>> c-span, created by america's cable companies as a public service. today the head of the environmental protection agency testified about her budget request for 2013. that's next on c-span3. then former pennsylvania senator arlen specter on the 2012 elections, the current health care debate and his new book. after that, va secretary general eric shinseki testifies at the veterans affairs committee. later from the national press foundation we'll hear from eric schmidt of google and chris wallace of fox news. this weekend on the presidency on american history tv -- >> think of the fdr memorial. it wasn't just three redesigns. it was three-plus designs before they got to a final plan. and so i think that we shouldn't be afraid of looking at this issue because we are building something for the centuries.

and we want to get it right. >> with the eisenhower memorial designed by frank gehry opposed by the family, a house subcommittee discussed the planned memorial to our 34th president. watch sunday at 7:30 p.m. eastern and pacific. part of american history tv this weekend on c-span3. epa administrator lisa jackson testifies next on her agency's 2013 budget request. the epa is asking for $8.3 billion. that's a 1.2% decrease from current levels. senator barbara boxer of california chairs this 90-minute environment committee hearing. >> good morning. i'd like to begin by welcoming administrator jackson to this oversight hearing on the 2013 budget for the epa. epa is charged with implementing

critical public health and environmental protections, including programs that address children's health, safe drinking water, water quality, america's lakes and rivers. epa's mission is to protect the public health, including children of families. the agency was established with bipartisan support as demonstrated repeated success in improving family's health. and keeping the nation's air and water clean and safe. the president's budget makes tough choices, some of which i don't agree with, but i believe overall it maintains a strong commitment to epa's mission. for example, the president's budget would make investments in enforcing our nation's public health laws, including assisting state and local efforts to reduce dangerous air pollution. the budget also maintains a strong commitment to protecting children by requesting an increase in funding for the office of children's health, something that's extremely near and dear to my heart. the budget proposes reductions in the clean water and safe

drinking water revolving loan funds. in recent years, congress and the administration have supported significant investments in clean water and drinking water infrastructure and i don't believe we can stop now. recent studies highlight the need to maintain robust funding for these infrastructure programs. the american waterworks association estimates that drinking water systems will require at least a trillion dollars over the next 25 years and the american society of civil engineers anticipates a water and waste water infrastructure funding gap of $126 billion by 2020. i'm also very concerned about a proposal to phase out epa's beach protection program. this small but important investment helps states to monitor water quality at public beaches and protects the public from sickness caused by water pollution. the budget asks to eliminate $8 million for state and tribal programs that reduce health threats caused by radon as well as to end funding for epa's

regional work to reduce the risk of radon exposure. according to epa, this radioactive gas is the nation's second leading cause of lung cancer, and i'm concerned about these budget cuts. given the continuing need to address the serious health threats posed by radon. as we examine epa's budget, we must keep in mind the positive impact of epa's work for our economy and public health. as i often say if you can't breathe you can't work. the economic benefits of epa's work are clear. the clean air act provides $30 in benefits for every $1 invested. and it was responsible for preventing 160,000 cases of premature mortality, 130,000 heart attacks, 13 million lost workdays and 1.7 million asthma attacks in the year 2010 alone. and i often say when i go to schools to talk to the children, i always ask them, do they have asthma or know someone. and honestly, between one-third

and half of the kids raise their hands. and as thma is not anything to laugh at. it's very, very serious. and i think when you look at what epa's programs have done, they fostered a significant and growing clean tech industry. we have the largest producer in consumer environmental technology, goods and services. the industry has 119,000 firms, supports 1.7 million jobs, generates $300 billion in revenues, including $43.8 billion in exports. these programs provide clear health and economic benefits for america. but here's the good news. and administrator jackson, you should be very pleased because the american public strongly supports the epa. there's a brand new bipartisan poll released yesterday by the american lung association. it finds that two-thirds of the voters favor epa's efforts to set stricter air pollution standards and a 2-1 majority believes the strengthening

safeguarded against pollution will encourage innovation and create jobs. i stand with the american people and as chairman, i will fight any efforts to undermine your work. president budget makes tough choices, and i am going to be heard on some of the ones i don't agree with, but i say again it maintains a longstanding commitment to provide clean air, protect safe drinking water and safeguard the health of our children and our families. i look forward to your testimony and i have a request from senator inhofe that everyone -- oh, he's going to make his own. i am very, very pleased to welcome you today and we look forward to hearing from you. senator inhofe. >> thank you. yeah, the request is that i didn't realize i had a much longer statement to be a part of the record but we'll have to put that in there. >> without objection. >> jackson, always good to see you and your visit to the epa committee today comes right at a

