>> okay we have an important guest with us today. governor shumlin of vermont. governor shumlin was elected governor of vermont in 2010 and reelected in 2012. how many states elect governors every two years? you were running again for election. >> i have not announced yet rated i have a lot of work to do. >> you may announce it yet. i would bet on you to win because i checked. no governor of vermont running for re-election has been defeated in over 50 years. >> we are hoping to keep it that

way. >> back in 1962 and governor shumlin comes from putney is placed her to my heart. i use ever made in college and we stoop visit putnam created are the four cones still there? >> it is, i think. >> you beautiful place and he's the chair of the democratic governors association and therefore responsible for what happens in the election this year for governor. how many governors are up this year? >> 36. >> 36 okay. if you look on page three of the newsletter you will see the outlook for democrats for governor is pretty good compared with the outlook for democrats for the senate. over on the right-hand side i list the 2012th romney states with democratic senate seats up and she can see seven of them are romney states for democrats up for re-election. there is only one obama state with a republican up for

re-election and that susan collins of maine. on the other hand it reverses completely for governors. remember the senate seats world last on the ballot six years ago which is a democratic landslide in the financial crisis of 2008. most of the governors were up four years ago and that was 2010 which was a republican landslide so you have a lot of states, obama states like florida iowa maine michigan new mexico ohio pennsylvania wisconsin that elected republican governors and many of them are full marble. the outlook for democrats and governors races i think it's a lot rosier this year than it is for the senate. let's start off with this question. how are you advising democrats to run on obamacare is? are there states where democrats can call obamacare is a great success in their state? >> lets start with the top line

for a second. because of what is happening in d.c. regardless of party and the lack of progress on so many issues because of the objections to congress i would argue that governors races never been more important. the one thing we have to remember about governors is we have to do things. we have to balance budgets and implement education policy. we have to actually have policies that work so these elections are really important this year created as well mention this is the referendum on the tea party governors that got elected four years ago. we sometimes forget this congress had their chance two years ago for their referendum and this is the first time they have been up. whether it's for jobs and jobs as the central element for governors because that is what we all ran on four years ago. let's look at what happened. we came out of the election four years ago limping. we have 19 democrats and we are up to 21 now because we picked up lynn chaffee.

we adopted lynn chaffee and we picked up jerry in virginia that you all know about but having said that the question for governors races is in some -- doesn't hinge on one issue. let's take health care. with health care you know in the american public knows that governors don't come out of congress and decide what national health care policy is going to look like great we have a job of implementing it and the challenge for the republican governors, the reason that we are on offense and you can believe what you want about the pundits in the polls on the congressional prospects for democrats but for us we are on offense because these republican governors have uniformly implemented policies that have rewarded the top 1% while they have balanced budgets and tax cuts for the rich by slashing education in their states

across-the-board and really sticking it to the middle class, the folks who most desperately need to lift up out of this type of economy. so one health care we have the job of implementing it. the call for the republican governors is you know this election may focus on congressional races about whether you voted for didn't. folks know democratic and republican governors didn't vote for because they weren't there. we have the job of implementing it and my view is the governors are going to get punished on health care because we were held to a different standard. the folks who are going to get punished are the ones who are denying millions of their residents affordable quality health care because they want to make a political point. that's the problem. what happened with these republican governors is that they were the top 1% failed top-down policies that have helped the very top while the middle class is taken it and

slashed education implemented tax policies. the government i would argue distracted by the same radical social agenda that the tea party wishes they could implement if they have the power. ultrasounultrasoun ds for most women in their states, and whole list of issues that took them off of jobs now. i would argue on health care those that would be punished in governors races are those that refuse to get access to the most vulnerable because they want to make a political point. >> this means i assume medicaid expansion. >> absolutely. let's be candid about this. governors are picked up the opportunity to expand medicaid to in many cases hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions of constituents and americans understand that. there are too many folks out there who have a brother or husband a husband or a wife or a relative who got medicaid expansion and in the states next

door mostly governed by democrats a few republicans came forth let's be honest about this, where the people don't have it and they are asking why don't i? >> republican states have passed a lot of new restrictions on voting rights. is there -- can democrats make that an an issue and is there anything democrats can do about that? >> we can definitely make it an issue. i think it fires up our base to be candid. there's a basic sense of fairness in america that everybody should have the right to vote and along with the radical social agenda they have implemented against women and against minorities against and these governors have also tried to disenfranchise voters. >> it the federal government and gridlock what can democrats do in the states to advance the agenda on issues like immigration? >> it's tougher for us to make big advances on immigration because obviously it's a federal

law that we are dealing with so the only things we can do as i did in vermont signing into legislation that allows guestworkers to have driver's licenses to try to make their experience and her states more humane. that's a federal issue and i think voters understand that. >> what about climate change? >> climate change is a place where governors can really make a difference and we are. with the inaction and congress on the issue that is incredibly important to our kids and grandkids livability on this planet we are implementing it. job creating renewable energy policies that are really showing the way. vermont is an example. we created more -- we can use friday's example. the second lowest unemployment rate in america in vermont. one reason for that is that i've i have quadrupled the number of solar panels and manufacturing

renewable energy products so democratic governor's message is pretty simple. as we move from oil to other ways of empowering the future is a huge job creator. >> our democratic candidates relieved or frustrated by the president's decision to put off the decision on the keystone pipeline? >> it depends where you are from. one thing you have to remember about democratic governors is that we don't have a litmus test on issues of any kind. in other words in the republican party it appears you have a fast legislation seeking a woman's right to choose or you are not seen as viable to run for governor. they have all been it, whether it's ultrasounds. they passed a loss in 20 states that put restrictions on a woman's right to choose that i never thought i would see in my lifetime. we could start the list of whether it's labor or women's health care or shut down planned parenthood or the list goes on and on. it seems to be a sort of level

of social change that they view that is required to be a republican governor. we don't suffer from that in the democratic party. we are looking for people to balance budgets and looking for people that can manage the states they are in and do it in a way that's going to grow jobs and economic opportunity for the middle class. >> 2012 saw a record number of women elected to the house and senate. women have a lot more trouble winning governors races. currently there are only five women governors and for them are republicans. where'd you see democratic women making a breakthrough this year? >> we have worked hard to select candidates that are going to be great governors and secondly women. as you know we were thrilled to pick up maggie hassett of new hampshire because we were perilously close to being an all boys club in the democratic governors association.

we have to be careful about primary states. should gina romano when in rhode island we believe that she will be the next woman governor. we have high hopes for merry berkin wisconsin. allyson schwartz is in a primary in pennsylvania and we believe she will be elected in pennsylvania. we have, who am i forgetting? windy davis in texas. >> to choose its martha coakley. a again not winning in primaries but a lot of great winning candidates in primaries and we believe we will have more women governors and we sure hope so. >> we are at you think the democrats prospects of the brightest for picking up governorships this year? >> let's just run down that very quickly. starting in three states we have high hopes and you have read about this in the press but because they have implemented

government policies that will work the top 1% while slashing hundreds of millions of dollars from education and hurting middle-class americans, we think we have got hope and a very likely possibilities in maine, pennsylvania and florida. those are all important states for us. if you look at the western states we believe we also have very good shots in ohio, michigan and wisconsin and we have a great candidate in wisconsin married work who i just talked about. i knew i was forgetting one. mary burke is an extraordinary candidate. wisconsin is the state of mary baldwin and we believe we have a great shot there. and then if you look at the other states where we have high hopes some of them might surprise you but we are optimistic about south carolina and you can see from the rga spending with some of the ads they have been running the understand they could well be in trouble in south carolina or they wouldn't be spending and

investing like they are right now. south carolina, georgia might surprise some but jason carter is an extraordinary candidate for governor. i keep saying jason carter is going to be the governor in georgia and i believe it's going to be in -- so south carolina georgia kansas. governor brown is not a popular governor. we have a great candidate in kansas city. he is out raising him paul davis in many cases. and arizona. we understand and we are hopeful in texas but we will be candid about the fact that we all understand democrats have not won texas in a long time and this we hope will be our year. >> we now have the highest number of red states and blue states in decades, states like california and new york and vermont word democrats control of state government and states like texas and arizona and georgia where republicans control everything. it's never been this divided.

