i would like to have you try to comply. today's hearing is critical to our understanding of the success and lack thereof of the environmental groups across the country and an appreciation of our unique system of federalism congress in particular this committee must check in with states to ensure this is fully functioning when it comes to actions initiated by the united states environmental protection agency, epa. ..

observed a flood of new regulations breaking down this system in what seems to be uncooperative and obama epa has embarked on regulatory agenda that simply run over states by imposing increasing regulatory actions on states that request less to help states to carry out these actions. some state regulators have explained epa is requiring them to do more with less. many actions are driven through epa headquarters to fulfill political agenda that results in years of litigation and inefficiencies that cost citizens more taxpayer dollars and lit toll no -- little to no environmental benefits. today we have panel working across the country working with

epa regions and experiencing unique environmental issues that will expand on this breakdown while state feedback varies, there are several troubling themes that have emerged. epa has neglected responsibility to consult with states at the beginning stages of regulatory actions. the epa gives little time to digest complex regulations and provide meaningful analysis during short periods and epa has allowed activists to set without state input. epa has increasingly regulatory guidance, epa has a severe backlog of implementation state plans and yet over state programs. epa budget requests have called for decreased levels of state

funding while requesting increase funds for epa bureaucrats and epa is deviating from the core functions and duty to uphold cooperative federalism as we define it. these concerns are not limited to -- last week i sent letters to agencies asking for feedback on epa actions and the level of cooperative federalism. i appreciate many responses, i got to this committee and without objection, we will make them a part of the record. i look forward seeing more responses and hearing more of the witnesses today as we take a hard look at what does work and what does not work. to hear the other side senator boxer. >> how did you know? [laughter] >> do count me in on people who

want to hear from the states, so many of our states are leaders on the environment. my own being a prime example. we have proven that we can clean up our environment and also create very good paying jobs and it's been proven over and over again. i think that all wisdom certainly does not reside here. i think every one of us will say that. that's why aye always liked the idea of minimum standards set by the government but allowing the states to do more to protect their people from pollution and that's really at the heart of what this debate is all about. to me, it's not about state's rights, it's about protecting people at a minimum level and then allowing the states to do more if they want to. now, states have a very important role to play in carrying out our landmark environmental laws, which we can talk about them all day.

i would make a prediction, we will never repeal the clean-air act. we will never repeal the clean-water act, we will never repeal the safe-drinking water act. we will never repeal the brownfield's act, why because 90% of the american people support that. so what happens in the committee since my friend took the chair, tough to swallow, nothing personal, we are trying to see an undermining of those laws, there's a back door making it impossible. so i just want to say this and i will ask unanimous consent to place my full statement in the record. >> without objection. >> you know, you have to learn by what happens we have to learn. history, we have to look at current events and i'm speaking for myself and only for myself

when i say this, when i look at what happened in michigan, when i look at the way that state handled the situation at flint, i think for us to be holding a hearing saying, the federal government shouldn't do anything. the fact is epa in writing warned them, did the epa do enough, not many my book, they warned them in writing, they told them to put anticorosive treatment in the pipes, they ignored it. somebody there is going to be blamed for this at the end of the day when the suits are finally come to the courts. but to me, it's a moral crime, it's a moral crime so to just say the state should do it all, there shouldn't be minimum standard, you know, we shouldn't really triple-check the water systems, i just don't buy it and i think that what -- what our

laws do i think are very happy prommize between -- compromise the right for people who vote for president, who vote for senators and house members to know that they'll have a basic standard to know that they can be protected and their children to be protected. you're the laboratory, if you can do more, fine, protect them to at least a minimum level. that's been the way i have viewed this job. that's why when we preempt states on this, i think it's a terrible thing to do and i've shown that through my whole career, but, again, i want to say thank you all whether you agree with me or not, i think two or three don't, something like that, but i'm happy to see all of you here. [laughter] >> thank you, senator boxer. center boozman, would you like to introduce your friend from

arkansas. >> i just want to thank her for being and the tremendous job he's doing in arkansas, we are happy to have her an board and we are pleased that you're here and all that you represent. thank you. >> thank you, senator boozman. we are going to start with you ali. i'm going to take your short name, all right? you are recognized. >> i'm a member of the committee, my name is almirzakhalili. i thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i would like to share can you delaware's view of the epa state and u.s. congress with respect to complying with various environmental statutes and associated regulatory actions to protect public health and the environment. the clean-air act has been a huge success preventing literally hundreds of thousands

of premature deaths as well as millions of incideepts of mobility. the health benefits associated with the clean-air act far outweigh cost of pollution. we have accrued health benefits as domestic has grown. the clean-air act has been one of the most effective, likely to go in history as one of the most effective domestic laws ever passed. the public generally does not differentiate from levels of government but expect to work. epa, congress and the states fulfill respective roles and perform as effectively as possible. as i state in my written statement, i believe epa can best full bill its role by six important benefits, two, providing state flexibility to

meet those national standards, issuing in a timely more than, four, ensuring state accountability for their action, providing level plain field and sources of pollution that are national of significant and states may be preempted from doing so. congress has a responsibility in environmental protection including most importantly ensuring that it provides adequate fund to go epa and the state assist in clean-air goals. unfortunately in recent years, congress has fallen short in this respect. the clean air act provides the federal government to provide grants up to 60% of air-pollution programs and provide 40% match. unfortunately, this has not been the case. while the grant have not resulting in delaware and most

other states, self-funding over 75% of their air program operating budget. despite all of the challenges, states are doing their best. in delaware i'm proud to say we are meeting all of our clean-air act obligations. we succeed by being proactive, collaborative and focusing on our limited resources so as to ensure are appropriately controlled. this year states faced a number of important regulatory deadlines under the clean-air act, the dead lines do not differentiate large states with ample resources and small states like ours with fewer resources. delaware's practices of omitting resources is key to our ability to manage this in light of insufficient funding. if we can do it, so can others. because of delaware's effort to obtain compliance delaware is

complying with the 2012 standards and subject only to the first of the three sulfur dioxide requirements. the deadlines does not represent unmanageable in 2016. we are continue to go work -- continuing to work this year. this year delaware will continue its work under greenhouse initiative and prepare the state's strategy under the power plan. i believe the cpp is an excellent example of how epa is thoughtfully and successfully working with states for flexible rules. delaware continues to experience poor air quality, however. delaware omission control effort to reduce omissions are as a resulted in a situation where 90% of the ozone concentration

are attributable to omissions. under the clean air act, often states were required to regulate omissions, yet they have not done so. in some case it is problem is that of only -- omitting sources are not controlled. some have been installed in units but incredibly not being operated. thank you for this opportunity to testify. i look forward to answer questions. >> thank you, ali. ms. markowitz. >> good morning, all. i'm secretary of vermont natural resources. i know if senator sanders was

not in florida he would be introducing me today. vermont is a regulated state. this means we take responsibility for the oversight and implementation of federal environmental programs. we implement the resource conservation and recovery act, the clean-water act and the the national pollution elimination pilot program and the clean-air act and the safety-water act. vermont chose to take the federally delegated programs. epa did not force us to do so. the federal government didn't require it. vermont chose to take responsibility to implement the important regulatory programs in the state because we know how important they are to vermonters safety and prosperity. not only do we rely on clean air and clean water and clean throond protect the health of our people, vermont has a land-based economy. our top industries include tourism, agriculture and forestry.

