U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

25–024 PDF 2017

S. HRG. 112–964 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET HEARING 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 22, 2012 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon 

KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

MIKE CRAPO, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska 

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director 

RUTH VAN MARK, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

MARCH 22, 2012 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma .................... 3 

Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey ........... 7 

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama ............................. 8 

Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island ......... 10 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 11 

Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico ............................ 13 

Carper, Hon. Thomas R., U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 35 

Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana, prepared statement ...................................................................................................................... 35 

WITNESS 

Jackson, Hon. Lisa, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ..... 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Those sand castles could hold hidden health hazard, Providence Journal, 

August 18, 2009 .................................................................................................... 37 

R.I. Waters are No Day at the Beach, ecoRI News, July 24, 2011 ...................... 40 

(1) 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

FISCAL YEAR 2013 BUDGET HEARING 

THURSDAY, MARCH 22, 2012 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, 

Washington, DC. 

The full Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (Chairman of the full Committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Lautenberg, Whitehouse, Udall, 

Barrasso, and Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning. I would like to begin by welcoming Administrator Jackson to this oversight hearing on the 

2013 budget for the EPA. 

EPA is charged with implementing critical public health and environmental protections including programs that address clean air, 

children’s health, safe drinking water, and water quality in America’s lakes and rivers. EPA’s mission is to protect the public health 

including children and families. The agency was established with 

bipartisan support and has demonstrated repeated success in improving our families’ health and keeping the Nation’s water clean 

and safe. 

The President’s budget makes tough choices, some of which I do 

not agree with. But I believe overall it maintains a strong commitment to EPA’s mission. For example, the President’s budget would 

make investments in enforcing our Nation’s public health laws, including assisting in State and local efforts to reduce dangerous air 

pollution. The budget also maintains a strong commitment to protecting children by requesting an increase in funding for the Office 

of Children’s Health, something that is extremely near and dear to 

my heart. 

The budget proposes reductions in the Clean Water and Safe 

Drinking Water Revolving Loan Funds. In recent years, Congress 

and the Administration have supported significant investments in 

clean water and drinking water infrastructure, and I do not believe 

we can stop now. Recent studies highlight the need to maintain robust funding for these infrastructure programs. The American Waterworks Association estimates that drinking water systems will 

require at least a billion—excuse me—a trillion dollars over the 

near 25 years, and the American Society of Civil Engineers anticiVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:08 May 19, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25024.TXT SONYA
2 

pates a water and wastewater infrastructure funding gap of $126 

billion by 2020. 

I am also very concerned about a proposal to phase out EPA’s 

Beach Protection Program. This small be important investment 

helps States to monitor water quality of public beaches and protects the public from sickness caused by water pollution. 

The budget asks to eliminate $8 million for State and tribal programs that reduce health threats caused by radon, as well as to 

end funding for EPA’s regional work to reduce the risk of radon exposure. According to EPA, this radioactive gas is the Nation’s second leading cause of lung cancer, and I am concerned about these 

budget cuts given the continuing need to address the serious health 

threats posed by radon. 

As we examine EPA’s budget, we must keep in mind the positive 

impact of EPA’s work for our economy and public health. As I often 

say, if you cannot breathe, you cannot work. The economic benefits 

of EPA’s work are clear. The Clean Air Act provides $30 in benefits 

for every $1 invested, and it was responsible for preventing 160,000 

case of premature mortality, 130,000 heart attacks, 13 million lost 

work days, and 1.7 million asthma attacks in the year 2010 alone. 

And I often say when I go to schools to talk to the children, I 

always ask them do they have asthma or do they know someone, 

and honestly, between one-third and one-half of the kids raise their 

hands. And asthma is not anything to laugh at. It is very, very serious. 

And I think when you look at what EPA’s programs have done, 

they have fostered a significant and growing clean tech industry. 

We are the largest producer and consumer of environmental technology, goods, and services. The industry has 119,000 firms, supports 1.7 million jobs, generates $300 billion in revenues, including 

$43.8 billion in exports. These programs provide clear health and 

economic benefits for America. 

But here is the good news. And Administrator Jackson, you 

should be very pleased, because the American public strongly supports the EPA. There is a brand new bipartisan poll released yesterday by the American Lung Association. It finds that two-thirds 

of the voters favor EPA’s efforts to set stricter air pollution standards, and a 2 to 1 majority believes that strengthening safeguards 

against pollution will encourage innovation and create jobs. 

I stand with the American people, and as Chairman I will fight 

any efforts to undermine your work. The President’s budget makes 

tough choices, and I am going to be heard on some of the ones that 

I do not agree with. But I would say again it maintains a long 

standing commitment to provide clean air, protect safe drinking 

water, and safeguard the health of our children and our families. 

I look forward to your testimony. 

I have a request from Senator Inhofe that everyone—oh, he is 

going to make his own request, because I was asked by your staff. 

I am very, very pleased to welcome you today, and we look forward to hearing from you. 

Senator Inhofe. 

3 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you. The other request is, I did not realize that I had a much longer statement to be a part of the record 

but we will have to put that in there—— 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

Senator INHOFE. Administrator Jackson, it is always good to see 

you, and your visit to the EPW Committee today is timely. It comes 

right at the time when President Obama is in my State of Oklahoma touting the virtues of fossil fuel. And that is wonderful. I do 

not expect the President is going to say too much about some of the 

things that have happened here, because it is not going to sell too 

well, although I have been told that his audience is restricted to 

150 of his personal friends, and the media has been hand selected. 

So, it will be interesting to see what happens. 

Let me say again I have a great deal of respect for you and always have in the relationship, in large part because you and I have 

always been straightforward and honest. You know, I understand 

your job is to carry out the policies of the President. That is what 

you do. That is your job description. That is not mine. And in some 

of these areas that we have had disagreement, I always say that 

we do it with smiles on our faces and do it in the spirit of friendship. 

And it did not go unnoticed, Madam Chairman, to the Administrator when I visited with her before the meeting that when I was 

on the Rachel Maddow show that I declared my three favorite liberals to be Rachel and Barbara Boxer and Lisa Jackson. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I do not like the order. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Well, actually, no, I did have you first. 

[Laugher.] 

Senator INHOFE. You were not third. Rachel was. 

Senator BOXER. Good point. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator INHOFE. Well, anyway, right now the President is in 

Oklahoma, and he standing in the middle of an oil field and talking 

about the virtues of fossil fuel. It is kind of interesting that he is 

doing that in that his budgets that he has put forward have been 

very punitive to that industry. He has made the statement how expensive it would be. His agenda is one that has specifically increased the price of gas at the pump and the energy in our homes. 

And remember, it is President Obama himself who said that his 

policies would necessarily, under his energy costs, would necessarily skyrocket. Those are his words. And that is true, and that 

is what has happened. 

Now, the global warming movement has collapsed. I can see why 

President Obama is trying to associate himself with oil and gas development in Oklahoma. 

As CNN—you might want to listen to this, Madam Chairman. 

This is good. CNN wrote a piece about Cushing, Oklahoma. That 

is right at the convergence of our pipelines, and it is about 30 miles 

west of my home town. It said the place is booming. There is a 

shortage of workers around. I mean we now, nationally there is actually a shortage of engineers and oil workers and skilled and unVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:08 May 19, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25024.TXT SONYA
4 

skilled laborers. In fact, petroleum engineers, petroleum engineers 

graduating from school can earn upwards of $90,000. 

What is Oklahoma’s secret? Oklahoma’s secret is that we are developing our own resources. Oklahoma has over 83,000 producing 

wells and 43,000 producing natural gas wells. Oklahoma City University found in 2009 that the Oklahoma oil and gas industry supports 30,000, 300,000 jobs and contributes $51 billion to the State’s 

economy every year. Now, that is exactly why Oklahoma’s unemployment rate is consistently much lower than the national average. 

We are seeing that in other areas, by the way. I would say in 

North Dakota. Their biggest problem up there is finding workers. 

And it happens that Harold Hamm, who has been a witness twice 

before this Committee, from Unit, Oklahoma, is up there right now 

in those shale deposits, and he is really just cranking that stuff 

out. But there is no unemployment in that area. And so, this is significant. 