is this a problem for the country does it create laboratorlaborator ies of democracy where each party can try on its accolades? >> i think it's a problem for america when any extreme becomes the controlling influence in any political party. in my lifetime i had seen it. happen to democrats and we have been punished at the polls for it but we have clearly seen it in a way that my memory doesn't recall in american politics and the republican party in the last four years because of the tea party, in ways that are destructive to america. i don't think there's an american who believes congress is getting anything done. they bring in these tea party social conservatives into government they want to obstruct progress. in the states we have to be running a governor the reason we are on offense and not defenses that the republican governors use the same policies that

candidates in congress which they could implement and i think that's bad for america. i don't think america is going to award that kind of leadership that is both obstructionist, that sacrifices in the case of governor's job creation and exchange for rewarding the top 1% which is they found state after state tax cuts for the wealthy is whether corporate or income tax paid for by slashing education which is america's hope for the middle class and being distracted by a radical social agenda that goes after women, minorities and and a lot of folks that made -- need a lift to met reid. >> is their democratic run state in addition to vermont where you would point to a particularly outstanding record of job creation under a solidly democratic governor? >> there are so many of them. imagine california. people said four years ago jerry brown is going to be able to get

california's fiscal mess cleaned up by most -- i think people would have said no one's going to be a will to do that. he has. what democratic governors have focused on instead of being distracted by tax cuts are the folks that are doing well in the top 1% we have focused on job for the middle class and it's working. i would say from coast to coast we have seen democrats deliver on a promise that was made four years ago. >> i want to ask a few questions about vermont and i will go on to the group from the press here. vermont was the first 82 introduce civil unions back in 2003. >> i would like to say we invented it. >> okay. it was extremely controversial in the past. >> i was the president of the senate and howard dean was the governor. >> there was a big backlash.

it was the first state to enact same-sex marriage rabbi statute rather than court decision in 2000 i think the legislature overruled governor douglas's veto. >> that's correct and i was the lead sponsor of the bill. that was a great move. >> is this debate now over and pull republicans pay a political price if they don't change their party platform? >> it's not only because of this issue. as i mentioned a couple of times this morning i think we are beyond court-appointed american politics where you can just defend the people that have traditionally always done well, the top 1%. whether we are talking about and americans are women or minorities or folks who want to be citizens of this country the tea party element of the republican party has turned their back on the people they need government the most.

the history of america regardless of your political party, deserve a fair shot. >> and vermont there was a serious backlash to civil unions. what happened with that backlash? did they change their minds? >> was really interesting and i will give you a history of that but when we decided to confer marriage rights to and people most of almost people in america thought we were crazy. it just wasn't on the political radar and there were a lot of folks. i was at bit of a skeptic at the time is a candidate. there were a lot of folks who thought a lot about it. i remember serving on the transportation to midi in the senate at that time and i thought to myself i had heard the testimony. if you have got half of the people loaded onto a bridge to get across the river and you have people getting across the river on the bridge and half the people are falling into the

water why would he want to load more onto it? we hadn't thought about it a lot and when you heard the testimony and vermont in the statehouse even though people weren't with us at the time about moms and moms who wanted to have the same rights as everybody else in that legislature. when the point was made, this is about our family. this is about our neighbors. this is about people being able to love each other for the rest of their lives and have the same family units as the rest of us, people came aboard and i think what happened was there was a huge backlash because the public hadn't thought about it that much. as vermonters implemented, had their neighbors able to celebrate their love for each other in the same way everybody else did they said haight this is a good thing, not a bad thing and that is what i think is happened over time. 11 years later we were the first day to pass marriage equality without a court order which was

the right thing to do and there was no backlash. vermont had gone to the same process you are seeing happen across america so might deal was more states will adopt a marriage equality we are now up to 17 and last time i think it was for why that went last and it hardly hit the headlines. it was back in with the obituaries. it wasn't a big deal. my point is there's an evolution going on in america where people believe in basic fairness indecencies to all his important there are some who own sports team that maybe don't join the rest of us but i personally think you're going to see more and more states adopted and eventually it will catch on. >> the republican platform says marriage must be between one man and one woman. the religious right is that they will walk out if that is change. do you think that's a serious

problem? >> i think there are number of serious problems for republicans when it comes to issues of equality, decency and fairness. >> a few more questions about vermont. we faced two crises at least that i know of in vermont. i never imagined there could be a hurricane in vermont. hurricane irene hit vermont very hard with flooding in 2011 during your first year as governor. how do you assess the federal disaster that relief effort and what steps you think i needed to improve disaster relief? >> i think this is one of the areas where the president has not gotten the credit that he is due. with the recipient of one of the earlier storm induced, climate change induced storms and it was just devastating. we lost 500 miles of roads in 36 bridges.

we had covered bridges that have been there for over 200 years just swept down, little rivers that became raging rivers. we lost seven vermonters in that storm. it was the third time i've been through it and we had been through previous storms that spring that have been devastating as well. when we had our first experience it wasn't great. there was a lot of bureaucracy and a lot of red tape and the response time was slow. the administration sat down and said in light of climate change how can we do this better and they totally revamped it so by the time they got to the storm that hit chris christie so hearted new jersey they were running a much more efficient and thoughtful machine. let me give an example. when we went awry rain we started replacing culverts bigger smarter and better for future storms recognizing we have come to a new standard of storm nationally. fema would say you can't do that. you have to put back the same culverts in the same spots and

build the bridges exactly what the way they weren't that is what we do at fema. we got together with the men said this is crazy. you are giving us hundreds of millions of dollars in federal money to put things back so that we are back here in three or four months with these 100 year storm to seem to come every year asking for the same loot. this is just a waste of money and they said you are right and they change their procedures. they change their reimbursement policies. i think it's an area where they present said i can't get climate change legislation through congress but i can change the way internally we deal with major climate change in the stores and -- storms and they have done it. >> how do you make the argument that hurricane irene in the tropical storm that hit vermont was due in fact to a climate change? >> all i can tell you is i have always said that climate change awareness is going to come first from the coldest states. when you are out in alaska and

you see your permafrost melting but when you are in vermont and you see the effects of what has happened with climate change on our forests, our agricultural economy, on our fields, erosion issues and frankly on the change in the weather patterns. let's be honest vermont is a state and the hampshire and maine where snow is like gold to us. it brings new yorkers and bostonians and the phillies new jersey folks come in and ski and we get revenue at that. the states that are most worried about climate change are the ones having their pocketbooks directly affected and it happens to be colder states. >> do you feel comfortable making the argument that are freak storm mike irene can be attributed to climate change? >> there's no question that it is. any reasonable scientist agrees and my feeling about climate change speaking from vermont is i do not have time to argue with the folks who pretend that these

