venezuela with reference to drug interdiction. can you tell us how? .. the vessels are returned to venezuela. other times we can take them for prosecution, but we continue to have cooperation there. and going back to what the chairman answered, i have had a unique perspective on this because i have been not only

down their driving ships around the caribbean trying to do interdictions, but back in '98 i had a chance to do a diplomatic mission going into venezuela and colombia. at the time venezuela was very friendly with us and accept this in there. when we pulled into columbia, quite a different situation. was one of the few towns you could go around in safely. i have had the chance to watch how planned columbia has worked, the partnerships were developed with the colombians. in fact try have been down there dealing with their head of navy, and we are very proud of the way that they are taking on the regional lead. they are running very symposiums, bringing in other countries, and we continue to work with them and sustain an relationship. the key to that has been a continued commitment. i have to admit that as they see fewer and fewer resources devoted to the counter drug mission then began to get a little anxious because they perceive that as a as backing

away from sharing the battle with them. >> one more question, mr. chairman. i would like to go to the ambassador now. i mentioned in my opening statement about this program i saw in haiti with the new york city police to prevent officers they're working with them, law-enforcement. this is, i think, good work on behalf of the state department. was wondering whether or not -- are there other partnerships like that where you find law enforcement from the united states working or on the ground in some of the caribbean islands that up with the traditional systems, police systems. that way we can also get information, and they can, in fact, locked apartment criminals of -- before they come to the united states and spread illicit drugs. so the cooperation with the state department working with, like the ag program, central america or the caribbean.

>> indeed, and thank you for your question. this is a great question because it gives us a chance to highlight some of the partnerships we have developed with states all over the united states. we have a relationship with the corrections department in the mexico. we train corrections officers jails in the region are meant to rehabilitate as opposed to make them worse criminals. we work with the attorneys general to teach about prosecution. we do this with a number of states. we work with -- in fact, it by mail would like to submit for the record a paper explaining all the partnerships. this is one of the on some aspects of the work that the united states is doing overseas. we are taking the expertise developed at various dates, for instance the miami-dade police

department as a lot of training and counter narcotics. we also have a partnership with the port of miami and customs officers who come to miami to see how we handle port security. you talk about doing some prosecutions there. absolutely. that is exactly what we are trying to do. capacity on the investigation side and the courts because we want to empower this government and country to apprehend criminals, to try them, and to incarcerate them and, you know, do the whole range of judicial process. money laundering, we are encouraging countries to pass

assets for feature laws so that a lot of these agencies that have no resources can use that law to research their activities we have lots of partnerships. i think it's one of the best ones because it gives us the flexibility to provide different types of assistance. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. admiral papp, during the last coast guard hearing you mentioned that drive weapon and human smuggling still remains a huge threat. budget cuts and of the coast guard ability to counter those dangers. they reduce the manpower and operating hours of the assets that the coast guard needs to combat the continuing threat. in your previous testimony you stated that sequestration fairly

effective the coast guard drug interdiction efforts as evidenced by the 35% reduction in marijuana seizures in fiscal year 2012-2013 when sequestration began to take effect. this fairly obviously shows their is a direct correlation between the budget and operational capability and that this common theme around here that we all need to be doing more with less is an impossible principle to constantly and here to. chief petty officer warren lived in my congressional district at the time of his death from one of these. i live a mile from where one of those boats made land on the peninsula recently. of course, in my area i am concerned about the potential

effect that the next round of sequestration cuts could have on this danger and that especially if more evidence is showing that smugglers are increasingly using the southwest maritime route more and more. just met last week in my district office with admiral schulz, the commander of the 11th district. i also met with the captain of the port of volos angeles and am excited. we also met with captain williams who will be the incoming captain of the port, the first woman to hold that position in the history of the coast guard. we are excited about that. i want to know what you can tell me how you are working with local and foreign partners to ensure that our major american ports along these popular drug smuggling routes such as l.a. and long beach are fully protected against this threat.

maybe in your answer you can also tell us how important it is that the coast guard at least maintain its current funding levels in order to preserve its current capabilities. >> thank you. that is a great question. i thank you for your advocacy. once again, i will thank you for being out here for the memorial service with me and the compassion you showed. while i am answering your question, if i could ask for the slide that i brought with me. if i could get that out there, or we could use the table drop. there we go. the challenge you are talking about is right here along the border. you are right. when we dropped our activities by 30 percent we showed a 35% reduction in cocaine seizures for fiscal year 13. we are back to -- we have restored our historic levels of

operations. we have increased to new things we are doing. more frequently putting one of our major cutters in the area rather than just patrol boats because we can operate airborne use of force. one of our helicopters that stops the boats with trained marksman. that has been so successful that rather than tie up with better we are now using and have cleared through the department of justice, lan-based use of force. putting our helicopters at a shore station and flying them under the direction of the sector. the other thing we're doing is like -- leveraging our partnerships. we have a command center where we began partners from customs and water protection, air and marine, the other federal partners and state and local law enforcement so that we can coordinate and effectively

synchronize all of our activities and get the most of the resources. we do that throughout the country. each one of the captains of the port, and sector commanders have very broad authorities heading up maritime security committees, port safety committees and bring all the partners together. the only way we can get this system effectively is through these partnerships that the coast guard is able to develop because of our broadbased authorities. having said that, we are still limited by the amount of resources we can get out there. this chart that i brought with me, reached -- we refer to these as threat factors, but they are vectors of prosperity. those are our trade routes that we have to maintain. the blue shaded areas surrounding both coasts of around alaska and the hawaiian islands and our territories have in the pacific is our exclusive

economic zone, over 4 million square miles of exclusive economic zone, the largest exclusive economic zone of any country in the world, and we have to distribute our major covers over that entire area. it is a lot of ground cover, and we have to make reason and risk risk-based decisions. we are able to provide for coast guard cutters. if we move one of their off of the baja we reduce into three. so it is like squeezing a balloon. you only have so much in it. if you have threats and other areas you have to move it around zero based right now and really hurting for resources. >> bernanke. i appreciate that. >> thank you. mr. john garamendi. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

general kelly, your testimony indicates that you are basically pulling your assets out of the caribbean area. what percentage of your total budget is consumed by guantanamo ? >> you mean that detainee ops at guantanamo? >> yes. >> it is a separate budget. it is a very separate mission. i own it, and we do it really well. it is a separate budget, but it is about -- we spent just for the detainee ops right at about 1,204,000,000. of course, as you know, we are tenants on the biggest donor. just by being there we don't have to buy electricity. $124 million is a good, round figure. >> our task is to make choices about how we spend our taxpayers' money.

soak guantanamo and the continuation of it is expensive. that is money that might have been spent elsewhere. let's start about the deployment of uav for patrol. you mentioned to a coppers off the coast of california and other places. what used -- what is the use or the potential of using uav to increase your patrol capacity? lets start. it. >> we will take maritime patrol aviation any way we can get it. there are three elements. intelligence. probably we are strongest out of the trifecta here are will talk about in intelligence. a lot of actionable information.