people come from all over the world to swim in our lakes and fish in our rivers and ski in our mountains. in our high-tech sectors, it is the natural beauty of our state and our pristine environment that enables us to attract good jobs and high-quality employees to stay or relocate in vermont. by managing these delegated programs, vermont can ensure that our state's protected through regulation. this even more important in light of the highly charged political dialogue that are environmental laws in regulation in gender here in washington. while new rules promulgated take time and effort to implement in our states, there are many good reasons to support a strong federal approach. first, we look to epa for the expertise to study and develop the science and technology that underlies our environmental

regulations. we could not meet our mission to protect human health and to safe guard our national environment without this important federal contribution. second, we see value in having national standards for environmental protection. as a children in vermont who suffered from asthma and the anglers can't each the fish they catch because of mercury pollution, epa has given us protections and vermonters as well as americans have to depend upon them. finally national environmental regulations provide even playing field among states. it's important to acknowledge that the system of coregulation between epa and the state is not always simple or it's at a natural tension. there are times when we want to address a problem differently than epa's approach ited in the

past or when the federal approach they have unintended consequences for us in vermont because of our small size and rural character. in situations like these we found epa willing to listen to our concerns. in numerous occasions, epa supported vermont in effort to implement program to protect the environment. epa has allowed flexility, cooperated with us to achieve our shared environmental goals, included vermont's voice in efforts to develop new rules and standards and has shared resources and expertise to help us more efficiently and effectively implement our programs. in my written testimony, i've included a number of specific examples if that'll be helpful. in closing, i would to reiterate the value of our relationship with epa and that for vermont this partner is essential to protect our environment and the health of our citizens and the doctrine of cooperative federalism, i'm very happy to

take questions, thank you. >> thank you, and now mr. huffman. >> good morning, mr. chair, members of the committee. as west virginia cooperator, i view the relationship with federal partners envisioned by partners and environmental as critical. according to environmental council of the states, about 95% of the regulatory duties in this country are actually carried out by the states. congress placed the most important core responsibilities with the states because it knew states states are far more response toif local concerns and much more aware of local environment than distant bureaucracies. in addition, states must be cost-effective and have balanced budget and perform in the face of flat or declining revenues. it is that states have demonstrated not only that we are up to the challenge but that

we actually continue to deliver the results congress envisioned when it created our environmental framework within the model of cooperative federalism. unfortunately federalism under the current administration has been less than cooperative with both epa and surface money. much of it encroaches on the authority congress gave to the state and nearly all of it adds new regulatory burdens to state resource that is are already stretched thin. at best, epa and osm are indifferent of consequences of actions, at worse, we see federal agencies continue to basically rewrite our nation's congressional environmental acts with no accountability. i have many examples but time will only permit me to cover a few. my first example is one with which we are all familiar. regardless of the position

individual states on climate change, section d put it is states, not epa in charge of developing performance. with little regard to the role, ep ark has ceased the state's authority and minute details, epa is increasingly establishing what amounts to binding rules through guidance. states are expected to perform to the results of this process as if epa had promulgated a rule. there's at least two problems with this. epa guidance further eliminates state discretion and it allows them to avoid the accountability and transparency of rule-making. my final examples relate to similar actions by interiors office. the proposed stream protection room which i testified about before the senate in october is

another example of a federal agency attempting to rewrite part of an act of congress with no mandate to do so. they further failed to involve the state which have promised under the service mining act to carry out the duties. the result is a proposal that has multiple, unlawful conflicts with federal and state clean-water laws. ofm routinely fails to approve amendments upon which it is obligated to act. since 2009, west virginia has submitted nine amendments. and only then on an interim basis. my last example to permit defects. ten-day notices are osm obligation under the surface mining act to notify the states when a mining violation is suspected and has not been properly addressed.

it is clearly an enforcement measure to be applied. in 2009osm was direct today use the regulatory tool to correct deficiencies in state-issued permits. most states including west virginia embrace the idea and practice of cooperative federalism in regulating industrial activity and protecting the environment. the practice is sound has great validity and has been successful in the past. since 2009, i have watched epa and osm go about executing an agenda that does not -- that does not concern itself with the rule of law for making changes to our nation's environmental statutes. i don't want to create the impression that all of west virginia's interactions with epa and osm are negative. we have built very good working relationships with the counterparts at regional level.

most of the issues appear to emanate from epa or osm headquarters. >> thank you, mr. huffman. >> excuse me. senator boozman, good morning, i bring your greetings of governor from arkansas and i appreciate your opportunity to respond to your call this morning. we are seek to go -- seeking to drive regulatory, affordable energy and economic growth goals. we want a state that can seek to attract newest generation of professionals searching and arkansas recreational opportunities. arkansas has invested heavily in assuring that we are stewards of

clean air, healthy breathing air and amazing vista with which we have been blessed. we do not take the status lightly. we strive to serve the corresponding and complementary roles of environmental stewardship. like wise for decades we have worked with epa and governing model that is the topic of today's hearing. this notion is born of something uniquely american, our system of federalism whereby the nation and state function together. both the epa and states had a relatively balanced seat at the table and as we are known to do in the south, we would also sit around the table and have a good-old fashion meal. there would be lively debate, ample servings and we would cooperate and prepare a meal together. however, this once treasure

family has become a thing of the past. now, we have an increasing diminished role in the menu selection and meal preparation. we are often forced to eat what is served. the cooperative federalism model that has defined arkansas relationship beginning in the 1970's, has morphed into something else, we have seen decrease for state implementation plans and dramatic increase in epa takeovers or federal implementation plans, historically these were used weapons of last resort for epa partner, itself nuclear option or denied outright. now it's used as an every day tool in the epa arsenal. in the past seven years, states have been forced to takeovers

than wherever served in the prior three federal administrations combined ten times over. states will not waste the time to draft their own proposals if they expect the federal government to do what it wants to do in the end. the opportunity for local innovation is destroyed. cooperation should be fostered, not des -- discouraged, we call on you to help with this broken marriage, state states are placed in an unfair position but then finding out meals are served exclusive from the epa table. we are to be served a fixed menu without a fixed price. state's willingness to split the check was mitigated by a healthy respect and a difference we received. now we ask your assistance in resetting that needle to its