storms are not induced by climate change. my job as governor is defined, to build resiliency for the future understanding that the co2 we have put into the atmosphere are creating the kind of weather changes we are seeing. it's going to get worse in the next decade or two because we have a learned their lessons and if we don't move quick we we are going to have a perilous situation for humankind. >> another crisis. he talked about in your state of the state message this year vermont faces terrible epidemic of opiate addiction. why is this hitting vermont so hard and what can the federal government to? >> the first thing i want to say bill is it's not that it's hitting vermont harder than any other state. it's that we are we are talking about it in vermont as we have such an extraordinary quality of life there that if we lose if we lose everything about vermont that we care about. i want to be clear and they'll

tell you the national governors association and republican and democratic governors would say this, all 50 states of an opiate crisis in their states. the question is how can we a more innovative in dealing with the? how to be get here? let's be candid about this. the fda approved oxycontoxycont in 14 or 15 years ago may dispense with what alan greenspan would have called the irrational exuberance. we created an opiate addiction problem in america that is frightening and vermont is a good example of how this has evolved. we have pastor of enough oxycontin in the second yours on the market to keep america high for a month and that happens to be true. what happened was as doctors and public policymakers became more alarmed at the addiction to opiates because of oxycontin and other drugs like it, they started changing the formularies so you could crush it. you couldn't snorted and you couldn't shoot it because it would turn to jill and that drove folks who were at the it

to the next cheapest option which is heroin. that is what is created the heroin problem in america. this question is what do we do about it? the first thing we do is not approve even stronger oxycontin forms which the fda has just approved by the way but what we have done in vermont said listen this is a healthcarhealthcar e crisis and we have got to deal with this as we would with any other health care challenge. you know i got to this by traveling around vermont and helping to many moms or dads are people saying my son, we have lost him and his destroyed my family or my daughter we lost her and it's destroyed our family or my niece or nephew. let's talk economics for a second. forget our hearts for a minute minute and the fact that we are losing good people. this one knows no political lines and no economic lines. we have it across america. we have rich addicts and we have have porat extent we have middle-class addicts.

they know no other persuasion. this is in discriminate. it's everywhere. on the economic side in vermont it cost me $56,000 a year to put someone in a vermont correctional facility. my corrections budget has doubled in the last nine years. what we know about our corrections population is 80% of the people we incarcerate are in nonaddiction related charges or they are addicted, 80%. it cost me 1138 bucks a month -- i'm sorry a week, to lock you up. 132 bucks a week i can gauge of the best treatment program for opiates with rapper and services mental health counseling job training and services that will get you back to be a productive member of vermont society. so we are getting our hearts for a minute from a dollar and cents standpoint if i can put someone into recovery instead of 41138

books a week putting someone in prison and having them come out worse than the way they went went and seen such a good investment for taxpayers. the second piece with our hearts speaking now these are folks that should be in the work for us. if you have the second lowest unemployment rated in the country you have enough depth or qualified to do the work and that is the challenge we are facing for job creators. what i have done is said listen when i addressed this issue back in january we had waiting lists, hundreds of people who are waiting for treatment who couldn't get it. we didn't have the facilities for so we have built the best treatment system we believe with wrap around services community base no more waiting lines for those that want treatment. the second piece is instead of saying the point is within the addiction the biggest challenge

of addiction is denial and the opiate addicts are the best liars in the best deniers who will ever meet. for opportunity, your window to treatment is very narrow. they are most like he researches to get into treatment at the point where they have bottomed out which is usually when the blue lights are flashing in their rusted and down and out. our system and vermont works absolutely against that. it takes three or four months to wind your way through the court system before you can get to the point where you get your punishment and by then it's too late. using on the streets and stealing and crime and destruction. what we are saying in vermont is for everyone that gets busted for the prosecutors and the judges if they wish and they will figure out whether you are someone we should be scared of in which case we will put you through the court system in a jail or whether you are someone who we think we can bring to recovery. that's the majority people were busted and we will say to them here's the deal. if you'll go into treatment

right now, stick with it and we will work with you and try to make it a success you will never go through the court system. if you screw up you are going to court. we believe that will make a huge difference in dealing with the health care crisis as it is. one of the things and i will close with this we have to change our thinking on this. politicians do like to talk about this. acts don't want to talk about it because their shame. family members to want to talk about it because they feel shame and a public policy make her stop we are going to continue to lose this battle. i liken it to my dad passed away a couple of weeks ago and he died of a cancer that may well have been induced by his years and years of smoking. when someone gets sick because they have cancer we don't say hey you know we are not really going to help you because you

did some things in your life that could have had better outcomes. we feel the same compassion for them that we do for everyone else in our family. my point is we have to deal with this disease in exactly the same way. we have got to say this is a disease. we have a health care system that is here to deal with it and if we don't we are going to continue to see rising numbers of opiate addicts who continue to steal and make our communities unsafe as they support these habits. the economics of opiates in vermont cost eight bucks on the streets were thrilled that you can crash or a bag of heroin which you can buy for five or $6 to sell in small rural areas. >> questions from the press? >> governor what are the advantages republicans hold this year which democrats will raise but also outside groups like those funded by the coat druthers network?

the environmentalist billionaire said he is going to be spending lots of money upwards of $100 million the site of. have you spoke about his plans and you get any sense of how he might help democrats? >> i have to be candid read rate i went to summer camp with tom stier. i've known him since he was nine years old so i have talked to him and we are friends. having said that listen there is no way. we understand that we are going to be outspent. this is not something new but i have now had the pleasure of chairing the dga for a year and a half and it's important to know that whether it's outside expenditures are inside expenditures let's be clear about this drg are tends to outspent us to do one. if you take a last nine races that the dga in the rga have played in democrats have won

eight of those nine races. that's not because we outspent them. they outspent us in every single one of those races except for one. it's because we have the right candidates who are fighting for jobs and economic opportunities for the middle class and that's what voters want and we happen to have i believe the superior organization. the reason we are the only democratic group in america right now on the offense is not despite the dga but because of the dga. the answer is no we will never keep up with an expenditures. we have a strong organization and history proves out of eight alas nine races we have won eight of them. that's a good track record and we'll we will carry that into november. >> i think a lot of parents will want to send their children to that. what camp was that? wanat it's just across the lake.

i wouldn't guarantee that you will be a billionaire if you go there or a governor. >> when you look at the midterm congressional elections president obama's approval rating has made a big difference for candidates in the house and the senate. as a matter to democratic governors the standings at president obama has with the american people? >> we all want our president to be successful but i do believe there is a difference of the assessment you make about governors. i want to give vermont as an example. vermont tends to be saying we have the best congressional delegation, all democrats. we have an independent -- you know. in vermont we change governors and have since 1963. every time we elect a new governor even in vermont so my

point is voters hold governors to a different standard than they do congressional candidates. they are asking a different question. do we trust these people to manager of budgets to keep our roads open to f. grade schools and to create jobs for the middle class because that is what we do all day long. i would argue most of his national stuff doesn't have that much effect on governors races. what matters is do you have candidates that will inspire the confidence of voters for you as a chief executive to run the state, very different question than what happens in d.c.. see the legislature just passed a bill requiring labeling of gm owes. when you expect to sign that and what consequences do you think it will have whether positive or negative and d.c. other states following vermont's lead? >> and never comment on whether i'm going to sign a bill but we have to get into the fine print.

