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 publicly 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 and 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. i'm happy to look into it. >> 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, mr. chairman. i want to welcome lisa jackson before the committee. i have worked with her for many years, dating back to her time as the commissioner of the new jersey department of environmental protection. 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 84,500 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 ten 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 sites 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 authorization 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 the public when the coastal waters are not 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 epa beach grants have been successful over the years in expanding the numbers of beaches tested and 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 success and thanks to your leadership the grants hoped -- helped to monitor the systems and the teams of people now do this work. this is simply the federal government saying this really is a state or local function. it's best done that way. i know that's how it's done primarily in 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 states 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 do a lot more things that are aren't being done now, 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. the chairman of the full committee. >> thank you, administrator jackson, for being here this

morning. i do have a couple of questions. i apologize for being in and 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 cost 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

read vapor pressure or 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 new mexico, virginia, pennsylvania and the virgin islands that total 5500 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 those areas will be coming in from overseas and will be refined. losing those jobs. the question is, have you taken a look as we all are concerned about the planet, have you taken a look at the regulations that our refineries currently have versus what they are, and versus the newer refineries built in the world, such as china and the caribbean? have you actually looked at the difference in the regulations between what we have and what we have -- when we close those refineries what it will have in terms of the regulations impacting them? >> well, generally, yes, i think the program specialists have an understanding of the differences between our regulations and

maybe other countries. of course the virgin islands we regulate and have regulated for years and the virgin islands government. i have to say that those private sector decisions about refineries and their decisions to close i have not seen any of them pointing directly to regulatory burdens in the decision making. i think the administration is going to look carefully especially at the recent decisions and keep an eye on them and also hope that they work with local and regional parties to address any shortages that might cause. >> well, as i understand it, one of the main reasons that the refineries are closing in the philadelphia area, they're now going to refine that in nigeria rather than the united states. and it was in large part because the cost differential between the two. >> sir, again, it's a private sector decision. i don't -- i will not speak for them.

i will tell you my understanding has been about supply, but i only know what i read of their decision making process. >> epa was recently criticized in the magazine the economist for how it measures benefits from the expensive mac rules. i don't know if you saw the story or not. it was just recently here, february 18th issue. the article explains that when analyzing the cost of benefits benefits come from co-benefits. and the question that i have is why doesn't the epa take the time to analyze the public health benefits associated with most of the pollutants actually being regulated and wouldn't that make much more sense? >> i personally believe that the co-benefits and the economic benefits of those are valid and important. but to answer your question more directly in the case of mercury,

for example, which is a neurotoxin, that the social science of economics simply isn't to the point where epa can put a number on the value of lost iq points or some of the things we'd be asking to try to value. we have good science and data to do things like premature death from soot pollution or asthma attacks from smog forming pollutants. but mercury is admittedly more difficult. so we do the best we can on mercury, but we don't ignore the co-benefits as well. >> as you know, we passed legislation in the house to try and extend the time for these boiler mac rules to be put into effect to allow you more time. the federal court made the decision that they did in january. are you still -- are you at all

interested in the house or senate moving such legislation for a delay to give you the time to do these right? >> we are certainly mindful of the work that's been done here, sir, and i do hope that you know that we have been working in our reproposed rules. the cost of compliance went down by 50% mainly because we're taking into account the importance of bio mass in acknowledging that's important feed stock. we're looking at the boiler mac, that it is set for finalization in late spring of this year. >> see the red light on. i yield back. >> thank you. at this time i recognize the jent lady from florida, ms. caster, for five minutes. >> thank you. welcome. citizens across america value clean air and clean water. so i want to thank you and everyone at epa for what you're doing to protect our air and our

water and for your partnership with states and local communities. now, two of the most important partnerships with our local communities involve the state -- the clean water and safe drink water loan programs. these are the vital dollars that help with storm water infrastructure, replacing old pipes. waste water infrastructure that's not real exciting, but they are vitally important when it comes to keeping our neighborhoods clean and our water bodies clean all across the country. they're important job creators too and the recovery act gave us a nice shot in the arm to help create jobs while at the same time leaving us with a lasting legacy of important infrastructure improvements. the issue is that the needs all across the country outweigh the resources.w would you character

