we're giving them broad authority here. >> is there anything that cuts on your side you see as opposed to the other side of reading this language? >> one think i can cite and that is that the statutory history in this case is that the predecessor version to what we commonly have before us simply said that states were required to prohibit the amounts which prevent attainment or maintenance. just prevent. looking at that language there's nothing in there that suggests costs can be taken into account. what congress said when it added the words "significantly contribute to nonattainment" and "interfere with maintenance" "is because it addressed cassation

of bad air quality effects and it was shot fro duesing cost but relaxing the causation standard, saying shouldn't be something like but-for. it's enough it contributes significantly to nonatapement. >> mr. keisler, you have a statute that does not have any language about no costs allowed. that also does not have what the american trucking association statute had are which was week public health only sufficient margin of safety. what you have is exactly what you said. you have a statute that focuses on causal contribution. right? so, this is a hard problem. right? because -- let me just sort of give you a a numerical example. let say that the standard is 100. and there's a state that has

120. and there are two states, x and y, that have each contributed 20. right? so, we only need 20 of those. we have 40. and the question is, how do you get from those 40 to those 20? the d.c. circuit would just say, we take ten from each. but if the question is only about contribution and that all the statute talks about there, has to be other ways we can make that determination of what contribution each should be legally responsible for. right? and what the epa said here was, we're going to distinguish between states that have put a lot of technology and a lot of money into this already, and on the other hand states that have lots of cheap and dirty emission, and why isn't that perfectly rational thing to do under this very statute?

>> well, first of all, i think in the example that your honor gave with the two states and should they be russed to ten. the reason in favor of doing that from a stat tower perspective, that gives a consistent application to the same causal language in the statute, which means that the same causal effect is significant itself comes from indiana but signaturent when it comes from tennessee. state -- we see that fitting much moore securely within the statutory language than the kind of shifting that your honor

mentioned. one can imagine since the policy rational behind your questions are legitimate, someone can imagine a statute that says ignore the fact there are state boundary. think about the most efficient way to force reductions, locate those reductions in the least cost areas and impose that on the state. surely if congress intended that it wouldn't have written a statute to order each state -- >> you battle mr. stewart's point, that congress surely didn't intent to shut down these plants if they didn't, or couldn't, feasibly reduce their contributions. >> yes, your honor -- >> so if they can't fees fees apply do ill, wasn't the word contribute have to take into account some way the cost of reducing the amount? >> your honor, i'm here on behalf of industry and labor so we believe there have to be mechanisms to deal will those problems. we don't think they come out of

defining the amount of significantly to containment. those considerations come into play elsewhere in the process. in the american trucking case that's been referred to, to the court said when states are implementing the requirements of the epa -- for example, by deciding to allocate among different sources how the reduction will be distributed, they can take costs into combat. and there are other -- when the definition of what contributes is translated into an emission reduction allocation, and then the state says this is how much we have to reduce but costs have to be taken into account. that a very different matter from saying that epa in defining what amount significant he contributeses the same thing. the reason it's not just we're locating in a different box what epa wants to do. the box we're locating it in makes clear it functions as the

kind of break your honor described, unfeasible or -- >> they found a way to do that with the cost tradeoff with the cap and trade system. because the industry can make that choice, with the state, presumably. >> the trading presentses unique issues. we support trading anywhere at it appropriate. but this is a statute of providing relief to down-wind states and if indiana is emitting into delware that hurts air quality, it does no good for delware if indiana purchases allowances from tennessee which isn't contributing. >> you want me to right -- look what i would have to write to make it specific. two units floats over the air from the cow state and two units

from the sheep state. if we treat them alike we're going to tell the cow state, your unit is the same as the sheep state's unit, both make the same significant contribution, and we have to say that, even if, for you to remit your unit, causes death and destruction, destroys your economy, and i have to write those words to accept your argument. >> wouldn't i? >> i'd like to resist the roll your honor has -- >> the bringer of death and destruction and starvation. >> then you will either have to draw ademption -- distinction,. >> when you get down to the level of implementing these things you can't take into account whether death and destruction when the state is doing that as part of the

process, but doesn't pear on how the amount of significant contribution is defined because when epa takes into account can it's woking the other way. at it saying that even though a causation standard only would require you to reduce this much, we, the epa, can shift to you an additional burden because we think another state hard -- >> they say that's not a theoretical possibility. why isn't this taken care of in the process that permits individual states to challenge this? >> let me make a distinction. what the government says is a theoretical possibility is simply whether a state would be trench below the one percent threshold. what i'm sagos back toity scalia's first question, which is, even apart from the one% threshold, every time, a locating on the basis of cost and allocating on what each

