tv PBS News Hour CNN February 11, 2016 10:00pm-11:51pm PST
thank you, new hampshire. >> thank you, iowa. >> it looks like we are in a virtual tie. >> there is so much at stake in this election. >> we will need to come together and unite this party. >> senator sanders and i share a lot of the same goals. but there are differences. >> secretary clinton does represent the establishment. >> i am not going to make promises i can't keep. >> what happened here in new hampshire, that is what will happen all over this country. >> we're going to fight for every vote in every state. >> are you guys ready for a radical idea? >> you've got to be ready on day one.
this is the pbs "newshour" democratic debate in partnership with facebook. now live from milwaukee, gwen ifill and judy woodruff. >> here we are. thank you. thank you. thank you. good evening and thank you. we are happy to welcome you to milwaukee for this democratic debate. we are especially pleases to thank our partners at facebook who have helped us set up a vibrant conversation among voters who are undecided. and tonight you're going to hear
some of their questions for the candidates. and you can follow along at home on the pbs "newshour" page on facebook. we also want to thank our host, the university of wisconsin, milwaukee, on whose campus we meet here in the beautiful helen vader concert hall. >> also our warm thanks to milwaukee public radio and milwaukee public television, as well as all our friends at the pbs member stations across the country tuning in tonight. this is the sixth time the democrats have met face-to-face. each time we learn more about them and the presidents they say they want to be. you know you're watching, whether you are democrat or republican or neither, because you believe the outcome of the election is important to you. and we believe that, too. with that, let's welcome the candidates to the stage. senator bernie sanders of vermont. [ applause ]
>> welcome, senator. great to see you. >> and former secretary of state, hillary clinton. [ applause ] >> good to see you. >> really good to be here with you. >> welcome to you both. >> now a word about format. there will be two short breaks. and the rules are simple. 90 seconds for each answer. and 30 seconds for the other candidate to respond. >> with iowa and new hampshire behind us, we are now broadening the conversation to america's heartland and beyond, including here in wisconsin.
now let's turn to the candidates for their opening statements. the order was decided by coin toss. and senator sanders, you go first. >> gwen and judy, thank you for hosting this event, and pbs, thank you. nine months ago, our campaign began. and when it began, we had no political organization, no money. and not much name recognition outside of the state of vermont. a lot has happened in nine months. and what has happened is i think the american people have responded to a series of basic truths. and that is that we have today a campaign finance system which is corrupt, which is undermining american democracy, which allows wall street and billionaires to pour huge sums of money into the political process to elect the candidates of their choice.
and aligned with the corrupt campaign finance system is a rigged economy. and that's an economy where ordinary americans are working longer hours for lower wages. they are worried to death about the future of their kids. and, yet, they are seeing almost all new income and all new wealth going to the top 1%. and then in addition to that, the american people are looking around, and they see a broken criminal justice system. they see more people in jail in the united states of america than any other country on earth. 2.2 million. we're spending $80 billion a year locking up fellow americans. they see kids getting arrested for marijuana, getting a prison -- getting a criminal record while they see executives
on wall street who pay billions of dollars in settlements and get no prosecution at all. no criminal records for them. i think what our campaign is indicating is that the american people are tired of establishment politics, tired of establishment economics. they want a political revolution in which millions of americans stand up, come together, not let the trumps of the world divide us and say, you know what? in this great country we need a government that represents all of us, not just a handful of wealthy campaign contributors. thank you. >> thank you, senator sanders. thank you, senator sanders. secretary clinton. >> i'm running for president to knock down all the barriers that
are holding americans back and to rebuild the ladders of opportunity that will give every american a chance to advance, especially those who have been left out and left behind. i know a lot of americans are angry about the economy, and for good cause. americans haven't had a raise in 15 years. there aren't enough good paying jobs, especially for young people, and, yes, the economy is rigged in favor of those at the top. we both agree that we have to get unaccountable money out of our political system, and that we have to do much more to ensure that wall street never wrecks main street again. but i want to go further. i want to tackle those barriers that stand in the way of too many americans right now. african-americans who face discrimination in the job market, education, housing and
the criminal justice system. hard working immigrant families living in fear who should be brought out of the shadows so they and their children can have a better future. guaranteeing that women's work finally gets the pay, the equal pay that we deserve. i think america can only live up to its potential when we make sure that every american has a chance to live up to his or her potential. that will be my mission as president, and i think together we will make progress. >> thank you both. thank you both, and we'll be
choose, choose. but at bedtime... ...why settle for this? enter sleep number and the ultimate sleep number event, going on now. sleepiq technology tells you how well you slept and what adjustments you can make. you like the bed soft. he's more hardcore. so your sleep goes from good to great to wow! only at a sleep number store, right now save 50% on the ultimate limited edition bed, plus 24-month financing. hurry, ends monday. know better sleep with sleep number. >> welcome back to this democratic debate here in milwaukee. let's get right to the questions. senator sanders, to you first, coming off the results in iowa and new hampshire, there are many voters who were taking a closer look at you and your ideas.
and they are asking, how big a role do you foresee for the federal government? it's already spending 21% of the entire u.s. economy. how much larger would government be in the lives of americans under a sanders presidency? >> to put that into context, judy, i think we have to understand that in the last 30 years in this country, there has been a massive transfer of wealth going from the hands of working families into the top 0.1% whose percentage of wealth has doubled. very rich are getting richer. almost everybody else is getting poorer. what i believe is the united states, in fact, should join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all people. our medicare for all singer payer proposal will save the average middle class family $5,000 a year. i do believe that in the year 2016, we have to look in terms of public education.
it's colleges, as part of public education making public colleges and universities tuition free. i believe that when real unemployment is close to 10% and when our infrastructure, our roads, our bridges, our water systems, flint, michigan, comes to mind, our waste water plants, our rail and airports are disintegrating. we can create 13 million jobs by rebuilding our infrastructure at a cost of a trillion dollars. >> but how big would government be. would there be any limit on the size of the role of government? >> of course there will be a limit. but when today you have massive levels of income and wealth inequality, when the middle class is disappearing, the highest rate of childhood poverty of almost any major country on earth. in my view, the government of a democratic society has a moral responsibility to play a vital role in making sure that all of our people have a decent standard of living.
>> i think the best analysis that i've seen based on senator sanders' plans is that it would probably increase the size of the federal government by about 40%. but what is most concerning to me is that in looking at the plans, let's take health care, for example. last week in a cnn town hall, the senator told a questioner that the questioner would spend about $500 in taxes to get about $5,000 in health care. every progressive economist who has analyzed that says the numbers don't add up. and that's a promise that cannot be kept. and it's really important now that we are getting into the rest of the country that both of us are held to account for explaining what we are proposing because, especially with health care, this is not about math. this is about people's lives. and we should level with the american people about what we
can do to make sure they get quality, affordable health care. >> let's level -- let us level with the american people. secretary clinton has been going around the country saying bernie sanders wants to dismantle the affordable care act. people are going to lose their medicaid. they're going to lose their c.h.i.p. program. i've fought my entire life to make sure health care is a right for all people. we're not going to dismantle anything. here is the truth. 29 million people have no health insurance today in america. we pay by far the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs. 1 out of 5 americans can't even afford the prescriptions their doctors are writing. millions of people have high deductibles and copayments. what i said and let me repeat it. i don't know what economist secretary clinton is talking to. but what i've said and let me repeat it. yes, the family right in the middle of the economy would pay $500 more in taxes and get a reduction in their health care costs of $5,000.