Now, I really think that with the President’s campaign going he 

wants to take credit today for part of the Keystone Pipeline that 

will be constructed from Cushing, Oklahoma, to Port Arthur, 

Texas. I would like to remind everyone, I do not have to remind 

everyone, everyone knows it was the President unilaterally that 

stopped the XL Pipeline and particularly that area going through 

Nebraska. And it happens that his authority does not allow him to 

do the same thing to the south, and therefore he is there making 

his statements about how friendly he is to oil and gas. 

But even as President Obama stands in the oil field pretending 

to support this pipeline, he continues full force with his efforts to 

regulate fossil fuels out of existence, spearheaded in large part by 

your agency. His EPA is moving forward with an unprecedented 

barrage of expensive rules from greenhouse gas regulation to hydraulic fracturing to clean water regulations to utility MACT with 

the express purpose of eliminating fossil fuels. 

I just want to make sure I have in the record the specific things 

he has done in his, attempted to do unsuccessfully in his budgets 

over the last 4 years would be to the percentage depletion, the section 199, and the expensing of intangible drilling costs. Those are 

things that would have been very, very damaging to the industry. 

So, right now, in a minute, we will get a copy of his speech that 

he has made, and perhaps we will still be in session, and I will be 

able to do that. 

Let me say, also, Madam Chairman, that once again not your 

fault, mine, or anyone else’s, but this coincides with the Armed 

Services Committee, so I will be going back and forth. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

Good morning, Administrator Jackson. I want to thank you for coming to discuss 

EPA’s priorities for the coming fiscal year. 

As I went through your proposed budget, I saw four themes emerge. Admittedly, 

you may not agree with my interpretation. First, an escalation in climate change 

funding; second, increasing the cost of fuel at the pump; third, beefing up EPA’s regulatory budget while cutting the States’ ability to deal with new unfunded mandates; and finally, negative impacts on rural America. 

5 

The proposed budget for EPA to address climate change has expanded to nearly 

a quarter of a billion dollars. I find this strange given that you yourself have admitted such activity will do nothing to affect the course of global temperatures. In these 

tough economic times, it doesn’t make sense to spend $240 million on something 

that will have no effect. An additional $56 million is requested to expand various 

air programs. Most of these programs are already in existence, and under this EPA 

their impacts have been calamitous for Americans. The funds requested by EPA are 

being used to create draconian new regulations with the goal of driving up electricity and gasoline prices. As you stated in an interview with Energy Now, the goal 

is to ‘‘level the playing field’’ among energy types. This is not Congress’s intent with 

the Clean Air Act. 

I also found it interesting that you proposed to increase your budget for Federal 

Vehicle and Fuel Standards Certifications. Inevitably, I’m sure this division within 

EPA will be working hard to increase the price at the pump, which is way too high 

in many areas, Oklahoma included, at over $4 per gallon. EPA’s policy of increasing 

the price of fuel certainly seems to be working: AAA notes that gas prices are up 

108 percent since President Obama took office. An example of this strategy at work 

is Tier 3 Gas Regulations, which will raise the price of gasoline. 

In addition EPA has, in the past year, required petroleum marketers to pay millions of dollars in fines for not purchasing biofuels that weren’t even commercially 

available. They issued notice of violations to Renewable Fuel Standard (RFS)-obligated companies that tried to comply with the RFS in good faith under the system 

EPA created. These companies were rewarded with over a $100 million worth of liability with no end in sight. 

Instead of taking a hard look inside EPA and making difficult choices about programs that burden our economy, this budget cuts the funding to States that actually 

pay for some of the unfunded mandates imposed on communities. Last year I raised 

my concerns that EPA had taken nearly 83 percent of their total budget cuts from 

the water programs, primarily from the State Revolving Fund (SRF) program. EPA 

is again cutting the SRF program, which helps States finance infrastructure improvements to help meet Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act mandates. 

I’ve looked at EPA’s water regulatory agenda, and I have not seen a commensurate 

cut in unfunded mandates. In fact, this year EPA is proposing to expand the 

amount of waters that are covered by the Clean Water Act through their draft jurisdictional guidance. I encourage my colleagues on the Appropriations Committee to 

restore this cut to the SRF and take those funds from the regulatory program. 

Even on areas where we have bipartisan agreement, like Brownfields or DERA 

(Diesel Emissions Reduction Act), you have proposed to cut these programs while 

increasing the funding for your political priorities. I am sure I am not the only one 

today who is disappointed to see you reduce the overall funding for the Brownfields 

program. What I am surprised by is EPA has somehow proposed to increase its own 

administrative costs with the program while decreasing the 104(K) and 128 grants. 

So EPA should be paid more to do less? I am also troubled by your decision to cut 

DERA in half and the impact it will have on the progress we have already made. 

Rural America has been hit especially hard by EPA’s regulatory overreach. Fourteen years ago EPA tried to regulate propane dealers under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) even though they didn’t meet the 

definition of the program. In response, I introduced legislation which was signed 

into law to stop it. Now, under the same program, you are trying to force the ag 

retailers to comply with the reporting requirement under section 312 of EPCRA, 

even though the law currently exempts them. EPA is proposing that the simple mixing of fertilizers to meet customers’ specifications for their soil negates the current 

exemption that they have under EPCRA. Does EPA expect to require farmers to 

now go to Walmart or Target for their fertilizer needs? Maybe EPA doesn’t understand rural America, but I do. If EPA continues down this road they will be imposing additional costs on hundreds of small businesses and farmers in rural America. 

I would ask that you rethink your approach. If you won’t apply this exemption to 

the ag retailers, I will not hesitate to work with Chairman Lucas from Oklahoma 

to make sure the exemption is applied. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. OK, since Senator went over 30 seconds, I am 

going to take 30 seconds to say this. 

President Obama has always endorsed an all of the above strategy when it comes to energy. This is not the Energy Committee. 

It is the Environment Committee. But I feel that I want to put this 

in the record. 

6 

We have had more domestic drilling, to the point where in 2011 

American oil production reached the highest level in a decade, and 

gas production, the importation of oil, has gone down every single 

year since President Obama took office. And natural gas is at an 

all time high in terms of production. 

So, all this talk about how the President is against this is incorrect. And he is for an all of the above strategy. He may not want 

to drill in places where it hurts the fishing economy, the recreation 

economy, the tourist economy, but he sure is showing by facts, not 

since yesterday and not since gas prices went up, but since he came 

in that he is going to move forward. 

So, I really do think the facts belie my dear friend’s comments. 

I really do. 

And we will move on. 

Senator INHOFE. Well, since you went over your 30 seconds—— 

Senator BOXER. No I did not—— 

Senator INHOFE. You were over by a minute and a half, let me 

just have 30 seconds to respond. 

Senator BOXER. No, I did not. I did not. 

Senator INHOFE. That is exactly the same thing our friend Rachel 

Maddow said—— 

Senator BOXER. I did not go over. But I am happy to give you 

30 seconds more. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. And I was saying that in spite of, we agree 

on this. We agree that in spite of all of his punitive things he has 

tried to do, which I have already said in my opening statement, fortunately a lot of these shale deposits in area where the Marcellus 

is, up in Pennsylvania and New York, people think normally it is 

all out west. We have had tremendous opportunities, and in spite 

of his policies, we have increased our production and will continue 

to so do. 

And if we could get all of the politicians out of the way, we would 

be able to be totally independent of the Middle East not in a matter of years but in a matter of months. 

Senator BOXER. Well, do we, we have 2 percent of the world’s 

proven—— 

Senator INHOFE. No, that is not true. 

Senator BOXER. Proven supplies. Well, we are not going to go off 

on this. I will—— 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I cannot leave it at that though because 

that is not true—— 

Senator BOXER. No, no, we are not going to do this. You—— 

Senator INHOFE. We have the largest recoverable reserves—— 

Senator BOXER. Senator Inhofe, my dear friend—— 

Senator INHOFE [continuing]. Of any country in the world. 

Senator BOXER. I just want to say this is not the Energy Committee. This is the Environment Committee. You used your time to 

slam our President. And I take offense at it. And I will tell you 

right now if he is so punitive, why are the oil companies making 

more money than ever before in history, record profits? They are 

singing in the boardroom. 