state contributes, you're shifting the burden around. >> you're saying significant must mean only measurable amounts. it can't mean -- pick your word -- culpability, feesability. one state finds it quite feasible to reduce emissions be a factor of ten. the other state, justice breyer's example, finds it can't do it at factor of 100. can't you say that the contribution in one case is more significant than the other, based on feasibility? >> i don't think so. i don't think that is a proper definition of significant when at it modifying contribution. >> isn't contribution to nonattainment. it's the word "amounts" the statute prohibits activity from within a state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which

will contribute significantly. >> we agree. >> amounts are amounts. >> but the word "significantly" doesn't have a judgmental component. i think that's what the government is going to say. >> it's not a limitless -- >> i don't think significantly means that any factor that might be relevant in a broad policy sense can be imported in. when you have a statute here that talks about amounts that contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance. >> so there's an ambiguity here. you add the word amounts to significantly and i think that justice scalia's point might be -- he knows better than i -- an amount is an amount. >> that's my point exactly. >> and then the response is, well, not always, because you say, an amount you're talking about a specific amount coming out of the state and is the

one -- the cow one -- as significant at the sheep one? and that's -- i think we're -- i think you have hit the nail as to what the issue is. >> i guess our position is significant may have a range of meanings but not a limitless range. one court said the fact that yellow is am osgood doesn't mean it can mean purple. here we don't think the range of meanings accommodate the government's definition. >> the nature of this problem is that it there's an allocation issue. it's not just everybody gets down to a certain threshold level. there's a level and we have to allocate, and the question is, what are we going to allocate on the basis of? the word "amounts" done tell you what you're going to allocate on the basis of. we can just divide, you know, and do it all proportinally. we can take into account per capita, a state's population, or

we can take into account, as the epa did here, cost. on the understanding that costs renext how much of an investment a state has already made in pollution technology. the neither the word amount or anything else saying in about the different methods of allocation. >> i disagree with that. i don't focus exclusively on the word amount or significantly. it's the entire phrase. i think ten out of ten people who w. in this courtroom and had not read the clean air act, they're talking about what the effects emissions in one state have on the other. i don't think this is anymore ambiguous in referring to air quality standard than the standard in american trucking talking about health and safety as a standard. it supplies a content for the epa. >> what is your answer -- do you have an answer to mr. stewart's

basketball hypothetical? i thought that was pretty good. what the coach what significantly contributed to the loss, he'll talk about the missed layup rather than the missed desperation throw. each would count for two points, assuming it was within their -- [laughter] >> very hard for me to translate the amount concept into performance on the basketball court, but mr. stewart's other example was a contribution to a charity, and i certainly would accept the notion that if bill gates and i each contribute $100 to a charity, i've made the more significant contribution, but that's because we're using contribution in that context to moon something else. we're using it to mean donate or give. not talking about cause sawings. >> the basketball thing is to make it parallel to what is at issue here, the question should -- you should ask the coach, which of the -- you lost

101 to 100. which of the 101 points contributed most to your loss? [laughter] >> i assume the answer is that some done. >> the one that was the layup. he would not answer, the one that was the layup. he would say, what do you mean? all 101. >> if there were different teams playing in the league and you had an overall result, you could actually determine which team had contributed what to the overall result, and when we're dealing with states, we're dealing with groups that the statute cob send to allizes aspirate teams which are entitled to be treated separately. i'd like to make one other point. my white lightes on. we have raised a separate argument which is independent of how the court decides epa made define the amount that contributes significantly, whether cost or air quality effects or anything else.

and that is that however at it defined epa cannot regulate beyond the point necessary to achieve attainment and maintenance in downwind locations and here, prior to good neighbor rule making,ed examined the i-and avoid overkill. here it didn't do that. apart from the costs versus air quality, we had evidence that showed epa could achieve attainment at lower levels of regulations and epa's response to that was, they weren't going to look at lower levels of regulation because at lower levels of regulation, some sources and some states might cease operating existing controls. that all they said. if sources in some states could cease operating controls and as the comments say you would still achieve maintenance in all the downwind locations they're linked to, the epa has no

provision to require those sources to use their existing control. and the epa in this particular proceeding said nothing else, gave no other reason for refusing to act on the evidence that commonalitiers submitted that lower levels of regular laying at most up-wind states would achieve maintenance at down-wind locations and had no authority to regulate beyond the point necessary to achieve atapement and maintenance. >> if the court has no further questions. >> thank you, counsel. mr. stewart you have four minutes remaining. >> thank you, mr. chief justice. we cited the restatement as it bears on the command law of nuisance, and as this court indicated in american electric power, if the clean air act had not been enhe canned the remedy of down-wind states would be federal common law nuisance

