like to get your response as to how these are going to impact you. >> senator? >> thank you very much, madam chairman and thank you, lisa jackson. the dedicated people i know how much they feel their commitment to the work is. and they will go to work under the honest of circumstances and fulfill their mission and, you know, we had a brief condition. i don't know whether any of you heard it, about whether or not the energy committee or the epw

committee. but one thing i learned here today is that we might be part of the budget committee because what we're talking about constantly is the costs of these things. i come from having run a very, very large business before i got here and we had to have revenues that would carry the business along and here we have a new economic theory. to heck with it. we don't look at that side of thing but yet we dwell on the fact that there are more rules, i am poe significance on business and so forth. and i got an e-mail from the pretty reliable.

they say simply hazardous are linked to an all range of serious and immediate human health risks. but here we can't seem to get the message pro us because we're always talking about costs and when you talk about costs and they are important, but don't you sometimes talk about the lives that might be saved? can't we convince our colleagues on the other side somehow or another that it's not a good idea to put your kids up like canary in the coal mine and ignore what the consequences are? we had a fellow testify from mercury emissions and it was from a small town, avon lakes, the man was a councilman. and he talked about a plant that was 42 years old but they had to be careful about shutting this

plant down. it would look tens -- cost tens of jobs, maybe 50, 60 jobs if we shut the plant down. but i went further and i found out that in the year 2010 that 440 asthma attacks, 47 heart attacks, 29 premature deaths, they ought to go to the members of those families and ask that they can continue saving money on the lives and the well-being of their children. i don't think so. there is toxic and unfortunately there are now efforts in the senate to block new mercury air toxic standards. how many illnesses and even deaths will be prevented by epas

new pollution limits. please? >> the mercury benefits are estimated to be up to 11,000 premature avoided deaths. up to 130,000 avoided asthma attacks or asthma cases that require attention and the numbers are quite significant. >> that's how it is for you bleeding hearts. what about the money? come on. anyway, do you want to add something else? >> well, we can monetize those benefits and it's up to $90 billion in 2016 and that's annual. so it is not fair to say that it is only costs. there are benefits.

another way to think of it is, you can pay a dollar to clean up the mercury and arsenic and cadnium or you can -- you pay either way and $1 is a better deal. >> i would say, i'm pleased to see that epa budget increases funding for chemical safety programs by $36 million. but there's still more than 80,000 chemicals on the inventory and and that's over more than 30 years. even with this additional funding. do you still believe that the toxic substances must be modernized in order to protect the public? >> yes, indeed. i do, senator.

to help states test and monitor water quality. and i wrote the law creating the program in the year 2000. it's helped millions of beach goers, ensured that a day at the beach isn't followed by a day at the doctor. what will the effects help if states facing budget crunches are unable to make up the difference. >> i believe the program was started to help states and local governments get their monitoring systems in place. our belief is that states are able and can fund in a variety of ways those programs and so we don't believe that there will be an impact on health. >> and i close by saying that here -- what we're saying is that if you don't -- if you need oil for the car and you don't put it in, just drive faster to

make up for it thank you very much. >> senator? >> thank you, administrator. >> to finish up on senator lawsuit ten berg's issue, as you know, rhode island was scheduled to take a very big hit and you've reduced the hit that rhode island takes under the 105 program, and when you pile in the elimination we take it hard relative to other states, it seems to me. so i just want to let you know that we're going to be working very hard to try to address that with you.

once again that the rest of the country has to worry about. so the fact that our hit seems to be going way up when we're one of the less polluting states where downriver of most of the river pollution comes, we're down air of the pollution. we don't harm anybody else. so we'll be working with you on that. i just wanted to make sure you know how important it is for us to have that recognized. and responsible for fuel shortages in the northeast this summer and everything that has

to do with you do, it's often surrounded with propaganda, rumor, and speculation and it's been largely fact proof but what are the facts? >> there are sci issues and closely monitoring the fuel supply information and refineries that refer to process light sweet crude, haven't had decided that they would rather shut down and that simply means that we need to ensure that with the refineries gone, the buckeye

pipeline doesn't result in there being a reliable supply of gasoline and customers in that marketplace. so one of the refineries has said now that they have a plan in place to deliver reliable supply of products in the areas that they serve. even if they fail to find a buyer for that one refinery. however, epa has been working with the department of energy. we work with the private sector, continue to work with them and the concerns revolve around the clean air act that lower the volatility of the gasoline and on air and hot summer days. it becomes a cycle. we have well-established authorities in the event of any actual fuel supply shortage with doe con kurns. we've used that authority and we're certainly works with the