it will we have is an absence of resources. the next key thing is your ability to have maritime patrol aviation, weatherman or uav. it does not matter whether we can have something out that that will detect. at the end of the the aftermath as surface asset that can interdict. that is where our shortfall is. could we use more maritime aviation? yes. would it uav help? probably. any additional hours would be helpful, but at the end of the day you have to have surfaced assets. as i said earlier, we are down to four coast guard cutters. that yesterday. we have a fleet of 44 total. and we are building new cutters, but at the end of this project we will only have 33. they are going in the wrong

direction. >> general kelly. >> i don't have any drone of any kind right now. certainly if i could get some, would love some. again, it is another form of isr the beauty of it is, they don't get tired. when an airplane has to go and refuel, they can stay up a lot longer. that drone does not know that it is tired. >> i'm specifically thinking about the use of uav such as the global lock which can stay in the air 36 hours and provides -- can provide, i should think, significant information. the navy is coming up with its new trident which is a version of the global hawk specifically designed for maritime purposes. i would like cutie gentleman to get back to me about how you

might deploy that asset for the benefit of the missions they you half. also, general kelly, i believe the earlier testimony in the house armed services committee he said what he needs, among others, is a platform on which to land helicopters. could you expand on that, since you are -- your frigates are being removed. >> well, that's phase of the process is called interdiction. the monitoring, i do that to the very, very large degree, but it is an interagency process. we see this stuff which is virtually all of the aircraft movement of cocaine is coming

out of venezuela, either making its way to the central american isthmus or increasingly of the west indies to the dominican republic, as an example, or pr. but the end came part is generally speaking to put a helicopter in the air affected over there by airborne isr. they see they go fast on that helicopter is a marksman, united states coast guardsman. he has within his rules of engagement the authority to shoot, if necessary, the engine or engines out of that go-fast. that hardly ever happens because the go-fast as it cannot out from a helicopter, so they tend to stop after the electronics over the side and wait to be picked up. in my view what you really need is something that the helicopter and fly off of. you don't need an aircraft

carrier, necessarily a big navy ship or coast guard cutter. in fact, six months last year we had their royal netherlands to my ticket was other coast guard buoy tender, but you could put the helicopter on it and it did great work for us so we are looking now at printing, if you will, a merchant ship that would be able to take -- would be able to land, take off, you know, a coast guard or navy or marine corps, for that matter, with a coast guardsman on board a helicopter and also turning at merchant ship into a mother ship so that these other smaller countries that really do the yeoman work including places like nicaragua can go to see and have a mother ship or arrangements of the in good fuel, food, and help us in this fight.

>> i will take another 30 seconds, if i'm right. it is clear we are in a tight budget situation and need to be creative. as you were talking, general kelly, the fleas that we have, is there any potential that we could use one or another of those ships with the modification? i like the idea of a mother ship. it will have to be very creative can we figure out a way of doing this with different kinds of assets? >> i think general kelly is right. we will take whatever we can get . however, at the end of the they have responsibility for the safety of my people. in a complex, fast-based operation, landing helicopters at sea is not an easy thing with weather, watching in the middle of the night.

i am reluctant to say that landing them on anything is a good thing. the other thing is that even when you stop the go-fast with your airborne use of force you have to have boats and a boarding team to take custody, sees the people and the drops, and you have to launch that. we have used other things did we have great partnerships with great britain, with the dutch and the canadians and the french and make use of their platforms or we can. they are professional. we put our law enforcement detachments on board and make use of them as much as we can, but those countries are facing budget shortfalls as well. >> which brings us back to austerity budget. think you very much, gentlemen. >> think you. the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i apologize for coming here on latin time. our subcommittee on the middle east and north africa was meeting at the same time. i am still over there and here. thanks you. a delight to be here. recently we heard the startling claim the latin america has surpassed africa as the world's most violent region, accounting for about one-third of all global homicide. we must recognize this as one of the many alarming symptoms of a booming transnational directory that is the enemy of security to market governance, and democratic principles. this is a particularly pernicious issue in central america and the caribbean. an example of a pro-active approach to the rise in drug-trafficking activity in the caribbean is the partnership that we have established of i in el and port miami, and major hub for travel and trade in the

region for this initiative port miami personal provide training in anti-crime and port security matters to the caribbean counterparts, but this is just the beginning. it the administration has put more resources and a similarly targeted programs insurers that it is serious about combating the illicit drug trade by doing so. the administration problem in latin america is its failure to address the immediate needs of the region which affect national security interest. general kelly, your written testimony states insufficient maritime service vessels and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance platforms impair our primary mission to detect these threats and defend the southern approaches to the u.s. homeland. that is why last year i offered an amendment to rectify this impediment and fix this issue.

i intend to offer a similar amendment this year because we should not abandon the western hemisphere, and the engagement is the key with democratic allies. with that in mind, what some -- setbacks have we suffered due to the fact that our engagement with honduras has been limited to to obstacles from the senate? as the positive progress of the operation evaporated due to the lapse of counter narcotics efforts? and general kelly, you also mentioned in your written testimony that legislative restrictions such as the prohibitions of f and f funding with the guatemalans limits our engagement. it is my understanding that there is also a department of defense policy that prevents south, from utilizing to the maximum extent possible our assets for counter narcotics operation has this policy hinder our ability to make a larger dent in efforts to fight

drug-trafficking? these efforts are critical not only because they threaten our security and that have paralyzed but also because illegal drug trade in this hemisphere impact on our national security interest throughout the world. foreign terrorists organizations such as hezbollah engages in these illicit activities and fun their operations in advance the dangerous ambitions of regimes. it tracks equals terrorism financing. lastly, i would like toish -- reason issue with the coast guard. my office has received information that our coast guard with the help of the state department travel to cuba and is seeking to reach an understanding with the state-sponsored terrorism on counter narcotics efforts. think it is appalling our coastguard wishes to have closer ties with the cuban regime.

the same tyranny that actually gives refuge and harbors drug-traffickers, jails american citizens, supports terrorism, and was caught red handed trying to smuggle military equipment to north korea through the panama canal. we think panama for stopping it and provides to this day safe haven to american fugitives. i share your concern. doing business with the cuban regime is not the solution. they are actually part of the problem.

>> it is dismissed by some, but as the person who lost her homeland to communism, i was born in cuba, came here as a refugee, represent thousands of people in similar ways. we don't have a romanticized view of the communist tyranny in cuba. >> we keep a line of communication open. first of all, to protect our people. as you know, the freedom flotilla and other activities, we have lost people and try to make sure we have some line of communication open so that we can prevent any mistakes from happening and putting people in jeopardy. we also did good information on other illegal activities. they will take a review of this and make a report back to you. >> i would greatly appreciate it .

i think the chairman and waking. >> i think the gentle lady from florida. we will go through one more round. one more question about what mr. john garamendi was talking about. admiral, when you talk about the assets in the system, the in-the -parks acquisition programs and congress warning of that, at the same time if you get a platform to put it in visual terms waterworld, dennis hopper on the big tanker, waterworld, the movie, kevin costner. it was a great movie. the big tanker. why could you not use the ready reserve fleet? floating platforms? defectors guard feels it is dangerous, why not man in with contractors? it is like an icebreaker.