point of origin, for air pollution we seek air pollution prevents and control is primary responsibility of the state and local governments. in our estimation, congress should ring the steak dinner bell calling for the meal to be host and state should host the occasion and epa should be a frequent guest at table. however, where we are now we can best describe it as a progressive steak dinner party gone bad. states have recognized to borrow a saying in the south, we have more on our plait than we can say grace over. the number of mandates and deadlines further complicated by the rules leaves us in a position where being served appetizer soup all at the same time. states rarely have sufficient notice and implementation of the rules to establish meaningful outcomes before moving to the next one and we are left unable

to get a taste of one course before the next one arrives. epa is further luxury of being the picky eater while they select what they prefer on the menu while we states are struggling to digest the meals plus leftovers. the reality is that states are often more upon than partner. it's more evidence in the epa two senate legislative passage to clean power plan who had consequences and extraordinary costs. arkansas is seeking ways to work with how we can work with epa on consolidating efforts and superceding without facing legal conflicts. in addition to the state water act, the state developed criteria in arkansas how now become unrealistic and unachievable minimum standards.

in this case, epa has executed an ultimate bait and switch. serving up cooperative federalism is distasteful but the executive stabilized by three legs and not just one makes it for a difficult and messy meal. we do want a seat at this table. we should not be fed the regulation of the day. in fact, the great majority of we have result from reinterpretation of the good-neighbor provisions. in conclusion, not only has the uniquely american cooperative federalism model fallen, but the role is less partner and more upon. we are left to wonder if special interest groups currently occupy our seat at the table that once was reserved for us. with states disfranchise so is

the truth of democracy and the people we represent. >> thank you, mr. pirner. >> chairman and members of the committee. my name is steven pirner. i appreciate the opportunity on why we do not believe the current regulatory framework between epa and the state upholds the principle of cooperative federalism. let me provide a few examples. to help fund the regulatory programs, epa awards us the performance partnership grant. in 2012 the grant peaked in funding duh -- but declined in the last two years. an increase of federal preemption on what we hold the state rates is also detrimental.

for example, epa developed a rule intend to go clarify which water bodies are subject to jurisdiction under the clean-water act. the rule is substantial opposition in south dakota and we join lawsuit with 12 other states to block the rule. upon joining the challenge, south dakota attorney general was quoted the same, the epa is overstepping its congressional authority and ceasing rights specifically reserved to the state. also under the clean water act, epa has proposed national water quality for nutrients, dental offices. the bottom line is that the new more stringent standards are going to cause treatment and raise costs up. turned research conservation recovery act, epa finalized regulations to regulate cold ash, this was prompted by the

liquid cold ash in tennessee, our single power plant, the big storm power plant disposes of only dry ash but subject to new rules which preempt dnr's existing solid-waste permit. in a settlement agreement between epa and the sierra club, the power plant was listed as a source and need to go demonstrate compliance with epa standard. epa never took into account the new air pollution controls installed at a cost of $384 million to meet the reasonable hays rule. there's no doubt it will reduce sulfur dioxide omissions. south dakota is one of ten states in the nation who is with the national quality standards but against our recommendations, epa adopted a new lower standard for ozone.

we are now at risk not because the air has gotten dirtier because epa lowered the standards below background levels. certain start-up shutdown and malfunction exemptions in 36 states to include south dakota inadequate under the clean-air act need to be eliminated, our exemption allows for brief periods because certain piece of the equipment are not fully functional when the events take place. the nr's first rule first established in 1975, was approved by epa and has not caused or interfered with south dakota staying in compliance with the national standards. south dakota has joined florida's lawsuit against the rule along with 15 other states. the final rule that highlight it is lack of cooperative federalism is the carbon dioxide standard for existing power plants. in 2012, the base year, 74% of the power generated in south

dakota came from renewable sources. in spite of this remarkable record, epa's rule threaten the viability of the two fossil-fuel power plants that we do have in the state and could strand strand regional hays control. here again the attorney general join lawsuits against the rule most notably west virginia, bottom line, they will have huge impact on citizens and economy be will reduce little or no benefits in south dakota. for this reason, we believe that each state should have the right and the freedom to address these issues individually using the principles of cooperative federalism. as stated in the executive order, the framers recognized that the states process quality and abilities to meet the needs of the people and should function as laboratories of democracy, that is not the case

now. i hope this information is useful to the committee, thank you again. >> all right. would you hold the poster up that we have there. according to this december 2015 timeline, there are nine clean-act dead lines for states this year alone. your testimony describes a number of these epa actions as i'm quoting now from your statement, quote we have at best overlapping and at worse conflicting directive. can you explain how it impacts your department? >> thank you, chairman. it is frustrating as we seek regulations in a very short time frame. as we see as our program staff evaluates the rules and seek implementation, we are modeling

different conflicting results for the exact same source for the facility. it often ignores the progress that the states are already making or continue to go make on different time frames. >> all right. thank you very much. and mr. huffman on january 23rd, 2016, i led some , 200 house and senate members, 34 were senate members in filing a brief with the dcc circuit in opposition to epa's clean power plant. i have to point out that's because you're one of four states exempt from it, so i think the others would probably agree with you if that were the case. anyway t brief argues among other things that the clean power plant violates act of

federalism, i'm quoting now from the brief, epa takes a coercive approach that the states to implement and enforce the agencies' power choices. i would ask mr. huffman, would you agree that it cohorts and not the choice of the state? >> yes, senator. i think that -- i'm sorry, thank you, senator. i believe epa's biggest challenge in implementing the clean power plant it had to go about it in a way that's unconventional. epa will regulate pollutants at the end of the pipe, but with regard to clean power plant, the only way to do that would be to put a regulatory number, a limit carbon dioxide and the only way to do that in a way that gave

the effect that they would want, would essentially shut down all fossil fuel protection in this country. so the way they went about managing every minute detail of how this clean-power plant should be implemented, we think ran in conflict with section 111d which gives states authority for standards and ep as has done that instead of setting threshold and allowing the states to figure out how to do it. >> thank you, mr. pirner, there's a little bit of confusion, lack of clarity following the supreme court's stay of the clean power plant. has your state continued to work on the rule and if the stay is lifted, do you expect deadlines to be extended. in other words, do you continue

to work as if the stay were not reality? how are you preparing for it? i might ask the others the same thing. go ahead. >> mr. chairman, our plan before the stay was issued was -- was to proceed along a path such that we could do enough to get the two-year extension. epa said that that was not going to be a high bar to reach and so we read through what they were going to require and we had started to work on those items. one of those items was a public participation process. in response oh to that, we established a website where people could view some information and give us comments. we had also scheduled public-inmutt -- input meetings. we canceled public meetings, the word that we are getting back from the legal team that's leading those lawsuit, that