state of pennsylvania and the industry and doe on those issues. >> we will follow up with some questions for the record on the funding and its effects on rhode island and i would ask if you could respond to those fairly quickly because in the budget cycle, if we get stalled on that, we're stuck waiting. i would ask for your cooperation in providing us pretty quick answers and i'd like to ask that a providence journal article from the summer of 2011 which is admitted into the record, madam chair, may i ask unanimous consent? >> without objection. >> thank you. >> it describes a success story, which is that our salt water beach days lost to contaminated swimming waters decreased by 35% in 2011 from 2009 levels and

credited some of the big projects that rhode island has done. the commission has built enormous tunnels and receiving chambers underground to store stormwater from our combined sewer overflow storm systems so that they don't have to bypass sewage treatment and they can be held and when capacity is restored at the treatment plant, it can be pumped and treated properly. newport has built a $6 million storm water treatment plan that discharges on to easton's beach. were doing our job and we've put a lot of money behind keeping our waters clean. and so it really hits hard when this funding is cut off to rhode island, as i've said, as a largely nonpollution-producing state for the country. we're certainly dealing with a lot more pollution from other

states thanther states. our department of environmental management has reduced its air resources staff from 20 to 30 in the last three years because of budget cuts. so we're up against it and i'll be looking for your support to look our way through this but particularly a rapid answer to the questions. thank you. >> thank you, sir. >> thank you, senator sessions? >> thank you. madam chairman and administrator jackson, i do have to say that this country does not have sufficient money to continue all our government agencies and departments at the same level of funding. they just do not have it. and they house republicans have produced a budget. it's a long-term budget that changes a debt course of

america. it will keep us hopefully from hitting a financial crisis. as president obama's chairman, the debt commission warned that we're heading to. and so i'm just looking at the numbers here and i want you to recognize that everybody's going to have to tighten their belt. under the proposals for the defense department, would take by far the biggest reductions and that's not war funding. i'm talking about the base defense budget. they are taking significant real reductions and would be very dramatic. but wouldn't you recognize that even though we're having the greatest deficits in the history of the republic, that your budget has been continued upward since 2008 and remains considerably above that level.

>> sir, i think that i don't agree with that. we did get bump up, primarily to fund water infrastructure. that's state money. and the great lakes program which is grant money that does not get spent primarily by epa, by any means. we took a 16% budget cut in 2011, 3% in 2012, 1% in 2013 and those numbers are misleading because in those times we've increased funding, as i've said in my opening remarks, to continue to try to fund the state's base programs because we know that state budgets are such that the states need the clean air and clean water act funding so they can keep their programs. >> well, with regard to the state funding, i notice you seem to react adversely to my comment based on our looking at your budget requests and if i'm wrong, i'd like to be corrected

but it seems to me that, in fact, on this year's budget your numbers for epa go up and the amount of funding to the states go down. maybe we have that chart. i could show. that's numbers we score on -- you don't dispute that, do you? >> i do, indeed. i don't dispute it. and i'm certainly not saying you are wrong. i would say that i would look at those numbers differently. i think the chart is a bit misleading. the decrease that you're showing is because the state revolving programs are is being cut. >> is that part of your budget? >> it is. >> but also -- >> you can cut the increasing yours, aren't you? >> no, sir, we are not. we are proposing to cut the places where the largest increases happen in the 2010 budget, which is the srf funding. >> well, it seems to me that's

what happened and i'm just kind of taking it back. the numbers are the numbers. so whatever it is, the government of the states has been reduced and would you not -- you value the state participation and they make our partner better. so i'm just concerned about that. with regard to your statement about reducing spending, your base budget was 7.4 billion at 2008. it jumped to 10.2 itsz basically been dropped down to 8.3 which is still a 15, 12 increase where you were after having substantial increases over a number of years. so i guess my only comment to

you and to the chairman is, we're going to have to tighten our belt we'd like to give every focus on containing costs. i believe it can be done better. i also think you have to consider the impact that the regulations are having on the american people. its impact on jobs creation, those things placing our economy at risk. our constituents are telling me that they've never seen such a surge of regulatory impact. >> i would say, first, whether

it's the pace of regulation which i signed fewer regulations per year than my predecessors or the fact that several of the regulations that we have done, the cross state air pollution role was a result of court decisions that remanneded and found previous versions of those regulations illegal and the last i would offer is that those regulations, mercury and air toxics is a great example of $10 of health savings for every dollar invested in our economy. so the american people get health protection in savings in terms of what they pay to keep themselves healthy. >> i don't believe when you mandate a company to employ more

people to meet a regulation, that they otherwise would not be employing, that that is really a job creator. because it reduces their wealth, reduces their ability to hire people to do productive items. the question is whether or not the regulation justifies the cost. i believe my time is up. so that's the kind of thing -- and as to your statement about the health impact epas numbers with regard to health benefits or widely exaggerated in my view and i'd be glad to see the documents that would justify that number. >> they are part of the analysis of the rules. happy to do so. >> i've examined some of them in the past and they do not back up what your witnesses have said. >> okay. senator sessions, when you were