why can't we think outside the box? you have the office of naval research and a lot of other groups with ships that can use for interdiction. they use them for testing in san diego and more folk. there are interdiction assets out there, platforms out there, tons of them on which you could land a helicopter and take off from. that is what is holding his back it cannot always be a blend of sequestration. why not go outside the box and start -- if you have everything down, one not to the interdiction part 50 years ago if you had this problem you would have given this to somebody, given them $5 million, and they would interdict. instead we have this system, and if we don't get enough of our ships that will require by nature of our requirements and

the ship building fleet building those particular ships then we will not do it because we don't have the right ship to do it. why not think outside the box like mr. john garamendi was talking about? merchant mariners, people that we pay to be ready to go. >> the innovative things that we have done, we look for anything passing through the area. are not related to a western hemisphere approaches, for instance admiral la clear in pacific command's when he has ships transiting to the west bank, we are putting coast guard law-enforcement detachments on them. the blue areas in the pacific around our trust territories and partner nations, we are sending them through there doing fisheries law enforcement to protect the tuna fleet, things like that. we look for those opportunities. as i said, we have had british

or less, dutch or others, anything that we can get that will be in the caribbean or eastern pacific that we know is going through we take advantage of. we work with fleet forces command in norfolk to make sure that people are doing training deployments, whenever. the canadian vessels that we have had, that is, once again, i result of talking to maritime forces pacific, atlantic, canadian command. and they have ships that have to go on workups they're sending them down to the caribbean or eastern pacific. so we make use of anything that we know about. we will investigate and see what else is out there. like anything else, if he would get our ready reserve fleet under way someone has to pay for that. we have reserved fleets, but i have seen the challenges that are faced when we have to work the month to get him ready.

the one ship we sent over to work with syrian karakuls, getting the mariners and money, it's a challenge. granted, i will take a coast guard cutter or u.s. navy ship any time i can because i know when i put a coast guard helicopter out there there is standardization of protocols for lending, recovery, hot refueling, and everything else because it is dangerous business. so my only caution when i was talking with mr. john garamendi is it is easy to say, let's put up large out there, a tanker out there. mike coast guard pilots can land on anything in an emergency. is it an effective platform for prosecuting go-fast vessels and be able to go back and hot refuel and carry ammunition and everything else? i don't know.

>> i would argue that it is better than nothing which is where you have now. >> if i could add, we are already doing it. within the next couple of months -- i have pulsed the system. we have found the money and half of 350-foot ship manned u.s. merchant seamen, and we will use that as a proof of concept. it is not codify to a large and recover helicopters. as we move to the next that ben do that, of course, we will have the right kind of training and procedures and gear and equipment. that ship will be working for me within the next six or eight weeks. while we are doing that it will be working close in to belize, honduras, guatemala.

we already have u.s. special forces guys and gals or u.s. marines working with those partner nations on operations close and. this shift will give them an opportunity to go further out. to be able to go further out because it will be again station we are doing everything you just described already in the next six to eight weeks, and i will let you know what goes. >> do you have to be -- does it have to be coast guard snipers? because they have the unique law-enforcement military side, or can it be anybody? >> it is the law enforcement aspect. the department of defense as it can do everything but the law enforcement part of it. the shooter has to be because card or someone in law enforcement, fbi, dea.

>> as long as they go through the training. very difficult and challenging. yet to take it to the department of justice. and in need to be able to get there support to defend our shooters if something happens. who the shooter is as long as we take them through the course and get them certified -- and we have used other than coast guard. we have used navy marksman. it is just a matter of taking them through the process. >> that is all i have. i will deal now. great to see you this last time, admiral. >> thank you. working with you, i want to pursue thinking of the box and how we might be able to pursue the discussion and quite possibly the utilization as we

were just talking. did believe that for the future and carry that on. i do want to -- i have been mass by one of our friends from the foreign affairs committee to raise the issue with general kelly about the expulsion of 20 u.s. defense department employees that were attached to the u.s. embassy. i believe this happened of the last couple of weeks. could you briefly brief us on that, what it was about and why it happened? >> at the those actions are in line with kind of a general loss of u.s. influence in this part of the world, and america, for a lot of different reasons. in ecuador in particular my folks that were there, and they were my folks, not all military,

by the way. a lot of misinformation, but at the end of the day ecuador has thrown its lot in with countries like venezuela, russia, china. that is where they see the future of latin america, so they made that move. the people that were in their working with them with full knowledge for years and years, working with him on the counter drug effort which is a real problem. they have been helpful, but they have decided to throw their lot in with other countries. >> geopolitical issue. >> and it is a great way to snub there nose at the united states. >> and this is a question from representative ankle to you, mr. papp. i will briefly go over it. the defense, an interview you

stated that since you have lost naval ships in the pacific and caribbean for drug interdiction that coast guard would publish a western hemisphere strategy and how to fill these gaps. that is five months ago. he wants to know when the report will be do and what is the status of it. >> we have been trying to come up with a strategy for the specific areas involving missions boom. we have been working on the western hemisphere strategy. my feeling is with the assets going toward the pacific we still have responsibilities, but the primary responsibilities are along the threat vector's ever shown in the chart. how do we conduct that and use that for support and lay out what our doctrine is for the service is important.

we are close. i have read through the draft. we have a new, not coming in in 30 days. rather than make it look like iamb signing off from the western hemisphere strategy as they go out the door, there should be by an. >> thank-you very much, have no. i think that is exactly the right thing to do. i am sure you will be building off of yours. i see our chairman has returned. >> i yield to our colleague from california. >> thank you, chairman. i want to go on the record. it is heartening for me to hear about the incredible cuts that we have imposed on our coast guard. continuing to ask them to do more with less.

the united states coast guard talking about contracting out. it is unfortunate. i wish we could restore the cuts we made and not impose the next round of sequestration. it is unfortunate that we add this state. and just want to go on record as saying i'm the lead in your mission and feel like we are shortchanging your department and the american people ambassador, one of the primary missions behind the bureau of international narcotics and law enforcement affairs is to build partnerships with state and local law-enforcement agencies here at home in order to allow these agencies to provide their unique expertise to foreign agencies and governments that desperately needed in order to incentivize state and local agencies to provide this expertise. the state department reimburses agencies of the costs incurred

which strengthens overall international security and bolsters our relationships with our foreign partners while simultaneously creating a merchant in these here at home. i would like for you to talk about your agency's work with our los angeles county sheriff's department and the california department of corrections and explain how their expertise and training has been critical in preventing violence in foreign countries, particularly mexico. >> thank you very much. the california department of corrections rehabilitation has the training to mexican and salvadorean corrections officers. the type of training they receive is to deal with some of the very hard court issues that these institutions face in their own countries, for instance right, the protection of the facilities, and many times we think of facilities as keeping people from going out, but a lot of times some of the challenges

they face is people trying to come in. we have a whole range of programs trying to provide those kinds of things. i will owe you an answer on the question half the los angeles sheriff's department. i do not have that with me right now, but i will certainly provided. we have many other opportunities the superior court of arizona has provided for in the training to custer rica for judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys. the new york police department provided training in haiti. the brouwer county sheriff has trained the police and other agencies on gender based violence. the miami-dade police department as trained haitian police. i mean, the list goes on. for us it is quite a pleasure to have this partnership. another example is, for example,

the washington state criminal justice training commission posted a steady by the mexican police academy managers. the california department of corrections. i think i mentioned an already. we have a long list that is growing. of course we have to be careful not to stretch ourselves to then in applying the advantages that these institutions bring to the table. >> thank you. i just want to ask you one last question. one of the things you mentioned during the year was that you think we need to address in this war on drugs is demand along with supply . and wondering if this trend in the united states, colorado, washington, probably california next in legalizing marijuana, do you think that this is going to

have a long-term impact or effect in stemming the u.s. to grant for illegal drugs? analyze what this will mean in this drug trade. >> i don't think we have enough time. a disgusted at the last principals meeting of the interdiction committee. across the board for most agencies, and including the homeland security agencies, dea, the justice department, fbi, no. come, southcom, and others. the anecdotal information coming back for most of the partners are that they are confused by this signals that the legalization sense. they wonder about our commitment to continuing the fight. and they are investing so much both in resources and plot, they have to question that. they want to know about our commitment. they see fewer and fewer u.s.

