talked to the president about that issue. >> i don't think you talked to medical experts either. to tell us repeatedly of the danger, particularly the young people for marijuana use, much less others. isn't it true that you do go through trends where you have seen a move from prescription drugs to heroin? ..

>> i now recognize senator klobuchar, and before we start her clock, let me express my appreciation to her for the work she's done i think really leading this committee on synthetic drugs, bath salts and so forth and trying to improve the scheduling response to that. senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and thank you for holding that all-day meeting yesterday with senator portman about addiction and the work that needs to be done. i was pleased to take part in that, and we welcome you, administrator lee p onhart. -- leonhart. you spent many years in minnesota, how many years? >> most of my childhood. >> yes. well, we're proud to have you in this job. as you and i talked about last week, i recently led a delegation to mexico a few weeks

ago on the topic of sex trafficking as well as heroin. and i think we asked every single official there, including the attorney general of mexico and the held of the federal police, about what was going on with heroin. i was there with senator heitkamp and cindy mccain, wife of senator john mccain. and as you know, about 50% of the heroin is grown in mexico, and 60% of the heroin we have come into the u.s. is either grown or distributed through mexico. just as senator sessions was talking about, we've seen a lot of overdoses in minnesota in the first half of 2013 alone, this is the first half, 91 people died of opiate-related overdoses in two counties alone. it was a significant increase. hospital visits for heroin nearly tripled from '04 to 2011, and in the 7,000-person community of st. francis, minnesota, three young people have died of opiate overdoses

since may. it was one of the reasons why i went down to mexico. and the things that we learned there, as you know, and you and i talked about the prosecutors there and the police working with our law enforcement and dea are really ramping it up on the cartels. they were able to capture, mexican police captured el chapo in mexico of the cartel which dealt in heroin, and talking to them it appears there are still many issues with some of this now with taking on some of the leadership of the cartels. we now have smaller gappings dealing in some of these drugs, lower level kidnappings, express kidnappings for a day. and talking to the mexican authorities three things, one, that they are trying to beef up their southern border as they're seeing that pure heroin coming up from other countries down there, something we don't always think about. secondly, we pushed on the eradication issue which has been

successful this parts of colombia as we're starting to see not just the black tar heroin coming out of mexico, but some of their own white powder heroin. and then, of course, the third is the continuing coordination with our own dea and law enforcement and going after these cartels. this comes at a time where mexico is so eager to partner with not just the united states, but canada as part of a new day in north america, and there's so much potential for our economies to work together. and i actually see some potential in a major way for us for exporting things down there if they can grow the middle class and take care of some of this violence which is really prohibiting them from reaching their full potential. so if you could talk a little bit about your efforts with mexico. >> thank you, senator, for sharing what you discussed on your trip, and thank you for the interest especially bringing up the heroin issue on your trip.

the relationship between officials in mexico and the dea and the greater u.s. government law enforcement community is still at an all-time high. very, very good collaboration, and that's why we have the success of being able to, you know, take into custody chapo does match and how that -- guzman and how that impacts trafficking around the world because he was such a big figure. we have a number of operations and a number of initiatives that we are working jointly with our mexican counterparts and the other government agencies. and this is starting to pay off in dividends. not just well -- with el chapo's arrest, but also mid-level leaders of the gulf cartel, of

the -- [speaking spanish] and all of these organizations that really are responsible for most of the cocaine, most of the heroin, most of the drugs that is landing in our communities. so when senators take an interest many pushing -- in pushing for good relationships with our mexican partners, we need to thank you for that. >> any other issue which you and i have discussed at length is the bill, and this does relate to heroin since four out of five heroin users now got their start with prescription drugs and then turned to heroin when they can't find the prescription drugs. and often times end up ted or addicted -- dead or addicted for life. one of the things that we passed four years ago, senator cornyn and i passed out of this committee was a secure and responsible drug disposal act. the idea is to change some of the rules to make it easier for

drug takebacks. not just have them once every three months in communities where we know they're collecting tons, but try to find more permanent arrangements in long-term care facilities as well as potentially pharmacies. if the pharmacy's giving them the opportunity -- it's not required -- but to take back these drugs, we no longer want to tell people to flush the drugs down the toilet or grind them up with coffee grinds and put them in the garbage. i think that's not realistic for busy families, and i'm hopeful that we can get these done. you know, we have been frustrated by how long it took, and i heard a little rumor that maybe you got some comments back from the office of management and budget week and that that means it's then back in your court. if that were to happen, how long do you think it will take to get these rules out? >> well, i can tell you that we did get them back, and we've

already taken care of a couple of the concerns. there is still a concern that we need to address, but we're hoping that we can cothat very -- we can do that very quickly. we remain optimistic, because i know we've all been waiting a very long time to have these regulations in place so that people can have kind of a 24/7 way to dispose of the medications that have for years, you know, lingered in tear medicine cabinet. >> uh-huh. well, i appreciate that because every time i see one of the public service ads, which i think are very good, showing someone open the medicine cab net and seeing their kid's face, i always think, okay, we're doing this, it's going to stop people from getting addicted and then moving on to heroin. but if they don't know what to do with the drugs and they have no real place to put them, we have a problem. so i appreciate that and urge

you to get these rules done as soon as possible. thank you very much, administrator. >> thank you, senator klobuchar. now we turn to senator be hatch who, among other things, is the lead on the designer ana bolick steroid control act with me. >> well, thank you. certainly a pleasure always to work with you and other members of this committee. i appreciate the effort you've put forward. welcome, ms. leonhart. we're so grateful to have you here. first, i want to raise the problem with marijuana cultivation on land in my home state of utah that the federal government currently owns. the federal government owns a majority of land in only five of the 50 states, and that figure is actually around 70% in my home state of utah. now, people in most of the country don't know what that means, but utahans certainly do. it means the federal government has the responsibility to address issues and problems related to the federal land

itself. and this is not the first time i've addressed the federal government's failure to live up to that responsibility. last year, for example, i offered an amendment to the immigration bill that would with enhance penalties for marijuana cultivation on federal land. now, in this committee adopted my amendment by unanimous consent. these activities pose a direct threat to public safety in and around our communities. do you agree that this is a serious problem and that it is the federal government's responsibility to solve it? >> i do, senator, and, you know, we have, we have worked with our state and local counterparts in utah and have done a number of cases, just as you have mentioned -- >> i appreciate that. >> -- that have been on public lands. and it seems that we each year are seizing more and more plants until recently.

we've almost seen a shift off of public lands, though, to indoor growth. but the importance of continuing to go after the growing on public lands is, number one, it is an enforcement priority for the government because that is government property. growing on public lands, there's a lot of concern because we see mexican trafficking groups take hold on a number of those grows. we also are concerned because of the dangers, you know, someone hiking through the woods coming across a grow. there have been instances not just in utah, but instances in other states where there have been booby traps, and it's dangerous. so we have continued our efforts. we continue to run eradication-suppression program. we continue to fund state and local authorities who are, who

pledge to go and take enforcement on public lands, and we will continue to do so, and i know you've been very, very supportive in our efforts and want to thank you for that. >> well, thank you. the problem i just described is getting worse for two related reasons. first, with the second highest percentage of federal landownership in my home state, utah sits next to colorado which now has legalized marijuana. the international drug cartels that already had been invading federal land to cultivate illegal drugs will inevitably work to increase supply to meet the increased demand. and secondly, even though your prepared statement says that the administration, quote, continues to steadfastly oppose marijuana legalization, unquote, the justice department announced that it will not challenge the legalization of marijuana in either colorado or washington. in addition, the administration

says it wants to lower sentences for drug offenders and even invites those now in prison to apply for clemency. now, to me, those are not welcome developments. in a state like utah where the federal government should be doing more to prevent its land from being used to fuel problem. now, do you agree that legalization of marijuana will increase the demand for marijuana and possibly other drugs as well? >> senator, the administration opposes legalization of marijuana, and i believe one of the reasons it does oppose it is we know that where we see marijuana legalized, there, you should expect more use. >> okay. your prepared statement details some of the evidence that marijuana is, in fact, harmful to a person's physical and intellectual development and may very well impair their quality of life. now, research also shows, however, that whether a person will use drugs depends very much on whether that person believes

that the drug is harmful. according to the monitoring of the future study, the perception of harm for marijuana use among 12th graders has steadily declined. young people increasingly see marijuana as legal and medicinal rather than harmful, and now we see innocent-looking edibles that abc news has reported can be exponentially more potent than when marijuana itself is smoked. i have here in my hand an alert bulletin from the colorado information analysis center dated march 19, 2014. it says that there's been an increased amount of marijuana-infused products sold to the public and that these products include fruit i chews, cupcakes and even butter and banana bread. mr. chairman, i ask consent to place this bulletin in the