time when president obama is in my state of oklahoma touting the virtues of fossil fuel. and that's wonderful. and i don't expect the president is going to say too much about some of the things that have happened here because it's not going to sell too well, although i've been told that his audience is restricted to 150 of his personal friends and the media that has been hand selected. so it will be interesting to see what happens. let me say again, i have a great deal of respect for you and always have and the relationship in large part because you and i have always been straightforward and honest. i understand your job is to carry out the policies of the president. that's what you do. that's your job description. that's not mine. but in some of these areas that we've had disagreement, i always say that you do it with smiles on our faces and do it in a spirit of friendship. and it didn't go unnoticed, madam chairman, to the

administrator when i visited with her before the meeting that when i was on the rachel maddow show that i declared my three favorite liberals to be rachel and barbara boxer and lisa jackson. >> well, i don't like the order. >> actually -- no. actually, i did have you first. anyway, right now the president is in oklahoma and he's standing in the middle of an oil field talking about the virtues of fossil fuel. the -- it's kind of interesting that he's doing that, that his budgets that he's put forward have been very punitive to that industry. he's made the statement how expensative would be. his agenda is one that has specifically increased the price of gas at the pump and the energy in our homes. and, remember, as president obama himself said that his

policies would necessarily skyrocket. those were his words. and that's true and that's what's happened. now the global warming movement has collapsed. i can see why president obama is trying to associate himself with oil and gas development in oklahoma. as cnn, you ought to listen to this, madam chair. cnn wrote a piece about cushing, oklahoma. right at the convergence of our pipelines. it's about 30 miles west of my hometown. it said, quote, the place is booming. there's a shortage of workers around. i mean, we know nationally there's actually a shortage of engineers and oil workers and skilled and unskilled labor. petroleum engineers graduating from school can earn upwards of $90,000. what is oklahoma's secret? we're developing our own resources. oklahoma has over 83,000 producing wells and 43,000 producing natural gas wells. oklahoma city university found

in 2009 that oklahoma oil and gas industry supports 30,000 -- 300,000 jobs. contributes to the state's economy every year. the unemployment rate is cons t consistently much lower than the national average. their biggest problem up there is finding workers. and it happens. herald ham who has been a witness twice before this committee from enid, oklahoma is up there right now in those shale deposits. there is no unemployment in that area. and so this is significant. now i really think with the president's campaign going, he wants to take credit today for part of the keystone pipeline that will be constructed from cushing, oklahoma, to port arthur, texas. i'd like to remind everyone -- i don't have to remind everyone. everyone knows it was the president unilaterally that

stopped the excel pipeline. particularly that area going through nebraska. and it happens that his authority does not allow him to do the same thing to the south. and, therefore, he's there making his statements about how friendly he is to oil and gas. but even as president obama stands in the oil field, pretending to support this pipeline, he continues full force with his efforts to regulate fossil fuels, spearheaded in large by your agency. his epa is moving forward with an unprecedented barrage of expensive rules from greenhouse gas regulation to hydraulic fracturing to utility -- with the express purpose of eliminating fossil fuels. you know, i just want to make sure i have in the record the specific things he's done in his -- attempted to do, unsuccessfully in his budgets over the last four years would

be to the percentage depletion. the section 199 and the expensing of intangible drilling costs. those are things that would have been very damaging to the industry. so right now, in a minute we'll get a copy of his speech he's made and perhaps we'll still be in session. let me also say, madam chairman, that once again, not your fault, mine or anyone else's, but this coincides with the armed services committee. so i'll be going back and forth. >> okay. since senator went over 30 seconds, i'm going to take 30 seconds to say this. president obama has always endorsed and all of the above strategy when it comes to energy. this is not the energy committee. it's the environment committee. but i feel i want to put this in the record. we've had more domestic drilling to the point where in 2011, american oil production reached the highest level in a decade. and gas production -- the

importation of oil has gone down every single year since president obama took office. and natural gas is at an all-time high in terms of production. so all this talk about how the president is against this is incorrect. and he is for an all the above strategy. he may not want to drill in places where it hurts the fishing economy, the recreation economy, but he sure is showing by facts, not since yesterday, and not since gas prices went up, but since he came in that he is going to move forward. so i really do think the facts belie my dear friends comments. i really do. and we'll move on. since you went over by 30 seconds -- >> that's exactly the same thing that our -- >> i didn't go over, but i'm happy -- >> rachel maddow -- >> i'm happy to give you 30 seconds more. >> and i was saying in spite of -- that's why we agree on

