but i believe that out there in the real world where people are looking at real facts, where they are not under the shadow of special interest, people have strong support for your efforts to get our carbon pollution under control and i urge you to continue to stand strong and appreciate very much that you have stood strong and anything we can do to make sure we have your back on that, i'm interested in doing. very important to rhode island as a down wind state to have clean air for our citizens. thank you very much, madam chair. >> thank you senator. senator barraso. >> the obama administration officials regularly try to justify their excessive red tape by citing misleading and incomplete health statistics. meanwhile, they completely ignore how these exact same regulations destroy jobs and destroy communities. when americans lose their jobs, their health and the health of their children suffers. these are the findings of a new minority report that i am

releasing today as ranking member of the subcommittee of clean air and nuclear safety. the report is entitled "red tape: making americans sick." a new report on the health impacts of high unemployment. this is a comprehensive report and it contains expert testimony before this committee. and the best scientific medical research from institutions such as johns hopkins, columbia, yale and others. this key medical research and testimony details the public health consequences of joblessness. and the joblessness is caused as a result from the cumulative impact of the epa's ongoing regulations. specifically, these impacts from joblessness will increase the likelihood of hospital visits, increase the likelihood of illnesses and premature deaths in communities. this joblessness will raise health care costs, will raise questions about the claimed health savings of the epa's

regulations. and these regulations through this impact hurt children's health and hurt families' well-beings. as detailed in this report, this committee has heard some of these findings before. dr. harvey brenner of johns hopkins university testified before this committee on june 15th and he warned that, quote, the unemployment rate is well established as a risk factor for elevated illnesses and mortality rates in epidemiological studies performed since the early 1980s. it is true that studies as far back as 1985 have warned of the health impacts of unemployment. a study published that year in the american journal of public health by dr. margaret lynn found that, quote, after unemployment, symptoms of sematization which includes pain, a whole bunch of different symptoms, also depression and anxiety, were significantly greater in the unemployed than in the employed.

more recent studies include yale researcher dr. william galo who released a study in 20 06 78 and that found that results suggest that the true cost of late career unemployment exceed financial deprivation and include substantial health consequences. unemployment's health impact on children is also discussed in the report. the national center for health statistics has found that children in poor families were four times as likely to be in fair or poor health as children in families that were not poor. the research in the report speaks for itself. the concern about unemployment's impact on public health is a concern for at least one former obama white house official. as reported in "the new york times" on november 17th of last year, white house chief of staff william daley asked one interest group lobbying for stricter epa

rules, an interest group lobbying the administration for even stricter epa rules, mr. daley said, quote, what are the health impacts of unemployment? i and my colleagues in congress have urged the epa to seriously consider the cumulative impacts of their rules and how they negatively impact jobs, families, children and the elderly. finally on tuesday, the obama administration made a surprising announcement in that regard. the white house announced a new policy on studying cumulative impacts. now finally, after much of the damage has been done to employment and public health, the obama administration now wants to find out what is happening across the united states because of their rules. well, here's the answer. their rules, closing power plants, shut doung factories, raising gasoline and electricity prices, costing jobs, they all cost jobs and they make people

less healthy as stated in this report. so i will release this report, red tape, making americans sick. a new report on the health impacts of high unemployment. studies show epa rules cost americans their jobs and their health. i'd recommend it to every person who works at the environmental protection agency. thank you madam chairwoman. >> thank you, i look forward to reading it. we have a majority report called "a strong epa protects our health and promotes economic growth." and the executive summary points out that since the passage of the clean water act, the clean air act, the safe drinking water act super fund and many of these -- most of these signed by republican presidents are gross domestic product has risen by 207%, and it remains the large nest the world. i find it rather amazing that one small agency would be blamed

for all the troubles we're going through. if anyone cares about jobs, have the house ask speaker boehner to bring up the bipartisan transportation bill. 3 million jobs are at stake. so this committee has a great role in definitely creating jobs through this transportation bill which i'm so proud is bipartisan. and we'll call on senator udall. thank you, madam chair and welcome administrator jackson. great to have you here again. and i wanted to talk to you about a couple of issues in the questioning. but i thought i would highlight at the beginning here the fact that the president just visited new mexico and oklahoma on an energy trip promoting his all of the above energy strategy where he is saying that all of our energy sources should be developed. and new mexico, we have an area rich in oil and gas called the permian basin which is having an

