tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN July 30, 2015 10:00pm-12:01am EDT
they will continue to build their capability. iran in 1010 years will have conventional capabilities that could potentially drive us out of the persian gulf because the price of being there will be too high. they could threaten an aircraft carrier, they will continue to build lawn long-range rockets. they're doing it to target the united states. they're looking at the north koreans and saying yes they have one but we don't know whether it's going to hit because they don't have good guidance but it's going to hit somewhere. that alone has made north korea immune and they will continue to build up their stair get in the region. i will argue that has given them
when hezbollah in a couple of years doesn't have rabbits they have guided rockets. they did exactly what they want to hit. imagine a world in 10 years where iran decides or eight years or 12 years where they decide you know what we are building a nuclear weapon because we believe israel has one or we think someone else is going to threaten us. all these companies that are deeply invested in that economy won't let their nations and their government do anything about it. we have seen that in the case of the europeans but what will the price be of going after their systems? it will be worse than the price of going after north korea now. do we have incredible options today to target the north korean program? we do not because we know the price of going after the north koreans program through credible military options that price is tokyo come in the price of that is seoul the price of that is hawaii. they will hit us back.
imagine iran were the price of going after the iranian program in 10 years if they decide to break out will be washington d.c. or new york city not to mention tel aviv and jerusalem and any number of places in the region better allies to my argument is that in fact what i think we have done here is walked right into the situation they wanted to layout. they didn't want a nuclear weapon next week anyway but we have created a system where an eight to 10 years they will have the capability to create a become walk into the nuclear weapons club not snake can walk into the nuclear weapons club with a world-class industrial enrichment capability a much more powerful conventional force capable of asymmetrically driving or navy from the region are further out and quite frankly immune from any sort of credible military action because if we attack them the price will be a nuclear devastating strike intentionally on the continental united states. my point is that when people
vote on this bill you will listen to this for the let rest of your life. in 10 years or 12 years when iran has a nuclear weapon we can target them people will remember this vote coming up as what lay the groundwork for it and i keep hearing this motion there's no other alternative for no other way forward. i believe u.s. sanctions are the most important part of all the sanctions. i believe that these banks in europe german banks if they were forced to choose between having access to the american economy and taxes to the iranian economy that's not going to be a hard choice. i know there's not a question embedded in this other than mr. zarate in the 30-second i left i would ask you do you have any doubt when he sanctions are moved in the dollar slid that a significant percentage of that money will be used for the things i just outlined develop a long-range rocket conventional capabilities and better equipped to serve the groups in the region? >> senator i don't know if the percentage is going to be but this is a regime investing in
those capabilities and has increased its budget allocation and quds force and the security infrastructure and there's no doubt in my mind they are going to use some of the relief and the flow of capital to support their proxies as i said from go on to yemen. i don't know what the percentages percentage is going to be but it's going to be significant. >> thank you. i don't have additional questions but i think other members may and we would be glad to entertain us for a moment. i don't want to let the war thing hangs. i hope you're not trying to indicate that there are some of us would like to see a war. >> no actually let me be real clear what i meant about that. mr. chair few don't mind you are absolutely right the inspections in iraq are the gold standard in this deal is not at that level but the inspections in iraq flowed from our winning gulf war one so there was a war that we
wanted to set a pattern of an inspections regime in iraq that we used intel's inspections to bomb iraq in the late 90s. there was a war that led to the super comprehensive inspection regime. i would say in response that i think we all know from the meetings that we have had that iran has never thought the threat of force was real in recent times and i might say and i hope we don't get to that. i think that's what we are trying to assess right now is an agreement that keeps us from that but i might say because they have never thought that to be a threat maybe that's a reason they have purchased something that is certainly at a minimum not near as what we have had in the past may be but senator shaheen. >> thank you mr. chairman. when i passed to senator cano