lawsuit is that they expect those deadlines will be adjusted by the courts once the decision is made. >> in knowing are two different things. >> yes, sir. >> anyone else want to comment on that? senator boxer. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mirzakhalili. delaware is a down-wind state such as rhode island and much of the air pollution in your state comes from up-wind state. you say that, quote, it is epa's role to perform equity on where it is received. seems to me that's right spot on and so if epa did not set minimum standards in all of this went to your neighboring state who is sending, you know, smog over your way and we lifted all to each state, what would it be

like to the people in terms of delaware, in terms of asthma and copd and the other problems that come from filthy air? >> thank you, for the question, senator boxer. i can answer that by saying, that's the -- we will -- we suffer from the consequence of the omissions if they're unabaited. as i mentioned on testimony, some of those is the results are simple to remedy. the equipment have been installed and just not operating because the current scheme is a -- >> thank you, i think you answered that very well. ms. keogh, i would love to be invited to your house for steak dinner because you obviously are focused on that and it would be fun. [laughter] >> so you just heard our witness from delaware talk about the fact that if we didn't have the basic minimum standards his

state -- wonderful people there but they are located in a place where they get those winds and they get that pollution, so if your state was in that circumstances -- i know you do get some pollution from surrounding states but not to the extent that some of the other states get it, wouldn't you think it would be fair to limit that pollution because wouldn't you be concerned that science tell us there's a direct link with dirty air and asthma and copd and worse, can you understand their point is what i'm asking? >> yes, ma'am, chairman -- >> ranking member. >> ranking member. i apologize. >> it doesn't matter. he would be unhappy. >> i understand. [laughter] >> arkansas does have very clean air and healthy air and it is difficult for a state like arkansas to, you know, reflect on the model assumptions that are made to implicate states

which measure and monitor such clean air against other states. >> but that wasn't my question, my question was if you were one of the state that is got a huge amount of pollution from the next-door state which did nothing to prevent it, would you put yourself in the shoes of delaware or rhode island or these other states, it's just a simple yes or no? >> our states work together. we have worked with neighboring states. >> okay, so your position is that your state can tell another state what to do and you're credit siding the epa now you're going to say one state is going to tell the other state what to do, it's not realistic at all and that's the reason why we pass federal legislation under nixon, i might say. ms. markowitz, why is it essential to have minimum standards and also protecting citizens? >> well, like --

>> could you put on your mic? so in talking about -- we are also an up-wind state. vermont is a clean green state. we have some of the worst pollution in the little town of rutland and that's because wind comes into vermont and that's a problem for us. and we have tried to work cooperatively with these states to put in place those pollution controls that in many cases they already have. you know, vermont, we want to do more. we recognize that we've got this culture of environmentalism but at a baseline when other states want to do less -- >> you're making my point. minimum federal standards let the states do more. >> that's right. >> and i think that's what the beauty is of the clean-air act which is under such fierce attack.

now, mr. huffman the spill from the freedom industry storage facility contaminated the drinking water supply of more than 300,000 resident of charleston, you know that. we are now facing another water crisis in flint, michigan where children were poisoned by the toxic waters, given the events, do you think the epa and state should be doing more to protect the public's drinking water? >> senator, i think that your point about minimum federal standards and then let the state figure out, that's absolutely the model that we should be following. >> good, good. >> that's absolutely what we should be doing. my point today and i think that the frustration with west virginia is not -- with some it has been about what those standards are but the real problem for me as a regulator the way they go about implementing the standards. they are bypassing the guidelines under the federal environmental statute for how to

implement one of the changes. >> since my time has run out and the chairman is coughing -- [laughter] >> or it's the hot air. let me just say that i really respect what you just said and i don't think that any agency, federal government or any state agency should step it bounds so we will talk more about that because i think what you said is very fair. minimum standards, yes, but implemented in the right way, thank you. >> thank you, senator boxer. senator rounds. >> we pride in south dakota with the clean air. we have challenges at times if there's a forest fire in california. we suffer from the smoke from that. we understand when you talk about you want clean air. we want it too. secretary you spent implementing

on federal level k. you discuss experienceses of differences that you've seen in terms of quality of regulations that have resulted from process that incorporates more state input compared to regulation that is having promulgated by the epa? >> senator rounds, based on my experience if you go back and epa ruled out an issue and if everybody caism to the -- came to the table and agreed this is a problem and options viable, things get done, it works. if you don't have that process in place and the federal government epa in this case is identifying the problem along with the option or a couple options, none of which work for you, then we are left with the

lawsuits that you -- that i just mentioned in my testimony. >> talk about ozone. we are one of the few states in compliance. can you talk a little bit about what that does in a state like south dakota that is one of the state that is complies right now? you mentioned they want to make a mention down to perhaps below our basic numbers. can you talk about that, how frustrating that is? >> yes, senator, ozone, to form ozone you have to have certain emissions and has to react with sunlight and then you get ozone. it may form at a down-wind state. in south dakota we don't simply have -- we are a population about 800,000 people. we don't have the sources of the chemicals that react with the

sunlight to form the ozone. so the ozone that we do have in south dakota is either from up-wind states or is basically our background levels and i think based upon what we've seen, the new limit that epa has come out with is very, very close, if not above our background levels. >> so a state like south dakota is supposed to do when we are not in compliance? >> we haven't been there yet. thank goodness but i would assume we are going to a none obtainment status. we would have to try to work with the epa on figuring out what to do but since we don't have the sources, i don't know what we would do. >> in your experience, how would you recommend epa change its practices of making regulations to better incorporate states'

perspectives? in other words what are the implications of epa acting overreaching rather than regulations that take into account the different characteristics of individual states? >> your hearing today is on cooperative federalism and if you read the executive order that i quoted in my testimony it says in there that one of the principles of federalism is that those decisions that effect people that are made by the unit of government closest to the people are usually the best decisions. and we would say that is still true. >> i would suggest that during your tenure from 1979 on you've gone through multiple administrations. can you share with us about what you're seeing right now with regards to either the consultations that are either not there or the directives that are being laid out right now

versus the way it used to work, the way whether it was in a democrat administration or republican administration, what's different about what's going on right now? >> senator, i think, you know, senator boxer said we're not going to repeal the clean-air act and we are not going to repeal the state-drinking water act and not going to repeal the environmental federal acts and i don't think anybody wants to repeal those federal acts. when those acts were put in place, they were real problems in this country. the environment was really, really suffering and that was the reason those acts were put in place. but in the intervening time period now, tremendous progress has been made, our water is cleaner, our drinking water is safer, our air is cleaner and so i guess what bothers me some about this is now we are trying

to ratchet down to the next environmental problem and we are getting to such low levels that we're just -- we are going to spend a lot of time, we are going to spend a lot of money, we are going to spend a lot of resources and in the end what's going to be the benefit? >> thank you, thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator rounds. i mentioned in my statement that all the acts, clean air act, we in the republican side were very supportive of that. i was one of the initial cosponsors. i wouldn't want people to think that these are not working, they are working. senator carper. >> thank you so much. just to follow up on what alex said, during the time that ali was serving in the department of natural resources, i was governor for eight years and chairman of the governor's

association for a while. i get the idea that the laboratories, i like the idea that federal government would set standards and you figure out how to do it, i thought the six points that you outlined in your testimony, ask everybody if on this panel if you agree with those and before i do that, that's what i'm going to ask next, be thinking what he said and how you feel about that. the chairman, and i go to a bible study. we spend -- we are people of different faiths but we try to figure out what our faith is and abide by it. one of the things we all agree on, i don't care what religion we are, treat all other people the way we want to be treated. i don't care what religion you are, it's there.