And we are going to move off this, and we are going to go to Senator Lautenberg. 

7 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

I did not want anybody to hear what I was going to say. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Not that I would pick sides here. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Pick on somebody your size, Chairman. 

[Laugher.] 

Senator BOXER. Are you talking to me? 

[Laugher.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I have 45 seconds more. OK, serious business here. 

Thanks, Madam Chairman, for holding this hearing. It is hard 

to believe but we are essentially friends on this Committee, and I 

hope that we will continue to be after this hearing. 

Politicians talk about how Congress needs to balance its budget 

the same way everyday Americans do. They sit at their kitchen 

table, plan their household budget, crunching the numbers to see 

what they can or cannot afford. But no American would try to balance their family’s budget by cutting out money for batteries for 

the hallway smoke detector or putting off getting new brakes for 

the family car. 

It would be just as reckless for Congress to sacrifice the public’s 

health and safety in the name of fiscal austerity. Yet that is precisely what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle have proposed when they say we should cut the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s budget. 

The EPA performs critical service to our country and enforces the 

laws that keep the air our children breathe and the water they 

drink clean. Administrator Lisa Jackson has provided able leadership for the agency, and we miss her in New Jersey when she 

headed the Department of Environmental Protection. She did such 

a good job and—thank goodness—is carrying forward in her task 

here. We are very proud of your work. 

Over the last year, we have seen EPA take important steps to 

protect the health of our families and restore our environment. 

After years of delay by polluters and their allies, EPA finally finalized new pollution standards that will cut mercury and toxic air 

pollution. These standards will prevent asthma attacks, heart attacks, and even premature deaths. They will also protect children 

from mercury, brain poison for children that can cause developmental problems and learning disabilities. 

The EPA also worked with the DOT to set new auto pollution 

and fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. By nearly doubling the performance of our vehicles, these standards will cut 

America’s oil dependence, clear our air, and save consumers money 

at the gas pump. 

But despite its record of success, the EPA is once again under attack. For example, some Senators have launched efforts to subvert 

the EPA’s ability to carry out the Clean Air Act. I think what they 

ought to do if they are opposed to improving the Clean Air Act is 

maybe poll their constituents and ask for the homes that have an 

8 

asthmatic person in that household, ask them how they feel about 

saving some dough on the backs of their kids. 

My family will never forget an asthma attack that took my sister’s life. She was at a school board meeting, tried to get to the respirator that she had in her car, collapsed in the parking lot, and 

she died 3 days later at the age of 52. And I have a grandson who 

has asthma. And when my daughter takes him to play ball or 

whatever sports he is engaged in, she first checks to see where the 

nearest emergency facility is. 

So, it is serious stuff, and we ought to stop playing games with 

this. Since it became law in 1970, the Clean Air Act has protected 

our health and the environment from the dangers of toxic air pollution. In 2010 alone it prevented more than 160,000 premature 

deaths and more than 1.7 million child respiratory illnesses. These 

are more than just statistics. Just like Administrator Jackson, I 

have family members, as I mentioned, that suffer from asthma. 

Our families know that asthma is a serious disease that can mean 

life or death, and its growth in our population is enormous. 

The Clean Act, the economic benefits are also clear. When air 

pollution is severe, healthcare costs soar, and productivity plunges. 

Businesses know that employees who cannot breathe are employees 

who cannot work. Gutting the Clean Air Act will do nothing to help 

our economic recovery and nothing to close our budget deficits. 

I agree we have got to fix the Nation’s budget challenges. But no 

American would balance their household budget by skimping on 

their family’s safety, and Congress should not be putting austerity 

above public health. I applaud the EPA for making responsible 

choices in the budget, although I am concerned about some cuts, 

such as the Beach Act Grant Funding. 

So, I look forward to hearing from Administrator Jackson about 

this budget and about how this Committee can help the EPA continue its vital public mission, improving the health of the American 

people. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Sessions. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you very much. 

It is good to be with you, Administrator Jackson. You have an 

important agency. As Ranking Member of the Budget Committee, 

I know how tight our budget is. You do important work but you 

have to be accountable like every other agency. And I know you 

would agree with that and we expect smart, cost-effective programmatic actions out of your agency. 

Senator Inhofe, I noticed yesterday’s Washington Post had their 

Pinocchio Honesty Report, and they quote President Obama as saying if we went to your house and we went to the mall and put up 

those rigs everywhere, we would still have only 2 percent of the 

world’s known oil reserves. The Washington Post said, ‘‘That is 

simply wrong. The President is on an energy tour this week, and 

then on Wednesday he once again made this claim. We hope he finally drops this specious logic from his talking points. Two 

Pinocchios.’’ 

9 

Senator INHOFE. Good. 

Senator SESSIONS. The budget picture, 2013 would be the fifth 

consecutive year of a trillion dollar deficit. Under the President’s 

2013 budget, annual Federal spending reaches $44,000 per household in 2022, and Federal debt reaches $200,000 per household by 

2022. 

As the size of the Federal Government grows, the middle class 

is being squeezed from all directions. Real wages are declining. 

Food and energy prices are rising. Job prospects remain scarce. But 

one area has received extraordinary increases in funding, and that 

is the Environmental Protection Agency. 

And my constituents ask me frequently why is EPA so much involved now in impacting our lives like we have never seen it before? And I have heard complaints to a degree, Administrator Jackson, that I have never heard since I have been in Washington. 

The answer? Since taking office, President Obama has had EPA operating at a surged budget. Since 2009 EPA has received $12 billion more in funding than 2008 baseline levels would have allowed. 

In fact, when it took office the Administration and the Democratic 

control of Congress gave EPA a 100 percent increase in its budget 

in 1 year counting the stimulus. The money came, as I said, as a 

policy decision from the Administration. 

Unfortunately, this rapid increase has led to problems and waste. EPA spent over $1 million, for example, on a large square, 27,000 

square foot green roof at the top of the World Wildlife Fund headquarters in D.C. In 2010 EPA received a 38 percent budget increase over 2008 levels, and every year since they have been funded well above that baseline. 

What are the priorities? I am concerned about how the money is 

being allocated. EPA’s budget says their No. 1 priority is climate 

change. They are asking for at least $32 million in increased funding for climate change protection. In fact, EPA plans to spend $140 

million more on their regulations and management programs. That 

means we should expect to see more costly mandates from Washington. 

They also plan to increase their spending on EPA regulators and 

scientists. At the same time, EPA plans to cut spending to the 

States by $257 million. The State partnerships are important, and 

they do play a major role in how we conduct our efforts to improve 

our environment. 

You also plan cuts for brownfields redevelopment. So, I was disappointed that your agency would ask for $15 million in increased 

funding for enforcement efforts while just this week the Supreme 

Court ruled 9 to 0 in the Sackett case that EPA had abused its authorities. 

The tsunami of costly regulations is driving up energy prices and 

is hindering economic growth. The Environmental Protection Agency’s Utility Map, Cross State Air Rule, Coal Ash Rule, Cooling 

Water Intake Rule, rules on farmers and regulations of pesticides, 

taking that away from States would together impose a significant 

burden on our economy, and it results in multiple complaints to 

me, from my constituents, that these rules are not realistic, they 

are being imposed too fast, and the cost exceeds the benefits. Twenty-one billion dollars in annual costs on the U.S. economy would be 

10 

imposed by these new regulations. That is annual cost. That is 

about half of the Highway Bill we worked so hard to try to find 

the money to support. 

So EPA declares their rules will only result in a 3 percent increase in electricity rates, but it looks like it may be as much as 

10 to 20 percent. 

Madam Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to have this 

hearing. All of us are going to have to tighten our budgets, and I 

encourage EPA to do that same. And I believe you need to be held 

accountable and each program analyzed aggressively to see if they 

justify the taxpayers’ dollars being invested in it. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Sessions, thank you. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

I would like to welcome Administrator Jackson back to our Committee. 

I have some concerns about the Beach Protection Budget that we 

can discuss as the budget process moves forward, very, very important to Rhode Island. And I wanted to mention another thing that 

is very, very important to Rhode Island is that there be proper enforcement of the Clean Air Act. We are a downwind State. On a 

bright summer day you drive into work, and the drive time radio 

is often saying that today is a bad air day, and infants should stay 

indoors, and seniors should stay indoors, and people should not engage in vigorous outdoor activity, all because of toxic emissions 

that are being dropped onto us by Midwestern coal plants and 

power plants. 