blessed because i didn't have questioned it was because he was first in having at the end of the row i appreciate how challenging it is when somebody comes in with more seniority and bump sure questioning. so thank you both for being here and senator rubio presented a fairly stark doomsday scenario in his time and i just want to go back and see if i can clarify a couple of things with respect to what he said. first of all, this is agreement in any way affect our ability to take any military action in iran and? should we choose to do so mr. nephew? >> senator noah does not. >> mr. zarate deal great? >> i do. >> are you an agreement with what i understand to be the intelligence assessment that today before we enter into this agreement that iran is two to
three months away from breakout to build a nuclear weapon should they choose to do that. >> senator that's my understanding. >> i haven't seen the recent estimates but that's my general understanding based on what has been published. >> it's also my understanding again based on estimates that i have seen that should we enter into this agreement at the end of the tenured time. not that iran will he be between eight and 12 months away from building a nuclear weapon. is that your understanding? >> yes i'm sure that's my understanding. >> at center but at the end of the restrictions we can quickly shrink that timetable back. >> and they will be older shrink that timetable because they are to have an enrichment program and they have told or in the
process of building a plutonium program at the iraq site because of the work that they are doing right now not because of what they're going to be able to do over the next 10 year time period. is that your understanding? >> that is but it's also the case they are likely going to be able to accelerate the activities even the modernization particularly around the centrifuge program of enrichment. >> that's actually not my understanding based on the testimony from secretary moniz but mr. nephew? >> understanding is from years 10 to 15 the iranians are going to be constrained with respect to their restricted development activities as well as the uranium stock tile and furthermore the plutonium will be more closed down so my understanding is a severe 15 we are still going to be in that 68 month timeframe for the uranium breakout but we are going to be years away from a
plutonium-based bomb. >> and you agree with that? >> i was referring to uranium enrichment. >> i want to go back and see if i can understand, there has been some suggestion that one of the challenges with relying on the iaea is that the u.s. wouldn't have inspectors on the ground as part of the set to these. are there agreements that we have entered into where we have inspectors on the ground and can you describe those mr. nephew? >> i am aware of things for instance fired her arms control efforts with the soviet union who have inspectors from the united states come here and when it became russia obviously russia but there were constraints placed on the inspections because they are national security interests involved. in the iranian and perspective my understanding is they have concerns for americans around
their military sites and from my perspective there's reason to be concerned but i don't take it should imply we don't have access to information. the iaea will be asked to provide reports to the members of the p5+1 and they board of governors of which we are one. >> and with respect to activities in russia which since you gave that example and with respect to iran we will also continue to have an intelligence assessment of that activity going on. is that correct? >> absolutely. it will still be one of the most-watched targets in the intelligence community. >> i want to go now to the sanctions question because you all have testified and i think i have heard this at every hearing that i have been in that it's more likely that if we agree to the negotiated jcp o. a that
iran would most likely violate that in an incremental way weather than in the flagrant way. and therefore issue testified mr. nephew that the situational challenge will be how do we respond to that and happily how do we get the international community to go along with it in our response and so you both mentioned several other incremental options with respect to the sanctions and other disincentives that we could engage in with iran and i wonder if i could get you to talk a little bit more about that. mr. nephew do you want to start and then mr. zarate? >> i believe the base principles we still have the ability to impose sanctions with respect to it particular bad conduct. now the terms of the deal require as to go through this
review process doing gator ran on the terms of its violation if it's about the thought of place we may not wish to impose sanctions. instead there may be instructions imposed on iran as a result of that i wish in. >> like what? >> additional monitoring for instance. if the child was found out of place it may be because the monitoring system is not sufficient preview can tailor further the deal to make sure you don't have those problems in the future but overall if you have a violation upon violation and there are lots of little want to add up frank the than you can go down the path of iran is trying to systematically and to bind the deal which may push you in the direction of more aggressive sanctions response efforts. >> senator there are friday things you can do. you could impose different sanctions if the snapback had an element of tailored snapback as opposed to blunt snapback.