resources coming down to join them. they reassure them and tell them what the law is and our continued commitment, but it cannot help but create some doubt. other anecdotal information is because of changes in the market with legalization and homegrown marijuana which is causing some people to switch to heroin production, increasing heroin on the streets. is a complex, multi variable equation which i don't think we have a good handle on. i want to give him my thanks for your advocacy and comments before you turn to the other question. don't want to leave anyone with the impression that i am unwilling to look at of the things. we're trying to look at what resources are available up there. my job is to advocate for what i think, my best military advice is for the country. i advocate for coast guard cutters because they are unknown

entity. we have qualified, trend custard people, boarding parties, people it can launch and recover helicopters safely and if some other incident, whether a mass migration or fisheries patrol, i can send them to do those a activities as well, whereas a barge second land a helicopter is pretty much a single mission thing that i cannot use for anything else. while it might be valuable and give us something more, my job is to give you the optimal solution. yours is to decide whether we can afford it or not, but thank you. >> thank you. thank you, mr. chairman. >> i think the gentle lady. the last question just made me think of, who is in charge of saying we're not going to go after we eat any more? do you do that when it comes to targeting? tons of bales of marijuana coming in and heroin and

cocaine. we will prioritize those. who makes those decisions? >> there is no question that it is illegal and the continued to target it and will stop it to the best of our ability. >> what i'm saying is the opposite of that. if you're going to have in the next ten years 20 states legalize marijuana, decriminalized, which it basically is now anyway, especially in the western side of the country will keep going after something that has been approved by the states? i'm asking, who makes the decision. stop going after the marijuana loves. who makes that decision? >> at least in my round, congressman, i focus -- we don't see a lot of marijuana moving from latin america into -- if you don't count mexico -- moving into the united states. my understanding, most marijuana

consumed in the united states is grown in the country domestically. it is grown in cellars in manhattan, national forests in colorado. but to what the commandants said about dealing with our partners, we have -- our drug problem has caused many countries in latin america, the los violent places on earth, honduras being the most violent place on the planet much of that, almost all of it is due to our drug problem, the drug traffic. the police the route most of the region are either entirely corrupt or so intimidated that they will do their jobs because they are so intimidated because of the violence. courts and judges and all the same thing. so to give you an example, when cholera and washington legalized marijuana i was queried by a lot of partners.

it's my understanding the word hypocrite comes into the conversation as everyone at this table, certainly trying to convince his kansas and the fight, the fight against george, we seemingly air not caring much about drugs and in more. i find it pretty hard and am pretty close to a lot of ministers of defense, presidents , people like that. and, you know, they are pretty non diplomatic with me as i am to them. they wonder what the hell we're doing. you see an increasing number start talking to the president of columbia, they stopped what they are doing in terms of our dread fight. we are really screwed.

they took 200 tons of cocaine off the market last year. the eradicated 30,000 acres before it was baked. they found and destroyed 1500 cocaine labs. if they stopped doing that because they see less of a commitment in our country and a move toward legalization we might as well, you know, -- >> or would you tie in the legalization of marijuana with heroin and cocaine? >> they see a general lack of enforcement and getting into some of these other drugs. as everyone this table pointed out, the solution to a large degree went, before it gets to mexico and the united states and there's almost no commitment to do that based on what they see in spite of the fact that we do work with them and give a certain amount of money and half , like today, three navy

ships and for coast guard cutters they don't see the commitment. >> that's all i have. i don't think there are any other members to ask questions. with that, the subcommittee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> tomorrow a senate hearing on the boston marathon bombings.

>> they're is a lot more karma in people's lives. i'm talking about could families , the stress of life, not holding a job, living in that world, that working-class up and down world can put a lot of strain on people, the connections that they should

have. even the addictions that are so rampant because it is so easy to get drugs and alcohol. it was happening for years ago, but not like today. all of this is contributing to be my story of more of the american story the people are willing to admit. >> former gang member, political activist and literary advocate luis rodriguez will take your questions live for three hours starting at noon eastern sunday on c-span2 book tv. c-span2 providing live coverage of the u.s. senate floor proceedings and the public policy events, and every weekend book tv, now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2 created by the cable-tv industry, and brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. watches in hd, like us on facebook, and follow us on twitter.

>> the supreme court today handed down a 6-2 decision upholding epa regulation of power plant emissions across state lines. the regulation and the question requires 28 states in the east, midwest, and south to cut back on the emissions of sulfur and nitrogen from coal-fired power plants. justice alito recused himself from the case. the court heard oral arguments in the case of epa verses the in the holy city generation in december. it is an hour-and-a-half. >> the consolidated case. mr. stewart. >> mr. chief justice, and may it please the court, in promulgating the transport rule

epa sought to protect the public health and strike a fair balance between the competing interest. the epa analysis proceeded in three basic steps. epa perform a screening analysis to determine which states would be covered by the transport will. in order to do that they first identified that downwind receptors that were in a state of non attainment or add maintenance difficulties and then determine to which states were linked to those receptors. in order to be linked the upwind state had to contribute 1 percent for more of the relevant national ambient air quality standards to that downwind receptor. in the state it did not contribute at least 1% to any of the relevant downwind receptors was determined not to contribute significantly to non attainment at that area. second, once the states that work to be covered by the transport rule had been

identified epa said the state commission's budget for each state, and to do that it performed computer modeling to determine in addition to whatever in mission control leverages already going on what additional emission reductions could be achieved by implementation of control measures available at various cost threshold's. and that thresholds' ultimately selected were $500 per ton, group one states and the level of $2,300 per ton, group to was 500 per ton. he had deal was, let's see what the nation's savings we can achieve if additional control measures are implemented up to those costs thresholds'. >> those savings would not be evenly distributed. so some upwind states that able to make those efficient changes

will be carrying more than their burden of reducing the emissions that affect downwind states, right? >> there were two bases. the first, in terms of the $500 per ton threshold for the group to states versus the $2,300 per ton, but the way in which states were divided into categories is that the states that were linked to that downwind receptors that had the most severe pollution problems are treated as group one states and were required to make greater pollution control efforts because they have some responsibility for the more serious problems. no, i guess the point of your question would go to the fact that even among states that were operating under constant cost control threshold's, i state that had faugh already implemented cost measures up to that limit might have to do less