in my view, health care is a right of all people, not a privilege, and i will fight for that. >> well, i can only -- i can only say that we both share the goal of universal health care coverage. you know, before it was called obamacare it was called hillarycare. i took on the drug companies and insurance companies to try to get us universal health care coverage. and while i am a staunch supporter of president obama's principal accomplishment, namely the affordable care act is because i know how hard it was to get that done. we are at 90% coverage. we have to get the remaining 10%. i have set forth very specific plans about how to get costs down, especially prescription drug costs. and it is difficult to, in any way, argue with the goal that we both share. but i think the american people deserve to know specifically how this would work. if it's medicare for all, then you no longer have the
affordable care act because the affordable care act, as you know very well, is based on the insurance system, based on exchanges, based on a subsidy system. the children's health insurance program which i helped to create which covers 8 million kids is also a different kind of program. so if you are having medicare for all, single payer, you need to level with people about what they will have at the end of the process you are proposing. and based on every analysis that i can find by people who are sympathetic to the goal, the numbers don't add up and many people will be worse off than they are right now. >> final thought, senator. >> that is absolutely inaccurate. here is the reality, folks. there is one major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all people. there is one major country, the united states, which ends up spending almost three times per capita what they do in the uk,
guaranteeing health care to all people, 50% more than they do in france, guaranteeing health care to all people. far more than our canadian neighbors who guarantee health care to all people. please do not tell me that in this country, if, and here's the if, we have the courage to take on the drug companies and have the courage to take on the insurance companies and the medical equipment suppliers, if we do that, yes, we can guarantee health care to all people in a much more cost effective way. >> well, let me just say, once again that having been in the trenches fighting for this, i believe strongly we have to guarantee health care. i believe we are in the path to doing that. the last thing we need is to throw our country into a contentious debate about health care again. we are not england. we are not france. we inherited a system set up during world war ii. 170 million americans get health insurance through their employers.
what we have tried to do and what president obama succeeded in doing was to build on the health care system we have. get us to 90% coverage. we have to get the other 10% of the way to 100%. i far prefer that and the chances we have to be successful there than trying to start all over again, gridlocking our system and trying to get from 0 to 100%. >> i'd like to move on. i'd like to move on. secretary clinton, you might -- you also have proposed fairly expansive ideas about government. you may remember this pledge from a state of the union address in which i believe you were present in which these words were said. the era of big government is over. you may remember that. when asked their feelings about the federal government this week, 61% of new hampshire democrats told exit pollsters they are angry or at least dissatisfied. given what you and senator sanders are proposing, and expanding government and almost every area of our lives, is it
fair for americans who fear government to fear you? >> no, but it is absolutely fair and necessary for americans to vet both of our proposals. to ask the really hard questions about what is it we think we can accomplish? why do we believe that? and what would be the results for the average american family? in my case, whether it's health care or getting us to debt-free tuition or moving us toward paid family leave, i have been very specific about where i would raise the money, how much it would cost, and how i would move this agenda forward. i tried to be as specific to answer questions so that my proposals can be vetted because i feel like we have to level with people for the very reason, gwen, what you are mentioning. there is a great deal of skepticism about the federal government. i'm aware of that. it comes from the right, the left, from people on all sides of the political spect rum.
so we have a special obligation to make clear what we stand for which is why i think we should not make promises we can't keep because that will further, i think, alienate americans from understanding and believing we can together make some real changes in people's lives. >> i haven't heard either of you put a price tag on -- >> i will put a price tag. my price tag is about $100 billion a year. and again, paid for. and what i have said is, i will not throw us further into debt. i believe i can get the money that i need by taxing the wealthy, by closing loopholes. the things we're way overdue for doing. and once i'm in the white house, we will have enough political capital to be able to do that. but i am conscious of the fact that we have to also be very clear, especially with young people, about what kind of government is going to do what for them and what it will cost. >> senator?
>> well, secretary clinton, you aren't in the white house yet. and let us be clear that every proposal that i have introduced has been paid for. for example, who in america denies that we have an infrastructure that's crumbling? roads, bridges, water systems, waste water plants? who denies that? who denies that real unemployment today, including those who have given up looking for work and are working part time is close to 10%? who denies that african-american youth unemployment, real, is over 50%. we need to create jobs. so, yes, i will do away with the outrageous loopholes that allow profitable, multinational corporations to stash billions of dollars in the cayman islands and bermuda, and in a given year pay zero -- zero in federal income tax. i'm going to do away with that. we'll use those proceeds, $100
billion a year to use to rebuild our infrastructure. that's a result of the illegal behavior on wall street that wall street drove this country into the worst economic downturn since the great depression. yeah, i do believe that now after the american people bailed wall street out, yes, they should pay a wall street speculation tax so that we can make public colleges and universities tuition-free. we bailed them out. now it is their time to help the middle class. >> you know, i think again, both of us share the goal of trying to make college affordable for all young americans. and i have set forth a compact that would do just that for debt-free tuition. we differ on a few key points. one of them being that if you
don't have some agreement within the system from states and from families and from students, it's hard to get to where we need to go. and senator sanders' plan really rests on making sure that governors like scott walker contribute $23 billion on the first day to make college free. i'm a little skeptical about your governor actually caring enough about higher education to make any kind of commitment like that. >> we're going to -- i think -- >> brief response. >> very brief, thank you. >> here's where we are with public education. 100, 150 years ago, incredibly brave americans says working class kids, low-income kids should not have to work in factories or on the farms. like rich kids, they deserve to get a free education. and that free education of extraordinary accomplishment was first grade to 12th grade. the world has changed. this is 2016.
in many ways, a college degree today is equivalent to what a high school degree was 50, 60 years ago. so, yeah, i do believe that when we talk about public education in america, today in a rapidly changing world, we should have free tuition and public colleges and universities. that should be a right of all americans, regardless of the income of their families. >> secretary clinton, your campaign, you and your campaign have made a clear appeal to women voters. you have talked repeatedly about the fact we know you would be if elected the first woman president. but in new hampshire, 55% of the women voters supported and voted for senator sanders. what are women missing about you? >> well, first, judy, i have
spent my entire adult life working toward making sure that women are empowered to make their own choices, even if that choice is not to vote for me. i believe that it's most important that we unleash the full potential of women and girls in our society, and i feel very strongly that i have an agenda, a record that really does respond to a lot of the specific needs that the women in our country face. so i'm going to keep making that case. i'm going to keep making sure that everything i've done and stood for is going to be well known. i have no argument with anyone making up her mind about who to support. i just hope that by the end of this campaign there will be a lot more supporting me. that's what i'm working toward. >> as you know, just quickly,
your strong supporter, former secretary of state madeleine albright said the other day that there's a special place in hell for women who don't support other women. do you agree with what she said? >> well, look, i think she's been saying that for as long as i've known her, which is about 25 years. but it doesn't change my view that we need to empower everyone, women and men to make the best decisions in their minds that they can make. that's what i've always stood for. and when it comes to the issues that are really on the front lines as to whether we're going
have made that, make no mistake about it, are under tremendous attack, not just by the republican presidential candidates but by a whole national effort to try to set back women's rights. so i am asking women, i'm asking men to support me because i am ready to go into the white house on january 20th, 2017, and get to work on domestic and foreign policy challenges. >> final comment.
