hazardous chemicals. and you have -- you have the risk and mitigation plans which require certain chemicals are stored at manufacturers or producers. but if i understand your enforcement policy, even if a chemical is not listed as one of those chemicals, you can ding the producer or the manufacturer under this general -- this sort of not very well defined general duty of care. is that correct? >> i believe that's right. there's -- it happened after they added this idea that manufacturers have to be proactive in looking to have that extra duty of care. >> right. so that's the place i'd love to work with you all. i'd really -- and this is congress' fault. they gave you these really undefined terms in very general authorities and say hey, you need to put some definition to it. you've chosen not to do that by regulation or by policy memorandum. so you've left this wide open.

now, whether it's acetone or whatever it may be, producers and warehousemen have no idea which chemicals you may come after them for. i'd love to work with you to develop cleaner standards. frankly, i'd rather get rid of section 112-r. i think you've got plenty of authority under the r&p program to decide which chemicals are truly dangerous. >> why don't we have our folks talk about that. if there's specific issues in general, i'd be happy to help. >> i'd be happy to do that. do you reward folks inside your agency for performance for how many fines they get? or how successful they are at obtaining injunctive relief? >> i think it would be very difficult. it would not be unusual for a manager -- i used to run an enforce hmm program many, many years ago -- for a manager to note hard work and diligence. but not specifically. you're not tied by how much money you bring into the treasury. >> and all of that money does go to the treasury.

the employees don't get it as incentive compensation, you don't get it because you've done a good job. epa doesn't get it as part of their budget. it just goes back to general revenues. >> the exception is the oil pollution act. there's been lots of discussion. >> great, i appreciate that. i will tell you at the end of 2010, there was a press release issued that sounded like -- i'll read it to you. this was from region 7, december 6th, 2010. and it says environmental compliance and enforcement activities conducted by region 7 during fy 2010 sets a new record sewering $3 billion as a result of legal action taken glanced polluters. it then brags that it collected -- only 31% of epa's fines all across the country. two thoughts. one, is that the kind of press release you think is appropriate? sort of bragging about how much money you've taken out of the united states economy? or, second, 31% from a single

region, region 7, do you think that suggests there's differential enforcement? or the regions are just that different? >> no, enforcement fines are oftentimes somewhat serendipitous. they depend on one large case and one region could make all the difference. if there's a fern, for example with respect to the b.p. incident, that could make one region's fines look huge. in terms of bragging on investment and clean up and investments in -- those are generally injunctive relief where we require a company not as much to pay the fine, but to do the work to come into compliance. and we think it's important that the american people know that there's an environmental cop on the beat. it deters people from violating. and that's an important part of an enforcement program. >> fair enough. i would suggest that when the agency uses the term polluters, i'd guess that some of those were by agreement. some of that injunctive was with agreement by a particular individual? >> yeah, but that agreement came

as result of an enforcement. >> and they probably in their agreement said this agreement doesn't indicate any wrong doing. it simply says we're willing to cooperate with the epa. and, yet, you use the term polluters, which is -- i will tell you in kansas, we view that as a negative term. we don't think very highly of. and your agency uses that kind of term in a press release for their neutral enforcement powers. i would suggest you ought to talk to folks about not using language like that. >> at this time, i recognize the gentlemen from louisiana for five minutes. >> there was no other shoe. it is truly a compliment. >> thank you, sir. >> the care grants. i don't understand these well. but i am told that care grants which go to community

organizations, the signs that they generate or at least the press releases they generate is not peer review science. the state's deq does not look at it, you do not look at it. but i can tell you, they get headlines in our media-driven society, that headline has an impact. so one, is that true? that when these community groups get grants from epa, there is nobody at epa responsible for vetting the validity of their claims? first, is that true? >> well, we certainly don't vet their press releases. we ask them to use sound science and expect and hope they will. but because they're community groups, we don't hold them quite to the same standards. >> now, i will tell you -- now, that's a fair statement. but on the other hand, does anybody look at the responsibility of these community groups in general? are they periodically audited to make sure that the science they're putting out or the claims they're making are actually justifiable? or are they hyperbole? >> i believe they're more audited to look at their fiscal

responsibleties -- >> that's a fair statement. and i could believe that. on the other hand, i will tell you that when people put things out in the press, if it is read, people believe it sometimes even if there's no validity. let me just suggest. that if we're going to hold you, or a state deq or an industry group responsible for validity of their science, these groups should be, as well. i mean, they're certainly influencing the debate as much as a major employer would who happens to have an omissions issue. would you agree with that? >> i think it's fair if there are claims being made that someone could ask epa whether or not we agree with that data. in general, i see your point, sir. >> secondly, the president and the state of the union speech with transportation fuel and has hoped to encourage such. i'm not aware of any initiative that he has so proposed. certainly nothing legislatively. do you know of a -- of such an initiative? >> i don't believe there's a