record at this point. >> without objection. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i think the inevitable result of this trend will be increased use, abuse and addiction. do you share my concerns on this? >> you have a right to be concerned, and and as law enforcement officers, we're very concerned about that. especially when we see some of these edibles, tear -- the people who are making them and selling them are calling them adult gummy bears, but you can't even tell the difference between, you know, kids' gummy bears and those laced with marijuana. so we're very concerned, and it is one of those, one of the reasons why the department of justice be the august 29th memo with the eight factors, and they have, you know, factors in there related to kids selling to kids. (mdmo out in anticipation

that the states that pass legalization will put in place aggressive -- not just on paper, but real aggressive oversight regulatory systems to take care of that. and we are very concerned about those edibles and about the high concentration, you know? a person you heard about, the young student who jumped out a window after eating the cookie which was, you know, seven or eight servings, not just one. we're concerned about all of that. the marketing when these packages look like they're marketed for kids, today look like candy bar wrappers. we share your concern. >> well, i appreciate -- mr. chairman, can i ask one other question? >> of course.

it's just the two of us. please proceed. take the time you need. >> see? see what a great chairman he is? [laughter] i mentioned earlier what i consider to be the administration's misguided invitation for federal prisoners to seek clemency in these cases. now, the president has the authority to grant clemency in individual cases, and i would be the first to stand up for that right, and i think it should be exercised from time to time, and i've decried some of the former presidents not exercising clemency a little more than they do. but i can't remember a president using that authority to change sentences for an entire category of federal prirldzs simply because -- prisoners simply because he does not think they should be in prison. congress alone has the authority to determine sentencing policy, but i don't think the president appears to understand that. now, he is, in effect, trying to set sentencing policy on his own. now, i don't expect you to comment on the president's decision, but i did want to state for the record that i

think he is going too far, and that he is misusing his authority. i will help him on clemency, because i think sometimes we don't use that power enough as president. but i think he should work with us many congress rather than against congress. and i think that i would just recommend that to the president as part of this hearing. but states choosing to legalize marijuana will in some way regulate that to commercial activity. and, but as you know, the same criminal organizations that profit from selling marijuana deal also in drugs such as hair, cocaine -- heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine as well as engaging in human trafficking and other drug-related crimes. now, law-abiding citizens and legislators may distinguish between such things, but traffickers and other criminals do not distinguish between them. they simply follow the money. what is the dea doing to insure

that stores and dispensaries that legally sell marijuana do not act as fronts for illegal activities? and further, how are are you monitoring that, the marijuana being sold in these dispensaries is not obtained from criminals? >> senator, we're concerned about that. on the first part, we have continued where we see in colorado or washington where we see these dispensaries that are impacting the eight factors in the august 29th memo, we are taking action. just the action -- i'm not sure if you were here, but i mentioned earlier about an action that we took in colorado on friday. concerns for us were that the money that went into this business came from colombia and colombian nationals. so we took action, and we will

continue to take action where we see violations of those eight federal prior few is. priorities. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i appreciate you giving me in this extra time. >> i'm delighted to do it. >> thank you, pad dam. >> -- madam. >> the topic of the mandatory minimums has come up on several occasions, and i just wanted to close with a comment on that. i've been the u.s. attorney for rhode island, and i've been the attorney general of rhode island, and clearly from a law enforcement perspective there's enormous value to mandatory minimums. but as i think both courts and prosecutors agree, they also represent a shift of power from the court to make sentencing decisions to the prosecutors and to law enforcement to have

sentencing decisions implicitly made through charging decisions. and the power that gives prosecutors can be very helpful. i have used it myself, because the threat of how you charge a case can turn a defendant into a cooperator and a cooperator can turn into a valuable witness against an even more dangerous defendant. so as we approach this issue, i think we have to recognize that this was an important tool in the hands of law enforcement. but at the same time, i think we also have to recognize that from a cost benefit equation some people who ended up in prison for very lengthy terms for relatively minor offenses weren't -- the effort wasn't serving the public, wasn't serving the public safety, and it wasn't serving the taxpayer.

and so we are clearly in a conversation on that right now marley in the judiciary -- particularly in the judiciary committee as it relates to the sentencing act. i think that is a conversation that is well worth having, and i think there's room for progress there. there are clearly two sides to the equation, but i wanted to make sure that the record of this hearing recognized the other side to the equation which is that from a public safety and effectiveness point of view, these mandatory minimums have their downsides as well as their upsides. i also wanted to express concern with something, madam administrator, that you said to chairman leahy with regard to a program that has been of interest to members of this committee. you indicated that, if i wrote it down correctly, that you all have briefed members of the

committee. i don't believe that has actually taken place. i think what has taken place that members of the committee asked to be briefed, and we were told that that was not possible because of an ongoing agency review. and then when we pressed, we were allowed a law enforcement-sensitive staff briefing which consisted of the staff being told that they couldn't be briefed on this because there weren't members present. so i think -- [laughter] that was not an entirely satisfactory turn of events given that members had been excluded from the meeting. the only thing that was offered was a staff briefing at that point. so we're working our way through that, and i think we're going to get our believing. but i -- our briefing. but i do want to do two things. one is a question for the record to the drug enforcement administration for whatever constitutional basis you think there is for a claim that

congressional oversight is limited by ongoing agency review. to me, that's a constitutional proposition that has to support and no substance. it appears to have been the basis for delaying the member briefing, and so perhaps you're aware of, or your general counsel's aware of constitutional principles i'm not aware of, and i'd like to have them put on record as a response to a question for the record in this hearing how they would answer that question. pushing for that briefing has been kind of a challenging experience. pushing to try to get the prescribing rules changed which took three years was a challenging experience. senator grassley and i helped referee the battle between dea

and gao over gao's inquiries into prescription, into truck shortages -- into drug shortages. that was kind of a challenging experience. and as i look at the prescription drug monitoring programs, once again it seems that we see challenges. i don't know be that's representative of a larger, ongoing bureaucratic culture of noncooperation at dea, but as these individual events begin to stack up, episodes begin to look like a pattern. and perhaps in a response to a question for the record you could explain dea's position with regard to those different instances.

because i don't think that the agency wants to develop a reputation as an agency that doesn't cooperate and doesn't work well with others. i assume that you have no concern with first responders getting access to any lox sewn, to -- >> we're very supportive of that. in fact, health raised that with the international association of chiefs of police who passed a resolution so that their members were aware that that is a very good way for police departments and first responders to attack the heroin and opiate overdose problem. >> good. and i think we all applaud attorney general holder for having made the statement that he did and pushed this issue forward for local first responders whether law enforcement or emt or fire to be

prepared for these circumstances as we're presented with them more and more. i had a hearing -- shouldn't say hearing, a conference yesterday, senator portman and i did, on addiction and recovery, and one of the statistics that emerged from that is that 105 americans die every day from overdoses, and to the extent we can stem that toll of death and tragedy by having our first responders promptly prepared, that seems like a good thing to do. so i thank you for appearing before the committee. i thank the dea for their courage and their vigilance in executing their law enforcement responsibilities. you and i have a friend in common who is a dea agent whose career includes a particular instance of very great bravery done for a very important purpose, and i think of dea in those terms very often.

so we wish you well in the work that you do, and we look forward to continuing a healthy and robust relationship between this committee and your agency. the record of this hearing will remain open for one additional week if anybody wishes to add anything. and subject to that, the hearing is closed. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] >> almost 5,000 students entered this year's c-span student cam video competition on the most important issue congress should consider in 2014. we talked with the top five winners about their documentaries. >> the moment where we all decided that this was going to be our topic was when there was an article on fracking in our local newspaper, the press telegram, and it said how fracking was happening two miles from our house. so there's this national problem, and now it's also a local problem. and so from then on, we were all very passionate about the subject. it seemed obvious that that's what our topic should be. >> food is essential to life, it transcends everything. everybody requires food to live, so i figured the fact that a lot of people don't know what's being done to our food supply, and they just eat this food regularly without knowing what's inside it, i found that very concerning.

