2,500 fewer cases of bronchitis. 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 $10 taking yourself and your family to the doctor to troeat

the effects of air pollution. >> 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.

>> that is the key here, the belief was that the program started to help state and local governments get monitoring systems and health systems in place. my belief is that the states are able and can fund in a variety of way s ways those programs ane 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 lautenberg'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 wind of the air 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 due to market fluctuation, many refineries that refer to process light sweet crude, instead of having to produce black crude this summer. 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 authority to wave fuel standards in the event of any actual fuel supply shortage with joe don kearns. 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 for the article to be entered into the record. >> 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 bay commission had built enormous tunnels and receiving chambers under ground to store

storm water from our sewer overflow storm systems so 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. aser -- as h erskin bowls, the

debt commission warn 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 in state and tribal funding that you're showing is because the state revolving programs are 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 revolving fund, the nub numberst go to the state has been reduced and you would not -- you value

the state participation and they make our effort to 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 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 you possibly can 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, the cost of electricity, the cost of gasoline and those kinds of things, placing our economy at risks. how would you respond to my constituents who are telling me that they have never seen such a surge of regulatory impact and -- as they are now from the environmental protection agency. they say much of it is not responsible and unwise. >> 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 mercury and air toxic

standards the cross state air pollution role was a rut of court decisions that remained and found previous versions of those regulations illegal, and the last i would offer is that those regulations, mercury and air toxins, so the minute people get health protection and savings in terms of what they have to 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 regulatory 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. the answer that administrator jackson has made.

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. so it's 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 a canard 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. and i think it was interesting. i think a very important poll --

i believe you when you tell me people come up to you and tell you. i wrote what you said, the impact on our lives from the epa is nothing that they have ever seen before. 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 this. but i'm very interested in seeing the data that the chairman asked for. >> well, it's important for us to talk about in an article by steven malloy and he says the epa says that air pollution kills tens of,000 of people annually. this is on par with vehicle traffic accidents. 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. and i by the scharm chairman and i agree on that. >> 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. put that in the record. senator, you have the last word unless other senators come and then absolutely i'll call on them. >> great, thank you, madam. administrator jackson, the u.s.-mexico border stretches for more than 2,000 miles and is home to many thousands of people who need to be connected for modern 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. we talk about water and infrastructure needs, but if all our states face what we see on the national emergencyemergency- and what is requested in the budget? >> certainly i'm happy to get you information about what is clearly an important program, senator. these are tough choices and we're proposing less money, we're proposing more than what was 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. i wanted to talk with you a little bit about the san juan generating statement 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 landscapes 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 of green infrastructure 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 revolving 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 epa and we very much appreciate all of 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. you just tell the truth from the heart and you're carrying out your responsibilities to the people and all i want to do as chairman in this committee is that you keep that up because everybody's counting on you, the little kids, the kids soon to be born and our families, thank you very much, we stand adjourned.

u. >> live on c span 2 from the history supreme court. -- >> martin luther king is a man, of all of the people i have met and talked with and spent time with through the years, is the most american individual that i admire most of all. of all of them. for me, he is my personal hero. why? because martin luther king put his money where his mouth was. >> his career spanned over 60 years cbs's mike wallace died this past weekend at the age of

83. watch his cspan appearances. the cspan video library, every video program since 1987. >> former treasury secretary robert ruben hosted a -- the u.s. needs to deal with the national debt, but progress is unlikely before november's election. . >> look, i think this is an interesting time to be having a conversation about the economy in particular because how much has changed at least in terms of the perception in the