that's potentially one way of dealing with relatively minor immaterial infractions. i think the bigger question is going to be systematically how infractions are viewed. will they be viewed as iran really trying to cheat or to simply iran being iran pushing the envelope and i think that's going to be the biggest challenge because i think those who don't want the deal to fail and certainly may have commercial interests etc. mill make the assumption that these are forgivable offenses. those that are more suspicious of iran obviously will see these as just the tip of the iceberg are flexing what iran may or may not the doing covertly for example. so how those infractions are viewed actually in toto becomes important. >> of you are going to divide and can i continue? my time is about up. >> we need to let you go. >> if you are going to divide the p5+1 so the negotiators who
are party to this agreement would you put certain of them in one camp people who think iran is looking to violate the deal and people who think we want to give him some slack on these things and how would you divide that out and then what options would we have is we are looking at those partners in negotiations to try to bring them around to our point of view? >> well senator think i would say i think every party to the p5+1 once to see the deal work and i think they would treat any violation is being potential he serious one. if i'm the one hand if it's the valve issue we will react more seriously to that than russia with better real substantial significant violation of the deal would be as big a problem for the russians and the chinese as it would be for the tea t. five plus one. think ultimately will come down to the context of the violation and will we are suggesting in
response. if we are able to be proportional and reasonable and serious about how we are handling this the p5+1 will stay together. >> senator high of at different view in part because i think there's a question of how the nuclear program and iran is viewed in the context of the negotiation and everyone wants the deal to work but then there are other geopolitical factors that i think create gradations among the negotiating party in one of the gradations is how willing the parties are to allow sanctions to be used effectively is the way i would put it. i would put russia in a camp where they certainly do not want to see the effective use of sanctions wantonly and they certainly don't want to encourage the u.s. to use these powers effectively. i think that's a real challenge in terms of the sanctions framework. >> excuse me for interacting but on the other hand they have been
effectively working with the u.s. in terms of imposing those sanctions on iran. is that not the case? >> yes because they have had to. not only because of u.n. chapter 7 obligations but also market implications. assad and the rest of the regime by the u.s. government have really forced the choice. are you going to do business in the u.s. or are you going to do business in iran and this is where we should start to include russian and chinese actors. >> thank you both very much. >> thank you. are we good? i do want to say because of the chinese relations we did grant some significant flexibilities so to say that they have held firm to those would be a bit of an exaggeration because we granted them some flexibility and with russia maybe so. senator menendez. >> just a quick question and a
comment. if it's true that sanctions did not stop iran's nuclear program in his negotiated agreement it may delay it but it doesn't stop us so let's look at what standard we are trying to look at in terms of judging. i have a concern that people think of snap back as an instantaneous reality and yet in page six of your testimony talking about how we got to the point you say this approach took time, patience and coronation within the u.s. government with allies. it would not be a financial shock and all campaign using a series of coordinated steps to isolate the elements of the iranian economy starting with -- so my question is how instantaneous assuming we have all the laws in place which is still a big question for me, how instantaneous is snapback in
terms of its actual you have to give notice to the world that the company is right that you aren't violated state in a sanctioned space we use used to get people six-month notice of that. this idea that instantaneous, give me a sense of that. >> it's a great question because there are two answers. one is the mechanics. you're absolutely right the implementation of this not at would have legal and mechanical implications and you would have to allow for contracts to be around in investments to be rejiggered and moved etc. so the mechanics of that will take months potentially. the second part which is perhaps the most important is as we get further along in implementation of this deal and erosion of the sanctions architecture you begin to lose the ability to affect the marketplace and its risk aversion to doing business with iran so that would take even longer to reinstitute even
though the snapback would certainly help. i think that would depend on enforcement. it would depend on expansion of sanctions list. i would depend on a whole set of other measures. with the market understanding that iran is being not only punish towards violation but also being isolated from elements of the financial and commercial system that in some ways would be in violation of the current reading of the jcpoa which is in part why have this great concern but in any event those are the elements that do add delay to any snapback. >> senator i generally agree with it's not going to be how this works in you are right there's going to be some lined up. not to the sanctions but some of this is going to be in the dispute resolution process. i don't anticipate the due process is itself going to be a secret. i think there's going to be hopeless at a and certainly when
a security council consideration and consultation begins there's going to be attention paid to this. to my mind that is part of the warning time and the preparation time that banks and businesses are going to have to build into their snap back calculations. 30, 50, 60 or 80 days is a lot of time to start preparing for worse bonds to snap that. that doesn't mean on day 80 i think you are going to have zero economic activity but i don't think it's three months plus six months. if there's a six-month lineup. maxima that is in the process. the second i would make in reaction to juan's comment i think it's true over time the market is going to normalize the expectations of iran but i think it's going to be a longer time than we might have been time because their secondary sanctions are still in effect.