That sentiment has been echoed; it is not just a Rhode Island 

and downwind States sentiment. The American Lung Association 

has just done a poll that shows 73 percent of Americans understand that you can have solid clean air standards and a strong 

economy, that they go together. Seventy-eight percent of independent voters agreed. Sixty percent of Republicans agreed with 

that. The poll showed that 72 percent of Americans supported your 

new protections on carbon emissions for power plants. 

So I know you get a lot of static here in DC about what you are 

doing. This is a unique place where special interests—particularly 

polluting special interests, I think—have a disproportionate voice. 

But in the downwind States and among the general American population, we are in accord with you. Indeed, we are counting on you. 

So I thank you. 

And I will close by mentioning a show that I watched when I got 

home last night on the Nova science program about what is happening at the Poles, in the Antarctic and in the Arctic regions. 

Once again, we have a situation in which Washington is disconnected from the real world. My theory that it is disconnected by 

special interest money from the real world, by polluting special interest money from the real world, and so the facts of what we are 

doing with our carbon pollution to our oceans and to our atmosphere are being manipulated and propagandized. 

11 

But I believe that out there in the real world where people are 

looking at real facts, where they are not under the shadow of special interests, people have strong support for your efforts to get our 

carbon pollution under control, and I urge you to continue to stand 

strong and appreciate very much that you have stood strong. And 

anything we can do to make sure we have your back on that I am 

interested in doing. It is very important to Rhode Island as a downwind State to have clean air for our citizens. 

Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

The Obama administration officials regularly try to justify their 

excessive red tape by citing misleading and incomplete health statistics. Meanwhile, they completely ignore how these exact same 

regulations destroy jobs and destroy communities. When Americans 

lose their jobs, their health and the health of their children suffers. 

These are the findings of a new minority report that I am releasing today as Ranking Member of the Subcommittee of Clean Air 

and Nuclear Safety. The report is entitled Red Tape Making Americans Sick, a New Report on the Health Impacts of High Unemployment. This is a comprehensive report, and it contains expert testimony before this Committee and the best scientific medical research from institutions such as Johns Hopkins, Columbia, Yale, 

and others. 

This key medical research and testimony details the public 

health consequences of joblessness. And the joblessness is caused 

as a result of the cumulative impact of the EPA’s ongoing regulations. Specifically, these impacts from joblessness will increase the 

likelihood of hospital visits, increase the likelihood of illnesses and 

premature deaths in communities. 

This joblessness will raise healthcare costs, will raise questions 

about the claimed health savings of the EPA’s regulations. And 

these regulations, through this impact, hurt children’s health and 

hurt families’ well-being. 

As detailed in this report, this Committee has heard some of 

these findings before. Doctor Harvey Brenner of Johns Hopkins 

University testified before this Committee on June 15th, and he 

warned that ‘‘the unemployment rate is well established as a risk 

factor for elevated illness and mortality rates in epidemiological 

studies performed since the early 1980s.’’ 

It is true that studies as far back as 1985 have warned of the 

health impacts on unemployment. A study published that year in 

the American Journal of Public Health by Dr. Margaret Lynn 

found that after unemployment symptoms of somatization, which of 

course includes pain, gastrointestinal, sexual symptoms, and a 

whole bunch of different symptoms, also depression and anxiety, 

were significantly greater in the unemployed than in the employed. 

More recent studies include Yale researcher Dr. William Gallo 

who released a study in 2006 and that found that ‘‘results suggest 

12 

that the true costs of late career unemployment exceed financial 

deprivation and include substantial health consequences.’’ 

Unemployment’s health impact on children is also discussed in 

the report. The National Center for Health Statistics has found 

that children in poor families were four times as likely to be in fair 

or poor health as children in families that were not poor. The research in the report speaks for itself. 

The concern about unemployment’s impact on public health is a 

concern for at least one former Obama White House official. As reported in the New York Times on November 17th of last year, 

White House Chief of Staff William Daley asked one interest group 

lobbying for stricter EPA rules, an interest group lobbying the Administration for even stricter EPA rules. Mr. Daley said, ‘‘What are 

the health impacts of unemployment?’’ 

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 this 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 is 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 

would recommend it to every person who works at the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. 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, Superfund, and many 

of these signed, but most of these signed by Republican Presidents, 

our gross domestic product has risen by 207 percent, and it remains the largest in the world. 

I find it rather amazing that one small agency would be blamed 

for all the troubles we are going through. And I would say if anyone cares about jobs, have the House ask Speaker Boehner to bring 

up the bipartisan Transportation Bill. Three million jobs are at 

stake. 

So, let us—this Committee has a great role in definitely creating 

job through this Transportation Bill which I am so proud is bipartisan. 

We will call on Senator Udall. 

13 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Madam Chair, and welcome, Administrator Jackson. Great to have you here again. 

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 that boom 

that was going on and the increased of oil production in the United 

States. And 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 is working very hard, Madam Chair, to 

try to do everything he can. And it seems to me that we are 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 am 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 would like 

to submit for the record, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

Senator UDALL. 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 plans that President Obama has put forward today. 

On this issue of gas prices, I would note that 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 rate count in at least 25 years, but we 

do not control global supply and demand. 

So that is 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 have said, highlighted on this trip all of 

the things that he is trying to do, and I think he is making a good, 

solid effort at trying to move us in the right direction in terms of 

renewable energy and also making sure there is a strong domestic 

industry. 

And so with that, Madam Chair, I would yield back. 

[The referenced article follows:] 

14 


25024.001
15 


25024.002
16 


25024.003
17 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Now we are honored to hear from Administrator Jackson. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LISA JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Ms. 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 is good to see all the members of the Committee here today. It is the fiscal year 2013 Budget for the EPA. 

I am 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 is built 

to last. 

In some cases, 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 levels 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 percent of the funding request— 

is directed to the State and Tribal Assistance Grants appropriations to support their efforts. Specifically, this budget proposes that 

$1.2 billion—nearly 15 percent of EPA’s overall request—be allocated back to the States and tribes in categorical grants. This includes funding for State and local Air Quality Management Grants, 

Pollution Control Grants, and the States’ General Assistance Program. 

The budget also proposes that a combined $2 billion—another 25 

percent 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 system wide 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 for fund the protection of the 

Nation’s 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 proVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:08 May 19, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25024.TXT SONYA
18 

tection of the Chesapeake Bay and several other treasured and economically significant water bodies. 

The budget reflects the importance of cleaning up contaminated land in our communities by requesting $755 million for continued 

support of the Superfund Cleanup Program and 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 percent of the 

total request. This request 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 STAR, Program, including children’s health, endocrine 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 have 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, which we have taken great steps to 

ensure is independent, 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, this 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 NHTSA’s fuel economy standards. 

Taken together, the Administration’s standards for cars and light 

truck 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. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:] 

19 


25024.004
20 


25024.005
21 


25024.006
22 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

We are going to each have 6 minutes. 

I wanted to start off; there was a big critique going after toxic 

air pollution from power plants, specifically from Senator Sessions. 

And I wanted to talk to you about that because we have fought off 

a couple of amendments already, and we know we are going to face 

some Congressional Review Act repeals on either Boiler MACT or 

Utility MACT. 

And when I get into this, I saw the amazing progress we could 

make if you are able to move ahead. Because we are 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 is 

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. 

And I know Senator Lautenberg—I am talking to Senator Lautenberg, I just wanted to say that every time you speak about losing your sister to asthma, and I am glad that you remind us of this 

because a lot of time you hear these speeches about 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 MACT and starts to control mercury, arsenic, lead, 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 is why the people support 

what you do, Administrator. When you sit there and you here 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 is very respectful. But when I 

look at you sitting there with your people, it must feel pretty 

darned good to have a job that you know, at the end of the day, 

is going to save 11,000 lives a year from 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? 

Ms. JACKSON. 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 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 is not a possibility. It is quite real. 