legislative initiative right now. >> and is there an administrative initiative? >> i seem to recall that he talked about a corridor in california that could be made to be natural gas friendly. and i thought that was voluntary with the state of california. but i could check on that. >> now, one thing that has been proposed as a use of natural gas is to create methanol from it to use it as a fuel additive. so i really kind of pursued this because it seems like it would be a wonderful way to come up with a low-cost, you know, way to supplement oil and gas, particularly with the ratio of cost of natural gas to oil. and i went so far as to meet with people from industry, fairly high in research units and industry. they told me it would take 15 years, conservatively, for something such as methanol to be thoroughly vetted through epa's regulations as to being safe for use. and it's not methanol, per se, but rather it was the agents to make it admissible with gasoline. now, that said -- and this is

someone who's been currently working on ethanol. so he kind of knows that of which he speaks because this is the process they're going through with ethanol. if we're trying to use our natural gas as another way of transportation fuel, is there anyway we can make that less -- that is so daunting as to mean it's never going to happen. >> sure. sure. it would be off putting. i'm happy to meet with or have my experts, you don't want them to meet with me, but my experts in the fields group talk to them about methanol in particular. natural gas, in and of itself, without a transformation, is, i believe, what the president was more directly addressing in terms of a potential transportation. >> and, but, he's done -- no offense. i'm not being derogatory. but there's no initiative on it. so it sounds really great and i think it's great. it's just nothing is happening. now, the methanol can be a fuel additive, much as ethanol is. but i'm told that the regulatory process is, again, so long as h

is a potential denied, if you will. >> well, i think it's worth having a discussion with those who are interested in pursue in methanol. >> if you don't mind, i would like to meet with them. frankly, my industry groups are afraid of you. >> afraid of me? >> well, afraid of your agency. they're afraid to be penalized. we're tight on time. i will yield back and i again say you're well prepared. >> thank you very much. >> we do have one vote on the floor, but 400 people still have not voted. so mr. skalese, i'm recognizing you for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to thank the administrator for coming and i want to specifically thank administrator jackson for your support of your efforts to restore the gulf of mexico as it relates to dedicating the b.p. fines to the gulf coast states. we passed a portion of the restore act here out of the house a few days ago. and we're working with our senate counter parts to try to

get the entire piece of legislation, truly bipartisan legislation through the entire process. i don't know if you want to make any comments on the restore act. but i want to thank you for your efforts. >> i'll simply say, it's extremely important that those resources return to the gulf of mexico. so thank you for your leadership. >> thank you. i want to talk about your budget. i know there's been some talk about what the president's proposal is and whether it's a reduction from current level. i want it to compare -- if you look at what we were given, the -- the view over the four-year period, since you had come in, of course, there was a big spike through the stimulus bill in fiscal year 2010, which would represent about a 35% increase in your budget. and then it's tailorred down over the years. it would still represent about a 9% increase from when you took office. i don't know if you want to make sure that these numbers are the same that you're using. under these numbers that i'm looking at, you started off with

about a $7.6 billion budget. you go to an $8.3illion budget which represents a $700 million increase. i just wanted to point that out and make sure that was an accurate number. >> just two things. or maybe three. we continually increase the amount of money that's going to states and tribes, even in a budget that's down 1.2%. a large part of that big drop you saw was for srfs, which goes directly to the tribes and states that was 2 billion. so we've heard a lot about in a infrastructure funding. >> some people are suggesting that there's been cuts. actually, there's been a $700 million increase over the four-year period. i don't know if you characterize that as a cut, but i think that's an increase. it's a 9% increase. >> well, there are cuts, in fact, from prior-year banalitys. but it is really important to point out that the agency itself, 40% of our dollars

heading straight out the door to the tribal grant programs were preserving those. so we're doing that at the expense of other agency operations. >> right. and, you know, again, when you look at -- when your agency started, your second year, i guess, with a 35% increase, that came at a time when many states and businesses were cutting back their budget. so you just want to keep that in perspective. on the hydraulic fracturing issue, i know my colleague from texas has brought this up with you, i would strongly encourage your agency to allow the states to do what they've been doing so well for decades. and that is to do state regulation of hydraulic fracturing. i know it's worked very well in louisiana in protecting not only audiocassette way fers, but allowing for dramatic increase with this new technology in the amount of natural gas that our country can provide, not only to our states, which we're pretty much self sufficient on natural gas production in america. but with all these new fines. not only does it provide