so that's why i chose the topic. >> there's a lot more that you don't know, and it's hard for the average person to know exactly what is going on because they don't know what is going on. and i think it depends do you value your security over your pryce or your privacy over your security? >> hear more saturday morning at 10 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> c-span's newest book, "sundays at eight," a collection of interviews with some of the nation's top storytellers. >> the normal trajectory of escape stories or or concentration camp stories is you have someone who comes from a sophisticateed -- sophisticated, civilized family. they're taken to the camp. all the other relatives are killed. they have to behave in an inhuman way to survive. and then they come out and they tell their story about a descent

..ñi the governor took questions from reporters for just under one hour. >> okay. we have a very important guest with us today. governor shumlin of vermont. governor shumlin was elected in 2010, reelected in 20 told her calmly states elect governors

every two years? you're running again, are you nuts because i haven't announced yet. we have a lot of work to do. >> i would bet on you to win because i checked, no governor of vermont running for reelection has been defeated in over 50 years. >> hoping to keep it that way. >> back in 1962. governor shumlin consummate plays very due to my heart. i just have a roommate in college that we used to visit the putney school all the time. we had dinner, i remember. >> wonderful place. beautiful place. he's also the chair of the democratic 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? >> thirty-six. >> if you look on page three of the newsletter you will see that 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 listed the 2012 me states with democratic senate seats up. as you can see, seven of them are romney states with democrats up for reelection. there's only one obama state with republican up for reelection and that susan collins in maine. on the other hand, it reverses completely for governors, remember the senate seats were last on about six just go which was a democratic landslide, the financial crisis of 2008. most of the governors were up four years ago. that was 2010 which was a republican landslide. you have a lot of states, obama states like florida, iowa, maine, michigan, ohio, pennsylvania, wisconsin that and elected republican governors. many of them are vulnerable. so you have to look for

democrats and governors races i think it's a lot rozier this year than the senate. start off with this question. how are you dicing democrats to run on obamacare? >> either states where democrats can call obamacare a great success in their state? >> let's start with the top line for a second. because of what's happening in d.c. regardless of party, the lack of progress on some issues because of the obstructionist in congress, i would argue the government has never been more important because we have to do things. we've got to balance budgets, implement education policy. we got to have roads that work and policies that work. these elections are really important this year. as mentioned, this is the referendum on the tea party governors the cut elected four years ago. we sometimes forget because

congress had the chance for the referendum that this is the first time they have been out. whether it's health care or jobs, and jobs is with the central element for governors because that's what we all ran on, and let's look at what happen. we came out of that election four years ago limping. we had 19 democrats. we're up to 21 now. we adopted -- we picked up virginia that you all know about. having said that, the question isn't so much, doesn't hinge on one issue. let's take health care. with health care you know that, and the american public knows governors to come down to congress and decided what national health care policy will look like. we have the job of implementing it. and the challenge for the republican governors, the reason we're on offense, you complete what you want about the pundits and 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 tough economy. so on health care we have the job of implementing it. the problem for the republican governors, this election may focus on what he voted for all of you didn't. folks know governors didn't vote for because they weren't there. with the job of implementing it. my view is that the governors are going to get punished on health care because we're held to a different standard, we have the job of putting it in place, not passing, being for or

against it but the ones punished will be denying millions of the residents affordable, quality health care because they want to make a little point. that's the problem. what happened with these republican governors is as they reward the top 1%, failed the top down economic policies that have helped the very top while the middle-class has taken in the teeth, slashed education, implemented tax policies, i would argue distracted by the same radical social agenda that the tea party wishes they could implement if they had the power, you know, alter sounds for most women in their states. a whole list of issues that took them off of the jobs battle. so i would argue on health care those that will be published in governors races are those that refused to give access to the most vulnerable because they want to make a political point. >> which means i sit medicaid

expansion. >> absolutely. let's be candid about this. governors have picked up the opportunity to expand medicaid to in many cases hundreds of thousands innocent cases millions of constituents. americans understand that, there's too many folks out there who have a brother or husband or wife, a relative who got medicaid expansion. in the states next door, mostly governed by democrats, a few republicans came before this, where other people don't have and they're asking why don't i. >> republican states have passed a lot of new restrictions on voting rights. can democrats make an issue? is to anything democrats can do about that? >> you can bet we can make it an issue. i think it fires up our base to be candid. there is a basic a sense of fairness in america that everybody should have the right to vote. along with a radical social agenda to implement against women, against minorities, gay and lesbians, these governors

have also tried to disenfranchise low income vote voters. >> with the federal government in gridlock what can democrats do in states to advance the agenda on an issue like let's start with immigration? >> well, you know, it's tougher for us to make big advantages on immigration because obviously it's a federal law that we're dealing with. the only things that we can do is, as i did in vermont, you know, signed into legislation that allows test workers to driver's license to try to make their experience in our states more humane but really that is a federal issue that think voters understand that. >> what about climate change? >> climate change is a place where government can really make a difference. and we are. with the in action in congress on the issue that isn't public important to our kids and grandkids livability on this planet, we are implement thing job creating renewable energy

policies that are really showing the way. vermont is an example we're going 90% renewable by 2050. i now have come a week ago friday as an example, the lowest the second lowest unemployed in america in vermont. one reason for that is that i've quadrupled the number of solar panels we are manufacturing renewable energy products. our democratic governor's message is principle. as we move from oil to other ways in the future it's a huge job creator and we want those jobs. >> our democratic candidates still working with relief are frustrated by the president's decision to put off the decision on the keystone pipeline? >> it depends where you're from. one thing you 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've got to pass legislation on women's rights where you're

not seem as viable. whether it's older sounds, they passed 80 laws in 20 states that but restrictions on a woman's right to choose that frankly the father and daughter -- we can start the list of whether it's labor or women's health care or shutting down planned parenthood, the list goes on and on, it seems to be a sort of level of social change that they view that's required to be a republican governor. we don't suffer from it in the democratic party. we are looking for job creators, looking for people to balanced e budgets and people who can manage the states that 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 had a lot more trouble winning governors races. currently there only five women governors, four of them are

republicans people are d.c. democratic women making a breakthrough this year? your? >> we have worked very hard to first of all we want candidates that would be great governors but secondly women. we need more women democratic governors. as you know we're thrilled to pick up maggie hassan of new hampshire because we were coming close to being an all boys club and the democratic governors association. we recruited, would be careful about primary seats because dga doesn't take a position in primaries but should we win rhode island we believe she will be the next woman governor from rhode island. we have high hopes in wisconsin to allyson schwartz is in a primary in pennsylvania. if she comes out that we but she'll be elected in pennsylvania. we have -- who am i forgetting? there's one other woman that we have high hopes for. wendy davis in texas. i think i'm still missing one. massachusetts. if she comes out of the primary. not win in the primaries but we've got a lot of great women

candidates. >> were deeply the democrats prospects look brighter is for picking up governorships this your? >> let's just run down that very quickly. starting in three states where we have very high hopes and you've read about this in the press, but because they have uniformly implemented economic policies, while slashing hundreds of lives of those who education and hurting middle-class americans, we think we've got hope in a very likely possibilities in maine, pennsylvania and florida. those are all important states for us. then if you look at the midwestern states, we believe we also have very good shots in ohio, michigan and wisconsin. we've got a great candidate in wisconsin, married will -- mary burke. she is asked what they can do in wisconsin. let's not forget wisconsin the state of tammy baldwin and would

like we've got a great shot there. and then if you look at the other states will we've got high hopes and some of them might surprise you but we are optimistic about south carolina. you can see from the rga spending it with some of the ads they been running they understand they could well be in trouble in southfield or they wouldn't be spending like they are right now. south carolina, georgia. i know that might surprise some but jason gore is extraordinary candidate for governor. i keep saying jason carter is going to be the governor of georgia and i believe it's going to be in 2012. south carolina, georgia, kansas. governor brownback is not a popular governor by the great candidate in kansas. he is out raising him in many cases. we believe we have a shot in kansas, and arizona. we understand that we're hopeful in texas but we will be candid about the fact we all understand

that democrats haven't won texas in a long time. we hope this will be our year. >> we have the highest number of red states and blue states in decades. state like california, new york, vermont where democrats control all of state government, in states like texas and arizona and georgia where republicans control everything. it's never been this divided. is this a problem for the country or do they take rates laboratories of democracy were each party can try out its i just? >> i think it's a problem for america win any extreme becomes a controlling influence in any political party. in my lifetime i've seen it happen to democrats and we been published at the polls for it but we've clear be seen in the way that my memory doesn't recall and american politics, i know 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 that

congress is getting anything done. i think the tea party social conservatives into government just want to obstruct progress. in the states that we have an -- the reason we are on offense defense is that the republican governors have implement the same failed policies that the tea party with candace in congress which they could. i think that's bad for america. i don't think america is going to report that kind of leadership that is both obstructionist, that sacrifices in case of governors of job creation in exchange for rewarding the top 1%, which is what they've done state after state, tax cuts for the very wealthiest whether it's corporate or income taxed. 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, gays, lesbians and a lot of folks that need a lift.