in a sense because it wouldn't already taken the steps that were required, at least as compared to an air quality on the threshold. >> i don't mind the state doing less. i think north carolina showed that you can use those cost figures to do less. that is not challenged here. but what the application of the cost factor means is that some states that can more efficiently make the changes will be required to do more than merely account for their proportion of the downwind arm. isn't that true? yes or no? a think it is an easy answer. >> i think if you adopted an air quality on the threshold would be more likely to be the case this states that have already done a lot to control air pollution would have to take

additional steps, even if it was done in a non cost-effective way >> you answered my question. does the fact that you begin with -- the statute says that each upwind state has to account for its effect on the downwind states. but once having identified that affect you then say, those upwind states that can make the reductions more efficiently have to make more reductions than the mere proportion of the harm requires. isn't that so? >> i think it would be the case, yes, as compared to some air quality on the measures, the use of cost will have the effect of distributing the burden in a somewhat different way than it would if you considered air quality factor -- >> mr. stewart, the states that are required to do more are the

state's that are much more ready >> that's correct. that's what i was trying to get out earlier. it states have to do less in order to meet the -- to be in a position where they implemented all the emission control measures available at $500 per ton, if a particular state has to do less in order to achieve that is partly because that state is already implemented those measures. >> in what provision of the statute allows you to take that into account? >> the term -- >> as opposed to each state, whether it is inefficient or efficient as to merely reduce its contribution to the downwind state pollution, right? that is what the statute says. >> the statute says that the state will adopt measures that prevent sources within its borders -- from contributing significantly to downwind nine attainment. the purpose of the provision is not to allocate plan for an

existing state of non attainment or prior pollution but is to devise a scheme that, going forward, will prevent on attainment from occurring. the idea is, if each save lives up to its obligation and if the downwind states make commensurate commitments and the problem will be solved. in terms of the language contribute significantly. there are various reasons to think that epa recently -- reasonably construed that term to include a component of difficulty of achievement. that is, in common parlance we might say that tacking a basketball is a more significant achievement for someone who is 5 feet 10 inches than someone who is 6 feet 10 inches. a $100 charitable contribution is more significant if it is made by a person in next $10,000 a year than a $1,000 contribution by somebody who makes a million dollars a year. ..

>> with people would have contributed to this significantly. but to set out a hypothetical that involves the, if you had a basketball team that lost the game by one point and the coach was asked to pinpoint what contributed to the defeat, they are much more likely to identify this layout than a turn or what at the buzzer. the true figures that the half court shot would contribute and

that it was part of a cause. and the outcome would've been different. but if you're talking about significant contributions to adapters all, people are more likely to focus on what should have been avoided and not simply the failure to accomplish something that is extraordinarily difficult. >> it depends upon a time at which you measure. that is to say that if you take a look at a state, which for five years has been trying to enumerate and eliminate pollution coming you can measure it. and if you do that we were not having to contribute more. or do you not like that? >> i don't want to go there in that. but the point at which the state

have this obligation is triggered by the promulgation of a new national air quality standard. the state has required within three years to promulgate a state plan that includes a good neighbor permissions for this. >> how far back you go? 2006? >> in this case there were two that were, created in 1997 area one of them annual particulate matter and the other one was 2006, that was for 24 hour particulate matter, which is harder to achieve. and so when we are asking what are the states supposed to do at the time that this is promulgated. the states don't exactly get credit for what is done in the past. then as they can do less than what they were supposed to do in

the future simply because they have done a lot in prior years to prevent pollution. but the fact that sources within the state have in the past install various pollution control devices, they are using cleaner fuels to prevent significant contributions to this and it's very important that we understand the pros and cons going forward. >> i would just like to say that we have this trucking association decision that we say notwithstanding that everyone agrees that regulating the cost is better. when congress that the opposite, we have to go with the opposite. and then we said that congress had set the opposite because they talked about protecting the public health with inadequate safety. so what does it take within the statute to make a they the

congress have demanded that the regulation that occurs, in other words, congress has demanded that the regulation has occurred in a fundamentally assuming way. >> it is not the case that requires epa to establish this without reference to cost with the silly result. and the quarter in the same case says that of course you can consider cost in deciding what is the most efficient and appropriate way to him implement that. so here i take your point that in order to conclude that congress barred consideration of cost at the implementation stage, we would have to have

very clear language and significant contribution doesn't do it. so the other thing that i would say in addition to the examples i have given is reduced significant and it's worth emphasizing that it is designed to help allocate this among different actors. so for example. >> the problem is that the allocation among different actors in this includes determining who will do a lot, which simply eliminates the requirement that each state not be required to do more than its share of the pollution that is causing downstream. it is a state-by-state requirement that makes it very difficult to think that all

congress wanted was the most efficient production of pollution no matter where that came from and that simply is not what is -- you envisions. >> maybe that would be a better stature. maybe it shouldn't be state-by-state. >> we can accept the premise that it should alleviate no more than its share. in each state should do more than its share, and yet there still may be different ways of determining what the states are sure it is. one way would be to determine this, and say that the more pollution than had previously flowed, the greater the reduction would be in the future. another would say that in order to ensure each of the state and

this includes the generation of electric power that requires the omission of some level. that there was simply no way to generate electricity for any technology known today without generating and committing that minimum amount. so i would say that congress didn't intend to bury in the provision this particular state generating electricity. and they could reasonably determine that the unaffordable, unavoidable provisions, even with the best possible pollution control technology, that would be regarded as legally insignificant. the only legally significant contribution would be contribution that could've been avoided. clearly the epa has gone one step further because it hasn't just focus on emissions that couldn't be avoided at all.

the lease without forgoing electric power. it has said that we will treat as legally significant only the extra increment that comes after we have taken what we regard to be equitable and cost-effective pollution. >> your answer to her question, there is at least a possible argument that you regulate into account from doing so. and you even stop short of that because he said it might be difficult to apply cost rational the implementation stage and i think that is what he said. >> what the court said is that in setting this up, the epa not because the statute said this in so many words with what they had

to achieve simply couldn't be reconciled. so i'll though you cannot consider this an determining what this act will be and what the air quality standards will achieve, you can and should consider the cost in deciding what implementation should be used to determine what emissions will be reduced. >> why couldn't congress have said that the epa shall prescribe minimum pollution reduction emissions that have to be taken in this way. that's a quite different statute from what we had before us. and you are saying you will reduce this much, as much as efficiency will allow. or else you are in violation of good neighbor rule. and that is a very different statute from what congress

wrote. maybe it is a good idea and they controlled all efficiency measures for reducing pollution. but it's not the statute that congress wrote. >> three things in response to that. the first is that as i mentioned before, the good neighbor provision is addressed in the states initial obligations to submit this plan that contains these provisions. so if the court says that the cost cannot be considered in defining these contributions, the effect is not that the epa can't consider that factor one steps into the states she was but that they can't consider cost of achievement in attempting in good faith to implement its own good neighbor provision. so the second thing i would like to say. >> i don't understand that. we say that again. >> we are dealing here with a situation where the epa was the one who promulgated this. but that is only because the

states did not discharge their obligations state implementation plans that include the good neighbor provisions. but this contributes significantly in the portion with what a statement is supposed to contain. not by its terms that is addressed directly to the epa. so if they said in defining the significantly, we cannot take into account the cost of omission control measures. that would mean that they cannot just consider that when they step into the state choose but also the they can't consider that factor as well. >> of course, you couldn't come up with your budget.