extraordinary boom at this time, and he highlighted by his visit to new mexico that boom that was going on in the increase of oil production in the united states. in fact, i think he went to oklahoma following new mexico, and there was a problem there with pipelines not being able to get supply out. and he issued an executive order to move that along. >> they're working hard to do everything they can. and it seems to me that we're seeing from republicans a lot of change in position. especially mitt romney. in 2006, governor romney said, and this is a direct quote. i'm very much in favor of people recognizing that these high gasoline prices are probably here to stay. and the new public covered it in an article just recently here

that i'd like to submit for the record, madam chair. it's -- the title of the article is when romney liked high gas prices. and, in fact, it highlighted that he was very much for a lot of the plants that president obama has put forward today. on this issue of gas prices i would note the associated press recently conducted a comprehensive statistical study going back 36 years and the study shows no correlation -- underline no correlation -- between u.s. drilling and gasoline prices. gasoline prices are driven by oil prices which are set on the global market. the highest rig count in at least 25 years. but we do not control global supply and demand. so that's something that i think consumers need to realize and understand. even if we were totally oil

independent like canada is, we would still pay global prices since oil can be traded globally. u.s. gasoline prices are some of the lowest in the world due to our low gasoline taxes. we live in a market economy. the last time a president could set the gas price was when republican richard nixon imposed price controls. president obama, as i've said, highlighted on this trip all of the things he's trying to do, and i think he's making a good, solid effort at trying to move us in the right direction in terms of renewable energy and also making sure there's a strong domestic industry. so with that, madam chair, i would yield back. >> thank you. so now we are honored to hear from administrator lisa jackson. >> thank you so much, madam chairman, ranking member. thank you for inviting me to

testify on the president's fiscal year 2013 budget. it's good to see all the members of the committee here today. it's the fiscal year 2013 budget for the epa. i'm joined by the agency's chief financial officer barb bennett. epa's budget request of $8.34 billion focuses on fulfilling epa's core mission of protecting public health and the environment while making sacrifices and tough decisions. the kind that americans across the country are making every day. epa's budget request fully reflects the president's commitment to reducing government spending and finding cost savings in a responsible manner while supporting clean air, clean water and the safe guards that are essential to an america that's built to last. in some case we have had to take a step back from programs. this budget reflects a savings of $50 million through the elimination of several epa programs and activities that have either met their goals or can be achieved at the state or local level or by other federal agencies. let me spend a moment discussing

major elements of our budget request. this budget recognizes the importance of our partners at the state, local and tribal level. as you know, they are at the front lines of implementing our environmental laws like the clean water act and the clean air act. the largest portion, 40% of the funding request is directed to the state and tribal assistance grants appropriation to support their efforts. specifically, this budget proposes that $1.2 billion, nearly 15% of epa's overall request, be allocated back to the states and tribes through categorical grants. this includes funding for state and local air quality grants, pollution control grants and the state general assistance program. the budget also proposes that a combined $2 billion, another 25% of epa's budget request goes directly to the states for the clean water and drinking water state revolving funds. this funding will help support efficient systemwide investments and development of water infrastructure in our communities. we are working collaboratively to identify opportunities to

fund green infrastructure. projects that can reduce pollution efficiently and less expensively than traditional gray infrastructure. additionally epa's budget request would fund the protection of the land and water and local communities. reflecting the president's commitment to restoring and protecting the great lakes, this budget requests that congress maintain the current funding level of $300 million for the great lakes restoration initiative. this support will continue to be used for collaborative work with partners at the state, local and troebl level and also with municipal groups. requests support for protection of the chesapeake bay and other treasured and economically significant bodies of water. it requests $755 million for continued support of the superfund cleanup programs. it maintains the agency's emergency preparedness and response capabilities. epa's budget request makes major investments in its science and technology act of $807 million.