i expect to sign it. i don't know how long it will take to get it to me but when they do a book you view a heads-up on that's going to be. it won't be from now. i feel strongly that americans deserve to know and vermonters deserve to know what's in their food and the interesting thing about this bill is it's not a judgment about whether you should or shouldn't eat foods that are gmo based. we are not making a judgment. we are simply saying when you read the ingredients of what you buy it matters how much sugar is in there and it matters how much corn syrup and all can things consumers want to know usually based on their health. they ought to be able to know whether or not there eating the gmo based product. the number of states have passed legislation connecticut i believe the state of maine and a couple of others that triggers. if a number of states will do what we'll do it. they are doing that because they are afraid they will be sued by

the manufactures of gmo based foods. if you are going to serve the public do the right thing and if you believe you should do something don't be dissuaded by who might sue you because that will destroy democracy. stand up for what you believe. i strongly believe that americans have the right to know what's in their food. i'm not passing judgment but it's important you have the right to know. i would be surprised if there is not a legal challenge to whoever goes first. c. how do you intend to fight it? >> we think we have written a really solid bill that has the best shot possible of standing up in court. we did this by making it specific. it's not a special label that is listed with the ingredients. we have the best legal advice. we all know that the judiciary sometimes doesn't agree with legislators but we are hoping they do on this one.

>> and if he signed the bill it goes into effect in vermont will be the only state allowing labeling of gm owes. >> yes because every state has required a trigger. other states have not been matched yet but that could change at anytime. one thing we are trying to do is you know when we started civil unions in marriage equality in vermont people thought that was a little unusual and other states decided to join us. i'm convinced that labeling of gm owes is going to be demanded by consumers and its demand that politicians are going to have to meet. >> as they say as vermont goes. >> so goes the nation. something else that is vermont does is his single-payer or at least you hope so. has that effort proven more difficult than you had anticipated it was going to be and give us a paradigm on where it stands and how you are

working out the. >> so the answer is no it's not more difficult than i anticipated. i'm not sure others would agree that it's more difficult than what they anticipated because it's difficult to make positive change. listen, let's do big picture for a minute because we talked about the economics of prisons and i want to talk about the economics of health care. i am surprised that more political leaders aren't focusing on the health care costs crisis. when i is governor get up in the morning i deal with lots of crazies all day long but i also try to think long after i'm gone and we no governors don't last like congressional people. we are not here for life. we go six, eight, 10 years and we get cycled out. having said that this is how the cost work in vermont. when i look at why and working hard to raise the minimum wage

right now it's because folks, the middle class and working americans this is what republican governors don't get, the ones who need the race. they haven't had a raise because imam most every case health care costs and the people that paid them have ribs and faster than their profits and their incomes and therefore they can afford in many cases to get reasonable rates. why are wages frozen? why have they been frozen the last decade? one reason is health care costs are climbing faster. in vermont we spend 20 cents of every dollar we make on health care. if you're a vermonter your first 20 cents is going to health care. if health care cost growth the same rate in the next decade that they did for the last decade that number doubles. i say to vermonters raise your hand if you think that is a recipe for prosperity for your family and your kids health care

cast doubling or fewer job creator, for your business. what we are trying to do in vermont are two things. the first is listen if we can't get costs under control on health care stop spending wildly for outcomes aren't as good good as they do we compete with. we have higher infant mortality than the people who spend less with us. our results and outcomes are worse than the people who spend much less than us so what we are saying to vermonters let's move the entire system from fee-for-service where we reimburse a system for quantity 21 where we reimburse for quality for outcomes. happens to be what most of the rest the world does. we have the health cardboard -- board to move to an out come base system. getting them out jogging and eating vermont grown food

instead of that other stuff. the special interests are making so much money on the fact that health care costs are going up so much. what we are trying to do is move the system of payment from fee-for-service to outcomes based and at the same time if you ask that we pay for health care and how do you get it my view is you should have health care because you are a resident state of vermont not because who you are looking off to work for and how rich or poor you might be. we are trying to to a system in 2017 were residency requirement is the only thing that matters. we want to fund it in a more sensible way. i think everyone around the table would probably agree having a fee-for-service probably isn't going to lead to prosperity for us. if i said to you hey listen we have no health care system. i want you to design a system for us to make sense and you came back to describe the current system saying we have an idea.

if you can or you will you will buy insurance for your family or employees and if he can't or you don't want to or you won't but if you refuse don't worry about it because the people who will pay for you both say hey we will let you out and come up with a different idea. what i'm saying is let's also try and move vermont to the system we pay for health care based on the ability to pay. everyone pays something based on the ability dip pay. that's what we are trying to do and i think will get it done. >> you are insisting that health care should be a right because when the supreme court pass the health care law just as robert is not a constitutional right create it as a tax and they can be withdrawn anytime. >> justice roberts and i agree agree -- disagree and number of issues. >> it democrats running in the democratic governor cycle do you

think these different messages are good or bad for the party and you think we will see more positive messages as a cycle evolves? >> because the paralysis and the seifi with the poll numbers and pundits it appears it's not going to change much going forward. i'd really believe that if we really want to create jobs and opportunity in america it's democratic governors that are going to do it. i don't have the morning say i really want to go to washington and help other democrats get elected. i do that because i essentially believe there's never been a time in america were any democratic governor elect is going to create jobs and opportunity for all not just a select top 1% rated when i look at the political landscape as anything we can do to elect democratic governors is smart and good for america and what i'm saying to democrats is

listen if you believe the pundits and the polls and i never know what you should or not if you do this is the one place where we have got to get it right because governors have to govern. we can't get up in the morning in say hey boots get on -- like a tea party folks are doing less to shut the whole thing down and make sure nothing happens. governors can do that. look at what is happening with these republican governors. it's the wrong choices. it is in the top 1% and needs the help right now. it's the middle class. >> governor you wake up every morning with a firm belief and democrats have a better solution for americans than some other approaches like the tea party and so one and yet as bill pointed out in the beginning there's a fair chance that republicans will take over the senate.