i will not shock anybody to suggest that in politics, there is occasionally a little bit of hypocrisy. just a little bit. all over this country, we have republican candidates for president saying, we hate the government. government is the enemy. we're going to cut social security, to help you, we're going to cut medicare and medicaid, to help you, because the government is so hurtful. but when it comes to a woman making a personal choice in that case, my republican candidates love the government and want the government to make that choice for every woman in america. if that's not hypocrisy, i don't know what hypocrisy is. >> thank you both. we turn now to the first of several questions from our partners at facebook. we -- they were selected from a curated group of people we've
been following of undecided voters. the first from claudia, a 54-year-old woman who works as a program manager at a public affairs cable network in madison, wisconsin. and she writes, wisconsin is number one in african-american male incarceration, according to a university of wisconsin study. they found that wisconsin's incarceration rate for black men, which is at 13%, was nearly double the country's rate. what can we do across the nation to address this? senator sanders? >> this is one of the great tragedies in our country today. and we can no longer continue to sweep it under the rug. it has to be dealt with. today a male african-american baby born today stands a 1 in 4 chance of ending up in jail. that is beyond unspeakable. so what we have to do is the
radical reform of a broken criminal justice system. what we have to do is end overpolicing in african-american neighborhoods. the reality is that both african-american community and the white community do marijuana at about equal rates. the reality is, four times as many blacks get arrested for marijuana. truth is there are far more blacks get stopped for traffic violations. the truth is that sentencing for blacks is higher than for whites. we need fundamental police reform. clearly, clearly we talk about a criminal justice system, i would hope we can all agree that we're sick and tired of seeing videos on television of unarmed people, african-americans, shot by police officers. what we have got to do is make
it clear that any police officer who breaks the law will, in fact, be held accountable. >> you know, i completely agree with senator sanders. the first speech i gave in this campaign back in april was about criminal justice reform and ending the era of mass encarseration. the statistics from wisconsin are particularly troubling because it is the highest rate of incarceration for african-americans in our nation. twice the national average. and we know of the tragic, terrible event that led to the death of dontrae hamilton right here in milwaukee. a young man, unarmed who should still be with us. his family certainly believes that, and so do i. so we have work to do. there have been some good recommendations about what needs
to happen. president obama's policing commission came out with some. i have fully endorsed those. but we have to restore policing that will actually protect the communities that police officers are sworn to protect. and then we have to go after sentencing, and that's one of the problems here in wisconsin because so much of what happens at the criminal justice system doesn't happen at the federal level. it happens at the state and local level. but i'd also add this. there are other racial discrepancies, really systemic racism in this state, as in others, in education, in employment, in the kinds of factors that too often lead from a position where young people, particularly young men, are pushed out of school early, are denied employment opportunities. so when we talk about criminal justice reform and ending the era of mass incarceration we have to talk about jobs,
education, housing and other ways of helping communities do better. >> briefly. >> nothing -- nothing that secretary clinton said do i disagree with. this mandatory sentencing, very bad idea. takes away discretion from judges. we have got to demilitarize local police departments so they do not look like occupying armies. we have got to make sure that local police departments look like the communities they serve in their diversity. and where we are failing abysmally is in the high rate of recidivism. people are being released from jail without the education, without the job training, without the resources they need to get their lives together and then they end up -- we're
shocked that they end up back in jail again. we have a lot of work to do. but here is a pledge i've made throughout this campaign, and it's really not a really radical pledge. when we have more people in jail dispurportian atly african america and latino than china does, a communist society, four times our size, here's my promise. at the end of my first term as president, we will not have more people in jail than any other country. we will invest in education and jobs for our kids, not incarceration and more jails. >> secretary clinton, i was talking recently with a 23-year-old black woman who voted for president obama because she said she thought relations between the races would get better under his leadership. and his example. hardly anyone believes that they have.
why do you think race relations would be better under a clinton presidency? what would you do that the nation's first african-american president has not been able to? >> well, i am just not sure i agree completely with that assessment. i think under president obama, we have seen a lot of advances. the affordable care act has helped more african-americans than any other group to get insurance, to be taken care of. but we also know a lot more than we did. we have a lot more social media. we have everybody with a cell phone. so we are seeing the dark side of the remaining systemic racism that we have to root out in our society. i think president obama has set a great example and addressed a lot of these issues that have been quite difficult, but he has gone forward. now what we have to do is to build on an honest conversation about where we go next.
we now have much more information about what must be done to fix our criminal justice system. we now have some good models about how better to provide employment, housing and education. so i think what president obama did was to exemplify the importance of this issue as our first african-american president. and to address it, both from the president's office and through his advocacy, such as working with young men and mrs. obama's work with young women. but we can't rest. we have work to do. and we now know a lot more than we ever did before. so it's going to be my responsibility to make sure we move forward to solve these problems that are now out in the open, nobody can deny them, to use the justice department as we just saw where they have said they're going to sue ferguson, that entered into a consent agreement and then try to back out. so we're going to enforce the law, change policing practices,
change incarceration practices. but we're also going to emphasize education, jobs and housing. >> senator sanders? >> well, i think, judy, what has to be appreciated is that as a result of the disastrous and illegal behavior on wall street, millions of lives were hurt. people lost their jobs, their homes, their life savings. turns out the african-american community and latino community were hit especially hard. as i understand it, the african-american community lost half of their wealth as a result of the wall street collapse. so when you have childhood african-american poverty rates of 35%, when you have youth unemployment at 51%, when you have unbelievable rates of incarceration, which, by the way, leaves the children back home without a dad or even a
mother, clearly we are looking at institutional racism. we are looking at an economy in which the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. and sadly in america today, in our economy, a whole lot of those poor people are african-american. >> race relations would be better under a sanders presidency than they've been? >> absolutely. because what we will do is say, instead of giving tax breaks to billionaires, we are going to create millions of jobs for low-income kids so they're not hanging out on street corners. we're going to make sure those kids stay in school or are able to get a college education. and i think when you give low-income kids, african-americans, white, latino kids the opportunities to get their lives together, they are not going to end up in jail. they're going to end up in the productive economy, which is where we want them. >> let me -- when we talk about
race in this country, we always talk about african-americans, people of color. i want to talk about white people. >> white people? >> i know. so many people would be surprised to find out we're sitting in one of the most racially polarized metropolitan areas in the country. by the middle of the century the nation will be majority non-white. our public schools are already there. if working class white americans are about to be outnumbered, are already underemployed in many cases and one study found they are dying sooner, don't they have a reason to be resentful, secretary clinton? >> i am deeply concerned about what's happening in every community in america. and that includes white communities where we are seeing an increase in alcoholism, adduction, earlier deaths. people with a high school education or less are not even living as long as their parents
lived. this is a remarkable and horrifying fact. and that's why i've come forward with, for example, a plan to revitalize coal country. the coal field communities that have been so hard hit by the changing economy, the reduction in the use of coal. coal miners and their families who helped turn on the lights and power our factories for generations are now wondering, has our country forgotten us? do people not care about all of our sacrifice? and i'm going to do everything i can to address distressed communities, whether they are communities of color, whether they are white communities, whether they are in any part of our country. i particularly appreciate the proposal that congressman jim clyburn has, the 10, 20, 30 proposal to try to spend more federal dollars in communities with persistent generational poverty. if you look at the numbers, there are actually as many, if
not more white communities that are truly being left behind and left out. so, yes, i do think it would be a terrible oversight not to try to address the very real problems that white americans, particularly those without a lot of education, whose jobs have no longer provided them or even no longer present in their communities because we have to focus where the real hurt is. and that's why as president, i will look at communities that need special help and try to deliver that. >> senator, i want to -- >> i want you to respond to that but i also want -- am i wrong? is it even right to be describing this as a matter of race? >> yeah, you can, because african-americans, latinos, not only face the general economic crises of low wages and high
unemployment and poor educational opportunities, but they face other problems as well. so, yes, we can talk about it as a racial issue, but as a general economic issue. and here's what the economic issue is. the wages that high school graduates receive today are significantly less, whether you are white or black, than they used to be. why is that? because of a series of disastrous trade policies which have allowed corporate america through nafta and permanent normal trade relations with china. secretary clinton and i disagree on those issues. but my view is those trade policies have enabled corporate america to shut down in this country for millions of people out on the street. no one thinks working in a factory is the greatest job in the world but you can make a middle class wage. decent health care, decent benefits. you once had a pension. those jobs in many cases are now gone. they're off to china. now you are a worker, white
worker, black worker, who had a decent job. that manufacturing job is gone. you working at mcdonald's? that is why there is massive despair all over this country. people have worked their entire lives. they are making a half, two-thirds what they used to make. their kids are having a hard time find anything work at all. that's why this study which shows that if you can believe it today for white working class people between 45 and 54, life expectancy is actually going down. suicide, alcoholism, drugs, that's why we need to start paying attention to the needs of working families in this country and not just a handful of billionaires who have enormous economic and political power. >> thank you. senator sanders, one of the causes of anxiety for working
class americans is connected to immigrants. president obama, as you know, has issued executive actions to permit some 5 million undocumented immigrants that were living now in the united states to come out of the shadows without fear of deportation, get work permits. would you go further than that? and if so, how specifically would you do it? should an undocumented family watching this debate tonight say in nevada, rest easy, not fear further deportations under a sanders presidency? >> the answer is yes. we've got 11 million undocumented people in this country. i talked to some of the young kids who had tears rolling down their cheeks. are scared to death that today they may, or their parents may be deported. i believe that we have got to pass comprehensive immigration reform, something that i strongly supported.
