank you. madam administrator, what is epa doing to ensure that american manufacturers, most specifically american auto manufacturers, will not have to worry about a patch work of regulations on these requirements? >> sir, the national clean car standards which pea is proud to have partnered with the department of transportation on, give one national standards for vehicles for both fuel economy and green house gas emissions from now until the year 2025. we have been told over and over again that those reasonable common sense standards give automakers the ability to innovate, to move forward with a clear set of standards so that they can go about their business and grow manufacturing and we hope grow exports of their product. >> regarding the mercury and air toxic standards, if utilities need a one-year extension, they need to request it from their local permitting authorities.

in my case, the department of environmental quality in the state of michigan. what assurances can you provide that epa will not override the permitting authorities decision to grant that one-year extension? >> well, first, i believe very strongly that state permitting agencies having run a permit agency myself are the front line and know their individual permitees best, and second, the president of the united states ordered an executive order for epa to give the additional year to be lean yentd and -- lenient and to ensure that states did it. it's still their ultimate authority to decide whether to give it or, but epa is at no posed or poised to override the president's executive order. >> madam administrators, utilities in the state of michigan are concerned that they'll first have to be in violation of the mercury and air

toxic standards before requesting a second-year waiver to comply with the new standards. is that the case? yes or no? >> no, it is not. but it does bear a little explanation, sir. >> you don't -- you don't mind if we are concerned. would you give us some more comment on this for the purposes of the record, if you please. >> yes, sir. the -- what we have asked the utilities to do and i believe they are doing is working with their public utility commissioners and state regulators now to put forth their plans for their fleets on how they're going to comply with the standards. if in doing so they'd identify plans that need to go longer -- >> we have this concern. if not, what do the utilities in michigan or elsewhere need to do in order to get that second one-year extension? that's a matter of grave concern to our people. >> i think the earlier they can come forward and let us know they believe they're going to

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 will have to show that they need the time and that there's no other power. but those are findings they need to make. >> now madam administrator, i understand 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 still in review. i would ask that we wait until the rules are out for public comment. they will go through full public comment. i can tell you that we have endeavored to be reasonable and to reflect the fact that technology is limited for existing sources. >> you can understand that our person have a great deal of concern on this matter.

thank you for your courtesy. >> thank you. this time, i recognize the gentleman from nebraska mr. terry for five minutes. >> thank you. madam administrator, i'm concerned about the efforts being undertaken at u.s. epa to supplant state rec regulators on a number of environmental issues particularly where states have been the sole regulators for decades. quite frankly, i'm proud of my folks in nebraska and i think they have done a nine job. since this is a budget hearing it strikes me as if the federal government were going to push the states aside so it can occupy the regulatory field in a way it never has. that you are going to need lots of new bodies in your regional offices and d.c. headquarters as well as lots of new budget authority to pay for these people and programs. so i'd appreciate if you'd state the first part of the question, the additional budget authority

epa needs to increase its in-house expertise and expand its problematic and enforcement reach to carry out the authorities, especially as it relates to permitting inspections, technical compliant assistance and regulatory enforcement. >> in fact, mr. terry, in general, the budget goes different direction. i used to run a state program and i have committed that while i'm here we're doing to increase grants to the states and the tribes so they can do permitting and enforcement. there's a net $113 million increase in what we call the state tribe categorical grants even in a tough budget year. it's one of the few places we're plussing up, tribal grants, information management, computers and public water supply. there are a few places where we're cutting, for example, beaches, not a huge concern in your state, but certainly from some of your colleagues. but the money is up. because we believe that never in

the federal government -- >> so the budget increases will be in the grants part not in the personnel within the epa particularly in region 7? >> well -- >> is that a yes or no? i have only five minutes. >> we are looking at overall personnel decreases i believe. >> well, i think it's an increase of 25. >> an increase of 25 people across our 17,000 plus person agency. >> now, what would be the impact to regulatory uncertainty between the states and the epa and state primary delegations? >> could you repeat the question? >> i'm going to go on to the next one, i'm sorry. in fy-2013 are you planning to propose revisions to the national ambient air quality standard for particulate matter? if so, when? >> yes, probably. they are due by statute. we have not announced a date and that date has not been set.

>> can we be assured that the epa lot no be proposing -- will not be proposing any change to the particulate standards? >> yes. we do not anticipate based on the science that we have seen so far that a change will be warranted. but again the proposal -- >> does the epa publish in one accessible place a list of all the petitions for rule making that are submitted to the agency? >> i do not believe so, sir, but we'll double check the answer to my question. >> all right. we haven't found one if there is. so when you check an confirm that this is not one place that public or members of congress could go to, will you commit to posting that information on the epa's website starting this year? >> petitions, sir? >> yes. >> i think that's a fair request.