backlog right now in storm water, waste water infrastructure? what is the magnitude? >> independent estimates have put it at around $300 billion i believe. >> $300 billion. i would guess in my home state of florida it's well beyond a single billion. it's probably much more than that. we have these aging water pipes, they need improvements. so i'm troubled that the budget request actually provides a hair cut. how do you explain this? >> tough choices, ms. castor. you know, we balance it by the fact -- because as you noted the recovery act gave a shot in the arm to the programs. it's about $18 billion during this administration put into water infrastructure programs and it is another cut. tough, tough choices. but we're at the point where we

don't really have many places where we can cut except in the infrastructure investments. we are mindful we'd like to get to a place where these are loan programs for the most part where there is a revolving almost self-sustaining point. but we are years away from that. >> well, i hope the congress will respond overall by giving a boost to these vital clean water and drinking water initiatives that are important partnerships for the local communities and find savings elsewhere in the budget. next i'd like to ask you about the good news out of the administration on more fuel efficient cars. i think this is great news for american families and businesses. it appears that you all are building on the success that the congress in 2007 passed the first increase in automobile fuel economy in 32 years. that was since 1975.

we boosted mileage to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. i have to tell you, i have a member of the family who last year bought one of these fuel efficient cars. he's getting 50 miles per gallon and he really enjoys driving past these gas stations no matter what their signs have posted. can you summarize for us what the next steps are? what is the epa doing to work on even more fuel efficient vehicles? >> the -- as you noted, ms. castor, and thank you, the final rules for 2012 to 2016 light duty vehicles were finalized in april of 2010. we have proposed rules for light duty vehicles. those are cars, 2017 to 2025, those were proposed in november. we anticipate finalizing those later this year.

we signed and published rules for heavy duty vehicles. those are large trucks. they were published in the federal register in september. >> put it in the terms of the average american family and business. what does it mean? cash back in their pocket? >> absolutely. this means more money in your pocket and less trips to the gas station. it means that $1.7 trillion saved over the lifetime of the cars going all the way to 2025. 12 billion barrels of oil will never have to import into this country. for the average car owner, as the cars get more and more efficient, up to $8,000 in fuel savings over the life of the car. more than made up a little additional price upfront. we're very proud of it because we feel as though it's part of the president's approach which

is we need to have energy, but we need to conserve the energy we have. it's positioned our automakers to compete with automakers around the world. >> i think it's making a real difference. thank you. >> at this time i recognize the gentleman from oregon, mr. walden, for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i wanted to follow up on something that my colleague from nebraska, mr. terry, had raised. regarding putting things on the website. and it's my understanding that you're an advocate for the policy and trying to open up our process, make it more transparent to the public, because that's who we both work for at the end of the day. at the end of the day. my understanding is that there are situations where groups file suit against your agency. and literally on the same day there are settlements entered into by your agency within those groups. ryguess what we'

that the public has an awareness of that sort of litigation. and so when it's filed against your agency, are you willing to notice that on your website in a very timely manner? this would be the notice of intent to sue. so you get a notice of intent to sue. >> yes, sir. >> so when you get those, is there a way you could just put those up on the website so that the american taxpayers would know. would that be a hardship on the agency? >> it would require some minimal go happy to do it. i'm not aware of settling the we usually when we receive a lawsuit we are almost always called by the press and we say we're reviewing it. >> but when you get the notice of intent to sue -- >> right, those are not actual lawsuits. those are 60-day notices. >> right. can you put those up on yo website? >> i think so, absolutely, sir. i will look into the resources that are required to put that

up. but it seems like a fair in this great world of our new technologies. people are interested in that, obviously. >> my 16-year-old can probably figure it out. >> and fix the flashing clock -- when you are going to enter into a settlement, is there any noticing that can be done for the public to know about there's a concern that -- it can happen on the right, it can happen on the left. that you get a notice, you know, some day after you're gone and somebody else is there, it didn't seem fair that there was a notice to sue, and the public never sees that in a transparent way. >> i can assure you, sir, epa does not enter into sweetheart settlements. so if there is information that