state against polluters, and there are three lessons to draw from that fact. the first is that, as the breaths' argument indicates, judicial resolution of some a suit would have been a herculean task, and the process of doing that judicially choo reinforce the wisdom of congress' choice to replace that mechanism with the clean air act, and counsel is in agreement with the deference to the agency that. the second is that as the reply brief citation to the law of nuisance indicates, the common law court would have been able to consider the costs necessary to achieve reduction in pollution upwind in deciding whether a particular remedy would be appropriate or how much of a reduction an upwind polluter should have to make, and there's no reason, absent extraordinarily clear statutory language to deny epa the same authority. the third thing is, as the

analogy to the common lawsuit indicates, there are sovereign state interests on both sides of the case. this is not a matter of epa versus the states. it's a matter of epa trying to act as an honest broker between the upwind and downwind states. the clean air act as a whole is replete with references to economic activity and harnessing the profit motive. both the states and epa are specifically authorized to provide for the trading of allowances. the whole purpose of which is to achieve emission reductions in the most cost effective manner possible, and i think it's worth noting in this regard that although we talked about the transport rule as regulating the emissions of states, what we're really regulating is emissions of power plants within the states and the good neighbor provision itself talks about preventing significant contribution from emission sources or emissions activity within the state. one of the things the epa said

in proposed rulemaking was that in some circumstances the cumulative downwind impact of a particular upwind state might be great not because any particular power plan was poorly regulated or emitting at a high level but because there were so many power plants in the same state, and one consequence of forbidding the epa to consider costs is a particular power plant in an upwind state might be required to install more expensive pollution control measures and make greater reductions simply because they happen to be located in a state with a lot of other power plants. the last thing i would say is, this is -- the statute, as i said before, has a prospective focus, implemented by state officials, and if you ask how would a state official assure herself or feel confident her own state plan was satisfying good neighbor obligations when she wasn't sure what other states mooing be doing.

one way is that a state official said, if everybody else did what i'm doing, i can feel confident that the problem would be solved. and that really the approach that epa used. it examined certain cost thresholds and said, at particular cost thresh holds we feel confident if everyone, downwind and downwind alike, makes pollution control efforts at these levels, the problem will be solved or almost sold but a because there would be residual nonattain. it seems rational to say the significant contribution is the amount over and above what would occur if everyone adhered to an approach which, if applied across the board, would solve the problem. >> thank you. thank you, counsel. the case is submitted. >> i know you give me grief from time to time but we wok around

the clock trying to help you do your job. what other administration would make thousands of internal memos and documents available for your daily enjoyment. this is a representative sample. you a'll have them all tomorrow. here's a memo from harold to leon panetta. maxwell house coffee is on sale this week for 3.49. here's one, for $10,000 you can have a private meeting with vice president gore to discuss re-inventing government, and for $20,000, you don't have to go. rosy o'donnell was the president's first choice to be here this evening, and she withdrew, citing a nasty and brutal con femurration process. -- confirmation process. [applause] >> i wasn't even the second choice. dennis miller was the second

choice but he got hung out by an illegal nanny technicality. but isn't that what the confirmation process is all about here in washington? weeding out the truly qualified to get to the truly available. >> watch this year's white house constants dinner life saturday night. president obama and joe mchale of number's community headline the event. our coverage starts at 6:00 p.m. eastern with the red carpet arrival followed by the dinner, live, saturday night, on c-span2. >> senator ron johnson of wisconsin has filed a lawsuit against the obama administration over the affordable care kaz kas subsidies for members of congress and their staff. we discussed the case with senator johnson on today's "washington journal." it's 40 minutes. >> we're back with senator ron

johnson, republican, wisconsin, sits on the budget committee and has begun a lawsuit against the obama administration for the affordable care act, 38 other g.o.p. lawmakers signed on. i want to talk about that. but you are in the foreign relations committee as well so let's start with ukraine and this latest round of satisfactions. is it enough? >> guest: probably not but sanctions will be difficult to have any effect anyway. it's very difficult to target sanctions that don't also hurt western interests as well, so, as a result you're never going to have europeans signing on to strong sanctions and they can kick back at america as well. what you need to do in eastern europe and ukraine is you need to have a more robust strategic response. recognizing what gives vladimir putin his strength. his oil reserves and then europe and ukraine's dependence on those oil reserves. so you have to bust up that monopoly in terms of the supply.

you have to come from private sector. the customer ought to be in control of the situation. here we have the prior in control. so the way you put the customer in control, you have to open up world energy markets and the single greatest strategic move the u.s. could make it open up our exports on things like lng. let's stop flaring so much natural gas because we don't have enough demand for it in the u.s. we have to capture it so we're not wasting it. the single greatest long-term strategic move to make, and then vladimir putin is massing tens of thousands of troops on the border. he has agents in eastern ukraine. a miniinvasion. we also need to show some military -- certainly training exercises. he is amazing tens of thousands of troop. we're sending a couple hundred. i'm not recommending tens of thousands but we should be supplying ukraine with defensive weaponry so they can actually defend themselves.