there is no chance that democrats will run the house next year so what is it and the american body politic where you are convinced that your approach and the approach of your colleagues is the right one that has the other side continuing to live? >> because we are creating jobs and frankly that is what we promise to do. >> no, now why did the republicans plan in congress why can they take over the senate when you have the better side of the argument? >> you now i've got to tell you i'm not an expert on what goes on in congress. i don't think that much about it. what i know is i happen to be one of the rare people on this earth who would be so frustrated in congress that i would

probably jump out of one of the highest windows i could find. if things are happening i don't want the job. i don't understand the whole thing down here. what i do understand is that governors actually have to deliver and what we have seen the last four years with a tea party governors is delivery of all the wrong choices. instead of creating jobs and lifting up the middle class they literally have passed taxes that either cripple the middle class to give the benefit to the top 1% who were just find it for they came along or slashed education spending hundreds of millions of dollars and they found this uniformly. go to michigan. look at what he is trying to do in maine. go to pennsylvania. go to wisconsin. go to ohio. look at the states that have done it. they have these republican governors and the uniformly have implemented a policy that literally gives tax breaks to

the very top 1% while they they/education and raise taxes on the middle class. it just makes no sense. it's an economic policy that is doomed to fail. >> i think part of the answer is that there is increasing political segregation in the country and that has been well-documented. certainly how many republicans are left in congress? i don't think there are more than susan collins. see susan collins and there's one in new hampshire. >> no last republican member of the house. democrats live in different universes today. >> can you talk about a couple of the states you mention that are blue states new mexico and nevada which again from a presidential perspective for strong states for democrats so what did the republican governors that have done so well or what did democrats do in terms of recruiting not as well to not make it to your list of

the top pickup opportunities? >> you no i think there are states where their leaders have not and has distracted by the issues that i just talked about and i remember after things kind of fell apart in new jersey after the election and trying to move people as quickly as we could through bridges. [laughter] in the case of new jersey one off the tracks a little bit and people kept saying to me don't you think you should've spent more money new jersey because we didn't spend any money in new jersey and my response was listen i wish to the week could spend governor -- money in all 50 states but we have half the resources than the rga. my job is not to promote governors races in states where we believe we can't win. my job is to promote governors in states where we are going to win. we don't spend a dime in states

where we are not going to win and we are not going to win in nevada. >> is its strong or is it a bench for democrats that is not particularly strong? >> i haven't spent a lot of time analyzing it. what i can tell you is we won't win in nevada and we are not going to spend any money there any money there'll as it changes dramatically. unless the bridge get shut down. they need some wad are, that's right. republican governors in nevada and new mexico are -- latinos. >> it's the exception to the rule in the governors association. >> hi. could you talk a little bit about legislatures where although as you say you are on the offense on the legislative level as terry mcauliffe has

learned the hard way you can have a great victory for governor but if you have a non-corporate of legislature is hard to get your agenda passed. >> you raise a good point. let's talk about how we got into this mess. haley barbour i believe when he was chair of the republican party made a decision that democrats didn't pay enough attention to which was in the best in electing legislatures, legislators and republican governors for a lot of reasons he wanted to do it but when reapportionment comes up we can bridge line in congress and have a bunch of people that believe what we believe which happens to be the tea party in haley barbour's case govern america or at least be obstructionist to american progress. they did it and they did pretty well 20 years ago.

that is why we are in the mess we are in. one of the points that i made to democrats is listen i'm just speculating here but one of the challenges to taking back congress might be that they gerrymandered these districts so effectively after they did that it's really tough to win and so if you elect democratic governors and democratic legislators going forward going towards reapportionment maybe we have an opportunity to at least make the districts there again. i do think democrats historically didn't look carefully enough in electing democratic governors who controlled governor and democratic legislative candidates. >> i want to conclude. let me first make an observation. the two, four, six rule.

democrats are on the defensive. most of them were elected four years ago in a republican landslide so republicans are on the defensive. senators were elected six years ago which was 2008 in the financial crisis. if the results of the election point in all different directions we are asked where the voters trying to say? i think the answer is landslides don't last as what they are trying to say. finally court ruling on money. is that creating a problem for democrats? >> which court ruling? >> the latest one. lifting limits on total campaign contributions. is that a problem for democrats and republicans? >> it's the icing on the cake to a bad decision which was citizens united and it's going to lead to more money in politics which i think is bad for democracy. >> is it worse for democrats

than republicans? >> it's hard to tell. again not to sound like a broken record but we do get outspent. we are an environment where we need to raise money so we compete but we have to spend our resources more wisely and when we do we win. that is why we won eight of the nine last races on focus on democratic governors did i believe it's going to make a difference for america and we understand we have to be smarter and have better candidates and implement the policies we promised to implement which is job creating creating opportunities for middle-class americans. >> thank you very much governor. we know you had other engagements. >> thanks so much. [inaudible conversations]

>> we are going to be taking a look at a new book by c-span's "sundays at eight" and emmanuel touhey who is c-span's web editor joins us on our news said. emmanuel touhey why do a book like this? >> guest: is our eighth collection of stories here at c-span and the main reason to do the book is to share the stories that c-span is covered over the years. the sunday evening program which airs at 8:00 started with booknotes 25 years ago and became q&a 15 years later. the stories have been told over the years are worth bringing to the printed page. >> host: what is in the book "sundays at eight"? what stories are you telling? >> guest: there aren't number of different sections. we have five sections in the book beginning with stories and then we have american history. we have media and society.

we have money in politics and then we have post-9/11 america. the chapters themselves, the book kind of formed itself and shaped itself and the books themselves are kind of a reflection of the times and the depth and breadth of booknotes and q&a over the years. >> host: what's the format of the book and how did it come together? >> guest: as you know with booknotes and q&a it's basically a q&a show where you have one guest for one hour and you go through an in-depth discussion on whether public policy issue or what have you. what we did was we took up the questions. the questions are there to facilitate answers and they kind of fade away at a certain point and the answers are what matter so what we have done is with a minimal amount of editing is to basically allow the guest in their own words to articulate their story or viewpoint on

whatever the issue and the story is and let it speak for itself. that's what the viewer and the reader will get from this book is basically the answers and the guest in their own words. >> host: so what are some of your favorite stories? >> guest: it was a discovery for me and the team working on this but there are so many fascinating stories. just to mention one in particular crystal wright who is the editor and publisher of the conservative talking about her upbringing in virginia and how she was influenced by her parents. one of the things we all know from american history as the rosa parks moment where she is forced to give seat and she declines and then you have history unfolding before our eyes in the south. she said that what she learned about that story her mother said to her before that happened i

hadn't known rosa parks. she said what do you mean? she said well i got on a bus in richmond and i went to the back of the bus as i was supposed to do and i set down and an older white gentleman got on the bus and asked me to give up my seat. i said what do you want me to do and marty at the back of the bus. what you have wrapped up in that moment is a personal history politics and public policy and that's basically what it is an extension of everything we do at c-span. .. where can people learn more about the book and watch the interviews that have taken place over the years? guest: you can go to all the interviews at www.c-span.org

/sundayat8 you can click on any of the toes or images and be able watch the transcript. watch clips. you can watch those and read about the authors themselves. if they have websites you can look at that. quite a lot of information ther ilthink people >> and they have accounts and so on and so forth. y ere's quite a lot ofda information and i think people will definitely find itople can. interesting. >> people can buy this now. what happens to the royalties for this book?dation he at >> the royalties go to the education information foundation. there are no profit there. and this was a collaborative effort as you know from your ow situation, you wear apr lot of

hats. there are people that make the program happen to people thatalt edited thehe interviewers and ty are now going back into the work and that is basically the educational foundation. >> all right, art c-span digital media editor, thank you so much. the book is sundays at 8:00 p.m. >> i know that you give me grief from time to time, but we work around the clock trying to help you do your job. i mean, really. what other administration would make thousands of memos available for your daily enjoyment? this is just a representative sample and you will have them all tomorrow. [applause] so here is a memo to leon panetta. fyi, maxwell house copy is on

sale for $3.49 per pound. you cannot private meeting with vice president al gore to discuss reinventing government. and for $20,000, you do not have to go. [laughter] rosie o'donnell was the president's first choice to be here this evening. but she withdrew citing a nasty and brutal confirmation process. [applause] [laughter] >> i wasn't even a second choice. but he got hung on to a technicality. but is and that where the confirmation process is all about? weeding out the truly qualified to get to the truly available. [laughter] >> watch this white house dinner last saturday night before and an audience of celebrities and