i believe that we have got to move toward a path toward citizenship. i agree with president obama who used executive orders to protect families because the congress, the house, was unable or refused to act. and in fact, i would go further. what would motivate me and be the guiding light for me in terms of immigration reform would be to bring families together, not divide them up. let me say this also. somebody was very fond of the president, reasoned with him most of the time. i disagreed with his recent deportation policies. and i would not support those. bottom line is, a path toward citizenship for 11 million undocumented people. if congress doesn't do the right thing, we use the executive orders of the president. >> secretary? >> i strongly support the president's executive actions.
i hope the supreme court upholds them. i think there is constitutional and legal authority for the president to have done what he did. i am against the raids. i'm against the kind of inhumane treatment that is now being visited upon families, waking them up in the middle of the night, rounding them up. we should be deporting criminals, not hard-working immigrant families who do the best they can and often are keeping economies going in many places in our country. i am a strong supporter of comprehensive immigration reform. have been ever since i was in the senate. i was one of the original sponsors of the d.r.e.a.m. act. i voted for comprehensive immigration reform in 2007. senator sanders voted against it at that time. we have to get to comprehensive immigration reform with path to citizenship. as president i'd expend enormous energy, call every member of congress i thought i could persuade, hopefully after he
2016 election, some of the republicans will come to their senses and realize we are not going to deport 11 or 12 million people in this country. and they will work with me to get comprehensive immigration reform. >> secretary clinton, i do have a disagreement here. if my memory is correct, i think when we saw children are coming from these horrendously violent areas of honduras and neighboring countries, of people who are fleeing drug violence and cartel violence, i thought it was a good idea to allow those children to stay in this country. that was not as i understand it, the secretary's position. in terms of 2007 immigration reform, yeah. i did vote against it. the guest worker programs that were embedded in this agreement
were akin to slavery. akin to slavery where people came into this country to do guest work, were abused, were exploited and if they stood up for their rights they'd be thrown out of this country. it wasn't just me. it was the aflcio? it was one of the most progressive members of the congress who approved it. we are where we are right now. and where we are right now is we have got to stand up to the trumps of the world who are trying to divide us up. what we have to do right now is bring our people together and understand is that we must provide a path towards citizenship for 11 million undocumented people. >> two quick responses, one with respect to the central american
children, i made it very clear that those children needed to be processed appropriately, but we also had to send a message to families and communities in central america not to send their children on this dangerous journey in the hands of smugleers. i've called for the end of family detention for the end of privately run detention centers along with private prisons which i think are against the common good and the rule of law. with respect to the 2007 bill, this was ted kennedy's bill and i think he had a clear idea of what needed to be done and i was proud to stand with him and support him. >> let me just respond. i worked with ted kennedy. he was the chairman of my committee, but on this issue when you have one of the largest
latino group saying vote no and leading progressive democrats in fact voting no, i don't apologize for that vote, but in terms of the children, i don't know to whom you're sending a message. who are you sending a message to? these are children who are leaving countries and neighborhoods where their lives are at stake. that was the fact. i don't think we use them to send a message, i think we welcome them into this country and do the best we can to help them get their lives together. >> well, that just wasn't the fact. the fact is there was a great effort made by the obama administration and others to really send a clear message because we knew that so many of these children were being abused, being treated terribly while they tried to get to our boarder. so we have a disagreement on this. i think now what i've called for
is council for every child so no child has to face any kind of process without someone who speaks for that child so that the right decision could be made. >> if you would allow me to move on wf we've been tukds about children. i want to talk about seniors. that takes us to your second facebook. my father gets just $16 in food assistance per month as part of medicaid's family community program for low income seniors. how will you as president work to ensure low income seniors get their basic needs met? start with you senator sanders. >> okay. you know, you judge a nation not by the number of millionaires and billionaires it has, but by how we treat the most vulnerable and fragile people in our
nation. and by those standards we're not doing particularly well. we have the highest rate of childhood poverty and in terms of seniors there are are millions of seniors that i've talked to in my state and all over this country who are trying to get by on 11, 12, $13,000 a year social security and you do the arithmetic you can't get by on that. here's an area where secretary clinton and i believe we have a difference. i have long supported the proposition that we should lift the cap on taxable income coming into the social security trust fund starting at $250,000. and when we -- and when we do that, we don't do it what the republicans want which is to cut social security, we do what the
american people want, expand social security by $1,300 a year for people under $16,000 and we extend the life of social security for 58 years. yes, the wealthiest people, the top 1.5% will pay more in taxes, but a great nation like ours should not be in a position where elderly people are cutting their pills in half, where they don't have decent nutrition, where they can't heat hatheir homes in winter time. that's not what america should be about. if elected president i will do everything i can to expand social security benefits for seniors and disabled veterans as well. >> i think it's fair to say we don't have a disagreement, we both believe there has to be more money going into the social security system. i've said i'm looking at a
couple of different ways, one which you mentioned, but also trying to expand the existing tax to passive income that wealthy people have so that we do get more revenue into the social security trust fund. i have a slightly different approach though about what we should do with that initially. first, rather than expand benefits for everyone, i do want to take care of low income seniors who worked at low wage jobs. i want to take care of women when the social security program was started in the 1930s not very many women worked and women have been disadvantaged ever since. they do not get any credit for their caretaking responsibilities and the people who are often the most hard hit are widows because when their spouse dies they can lose up to one half of their social security monthly payment. so we have no disagreement about the need to help social
security, get more revenue into the program, but i want to start by helping those people who are most at risk, the ones who, yes, are cutting their pills in half, who don't believe they can make the rent or they're worried about what comes next for them. >> in all due respect -- [ applause ] >> in all due respect secretary cloon clinton a lot of the progressive groups and online groups have askeda simple question are you coming on board a proposal and what is that proposal? the proposal that i've outlined should be familiar to you because it is what essentially barack oba barack obama kmand on in 2008. i would hope you would come on board and say this is the simple thing to do. we're asking the top 1.5% to start paying a little bit more so that the elderly and the
disabled vets in this country can live with security and digni dignity. i hope you will make a decision soon on this. >> i think we're in agreement here. we both want to get more revenue in in. i have yet to see a proposal that you're implying would raise the cap to passive income. that's not been a part of most of the proposals i've seen. i'm interested in making sure we get the max amount of revenue from those who can well afford fo provide it. so i'm going to come up with the best way forward. we're going to end up in the same place. we're going to get more revenue. i'm going to >> we're going to move on. secretary clinton, your campaign has ramped up criticism of
nearly half of your financial sector donations seem to come from two source, george soros and john sussman, for a total of about $10 million. you have said that there's no quid pro quo involved. is that also true of the donations that wealthy republicans give to republican candidates, contributors including the koch brothers? >> i can't speak for the koch brothers. you're referring to a super pac that we don't coordinate with, that was set up to support president obama, that has now decided they want to support me. they are the ones who should respond to any questions. let's talk about our campaigns. i'm very proud of the fact that we have more than 750,000 donors. and the vast majority of them are giving small contributions. i'm proud of senator sanders and his supporters. i think it's great that, you know, senator sanders, president obama and i have more donors
than any three people who have ever run, certainly on the democratic side. that's the way it should be. and i'm going to continue to reach out to thank all my online contributors for everything they are doing for me, to encourage them, to help me and do more, just as senator sanders is. and i think that is the real key here. we both have a lot of small donors. i think that sets us apart from a lot of what's happening on the republican side. the koch brothers have a very clear political agenda. it is an agenda, in my view, that would do great harm to our country. we're going to fight it as hard as we can and we're going to fight whoever the republicans nominate who will be very dependent upon the koch brothers and others. >> senator -- [ applause ] >> i'm asking if democratic donors are different from republican donors.