gone i asked the same question about the peer-reviewed studies and i'd like to get that transcript. in addition, i'd be very interested in being copied on this. the point is that if we ever had a regimen that was clear, it's the sign give particular studies that look at hospital admissions. so i think we ought to look at it. >> one of the studies was some sort of polling data about whether people would pay more and it was not a real health study that they were citing. so i'd just like to see it i hope we get the health benefits from improved environmental quality. >> i think it's good to go back. i have so much respect for my friend and we work together on certain issues but on this one we're on different planets. let's face facts. but i think it's good for people to see this debate and i just don't let it go unanswered because there's no way under the clean air act you take a poll to find out how many premature

deaths are being prevented. we have it all documented so would you please and october 4th, 2011, very interesting op ed written by bruce bartlett, he held senior policy roles and served on the staffs of jamp camp and ron paul. soits really interesting and i'm going to put it in and here's the opening. republicans have a problem. people are increasingly concerned about unemployment but republicans have nothing to offer them. the gop opposes additional spending and a fact favor big cuts in spending and likely lead to further layoffs and concludes by saying, in my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is invented by republicans supported by the business community year in and year out.

it's a case of political opportunism. obviously, senator sessions and inhofe would disagree with this. i believe when people come to you and tell you, i wrote what you said, the impact on our lives from the epa is nothing that they've ever seen before. that's basically what you said. and i totally agree with you, that that happened in your state. i want to just say, i have never, never heard that when i go home. i haven't had one person come up to me and say, please cancel that clean air act regulation. i need more pollution, barbara. fight against it. and if you look at this, look at this poll, where's the one about the bipartisan poll, broad

support in the spectrum. when asked about bringing stricter limits on the mercury that power plants and other facilities emit and that's a reg that is fiercely opposed by my colleagues on the other side. 78% said of likely voters, in favor of updating these standards. so we see the world so differently i find it so intriguing, the way we come to. >> well, it's important for us to talk about in an article by steven malloy and he says the epa that air pollution kills tens and thousands of people annually. this is on a par with and air

pollution victims are unknown, unidentified and as far as anyone can tell figurements of the epa statistical information. air pollution is causing the actual harm to real people. so that's what i'm asking for, i guess. let's see the numbers that justify the data, the data that justifies the number. >> we do agree and i asked you before and ask to put into unanimous record, a sheet put out by the academy pediatrics talking about how much they support your work. senator, you have the last word unless other senators come and then absolutely i'll call on them. >> great, thank you, madam. the u.s. border is stretched for

thousands of miles and home to many people who need to be connected to water and sewer systems for the first time. i'm glad you're requesting 10 million for border infrastructure but this amount is a fraction of what this program has traditionally received. last year the appropriation act is five million. but if all our states face what we see on national emergency. and what is requested in the budge budget? >> certainly i'm happy to get you information about what is clearly an important program, senator. these are tough joyce choices and we're proposing less money. we're proposing more than what was in last year enacted but only slightly more. so we're happy to get you

information so you can make that case. >> but you're going to aggressively support your 10 million, which is what is in the president's budget, right? >> i believe it's 4 1/2, sir -- >> i'm sorry. i have 10. senator, we are absolutely in accord. thank you. >> okay. thank you. the epas border 2012 program is coming to an end and i understand a new border 2020 program is being developed to replace it. will you ensure that border environmental issues receive a top level attention at epa headquarters going forward? >> yes, sir, it is a priority. >> and you're going to be timely in terms of getting out as the one program expires 2012, a 2020 border, correct? >> the border 2020 program is scheduled for august 2012. >> great. thank you very much.

and there's an ongoing disagreement between the u.s. epa and the state of new mexico about the clean air act regional hayes plan for the san juan generating station and i believe most and the great western land skaps and improve public health. many are concerned about potential increase in electricity rates. i hope all -- i hope that all sides will think constructively about win-win solutions here. i realize the region six has primary responsibility here but will you ensure that epa headquarters is also engaged on

this issue and that the epa continues to work cooperatively with the state of new mexico and local utility to work through this issue in the best possible way? >> yes, senator. >> thank you very much. and the revolving funds and sometimes what is called smart water, the budget request includes a 20% set aside for green infrastructure qualifying projects with the two state revolving funds. i want to stress that when we talk about green infrastructure, we're talking about two kinds of green. reducing the amount of concrete and using the natural landscape for storm water systems or installing energy efficient improvements at a water treatment plant or both. these are both good for the environment. but just as importantly, these kinds of projects save