that. we agree that in spite of all of his punitive things he has tried to do, which i've already said in my opening statement, fortunately, a lot of these shale deposits in areas where the marcellus is up in pennsylvania and new york, places -- people think normally it's all out west, but it's not. we've had tremendous opportunity s and in spite of his policies we've increased our production and will continue to do so. if we can just get all of the politicians out of the way, we'd be able to be totally independent of the middle east, not only in a matter of years but a matter of months. >> we have 2% of the world's -- >> no, that's not true. >> -- proven supplies. we're not going to go off on this. >> i can't leave it at that, though, because that's not true. >> we're not going to do this. you raised -- >> the largest -- >> senator inhofe, my dear friend. >> the reserves of any country in the world. >> i just want to say this is not the energy committee.

you used your time to slam our president and i take offense at it. and i will tell you right now if he is so punitive, why are the oil companies making more money than ever before in history? record profits they are singing in the board room. and we're going to move off this and we're going to go to senator lautenbe lautenberg. >> thank you very much. thanks. i didn't want anyone to hear what i was going to say. not that i would pick sides h e here. pick on somebody your own size. >> your time has expired. >> i have 45 seconds more.

serious business here. thanks, madam chairman, for holding this hearing. and it's hard to believe, but we are essentially friends on this committee. and i hope that we'll continue to be after this hearing. politicians talk a lot about how congress needs to balance its budget the same way everyday americans do. they sit at their kitchen table, plan their household budget, crunching the numbers to see what they can or can't afford. but no american would try to balance their family's budget by cutting out money for batteries for the smoke detector or putting off getting new brakes for the family car. it would be just as reckless for congress to sacrifice the public's health and safety in the name of fiscal austerity. yet that's precisely what our

colleagues on the other side of the aisle have proposed when they say we should cut the environmental protection agency's budget. the epa performs critical service to our country and enforces the laws that keep the air our children breathe and the water they drink clean. administrator lisa jackson has provided able leadership for the agency. and we miss her in new jersey when she headed the department of environmental protection. did such a great job and thank goodness it's carrying forward in her task here. we're very proud of your work. over the last year we've seen epa take important steps to protect the health of the families and restore our environment. after years of the delay by polluters and their allies, epa finally finalized new pollution standards that will cut mercury and toxic air pollution. these standards will prevent asthma attacks, heart attacks and even premature deaths.

they'll also protect children from mercury, brain poison for children that can cause developmental problems and learning disabilities. the epa also worked with the d.o.t. to set new auto pollution and fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. by nearly doubling the performance of our vehicles, these standards will cut america's oil dependence, clear our air and save consumers money at the gas pump. but despite its record of success, the epa is once again under attack. for example, some senators have launched efforts to subvert the epa's ability to carry out the clean air act. i think what they ought to do if they are opposed to improving the clean air act, maybe poll their constituents and ask for the homes that have an asmatic person in that household. ask them how they feel about

saving some dough on the backs of their kids. my family will never forget an asthma attack that took my sister's life. she was a school board meeting, tried to get to the res piraltior she had in her car. collapsed in the parking lot and died three days later at the age of 52. and i have a grandson who has asthma. and when my daughter takes him to play ball or whatever sports he's engaged in, she first checks to see where the nearest emergency facility is. so it's serious stuff. and we ought to stop playing games with this. since it became law in 1970, the clean air act has protected our health and the environment from the dangers of toxic air pollution. in 2010 alone. it prevented more than 160,000 premature deaths and more than 1.7 million child respiratory

illnesses. these are more than just statistics. just like administrator jackson. i have family members, as i mentioned, that suffer from asthma. our families know that asthma is a serious disease that can mean life or death. and its growth in our population is enormous. the clean air act economic benefits are also clear. when air pollution is severe, health care costs soar and productivity plunges. businesses know oom es know emp can't breathe are employees who can't work. gutting it will do nothing to help our economic recovery or to close our budget deficit. we have to fix the budget challenge but no american would balance their household budget by skimping on their family's safety, and congress shouldn't be putting austerity above public health. i applaud the epa for making responsible choices in the budget, although i am concerned about some cuts such as the elimination of the grant

funding. i look forward to hearing from administrator jackson about this budget and about how this committee can help the epa continue its vital public mission. >> thank you, senator. senator sessions? >> thank you very much. it's good to be with you. as ranking member of the budget committee, i know how tight our spending is. you do important work, but you have to be accountable like every other agency. and i know you would agree with that. and we expect a smart, cost effective actions out of your agency. "the washington post" had their pinocchio honesty report, and they quote president obama saying if we went to your house and we went to the mall and put up those rigs everywhere, we'd still only have 2% of the