opportunity for us to pull other vehicles off of gasoline and increase america's energy security, but it's created thousands of new jobs. and so there is a real concern amongst the community in the natural gas industry that epa is looking at getting into an area where the states have been very successful and proven in regulating that process. so i just wanted to mention that. on a local issue, i know you've worked with new core, which has built a plant in south louisiana, they're currently pending a permit from the epa. i believe we approved the permit and then there was litigation filed. i seem to recall that we

actually issued the greenhouse gas permit. >> i think there was one permit, but there's another permit that they're waiting on right now. that's my understanding. >> i will check on that. but i think there may be another one that they're waiting on right now that would be a second part of their expansion, which that, alone, would be over 700 jobs. so if you could give me a timeline of what the likelihood of approval of that would be. i know my time is running short. so, finally, on refineries, are you planning on regulating greenhouse gases at refineries? >> there are no current rules under development on that issue. we have said in the past, as part of our overall greenhouse gas strategy, that the first big source is utilities. refineries are next. but we are not at this point. >> as refineries are next, if you could just keep in mind small business administration recently did a study that showed that the average cost of family per regulation comes out to about $50,000 a year per family. and this isn't just your agency.

but when i talk to small businesses, many of them cite epa as the worst offender of this family cost. if you could keep that in mind with these additional regulations. thanks for commenting. i yield back. >> the gentleman's time is expired. mr. gardener of colorado, you're recognized for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you administrator jackson. a question for you regarding regional haze. and i'm sure you've heard this before from others either on this committee or other committees. since the clean air act authorizes each state to draft its own state-specific plan to address regional haze, do you forsee the epa approving colorado given that it has cross spectrum support from electric utilities to environmental groups that has been approved by the split control, colorado legislatu legislature, the speaker of the house and has the support of the epa of our two democratic senators and four republican

house members? >> i can't speak yes or no, but i will say this. i'm aware that colorado has done amazing work on looking at some of its haze issues. and i believe there's some issues on dates for certain uniliths to put on controls, versus shut down. i think the region is working very closely with the state. >> and i think right now, the deadline is march 8th, i believe. do you know if that's going to be hit or miss? >> i don't have that in my motes. >> thank you. and new mexico and north dakota. >> epa is still working with north dakota. and i believe a decision is due, if not today, tomorrow. and so we have -- on regional haze, the issue is less about health, but visibility. >> so you're not using health standards on regional haze? >> i'm not aware we are, but i can certainly check. in north dakota, i'm very familiar. >> and, thank you. are you familiar with k

kinesthetic dance movements? >> i've never done them. >> kinesthetic learning? are you familiar with kinesthetic learning? >> no, sir, but i'm not a teacher. >> grants, last december, epa awarded 25$25,000 on the impack of air pollution. on the web site, there's a document describing what this money will be used for. the project intends to produce innovative lectures, demonstrations and movement classes in ten elementary schools. kinesthetic learning will be used to encourage youth and their families to adopt healthy living practices. what is this program? >> you know, i've read about it. and we are reviewing -- it's an environmental justice grant program in utah. it's with a very well-respected group, a repertory group that uses dance to educate. apparently, they have a long history of doing this and are

quite well respected. but we are reviewing it at the request of, i think, one of the members. >> has the epa given $25,000 to a dance company? >> the environmental protection agency is about communities with large populations that may have asthma, i don't know if this is the case here, self education is an important part of getting those kids healthy. >> given the testimony that you've talked about, can you assure us that you're not going to make these kinds of grant snuz. >> we're reviewing the program because of when this came to light. >> i, perhaps we can talk a little bit further about kinesthetic dancing. >> i do think it a's fair to sa that we can review the program. >> your budget proposal says epa, and i know others have touched on this today. it talks -- it says that epa would reduce spending by $105 million. but in previous years, epa has

reused deobligated funds to do so. if epa deobligates and reuses funds approaching the amount like last year, epa is not reducing spending at all in 2013, is it? >> this came up in an earlier question, mr. gardener. we do deobligate funds. we report on those movements of funds and we're happy to follow up. >> do you report on those before you make the expenditure in the budget justification? >> it's in the budget justification. in the financial statements, excuse me, sir. >> so i believe gao actually said that epa -- the congressman wanted epa so submit information. you're not doing this? >> we're doing it as part of our regular, financial reporting. >> so you're telling us that you spent it after you spend it? >> i don't know whether it's after or before. i believe what we do is, as we deobligate -- >> would you agree it's a matter of principle that we ought to know if you're reobligating

funds before you do that? >> well, in general, i think we've worked very well with congress over the years to ensure that we're spending the money as congress intends. >> so you agree it's hpful for congress to know about these funds and its justifications? >> sir, i'm telling you that we deobligate money from time to time. i would bet all offices do. >> but we would appreciate giving that beforehand. do you believe deobligating these funds actually decreases the need for new budget authority in the relative accounts? >> no, not necessarily, sir. >> do you think this money ought to be returned to the taxpayer? >> it depends on the issue, sir. we are living within the budget and obligations that we have. but it depends on the issue. >> the gentleman's time is expired. thank you. >> mr. chairman, my friends have joined me in doing the kinesthetic cha-cha. >> when and where? >> we've got a kinesthetic club in chicago.