>> is there a democratic run state in addition to vermont where you would point to a particularly outstanding record of job creation under a solidly democratic government? california or some other states because there's so many of them. you mention california, people who set four years ago jerry brown is going to be able to get california's fiscal mess cleaned up, i think most people would say, no one has been able to do that. he has. he's done extra their track record. from coast-to-coast what democratic governors focus on sending distracted and tax cut for the folks were already doing well, the top 1%, we'll focus on the job great of a middle class and its working. i would say from coast-to-coast you are seeing democrats deliver. democratic governors are delivering on the promise that was made four years ago. if you elect us we will create jobs for the middle class. >> i want to ask a few questions about vermont then i want to open it up to the group from the

press here. vermont was a first date and introduce civil unions back in '03. >> i like to say we invented it, not the internet a we invented silliness. >> i remember it was asked in the controversial when it passed. >> i was president of the senate, howard dean -- and it was a big backlash. >> and it was the first day to enact same-sex marriage by statute rather than by court decision in 2009 when i think the legislature overrode governor douglas' veto. >> that's correct. i was the lead sponsor and present this in at the the time but that was a great moment. >> is this debate over? will republicans pay a political price if you don't change their party platform? >> yes, and it's not only because of this issue. as i've mentioned a couple times, i think we're beyond the point in american politics where you can just defend the people

that have traditionally always done well, the top 1%, and whether we're talking about gay and lesbian americans or women or minorities or folks want to be citizens of this country, the tea party element of the republican party has turned their back on the people that need government the most. and the history of america, regardless of your political party is everyone should have a fair shot. i don't believe these folks believe that. >> your experience in vermont where there was a series of backlash to the soviet union's, what happened to the backlash? did they just change the minds? >> out give you a little history of that but we me decided to confer marriage rights to gay and lesbian vermonters, i think first of all most of the people in america thought we were crazy. it just wasn't on the political radar, and the a lot of folks. i was a bit of a skeptic at the

time to be candid i think the a lot of folks who hadn't thought abbottabad. i remember serving on the transportation committee in the senate at the time and i just thought to myself before heard the testimony, if you've got half of the people loaded onto a bridge to get across a river, if you got people getting across the river on a bridge and have the people are falling into the water, why would you want to look more onto it? we hadn't thought about it a lot. and when you heard the testimony in vermont in the statehouse, even though people were with us at the time, about the moms and the moms who wanted to get the same rights as everybody else in that legislature, you know, when the point was made, is about our family, this is about our neighbors, this is about people being able to love each other for the rest of the lives and have the same family units as the rest of us, people came aboard. i think what happened is there was a huge backlash at the time

because the public hadn't thought about it that much. as vermonters actually a limited it, had their neighbors able to celebrate their love for each other in the same way everybody else did, they said this is a good thing, not a bad thing. i think that's what's happened across america overtime. it was 11 years later, with the first state to pass marriage equality without a court order. just because it was the right thing to do. there was no backlash. vermonters had gotten through the. they can't do the same process i think you've seen happen across america. my view is that more states will about marriage equality. were not up to what, 17? last time i think it was hawaii that went last to be honest, and it hardly get headlines. back in the of the george. it wasn't a big deal. imagined that 12 years ago. so my point is there's an evolution going on in america where people believe that basic fairness, decency to all is important regardless, there's

some who on some sports teams that may be to join the rest of us but i personally think that you going to see more and more states adopt it and eventually the federal government will have to catch up. >> republican platform says marriage is between between one man and one woman. the religious right has said that they will walk out if that is change. do you think that's a service problem for republicans speak what i think the our number of series problems for the republicans when it comes to issues of equality, decency and fairness. >> okay. a few more questions about vermont. you faced to crises at least that i know of in vermont. i never imagined it would be a hurricane in vermont. it doesn't have the seacoast folks, but hurricane irene hit vermont very hard with flooding in 2011 during your first year as governor. how do you assess the federal disaster relief effort, and what steps do you think are needed to

improve disaster relief? >> this is one of the areas where the president has not gotten the credit he's due. i was the recent in a one of the earlier climate to warm, climate change induced storms. it was just devastating. we lost 500 miles of road, 36 bridges. we've covered bridges that a been there for over 200 years just swept down little rivers that became raging rivers. we lost seven of vermonters in that storm. it was the third time i had been through it. we've been through previous storms that spring out of been devastating as well. when we first got her first theme experience it wasn't great. there was a lot of bureaucracy, a lot of red tape and response time was slow. the administration sat down and said, in light of climate change, how do we do this better? they totally repented so i think by the time they got to the storm that hit chris christie so

hard in new jersey, they were running a much more efficient thoughtful machine. let me give you an example. when we went through i think we start replacing culverts, bigger, smarter and better for future storms recognizing we had come to a new standard of store management. fema in which they took you can do that. you've got to put exact the same culverts and same spot and building same bridges exactly what you're because that's a we do things that came and that's the only way we will reimburse you. got together and said this is crazy. you're giving us federal money, to put things back so that we're back here in three or four months the next one hits these hundred years from the income every year not asking you for the same blue. this is a waste of money. they said your right and they change the rules, change the procedures to change the reimbursement policies. i think it's anywhere the president said, climate change matters. i can get legislation through congress but i can should change the way internally we deal with major climate changes and they

have done. >> how do you make the argument that hurricane irene and that tropical storm that hit vermont was due in fact to climate change? >> all i can tell you is that i've always said that climate change awareness is going to come first from the coldest states. so when, you know, you're out in alaska and you see your permafrost melting or when you're in vermont and you see the effects of what's happening to climate change on our forests, on our agricultural economy, on our fields, erosion issues, and, frankly, on the change in weather patterns. let's be honest, vermont happens to be at a state where snow was white gold to us but it brings in the new yorkers and bostonians, new jersey folks come in and ski and we get revenue from the. the states that are most of our by climate change are the ones having their pocketbooks directly affected light and it happens to be the coldest states

we see those extreme weather change. >> do you fee feel comfortable making the art meant that a freak storm like irene can be triggered to climate change? >> there's no question that it is. i think any reasonable scientist agrees with it and my think about climate change speaking from vermont is i do not have time to argue with the folks who pretended that these storms are not induced by climate change. my job as governor is defined, is to build resiliency for the future, understanding that the co twos we've put into the environment into the atmosphere are creating the kind of weather with changes we've seen. will get worse in the next decade or two because we have learned our lessons but if we don't move very quickly we are going to have a perilous situation for humankind. >> another crisis. we talked about in your state of the state message of this year vermont faces a terrible epidemic of opiate addiction

your why is this hitting vermont so hard and what can the federal government to? >> the first thing i want to say is, it's not that it's hitting vermont harder than any other state. it's that we're talking about it in vermont because we are such an extraordinary quality of life there that if we lose it, with us everything about vermont that we care about. so i want to be clear and i'll tell you national governors association well, able to you this, all 50 states have an opiate crisis in their state. the question is how can we be more innovative? how did we get your? let's be candid about this. when the fda approved oxycontin 15 years ago and we dispense did with what i think alan greenspan would've called irrational exuberance, we created an opiate addiction problem in america that is frightening. vermont is a good example of how this has evolved, but we passed ouout in a oxycontin at the secd euros on the market to keep america high for a month. that happens to be true.

so what happened was as doctors and public policymakers became more alarmed at the addiction to opiates because of oxycontin and other drugs like it, painkillers, they started changing the formula started std changing the formula is a good started changing the formularies they couldn't crutcher, couldn't story, couldn't shoot it because it turns to gel. that drove folks to the next cheapest option which is heroin. that's what's great to hear one problem in america. the question is what we do about it? now, the first thing we do is not approve even stronger oxycontin forms which the fda has just approved by the way your but what we've done in the what is said listen, this is a health care crisis and we got to deal with this as we would with any other health challenge. i got to expect from and around vermont and having too many moms or dads are people saying, my son, we lost them, destroyed her family, or my daughter, we lost

her, or my knees or my nephew. so economics and let's talk economics. forget our hearts and the fact we're losing good people. this one knows no political lines, no economic lines. we've got across america rich addicts, poor addicts, middle-class addicts. they are -- they know no other -- this is indiscriminate. it hits everybody. on the economic side in vermont, it cost me $56,000 a year to put some in a vermont corrections facility. my corrections budget has doubled in the last nine years. what we know about our corrections population is the 80% of people we incarcerate are in on addiction related charges. ..