or almost 10% of the total request. this includes $576 million for research, including $81 million in research grants and fellowships to scientists and universities throughout the country for targeted research as part of the science to achieve results or s.t.a.r. program, including children's health and disruption and air monitoring research. also as part of this request, epa includes funding increases into key areas that include green infrastructure and hydraulic fracturing. natural gas is an important resource which is abundant in the united states. but we must make sure the ways we extract it to do not risk the safety of public water supplies. this budget continues epa's ongoing directed hydraulic fracturing study. we're taking steps to ensure it's pier reviewed and based on strong and scientifically defensible data. building on these ongoing efforts, this budget requests $14 million in total to work collaboratively with the united

states geological survey. the department of energy and other partners to assess questions regarding hydraulic fracturing. strong science means finding the answers to tough questions and epa's request does that. we are making investments to support standards for clean energy and efficiency in this budget. specifically, the budget supports epa's efforts to introduce cleaner vehicles and fuels and to expand the use of home-grown renewable fuels. this includes funding for epa's federal vehicles and fuel standards and certification program. that supports certification and compliance testing for all emission standards. this also includes implementation of the president's historic agreement with the auto industry for carbon pollution and fuel economy standards through 2025 for cars and light duty vehicles, including testing support for ntsa's fuel economy standards. taking together the administration standards for cars and light trucks are projected to result in $1.7 trillion of fuel savings. and $12 billion fewer barrels of oil consumed.

this funding will also help support implementation of the first ever carbon pollution and fuel economy standards for heavy duty trucks. madam chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. while my testimony reflects only some of the highlights of epa's budget request, i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much. i wonder -- we're going to each have six minutes. i wanted to start off. there was a big critique of going after toxic air pollution from power plants specifically from senator sessions. and i wanted to talk to you about that. because we fought off a couple of amendments already and we know we're going to face a congressional review act, repeels on boiler mat or utility mat. and when i get into this, i saw the amazing progress we could make if you're able to move ahead. because we're talking here about

cutting mercury, arsenic, lead, chromium and other hazardous pollutants that can cause cancer and harm the reproductive and developmental systems of our children in particular. but it's a threat to everybody. so as i look at your work that you have produced on this you say that once the law is implemented, we will see up to 11,000 premature deaths avoided every year. we will see 2800 fewer cases of chronic bronchitis. we will see 4,700 fewer heart attacks. 130,000 fewer asthma attacks. i know senator lautenberg, every time you speak, i'm talking to senator lautenberg -- i just wanted to say, every time you speak about losing your sister to asthma and the -- and i am glad that you remind us of this

because a lot of times you hear these speeches about, you know, bureaucracy and jobs and things which i think are off base. but we forget about why we set up this entity. and what it means that when epa implements the utility mac and start to control chromium and other pollutants, we will see 130,000 fewer asthma attacks every year. we will see 5,700 fewer hospital emergency room visits. and 3 million fewer restricted activity days. so i guess my question is, and that's why the people support what you do administrator. when you sit there and hear this criticism coming from the other side of the aisle and it is their perfect right to think the way they think and do what they do and we have a big disgremt, and it's very respectful, but

when i look at you sitting there with your people, it must feel pretty darn good to have a job that you know at the end of the day is going to save 11,000 lives a year just from one rule. and chronic bronchitis and heart attacks and asthma, et cetera. so i want you to put on the record how you come up with these stats so that people know about peer review and who the people making these estimates. could you tell us what is the process before you come up with these benefits. >> certainly. there is a well developed body of science and scientific research around the air pollution impacts on public health. it is probably that part of pollution that is best studied from an economics perspective. and what happens is that we look at two main drivers, and these are peer reviewed studies. they are based on the work of

scientists who first look at hospital emissions and track those controlling for other factors. and they also do clinical tests where they expose people to levels of pollution. the correlation between soot and smog and premature death and asthma is not speculative. it's not a possibility. it is quite real. it has been estimated in the case of the mercury and air toxic standards to save up to 11,000 premature deaths a year. that has real cost to the american people. they have real benefits to americans. i don't -- we, unfortunately have to put a price on life so we can monetize it, but there's also the cost of lost work days, of sickness, of children missing school and their caregivers with them. all that goes into our economic analysis. they are peer-reviewed and

widely accepted. >> i wanted that on the record because we battle on the floor on this and we're going to keep on to keep on battling and we're going to keep on fighting because you have the facts on your side and we know if it's our mother or our father or our son or our sister or our brother and it could easily be one of those heart attacks, one of those hospital admissions, then we feel it in the gut and it's our job to protect america families just as the way we protect our own. i wanted to close with asking a question about the ryan budget. this cuts the epa by 1% and i've already stated, i'm not happy about it, frankly. i feel that the beach program is essential because, again, that saves lives. i don't like the cuts in the radon program. again, it's think it's