literally shut it down, and we still would not have compliance in any number of air quality metrics, that's just not fair, that's not right. that's why we need others to be a good neighbor and to look out for their neighbor. some places in the midwest where they created cheap energy, burned coal, 500-foot pipes, what do you call them? 500-feet high. we get it. we end up with dirtier air. we have to do -- spend more money to clean up our air because other people are getting free electricity. it's just not right. i would just ask for all of us to keep in mind the golden rule, treat other people the way we want to be treated. the other thing to keep in mind, it's something that mr. pirner you said.

we all remember that. i got on the train this morning. it goes right by the train station there. we can't eat the fish there. in fact, we can't eat the fish in most of the rivers in our state. and while we are making progress, the river doesn't catch on fire anymore but we still can't eat our fish and we can do better. we all agree that we should be guided by sound science. some of the real problems for air pollution are the size of particulars that get into our lungs are the smallest. we have always been concerned about the largest ones. the really dangerous stuff is the little ones, micro. i would ask you to keep that in mind. i want to bag to what ali said. i just want you to say if he's on target. epa fulfilling the following

sound science, epa must set national standards as congress mandated, that's number one. states to provide program flexibility under clean-air act and protect public health and the environment. that's number 2. timely rules and guidance, it's important that epa issues timely rules and guidance use by the states. number 4, accountability, epa should be consistent in the outcomes it expect from states across the country and local air pollution to all agencies accountable for meeting commitments. number 5, equity, epa must provide for a level playing field among the states. kind of the golden deal rule i was laying out and finally, sources that states are either preempted from regulating or lack necessary expertise to regulate are most effectively regulated on a national level.

do you agree with those? did he lay those pretty well or not? >> yes, i agree with those. i think that's how we have been operating. we personally in vermont have experienced flexibility with region one. >> thank you. >> yes, senator, those are great principles. we agree with them and we long for those days when the execution follows the ideal. >> thank you. think of it as amen -- a menu. [laughter] >> these are good principles. it comes down to implementation and how we can work cooperatively and find solutions rather than create new challenges. >> thank you. >> yes, senator, i would agree with those six points as well and as the other witnesses have said, it's basically how you carry it out. >> good.

the aye's have it. thank you very much. >> thank you, mr. chairman, and i want to thank all of you and i neglected to mention when i talked about secretary huffman that serves as right-wing commander so thank you for your service there kernel huffman. i'm glad that senator went to the principles you layed out. secretary huffman you highlighted section 303 in your testimony and basically it says that the epa has asked to determine whether a change in the state's water quality standard meets the requirement with the clean-water act and if the epa determines that a water-quality standard is consistent that by law notify within 90 days. my understanding that the west virginia approved change, standard just last year but the

epa failed to approve or deny the change within 90 days. i think the substance of the talk we are talking about today is not so much the standards as you've mentioned, it's the implementation, it's the lawfulness of which the federal agency is moving forward. so in my view with them not notifying in the timely fashion or giving you direction, it violates the timely rules and guidance that the secretary from delaware was -- the director in delaware was talking about and also the accountability portion of that. how vital is that for epa that it come in a timely fashion so that you can fully implement? >> well, thanks, senator, good to see you again. it's critical because, you know, this is -- there are a lot of moving parts in the environmental regulatory business. there's a lot going on. we need to make these requests and to get answers and we need to move on.

.. >. >> is in terms of offering guidance instead of rulemaking with those legal aspects of creating a regulation, are you getting more guidance than in the past? is there is enforcement mechanisms?

>> when you govern by guidance instead of going through the protocols for environmental statutes allow jujube avoid the transparency to your point in we see a lot of that the. >> end the federal minimum standard nobody has a problem with that but the implementation aspect but also most of you have mentioned of flexibility the state needs to have. in west virginia is different than vermont and we are blessed with a lot of coal into use it. and to it is just as liable

to us for what we captured western genius of we're happy about that. and with the most difficult hurdle to overcome. >> i don't know this is the of flexibility or the frustration of but that seems to be that if it is an inconvenience it it takes time if you want to make a rule and that is a cumbersome process. and the convenient way to do that is to impose upon the states with low to no flexibility is already written by the time we get it. and their minds are made up.

>> did you participated to develop the buffer rule that many were involved with this and because of the numerous frustrations and lack of listening most states pulled out. correct? >> that is correct there was a draft of that rule that was made public within days of signing on as they cooperated agency. >> it was already written. >> i will associate myself with the remarks of the governor in to douse senator as the attorney general of my state i sought exactly the circumstances that he very well described. not only not to treat fairly but to sue those upwind states are even sue the epa

to enforce compliance with the clean air act. on a perfect role in december morning you could drive to work to appear on the radio a warning that it was a bad error day. in the children in the elderly should stay indoors. stay indoors. in like delaware we could have shut down every outlet of the missions of this data for violent -- rhode island because it came from other states that had not even put scrubbers on their smokestacks yet more specifically built high smokestacks so it would project the emissions out of their state.

they were in compliance very often even though they were the source of the emissions taking rhode island out of compliance i know there are states that will not be happy with the regulation they would love to have the regulation and me as close to the people as possible because they want to export their pollution to my state and not pay for it or clean it up and that is a real problem. the epa has to address. it is unfair for kids in ryeland not to play on the summer day because it is a bad day as the epa? down more and more hour bad-- are diminishing but it took the epa to get after the state's our happy to go along with it because

they've made their pollution somebody else's problem so for the record our engagement is terrific we don't have complaints we talk back and forth and we're very open with no problem. i don't know if there is a significant lack with the export business that have problem that we are getting clobbered in those that appreciates epa and let me ask a quick question to see where we stand to curb emissions from the fossil fuel caused changes in our atmosphere and oceans that portend harm?