at a different point in your brief you emphasize how incredibly complicated it is for states to determine how much they must reduce their emissions to take care the fact that they significantly contributed to downwind pollution. this includes the burden of program without knowing how much we expect them to meet. >> the statute that imposes the obligation on the states. it may help to draw the courts attention to the relevant provisions. in this includes the government's opening brief. >> the relevant provision in seven foreign 10, saying that each state shall adopt and submit to the administrator of the epa within three years that

they may prescribe after the promulgation of a national ambient air quality standard and a goes on to say a plan that provides for implementation and so forth. and you look at the top of this it says subsection two begins each implementation cemented by a state under the chapter shall be adopted by the state after reasonable notice and public hearing. and each plan shall. then if you look at the bottom it contains adequate provisions consistent with the provisions of the subchapter and any source of other type of omission activity which will contribute significantly. >> okay, so if you are working for one of the upwind states and facing the three-year deadline

than what would you told have told the state to do? >> certainly their basic methodology of using the cost threshold had been embodied in this in 1998. which i believe was promulgated in 2007. >> that's right. ahead of this comes to you and says, how much do we have to reduce our emissions to satisfy her arm and. and he would tell them what. >> we would tell them that we don't know yet. but that is not a fatal flaw in the argument. it is inherent in any legal contacts in which one person acts in themselves on transit in person reviews. and so it does point. >> that kind of glosses over the fact that as you said elsewhere that this is your analogy, a spaghetti matrix or something.

and there's no way for them to know how much you expect them to address and you're saying that you have to do it within three years or we are going to take over responsibility. >> certainly what the epa was called upon to do is far more complicated than what pennies he was going to be called upon to do. they were promulgating this for close to 30 states and plans are different for that. and i cannot just address the second thing? i don't think that's right. i think they have a different way of dealing with it as a group that any individual state has no idea what particular role is going to be in your group resolution. >> it certainly has the data available to it that the epa had available about how much did each state contribute to the overage of various nonattainment

receptors in the past. >> i don't know how it could sensibly designed. >> the other two is the state's role to devise this and not necessarily to predict just how the epa would do it if the task went to the epa. so for example when the states are undertaking a more prosaic task of devising plans that would produce attainment of this within their own borders. so they have to make a variety of judgments about what sources

should be allowed and in what amounts. if a particular state just didn't do it, that task would fall to the epa. and it's very unlikely that anything that this particular state would come up with would exactly match what the epa would ultimately divides. >> can you give us an example of one epa has done us in the past? and we are a crucial element of this has not been defined by the agency. and yet they nonetheless require the states to put together this without knowing what their target is. and this includes were states

successfully did comply with the good neighbor obligations with what they had done the thing that was enough. >> that means a pin the tail on the donkey. from that doesn't prove anything. i want an example of another instance in which the epa has said we are not going to tell you what the target is. it is up to you. >> we didn't fail to divulge the information that they have at its disposal.

at least in the one of the cases, the states were capable of carrying out this task in this includes with the downward states have had to do all the time. if the new york officials are trying to determine when this comes out and how can we bring our own error all of you into compliance and what controls we have to place on our own sources in order to get air quality to the desired level. >> the new york officials have to take account of the degree of pollution that is likely to travel to their borders from other states. within their own borders they have to consider what this. >> that means that there's a fact that they don't know and

it's not just about the facts. we don't know what target we are expected ahead. >> the final thing that i would say even if you determine that it was just practically infeasible for any state to adopt a compliant state implementation plan with good neighbor provisions for this. and this includes that they would still wouldn't follow. that is that the statute in the provisions that i pointed to said that it's up to the dates in the first instance to devise that the state implementation plans, including the good neighbor provisions, of the same profession, the statute describes what happens if a state fails to satisfy that

obligation. and this is at the beginning of this on page 10. it says the administrator shall promulgate a federal implementation plan at any time within two years after the administrator finds that an administrator has failed to make it required submission or finds of the plan or plan revisions submitted does not satisfy the minimum criteria. >> the government conceded that there was a theoretical possibility that some states could be over control. and that they would be implementing measures that would reduce their contributions to pollution below the 1%. and assuming that there is a theoretical possibility of that. but that your coach was basically fine. so what would we do about that?

personal, are there measures that states can take to get out of this event if it is inappropriate to them due to over control? and if not, how do they do and what is the process of we is that there is this. we vacate the rule, to be we been in place, what do we do? and what is our power to do it? >> if you reach the conclusion that there was a dear radical possibility that this could do it and it would be a problem if they did, that the methodology used by the epa was on the whole rational come i think this task for it is to rule on the more big picture of objections and the court of appeals ruling on it. even if we win everything that is at issue, the case is not over. there is a variety of the details of the rule that the dc

circuit found that to address. simmons case would be re-mandated in there would be an opportunity for the court below to consider those. >> would that have been done? >> to the extent and i don't know that it has applied this, but to the extent that annie's date has a properly preserve challenge to the effect that it is actually likely to be subject to over control. and that could be heard by the court of appeals and the court of appeals could determine both whether that is right to happen and if it does happen, that would include arbitrary and capricious as to that. but the real problem with the court of appeals methodology is that it that that the fact that the epa cannot absolutely rule out the possibility that it might happen with a rule invalid on its face.

unfolding to the ensure that it regime would not lead to over control. and i think that is an extraordinary standard for an administrative agency to deal with area that includes the federal agencies regulate to address one problem in the regulation necessary as spillover effects on other conduct. so if a federal agency was tasked with preventing the interstate commerce of contaminated food, and my wire inspections or a recall of food after one item had been shown to be contaminated in these measures might have spillover effects on food that was not in fact contaminated, but that would not be part of the rule. an agency could go overboard and impose a regime that was so onerous in comparison to the health benefits than it was arbitrary and capricious. it on whatever say that it is the duty of the agency to ensure

that there is no other means of achieving this at lower cost to the public. this includes a state that believes itself to be inappropriately treated by the rule is to preserve this challenge it may have been the judicial proceedings. there is also a mechanism by which a state can have this plan replaced by a plan of its own devising. so the consequence of the state's failure to achieve the good neighbor obligations in the epa stepping into their shoes, it's not that they are forever barred from devising their own plans. but it's that it was simply that the federal implementation plan would remain in effect for a limited period of time subject to replacement by a state plan.