journalists. live saturday night followed by the dinner. >> c-span's newest book, sundays at 8:00 p.m. >> you have someone who comes from a sophisticated and civilized family. they are taken to the camp and all of their other relatives are killed. they have to behave in an inhuman way to survive. and then they come out and they tell their story about the descent into hell and then survival. this story is completely different because he was born in how and thought he was home. >> blaine harden, one of 49 unique voices from our book

notes and "q&a" conversations. public i public affairs books and available at your local bookstore. >> efforts to stop international drug trafficking. their testimony was part of a joint hearing of two house subcommittees. this one hour and 45 minute hearing begins with matt salmon of arizona. [inaudible conversations] >> we will start by recognizing myself in the ranking member, actually the ranking member is not here. so i will recognize a fellow who

is cochairman. so we are pleased to have this hearing today without objection, the members of this subcommittee can submit for opening remarks of the record and i now yield mice elf as i present my opening statements and i want to start, first and foremost, by thanking my colleague, chairman duncan hunter, chairman of the information subcommittee on coast guard. and this includes our strategy and regional partnerships. the u.n. issued a report naming latin america as the most violent regions in the world with 31 countries in the region listed among the top 20 worldwide. and the top six most murderous country's per capita are all

right here in our own western hemisphere. narcotics trafficking organizations are becoming more sophisticated innovating law enforcement and as the u.n. report suggests, increasingly more violent. this along our border and near our shores poses a great threat to our national security and destabilizes our region. this includes disrupting and dismantling drug cartels and latin america with success. and i can be in this to join down with military assets of being properly leverage to address this serious threat. in this fight we have seen the consequences of our country being forced to confront swindling financial resources and this includes our overall

narcotics efforts. i am concerned what this means for overall narcotic strategy in the region. and i would assume at best a level budgetary environment going forward. [inaudible conversations] excuse me. from before the policies and employment need to find ways to better engage our regional partners and help them to build capacity more effectively. ambassador, we spoke regally about important steps. we have now taken to work with our partners to have them to address the serious challenges

of violent drug trafficking organizations i look forward to hearing more about the successes and challenges you raise in the overall strategy. where possible i would like to see replicas of some of the most successful programs that we have helped to implement in the region including this initiative in mexico. the success plan was only possible because of columbia having the political will and leadership to win their country back. in mexico we have seen an increased commitment on the part of the mexican government to partner with the united states in this effort through other joint operations. this commitment has yielded very important successes and we continue to build upon them. it seems clear to me that no amount of taxpayer money will ever be enough without the buy-in and support of those in the central america and kurgan islands. i look forward to hearing the

operations and i want to personally publicly congratulate all who who were involved in the two big cocaine seizures earlier this year. so i think that this is a great example of what we can accomplish when we work together with our regional partners. i want to thank the coast guard and the southtown joined interagency task force for hosting my staff and my pleasure to have the bureau of narcotics and law enforcement law enforcement here to provide their insight on central american kirby and security programs in the hemisphere. i thank them for their willingness to work with my stuff on a daily basis to answer

our question and i'm hopeful that this will be an important step towards a multi-agency strategy to protect our national security in our hemisphere. i now recognize a chairman for his opening remarks. >> good morning. the subcommittees are needed to review the federal government efforts and i want to thank and commend the chairman and the house committee on foreign affairs for this important topic in a joint hearing. a illicit drug use remains a serious concern for the united states. not only putting strain on criminal justice systems for trade and are with these concerns. it affects millions are a country the country in the world. so the most notorious criminals are directly responsible for drug violence and crime and corruption that are destabilized

and risking lives of american citizens here and abroad. and this includes american citizens. one individual was killed while leading a drug operation of the coast of santa cruz. he is carrying out the mission on the high seas before they had a broken back these packages and it has unique military and law-enforcement authorities which are able to include arresting the crew and this includes intelligence targets.

cuts to the military's budget and rapidly failing coast guard assets are undermining mission success and this will only interject roughly 20% of this bound for the united states in recent years. not because you don't know where the rest is the best half of the national target rate since 2009 they have only achieved the cocaine interdiction remonstrated out today's hearing will to clarify the direction of renewed through tape to ensure that we have the resources we need and other critical omissions as well. and i said that's what this is the last time that the admirable appear before us. was it comes to something else later. i want to again commend you for your leadership and thank you for your service to our nation. this is interesting for one big reason for me.

we are talking about opiates and heroine and cocaine, the main stuff brought up in the south here in the united states, things that kill our kids. so with that, let's just especially, if we could right now, talk about why we don't care about the other 80%. why are we not trying to hit our target when it takes more assets to do so. so with that, i yield back my time. >> thank you. i recognized the gentleman. >> thank you. i'm going to shorten my statement here. the chairman, mr. hunter talked about all of this having to do with the coast guard budget and

the effect of the budget and the lack of a good budget is having on the coast guard to do its work and quite possibly the reality that maybe we really don't care that much because we don't seem to be putting sufficient money into the effort. it appears as though the current situation would further diminish the coast guard's budget and its ability to do its job. and so all too often we look at this problem from the point of view of america. and not often from the point of view of the countries and we

need to look at the perspective. we need to look at this and the work that has been done there and this includes the people that we are partners with in this problem. at some point, i know that we have this issue from that point of view. it was from the american point of view. perhaps the ambassador from mexico might want to give us their point of view of this or columbia or other countries that are the partners in this problem. and so i recommend that we listen to their point of view and how that will affect our strategies here.

and this includes making sure that they are seriously hampered by sequestration. making this even more difficult. >> thank you, gentlemen. i recognize mr. tremont. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

>> so thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. meeks. >> this includes 17 and 22 nations which president obama includes in 2014. located in latin america or the caribbean. so this is just not an american problem but a hemispheric problem and one that we must tackle head-on and do it in multiple ways, not just one-way. as a frequent visitor to the region i have seen the effects of illicit drug trade personally .

the horrendous violence and tragic poverty in some areas is a direct result of the drug trade. in this includes those who have the drug transit. we must get to the root of this problem and this includes the widespread transit of drugs in

the region and this includes the same kind of assets that we have there and this includes those abroad with our friends and partners and i also believe illegal trade that legal trade is a powerful antidote to illicit drug trafficking.

in this includes diversified economics that have not depended on drugs and i'm confident that local farmers and workers can find ways to live honorably and to give back to their country. and i believe that the drug trafficking is a problem that hurts us all. i look forward to the day when america, once again, we can't do it now, but i look forward to extending our hands in friendship to our neighbors as a sincere effort to build new partnership. thank you so much and i yield back the balance of my time.