essential. i'm not going to ask your feelings about it. i'm sure you're going to fight for these programs but we know that the president had to do something. but the ryan budget cuts the epa by 14% and it would amount to a billion in cuts and i wanted you to respond whether you think that level of cut would, in fact, threaten the health of our children and our families, that level of cut. >> well, we have not done an analysis of the ryan budget yet, madam chairman. let me say that epa has taken painful cuts to get down to the 1 mrs. %. we've actually increased the document is very misleading and i would be very concerned about our ability to protect human

health. >> will you send us the impact of the inhofe budget. >> sure. >> and i want to put a fact in the record that you made a point that funding to the states, and that includes the tribes, accounts for the largest percentage of your budget request. is that correct? 40%? >> that's correct. >> these really are pass-through funds. senator inhofe. >> thank you, madam chairman. getting back to all of the above, which was really our -- we are real sincere in that. that would include above includes coal. there's been a lot of concern that the max standards are so strict, the no new coal fire generating stations can be built. we know the existing ones because contracts are being

canceled as we speak. information in the rule making doc indicates that the new unit max standard was set using performance data from logan units. the epa posted a chart and the doc is showing six separate with logan failing the standard five out of six times. well, we've told the public that the new unit max standards would not prevent new units from being built but yet your own data seems to show that the very units would fail a compliance test. am i wrong on that? >> yes, i believe i disagree with you on that, sir. the mercury and air toxic standards are based on achievable technology for the best 12%. they look at individual contaminants, like mercury, arsenic, acid gases individually.

and one of the concerns is looking at condensable versus total particulate matter as air pollutants. so we believe that they are achievable and that the standards meet the requirements of the clean air act in that regard. >> okay. back to logan. is it not accurate that they thought they failed five out of the six tests? >> sir, i can certainly look at the individual data you are citing but the low implant, it's a well-performing plant in new jersey. >> all right. thank you, madam administrator. that's one out of three totally unrelated questions but one of them is -- i remember exactly. it was 14 years ago where majority and you might remember they came in and trying to regulate propane on the farm and all of this stuff. very similar, what is going on

today, under the same program, the epa is trying to force the ag retailers to report. when they sell to their customers and they have to be a commitment that we're going to get to let them enjoy the exemption in the law right now in terms of the fertilizer sales. >> senator, i try to know everything about the epa's regulatory programs. you have managed to give me one that i'm not familiar with. >> that's a first. >> but i'm happy to look into the matter and answer your question. >> it just makes sense, though. there's a reason that we have in the law that they are exempt and

i think that the mistake here is the way it's being applied is that they consider the ultimate consumer actually coming from a walmart or something like that. and responding to this for the record, i think it's important that we say at least when they have to custom blend, which is usually the case, there's a reason for that exemption. what i'd like to do is get this back from you and then i'd like to get that. >> so you'll be submitting a request to us? >> yes. why shouldn't this exemption stand as selling to the consumer because it actually is. >> okay. >> okay. that's good. that's good.

the third unrelated thing is on february 22nd, epa set its guidance regarding water for final review and this goes way back. congressman over started the same thing. we've had this before us many, many times. it's turned out that this is the most damaging thing in terms of the farm bureau and other groups like that have said this is something that is not liveable and it's -- and so consequently, i was -- i was disappointed when we sent the guidance to omb for final review and not only has congress supported similar efforts the majority of the supreme court justices concluded

that the government was exceeding the regulatory authority and i would ask, how does the administration's policy as articulated in the new guidance differ from the overturn by the supreme court. and that was only yesterday and that was pested before in the rapano case and swank case. and my interest here, of course, is to do something about how the water is going to be treated. >> senator, thank you. the case decided yesterday goes to process. and those who are a recipient allowed to challenge it in

court. the court spoke obviously very clearly to that point and we will, of course, be abiding by that decision. they did not speak unanimously to the issue of the continuing issue of which waters and wetlands in this country are jurs knicks nal. we have heard from the number of stake holders around the country about the confusion that is resulting in protection on certain lands and in certain areas and and that is the process of being finalized. >> i think you've probably noticed that senator will be supporting him senator session and senator helder with a bill that stops the epa from finalizing the guidance, from using the guidance to make the scope of the clean water act or turn this into a rule. so we're going