we can provide, when we enter into consent decrees, those are subject to public comment before the consent decree is lodged with the court. if there is an administrative settlement, those are oftentimes discussed but not subject to public comment. >> but they could be made public? >> i do not know that, sir. but i do think that the agency needs to preserve its right to industry or environmental group. we get sued by state and local governments as well. we need to preserve our right to enter into discussion to try to avoid court costs. >> no, i don't think anybody disagrees with that. it's just when the taxpayers feel they may be shut out of any of that. and so you get a notice of intent to sue, they don't know that really happens unless you make it public. >> usually the group suing us does. >> right. >> but they're the ones who initiate it. >> but not necessarily everybody

else knows that's the thing with modern technology -- >> i don't see any concerns with notices that we receive up and i'm happy to look into that. >> okay. i return my time. >> thank you. at this time i recognize the gentleman from california, mr. waxman, for five minutes of questions. >> thank you, mr. chairman. administrator jackson, the house republicans have urged you not to issue pending proposed new source performance standards under the clean air act to reduce carbon pollution from new power plants. they argue that the regulations will hurt the economy and are not necessary. i could not disagree more strongly. climate change is the greatest environmental threat we face. although the standards will have a modest impact on the overall problem, they are critical as a first step in tackling carbon pollution. they'll boost the economy by providing certainty to the power sector allowing investment decisions to be made and new generation to be built.

administrator jackson, you're an engineer, a practical problem solver. does it make any sense to pretend climate change isn't happening and hope we can deal with it later? >> no, sir, it doesn't. >> denying the science and the facts i think is indefensible and putting off action until later is utterly irresponsible. according to the highly regarded international agency, if the world doesn't change course on climate now, within ten years we will have built enough high carbon energy infrastructure to lock our planet into an irreversible and devastating amount of global warming. administrator jackson, making smart choices when building new infrastructure is precisely what these new regulations are all about, isn't that right? >> well, that's right, sir. giving standards so people have certainty. that's an important part of the regulatory process. >> these new source performance standards would set limits for carbon pollution that would

apply when we invest the billions of dollars in new power plant that will be around for half a century or more. that seems to be common sense. the reality is that the market is already driving these choices. the development of huge low-cost natural gas supplies plus uncertainty about inevitable future carbon control requirements is deterring investments in new coal plants without carbon controls. but we're hearing the same old claims that epa's proposed regulations would drive up energy prices and destroy the u.s. economy. that's what republicans said in 2010 about the requirements for clean air act, new source review permits for carbon pollution. administrator jackson, the carbon pollution permitting requirements have been in place for over a year now. is there any evidence that they're harming the economy? >> none, sir. none that i'm aware of certainly. i believe people are getting permits and applying for them and moving forward.

and in certain jurisdictions epa is processing those. >> and in fact, and they're going forward in a more cost efficient manner we're finding that climate change is already occurring, finding new threats to food supplies and human health from the rapidly warming planet. finding the time to avoid a disastrous degree of warming is rapidly running out and yet this republican congress does worse in fiddling while rome burns. they're actually trying to stop anybody else from fighting this fire. i want to commend your efforts to fight this fire and i urge you to take the steps for issuing carbon credits for the plants as soon as possible. the epa is responsible for protecting our land and water and the land and the

administration's proposing to achieve the mission with a meager one quarter of 1% of the federal budget. this equals 81% of the agency's fiscal year 2010 budget, 56% of the agency's fiscal year 2009 budget. clearly, the president's proposing funding level that the agency has to make difficult choices, cut funding for valuable programs and start funding priority goals. i'd like to ask you about some of the primary -- some of the tough choices. in the 2013 budget, we have significant cuts to the drinking water program. just yesterday, the american waterworks association released a new assessment of state of drinking water infrastructure in this country. and they said in this report our drinking water infrastructure needs a $1 trillion investment over the next 25 years if we're to maintain current levels of water service. they conclude, the more we delay

the harder the job will be done. administrator jackson, has the agency determined that funding drinking water infrastructure is no longer important? >> certainly not, sir. >> does epa believe state resolving loan funds are important for delivering safe drinking water and protecting public health? >> absolutely. >> i have other questions and the radon and others, but my time is over. i would like to submit the questions to you in writing and get a response in writing as well. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you. at this time, recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. murphy for five minutes. >> thank you. when you were here last year and i asked for a list of concerns with pennsylvania's gas and oil production. i'm disappointed