23 

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 is very important to remember that these strong cuts to mercury and other 

harmful emissions have real benefits to Americans. You know, we 

unfortunately have to put a price on life so we can monetize it. But 

there is 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. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I wanted that on the record because we 

battle on the floor on this and we are going to keep on battling, 

and we are going to keep on fighting because you have the facts 

on your side, and we know if it is our mother, or our father, or our 

daughter, 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 is our job to protect America’s 

families just the way we protect our own. 

I wanted to close with asking you a question about the Ryan 

budget. This budget of the President’s cuts the EPA by 1 percent, 

and I have already stated that I am not happy about it. I mean 

frankly, I feel that the Beach Program is essential because, again, 

that saves lives. I do not like the cuts in the Radon Program. 

Again, I think it is essential. And I am going to try to add back 

those programs. I am not going to ask you about your feelings on 

them. I am sure you fight for these program. But we know that the 

President has to do something. 

But the Ryan budget cuts the EPA by 14 percent, and it would amount to $1 billion in cuts. 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. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, we have not done an analysis of the Ryan 

budget yet, Madam Chairman. Let me simply say that EPA has 

taken painful cuts to get down to the 1 percent. It is misleading 

to say 1 percent because we have actually increased grants to 

States and tribes. 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 at a larger—— 

Senator BOXER. OK. Will you send us, both Senator Inhofe and 

I, the impact of the Ryan budget once you have studied it? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly. 

Senator BOXER. And I would put in the record, well, I just want 

to put a fact in the record that you make a point I should have 

made, that funding to the States—and that includes the tribes—accounts for the largest percentage of your budget request. Is that 

correct, 40 percent? 

Ms. JACKSON. That is correct. 

Senator BOXER. In 2013. So, these really are passer funds to the 

States. 

Senator Inhofe. 

Senator INHOFE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Getting back to the, all of the above, which was really our 

mantra, we were really sincere in that above includes coal. There 

24 

has been a lot of concern that the MACT standards for the new 

electric generating facilities are so strict that no new coal fire generating stations can be built. We know the existing ones and what 

they are suffering under because contracts are being canceled as 

we speak. 

Information in the rulemaking docket indicates that the new unit 

MACT Standard was set using performance data from Logan and 

Chambers units. But the EPA posted a chart in the docket showing 

six separate test results for Logan with Logan failing the standard 

five out of six times and a similar situation in Chambers. 

Well, we told the public that the new unit MACT Standards 

would not prevent new units from being built. And yet your own 

data seems to show that the very units you use to set as a standard 

would fail the compliance test. Am I wrong on that? 

Ms. JACKSON. 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 percent. They look at individual contaminants like mercury, arsenic, cadmium, acid gases, individually. And 

one of the concerns we worked closely with on industry was looking 

at condensable versus total particulate matter as a surrogate for 

some of those hazardous air pollutants. 

So, we believe that they are achievable. We believe that the 

standards meet the requirements of the Clean Air Act in that regard. 

Senator INHOFE. OK. 

Back to Logan. Did they—is it not accurate that they failed five 

out of the six tests? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I can certainly look at the individual data you 

are citing. But the Logan Plant I know well. It is a well performing 

facility in New Jersey, so I know it fairly well. But I would be 

happy to respond. 

Senator INHOFE. All right. Thank you, Madam Administrator. 

Actually that is one out of three totally unrelated questions, but 

one of them is—I remember it so well. It was 14 years ago, and 

I cannot believe that. I was, at that time, Chairman of the Clean 

Air Subcommittee, we were a majority, and you might remember 

when they came in, they were trying to regulate propane on the 

farms and all of this stuff. 

It is very similar to what is going on today under the same program. The EPA is trying to force the ag retailers to report when 

they sell custom blended fertilizer directly to their farmer customers, even though the law exempts fertilizers held from sale to 

the ultimate consumers. 

Now, farmers do not buy their fertilizer from Walmart, and they 

have to be custom blended. So, technically, that is selling to the ultimate consumer. I just want to get some kind of a commitment 

that we are going to let them enjoy the exemption that is in the 

law right now in terms of the fertilizers sales. 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, I try to know everything about the EPA’s 

regulatory programs. You have managed to give me one I am not 

familiar with. I am happy to look into it. 

Senator INHOFE. That is a first. 

Ms. JACKSON. I am happy to look into the matter and answer 

your question. 

25 

Senator INHOFE. Well, it just makes sense, though. There is a 

reason that we have in the law that they are exempt. And I think 

that the mistake here in the way it is being applied is that they 

consider the ultimate consumer to actually be coming from a 

Walmart or something like that. 

Now, I would say that at least, and responding to this for the 

record, I think that it is important, that we say at least when they 

have to custom blend, which is every case, that they should be considered as selling to the ultimate consumer because there is a reason for that exemption. That is, what I would like to do is get this 

back from you, and I think this is an area where you will agree 

with this. And so I would like to get that back. 

Ms. JACKSON. So, you will be submitting a question for us to—— 

Senator INHOFE. Well, I am already doing it. Why should they 

not—why should this exemption not stand as selling to the ultimate consumer because it actually is? OK, that is good. That is 

good. 

The third unrelated thing is on February 22 the EPA sent its 

guidance regarding waters covered under the Clean Air Act to 

OMB for final review. This goes way back. And I can remember sitting up here back when Senator Feingold actually introduced the 

Clean Water Restoration Act. Congressman Oberstar did the same 

thing. We have had this before us many, many times. 

It has turned out that could be the most damaging thing in 

terms of ag. The Farm Bureau and other groups like that have said 

this is something that is not livable. So, consequently, I was disappointed when we sent the guidance to OMB for final review. And 

not only has Congress pointedly rejected similar efforts to statutorily expand the scope of the Clean Water Act, the majority of the 

Supreme Court Justices concluded in the Rapanos case, in the 

Swank case, and only yesterday in the Sackett case, that the EPA, 

that the Government, was exceeding its regulatory authority in 

how to regulate our waters. 

I would ask, how does the Administration’s policy, as articulated 

in the new guidance, differ from the overreach that was overturned 

by the Supreme Court? And that was only yesterday. However, it 

has been rejected twice before, in the Rapanos case and in the 

Swank 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. 

Ms. JACKSON. Senator, thank you. The Sackett case decided yesterday goes to process, at what point under the Administrative Procedures Act, since the Clean Water Act is silent on the matter, are 

those who are a recipient of an EPA action 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 as part of the main decision to 

the issue of—the continuing issue of which waters and wetlands in 

this country are jurisdictional. We have heard from a number of 

stakeholders around the country about the confusion that is resulting in lack of protection on certain lands and in certain areas, and 

that is what the guidance, which has been out for public comment 

and is now in the process of being finalized, is attempting to do. 

26 

Senator INHOFE. Yes, well, I think you probably noticed that, I 

think it is Senator Barrasso is going to be heading up an effort. We 

will be supporting him, Senator Session and Senator Heller, with 

a bill that stops the EPA from finalizing the guidance and from 

using the guidance to make decisions about the scope of the Clean 

Water Act or turn this problematic problem into a rule. 

So, we are going to be doing what we can to stop that. But I 

would like to get your response as to how these Court decisions are 

going to impact what you are going to be doing with the water 

issues. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Lautenberg. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, 

and thank you, Administrator Lisa Jackson. We are proud of the 

work that you and that whole department of yours does. They are 

dedicated people, and I have met with many of them over the years 

starting with my earliest Superfund days. And I know how much 

they feel their commitment to their work is, and they will go to 

work under the oddest of circumstances and fulfill their mission. 

We had a brief discussion, I do not know if any of your heard 

it, about whether or not we are the Energy Committee or the EPW 

Committee. But one thing I learned here today is that we might 

be a part of the Budget Committee because what we are 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. We had to have revenues that could 

carry the business along that was higher than our expenses. And 

here we have a new economic that says to heck with it; it does not 

matter what your revenues are. We do not look at that side of 

things. But yet we dwell on the facts that there are more rules, 

that there are more imposition on business and so forth. 

I need a reminder. I have a quote here from Dr. George Benjamin, President of the American Public Health Association. Pretty 

reliable. They say, simply, hazardous air emissions are linked to a 

wide range of serious and immediate human health risks. 

