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 $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 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 need to de-fund or dismantle

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 demagoguery 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 ord 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 testify on the 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 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, 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