>> what we're talking about is a reality is a corrupt campaign finances. that's what we're talking about. and we have to be honest about it. it's undermining american democracy. when extraordinarily wealthy people make very large contributions to super pacs and in many cases in this campaign, superpacs have raised more money than individual candidates have. okay? we had a decision to make early on. do we do a super pac? we said, no, we don't represent wall street, we don't represent the billionaire class so it ends up i'm the only candidate up here of the many candidates, who has no super pac. but what we did was we said to the working families of this country, look, we know things are tough. but if you want to help us, go beyond establishment politics and establishment economics. send us something. and it turns out that up until this point, and this has blown me away. never in a million years would i have believed i would be stand
here tonight telling you that we have received $3.5 million from individual contributions from well over a million people. now, secretary clinton's super pac, as i understand it, received $25 million last reporting period, $15 million from wall street. our average contribution is $27. i'm very proud of that. >> senator, senator -- >> let me respond. let me respond. >> senator, senator -- >> we are mixing apples and oranges. my 750,000 donors have contributed more than 1.5 million donations. i'm very proud. that i think between the two of us demonstrates the strength of the support we have among people who want to see change in our country. but the real issue i think the senator is injecting into this is that if you had a super pac, like president obama had, which
now says it wants to support me, it's not my pac, if you take donations from wall street you can't be independent. i would just say i debated then senator obama numerous times on stages like this. and he was the recipient of the largest number of wall street donations of anybody running on the democratic side ever. now, when it mattered, he stood up and took on wall street. he pushed through and he passed the dodd-frank regulation, the toughest regulations since the 1930s. so let's not in any way imply here that either president obama or myself would in any way not take on any vested interest, whether it's wall street or drug companies or insurance companies or frankly the gun lobby to stand up to do what's best for the american people! [ applause ]
>> let's not insult the intelligence of the american people. people aren't dumb. why in god's name does wall street make huge campaign contributions? i guess just for the fun of it. they want to throw money around. why does the pharmaceutical industry make huge campaign contributions? any connection maybe to the fact that our people pay the highest prices in the world for prescription drugs? why does the fossil industry pay huge amounts of money in campaign contributions? any connection to the fact that not one republican candidate for president thinks and agrees with the scientific community that climate change is real, and that we have got to transform our energy system? and when we talk about wall street, let's talk about wall street. i voted for dodd-frank. got an important amendment in it.
my view, it doesn't go anywhere near far enough. but when we talk about wall street, you have wall street and major banks have paid $200 billion in fines since the great crash. no wall street executive has been prosecuted. >> all right. well, let's just follow up on this because, you know, i've made it very clear that no bank is too big to fail, no executive too powerful to jail and because of dodd-frank, we now have in law a process that the president, the federal reserve and others can use if any bank poses a systemic risk. i think that's a major accomplishment. i agree, however, it doesn't go far enough because what it focuses on are the big banks, which senator sanders has talked about a lot for good reason. i go further in the plan that
i've proposed, which has been called the toughest, most effective comprehensive plan for reining in the other risks that the financial system could face. it was an investment bank, lehman brothers, that contributed to our collapse. it was a big insurance company, aig, it was countrywide mortgage. my plan would sweep all of them into a regulatory framework so we can try to get ahead of what the next problems might be. and i believe that not only barney frank, paul krugman and others have said that what i have proposed is the most effective. it goes in the right direction. we have dodd-frank. as we speak, there are new problems on the horizon. i want to get ahead of those. that's why i've proposed a much more comprehensive approach. a deal. >> we have to go to a break. >> let me respectfully disagree with secretary clinton here.
when you have three of the four largest financial institutions in the country bigger today than they were when they build a them out because that were too big to fail, when you have six financial institutions having assets equivalent to 58% of the gdp of america, by issuing 2/3 of the credit cards and a third of the mortgages, look, i think if teddy roosevelt were alive today, that great trust buster would have said break them up. i think he would have been right. i think he would have said bring back a 21 century glass-steagall legislation. i think that would have been right as well. that's my view. [ applause ] >> thank you both. it is time for a break. when we come back, we're going to turn to some new topics including how to keep america safe. >> there's a lot more to come in just a few minutes. stay with us for more of the pbs news hour democratic debate.