>> all right. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. terry. at this time recognize the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone for five minutes. >> thank you. i want to welcome lisa jackson before the committee. i have worked with her for many years. since you have been at the helm of the epa, i believe our country has made great strides in improving air quality, protecting america's waters and cleaning up our communities and these accomplishments are crucial to protecting human health and the environment. unfortunately, 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 it's oftentimes my colleagues on the other side make broad generalizations without looking at the facts. according to the nonpartisan economic policy institute, epa's

toxics rule will lead to the creation of 85,500 jobs between now and 2015. i just mention that as one example of how safeguarding our environment can help bolster the economy. i know in tough economic times it's difficult -- choices have to be made, but i have confidence that lisa, that your agency will continue protecting human health and the environment. i wanted to ask a couple questions specifically about new jersey. as you know in the state of new jersey, we have the most super fund sites in the nation. we're the most densely populated state and it's crucial that these sites be cleaned up. the president's budget proposes the lowest level for super fund clean-up in the last years and that's going to make it difficult to clean up the sites. i think it states in the budget that will be no new construction projects. and you know, this goes back to the issue of jobs again.

cleaning up super fund sites provides quality jobs in local communities. before it expired in '95 the money to clean up the super fund site came from taxes on polluters but the burden of funding clean-up falls on the shoulders of taxpaying americans. i have introduced a bill that would reinstate the tax on oil and chemical companies and do you agree that reinstating this super fund taxes would enable epa to clean up the toxic sites faster and create more jobs? >> yes, sir, the administration has come out in favor of the reinstatement of that tax. >> now, i heard you mention the elimination of the beach grants in the president's budget proposal. that program -- actually i was part of the original authorsation of the beach grants and the re-authorization. it was funded at only $10 million last year, but these grants have resulted in a number of monitored beaches tripling

nationwide since the program started. and states utilized the funds to monitor water quality, notify when the coastal waters are at no safe. i'm afraid that without the grants the trend will reverse itself and many states would just choose to stop monitoring many of their beaches. so i wanted to ask you if you think the beach grants have been successful over the years and expanding the number of beaches tested in keeping swimmers out of contaminated waters? comment on the program, if you would. >> yes, sir. as i said, i knew some of my colleagues would be -- >> i would have asked it anyway if you hadn't brought it up. >> i know. beach grants have been successful, sir. this is one of the tough choices but it's mindful of the past x sex -- the past success and thanks to your leadership the grants hoped -- helped to monitor the systems and the teams of people now do this

work. it's the federal government saying this is a state or local function. best done that way. i certainly know that's how it's done in primarily new jersey. and that our time for funding this is seed funding is over and it's time for those communities to take over. >> see, the reason i disagree and i really think it's important for us to restore the funds is because you're right that when new jersey had 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. and then it becomes an unfair advantage. in other words, we're closing our beaches when they should be closed. other sites are not because they don't do the testing and the monitoring. and i really this that the program right now, we have a re-authorization bill to expand

it to different things. tests for different chemicals and compounds that aren't looking for now. so my fear is that if we eliminate the federal dollars a lot of states won't do it. and we won't really know the whole idea is right to know. and we won't really know which beaches are -- should be open and which are not. in fact, a lot of states don't even want to do it because they don't want to admit they have dirty beaches. in addition to that, i think that the federal dollars can leverage more state dollars to do more things with the program. so i'm going to fight hard to try to get that money reinstated and i appreciate your acknowledging that it's really money well spent. thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. at this time i recognize the gentleman from michigan, mr. upton, 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 t out. lots of different things going on. i appreciated a letter that i

think gina mccarthy sent this yesterday or maybe -- yeah, yesterday. to chairman whitfield. and in that letter, on the first page, you write in the last paragraph on that first page that is why epa conducted extension refinery modeling to understand the costs impacts of a variety of fuel requirements. as a result, the only fuel requirement we are considering for tier 3 is one that would lower the amount of sulfur in gasoline. so my question is does that mean that you will not look at the reed vapor pressure on the octane components of a final rule? is that what i read between the lines? >> yeah, i think that's pretty

much -- yes. yes, sir. i agree with that interpretation. >> okay. 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, pennsylvania, and the virgin islands. the total 5,500 jobs. they're closing for a variety of different reasons, and one of the reasons is the regulatory burden that many of these have. i know with the refineries that are closing particularly in marcus hook, pennsylvania, as well as in the philadelphia -- the sunoco refineries there, totaling about 2,000 jobs, there is a concern that they are -- that the fuel for