>> oh, okay. >> ms. jackson, thanks very much for being with us today. before i let you go, i want to just ask one additional question. under the renewable fuel standard law, epa is required to publish the required volume obligations for certain fuel categories. and the proposed volume of bio-mass diesel specified in the june, 2011 proposed rule omitted from the final rule published in december. so what was there in june for the volume for diesel bio mass was not in the final report in december. and i was just curious, is that an oversight? or was there some other explanation for that? >> sir, i don't know. i don't have a fact sheet on that. can we get you an interim after the hearing? >> yeah, i would appreciate that

very much if we could get that answer. thank you, again, for being with us. we appreciate you and ms. bennett taking the time to be here and, with that, the hearing is adjourned and the record will remain open for ten days for any additional materials to be submitted. thank you. in a few moments, energy secretary speaks on capitol hill about the banality request. and, in about an hour and a half, from the recent world economic forum, a panel of ceos and what their companies need to do to compete globally.

rick santorum in public life on sunday appealing to the social conservatives who revived his presidential campaign. on the talk shows this weekend and in speeches, mr. santorum responded to comments made by president john f. kennedy. >> i believe in an america where the separation of church and state is absolute. where no catholic prowess can tell the president should he be catholic, how to act. and no protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote. where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference. and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him. >> you can watch more of president kennedy's speech at our web site on our video library.

go to c-span.org and you can find that in our archives there. >> i understand that today is your birthday? >> correct. >> and that it's also your wedding anniversary.

we appreciate your being here, of course. and you're here today to present the administration's fiscal year 2013 budget request for your department. your request totals $27.2 billion, a $1.5 billion increase, a $1.5 billion or 5.7% increase from the fiscal year 2012 enacted level. nearly one-third of that increase comes in one program. energy efficiency and renewable energy. your request is painfully thin on its specifics and we need to know why this funding is both necessary and a prudent use of taxpayer dollars. and given that consumers are angered by higher gas and oil prices and one major energy source, fossil energy is substantially cut from last year. how does your budget relate to the real world outside of washington where energy costs

are eating up family budgets. on top of that, the public's faith has been shaken by r revelations that many programs under your jurisdiction have wasted taxpayer dollars and created markets for renewables that cannot be sustained without further infusions of federal support. artificial markets, plus the reality of wasted dollars, undermine the real economy which exist outside this city. we know all too well the problems the loan guarantee program has faced so far. we don't know what will be the next shoe to fall, but we have great reason to be concerned. back home, many people are frankly disgusted that some of these investments have been wasted. they now seriously question the proper role in government -- the proper government role in energy markets and the levels of risk that you and those subordinate

to you have taken over the past two years. the alison report on the loan guarantee program noted that the failure rate of the program to date has been less than some had projected. well, i respect the expertise and judgment of mr. alison and the need to do political damage control. all loan guarantee opportunities for whatever purpose will now be painted with the same brush. the loss of public confidence is difficult to calculate. are there lessons you've learned from this? energy projects fail in the marketplace. we know that. but if political directions were behind any project selection, then our fears would be justified. you may have seen a report by the washington post on february 14th, which alleged that as much as $3.9 billion of your funds may have been properly influenced by appointees. now the white house must show that the election year budget is

not -- that the election year is not dictating this budget's spending plans. i put yucca mountain in the same box. the administration has tried to kill this project, wasting billions of dollars to accommodate senator reed, minted you, not on any sound, scientific grounds, which you, yourself, has said, mr. secretary. now your budget contains funding for projects to implement some of the blue ribbon recommendations, recommendations which congress has not blessed neither whole or in part. the current law of the land is for waste disposal at yucca mountain, we need to hear of any legislative changes to authorize their recommendations. on a more positive note, you've made some tough decisions to support the nuclear security programs at the nnsa. decisions which this country has been demanding for some time.

nuclear security programs are the most vital mission within your portfolio. well, i have significant concerns -- significant concerns about the administration's call for reduced military spending. we showed last year that our national security can be sustained and even improved with less money. and it will be the administration's task to show that your 2013 request does not sacrifice our strategic security for budgetary savings. and, together, the administration and congress have supported small -- the development of small, modular reactors, another positive development, as was the recent ground breaking for two nu collar reactors in georgia. mr. secretary, last year, we wrestled with how to put together a banaliudget for your department that was fair and balanced. i am proud of our development.