>> host: you think we should be arming the ukrainians? >> guest: absolutely. you have people that showed the courage to try and rid themselves of corrupt governments, which is a holdover -- soviet domination 20 years ago, and people risin' the streets, showing courage, being slaughtered by a soviet-backed government, and when they're asking to be able to defend themselves their military was -- the least we can do is provide them defensive arms. >> host: what do you say, though, to those that were polled by u.s.a. today said, sanction russia but don't arm ukraine. >> guest: i disagree. satisfactions will never work but a we'll never have a unified regime of sanctions that doesn't hurt. you need sanctions in an -- in

types of countries that can't bite back. the sanctions work go in north korea. potentially iran. much more difficult in a -- against economy as large as russia where there's so many inner dependencies. nobody is calling for u.s. or nato come bad troops on the ground to engage, but we're talking about providing defensive weaponry, antitank weapons, to change's putin's cal can includes, that he doesn't mass a full-fledge invasion. give the ukrainian people a chance to stabilize their government, stabilize their country. >> host: i also want to ask you about what secretary of state john kerry says about the middle east peace progress. your colleague, senator ted cruz, said that kerry should step down for saying that israel risks an apartheid state. >> guest: the comment was obvious unfortunate is probably the best word to put on it. what it also does, basically betrays an attitude of the left

to blame israel first. i do not see how you can achieve peace in the middle east until the palestinians actually recognize israel's right to exist. so until we get that concession out of the palestinians, i think all of these peace negotiations -- i just don't see how they're ever going to bear fruit. it's unfortunate. but obviously israel is not an apartheid state. it was really a stupid comment. >> host: should he step down as senator ted cruz -- >> guest: that's up to president obama to decide whether that comment so marginalized secretary of state that he is just no longer effective spokesperson or member of the administration. that's really president obama's call. >> host: let's move on to the affordable care act. you have sued over this. what is your lawsuit? >> guest: well, it's really a lawsuit designed to highlight this administration's unlawful, unconstitutional executive orders. basically a method of governing

that is strictly unilateral, and specifically it's one regulation that president obama enacted through the office of personnel management -- no legal authorizing to chang the law this way -- but this is the regulation that grants members of congress the tax-preferred contribution into their healthcare plans they buy through the exchange. millions of americans are losing health care because of obamacare. we're the only small group of americans who get a special treatment. that's unfair should be reversed and, by the way, president obama had no legal authority to change the law that way. there's nothing in the constitution that grants the president the ability to enact, amend, or repeal laws but that's what he is dog dozens of times. not only the affordable care act but basically trying to enact this cap and trade policies, even though congress refuses to

do so. this president is out of control in terms of extra constitutional types actions he is taking and this case has meant -- hopefully a landmark case to highlight and bring back into balance our checks and balances here with the three branches of government. >> host: how do you get your health care. >> guest: i went to wisconsin and bought it in the private market. i'm take nothing employer contribution and it's my wife and i just have a family policy that we bought in wisconsin. >> host: the justice department responded to this lawsuit, and this is what they said: the fact that the plaintiffs are or may be eligible for healthcare coverage is not enough by itself to establish standing to challenge the regulations. to establish standing, the plate would have to show the challenged regulations harmed them in a material way such as by diminishing health benefits. so, you, because you bought in a private market place, are not personally directly impacted or

hurt by this regulation. >> guest: there are three specific harms we claim. first and foremost, i am being forced to engage in basically a scheme that i believe is unlawful. it does create administrative burden. and there is a standing issue that john boehner got in terms of congressional pay that basically showed it was harmful to a member of congress when he is getting unequal treatment or something is being imposes on him that basically created a wedge between himself and his constituents. so there's three specific harms we're claiming. but again, that's the legalisms of the case. this is about something far more important than that and what is what president obama is doing. an executive engaged in executive activity where nobody can show harm. one amicus brief said if we take this to its logical conclusion, president could come in and

basically cut everybody's taxes in half. it harms nobody. i don't think anybody believes the president has that authority about that is what the president is doing time and time again, amending, changing, aspects of obamacare and also failing to enforce immigration laws, trying to enact cap and trade when congress simply refuses to enact it into law. that's the heart of this case. a law professor at -- here in washington, gave powerful testimony to the house judiciary committee, saying that president obama is -- crossed the line and we're in a constitutional crisis and we have to have review of this president. >> host: how do you plan to pay for this lawsuit? >> guest: i went through senate ethics, either pay for it personally or through my campaign funds, and i was willing to actually do it personally, but being able to raise money through my campaign, i can do it that way.