>> senator, i will not enter into that debate but what i would argue is that if we're going to control carbon emissions come it has to be done in a way that is feasible for the first proposal to the epa laid out was not feasible at all. >> i can hear you as simple as those emissions those changes are atmosphere wiry not willing to enter into the debate? >> i am not an expert in the particular topic. >> do curb emissions portend harm? >> i think it says yes and

no i am not an expert either >> do fossil fuels from curbing emissions cause changes? >> i'm sorry i did not mean to interrupt i do believe that the signs would indicate our climate is changing unfortunately we have the debate in the wrong place where your name calling it is reduced to name-calling with the believer don't believe in climate change sure it is changing what we need to debate is what we should be doing about it in bad enough we have come together as a nation on that ski enough. >> for the record i think every national lab the u.s. military and every single one other state universities have found that in easy

question to answer this with a plain and simple yes. >> in your testimony cited a dramatic increase of saarinen decrease of time and tolerance for stage implementation plans in dramatic increase under the administration has depicted in this chart the obama epa has taken over state programs, the more than the three previous administrations combined times than. director, are you concerned about this trend that is integral to the clean air act cooperative in they are intended only as a last resort?

>> we are concerned about this trend and we understand federal plans the be necessary where states do not act or choose not to but the process has become so alarming because they take tough federal solution that may be developed in a short period of time to replace a thoughtful process at the state level where we have dealt with a reasonable solution and also search out the intended consequences and without well thought out judgment they may not have seen that same thought process. >> states develop

implementation plans the epa has limited authority to reject the plan to issue a federal plan instead. in arkansas of the epa rejected our plan as an expensive takeover. director, is it true we were on track to achieve a natural visibility conditions? >> yes, sir. >> with the proposed regional planted the epa go beyond its limited procedural prescribed by the clean air act? >> we do believe when we ask epa for the federal proposal why they expanded the scope for those that were not legally authorized under the rule? epa answer because we can. >> how do those requirements interact with actions under

the clean power plant? are those intertwined in a complicated way? >> they are for arkansas. our experts that evaluate those rules working diligently to assess the impact cancellations look at the models and under that its regional hayes plan to take up the cost effectiveness could install multimillion-dollar control equipment and cost effectively. if you look at the model in the tie lines that seem source no longer operates a few years later after those controls are resolved and that is a costly mistake to pay for two and stole the multimillion-dollar controls to have them shut down to

comply. >> and with the unfunded mandates that is something we can all agree is a real problem. and having trouble on the agreement but the unfunded mandate can you address that? >> there has always ben and issue the funding for the vast majority, don't know the number of the programs in the state is provided by the state's and there is a lot of special fees the reregulate.

i know we have never seen an analysis when a new rule was imposed for guidance never the analysis done that i have seen that would indicate the cost associated >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator markey? >> your first name. [laughter] it is like bono. [laughter] some of your fellow regulators have expressed concern not being able to comment between the power plant change significantly based on imports from the state's then to you find the epa is listening in terms of

the flexibility or the concerns? >> absolutely especially in terms of a clean power plant. with a stakeholder involvement with unprecedented data. we see a marked difference from with the proposed and comments reflected. >> there was a discussion of a number of deadlines. the massachusetts department has corresponded with chairman and hough for this hearing and he noted that massachusetts will delaware be able to meet those deadlines. >> we will be we don't have

regulated entities or navigation and in answer to your earlier question with that involvement rica's we're deeply concerned that it could include in the initiative that we are a part of. >> is safe drinking water act allows them to manage those set by the epa with the ongoing situation from flint michigan what are the ways we can enhance federal-state cooperation to ensure safe drinking water. >> we have an issue that was

not a regulated chemical with a carcinogen in and to print destructor sunday and though wells the issues in the making of teflon and we rely:epa and scientific expertise to help us manage that and they have come out with some new rules and standards, or the limits in things and if this is an area of partnership the standards that they set help us ensure that vermont residents are healthy taking water from the tap the hispanic is we're all aware climate change is a global problem. is requires local solutions.

and pope francis came to congress to preaches a sermon on the hill to us to tellus the planet was warming and a science proved that and we're contributing and we have a moral responsibility to be the leaders. since both delaware and vermont are part of the regional greenhouse gas initiative partnering fifth coming up on 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases, talk about how the epa is coordinating to ensure this can be solved by cooperation working with the state's. >> bay has been and one of those key comments and for

that final rule to accommodate a multiuse that framework and we think our solution is a very good solution. >> and i ate appreciate that intrastate aspect as well as the national aspect. but that has to be cooperation. and we introduced the first acid rain bill in 1981 it took and held 1990 to pass it. into put those smokestacks' a football field high blowing the smoke to us we were the ones principally affected. it is clear and as we work together to solve problems

of the magnitude. >> thank you for holding this hearing today into the witnesses for coming. nebraska said department of environmental quality has been expressed by many witnesses today. in a letter addressed to the committee our state has written that while nebraska has a good working relationship with the region seven recent headquarters action have snowballed the epa compulsive tinkering with standards and limits before the states have had a reasonable chance to comply make it difficult to reconcile those competing priorities. secretary, in your response and that to stay all new federal requirements have an impact to produce little or

no benefits to protect public health and the environment like my home state of nebraska is a rural state with critical natural resources to benefit citizens and communities. elaborate on the challenges many rural communities will face as a result of the expansive epa regulations and water the economic impacts with job growth and industry and investment from the epa rules? >> and part of that concern without water quality standards i talked about in my testimony in now ratcheting those standards

than own to such a degree it is almost unfeasible to talk about the ammonia standard we're one of the for states to include ammonia that could be toxic to fish. and with tertiary treatment in now we have to install more treatments so it is based not on fish and '01 vessels and how did they do it when we didn't treat for any ammonia?

the now below goals are to be cost prohibitive so if we do try to comply with those new standards to take a lot of time and a lot of money. >> said department of environmental quality to discuss the need for streamlining those federal requirements to be worried about that unnecessary duplication. do you agree with that statement and d.c. duplication reoccurring as the theme of state regulators as they try to interpret and implement the federal mandates? >> i am not sure i understand the question you mean between the state and the epa? >> yes and also federal agencies. so it isn't just the epa but

other agencies as well that the standards. >> we have other federal issues with the corps of engineers in bureau of land management and many other federal agencies we believe are infringing on states' rights. that is the answer. >> how much time does add add when you are reading regulations with different agencies piling on those regulations i give you an example with that clean air program is in it for though whole state and we take to of those people when it

first came out to do commons to figure out what was going on and basically we process around 80 air quality permits per month. en to take out of that process. >> given your testimony you talk about the epa rules to regulate coal ash to preempt the existing solid waste permit to end it is my understanding with the state solid waste management plan are you concerned about the timing for that? >> very much we always believed it was for that

environment but it was a host of new requirements that somehow we have to merge with the existing permit in figure how to do that this. >> call we can see at this point. >> end your than vermont bin to make champagne is very important with the state of vermont to establish a new total maximum can you elaborate working collaborative flee. >> thank you this is a