>> thank you, without objection the record will remain open. the admiral is the 24th commandant of the united states coast guard.

and this includes the deputy chief at the u.s. embassy in panama. he holds a phd in economics and an m.a. in management from the university of wisconsin. general kelley is commander of the united states southern command, prior to his current position he served as a leader oteri system for the secretary of defense and reinforces reserve north. and we understand that goes yellow about the time that we have about a minute left and then it's time to cut it off and you guys are just so distinguished and i'm not brave enough to probably cut you off. so with that, thank you. >> good morning again to chairman hunter and the ranking member and to all the members of the subcommittee.

i want to thank you for the opportunity to be here this morning to thank you for your continued support of the coast guard and also to discuss the challenges that we face in confronting the illicit smuggling and its consequences for our country. i would be remiss if i didn't recognize some of our other partners in this fight. the department of justice and our partner agencies in the department of homeland security who have contributed greatly to the flow of illicit traffic into the united states. and this includes and this includes bribery and violence in the economies of the western hemisphere and our partner nations. for instance, for the second consecutive year, honduras has the world's highest murder rates, including central america or the western caribbean sea and

the eastern pacific oceans. and those drugs reach our shores and activities of those criminal networks that have an impact on america's streets as well in the form of gang violence and turf wars by urban drug dealers. this includes the lead federal agency in support of the administration in this includes major cutters long and medium range aircraft, including airborne airborne use of helicopters and one forstmann detachments embarked on allied warship to stop drug traffickers before the drugs can approach our shores. and we have established more than 40 agreements with our international stakeholders including the venezuela area.

this includes those that have continuously proven when employed in the transit zone. over the last five years ships and attachments operating in the offshore regions have removed more than 500 metric tons of cocaine with a wholesale value of nearly $17 billion. this is more than two times the amount of cocaine and twice the purity seized by all other and this is where we get the very best all you then where we have our first best chance to address this problem. close to the source where the drugs are pure non-cut and their most workable old form divided into increasingly smaller loads making them ask potentially harder and more expensive to detect.

chairman, in response to the other 80%, of course we care about the other 80%. but it's not just about the drugs. for every kitzman and transshipment, we gather information to movies by understanding the criminal networks that are prepared to combat other illicit enterprises come including human traffickers and international terrorist. our introductions remain a key weapon to combat transnational criminal networks. in this includes a cycle of success behind this in the western hemisphere with the subsequent prosecutions providing actionable intelligence on future events producing seizures and other feedings of the cycle of success. and this includes the engine that drives the cycle and our success in more than half the designated priority drug targets extradited over the last 10

years are directly linked to coast guard interdictions. over 60 drug trafficking organizations have been dismantled because of our investigations originating or supported by this. the removal of these networks help countries like colombia restored citizen security and economic opportunity, contributing to a 14 billion-dollar increase of the goods over the last four years. but despite her success far too many illicit drugs still reach our shores and the reduced numbers of ships can only stop a fraction of our intelligence tells us is moving. this is either through degraded intelligence or reduction in ships and aircraft and they decrease and prosecution will have a chronic negative impact on our department's mission to secure and manage our borders. and we don't need to look any further than recent news report to get a sense of how these networks are and we use chicago

as a distribution by exploiting people to track their illicit goods. in this includes those that continue to threaten our homeland. and this includes our prosperity as the department of defense or

balances this and this coast guard continued to aid, i fear that this problem only get worse. sustaining the cycle of success by strengthening international partnerships and investing and leveraging interagency capabilities to keep addictive drugs off the streets and disrupt the networks and space and security within the western hemisphere and safe flow of legitimate commerce and transport. so i want to thank you for the opportunity to become more well-versed on this important topic. >> thank you, admiral. >> good morning, chairman. if you are here, it really does make sense.

>> the state department bureau of international narcotics and affairs leads the narcotics efforts globally. we shape and deliver assistance for programs and nearly 80 countries to help nations build their capacity to fight crime and prosecute criminals under the law. this is no doubt an enormous responsibility. and we partner with the best and brightest to impart expertise in training and we also include corrections entities from a number of constituencies. this includes advancing common

interests and a collection of our long-standing partnership with mexico and central america regional security initiative. and this constitutes our strategic approach to enhance and professionalized the court systems and corrections capacities they can investigate and undermine the criminal groups and prosecute criminal offenders by their operations. the state department has no direct role in the interdiction effort but the governments that we have mentioned in this includes investigating crimes and incarcerate criminals and in

other areas of the hemisphere, a regional partners like those in colombia, are working in ordination with our programs and this includes the military partners to pursue narcotic traffickers. and this includes that i want to emphasize that it cannot make up for jobs in the region. me repeat that. it cannot make up for gaps in the u.s. interdiction in the region. we know that the caribbean is experiencing an increase with

those occurring by maritime means. in 2011 the total was approximately 5% and this includes the united states is implementing a comprehensive integrated approach to stem illegal trafficking. in this includes a trusted mechanism that works and this is

something that has become more common and information sharing is happening in a real-time basis. this is a proven formula. these are all significant element they are not enough to curtail information. the engagement our law enforcement and military partners remains critical. chairman salmon, chairman duncan, other distinguished members, thank you for this information. >> thank you, general kelly. >> i look forward to discussing this between u.s. southern command and inter- agencies and the department of homeland security.

in those southern approaches are being assailed by dangerous criminal networks that are well resource and adapted and skilled at exploiting all avenues of approach. including those that threaten our country at every land, air, and sea border and challenges the sovereignty of those in latin america and the caribbean. this includes fighting against illicit trafficking and this is under scrutiny. we have meditated this is the lead federal agency is that action and monitoring of those towards the united states. this includes the dhs along with the dea, fbi and others, we also build a capacity that helps latin america and the caribbean and together with foreign military law enforcement partners, we focus on combating

illicit drug in trade and supporting interdiction as far as possible. so our support to interdiction efforts not only keeps drugs like cocaine and methamphetamine from violating this, but it puts international drug traffickers until and leaves the approaches are very effective, although my component in her agency tax forces receives only 1.4% of the total u.s. government counter narcotics budget. 1.5%.

and this is also key to our effectiveness, especially in our operation. 50% of the interactions will been possible without the contributions of our partners. they're sending supportive nations like colombia and even the corolla, not to mention canada, united kingdom and france and the netherlands, it is what makes this a success. and with human rights, ladies and gentlemen, the first and foremost in all of our relationships with these countries, there is a lot that we can do for them. with maintenance and training packages, as well as providing intelligence support.

since we are unlikely to get any additional assets due to other global priorities, right now our partners are the only hope that we have of putting a dent in the drug low coming to the united states. so i emphasize that this is our fight and not their fight. it is destruction of to their countries and agree loss of life is what we are fighting. helping us make a big dent of the time. last year alone, 132 metric tons of cocaine were seized or disrupted thanks in part to the contributions to the operations. 132 tons. and unfortunately that number is just a small fraction of the cocaine and drug to reach our shores which we are unable to get out due to asset shortfalls. since 2012, southern command has faced limited and declining assets, required for detection and monitoring and enter game interdiction missions. we also receive less than 5% of our annual airborne requirements

in these limitations mean less presence and deterrence and awareness of what is moving, be it drugs or weapons or cash are human beings, or something even more detrimental to our national security, like terrorist agents. and i worry that smaller caribbean nations will soon be overwhelmed and i think they are included in networks as we have seen in some parts of latin america and it could change the positive direction in which he has taken. we are doing everything we can to at least partially mitigate

the lack of assets and we are relying on the customs and border protection and other dhs asset, which now provide over 70% of the aircraft support this mission. over the next two years the department of defense and the u.s. coast guard are facing this in the availability of large service asset like high endurance. in 2016 the inventory will go to zero and this makes a reliance on the u.s. coast guard alliance and the national security and planned situation all the more critical and i'm deeply concerned here that the u.s. coast guard is facing major budget cuts come as is the dod. in closing, sure the conviction

that i look forward to discussing these issues with your. >> i thank the distinguished panel. and i yield myself five minutes to ask my question. my question would be for you, they are is a number of initiatives in the western hemisphere that share the objective of improving citizen security, including this initiative in mexico and central america regional security initiative. in what ways have they applied this from the very submission terms.