i'm anderson cooper here in new york. the candidates right now taking a short break from the debate in milwaukee. democrats hillary clinton and bernie sanders their first debate since voters in new hampshire boosted his campaign and rocked hers. the two clashing sharply, but politely over immigration. and just moments ago on campaign financing with senator sanders taking a swipe at her support from wall street. she meantime hitting back and jabbing at him on how to pay for government reforms. secretary clinton suggesting that her reforms would be achievable and that his would not. and that is only the half of it. next, from milwaukee, the candidates are going to talk about national security, how to keep this country safe. then we're going have a special late live edition of "360" featuring the best reporters,
choose, choose, choose. but at bedtime... ...why settle for this? enter sleep number and the ultimate sleep number event, going on now. sleepiq technology tells you how well you slept and what adjustments you can make. you like the bed soft. he's more hardcore. so your sleep goes from good to great to wow! only at a sleep number store, right now save 50% on the
ultimate limited edition bed, plus 24-month financing. hurry, ends monday. know better sleep with sleep number. the democratic debate continues once again with gwen ifel and judy woodruff. welcome back to the democratic presidential debate. before we return to our question, we have a follow-up question from our facebook group. and it is to senator sanders. senator, it comes from bill corefield. he is a 55-year-old musician from troy, ohio. he asks "are there any areas of government you'd like to reduce?" >> i'm in the united states senate. and anyone who doesn't think there is an enormous amount of waste and inefficiency and bureaucracy throughout government would be very, very
mistaken. i believe in government, but i believe in efficient government, not wasteful government. >> how about you, senator clinton -- secretary clinton? >> absolutely. there are a number of programs that i think are duplicative, and redundant and not producing the results that people deserve there are a lot of training programs and education programs that i think can be streamlined and put into a much better format so that if we do continue them, they can be more useful in public schools, community colleges, and colleges and universities. i would like to take a hard look at every part of the federal government and really do the kind of analysis that would rebuild some confidence in people that we're taking a hard look about what we have, you know, and what we don't need anymore. that's what i intend to do. >> if i could just add to that. we have also got it take a look at the waste and inefficiencies in the department of defense, which is the one major agency of government that has not been
able to be audited. and i have the feeling you're going to find a lot of cost overruns there and a lot of waste and duplicative activities. >> we spent the first part of this debate talking about domestic insecurity. the second part we want to talk about our foreign policy insecurities. and we want to start with a question for you, secretary clinton, about america's role in the world. americans are becoming increasingly worried that attacks abroad are coming home, that they are already in fact here. according to exit polls from last week, from earlier this week, more than two-thirds of democrats in new hampshire are concerned about sending their children to fight in wars they can't win. they fret that the next attack is just around the corner and we are not ready. are we? >> look, i think we are readier than we used to be but it's a constant effort that has to be undertaken to make sure that we are as ready as we need to be. we have made a lot of
improvements in our domestic security since 9/11. and we have been able to foil and prevent attacks. we see the terrible attack in san bernardino and know we haven't done enough. so we have to go after this abroad and at home. with have to go after terrorist networks, predominantly isis. that's not the only one, but let's focus on that for a moment. we have to lead a coalition that will take back territory from isis that is principally an american-led air campaign we are now engaged in. we have to support the fighters on the ground, principally the arabs and the kurds who are willing to stand up and take territory back from raqqah to ramadi. we have to continue to work with the iraqi army so that they are better prepared to advance on some of the other strongholds inside iraq like mosul when they are able to do so. and we have to cut off the flow of foreign funding and foreign fighters. and we have to take on isis
online. they are a sophisticated purveyor of propaganda, a celebrator of violence, an instigator of attacks using their online presence. here at home we have to do a better job coordinating between federal, state and national intelligence. we need the best possible intelligence, not only from our own sources but from sources overseas that can be a realtime fusion effort to get information where it's needed. but the final thing i want to say about this is the following: you know, after 9/11, one of the efforts that we did in new york was if you see something or hear something suspicious, report it. and we need to do that throughout the country, but we need to understand that american muslims are on the front line of our defense. they are more likely to know what's happening in their families and their communities and they need to feel not just invited but welcomed within the american society. so when somebody like donald trump and others -- [ applause ]
-- stirs up the demagoguery against american muslims, that hurts us at home. it's not only offensive but dangerous. and the same goes for overseas where we have to put together a coalition of muslim nations. i know how to do that. i put together the coalition that imposed the sanctions in iran that got us to the negotiating table to put a lid on their nuclear weapons program. and you don't go tell muslim nations you want them to be part of a coalition when you have a leading candidate for president of the united states who insults their religion. so this has to be looked at overall. and we have to go at it from every possible angle. >> senator sanders, what is -- >> let me -- let me just say this. what a president of the united states has got to do and what is his or her major, i think, responsibility is to, a, make
certain that we keep our people safe, that we work with allies around the world to protect democratic values, that we do all that we can to create a world of peace and prosperity. i voted against the war in iraq because i listened very carefully to what president bush and vice president cheney had to say and i didn't believe them. and if you go to my website, berniesanders.com, what you find is not only did i help lead the opposition to that war, but much much of what i feared would happen when i spoke on the floor of the house, did in fact happen in terms of the instability that occurred. now, i think an area in kind of a vague way or not so vague where secretary clinton and i disagree is the area of regime change. look, the truth is that a
powerful nation like the united states certainly working with our allies, we can overthrow dictators all over the world. and god only knows saddam hussein was a brutal dictator. we could overthrow assad tomorrow if we wanted to. we got rid of gadhafi. but the point about foreign policy is not just to know that you can overthrow a terrible dictator, it's to understand what happens the day after. and in libya, for example, the united states, secretary clinton as secretary of state working with some other countries did get rid of a terrible dictator named gadhafi. but what happened is a political vacuum developed. isis came in and now occupies significant territory in libya and is now prepared, unless we stop them, to have a terrorist foothold. but this is nothing new. this has gone on 50 or 60 years
with the united states has been involved in overthrowing governments. mozardek back in 155. nobody knows who he was. he was overthrown by american and british interests because he threatened oil interests of the british. as a result of that, the shah of iran came in, a terrible dictator, and as a result of that we have the iranian revolution. coming in and that's where we are today. unintended consequences. as president, i will look very carefully about unintended consequences. and i will do everything i can to make sure the united states and our brave men and women in the military do not get bogged down in perpetual warfare in the middle east. >> if i could just respond. [ applause ] two points. one, senator sanders voted in
1998 on what i think is fair to call a regime change resolution with respect to iraq calling for the end of saddam hussein's regime. he voted in favor of regime change with libya, voted in favor of the security council being an active participant in setting the parameters for what we would do, which of course we followed through on. i do not believe a vote in 2002 is a plan to defeat isis in 2016. it's very important we focus on the threats we face today. and that we understand the complicated and dangerous world we're in. when people go to vote in primaries or caucuses, they are voting not only for the president, they are voting for the commander in chief. it's important people look hard at what the threats and dangers we face are and who is best prepared for dealing with them.
as we all remember, senator obama when he ran against me was against the war in iraq. and yet when he won, he turned to me, trusting my judgment, my experience to become secretary of state. i was very honored to be asked to do that and very honored to serve with him those first four years. >> judy, if i can. there is no question and secretary clinton and i are friends, and i have a lot of respect for her, that she has enormous experience in foreign affairs. secretary of state for four years. you got a bit of experience, i would imagine. but judgment matters as well. judgment matters as well. and she and i looked at the same evidence coming from the bush administration regarding iraq. i led the opposition against it, she voted for it. but more importantly, in terms of this libya resolution that you have noted before, this was
a virtually unanimous consent. everybody voted for it, wanting to see libya move towards democracy. of course we all wanted to do that. that is very different than talking about specific action for regime change, which i did not support. >> you did support a u.n. security council approach, which we did follow up on. look, i think it's important to look at what the most important counterterrorism judgment of the first four years of the obama administration was, and that was the very difficult decision as to whether or not to advise the president to go after bin laden. i looked at the evidence, i looked at the intelligence, i got the briefings, i recommended that the president go forward. it was a hard choice. not all of his top national security advisers agreed with that. and at the end of the day, it was the president's decision. so he had to leave the situation room after hearing from the small group advising him and he had to make that decision. i'm proud that i gave him that
advice and i'm very grateful to the brave navy s.e.a.l.s who carried out that mission. >> judy, one area very briefly. >> just the final word. >> where the secretary and i have a very profound difference. in the last debate and i believe in her book, very good book by the way, in her book and in this last debate, she talked about getting the approval or the support or the mentoring of henry kissinger. now, i find it rather amazing because i happen to believe that henry kissinger was one of the most destructive secretaries of state in the modern history of this country. i am proud to say that henry kissinger is not my friend. i will not take advice from henry kissinger, and in fact, kissinger's actions in cambodia when the united states bombed
that country and created the instability for pol pot and the khmer rouge to come in who then butchered some innocent 3 million people, one of the worst genocides in the history of the world. so count me in as somebody who will not be listening to henry kissinger. [ applause ] >> well, i know journalists have asked who you do listen to on foreign policy and we have yet to know who that is. >> well, it ain't henry kissinger, that's for sure. >> that's fine. that's fine. i listen to a wide variety of voices that have expertise in various areas. i think it is fair to say whatever the complaints that you want to make about him are that with respect to china, one of the most challenging relationships we have, his opening up china and his ongoing relationships with the leaders of china is an incredible useful relationship for the united states of america.