perfect example of an issue that could have had overreached but has ended up with a pass for word with innovative approach to cleaning up the waters. and to suffer from terrible algae blooms like the '70s and '80s coming out of the waste water treatment facilities so that precipitation in with lake champlain we have been working on this for years but they engaged just because they understood to clean the lake we have to be involved because we understood within municipalities and the

farmers begin the transportation department to manage the storm water driven pollution. while we're waiting for the deal to come out to implement to be passed by the legislature and and happy to share in for this cooperative federalist approach. >> not to honor the state lines like you have a national standard isn't you discover most import responsibility of the clean air act is to protect the welfare system can you

discuss examples how did affects the house of citizens with the state environmental regulators? and to limit the amount of pollution into a greased the epa hasn't overstepped its authority to implement to protect the public health in the environment. >> delaware in vermont in epa has come up with the transport rule to allocate responsibility how much they

contribute to the other. we think the epa needs to do more. it with those deadlines to be the result and then to do more in this area and to meet those air quality standards. to have 90 percent of the equality i cannot commend to compliance with that. >> ed is our experience as well.

because it is all up with a state we tried to negotiate and try to suez the epa has rules on the books ahead with the health of the people and the state of vermont. >> thank you. >> thanks for the testimony and a very important topic. it is very clear on this committee we're committed to clean water and clean air. and a lot of focus on flint. certainly nobody wants to have our drinking water so the issue of clean water has come up.

and interested to work with my a committee members we have entire communities the don't have running water or flush toilets thousands of alaskans and americans i want to work with this committee and those that don't have any of the benefits it is something we need to fix. from other places in the country but by want to follow-up understatement. that sums up the frustrations because we can

i find remarkably arrogant in agency in there is example after example of analysts' surprise rise this committee on a bipartisan basis isn't more focus to make sure federal agencies follow the law. the epa verses' utility regulations has this day of over 30 states have sued and with the unprecedented u.s. supreme court put a stay on the clean power plant so ey are abusing every single major rule their undertaking in the courts with the obama

administration and officials in the judge is saying the epa oversteps the legal bounds let gene mccarthy said when asked if she thought they would win the case she said yes. they didn't. but then she said '' even if we don't win, it was three years ago. most of the states and companies are already in compliance. they will catch up so even if we lose we win because everybody had to abide by a lot. but it is that source of frustration and we elaborate this because we can? it is the height of very ginsberg. the epa should abide by the al lot and the federal

courts show they don't because we can isn't inappropriate answer with the people that work for you. >> senator it is disheartening we have regulators in that position in every day to make sure that we follow the lot. is so it is frustrating is admittedly a had very short notice at the time to field was a genuinely honest question with the lack to tunicate effectively and it was very disheartening at a minimum with a violation of trust. >> they didn't attempt to cite the law? they just said because we can?

>> a statement where arkansas made in today and send comply early doing everything with that part of the lot. to discuss that provision of the rate of progress under the rate of progress when it already exceeds the time or shortens the time line whatsoever was a circular conversation. there is a phrase to say we can go beyond to seek a better rate of progress and that is where they left it. and obviously we continue to discuss that with the epa

today. >> i see there is no other remaining, i want to follow-up on the issue of consultation with one of my frustrations with the attorney general of the state of alaska be found that consultation either didn't exist or is very cursory and every statute that we talk about the consultation requirement is not optional but minute -- mandatory celebre by kenny of the witnesses here with the concerns

one-size-fits-all that rarely works whether south dakota with mandatory consultation. do you feel that you get that? >> senator it is more that they check the box in my opinion. and with the proposals that come mount in the comment period we comint with everybody else does that clean power plant they received 1.3 million common so talk about the federal agency consultation reprocess i would not consider submitting one set of comments to be as state

to consultation. >> i co-chair a committee and i can tell you epa is present on every call not just with my committee but other committees and organizations with the epa staff so that may be a good place to plug in the conversation could they do better? in some instances yes. with friction with that rule making in with more flexibility so be careful what you ask for.

so the rules of the minimum standards and the guidance with technical assistance is our responsibility. >> i would add with the executive committee with the environmental council of states the epa is at every meeting and comes onto monthly calls if we ask. as described they make themselves remarkably available in our region as redevelop the partnership also to offer a tremendous flexibility in how we are managing our obligation and of course, there is the

difference between listening and agreeing. they do a good job listening but they don't always agree. ted is part of the frustration. we tend to agree with them more. with that attention and that we get from them. >> senator we will have to stop here as you were five minutes over. >> there is no one else your -- hear. >> the senator boxer will take the extra time. >> usually those committees of there is nobody else they can continue to ask questions. i will submit for the record

>> senator boxer take whatever time and. >> i want to talk about the courts to raise the issue so the epa has won 70 percent of the cases before the supreme court and as a matter of fact sometimes they lost because they were not doing enough because that is important. also to reiterate what should be in evidence one nation under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. we know that. so to think the federal government would not be an important partner is wrong. i know some of you say that is fine that want to pick up on what they said because

this is a great panel by the way. you are all sold -- so articulate but we had terrible air pollution in the '70s and it is understandable to cut the pollution and now you say things are so much better the epa goes too far. neece initially that is what you said. in this is important fish and wildfire service million americans have ceo pd. 11 million. 22.6 million americans have asthma including 6.1 million children and estimated newt canted -- cases of cancer. so to sit there and say that it seems strange to have

such an important position to help those people. some of those living your state or neighboring states the you have a great relationship it just isn't a factor in evidence. age you are giving testimony it has to be truthful so over the next week please send me the name of the person who said we're ordering you to do this. i want the name of that person because whoever said that it is absolutely wrong if you can put that in writing confidentially because i want to find out why they would say such a thing.

overall this panel has proved the point. right now, khmer are those that could lead to a loss of life. so maybe you could sit there but when i swear to protect the people i will do it. with the environment committee. and the senator and i have a different view of the role of the federal government and they think it is fair but at the end of the day to set minimum standards to make sure our people are protected where the pollution go to another state. . .