banks and companies are still going to have to be screened against the treasury department. they still have to do their due diligence and having to treat iran is different because otherwise -- the united states. >> might point is as we are calculating the sense of instantaneous list they are going to be months involved which means this whole break up trade will have an effect before you move the iranians into changing the course they are violating is a lot less so many take the totality of the consideration in the case of snapback you are talking about a limited window in the future. >> certainly between yourself and the two people at the table there's a vast amount of experience in how long it takes for these things take kick in no
question. i want to thank our witnesses for an outstanding hearing. we are going to leave the record open for questions to the close of business monday and hope that you would respond but we thank you both for your service to our country and important service. we thank you for being here today. again it's been an outstanding hearing. >> thank you mr. chairman. thank you for your leadership. >> we are adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
presidential candidate bernie sanders talks about the economy immigration and education. this event hosted by u.s. hispanic chamber of commerce was held at the museum in washington. [inaudible conversations] >> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. good afternoon ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the usa tc third presidential candidate q&a session. my name is javier and i'm the president and ceo of the united states has been a chamber of commerce. and i have the honor of representing 3.2 million hispanic owned firms in this country that collectively attribute over four and $86 billion in the american economy every year. we offset the gambia have 250-meter american corporations and we do this for our network
of over 200 local chambers and business associations nationwide and while the u.s. hcc represent the interest of businessmen and women who happen to be of hispanic descent we never forget that we are first and foremost american businesses and every tax bill we pay every job we create every department -- product manufactured every service we provide benefits are american economy. this event follows headlining stories concerning the involvement of presidential candidates with america's hispanic community. an association that represents millions of hispanic is the stoners we have an accountability to ensure that their voices are heard by each and every candidate. not only is business leaders but as taxpayers campaign donors and ultimately as voters. this q&a session is the third in a series.
already we have spoken to senator ted cruz and governor martin o'malley. this forum is meant to set the record straight on a wide array of issues that concern hispanic americans. so today we will be talking about a wide array of issues including the economy, small business international trade immigration and equal pay. frankly issues that affect all americans. so with that, i would like to welcome to the stage senator bernie sanders. [applause] [applause]
[audio difficulties] secretary clinton so the question is mr. senator rus they say -- and what do you plan to do to stay viable to win the nomination lack. >> hobby or let me begin by thanking you very much for inviting me. this is a wonderful turnout, thank you all very much. we went into this campaign as an underdog and not back if you and i were having a chat three and a half months ago and you asked me whether i was running i would have told you that i really did not know. my wife was not all that excited
about the idea and my wife is a very smart woman so we are kind of new into this game. i think it's fair to say secretary went on has been taking about this for a lot longer than i have and let me tell you some of the issues that we were struggling with when we were contemplating whether to get into this or not and it has everything to do with the answer to your question. number one did we have a message that would resonate with the american people and that message is after 40 years the middle class of america has been disappearing and all the wealthiest people and corporations are doing phenomenally well and do we need fundamental changes in the way we do economics and politics in america? i thought that message would resonate rate the next question we had to tackle was the result of this disastrous citizens united supreme court decision which in my view was one of the worst decisions ever rendered by the supreme court which says the wealthiest people in america you can buy elections. people will line up and they
will give you hundreds of millions of dollars. we knew we would he outspent but we thought we could raise enough money to run a campaign. it turns out that we were right. we have gotten over 300,000 individual contributions. do you know what the average? 35 bucks apiece. that is a different way to raise money than going to a super pac for millionaires put in a half a million or a million or $10 million. can we raise enough money to win? i think we can. the third issue is secretary clinton is very well-known and we would have to develop a strong grassroots movement and we are doing that. just last night we had 3500 organizational meetings in every state in this country. we believe over 100,000 people came out so to answer your question you are right, the numbers you gave are right but we have the momentum and early