it we want to pick and choose and i certainly do, people i listen to, people i don't listen to, people i listen to for certain areas, then i think we have to be fair and look at the entire world. because it's a big, complicated world out there. >> it is. >> and yes, people we may disagree with on a number of things may have some insight, may have some relationships that are important for the president to understand in order to best protect the united states. [ applause ] >> i find it -- it's just a very different historical perspective here. kissinger was one of those people during the vietnam era who talked about the domino theory. not everybody remembers that. you do, i do. the domino theory, you know, if vietnam goes, china, da da, da da, da da. that's what he talked about, the great threat of china. and then after the war, this is the guy who in fact, yes, you're right, he opened up relations
with china and now pushed various type of trade agreements resulting in american workers losing their jobs as corporations moved to china. the terrible authoritarian communistic dictatorship he warned us about, now he is urging american companies to shut down and move to china. not my kind of guy. >> senator, let me move on to another country with which the u.s. has a complicated relationship, senator sander, and that's russia. on the one hand, we're aware that russia is a country that the united states needs to cooperate with. just tonight secretary of state john kerry has announced what appears to be an agreement with the russians to lead -- that could lead toward a cease-fire in syria, would be the first secession of conflict in that country in that civil war in five years but it comes at a very high price because not only have we seen the deaths, the
removal of so many people, millions of people, we now see the russians in the last few weeks have bombed in a way that benefits president assad, has not gone after isis. so my question to you is when it comes to dealing with russia, how hard are you prepared to be? are you prepared to institute further economic sanctions? would you be prepared to move militarily if russia moves on eastern europe? it seems to me that russia recently has gotten the better of the united states. >> well, this is what i would say. it is a complicated relationship. i congratulate secretary of state john kerry and the president for working on this agreement. as you've indicated, what is happening in syria, the number of people, the hundreds of thousands of people who have been killed, men, women, people 20,000 children, the people forced to flee their own country, it is unspeakable. it is a real horror. now, what i think is that right
now we have got to do our best in developing positive relations with russia. but let's be clear. russia's aggressive actions in crimea and in ukraine have brought about a situation where president obama and nato correctly, i believe, are saying you know what? we're going to have to beef up our troop level in that part of the world to tell putin that his aggressiveness is not going to go unmatched, that he is not going to get away with aggressive action. i happen to believe that putin is doing what he is doing because his economy is increasingly in shambles and he's trying to rally his people in support of him. but bottom line is the president is right, we have to put more money, we have to work with nato to protect eastern europe against any kind of russian aggression. >> well, with respect to syria,
i really do appreciate the efforts that secretary kerry has made. the agreement on humanitarian relief now needs to be implemented because there are enclaves that are literally filled with starving people throughout syria. the agreement on a cease-fire, though, is something that has to be implemented more quickly than the schedule that the russians agreed to. the russians wanted to buy time. are they buying time to continue their bombardment on behalf of the the assad regime, to further decimate what's left of the opposition, which would be a grave disservice to any kind of eventual cease-fire. so i know secretary kerry is working extremely hard to move that cease-fire up as quickly as possible. but i would add this -- the security council finally got around to adopting a resolution. at the core of that resolution
is an agreement i negotiated in june of 2012 in geneva, which set forth a ceasefire and moving toward a political resolution, trying to bring the parties at stake in syria together. this is incredibly complicated because we've got iran as a big player in addition to russia, we have saudi arabia, turkey and others who have very important interests in their view. this is one of the areas i've disagreed with senator sanders on, who has called for iranian troops trying to end the civil war in syria, which i think would be a grave mistake putting iranian troops right on the border of the golan, right next to israel would be a non-starter for me. trying to get iran and saudi arabia to work together as he has suggested in the past is equally a non-starter. so let's support what secretary kerry and the president are doing but let's hope we can accelerate the cease-fire because i fear the russians will
continue their bombing, try to do everything they can to destroy what's left of the opposition. remember, the russians have not gone after isis or any of the other terrorist groups. so as we get a cease-fire and maybe some humanitarian corridors, that still leaves the terrorist groups on the doorstep of others in syria, turkey, lebanon, jordan and the like. so we've got some real work to do and let's try to make sure we actually implement what has been agreed to with the russians. [ applause ] >> let me just say this. for a start the secretary and i disagree and i think the president does not agree with her in terms of the conflict of a no-fly zone in syria. i think do you have a humanitarian tragedy there, as i mentioned a moment ago. i applaud secretary kerry and the president for trying to put together this agreement.
let's hope that it holds. but furthermore, what we have got it do -- i'm sorry, yeah, i do believe that we have got it do everything that we can and it will not happen tomorrow, but i do hope that in years to come, just as occurred with cuba, ten, 20 years ago people say reach normalized relations with cuba -- and by the way, i hope we can end the trade embargo with cuba as well, but the idea that we some day maybe have decent relations with iran, maybe put pressure on them so they end their support for terrorism around the world, yeah, that is something i want to achieve and i believe the best way to do that is to be aggressive, to be principled, but to have the goal of trying to improve relations. that's how you make peace in the world. you sit down and you work with people, you make demands of people, in this case demanding iran stop the support of
international terrorism. >> well, i respectfully disagree. i think we have achieved a great deal with the iranian nuclear agreement to put a lid on the iranian nuclear weapons program, with consequences for iran at the slightest deviation from their requirements under the agreement. i do not think we should promise or even look towards normalizing relations because we have a lot of other business to get done with iran. yes, they have to stop being the main state sponsor of terrorism. yes, they have to stop trying to destabilize the middle east, causing even more chaos. yes, they've got to get out of syria. they've got to quit sponsoring hezbollah and hamas. they've got to quit trying to ship rockets into gaza that can be used against israel. we have a lot of work to do with iran before we ever say that they could move toward normalized relations with us. >> we have a lot of work to do. we have a lot of work to did.