for our job creators. so, what i have done is said, listen, when i addressed this issue back in january we had waiting lists of hundreds of people who were waiting for treatment who couldn't get it. we didn't have the facilities for it. so we have built the best

treatment system we believe with wraparound services, community-based, no more waiting lines. i said in 12 months we might have waiting lines for those mo want treatment. that is the first piece. the second piece is, the point with any addiction, anyone dealt with addiction around this table knows is the biggest problem with addictions is denial. opiate addicts are biggest liars. most likely the research shows get treatment when they're bottomed out and blue lights are flashing and they're busted and bottomed out. our system in vermont, as most 49 states, works against that. it takes you to wind through three or four months in the court system where you get the punishment. by that point you're abusing dealing and causing all the crime and destruction. 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'll put you through the court system or jail and whatever we've been doing, or somebody we're disappointed in that we can bring to recovery. that is majority of the people that are gets busted. if you go into treatment right now, stick with it, we'll monitor with you closely, try to make this a success, you will never go through the court system, you will never be charged but if you screw up you're going to court. we believe that will make a huge difference in putting more people in recovery and less people in jail and dealing with the health care crisis that it is. one of the things, i will close by this, we've got to change our thinking on this politicians don't like to talk about this one. addicts don't like to talk because they're ashamed. family members don't want to talk because they feel ashamed. if public policymakers don't, we'll continue to lose this battle. and, you know, i liken it, my

dad passed away a couple 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're not really going to help you because you did some things in your life that could have had better outcorporation. we feel the same compassion for them as anyone else in our family with disease. my point we have to deal with this disease exactly the same way. we have to say this is disease. we have to health care system here to deal with it. if we don't, we'll continue to see rising numbers opiate ad didn'ts who continue to steal and make our communities unsafe as they support these habits. the economics of oxycontin in vermont is costs 80 bucks on the street for a pill you can crush because they're hard to find. you can find a bag of heroin for

20 bucks and buy 5 to $6 in cities south to us. so big problems they're bringing into rural areas. >> questions for the press. yes. >> governor one of the advantages republicans hold this year not only money they will raise which democrats will raise but spending from outside groups funded by the koch brothers network. tom stier a billionaire will spend upwards to $100 million in the cycle. have you spoken with him about his plans? have you get any sense how he will help democrats. or is he a independent player. >> i have to be candid. i went to summer camp with tom stier. i've known him since he was nine years old. i talk to him. we're friend. having said that, listen, there is no way, we understand that we're going to be outspent. let's be candid about this. this isn't something new. i have now had the pleasure of

chairing the dja for about a year-and-a-half and it is important to note that whether it is outside expenditures or inside expenditures, let's be clear about this, the rga tends to out raise us and outspend us two to one. if you take the last nine races that the dga and rga both played in, democrats have won eight of those nine races. now that is not because we outspent them. they outspent us in every single one of those races except for one. it is 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, a superior organization. the reason that we're only democratic group in america right now on the offense is not despite the dga is because of the dga the answer is no, we'll never keep up with independent expenditures, or outside expenditures or inside expenditures, dga, rga we have a

strong organization. history proves out of the eight of last nine races we won eight of them. that is good track record and we'll carry that into november. >> what camp was that? i think a lot of parents will want to send their kids there. seriously, what camp was it? >> camp treetops. >>? vermont? >> no across the lake, lake placid, new york. i wouldn't guaranty you will be billionaire. >> or a governor. >> or a governor. >> take your pick. public service. when you look at the midterm congressional elections we know that president obama's approval rating makes a big difference to candidates for house and senate. is that also true for governors? does it matter to democratic governors the standing president obama has with the american people? >> you know, we all want our president to be successful but i do believe that there is a difference in the assessment that you make about governors.

now i want to give vermont as example. vermont tends to be seen, we have the best congressional delegation in bernie sanders, pat leahy and peter welch. all democrats or demic leaning. we have an independent. in vermont we change governors, 1963 every time we change governor even in blue vermont. my point is voters hold governors to a different standard than congressional candidates. they're asking a different question. do we trust these people to manage our budgets, keep our roads open and have great schools for and jobs for middle class. that i argue what we do as governors. i argue most of the national stuff doesn't have effect on governors races. do you have candidates that inspire confidence of voters for you as chief executive to run the state. very different question than what happens in d.c.

>> legislature just passed a bill requiring labeling of gmos. when do you expect to sign that and what consequences do you think it will have, whether positive or negative and do you see other states following vermont's lead? >> i never comment too much whether i sign a bill because we have to get into the fine print to see what is there. but i'm very supportive of the bill and i expect to sign it. i don't know how long it will take them to get it to me. when i do i will get a heads up to you and when that will be but it won't be far from now. i feel strongly that americans deserve to know and vermonters deserve to know what is in their food. the interesting thing about the bill, it is not a judgment whether you should or shouldn't eat food that are gmo-based. we're not making a judgment. we're saying when you read ingredients how much you buy, it matters how much sugar is in there, matters how much corn

syrup, all things consumers want to know based on their health they ought to know whether they're eating a gmo-based product. a number of states passed legislation. connecticut, i believe the state of maine, couple others have triggers, if a number of states do it, we'll do it. they're doing that because they're afraid they will be sued by the manufacturers of gmo-based foods. my feeling is, you know if you're going to serve the public do the right thing and if you believe that 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 firmly believe americans have a right to know what is in their food, not passing judgment but important you have the right to know. >> [inaudible] >> i would be surprised if there is not a legal challenge to whoever goes first. >> how do you intend to fight isn't. >> we think we have written a really solid bill that, that's

possible standing up in court. >> okay. >> we did that by making it very specific. it is listed. it is not a special label, but listed with the ingredients. we got the best legal advice we could. we all know that judiciary sometimes doesn't agree with legislators but we're really hoping they do on this one. >> if the bill does, if you sign the bill and goes into effect the vermont will be the only state requiring a label of gmos, isn't that true? >> yes. because every other state required a triggers, other states joining them which have not been matched yet. that could change at anytime. one thing we're trying to do here, you know, question we started civil unions and marriage equality in vermont people thought that was a little unusual and a lot of other states decided to join us. i am convinced labeling of gmos is going to be demanded by consumers and demand that politicians will have to meet. >> everyone says vermont goes -- >> so goes the nation.

>> something else as vermont goes is single-payer or at least you hope so. has that effort proven more difficult than you had anticipated it going to be and give us the -- been up to vermont recently report card where it stand and how you're working out the issue. >> sure. so the answer is no, it is not more difficult than what i anticipated. i'm not sure that everyone would agree that it's not more difficult than what they anticipated because it is difficult to make positive change. listen look at big picture for a minute. we talked about the economics of prisons. let's talk about the economics of health care. i suspect it is true of other states. i'm surprised that more political leaders are not focusing on the health care cost crisis. when i as governor get up in the morning i deal with lots of crises all day long and i also try to think, long after i'm

gone and we all know governors don't last like congressional people. we're not there for life. we get our window for six, eight, 10 years, we get cycled out, because every time we make a decision we make someone mad. having this is the how the cost is working in vermont. when i working hard to raise minimum wage in vermont because folks, middle class and working americans, and this is what the republican governors don't get, are ones that need the raise. they haven't had a raise because in almost every case health care costs for the people that pay them have risen faster than their profits and their incomes and therefore they can't afford in many cases to give reasonable raises. why are our wages frozen in america? why have they been frozen in the last decade. one reason is health care costs are climbing faster than our incomes. in vermont we spend 20 cents of every dollar we make on health care now. if you're vermonter, on average

your first 20 cents is going to health care. if health care costs grow at the same rate next decade, just the same rate they did for the last decade, that number doubles, it doubles. i say to vermonters raise your hand if you think that's a recipe for prosperity for your family and your kids health care costs doubling or if you're a job creator, for your business. so, what we're trying to do in vermont is two things the first is, listen, say if we can't get costs under control in health care, stop spending wildly, for outcomes that aren't as good as field we compete with, remember we don't live as long as people that spend much less than us, we have higher infant mortality than people spend less than us, our outcomes are worse than people that spend much less than us. what we're saying to vermont, move system from fee-for-service where we reimburse in a system for quant, to one where we reimburse for quality, for outcomes. that happens to be what most of