But here we cannot seem to get the message across because we 

are always talking about costs. And when you talk about the costs, 

and they are important, but do you not sometimes talk about the 

lives that might be saved? Can we not convince our colleagues on 

the other side, somehow or other, that it is not a good idea to put 

your kids up like a canary in a coal mine and ignore what the consequences are? 

Now, we had a fellow testify in a hearing we had here on mercury emissions, and he was from a small town in Ohio, Avon 

Lakes. The man was a councilman. And he talked about a plant 

that was 42 years old and those scrubbers, but they had to be careful about shutting this plant down. It would cost tens of jobs, 

maybe 50 or 60 jobs if we shut the plant down. But I went further 

and I found that in the year 2010, they had 440 asthma attacks, 

47 heart attacks, 29 premature deaths. They ought to go to the 

members of those families and ask if they can continue saving 

money on the lives and the well being of their children. I do not 

think so. 

27 

Over the past year, EPA has set new clean air standards that 

will cut toxic air pollution from power plants and industrial facilities. Unfortunately, there are now efforts in the Senate, we hear 

it, to block new mercury and air toxic standards. How many severe 

illnesses and even deaths will be prevented by EPA’s new pollution 

limits? Please. 

Ms. JACKSON. The mercury and air toxic standards benefits are 

estimated to be up to 11,000 avoided premature deaths a year. 

Once fully implemented, up to 130,000 avoided asthma attacks or 

asthma symptomatic cases that require attention, 2,500 fewer 

cases of bronchitis, and I do not have the number of heart attacks 

here as well. But the numbers are quite significant, sir. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. That is how it is with you bleeding hearts. 

What about the money? Come on. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Anyway, Administrator, do you want to 

add something else? 

Ms. JACKSON. Oh, I am sorry. We can monetize those benefits, and that is about $90 billion, $30 billion, excuse me, up to $90 billion in 2016. And that is annual. So, it is not fair to say there is 

only costs. There are benefits. Or another way to think of it is you 

can pay $1 to clean up the mercury and the arsenic and the cadmium, or you can pay $10 taking yourself and your family to the 

doctor to deal with all the pollution and the effects of that pollution. You pay either way, and $1 is a better deal. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. I would say. I am pleased to see that 

EPA’s budget increases funding for chemical safety programs by 

$436 million. But there are still more than 80,000 chemicals on 

EPA’s inventory, and current laws have limited EPA to testing the 

health effects of just 200. That is over more than 30 years. Even 

with this additional funding, do you still believe that the Toxic 

Substances Control Act, TSCA, must be modernized in order to protect the public? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, indeed I do, Senator. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. EPA’s budget completely eliminates funding for the Beach Act Grants to help States test and monitor water 

quality. And I wrote the law creating the program in the year 2000. 

It has helped millions of beach-goers ensure that a day at the 

beach is not followed by a day at the doctor. 

What will be the effects on our beaches and beach-goers’ health 

if States facing budget crunches are unable to make up the difference in lost Beach Act Funds? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, that is the key, Senator. The belief here is 

that the program was started to help States and local governments 

get their beach monitoring and surveillance and health systems 

into place. Our belief is that States are able and can fund in a variety of ways those programs. And so we do not believe that there 

will be an impact on health. 

Senator LAUTENBERG. Yes. And I close by saying that here what 

we are saying is if you do not—if you need oil for car, and you do 

not put it in, just drive faster to make up for it. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Chairman. 

28 

Administrator, to follow up on Senator Lautenberg’s issues, as 

you know, Rhode Island was scheduled to take a very, very big hit, 

and you have reduced the hit that Rhode Island takes a little bit 

under the Section 105 Program. 

But when you add in taking the soot particulate matter testing 

and moving that out of Section 103 into Section 105, that adds to 

Rhode Island’s hit. And when you pile in the elimination of the 

Beach Protection Grants Program, we end up taking it pretty hard 

in this budget relevant to other States, it seems to me anyway. 

So, I just want to let you know that we are going to be working 

very hard to try to address that with you. Once again, it was a 

downwind State. I do not believe we are creating a lot of pollution 

out of Rhode Island that the rest of the country has to worry about. 

And so the fact that our hit seems to be going way up when we 

are one of the less polluting States, we are down river of most of 

the river pollution that comes, we are downwind of the air pollution, we do not really harm anybody else. So, we will be working 

with you on that. I just wanted to make sure you knew how important this was to us to have that recognized. 

There has been some suggestion that the new EPA clean air 

rules could be responsible for fuel shortages in the northeast this 

summer. I think the suggestion has been that Pennsylvania, in 

particular, might suffer a fuel shortage. Everything that has to do 

with what you do is often surrounded with propaganda, rumor, and 

speculation. And I just wanted to get your sense of what the facts 

are on this. I know that Washington has been largely fact proofed 

by special interests on a lot of environmental issues. But what are 

the facts on this? 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, there is a specific issue in one specific area 

of the country. It is not related to EPA regulation, but EPA is 

working closely and monitoring the fuel supply situation in Pennsylvania and in the Pittsburgh area in particular. 

Due to market factors, several refineries which prefer to process 

light, sweet crude have decided that they would rather shut down 

than process heavier, sour crude which is on the market these 

days. That simply means that we need to ensure with those refineries gone, the Buckeye Pipeline which serves them does not result 

in there not being a reliable supply of gasoline to the economy and 

customers in that marketplace. 

Sunoco, one of the refineries, has publicly said now that they 

have a plan in place to deliver a 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. 

The concerns revolve around the Clean Air Act and the portions 

of the Clean Air Act that lower the volatility of gasoline in the 

summer because, as you know, that is when gasoline evaporates 

and causes smog in our air on hot summer days, and it becomes 

a bit of a cycle. 

We have well established authority to waive fuel standards in 

the event of any kind of actual fuel supply shortage. With DOE 

concurrence, we have used that authority, and we are certainly 

29 

working closely with the State of Pennsylvania and the industry 

and DOE on those issues. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. 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, then we are stuck waiting. So, I would ask for your cooperation in providing us pretty 

quick answers. 

And I would like to ask that a Providence Journal article from 

the summer of 2011 be admitted into the record. Madam Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for the article to be admitted into 

the record. 

Senator BOXER. Without objection. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you. It describes a success story, 

which is that our salt water beach days lost to contaminated swimming water decreased by 35 percent in 2010 from 2009 levels. And 

it credited some of the big projects that Rhode Island has done. 

The Narragansett Bay Commission has built enormous tunnels 

and receiving chambers underground to store stormwater from our 

combined sewer overflow storm systems so that they do not 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 ultraviolet treatment 

system for stormwater that discharges onto Easton’s beach. 

We are doing our job. And we have put a lot of money behind 

keeping our water clean. And so it really hits hard when this funding is cut off to Rhode Island which, as I said, is a largely non-pollution producing State for the country. We are 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 30 to 20 in the last 3 years because of 

budget cuts. So, we are up against it. And I will be looking for your 

support to work our way through this, but particularly a rapid answer to the questions. 

Thank you. 

Ms. JACKSON. Thank you, sir. 

[The referenced article was not received at time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Senator Sessions. 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Madam Chairman, and Administrator Jackson. 

You have had a pretty good budget run in the last few years by 

any account, and 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 the House Republicans have produced a budget. It is a longterm budget that changes the debt course of America. It will keep 

us, hopefully, from hitting a financial crisis as Erskine Bowles, 

President Obama’s Chairman of the Debt Commission, warned that 

we are heading to. 

So, I am just looking at the numbers here, and I want you to recognize that everybody is going to have to tighten their belt. Under 

the proposals, the Defense Department would take by far the bigVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:08 May 19, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25024.TXT SONYA
30 

gest reductions, and that is not war funding. That is coming down 

on its own. I am talking about the base Defense Budget. They are 

taking significant real reductions in spending and under the sequester would be very dramatic. 

But would you not recognize that even though we are 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? 

Ms. JACKSON. Sir, I think that—I do not agree with that. We did 

get a bump up, primarily to fund water infrastructure, that is 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 percent budget cut in 2011, 3 percent in 2012, 1 

percent in 2013, and those numbers are misleading because in 

those times we have increased our funding, as I said in my opening 

remarks, to try to continue to fund the State-based 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 going. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, with regard to the State funding, I notice you seemed to react adversely to my comment based on our 

looking at your budget request. And if I am wrong I would 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 is 

the numbers we score. You do not dispute that, do you? 