i think senate ethics didn't think anybody would be crazy enough to either pay for it personally or utilize campaign funds can which, hard to raise. this is such an important constitutional issue, i was more than willing to do so. >> host: your colleague from wisconsin, jim send send brener who was chairman of the judiciary committee for a long time, has urged you not to proceed with the suit saying -- a fruitless attempt to stop the law, frivolous lawsuit and an unfortunate political stunt. >> guest: he came out with the press release before i filed the suit. and congressman made a lot of noise in a couple of days and then found out the public popularity of what i was trying to do, and i think hopefully now he understands it's not just about this narrow regulation on the special treatment. it's really more about the overall constitutional issue, which is why i got 12 senators, 38 house republicans to join in

the lawsuit. and we'll issue a letter to all my colleagues, encouraging every republican and every democrat in congress to stand it for congressional power to push back on this executive. this is a unique moment in history. we have the opportunity to reclaim the power that congress lost over the decades that threaten our freedom, our constitutional form of government. >> host: rnc getting behind your lawsuit as well. a piece in "washington post" notes this: you're using your campaign account to help raise funds for the suit. a move that will likely help you identify new financial donors for your 2016 re-election, which is expected to be an uphill climb since wisconsin usually leans democratic in presidential election years. >> guest: let's face it. it hurts me to have to use -- from the standpoint of election and raising money -- to have to use those funds because there's limits on how much people can give. so if i take those funds given to my re-election and use those

for a lawsuit, those are funds that available for my re-election. this isn't a campaign strategy. this is a deeply held life i have that we are -- held belief i have that we're losing our delicate constitutional balance and an issue that must be addressed now. so this is pretty important issue. it's not frivolous, not a stunt. this is serious constitutional question. >> host: let's get to viewers. carol in georgia. go ahead. >> caller: good morning, greta. >> host: good morning. >> steve had a show on the other day about the content of your show, and my thing is that, greta, if you wanted to have a different view than our senator -- this man right here -- let me see his name again -- >> guest: senator ron johnson. >> caller: no disrespect. i don't mean any to you. gut the thing is, greta, you

want to get the truth out of him you need to have somebody? his same stature sitting in front of him. he is not being truthful because the thing is he knows that there it's a dead dog he is beating with this affordable care act. so all the republicans want to do is beat a dead horse. but don't let him sit there when you know he is lying about using this -- if he wanted to use his money, he could have use his money for this fruitless lawsuit he has to raise money for his campaign, and mr. johnson, you going to lose because you have been deceitful. you called president obama deceitful but when you was running, you went bankrupt, you made a whole hospital go bankrupt under you. how about the cat calling the kettle black. >> host: okay do. >> guest: i think carol is a sporter. >> host: a lot to respond. let me respond about the c-span.

carol, i heard that show that you're referring to and what steve said at the time, and we often try to have roundtable discussions with two members of congress who have differing views. it doesn't always work out with their schedules, but we have roundtable discussions a lot of this show and we'll continue to do that. the other thing, carol, you said that the host shouldn't just sit here. the beauty of the program is you get to call up and challenge members of congress, like senator ron johnson and put your opinion forking. -- opinion forth. >> guest: whenever i get in front of a bipartisan audience i start the conversation with what we agree on. the same with any business association. i hope you abe we share the same goal. i'm concerned about every american. we all want every american to have the opportunity to build a good life. i'll be the first to admit that carol and i probably have

different ideas how to achieve that prosperity, but we have enormous challenges facing the nation, and i don't think it helps a whole lot to be calling people liars or to be questioning each other's motives itch think all of this government, is massive, causing problems, but i'll admit most is very well-intentioned. there's some very serious unintended consequences about the size and scope of government. i appreciate people -- i came to the try to solve these problems for every american. >> host: what about the politics of the issue? i want you to address that. after a show you interviewer -- what the senate majority leader had to say, harry reid, talked about republicans continually going after the affordable care act. here's what he had to say. >> for example, last week, there's a new republican

strategy to defeat senate democrats they're going to attack me because their attacks and fabrications regarding the affordable care act have born little fruit in senate races across the country republicans will avoid the issues that matter most to americans, instead, trying to focus attention on a senator who is not even up for election. that senator is me. and one of those issues the republicans so desperately want to avoid. how about immigration? that bill was introduced a year ago. and it passed the senate many, many months ago. it's a good piece of legislation, mr. president but the vast majority of the american people think is a good idea. yet, instead of explaining to the american people why this bipartisan bill is idle, they want to change the subject. the speaker refuses to allow a vote. a vote would occur, it would pass overwhelmingly.