>> if we were to affirm the decision, how long do you think it would take to get a new rule in place? >> if the court affirms on the ground that the epa may not consider a cost, part of the problem, i think it would be an extraordinary undertaking for them to try to achieve. part of the difficulty here is that nobody has identified a concrete alternative. that is a plan that would not consider costs that would disperse the burdens of compliance among the states in proportion to their prior contributions and would also address the nonattainment problem. >> could you explain that to me? are you saying that street approach that was applied in the circuit, are you saying that that is impossible? are you saying that it is

complicated and the? >> the least what we understand is that it might be possible with respect to any particular downwind receptor because you could say that if one state is contributing this and another a part of this, the proportional solution might have been to require any necessary reduction would be in those proportions. that one state would do two thirteenths of the reduction in another would do for 13th and so forth and so on. that would be theoretically possible with perceptiveness. that with respect to another, the same states could be contributing in different proportions and so there could be no way of devising a solution that would be proportionate to both. >> you could average amount, couldn't you? >> you might be able to average

the amount. >> i don't think that's any more rational than picking a number as to who can do it more efficiently. >> the purpose of the cost threshold would not be to increase or decrease the total amount of reduction reductions that would be necessary. but to ensure that the reductions that had to take place were done in the most cost-effective manner possible. >> we understand that. but that is certainly a pretty arbitrary number. and i think averaging from the receptors is certainly no more arbitrary. >> i think the cost methodology is one of the epa had used often in the past. indeed even before the term was added in 1990. the epa had interpreted as to allow relief for a downwind status and upwind state was

contributed significantly to downwind pollution. it had been interpreted as allowing consideration of costs and compliance. to one of the ironic things about this case is that the only consequence of over control is cost. that is that this is not a situation in which there is a distinct public health benefits -- or public health problem, i'm sorry, it is cause at power plants are admitting too little of this. the only reason that people worry about the over control and reducing emissions more than they need is that it costs money and if that is a problem to be avoided coming in strains of epa can't take account of it. >> if you have something to say what he started out with, you said that there are three aspects. the first is that you cut out any state that is contributing less than 1%. use of the second half at was

that user metric of this produced a new applied that as well. and then he said there were three. that we never got to three courage i want to make sure that you do. >> the third part of the process is that once each state budget has been quantified with respect to each state, the epa essentially divides up the missions allowed within the different states orders. in the way that it does that is that it gives allowances to the various power plants that added to the total numbers of tons of pollutants that are allowed to be emitted. so it is important to emphasize that the states have not joined the industry's argument on the other side of the case. stating that costs can be considered. those states are not correlating with the methodology in which they contemplate the budgets. they are simply saying that once

would have been modified from initiative and given an opportunity to determine on their own how they should be allocated without the epa doing it first. so in some situations that might have been a rational way for them to proceed. so once they find a particular state has failed to submit this or the epa has disapproved it, i'll untie happens the statute says that at any time within two years they can promulgate its own federal implementation. in some circumstances it might be rational or them to wait a full two years and give additional guidance to states to give them every opportunity to devise a plan plans. and they're basically two reasons that they didn't do that here. the first was the subject of the dc circuit's mandated in north carolina that site get something in place that works as soon as possible and the eta felt constrained by that to act as

quickly as it could. and the second is worth emphasizing his that there are sovereign interest on both sides of the case. that is true that by devising a federal plan in the first instance, the epa has intruded to a degree on the ability of the upwind states to decide how missions allowances should be allocated among their own sources or that the downwind states are subject to their own obligations to comply with their own borders to the extent that they can't get relief from the upwind state, their task has been made more difficult. >> i'm sure should notice. but if we reverse the dc circuit, what would happen going forward? the states have had this time to do this and they were found not to comply. so the epa does that. but that is not the end of the game, isn't? is that under a continued obligation to look out and give

the states further opportunities to come back? >> the states, it's unclear as to what they have been working on, but the state certainly code under the terms of the transport rule proposed state implementation plans to replace this. and this court's decision would affect the way in which both the states and the epa went about the business for how they should be carried out with the spec to the future. >> thank you, counsel. please give us 30 seconds or so.

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> mr. chief justice, the epa's actions have written this out of the air and the epa cannot impose this on the states when epa has left him completely in the dark about the meaning of the phrase contribute

significantly. they require the states to submit this i can only guess at how they will quantify the good neighbor obligations under section 7410. >> it certainly is hard. but it is what the statute says. and it seems to me that the epa, if they had taken a different view, it would've been contrary to the statute. >> in some awful for several reasons. they represent a capricious change in the way that the agency has interpreted the statutory for 15 years in 1998, the epa told the states not to submit this before the epa have quantified this. and they were gated that numerous times. including pages nine and 59 of our brave and also in the sources of the dc circuit site on page 51, 52, and 56 of the

appendix. the epa has now done a 180-degree shift and they have told the states of their required to submit this before epa has codified their obligations. >> they don't know exactly how to do it. this is a tough problem. and so it sounds as if what you're making is a procedural objection to which the government's point was. and you are right, we have all been talking about this. we wanted to see what the state to come up with. so we looked. they haven't come up with enough and so now we go to the federal process. and then you comment on that. and if you feel that this is no bid, propose your own solutions again and that is what he is saying. but suppose to advance the ball. so there's a procedure for them to come up and so do it.

so what is arbitrary or capricious about the system? >> that is what they rejected. >> they did it once, and now they think it works here. all the time it happens that people change their minds about how problems are best called or they solve this better one way or another way. so if your only point is that they did it a different way, they will say what is unreasonable about changing our ways. we are trying to get the job done. the epa is allowed to change their interpretation of the statute. but if they're going to do that, they have to acknowledge that they are abandoning this higher construction. >> years before they had rules. one day they said no, we think we

>> it's different if you think the duke it out with them in terms of where you think they are wrong. and are you challenging the transport rule using cost, or are you just challenging the process in which that was achieved by matt because if i understand this and the theory of that, neither of you would want a command-and-control regulation.

>> we did not have the ability to do this on costs. >> for some of them it would really be a bad idea. >> the we are remaining agnostic on that point. >> until you propose replacing this, the fip, you are bound by that julian pooped out. how long is such a transaction normally take women's. >> it depends. >> the think that is a composed process? >> you will develop that and it will take you some time. and then that is submitted to the epa and they chew on it for as long as they want. and maybe they will say it's good enough and maybe they won't. >> we are still waiting here on

what we have submitted to implement the good neighbor obligations and at least if you have propose this, you have given reasons and you have a rational plan and the epa must then give a reasonable response to it where as if they are the first one, they are riding on a black slate and it seems to me that in some respects epa is more constrained than this process to which you object. >> there is still a unlawful use. so why is this unlawful in the first is that they have changed their interpretation, epa tells the states that we do not want you to submit this. it simply takes a guess at what you think that it is.

so when they say that, that is an affirmation in the statute does not require you to do that. is that your point? >> they said they are adopting this that prohibits us from doing that. the epa and only the epa is the institution that is charged with the responsibility of quantifying this obligation. they had argued for a different approach back in 1998 and we wanted to have the proper to the tide what the obligations mean and they said no. and they said we are the sole entity and you need to wait until we quantify the obligations. they have now change that approach without explaining work knowledge in this that they weren't abandoning the earlier interpretations. >> they were not doing that. part of that was them saying

they had to quantify it. >> what they says that they have to quantify the good neighbor obligations and what it means to contribute significantly. and that leads to a second statutory problem. and they had to take a wild guess that compels the states to over control and overregulate. because if they want the epa to approve this, and they don't know what would be, they have to overshoot and over control and overregulate. and this includes imposing this. what they are doing is telling

the state rather than giving the state the opportunity to distribute the regulatory burden as it sees fit. >> i might not be understanding you. but this goes back to the question. the statute says after the standards originally promulgated, the state gets three years to make its best hedge and the administrator shall promulgate this at any time within two years after that. so presumably there are lots of conversations that can happen between the epa and the state, and sometimes one of those conversations happen and sometimes less of those conversations happen in but i don't see that as different constructions. it seems that you go first, you do this within three years, and