Ms. JACKSON. I do, indeed. I do not dispute it, and I am certainly 

not saying that you are wrong. I would say I would look at those 

numbers differently. I think that chart is a bit misleading. 

The decrease in State and tribal funding that you are showing 

is because the money for the State Revolving Fund Programs is 

being cut. That is the same money that—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, is that part of your budget? 

Ms. JACKSON. It is. But it is also—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, then you propose to cut their Revolving 

Fund money while increasing yours, are you not? 

Ms. JACKSON. No sir, we are not. We are proposing to cut the 

places where the largest increases happened in the 2010 budget, 

which is the SRF funding. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, it seems to me that that is what happened. 

Ms. JACKSON. Well, sir, if—— 

Senator SESSIONS. And I am just kind of taken aback. I mean, 

the numbers are the numbers. So, whatever it is, the Revolving 

Fund, the money that goes to the States, that has been reduced. 

And would you not—you value the State participation, and they are 

partners in our efforts to make our environment better, so I am 

just concerned about that. 

With regard to your statement about reducing spending, your 

base budget was $7.4 billion in 2008, it jumped to $10.2 billion, it 

has basically now been dropped to $8.3 billion, which is still a 15, 

12 percent increase over where you were after having substantial 

increases over a number of years. 

31 

So I guess my only comment to you and to the Chairman is that 

we are all going to have to tighten our belts. We would like for you 

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 job creation, the 

cost of electricity, the cost of gasoline, and those kinds of things 

that are placing our economy at risk. 

How would you respond to my constituents who are telling me 

that they have never seen such a surge of regulatory impact as 

they are now from the Environmental Protection Agency? They 

think much of it is not responsible and unwise. 

Ms. JACKSON. I would say that, first, whether it is the pace of 

regulation, which I have signed fewer regulations per year than my 

predecessors, or the fact that several of the regulations that are, 

that we have done, the Mercury and Air Toxic Standards, the 

Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, were the result of court decisions 

that remanded 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—it is $10 of health benefits savings for $1 invested in our economy. It creates 46,000 short-term 

construction jobs and 8,000 long-term utility jobs. So, the American 

people get health protection and savings in terms of what they 

have to pay to keep themselves healthy. 

Senator SESSIONS. Administrator Jackson, do you believe that 

when you mandate a company to employ more people to meet a 

regulation than they otherwise would not be employing that that 

is really a job creator? Because it reduces their wealth, it 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, I hear. So that is the kind thing we will do. And 

as to your statement about the health impact on mercury and so 

forth, EPA’s number with regard to health benefits are widely exaggerated in my view, and I would be glad to see the documents 

that would justify that number. 

Ms. JACKSON. They are part of—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Would you submit that to me? 

Ms. JACKSON. They are part of the regulatory impact analysis for 

the rules. Happy to do so. And I would also like to—— 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I have examined some of them in the 

past, and they are not, they do not back up what your witnesses 

have said. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Sessions, when you were gone, I asked 

the same questions about are these peer reviewed studies. So I 

would like to get the transcript, the answer that Administrator 

Jackson gave me. But in addition, I would be very interested in 

being copied on this because the point was made that if we ever 

had a regimen that is clear, it is the scientific studies that look at 

hospital admissions and the rest. 

So, I think we ought to look at it—— 

Senator SESSIONS. 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 would just like to see it. 

32 

Maybe—I hope we do get health benefits from improved environmental quality. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I think it is good to go back. I have so 

much respect for my friend. And we work together on certain issue. 

But on this one, we are miles—we are different planets. Let us face 

facts. But I think it is good for people to see this debate, and I just 

do not let it go unanswered because there is 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 send me a copy? 

And I would ask unanimous consent to place in the record an October 4, 2011, very interesting op-ed written by Bruce Bartlett. He 

was, he held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. 

Bush administrations, and he served on the staffs of Jack Kemp 

and Ron Paul. So it is really interesting, and I will put it in. 

But 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 Government 

spending for jobs programs and in fact favor big cuts in spending 

which would likely lead to further layoffs. 

Then he concludes by saying in my opinion, regulatory uncertainty is a canard invented by Republicans. It allows them to use 

current economic problems to pursue an agenda supported by the 

business community year in and year out. In other words, it is a 

simple case of political opportunism, not a serious effort to deal 

with high employment. 

Now obviously, Senators Sessions and Inhofe, they would all disagree with this, but I think it is interesting. And the other is, I 

think a very important poll that runs, Senator, I believe you when 

you tell me people come up to you at home and tell you, and I 

wrote what you said, the impact on our lives from the EPA is nothing that they have ever seen before. That is 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 have not 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 is the one about the bipartisan poll, broad support in the 

spectrum? When asked about setting stricter limits on the mercury 

that power plants and other facilities admit—and that is a reg that 

is fiercely opposed by my colleagues on the other side—78 percent 

said, of likely voters, that they were in favor of the EPA updating 

these standards. 

So we see the world so differently. I find it so intriguing the way 

we come to this. But I am very interested in seeing the data that 

Senator asked for. 

Senator SESSIONS. Madam Chairman, just briefly, you took liberty and I—— 

Senator BOXER. No, I am happy to, go ahead. 

Senator SESSIONS. This is an important issue for us to talk 

about. In an article by Stephen Malloy he says the EPA says air 

pollution kills tens of thousands of people annually, this in a par 

with traffic accident fatalities. While we can identify traffic acciVerDate Aug 31 2005 07:08 May 19, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\25024.TXT SONYA
33 

dent victims, air pollution victims are unknown, unidentified, and 

as far as anyone can tell figments of EPA’s statistical imagination. 

That is what he says. 

It ought not to be too much to ask EPA to produce some tangible 

evidence that air pollution is causing the actual harm to real people. So that is what I am asking for, I guess. Let us see the numbers that justify, the data that justifies the numbers, and I think 

the Chairman and I agree on that. 

Senator BOXER. We do agree. And I did ask the question before. 

And I ask unanimous consent to put into the record a sheet put 

out by the American Academy of Pediatrics talking about how 

much they support your work. So, we will put that into the record. 

Senator Udall, you have the last word unless other Senators 

come, and then absolutely I will call on them. 

[The referenced materials were not received at time of print.] 

Senator UDALL. Great. Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Administrator Jackson, the U.S.-Mexico border stretches for over 

2,000 miles and is home to many thousands of people who need to 

be connected to modern water and sewer systems for the first time. 

I am glad you are requesting $10 million for border environmental infrastructure, but this amount is a fraction of what this 

program has traditionally received. Last year’s Appropriations Act 

only provided $5 million. We hear a lot about water infrastructure 

needs. But if all our States faced what we see on the New Mexico 

border, it would be a national emergency. 

Will you work with us to ensure that the Appropriations Committee includes at least $10 million you request in your fiscal year 

2013 budget? 

Ms. JACKSON. Certainly I am happy to get you any information 

to support what is clearly an important program, Senator. These 

are tough choices, and we are proposing less money. We are proposing more than what was in last year’s enacted, but only slightly 

more. So, we are happy to get you information so that you can 

make that key. 

Senator UDALL. But you are going to aggressively support your 

$10 million, which is what is in the President’s budget, I believe. 

Right? 

Ms. JACKSON. I believe it is $4.5 million, sir. 

Senator UDALL. I believe it is $10 million. 

Ms. JACKSON. Oh, I am sorry, I have bad information. It is $10 

million. I am sorry. Senator, we are absolutely in accord. Please 

forgive me. 

Senator UDALL. OK. Thank you. 

The EPA’s 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 top 

level attention at EPA headquarters going forward? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, sir, it is a priority. 

Senator UDALL. And you are going to be timely in terms of getting out as the one program expires, 2012, a 2020 Border Program? 

Ms. JACKSON. It is scheduled for, the Border 2020 Program 

launch is scheduled for August 2012. 

Senator UDALL. Great. Thank you very much. 