that's a good piece of legislation, not only that is fair and equitable but also would reduce the debt by a trillion dollars, mr. president. while struggling american families plead to congress for help in providing work or getting paid fair, liveable wages, house republicans prefer to talk about anything but what is relevant. why? bus their becameaires sugar daddies aren't interested in helping middle class americans get a fair shot. >> host: senator ron johnson, the majority leader saying you're focusing on things like the affordable care act or attacking him instead of focusing on issues like immigration. >> guest: i'm totally focused on the economy. obamacare is one of the things that is keeping our economy from being as robust as it should be. it's hard to know where to start with senator harry reid who is running -- hate to see running the senate -- destroying the senate, and even right there,

accusing us of targeting him, and he is demonizing some billionaires. that's the -- i explained to somebody demonize them, rather than talk about the real issues. we need to make america an attractive place for risk, tacking, job expansion and job creation. it's simple. we have to have competitive tax environmentment we need to have r.ss onerous and competitive we need the power to make things. how about making manufacturing in america more competitive? we are not going to do that enacting capping trade do that enacting

capping trade regulations. i am not questioning harry reid's motives but he is questioning the conservatives motives. host: we will go to mike in rockford illinois. caller: thank you for everything. you are a beacon of light in the mid-unity -- in the community. the employery of , i feel like a widget -- --y back in canada backing a candidate. shift oflso a corporate manufacturing overseas where they can write off 100% of expenses. they can hire illegals at the same time. mandate takes off

folks who are no longer able to pay insurance. i am wondering what is the employer mandate in paying for why is the care? company taking the power of the vote by eliminating funding of the candidates? loyalty -- there is no loyalty to the candidates and more. guest: the laws clear the employer mandate should be implemented after december very -- after december 31, 2013. just took it upon himself through presidential edict and decree to change that. that is the heart of my lawsuit, to and that unilateral governance are the president. in terms of companies willing

america, i am far more concerned about an all-powerful federal government than i am about the influence of thousands of different companies. reason you should have. sure in terms of campaign -- they can make the thesion whether or not decision by the officials is being influenced by the contribution they gave them. i think that transparency is valid. the other contributions primarily came from donors in wisconsin. we have enormous challenges facing this nation. americans. -- educate americans. the first product -- the first part of solving a problem is admitting you have a problem.

sayingesident obama medicare requires modest reforms over the next 30 years. medicare will have a deficit of $35 trillion. all titans before his myself. -- all i can speak for his myself. kurt is, a republican in massachusetts. the laws of physics did not change in 9/11. flawed industry poured in building seven has really stunted america's understanding of what happened that day. why won't congress launch an actual criminal investigation and takeevents of 9/11 into account the scientific evidence that demonstrates explosives were used to take out building seven as well as the towers? was part of akirk

group -- senator, curtis part of a group who asks members of congress to take this up. you are serving in your first term. you were around. there are so many in him as problems facing this nation. we need to be incredibly sick -- incredibly concerned about the security of our nation. the face and asymmetric threat. but if the problem with 9/11 is for a decade al qaeda declared war in america and we did not want to admit it. with 9/11 we realized they were really at war with us. may have damaged core al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan but now it is in isthern africa, syria, it metastasized pit it is an asymmetric threat. as much as we would like to say , the moves that

vladimir putin is taking show from my standpoint a fair amount of strength. i think vladimir putin is engaged in a cold war. head in thep our sand about these things. host: joseph from california, an independent color. caller.endent going to tell you t now about -- host: got to turn your television down. let'sg go to rebecca in virginia, a republican caller. caller: i was hoping we would stay away from ukraine.

isn't itture -- true that we have a weak president and the >> caller: n't it true we have a weak president, and the reason that putin is getting away with what he is getting away with is because he has had years of watching what is going on, and he knows, you know -- now that after years of being weak, it's too late. just all of a sudden we're going to send troops or weapons or do anything. our best bet is just to stay away and take care of what we can take care of, because we cannot take care of russia, and we cannot take care of china. and if we good with russia, we're going to have beg of them on us at one time. thank you. >> host: senator johnson. >> guest: she is right. what gives vladimir putin