states like new hampshire and iowa. we are doing significantly better than the national numbers so i am not guaranteeing a victory but i think we have a very good chance to win if we can develop that grassroots movement all over this country. >> congratulations. i have to say certainly the message appears to be resonating so congratulations on calling that one right. a follow-up question how would you respond to governor o'malley's recent surge to that of donald trump's as saying both of you are nothing more than a summer fling? >> i been doing what i do for many many years. and when you have 100,000 people attending meetings last night when you have rallies in which eight, 1,011,000 people come out, when you have a web site which is being inundated by hundreds of thousands of people who are responding to our
message that in this great country it is unacceptable that we have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any major western country on earth, that we are the only major country that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right. we are the only major country on earth that does not guarantee family and medical leave paid sick leave paid vacation time that the rich get richer and everyone else is getting poorer. these are issues that are resonating with the american people who very loudly and clearly are saying enough is enough. this economy and our political system are -- to a handful of billionaires. >> good response. onto the economy and small business. in a "washington post" article you stated and i quote, i would not deny it not for one second i'm a democratic socialist. one of the most distinguishing factors of your candidacy is
that you have very openly claimed to be a socialist and while the u.s. hcc stands for a strong free-market economy were entrepreneurs should be able to pursue their american dream with limited by the government regulation i find it very commendable to see that you are not shying away for a second vmr vmr -- from your beliefs. we respect that very much and what we respect most of any candidate is transparent inconsistency however is a business organization your views do concern me a bit. [laughter] so the question is bernie, how would be sanders economic platform translate into growth for american small businesses? >> a good question how they are. before i answer this important question that may back up and put it into context. before we decide that we go forward we have to know where we are today.
and sometimes we don't discuss that enough. where we are today is median family income in america's $5000 less almost $5000 less than it was in 1999. where we are today is that we have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on earth. where we are today is 45 million americans are living in poverty. where we are today hot br is a recent study came out and this is what is said about youth unemployment rate for all high school graduates between 17 and 202 are white real unemployment is 33% hispanic youth unemployment 36% african-american youth unemployment 51%. 35 million people have no health insurance. we have a childcare system which is a disaster. working families in most cases are not confident they can find affordable quality childcare.
those are some of the relatives of the american economy today. in my democratic socialist? i m.. what does that mean? you have the courage to look at countries around the world that are in fact doing things better than we are just as there are things we do that are better than what other countries do. smart people feel the best ideas available. we looked at cities all over america. what is san francisco doing it? what has austin doing it? what can we steal? from the business perspective how many of your small business people struggle every day in huge amounts of money on health care. i would think a small businessman would like to spend his or her time worrying about their business and how their the business is going to grow not figuring out talking to 87 different people as to how they are going to get affordable health care for their workers. is that a fair statement?
every other major western country has health care as a right. not only will that be of benefit to the people of this country, takes the burden off the small business. is that a good idea of? i think it is. we are the only major country that doesn't do that read what about family and medical leave? today in america are growing -- low-income on gives birth and she has to get back to work in five days. is that morally right? i don't think so. we are the only major country that does not provide family and medical leave. what about education? do you no one i know that this country does not grow unless we have a good education. there are hundreds of thousands of bright qualified young people in america today who desperately want to have a higher education and they can't get that education. do you know why? they can afford it. that's why i believe we should make public colleges and universities tuition free. it helps the business community
and it helps america. so when i talk about democratic socialism take a look what's going on in sweden. free college education free health care. i think it makes sense to look at countries that are doing good things for working families. we may have a disagreement on this, we may. [laughter] but let me be very frank when you have the most unequal level of income and wealth equality of any major western country when you have major corporations that are not talking about small as diseases, multibillion dollar corporations not paying a nickel in taxes i think that is wrong and i will do away with those loopholes. >> you know i did however want to hear from you in particular how would president sanders address the needs of minority-owned businesses and specifically hispanic owned businesses?