34 

I wanted to talk a little bit with you about the San Juan Generating Station and EPA’s Regional Haze Plan. There is an ongoing 

disagreement between the U.S. EPA and the State of New Mexico 

about the Clean Air Act Regional Haze Plan for the San Juan Generating Station in the Four Corners Region in New Mexico. Both 

EPA and the State appear to be dug in on opposite sides with competing plans and cost estimates and complex technical agreements. 

I believe most New Mexicans want EPA and the State to follow 

the Clean Air Act and preserve the visibility of our great western 

landscapes and improve public health. But many are also concerned about a potential increase in electricity rates. I hope that 

all sides will think constructively about win-win solutions here. 

I realize that 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 our local utilities to work through this issue in 

the best possible way? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, Senator. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you very much. 

And on green infrastructure for the State Revolving Funds, or 

what sometimes is called smart water, EPA’s budget request continues a 20 percent setaside for green infrastructure qualifying 

projects within the two State Revolving Funds. 

I want to stress that when we talk about green infrastructure, 

we are talking about two kinds of green, reducing the amount of 

concrete and using the natural landscape for stormwater 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 these setasides and ensure that 

EPA provides appropriate guidance to States on how to implement 

them? 

Ms. JACKSON. 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. 

Senator UDALL. And I know many of our mayors are very involved in this and very supportive of it. 

U.S. water utilities waste an estimated 7 billion gallons of treated drinking water through leaks and ruptures. Does EPA plan to 

become more involved in promoting smart water systems that detect leaks and better manage water systems to reduce losses, energy use, and contamination? 

Ms. JACKSON. Yes, we are happy to be supportive, both fundingwise through the State Revolving Funds but also through technical 

assistance working both with the industry, the practitioners, and 

of course with the States and local governments. There is such a 

need out there, as we heard earlier, that we do prioritize with the 

States where we can be financially supportive. 

Senator UDALL. Thank you, Administrator Jackson. And 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, and I yield back. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

35 

Senator BOXER. Senator Udall, I thank you so much for your patience and asking such good questions. 

And Administrator, we really do appreciate you so much. You 

just tell the truth from the heart, and you are carrying out your 

responsibilities to the people. And all I want to do, as Chairman 

of this Committee, is make sure that you keep that up 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. 

[Whereupon, at 11:48 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS R. CARPER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE

One of my top priorities this year—which I share with President Obama—is to 

continue to support initiatives that spur job growth and create a nurturing environment where communities in Delaware and beyond can create a solid foundation for 

job creation and prosperity. I believe, for the most part, the President’s budget is 

a responsible solution to ensure our continued economic recovery and long-term economic growth, providing for a brighter future for Delaware families. 

President Obama’s budget proposal continues our efforts to save money, reduce 

harmful air pollution, and improve our national security by reducing our Nation’s 

reliance on foreign oil and encouraging the deployment of the next generation of 

clean energy and energy efficiency technologies. 

Bringing balance to our Federal budget will be difficult, requiring a shared sacrifice. From Government agencies to corporations, we need to take a hard look at 

all of the options available to us—both in terms of raising revenue and reducing 

spending—and we all must share in the sacrifices required to rein in the deficit. 

However, I am concerned that President Obama’s budget makes cuts to very effective programs within the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that not only 

clean our environment and protect our health but also spur economic growth. 

One concern I have is on the dramatic funding cut for one of EPA’s most successful programs, the life saving Diesel Emissions Reduction Act (DERA). This recently 

reauthorized program is a bipartisan, common sense approach to cutting toxic diesel 

emissions that threaten the lives of our communities and our children. By retrofitting or replacing dirty diesel engines—like those on the school buses that take our 

children to school every day—the Diesel Emissions Reduction Act saves lives and 

creates a demand for clean diesel technology, which in turn creates American jobs. 

The President’s budget cuts DERA funding in half from fiscal year 2012 and limits 

the Administrator’s ability to effectively deliver DERA funding by eliminating the 

grant program. Cutting and limiting the use of DERA funding, which has shown 

a consistent high return on its investment—for every $1 invested, we get over $13 

in health and economic benefits in return—just doesn’t make sense. 

I am also concerned with the elimination of funding for the EPA’s Beaches Environmental Assessment and Coastal Health, or BEACH Act, grant program. This 

program has been very important to coastal States like Delaware. Delaware is home 

to some of the Nation’s cleanest and most visited beaches. These beaches are not 

only an important recreational and environmental asset for our State; they are also 

an important economic engine for the region. By creating confidence that our beaches are safe through water quality monitoring and notifications, the BEACH Act 

grant program works to keep visitors coming back to our Nation’s beaches and investing in our country’s coastal communities year after year. This type of monitoring 

cannot be done by the States alone and therefore should continue to be funded. 

As we work through the budgeting process, I will continue to work with my colleagues and the Administration on efforts to curb our Federal debt and deficit while 

ensuring that we invest in key priorities for the First State and for the Nation. 

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA

Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe, for holding this hearing to discuss EPA’s proposed budget. I would also like to thank Administrator 

Jackson for being here today. This could very well be the last opportunity Senate 

36 

Republicans will have to ask questions on the record of Administrator Jackson until 

after the November elections. 

I would like to focus on some key issues in my opening statement, all of which 

I likely won’t have enough time to ask questions on as we move forward but are 

nonetheless important. 

Over the last 3 years we have seen multiple regulations proposed and move 

through the process toward implementation. Some are being pushed back until after 

the election, presumably because of the economic impact they would have on employment and the price of energy. Some of your Agency actions include the CrossState Air Pollution Rule, implementation of expanded Clean Water Act jurisdiction, 

and Tier 3 emissions standards that would increase the price of gasoline. 

Some of my colleagues today will likely focus on the litany of proposals EPA is 

promulgating under the guise of protecting human health. However, I would note 

that EPA does no microeconomic analysis on the impacts of high unemployment or 

the loss of revenue to small communities from business closures, including tax revenue that pays for fire departments, hospitals, and schools. In other words, the ability to find employment and feed your family are not considerations in EPA’s health 

impact analysis. 

Some things I would like to focus on today are the following: 

• EPA’s war on hydraulic fracturing needs to stop. Hydraulic fracturing is one of 

the few bright spots in our economy, creating good paying jobs, generating significant revenue, and giving domestic manufacturing one of its few advantages to compete internationally. That advantage is affordable and readily available natural gas, 

including the many derivative products that come from production and refining. The 

regulatory environment in America is not competitive, but the price of natural gas 

is. EPA’s war on hydraulic fracturing is very much a war on American manufacturing. 

• It makes little sense for the EPA to continue to try and expand its jurisdiction 

under the Clean Water Act. The issuance of a guidance document which proposes 

expanding jurisdiction and permitting authority for both the EPA and the Army 

Corps of Engineers is bad economics and poor policy. Every private property owner 

in America should be particularly concerned in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling 

yesterday in the case of Sackett v. EPA. That unanimous decision, and Justice 

Scalia’s opinion, outline how truly destructive a bureaucracy like the EPA can be 

to individual liberty and private property rights. It further lays bare why the EPA 

should not be attempting to expand its jurisdiction. In light of the Supreme Court 

decisions in Northern Cook County (2001), Rapanos (2006), and the Sackett decision 

just yesterday, EPA’s desire to expand its jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act 

is inexcusable. 

• Finally, there remain significant problems with sound science and transparency 

at the Agency. What is more important is there appears to be nobody watching over 

or implementing the much needed reforms. White House Science Advisor John 

Holdren essentially admitted that he has done nothing in the way of oversight or 

reform after numerous instances of shoddy scientific work. We know that EPA’s 

chemical assessment program is in dire need of reform; both the NAS and GAO 

have said as much. And on the matter of transparency, despite Administrator Jackson’s newly issued Scientific Integrity Policy, it still took nearly 2 months to provide 

us with the PWG report on the Ramazzini Institute. Transparency is still very much 

an issue. 

Again, thank you, Chairman Boxer and Senator Inhofe, for today’s hearing. And 

thank you, Administrator Jackson, for making yourself available. 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:] 

37 


25024.007
38 


25024.008
39 


25024.009
40 


25024.010
41 


25024.011
42 


25024.012
43 


25024.013
44 


25024.014
45 

Æ 


25024.015