but i recall when secretary clinton ran against then senator obama. she was critical of him for suggesting that maybe you want to talk to iran, that you want to talk to our enemies. i have no illusions. of course you're right. iran is sponsoring terrorism in many parts of the world, destabilizing areas. everybody knows that. but our goal is, in fact, to try over a period of time to in fact deal with our enemies, not just ignore them. >> from a debate quote what i said. the question is would you meet with an adversary without conditions. i said no. in fact, in the obama administration, we did not meet with anybody without conditions. that is the appropriate approach in order to get the results that you are seeking. >> you know, i think the idea was that then senator obama was
wrong for suggesting that it's a good idea to talk to your opponents. it's easy to talk to your friends. it's harder to talk to your enemies. i think we should do both. >> let me move on. you have both mentioned the humanitarian tragedies, which have been an out growth in part of what happened in syria and libya. more than a million refugees entered europe in 2015. another 70,000 last month. that's about 2,000 arrivals every day. more than 400 people have been lost at sea this year and there are reports that 10,000 children are missing. if we are leaders in this world, where should the u.s. be on this? what should the united states be doing, secretary clinton? >> well, i was pleased that nato announced just this week that they're going to start doing patrols in the mediterranean, in the agean to try to interdict the smugglers to try to prevent the kind of tragedies we have
seen all too often. also to try to prevent more refugees from coming to the european union. and it's especially significant that they are working with both turkey and greece in order to do this. with respect to the united states, i think our role in nato, our support for the eu, as well as our willingness to take refugees, so long as they are thoroughly vetted and that we have confidence from intelligence and other sources that they can come to our country, we should be doing our part. and we should back up the recent donors conference to make sure we have made our contribution to try to deal with the enormous cost that these refugees are posing to turkey and to members of the eu in particular. this is a humanitarian catastrophe. there's no other description of it. so we do as the united states have to support our friends, our allies in europe. we have to stand with them, we
have to provide financial support to them, we have to provide the nato support to back up the mission that is going on and we have to take properly vetted refugees ourselves. >> a couple of years ago i had the opportunity to go on a congressional delegation and i went to one of these turkish refugee camps right on the border of syria. and what a sad sight that was. men, women, children are forced out of their homes. and turkey, by the way, did a very decent thing providing what was reasonable housing and conditions for those people. it seems to me that given our history as a nation that has been a beacon of hope for the oppressed, for the downtrodden, that i very strongly disagree with those republican candidates that say, you know what, we've got to turn our backs on women
and children who left their home with nothing, nothing at all. that is not what america is supposed to be about. so i believe that working with europe and, by the way, we got some very wealthy countries there in that part of the world. you got kuwait and you got qatar and saudi arabia. they have a responsibility as well. but i think this is a world wide -- that the entire world needs to come together to deal with this horrific refugee crisis we're seeing from syria and afghanistan as well. [ applause ] >> and we have a final question from our facebook family. and it goes to senator sanders. it comes from robert andrews, he's a 40-year-old stay-at-home dad in dover, massachusetts. he said the world has seen many great leads are in the course of human history. can you name two leaders, one
american, and one foreign, who would influence your foreign policy decisions and why do you see them -- why are they influential? >> you know, franklin delano roosevelt took the oath of office in 1933 at a time when 25% of the american people were unemployed, the country was in incredible despair. he stood before the american people and each said the only thing we have to fear is fear itself. a profound statement that gave the american people the courage to believe that, yes, we could get out of that terrible depression. and then what he did is redefined the role of government. you had herbert hoover before that saying only worry about the deficit, so what if mass unemployment exist, so what if children are going hungry,
that's not the role of the government. what fdr said, yeah, it is, that we are going to use all of the resources that we have to create jobs, to build homes, to feed people, to protect the farmers, we are a nation which if we come together, there is nothing that we cannot accomplish. and kind of that's what i see our campaign is about right now. in this particular moment of serious crises, saying to the american people don't give up on the political process. don't listen to the trumps of the world in allowing them to divide us. if we reengage and get involved, yeah, we can have health care for all people, we can make public colleges and universities tuition free, we do not have to have massive levels of income and wealth inequality, if the same light was a a foreign
winston churchill's politics were not my politics. he was kind of a conservative guy in many respects. but nobody can deny as wartime leader he rallied the british people when they stood virtually alone against the nazi juggernaut and rallied them and eventually won an extraordinary victory. those are two leaders that i admire very much. [ applause ] >> i certainly agree with fdr for all the reasons that senator sanders said and i agree about the role that he played both in war and in peace on the economy and defeating fascism around the world. i would choose nelson mandela for his generosity of heart and understanding for the need of reconciliation. but i want to -- i want to follow up on something having to do with leadership. because, you know, today senator sanders said that president obama failed the presidential leadership test. this is not the first time that he has criticized president obama.
in the past he's called him weak, he's called him a disappointment. he wrote a foreword for a book that basically argued voters should have buyers remorse when it comes to president obama's leadership and legacy, and i just couldn't disagree more with those kinds of comments. you know, from my perspective, maybe because i understand what president obama inherited, not only the worst financial crisis, but the antipathy of the republicans in congress, i don't think he gets the credit he deserves for being a president who got us out of that ditch and put us on firm ground and sent us into the future. and it is a -- the kind of criticism that we've heard from senator sanders about our president i expect from republicans. i do not expect from someone running for the democratic nomination to succeed president obama. [ applause ]
>> that is -- madam secretary, that is a low blow. i have worked with president obama for the last seven years. when president obama came into office, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month, 800,000 jobs a month. we had 1.4 trillion deficit and the world's financial efforts system were on the verge of collapse. as a result of his efforts and the efforts of joe biden against unprecedented, i was there in the senate, unprecedented republican obstructionism, we have made enormous progress. [ applause ] but you know what? last i heard we lived in a democratic society. last i heard a united states senator had the right to disagree with the president, including a president who has done such an extraordinary job. so i have voiced criticism, you're right, maybe you haven't.
i have. but i think to suggest that i have voiced criticism, this blurb that you talk about, you know what the blurb said? the blurb said that the next president of the united states has got to be aggressive in bringing people in to the political process. that's what i said, that is what i believe. [ applause ] president obama and i are friends. as you know, he came to vermont to campaign for me when he was a senator. i have worked for his reelection. his first election and his reelection. but i think it is really unfair to suggest that i have not been supportive of the president. i have been a strong ally with him on virtually every issue. do senators have the right to disagree with the president? have you ever disagreed with a president? i suspect you may have. >> senator, what i am concerned about is not disagreement on issues saying this is what i'd
rather do, i don't agree with the president on that. calling the president weak, calling him a disappointment, calling several times that he should have a primary opponent when he ran for reelection in 2012, you know, i think that goes further than saying we have our disagreements. as a senator, yes, i was a senator. i understand we can disagree on the path forward. but those kinds of personal assessments and charges are ones that i find particularly troubling. >> senator, you may have respond to that but it's time for closing statements. you can use your time for closing statements to do that. well, one of us ran against barack obama. i was not that candidate. [ applause ] all right. look, this has been a great debate. a lot of interesting issues have come together. let me conclude by just saying
this. there is no president in my view, not hillary clinton, not bernie sanders who has the capability or the power to take on wall street, large campaign donors, the corporate media, the big money interests in this country alone. this campaign is not just about electing a president. what this campaign is about is creating a process for a political revolution in which millions of americans, working people who are given up on the political process, they don't think anybody hears their pains or their concerns. young people for whom getting involved in politics is as -- it's like going to the moon, it ain't going to happen. low-income people who are not involved in the political process. what this campaign is not only about electing someone who has
the most progressive agenda, it is about bringing tens of millions of people together to demand that we have a government that represents all of us and not just the 1% who today have so much economic and political power. thank you all very much. [ cheers and applause ] >> secretary clinton. >> we agree we've got to get unaccountable money out of politics. we agree that wall street should never be allowed to wreck main street again. but here's the point i want to make tonight. i am not a single-issue candidate and i do not believe we live in a single-issue country. i think that a lot of what we have to overcome to break down the barriers that are holding people back, whether it's poison in the water of the children of