>> reporter: they just started using another ice age. they started using global warming. of course that changed again and 1945 that was another ice age. then of course that changed and 75 so about every 30 years it's changing. the interesting thing is in 1945 that was the year they had the highest co2 emissions in the history of this country. that precipitated not a warming but a coolie. i just think that has to be said. i know the public understands that now. i can remember back when i was a bad a bad guy, we were talking about this back in 2000. at that time it was considered

to be the number one concern, now it is number 15 out of 15, so people have caught on, they are going to continue to bring that up. the last thing is, we all want a clean environment. when you mention the clean air act and all the other acts, we we were all for them. i was back then. so with that, we will go and adjourn. i would like to have one quick word if i could. thank you. >> okay. >> that was good. [inaudible]

>> the illinois primary is next weekend democratic presidential candidate bernie sanders is in the state today for a campaign rally. he will be speaking to supporters at a local high school. we will have that live at 9:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span2. this week and there's more campaign coverage with donald trump in ohio, another state holding its primary next week. that event will be live tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. later in the day we'll take it to st. louis for a campaign event with hillary clinton at noon eastern on c-span. >> ben carson has endorsed donald trump for president, he turned to the businessman earlier today in florida to make the endorsement official. calling the republican front runner intelligent and someone who cares deeply about america. the announcement comes one week after doctor carson formally ended his own white house bid. there news conferences 45 minutes. >> [applause]. >> thank you very much a ladies and gentlemen, it is a great

honor. last last night's debate was fun, it was different. it got a lot of wonderful good feelings in that room. i think it is something that the republican party needed. today is something very, very special because of doctor ben carson was respected by everybody, everybody wanted his endorsement, everybody loves him and truly, truly admires what he has done for you to his has been an incredible life, it has been an awe-inspiring life. i just want to tell you that having his support really, i think it is just total credence of what i want to do and what we are all trying to do. i just want to introduce it, doctor ben carson, special, special person, special special man. thank you very much [applause]. >> thank you donald. now, this whole process of

getting involved in the political process was something that i had never particularly intended to do. i listened to the people. it was really all about the people. it continues to be all about the people. it is not about the republican party or the democratic party, it is about the people of america. what i had been seen recently is political operatives and parties once again trying to assert themselves in trying to thwart the will of the people. i find that is an extraordinary dangerous place to be right now. i want the voice of the people to be heard. i want the political process to play out in the way that it should play out. i think the republican party particularly will be very wise not to adopt, or let's promote

this guy policy but rather start thinking about what are the things that are going to be helpful for america. right now we are in the process of going off the deep end. we are going off the cliff. we are fiscally irresponsible, we are hating each other, we are just drawing ourselves, we are feeling to take a leadership position on the world stage. now some people said, why would you get behind a man like donald trump? i will tell you why. first of all, i have come to know donald trump over the last few years, he is actually a very intelligent man who cares deeply about america. there are two different donald trump's. there is the one you see on the stage and there is the one who is very cerebral, since there and considers things very carefully. you you can have a very good conversation with him.

that is the donald trump that you are going to start seeing more and more of right now. some people said well he said terrible things about you how can you support him? first of all, we, we buried the hatchet that was political stuff. that happens in american politics. the politics of personal destruction, all of that. it is not something that i particularly believe in or anything that i get involved in. but i do recognize that it is a part of the process. we move on because it is not about me. it is not not about mr. trump. it is about america. this is what we have to be thinking about. i have found and in talking with him that there is a lot more alignment philosophically and spiritually than i ever thought there was. he will speak to that.

that actually surprised me more than anything. i do recognize how a person's image can be greatly distorted having been the victim of that. i probably understand it better than anybody. i think as the american people who we are focusing on, as they begin to see the real individual there, and those who are helping that individual, i think we are going to be comforted as a nation. we have to start working together. we cannot allow the agents of division to continue to separate us. as a nation our strength is our unity. we just have to sort of ignore those people who are always trying to stir up strife. i am appealing to some degree to the media as well. you are part of america too.

you should be interested in strengthening our nation not in creating divisions, not in creating complex all of the time. if we start having that american attitude that american spirit that made us great, that took us to the pinnacle in no time at all, believe me, everyone will benefit from that. we are also talking about how can we make america a place that is successful for everybody? we have 330 million people, we are going to be impeding with china with 1.4 billion, india with one point 1,000,000,000. we need we need to unite all of our people, we are not doing all the people are favor saying you poor little thing i will take care of your needs. what we need to be doing instead is concentrating on mechanisms to allow those people to climb out of the state of dependency i become part of

the strength and fabric of this nation. that is what america is about. it it is not about the tendency. it certainly is not about socialism. socialism is seen as the panacea by some who do not really understand it. i think a lot of people think socialism is just being concerned about other people, that is not what it is. it is cradle-to-grave government. you let them take care of you but you give them all of your money, you give them control of your life. they all end up looking the same way, small group, small group of elites at the top controlling everything. a rapidly diminishing machine middle class and in advance the expanded middle class. donald trump talks a lot about banking america great. it is not just talk, he means it. i am going to be helping him, others are going to be helping him.

one of the things i have discovered in this country is that we have some incredibly smart people. none of us knows everything. but when we begin to use those smart people effectively to accomplish the goals of america, you are going to be cs once again ascend to the pinnacle, to a much higher pinnacle than we have ever achieved it before. that is where america should be. thank you so much. [applause]. thank you very much ben. ben and i were talking at length yesterday and it was an amazing conversation. one of the things i realized is he is that great about education and he was talking about it and he was so right on and so good. it is such an important element for a country. i said ben,

congratulations you just have to get involved with us with education. our education system and the united states as you have heard from my speeches, we are ranked at the bottom of the packed worldwide yet we spend the most money per people, second doesn't even exist. what ben is going to get very much involved in that and he is going to get involved in healthcare where he is an expert. even through the debates i always know ben when it came to healthcare and talking about health, ben is really in a class by himself. it is such an honor to have been, he is a prank, he has become a friends. i really appreciate the endorsement ben, thank you. [applause]. any questions? >> to questions, did you guys apologize to each other for the nasty things that you said to each other? >> yes it's tough is this. i used to to think real estate and manhattan was tough.

this is tough business, this politics. a lot of things happen in politics that do not happen anywhere else. we understand that. >> the questions come up about endorsement, have there been discussion about the two of you about position in your administration, either a running mates or something else? >> no. when ben calls he didn't say what you do this or do that, he just wants to help. he feel strongly about what is happening and you see the type of gratitude. we get crowds that are amazing. and record-setting. i don't think there's anything like it. it is on the cover of every magazine, there's never been anything like it. ben sees that and he is going to have a big, big part. maybe ben doesn't even know it yet but ben is going to have a big part. we want to keep that kind of talent. >> mr. trump, do you think mr. carson, doctor carson playing of policy role principally for your campaign or as a surrogate if you are not going. when when he says there to donald trump's, do you a

great with that characterization? could you amplify on a? >> i probably do agree. i think their art to donald trump's, there's the public version that people see and i do not what they see exactly. it seems to have worked over my lifetime. it is probably different than i think the personal donald trump. i think ben would say it and he said it pretty well that perhaps there are two donald trump's. well, i am somebody who is a thinker. i'm a big thinker. i have my ideas and they are strong. typically they have worked out. what i wanted to -- the thing that been alluded to is make america great again. that is very simple. i want to make america great again. we have so many problems whether it's military, trade, military, tray, borders, terrorism, we have so many problems. you look at our deck, 19,000,000,000,000 $19 trillion going up to $21 trillion in a very short time. we are are going to straighten things out.