the rest of the world does. we have a green mountain health care board working with our hospital ceos, providers docs, nurses to try to move entire state to outcome-based payment system. you get paid for getting people healthy. getting them out jogging, eating vermont health food -- >> who is fighting you on that. >> all special interests making so much money on health care costs are going up so fast and keeping the loop. we're trying to move the civil of payment from fee-for-service to outcome based payment. at the same time if you ask how do we pay for health care and how do you get it? my view should have health care because you're resident of the state of vermont or not lucky who you work for or how rich you might be. we want to green mountain health care card because you live in vermont. residency is only thing that matters. secondly we want to fund it in more sensible way. everyone around the table would

agree having a quantity based payment service fee tore service will not lead to prosperity for us. we've got to change that. if i said to you, listen, we have no health care system. i want you to design a system for us that makes sense. and you came back and you described the current system, later this morning, say, we got an idea. do something called health insurance for mostly for profit insurance companies. if you can or you will, you will buy insurance for your family or for your employees and if you can't, you just don't want to, you won't. but if you refuse, don't worry about it, because the people who do will pay for you, you know hey, team, go get a voom, face yourself, when you feel better we'll let you out and come up with a different idea. what i'm saying is, let's try to mover month to a system where you pay for health care based on ability to pay. everyone pays something based on ability to pay. that is what we're trying to do. i think we'll get it done. >> you're suggesting health care should be a right? when supreme court approved the health care law, justice roberts

specifically said it is not a constitutional right. it's a tax. and it can be withdrawn anytime. >> justice roberts and i disagree on number of issues and that's one of them. >> yeah. >> on -- [inaudible] we've seen a pretty big array of messaging. schwartz has gone positive. others like dantzler in maryland are critical. do you think different messages are good and bad for the party and we'll we see different message as cycle evolves. >> because of paralysis in d.c., appears poles and numbers and pundits will not change very much going forward. i really believe if we really want to create jobs and opportunity in america, it is democratic governors are going to do it. i don't get up in the morning say i have a lot of extra time in my day. i really want to go to washington to help other democrats get elected. i do that because i centrally believe there has never been a time in america where getting

democratic governors america rationally fight for the middle class, create jobs, create opportunity for all, not just a select top 1% makes a difference. when i look at political landscape i say anything we can do to elect democratic governors is smart and good for america. and that's, i believe, what i'm saying to democrats is, listen, if you believe the pundits and the polls, i never know whether you should or not, but if you do, this is the one place where we've got to get it right because governors actually have to govern. we can't get up in the morning and say, hey, let's just, let these guys in congress are doing, tea party folks. shut the whole thing down. let's make sure nothing happens. governors can't do that. look at what is happening under these republican governors. it is the wrong choice. it isn't the top 1% needs the help right now. it is the middle class. >> andy. >> governor, you wake up every morning with a firm belief that

democrats have better solution for americans than some other approaches like tea party and so on. >> yeah. >> and yet, as bill pointed out at the beginning, there is a fair chance that the republicans will take over the senate. there's a no chance, or lo chance that democrats will run the house next year. so what is it in the american body politic where you're convinced that you're approach, and approach of your colleagues is the right one that has the other side continuing to win? what is that? >> because we're creating jobs and frankly that's what we promised to do. >> no, no, why do the republican win in congress? why can they take over the senate where you got the better side of the argument? >> you know, i've got to tell

you, i'm not an expert what goes on in congress or goes down here in d.c. really. i don't think that much about it. what i know is that, you know, i happen to be one of maybe rare people in this earth who would be so frustrated in congress that i would probably jump out of the highest windows i could find. if i'm not making a difference, things are not happening i don't want the job. so i don't understand the whole thing down here. what i do understand is that governors actually have to deliver, and what we've seen in the last four years, with these tea party governors is delivery of all the wrong choices. instead of creating jobs and liftings up the middle class, they literally have passed taxes either cripple the middle class, give the bone fit to top 1% who is doing just fine before they came along, or, slashed education spending, hundred of millions of dollars of education spending. they have done this uniformly,

you look, go to michigan. go look what he tried to do up in maine. go to pennsylvania. go to wisconsin. go to ohio. look at states that have actually had these republican governors and they, uniformly have simply mint ad policy that literally gives tax breaks to the very top 1% while they pay for those by slashing education and raising taxes on the middle class. it makes no sense. it is 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, and certainly, how many republicans are left in congress from new england? i don't think there are susan collins. >> yeah. susan collins. one in new hampshire. >> chris shays was last republican member of the house. democrats and republicans live in different universes today. >> can we talk a little bit about couple of states thaw din

mention that are in blue states, new mexico, nevada. which again from a presidential perspective these were really strong states for democrats. what did the republicans governors there do so well or what did democrats do in terms of recruiting not as well to make it to your list of top pickup opportunities? >> you know, i think there are states where their leaders have not been as distracted by issues that just talked about. you know, i remember after things kind of fell apart in new jersey after the election and most governors tried to move people as quickly as we can through bridges. >> covered bridges. >> covered bridges if we can keep them. in the case in new jersey went off the track as little bit. people kept saying to me. don't you think you should have spent more money in new jersey because we didn't spend any

money in new jersey. my response, listen i wish we could spend money for democrats in all 50 states, what we have to do, we have half the resources of. rga is manage them really smart. my job is not promote governor races in areas i believe we can't win. my job is to focus on places where we can win. we're not going to win in nevada. we're not going to win in new mexico. >> is that sandoval is that strong or is that the bench for democrats was not particularly strong? >> i haven't spent a lot of time analyzing it. all i can tell you is, we don't believe we'll win in nevada and we'll not spend any money there. unless something changes radically. unless a bridge gets shut down. >> anything to do with the fact that -- >> there -- >> maybe some water. that is his problem. >> republican governors of nevada and new mexico are both latinos, does that have anything to do with it, susan martinez

and sand do i val. >> it is certainly exception to the rule in the republican governors association. >> -- in the record. >> hi. could you talk a little bit about legislatures where, where you're on the offense and governors mansions but on legislative level you're not of the as terry mcaulifee learned hard way could have a great victory for governor, if you have a uncooperative legislature, hard to get your agenda passed. >> you raise a good point. let's talk a little bit how we got into this mess. haley barbour i believe, when he was chair of the republican party made a decision that democrats didn't pay enough attention to, which was, invest electing legislatures, legislators and republican governors for a lot of reasons

he wanted to do it but one was so that when reapportionment comes up we can redraw lines in congress and have a bunch of people believe what we believe, which happens to be tea party in haley barbour's case, govern america or at least be obstructionist to american progress. they did it and did it pretty well 20 years ago. that's why we're in the mess that we're in. one of the points i make to democrats, listen, i'm just speculating here but one of the challenges to taking back congress might be that gerrymandered these districts so effectively after they did that, that it is really tough to win. and so, if you elect democratic governors and democratic legislators, going forward, going towards reapportion mane, maybe we would have the opportunity to at least make the districts fair again. so i do think that democrats historically didn't look carefully enough at electing

democratic governors who control governors mansions and democratic legislative candidates. >> i want to conclude, let me first make an observation, share with you the two four six rule. house seats were elected two years ago. that was a good democratic year 2012. democrats were on the offensive. governors, most were elected four years ago, republican landslide. republicans are on the defensive. senators were elected sick years ago which was 2008. financial crisis, a big democratic landslide. so if the results of election this year point in all kinds of different directions we're asked what are the voters trying to say, i think answer is, landslides don't last. is what they're trying to say. finally, court ruling on money. is that creating a problem for democrats? >> which court ruling? >> the latest one, lifting the limits on total campaign contributions?

is that creating a problem for democrats and republicans? >> it's the icing on the cake to a bad decision which was citizens united and it is going to lead to more money in politics which i think is bad for democracy. >> is bad or worse for democrats and republicans? >> hard to tell. i look at this in the democratic governors association, again not to sound like a broken record. we do get outspent. we understand that we're environment where we need to raise money so that we compete, but, we've got to spend our resources more wisely than they do. when we do, that is why we won eight of the last nine races. i'm focused on democratic governors. i'm doing it because i think it will make a real difference for america. we understand we're going to get outspent. we have to be smarter and better candidates and actually implement the policies we promised to implement, which is job-creating opportunities for middle class americans.

>> thank you very much, governor you have another engagement. >> thanks so much. >> appreciate your time. thank you all for participating. >> decker koch brothers camp also? >> i didn't see them there. >> the house oversight and government reform committee holds a hearing this morning on libya and the 2012 benghazi consulate attack. the hearing follows newly-released white house emails showing how the administration shaped its response to the attack. live coverage at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. >> see there was a city slicker who was driving around lost and came across this ol' cowboy. so the city slicker asked the ol' guy how to get to the nearest town. -- >> not that old joke? not again.