world's known oil reserves. "the washington post" says, quote, that's simply wrong. the president is on an energy tour this week. and on wednesday, he once again made this claim. we hope he finally drops this specious logics from his speaking points. twro pinocchios. the budget picture of 2013 would be the fifth consecutive year of a trillion-dollar deficit. ushtd the president's 2013 budget, annual federal spending reaches $44,000 per household in 2022. and federal debt reaches $200,000 per household by 2022. as the size of the federal government grows, the middle class is being squeezed from all directions. real wages are declining. food and energy prices are rising. job prospects remain scarce. but one area has received extraordinary increases in funding. and that's the environmental protection agency.

and my constituents ask me frequently why is epa so much involved now in impacting our lives like we've never seen it before and i've heard complaints to a degree administrator jackson that i've never heard since i've been in washington. the answer, since taking office, president obama has had epa operating at a surged budget. since 2009, epa has received $12 billion more in funding than the 2008 base line levels would have allowed. in fact, when it took office, administration and the democratic-controlled congress gave epa a 100% increase in its budget in one year counting the stimulus. the money came, as i said, as a

policy decision from the administration. unfortunately this rapid increase has led to problems in waste. epa spent over $1 million for example on a large square, 27,000-square-foot green roof at the top of the world wildlife fund headquarters in d.c. in 2010, epa received a 38% budget increase of a 2008 levels and every year since they've been funded well above that baseline. what are the priorities? i'm concerned about how the money is being allocated. epa's budget says their number one priority is climate change. they are asking for at least $32 million in increased funding for climate change protection. in fact, epa plans to spend $140 million more on their regulations and management programs. that means we should expect to

see more costly mandates from washington. they also plan to increase their spending on epa regulators and scientists. at the same time, epa plans to cut spending to the states by important, and they do play a major role in how we conduct our efforts to improve our environment. you also plan cuts for brownfield's redevelopment. i was disappointed your agency would ask for $15 million in increased funding for enforcement efforts while just this week the supreme court ruled 9-0 in the sacic case that epa had abused its authorities. the tsunami of costly regulations are driving up energy prices and are hindering economic growth. the environmental protection

agency's utility map cross state air rule, coal ash rule, cooling water intake rule, rules on farmers and regulation of pesticides, taking that away from states, would together impose a significant burden on our economy and a result in multiple complaints to me from my constituents that these rules are not realistic. they are being imposed too fast and that the costs exceed the benefits. $21 billion in annual costs on the u.s. economy would be imposed by these new regulations. that's annual cost. that's about half of the highway bill we worked so hard to try to find the money to support. so epa declares their rules will only result in a 3% increase in electricity rates, but it looks like it may be as much as 10% to

20%. madam chairman, thank you for the opportunity to have this hearing. all of us are going to have to tighten our budget, and i encourage epa to do the same. and i believe you need to be held accountable in each program analyzed aggressively to see if they justify the taxpayers' dollars being invested in it. thank you. >> senator sessions, thank you. senator whitehouse. >> thank you madam chair. i'd like to welcome administrator jackson back to our committee. i have some concerns about the beach protection budget that we can discuss as the budget process moves forward. very, very important to rhode island. and i wanted to mention what's very important to rhode island is there would be proper enforcement of the clean air act. we are a down wind state on a bright summer day, you drive into work and the drive time radio is often saying that today

is a bad air day. and infants should stay indoors and seniors should stay indoors and people should not have engaged in vigorous outdoor activity. all because of toxic emissions that are being dropped on to us by midwestern coal plants and power plants. so that sentiment has been echoed. the american lung association has just done a poll that shows 73% of americans understand that you can have solid clean air standards and a strong economy. that they go together. 78% of independent voters agreed. 68% of republicans agreed with that. the polls show that 72% of americans supported your prot s protections on carbon emissions for power plants. i know you get a lot of static here in d.c. about what you are doing. this is a unique place where special interest, particularly polluting special interest, have

a disproportionate voice. but in the down wind states, and among the general american population, we are in accord with you. we are counting on you. so i think -- and i'll close by mentioning a show that i watched when i got home last night on the nova science program about what is happening in the -- at the poles in theant arctic and arctic regions. and once again, we have a situation in which washington is disconnected from the real world. my theory is it's disconnected by special interest money. by polluting special interest money from the real world. and so the facts of what we are doing with our carbon pollution to our oceans and to our atmosphere are being manipulated and