strength is our weakness. he have to show greater strength, greater resolve. i'm not talking about getting in a shooting match with russia, but the fact of the matter is we canceled the missile defense shield in pollland and czech republic. that was a bad sign the fact this president draws red lines and then does nothing when they're crossed. what is happened around the world, world leaders that depend though united states because we entered into defensive treaties with them, they're questioning whether we'll honor those treaties and they'll start taking actions. we entered this budapest memorandum with uk and russia to ensure the border sovereignty of ukraine, and when russia abdicated their own signature status to that memorandum, nothing has happened. so, russia will continue to do this. by the way, as will then north korea, as will iran, as will china. other nations will sense the lack of resolve, the lack of

strength on the part of america and they'll start expanding, make the world a far more dangerous place. we see it with china, declaring these flight zones and sovereignty over these islandses in south china sea. these are very dangerous types. aagree with ronald reagan. you achieve peace through strength. if you're weak, going to be the opposite. i don't believe america is in a position to just hunker down at home, become isolationists and think noting is going to happen. weeing nord the fact that al qaeda was at war with us. that resulted in the slaughter of thousands of americans bus of our lack of resolve in that situation. >> host: we're talking with senator ron johnson-republican of wisconsin. on the budget committee and the science and transportation committee, foreign relations, home lean security and governmental affairs and small business and entrepreneurship. hires a couple tweets.

peg says, is the issue aca is implemented or lowering our cost of medical care in this country? this debate is tiresome. and then monte sis, what do you propose we do to help the sick and the poor who cannot afford health care? is proper health care a human right? >> guest: let's go to the affordability aspect. there were three primary problems 0 obama card, insure all the uninsured, 30 million americans. best estimates right now, eight million people signed up, 27% were previously uninsured. only half paid the premiums so somewhere between run to two million previously uninsured americans are taking advantage of obamacare. president obama repeatedly promised the cost over the financially plan would decline by $2,500 per family. the fact is the cost of health care is up and now with the implementation it's higher than that. and his most famous promise,

labeled the lie of the year, if you like your health plan or your doctor, you can keep those doctors, and we have witnessed americans lose their healthcare plan, access to doctors and treatment cut. i'm tired of the debate. i well-the healthcare would not have been implemented. we have only seen the tip of the iceberg in the -- it's going to lead to rationing and seeing with the ill-advised medical device tax, 33,000 jobs have not been created or shipped overseas because medical device manufacturers are not investing in equipment. so that's the first part of the question. the second part was -- >> the second tweet was about is property health care a human right? >> guest: we're a very compassionate nation. we want a strong social safety net. we didn't have to disrupt the

entire healthcare system, the insurance market to provide that type of safety net. from my standpoint, part of what the democrats are proposing right now to make health care affordable under obamacare is now a copper plan, an incredibly high deductible plan. no bat we to go in terms of social safety net. i agree no american should go bankrupt because they get ill you. take care of that with a major medical type of plan that is certainly more affordable and if you can't afford that, that should be the social sift -- safety net. you can take care of high-risk pools and preexisting conditions. >> host: let's good back to the lawsuit you filed against the opm. what is their role in this and what have they done that you think hurts the healthcare, delivery of health care. >> guest: it's the fact that president obama has taken these actions without the constitutional authority to do so. the law was -- i'd like to

repeal the spire law. this was really stupid part of the law that -- i don't disagree that members of congress, when they're debating health care, made a big show, this is going to be so great. we'll take advantage of the healthcare plans ourselves. then chuck grassley offered an amendment if we have to buy through the exchange let's let our employer contribution flow to the plans. let's not deny people employer contributions, which i don't disagree with. run senators didn't disagree with that. the democrats voted against that very amendment to allow employer contribution into this plans versus the exchange. this was debated and voted on. that was the will of congress. i don't a agree with that but that's the law. so president obama, if he -- now senate democrats hate it so they went running to president obama, even though opm ruled that there should be no employer contribution for members of congress and their staff for purchasing insurance in the exchange.

that was opm's original ruling, democrats panicked, went to president obama, and asked for relief, and president obama says we'll come up with a rule to sir circumvent the law. that's they heart of this case. this isn't really -- it's really not about the healthcare law. at it about unilateral governance by this president, about presidential power growing incredibly powerful, it's increasing. at iten increase during my lifetime but this president hayes taint to new levels and that's according to jonathan turley, a supporter of president obama. >> host: joseph, you're on the air. >> caller: i'm back. okay, senator johnson, i'm going to tell you, number 37, a half mile away, tell people what

brought -- >> host: you receive, we already address that so we're going to move on. linda in churchville, maryland. republican caller. >> caller: senator johnson, i want to thank you so much for standing up to the american people. i feel that our country is in a lot of trouble. >> host: is that it? >> caller: yes. >> host: oo go ahead. >> guest: linda, agree. i liked my life in wisconsin, enjoyed running a manufacturing plant, but is a saw the passage of healthcare law, i knew what an assault that would be on our freedom. and we're mortgaging our children's future. greta, today, every american share of the federal debt it $55,000. and ten years it will be $75,000, and i talk to young people, i say $75,000 and pack on $150,000 for your parents' and grandparents share because that's not going away. i asked my audiences, do you