[cheers and applause] ladies and gentlemen, i've been attending these dinners for years. and just quietly sitting there. [laughter] well, i've got a few things i want to say for a change. [applause] this is going to be fun because he really doesn't have a clue about what i'm going to say next. george always says he is delighted to come to these press dinners. baloney. [laughing] he is usually in bed by now. i'm not kidding. i said to him the other day, george, if you really want to end tyranny in the world you will have to stay up later. [laughter] [applause]

i am married to the president of the united states and here's our typical evening. 9:00, mr. excitement here is sound asleep. [laughter] and i'm watching ""desperate housewives"." [applause] >> watch this year's white house correspondents dinner live saturday night. president obama and joel mchail of nbc's, community headline the event before audience of celebrities journalists an white house press corps. we start with the red carpet arrivals followed by the dinner, live saturday night on c-span. up next on this thursday morning live coverage of the u.s. senate, judicial and executive nominations are on the agenda for today. senators will be allowed to give

general speeches until 11:15 this morning when the senate will conduct its first round of those votes, all procedural, whether to move ahead with three district court judicial nominations. the second round of votes will get underway at 1:45 with confirmations for a couple of judicial nominations and interior department post and am bass to switzerland and lick 10 sign lead the senate in prayer. the chaplain: let us pray. gracious god who brought light out of darkness, causing the morning to appear, give to our senators the vigor needed for today's task. protect them from every evil way, empowering them to live with integrity.

keep their bodies fit and healthy, their thinking straight, and their hearts pure. as they strive to serve you, may they accomplish their daily duties with simplicity, uprightness, and faithfulness. uprightness, and give them the grace of faith by which they may lay hold of things unseen. we pray in your holy name. amen. the presiding officer: please join me in reciting the pledge of allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and

justice for all. the presiding officer: the clerk will read a communication to the senate. the clerk: washington, d.c., may 1, 2014. to the senate: under the provisions of rule 1, paragraph 3, of the standing rules of the senate, i hereby appoint the honorable john e. walsh, a senator from the state of montana, to perform the duties of the chair. signed: patrick j. leahy, president pro tempore.

the time until 11:15 will be equally divided and controlled. at 11:15, there will be three roll call votes, cloture on two u.s. district court judges, both from maryland, and cloture on a u.s. circuit judge for the tenth circuit. at 1:45 today, there will be up to four roll call votes on confirmation of u.s. district judges that i just mentioned in maryland and the circuit judge. mr. president, we have a number of us who have large families. i have five children. lots of grandchildren. but the person about whom i am going to speak today has an even larger family than i have. terry gainer has a huge family.

he has six children, he and his wife irene, 14 grandchildren, but that's just the beginning because he has ten siblings, himself. his family, though, extends far beyond the immediate family that i just talked about. as a sergeant at arms of the united states senate, terry gainer has taken care of roughly 6,500 people who work in the senate and all the facilities around here, but that's not the end of it because he is also someone who is concerned and feels responsible for the thousands and thousands of people that come to this building every day. they're also part of his family. so this is a huge family, and he's nurtured and taken care of this family from the -- his wife irene to the thousands of people that he has never known and never will know that come into this building. he has done a wonderful job.

now, senators and staffers are oft times split along ideological lines. but we all agree on one thing -- we're utterly dependent on the sergeant-at-arms office. the daily needs of the world's greatest deliberative body are not few in number, and chief gainer has been up to this task. as the sergeant-at-arms, he's been responsible for the enforcement of senate rules as well as the security of the capitol and senate office buildings. mr. president, i try not to talk about this often, even though i'd like to talk about it more than i do. for a number of years of my life, i was a police officer. i was a capitol policeman, and my office across the hall here, i have my badge. i am very proud of that. i was a capitol policeman, but

today the capitol policemen who work in this facility and around this great building and all the office buildings, they have so many more responsibilities than someone who was a police officer during my day. every day, every minute of every day, we have evil people trying to do harm to these beautiful buildings and the people that work in them, and it is the responsibility of the sergeant-at-arms and the capitol police, of which he is responsible, to take care of us. he's done an admirable job. we're confident of him every day. under his leadership, the day-to-day operation of the united states senate has never been berkt better, even though e been through some difficult times, government shutdown, sequestration, and awful those things that have been -- and all of those things that have been very difficult. considering terry gainer has been in public service almost 50 years, he was a young homicide detective in chicago -- he comes

from chicago; he did a lot of things as a police officer; he is a lawyer; he has been chief of the capitol police -- and when i over the many years have seen chief gain h gainer -s what i call him. i don't call him "mr. gainer," "terry" -- i call him "chief." in my opinion, and i check with the cops often, 40u ar how are s going? i think during the time that he was chief of police, the positive attitude of the police officers was significant, because of his experience, having been out with the bad guys and doing such a good job, that they felt very confident of his leadership abilities. he's also on a wonderful

sergeant-at-arms. only one of his functions is to take care of the capitol police. so his time in the senate is coming to an end. he leaves his successor with an organization that has weathered a government shutdown, crippling sequestration, has adequately prepared for the challenges of the future. i've tried to be as praiseworthy as i feel appropriate, but having done that, mr. president, i know that i haven't done justice to terry gainer. i will really miss him. i will miss him significantly. he is a he somebody that we can all turn to, and he has is very direct -- and he is very direct -- whether it is the latest big problem we had dealing with the intelligence committee and their battles with the c.i.a. -- whatever it is, he has the ability to step forward and try to put out the flames. so i say to terry gainer -- he

is in this building someplace ... there he is right there. i am going to miss you. i have great affection for you. i have great confidence in your having a wonderful future. you have experience that very few people in the world have had, and i wish you the very best in all your future endeavors and that have your wife irene and all the kids. i would ask, mr. president, unanimous consent that the statement i just made appear at a different place than the one i'm going to make. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i would like to acknowledge an individual who hasn't had the -- everybody doesn't know him, this man i'm going to talk about now. he has a job in a small part of this great capitol complex, but

he is retiring after having been a senate employee for about 40 years. his name is darryl chappell. mr. president, when i first came to the senate, all rides to the office buildings were in an old, old train. it was, as they still are, old, old, old, crunch and bang as they go along the tracks. the handicapped can't get in those trains. but the senator who's now -- he's retired -- and i worked -- a republican senator, the senator from oklahoma, we worked to change that so that the train system would not be the old, dladilapidated trains. now all the people coming from the hart and the other buildin

buildings, they're in this beautiful, enclosed trains that you can wheel a wheelchair in there without any effort whatsoever. so that's wonderful. but the person that's still there making sure that people who travel from the old senate office building, as it was called when i was here -- now it's called the russell building -- they still have this old train, and there's darryl, always there, so nice, greets everybody that comes on those trains. so we all recognize him when we go into -- trying to get from here to the russell building. 41 years he's operated the underground trains that run between the capitol and the senate office building. mr. president, he has a smile that is just -- that just covers his whole face. he has a voice that's infectious. you can hear him, and he laughs,

and we'll all miss that. so i join my colleagues in wishing darryl all the best, as he embarks upon his much-needed, deserved retirement. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the minority leader. mr. mcconnell: mr. president, i, too, want to comment on the great service of terry gainer and darryl chappell. our departing sergeant-at-arms, terry gainer, decade-plus period of senate service has been the capstone to a very long and distinguished career.