and i know there are different nuances, but i like your thoughts. and as i know, what you have different challenges with different countries. different levels of development. what we do try to do is to take the lessons learned and i think the case of columbia, that's one case where they are such a success story and they have become our partners. so use them to train some of the forces in central america, with investigative techniques, polygraph management, interdiction techniques and we take this in one part of the country and then another. as we are about to establish a

customs situation in panama. and this is where we were establishing this with funds of the department of homeland security. it is now going to become a regional training center where we will bring people from all over the hemisphere and guatemala and central america and other places so that they have the name approach and the same type of techniques to control the borders. so depending on the circumstances when you think about our success in peru, the success we have had is because we have combined development along with eradication. so we are looking at that in seeing where he can transfer to other areas. we are beginning to see some potential plantings in other

parts of true. >> i have said this before and i think most people that work with the colombian initiative have recognized that while the united states contributions to the process was substantial,, i think all the sentiments of them thing. there is no way that would've been accomplished without the political will coming from the leaders themselves in colombia. and so i think that as we look to try to replicate some of those successes, i am heartened to know that you are using folks who are in the trenches in colombia to actually advise and consult and get their hands dirty with mexico perhaps other nations in latin america. and i think there's another reason for that. besides actually having the people that demonstrated this political will. i think they're using them, it's a little bit more influential because i wonder if we suggest

that it might just be dead on arrival at us because we suggested it. why do you think we turned the corner? was it his efforts, was it a combination of things? what are your thoughts and we have all been pleasantly surprised with the tenacity that they have approached this problem. so how can we better utilize some of the successes and what can we recommend going forward?

general, i will start with you. >> mr. chairman, first i would say the the u.s. investment in colombia was substantial. significant or whatever the term was. is. you are right, except that is a very relative term. the united states, i think, four or five or 6 cents on the dollar in terms of what was then, if you will, to turn colombia around. and this includes the discussion

that is rotated or oriented around the fact that why would we allow them to go over the edge come there's no hope for it. and of course, here we are, 14 years later, 15 years later, in virtually a miracle, a heroic effort. why did they win? because they were losing so badly. why do they turn it around? because they had no choice. but the good news is that as i say, we allow them and supported and encouraged them and we did unleash a small number of advisers and trainers and u.s. military experts. and it just happened to turn the place around. but they do that themselves because they were losing so badly, and especially working

with them for past things in the 80s. the beauty of having colombia, and there are such good partners particularly in the military realm, when we asked them to go somewhere else and train the mexicans and the hondurans in the guatemalans, they will do it almost without asking and on their own. they are so appreciative of what we did for them. and what we did for them is really encouraging them for 20 years and they have been such a magnificent job. that is why this is important and for them to go. because elise on the military's type timers or could working for so many of these countries because of limitations that are really based on past sins.

>> thank you, sir. the money that gets put into general grants, throughout the united states, the question is what you get so little of that and if you collect, and if you have that money, you can theoretically reduce their need for a job at all. when it comes to drug interdiction within the united states. so anything that is? they have better lobbyist than you do? that is my question. why is there less money going to you as opposed to all of these different agencies that the department of justice holds out for grants with these agencies and every local sheriff and police officer gets the standard drugs. and you don't.

>> mr. chairman, that's a great grenade to jump on. [laughter] >> side and ask one of the questions. >> i don't know what the percentage is what they get domestically. but what i do know is that i where a number of hat. >> general kelly said 1.5%. >> 1.5% goes to the coast guard interdiction efforts. so that leaves 90.5% for everyone else to i cannot confirm or verify on that figure. i want to go back and research that. but what i will say is that in this includes what reports that the director of the national drug control policy.

and so i can't make a good judgment. and we have to have a balanced approach to that. >> am trying to respond to your question, but i just don't know the figures in the percentages to give you an accurate enough response. >> this includes the monitoring into the drug flow. i would be guessing on your question about domestic funding. i guess because we tend to look at this issue is as the cancer

that is within our country. and we be what it does to argue. and 40,000 americans die of drug overdoses every year. and you can even count the human misery, the people living under bridges, on their bodies for six and all this kind of thing in this includes the last case to solve this problem here home. once this gets its way to mexico and the united states, it is impossible. there a million law-enforcement heroes, dea, local police, there's a million and a dead about 25 tons of cocaine. and that is where the fight is. the efficiency of the fight is

before it gets increasingly into haiti and all of that. >> i was reading national geographic or the economist or something last week. in a talked about this area in mexico, that they are not growing these poppies. but what is the big uptick in marijuana coming and? >> the surprise to me. i thought that they demanded to have it from other parts of the world. so he talked to the dea they will confirm this. basically all of the hair when it comes and feed the drug habit in the has grown now and produced throughout latin

america poppies, virginia virtually all like him of it from a tiny bit may come down to canada afghanistan but not a lot. it's almost entirely part of this. and the zone that i live in, the three most detrimental influences on our society, cocaine, which is a big moneymaker, and methamphetamines, it is all produced south of the border on this incredibly efficient criminal network on which anything can rise, drugs, human beings, terrorists, anything can write on this network. it is locally linked. it is an amazing thing to see. and it's virtually a wide entry

into the united states and the middle east. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will start with general kelly. just so that i have an understanding of where the figures coming from. i saw someplace that you told the senate armed services committee that you only had 5% of the assets that you need to perform these duties in the cribbing region. so i was wondering where that figure comes from. because i thought that the dod's budget was sitting over a billion dollars. so is only 5% that you have come i was just wondering how could that be. >> it's 5% of the airborne intelligence and reconnaissance. but i% of what i think of any trade what that means is that i

get -- i only get 5% of this aircraft from the united states navy were from homeland security. we tend to fly those airplanes out of places like el salvador or honduras. but we only get 5%. and how you track this stuff is and was on the high seas, we have a very good idea when it leaves ecuador or columbia. then as it moves either side, it is increasingly on towards puerto rico or the dominican republic. as we get human intel that is about to move, then we pick it up if we have them, which we generally don't. picking up this, carrying it anywhere between one and 4 tons of cocaine. and we pick that up and then that airplane is there until a

helicopter can get close enough to it once they get close enough to basically stop and we seized things. so without that asked that, we use anything that we can get. i've had the 52 planes, with isr parts, the one bombers flying over the caribbean. doing that mission. so as i say i will take any asset that i can get an of times, but we are not, it is their airplane. >> so there could be some negotiations within the dod? are you talking about the additional assets to go to them to give you what you think you need? >> sir, the national security the strategy of the united states to commit the pacific and

to deal with wars in the middle east and to deter other countries and you know who they are. that is what the size of the u.s. military getting smaller, that leaves almost nothing. i'm not criticizing, but that reality of it. in this causes some $200 billion in cost and i think to a large degree the biggest emotional sting in my mind, which is the human misery it causes. because the dead are dead, but the people who are struggling with this stuff and living under bridges and selling their bodies as thing that, to me, it keeps me awake at night. again, these are decisions made outside and i just define the problem. >> in your opening statement, you indicated that you are

continuing to work with 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