understand what we're doing to future generations? we're depriving them by not admitting we have a problem, not properly diagnosing it, and doing virtually nothing to address it. so frustrating for somebody like me. i've been in office now more than three years and i haven't taken tough votes to actually solve these problems because we don't have a willing partner in the white house that is willing to take the political risk-with people like myself or paul ryan or republicans that want to actually save these programs, save medicare and social security for future generations. >> host: dean. >> caller: good morning greta. regarding c-span and the way you handle things, nobody does it better. senator johnson, couple quick questions. the senate bill on immigration that was passed, do you feel today that if the vote was brought up on the floor of congress it would pass.

>> guest: not in the house. i voted against it, even though i wid not solve the problem. it was comprehensive. that is a word i would take out of our vocabulary here in washington dc. we don't do comprehensive very well. i think we need to do ,tep-by-step, secure the border but not militarize it. you need to eliminate all the incentives for illegal immigration. we need a test worker program. there are a lot of things we can do. at ied against it immediately went over to the house and worked with the people who are serious about immigration reform. i hope the house passes the

individual components. i know the individuals here are living in the shadows, that is not humane for anyone. we need to have a functioning immigration system. host: did you have a follow-up? caller: in regards to health care, do you feel that before the aca became law that health care was a major issue? sure. i was buying health care for the people who work for me at my business. we are moving in the right direction. maybe not quickly enough but with the passage of things like welth savings accounts, saved a lot of terms of premiums. i did not pocket that money. i took the premium savings and gave those to the employees. my businessee at had $5,000 and health savings account. they are going to start spending it more wisely.

bringing the free market discipline to actually control costs, improve quality in customer service. the me give you a free market reaction to that, places like walmart, walgreens, cbs, the established walk-in clinics. a bad way to have that first visit. let's say you have a child with a potential ear infection. rather than cook -- then go to the emergency room, he go to walgreens. the free-market is a marvel. we need to reduce it in a far more robust way in terms of health care. i'll health-care system is a long ways from being perfect. -- our health-care system is a long way from being perfect. host: on this issue of immigration and what the speaker said when he was back in his district during the break, the national review, the editors weigh in on this.

their peace talks about speaker offering a mission for white house is not moved on the immigration bill, saying that some of his republican colleagues just don't want to do anything that is "too hard. "too hard your co--- "too hard." what did you make of his comments? the speaker has been right, one of the real stumbling blocks is first and foremost the senate bill that is so flawed. and also does president's lack of enforcement. nobody trusts this president to enforce the law the house has passed. we are not going to be able to

pass immigration reform through the house while this senate is still alive. andvised marco rubio lindsey graham because i wanted to solve the problem. it had a bar -- a far better chance of passage. i house but it would be dead on arrival in the house. -- i thought it would be dead on arrival in the house. from -- i'm not sure the exact count. i know leader mcconnell talked about a few votes early in the year. , in the most deliberative body in the world republicans have had four votes on amendments.

four were invented on -- four were voted on in the 96. the senate is being run by a one-man dictatorship, harry reid. we are not utilizing the community process. we can have discussion with colleagues across the aisle. these verying all political bills, just drop it on the floor of the senate. he fails the tree. he doesn't even allow amendments to be filed. this is all political. reid is not looking for the senate to pass bipartisan bills. about politics. united states and this has not passed an appropriations bill -- the united states senate has not passed an appropriations bill. we haven't done that in two years.

it will be interesting to see if we passed any appropriation bill this year before the election. we are going to be talking about income and equality and the racial wealth gap. minimum wage vote, the senate is expected to vote on a minimum wage bill. what is your stance on that issue? if youthe cbo shows that increase the minimum wage the president is proposing you will lose half a million to a million jobs. rung ofaking the bottom opportunity away from people. the way to increase americans wages is have a robust economy. you have to make america an attractive place. ander than demonizing engaging in class warfare we should incentivize business expansion and job integration. it is very political vote. you are not going to increase people's wages.

you are going to reduce the number of jobs available for those entry-level positions that are just crucial for people to get on that bottom rung. once you show a business and show you are dedicated and contributing to the success, not many people stay in that wage all that long. the most successful businesses -- the wage levels are far above minimum wage. host: go to c-span to our coverage.

>> okay we have an important guest with us today. governor shumlin of vermont. we have a very important guest with us today governor from vermont elected in 2010 reelected 2012. how ev statesel govrs many states were running again r 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