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 specific 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 than we create for other 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,. 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,op ed written by bruc, 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 green money for water, utility ratepayers by reducing construction costs and energy bills. will you continue to advocate for the set asides and ensure that epa provides appropriate guidance to states on how to implement them? >> yes, sir, i am a very strong supporter and so are, by the way, mayors and local communities who get win-win results. >> and i know many of our mayors

are very involved in this and very supportive of it. u.s. water utilities waste an estimated seven billion gallons of treated water through ruptures. does epa plan to become more involved in in promoting losses, energy use, and contamination? >> yes. we're happy to be supported both through the funding wise through the state revoluming funds and both with the states and local governments. there is such a need out there that we do prioritize with the states where we can be financially supported. >> thank you, administrator jackson. i know that you have a very good, solid professional staff at the ep and we very much

approve all their hard work. thank you, madam chair. >> i thank you so much for your patience in sitting through and answering such good questions. we really do appreciate you so much. because everybody is counting on you. the little kids, the kids soon to be born and our families. thank you very much. we stand adjourned. up next on c-span 3, a conversation with arlen specter

later, from the national press foundation, we'll hear from eric schmidt of google. next week the supreme court signs and the constitutionality of the laws requirement that people purchase health coverage by 2014. tomorrow, the kato institute will preview the case. live coverage at 10:45 eastern here on c-span 3. the court will hear three days of argument. and here on c-span 3, c-spano,n.

>> starting april 1st, on the theme the constitution and ddle show which part of the constitution is important to wh. meet the students who feature them. and for everyone participated in this year's competition significance. >> former pennsylvania senator arlen specter talks about the current health care debate and his new book. this is an hour. >> arlen specter, republican of pennsylvania, was switched to democrat, wrote a book, life among the cannibals. how did you come up with this

title and for the united state senate, customers make a farewell address. i made what i called a closing argument and the fact that they were cannibals were in operation, can anybody baizing other senators. i wanted the title to be cannibals devouring senators and she said it's not too stark for what goes on in the senate but situations like senator bob bennett from utah with 93% conservative rating because of one vote, supporting the bailout of the auto industry which was really very important and you

have lisa murkowski in alaska being beaten in a primary by the tea party and my own situation, i voted for the stimulus package. one vote out of 10,000 and that created irreconcilable differences between the republican party and and joe biden and governor ed rendell but the significant part of the problems and the united states senate today is a fact that cannibals are at work.

>> who are the cannibals? the republican party? >> well, senator demint and he has a lot of people helping him. he announced publicly recently that he was going to change his ways and not support people against the party he fought lisa murkowski in alaska and instead the club for growth is another organization. one of the very best, if not the best united states senator today and will not change his strive and bend to the far right,

primary contests are knuckling. olympic snow is leaving the senate because she's tired of fighting cannibals. >> i don't know enough about them. >> tea party group led by dick armey? >> well, the tea party group, that's another cannibal game. >> dick armey freedom works leader writes yesterday in the wall street journal this. a strategist have always relied on conventional thinking when i. that was the logic that saved arlen specter in