then we have to do it within two years. it does have substantial discretion under the statute as to what kinds of conversations it wants to have one within that broad structure. >> i agree that they have that discretion. the problem is in 1998 they asserted who says interpretive authority, which is the good neighbor provision of the clean air act and they say that the epa is the institution that must quantify it. until the epa fills in the blanks and tells the state what this means. the epa could have taken a different approach. they could have told the state that you can take the first crack at the signing what this means and we will review your submission and approving or disapproving. but what they said 50 years ago is that the state the way for the epa to occupy this. once they assert that those of interpretive authority over the

provision, the state have no obligations to guess at what the epa may do in the future. and that leads to a second independent problem with the epa transport rule. because the epa had no way to impose this federal implementation plans for the 1997 standard. on the 22 states that already had the epa approved fip's for those standards that haven't some of them challenged at a method in a pending matter why should we be looking at that issue here when states have challenged that. >> three of the states have challenged a. >> i don't know why the rest of them. the three of them have. so why should we enter the fray anticipatory way. is that an issue that we should wait and see what the epa says below imax. >> the united states is suggesting that we are somehow watching improper collateral

attack. because they could have a failure to submit. >> this is a discrete question that they have already proved. three states have rav challenge the fact that they shouldn't be required to meet a new standard because their party had one approved. so that seems a discrete challenge and three states have undertaken a. >> i don't know why, but that is a different issue. even though it has, wouldn't it be more prudent for us to wait for that administrative process to finish before we venture into this question. >> i don't think the courts are right. the issues that were raised our discrete from those three states in their separate proceedings. the argument we are making is that the epa has no authority to impose this on for quantifying the good neighbor obligations

and the second is that they improperly evoked this power. >> that is because you don't get that from the statute. you get that from what the epa did in the first place. is that right? >> we are not relying solely on this. but the epa has changed its interpretation of the statute is not adequately acknowledging her explaining how this is consistent. but as i mentioned earlier, it requires the states to limit pollution that contributes to none of whom are. >> there are six state that contribute. and how much each state can cut back depends. it depends on what it costs. it depends on how much they contribute. it depends on what the other state are doing.

and that includes what they have in mind for solving the problem. and they had a very good reason for not doing what they did before, namely it would be impossible here. the very tough and very expensive. so that is why i gather it went away that they did. i don't know anything in the law that tells them the statute is meant to force them to proceed in a way that would either be usually more expensive and perhaps impossible. what is your reaction? >> bpa has done this before. the first quantify the estates good neighbor obligations to submit this before the federal

implementation plans would take effect. the epa agrees that the states have no ability to guess accurately how they will quantify this. >> they have the transport rule. >> the only question is whether it should come out sooner or later. >> it's not impossible for them to decide what that means. that's their job and they've is learned that prerogative and they can choose any reasonable interpretation of that. >> he started to give us a second statutory reason. i'm eager to see what i was. >> has come and that is section seven for 10 that we mentioned in the brief. the epa had previously proved this for 22 states and implemented this 1997 standard. once the epa approves this, it

expires under the statute. to the epa had a problem for those 22 states. how would they be able to impose this when they had previously approved it. and they say in the transport rule that they are going to invoke the corrections power and it says that if the epa determines that this was an error, dashed. >> isn't that the issue that the three states are challenging? just that discrete issue about whether epa can call this a corrective action or not? is not being determined in those proceedings? >> yes, three states have challenged it. >> so that is what is at issue there. >> he finished describing the issue? i didn't hear it. enact the epa invoked its power

under this. but it says that a correction must be made in the same manner as the decision being corrected. their approvals of the earlier that, because of a they require that the corrections here did not go through this commentary there's no disagreement between the respondents on that point. the united states tries to get out of this problem by saying that they can use this rulemaking that is found in the administrative procedure act. but it doesn't help the epa at all. but it comes from this brought too an exception of a statue in the statute providing that it's not the statute that imposes a requirement. >> this is a statute on which the epa gets its financial deference. but why couldn't we read that language essentially means subject to the same procedural

ironman as the original? >> because that caveat does not appear. >> it's not a caveat, it's just a different understanding of what that language means. i mean, you say that it has to be in the exact same way that they acted. and i guess i'm saying that could mean subject to the sutro bierman. or is that not clear when that. >> at your suggestion is that the epa could rely on this procedure act. >> whatever procedural acquirements and strained the epa wanted to prove this, those were the same procedural ironman that constrained the epa in this way. and we are just asking.

both have to be subject to the same procedural requirements in the epa can act differently as long as they are acting within that same set of rules. >> we don't think that is a construction of this. they offer this to make corrections and it says specifically that the corrections must be made in the same manner as the decision being corrected and it went through a notice on, they have to go through notice and comment as well. if the decision went through formal adjudication, then it must also go through formal adjudication and they don't try to make that about what this means. they're just trying to say that the good exception to notice this will make them carried over here. >> i think that they are trying to make that argument. they're saying in the initial version we could have done it or we could have done it if we had good cause. as well as when we were reversed that initial determination. >> that is what it means when

they don't constrain us at all. >> it would follow. but if you did this for good cause, they can do it for good cause by rulemaking and then use it as well. >> it's is in the same manner. so it's looking back to the original decision and how it was made. it's the second recently provided as to why this should be affirmed. so if they were to reach this issue, there's also the question of whether or not this can be severed. because it doesn't like time has expired. it would require this inseparability question. >> thank you, mr. mitchell.

>> mr. t justice, the private party focused on the statutory limitations. to explain this in regards and why justice kagan was reading this the way we should suggest. and we begin with the authorization of the prohibition that contribute significantly to nonattainment. the focus of a which we think is quite clearly on the effects on other states and not on the cost of reducing that. what the epa has done here is assert that it has the power to increase the state's reduction obligations beyond what a focus on the effects of its missions

would require, simply because epa has decided it would be reasonably affordable for that state to bear a higher burden. what it means is that state are making only a slight contribution to air quality problems are nonetheless required to make very substantial reductions and in many cases far more than state senator making for greater contributions and there is no relationship at all under the methodology of the epa between the amount the state contributes and that amount that it has to reduce. because the entire driver, mr. seward said that cost is one component. but it is the entire driver. >> focusing on your argument, which is very clear and very good. and the example that comes to my mind is that we have an overgrazing problem in the state.

and it's caused because councilman state a. they are not friends. [laughter] >> it turns out that the epa was in charge of preventing the overgrazing and discovers that if they build this fence, that will cure the problem. even though they only contribute half or maybe less. well, if we bury it, you each have because half the problem because that seems fair. it's going to end up that the people in state are going to starve to death. and so archways is between taking two people to the states, each of whom have the problem and getting an overall plan where you solve the problem at minimal cost or just divided

5050. it seems fair and mathematics, that leads to this. and that is what they have done here. and the reason that they are not doing this is because they know all of the states are partly responsible. and with this plan, we get the job done at a much lower cost. so where does it say that they can't do that? >> i will try to respond that. certainly it is the case and we would acknowledge that there will always be a legitimate policy arguments in favor of the lease cost efficient solution. ..