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, shutting down 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, senator. 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, our 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. in 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. so i think the president's working very hard, madam chair, to try to -- to do everything he can. and it seems to me that we're seeing from republicans a lot of change in position, especially mitt romney. i mean 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 republic" 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 u.s. has 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. in fact, 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 innovative safeguards that are essential to an america that's built to last. in some cases we've 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. in fact, 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 management 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 in 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 tribal level and also with non-profit and municipal groups. the budget also requests support for protection of the chesapeake bay and several 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 account of $807 million, or almost 10% of the total request. this request includes $576 million for research, including $81 million in research xwrants 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. as i've mentioned before, natural gas is an important resource which is abundant in the united states, but we must make sure that the ways we extract it do not risk the safety of public water supplies. this budget continues epa's ongoing congressionally directed hydraulic fracturing study. we're taking steps to ensure it's peer 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. taken 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, repeals on either 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 2,800 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 mercury, lead, arsenic and chromium and other hazardous air 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 disagreement, 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 are 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. what happens is is we look at two main drivers. these are peer-reviewed studies. they are based on the work of scientists who first look at hospital admissions and they 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. i think it's very important to remember that these strong cuts to mercury and other harmful emissions have real benefits to americans. i don't -- you know, we, unfortunately, have to put a price on live to monetize it. there's also the cost of lost work days and of children missing school and the care-givers that go into it. that goes into our economic analysis. they are peer-reviewed and widely accepted. >> well, i wanted that on the record because we're going 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's 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 going to try to add back those programs. i'm not going to ask you about your feelings on it. i'm sure you 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 simply say that the epa has taken painful cuts to get down to the 1%. it is misleading to say 1% because we've actually increased grants to states and tribes. >> right. >> the document that was put up is very misleading. all that money passes through epa to states and tribes on purpose. and i would be very concerned about our ability to protect human health when we start looking -- >> will you concerned us both senator inhofe and i the impact of the ryan budget once you've studied it. >> certainly. >> and i will put in the record -- well, i want to put a fact in the record that you make a fact that i wanted to make.

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 mantra, and we are real sincere on that, and the above includes coal. there's been a lot of concern that the mac standards are so strict, that no new coal-fire generating stations can be build. we know the existing ones because contracts are being canceled as we speak. information in the rule-making document indicates that the new unit mac standard was set using performance data from logan units. the epa posted a chart and the doc is showing six separate test results with logan failing the

standard five out of six times and a similar situation in chambers. well, we've told the public that the new unit mac standards would not prevent new units from being built, but yet your own data seems to show that the very units you us a to set a standard 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, nick -- arsenic, cadmium, acid gases individually. and one of the concerns is looking at condensable versus total particulate matter as a surrogate for some of those 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 failed five out of the six tests? >> sir, i can certainly look at the individual data you are the logan plan i know very well. >> that's one out of three totally unrelated questions. i remember so well. i can't believe that 14 years ago at that time i was chairman of the clean area regulatory. very similar to what's going on today, under the same program, the epa is trying to force thing a a -- exempts fertilizers held for sale to the ultimate consumers. >> farmers don't buy their

fertilizer from walmart and they have to be custom blended. to me that is selling to the ultimate consumer and i think we should let them enjoy the exemption that's already in the law today, 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. >> we have a reason in the law that they are exempt and i think 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. i would say that at least -- and in responding to this for the record, i think it important

that we say at least when they have to custom blend, which is every case, they should get credit for -- i think this is an area where you agree with us and so i would like to get that. >> so you'll be submitting a question for us to -- >> i'm already doing it, why shouldn't this exemption stand when it's given to the ultimate consumer when they are. the third unrelated thing is on the february 22, epa -- this goes way back and i can remember sitting up here back when senator feingold actually

introduced the restoration act. we have had this before us many, many times. it is -- it turned out that this would be the most damaging thing in terms of a, the farm bureau and customers like that. so subsequently i was disappointed when we sent the guidance to omb to the final review. how does the administration's

policy as our articulated in the new documents it was overturned by the supreme court. that was only yesterday, however it's been rejected twice before in your opponent's case and in the swag case. and my interest here of course is to do something about this final rule in terms of the -- how the water is going to be treated. >> the sak case goes under projects. those who are recipient of on epa action allowed to hear it in court. we will of course be abiding by that decision. they did not speak unanimously as part of the main decision as to the issue, the continuing issues of which wet lands and

water lands in this country are -- that is resulting in back of protection on certain lands and in certain areas and thars what the guidance is -- i has been out for public comment and in the process of being finalized.

>> and i know how much they feel their commitment to their work is. they will go to work under the oddst of circumstances and fulfill their mission. we had a brief discussion, about whether we're the energy committee or the epa document review committee. but one thing i learned here today, is that we might be part of the brought 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 i know one thing. that we had to have revenues that could carry the business along, that would be higher than our experiences. but we have -- yet we dwell on the fact that there are more rules, that there's more imp position on business and so forth. i need a reminder and i got a quote here from dr. george benjamin, president of the public health association. they say hazardous emissions are-here we can't seem to get the message across because we're always talking about costs and when you talk about costs and

they're 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 other that's it's not a good idea to put your kids up like a cana canary coal line. 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