terry is familiar presence in the halls of the capitol and always a reassuring one. whenever you saw terry, you just always had the sense that things were under control around here, even though you knew how much work and preparation went into it. it's the same feeling you might have being around the father of a large family or a veteran big-city cop. and i think it is no accident that terry is both of those things as well. he's got the bearing of a guy with long experience who is seen it all. and we've all gotten the b benet of that over the years of his experience here. and that's something that just can't be bought. so those of you who watched the majority leader and i spar down here in the mornings know that

we don't agree on much, but picking terry was one decision that he got just right. terry's resume is pretty-well known by now. he spent nearly half a century enforcing the law at the state, federal, and city level an in a number of very demanding, high-profile posts. he started his law enforcement career in chicago during the tumultuous year of 1968, making him one of five boys in his family to serve in the chicago police department. and that's to say nothing of the extended family. it's a point of pride in the gainer family that there's been a gainer on the chicago p.d. for more than a century. terry volunteered to serve his country in vietnam and served

with distinction. he spent several years as homicide detective in chicago before moving over to the state police. i later served as an official at the transportation department. s number two in the d.c. police department. now, how along the way, he also got a law degree and helped negotiate chicago's first-ever labor contract with the police union there. he's the only person ever to serve as both the chief of the capitol police and the senate sergeant at arms. and during his tenure as the senate's top law enforcement officer, he's overseen a dedicated team of roughly 850 professionals. he's presided over major improvements to the physical safety of the capitol complex and the senate's i.t. infrastructure here and in our

state offices. he's kept us all informed during emergencies. and for one night every january, he is the public face of the institution. i know terry says he tries to get out of the camera shot during the state of the union, but we won't blame a guy with 14 grandkids for sneaking a little face time on the state of the union night. terry recently admitted to having a few secret signals for the grandkids. sort of like a third base coach. one time he even got president obama and the first lady to pose for a photo with flat stanley. it's just one of the fond memories he says he will carry with him into his next chapter. and we wish him all the best. we'll miss his intelligence, his professionalism and his good humor. terry's colleagues will tell you that among his many other

qualities, he is just a lot of fun to be around. and we'll also miss the wisdom and judgment that he brought to the job every morning. so terry leaves a legacy of excellence and a stellar example for his successors. and let me just add on that note that one of the most preface expects of terry's legacy is the fact that despite his incredible demands in his high pressure, high profile career, he and irene managed to raise six wonderful kids. i know they both share a deep and lively faith and would attribute much of their success to that. but it's still impressive, and we're glad the family will get to spend even more time with terry now. so terry, thanks for your service. you're a credit to your profession, you're -- your native chicago and to the senate that you have served so well.

you have every reason to be proud. now go enjoy your retirement, at least for a while. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i'd like to pay tribute to another beloved member of the senate family, darryl chappell. darryl has been here for more than four decades, and this week he takes his final turn at the helm of one of the two subway "dancing with the cars -- two subway cars that run from russell to the capitol. darryl came here right out of

springarn high school in washington when he was 19 years old. by all accounts, he has been an exemplary worker. he began his career in the night department of labor division of the senate superintendent's office in 1972. and since 1986, he's worked off and on as a mechanic and driver on the subway service. by one estimate, he's taken 130,000 trips between russell and the capitol. but it's not the length of darryl's tenure that i'd like to honor this morning, as preface that is. it's the spirit in which darryl did his job every day. it's literally legendary. the motto of the architect of the capitol is to serve congress and the supreme court, preserve america's capitol and to inspire memorable experiences.

and i just think darryl chappell embodies that motto. first of all, he's the happiest guy you ever met. and he's got a genius for lifting people's spirits. one of the stories i heard about darryl this week came from a woman on my staff. she told me she met darryl on her very first day here more than a decade ago and still remembers it vividly. she had just moved here from kentucky for an internship. she didn't really know her way around, and she was pretty nervous. it must have showed, too, because after giving her directions to the office, darryl not only gave her a big warm smile, he also left her with a message that she has never forgotten. as she stepped off the train and headed off to her first day on the job, darryl looked at her

and he said everything's going to be okay. everything's going to be okay. it's a great story because it not only captures darryl's spirit, it points to the secret of his success. darryl is the undisputed champion of making the most of a brief encounter. he showed us all the power of the small gesture. he reminded us that when all is said and done, what really matters is how we deal with each other. and if you didn't happen to find yourself down by the trains this week, you missed something special. people were pretty much tripping over each other to say goodbye to darryl chappell. senators, visitors, colleagues, locals, everybody saying goodbye. it's been like a rolling party

down there all week. over the years, through all these trips, darryl has just had a tremendous, tremendous impact on this place. and today, we want to thank him for warming this place up every single day. and for helping our image around here, because congress may not have a very high approval rating these days, but nobody who ever had the pleasure of riding darryl's train could ever leave washington without feeling just a little bit better about this place. now, darryl, you may not have had any major pieces of legislation named after you during your years here, reporters may not have snapped photographs of you when you walked down the hall, but at the beginning or the end of the day,

you lifted our spirits. you brought us all back to earth, and it's hard to think of this place without you. we wish you and pat all the best in your retirement. i know you have been looking forward to spending more time with your bride. thank you for your service, my friend, and thank you for your wonderful example. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the leadership time is reserved. under the previous order, the senate will be in a period of morning business until 11:15 a.m., with the time equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their designees and with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each therein. mr. durbin: mr. president? the presiding officer: the

assistant majority leader. mr. durbin: mr. president, in the history of the united states of america, we estimate some 500 million people have lived in this great nation. 60% of them as of today. but in the history of america, with 500 million people, only 1,950 men and women have been given the opportunity to serve in the united states senate. our presiding officer, the newest senator from the state of montana. 1,950 men and women who have occupied this chamber in the chief united states senate becoming part of the history of this nation and contributing to this great institution. i have been fortunate enough to serve with some of the greats, and i have noted their presence, their impact and i have noticed their absence, too. but when you take stock of the

senate and what it has done for america, what it means to america, it goes way beyond the men and women who occupy these desks. it includes a lot of people who make a contribution to this institution who may never be recognized for it but nevertheless make this the great institution that it is, serving this great nation. today we honor two of those people. first, i'd like to join in honoring darryl chappell. darryl, thank you so much for 41 years of service in the united states senate. his legendary smile has warmed my spirits on days when i was really down in the dumps. he just always has that happy smile, wishing you well, making your day just a little bit better. and darryl, i want to thank you. time and time again, i'm sure even on days when you weren't so upbeat, you made a point of adding to a positive feeling of

everyone, not just senators and staff, but visitors as well. you have been a great part of our senate family. i wish you the very best in your retirement. we're going to miss you on that ricty old -- rickety old train that runs back and forth between the russell building and the capitol. i wish you the very best. mr. president, i ask the statement i am about to make be placed at a separate part in the congressional record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: mr. president, i wanted to come to the floor and give special tribute to our sergeant at arms terry gainer who is retiring. if you're not from chicago and you don't know the scene very well, you may not understand what i'm about to say. let me make it clear. when you ask where terry gainer is from and someone says chicago, you would then say and? he would add the south side. and? beverly.

and? saint barnabas. when you report your parish in that section of chicago, you have really identified yourself as being part of that great city and part of a great american cat lick tradition, irish catholic tradition in many respects that terry gainer represents. i think about him today and what his life has meant, but first i think of his family name. there aren't many names like the gainer family name that carry with it so much respect in the city of chicago. i think of his relatives that i have worked with, the families that are related to him that i know, neighbors to staffers. it just -- the list goes on and on of the gainers who have made an impact on the city of chicago and the illinois. few can make the claim that terry can make in terms of what he has given to the city, the state of illinois and to our

nation. terry gainer, of course, is the sergeant at arms today and has announced his retirement soon after seven and a half years serving in that capacity, at least serving in the united states senate with the capitol police and with the sergeant at arms office. he has served longer than any sergeant at arms since world war ii. terry served as sergeant at arms and doorkeeper since january of 2007. his accomplishments are so many. do not underestimate the responsibility that has been given to him and the men and women who work with him. this building is a target for people who would bring destruction to this building and death to those who visit. sadly, we have seen graphic examples of that in just the recent years that have passed. it's been terry's job, both with the capitol police and now with the sergeant at arms office, to keep us safe and to keep this

business of the senate working every single day. terry had the background to achieve it. volunteered to serve our nation in vietnam. after his service, he retired as a captain in the naval reserves in the year 2000. he earned his bachelor's degree from st. benedict's college. he continued his family's proud tradition of law enforcement by serving in the chicago police department for nearly two decades. as nor mcconnell mentioned earlier, over a century of service by the gainer family to the chicago police department was gathered on by terry. -- carried on by terry. he obtained a master's of science degree and his law degree from depaul university. he was appointed superintendent of the illinois state police by governor jim edgar and held that position for seven years. he was then called to washington, d.c., to serve as second in command at the district of columbia

metropolitan police department. in 2002, terry game chief of the united states capitol police and was instrumental in facilitating the growth of that force, the substantial growth of that force after the challenging days of -- circling 9/11, 2001. after a brief stint in the private sector, terry returned to public service when he was appointed by majority leader harry reid to serve as sergeant at arms. harry reid himself a former capitol hill policeman understood the responsibility and understood that tea terry ws the right person for the job. terry has dorch an excellen don. his steady hand and his constant presence in the halses senior senator going to be greatly missed. mr. president, i want to thank terry gainer perll