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 fueandards. 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. some of the highlights of epa's budget request, i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very i wonder -- we're going to each have six minutes.wanted to star.

there was a big critique of going r from power plants specifically from senator sessions. and i wanted to talk to y 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 chromium and other hazardous pollutants that can cause cancer and harm the reproductive and developmental systems of our pa. 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,

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 -- 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 to be doing what we can to stop that but i would 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,