can you share a bit about that? >> yes. when real unemployment is as high as it is right now and i think we have got to invest in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure and i would introduce legislation that would spend a trillion dollars over a five-year. meant to create teen million jobs. i am not sure you are where the hispanic community is heavily involved in construction. i don't know the exact umber part of significant or senate of hispanic businesses are involved in construction. if we start rebuilding roads bridges wastewater plants this will make america stronger and more efficient and provide millions of jobs and would really be a significant boost for the hispanic community. that is one way we can play a role. >> thank you for your response. i'd like to chat about something we feel strongly about at the u.s. hcc and that's equal pay. as you know senator in this country women's wages continue to stubbornly lagged behind
men's even when doing the exact same job with women more or less earning 70 cents on the dollar and hispanic women more like 54 cents on the dollar. first of all why do you think that is and as president what will you do to adjust that disparity? >> i think it has to do with sexism. many of the businesses are owned by men. i think it is also part of an historical trend for 50 years ago, 40 years ago when men were maybe working for two hours a week and then they went home and take care of the kids. that reality has changed as you well know. we have a vast majority of working women. many of them have kids now entering the workforce. it's unacceptable. your statistics tell us that we are discriminating against women and i very much applaud your
organization. not every business organization does that but it's indefensible. i don't know how anyone can defend women make 78 cents whatever they number may be cents per hour compared to men so i strongly believe in two things when it comes to pay. one you may agree with me and when you may not. the first one i do agree with you and is strongly supported in the senate is we have to move toward pay equity for women workers and discussion. women deserve the same pay as men. where we might not be in the same pages i believe the federal minimum wage of $7.25 is totally inadequate so i'm supportive of the efforts of los angeles san francisco new york and seattle of raising minimum wage over period of a few years to $15 an hour. i've introduced legislation in the senate to fight for a 15-dollar man-to-man hour wage.
>> we are in the same page on both accounts. we are doing very well. [applause] maybe this isn't a summer fling. who knows? >> as you know we are being fought vigorously by many business groups who did not want to pay minimum wage and i applaud you in the organization for having the courage to say the book cannot survive on $7.25 or $8. >> if you look at the track record of our business owners 3.2 million collectively can shape it 7.6 million to the economy. if you look at their employee base vastly they are paying much more than minimum wage to their own employees. >> i'm going to give you some applause for that. [applause] >> we were doing very well the
let's go to trade. [laughter] >> i have got to go. >> as issue the u.s. agency has worked on for the past several months and we don't always agree with the administration to the other but we have agreed on this we have worked very hard on the menstruations trade agenda so i want to ask you in light of the fact that 90% of u.s. businesses that do actually export or small businesses we believe that access to more markets abroad is frankly a good thing for the out of print or as we more than 95% of global market a outside the united states. the question is can you tell us a little bit about your concerns with the transpacific partnership as it stands today? >> javier please understand we don't put a wall around america. the question is what final trade
you can move you can pay people lower wages and move back to america. i believe that is exactly what happened. 2001 we lost almost 50000 factories in america. second of all we are in a race to the bottom so company state workers will if you take a pay cut will go to china because we have the opportunity in china. frankly i do not believe workers should have to compete against workers across the world. i don't want to go on too long the t pp has conditions which i do not.
i would like a trade agreement which works for the middle-class and working families of this country as well as, people around the world and not just the ceos of large corporations. >> would you classify yourself. >> nope i am anti- of trade agreements. i am anti- trade agreement for jobs being lost in america. let's be clear we have lost billions of jobs as a result of these traits, i am against that. i believe can establish trade policy that work for small businesses and work for people of other countries and that is not behind the trade agreements i have seen in the past years. >> on one of your favorites
financial institution they work very closely with financial institutions in this country because they provide billions of dollars every year, through virginia loans, loans, they are a reliable source and of ready source however when it comes to large institutions you have a similar position to governor o'malley's by rants dating the witch glass table act which would break up some of the largest banks can you explain to us and my numbers while we should be supportive of your stance on financials. >> here's where we are and it's been my view for a long time. we have six of the largest
financial institutions who have access of about $10 trillion which is equivalent to about 60% of the gdp in the united states. you have a handful of huge financial institutions that have enormous economic clout. they issue a significant amount of mortgages in this country and credit cards in this country. so the first issue is do we think it is a good idea for a handful of financial institutions to have that much economic clout? i think not. i think of teddy roosevelt were alive today he would come in here today and say they're too deep in there too powerful. second everyone understands what happen in 2008, let's be very clear in my view, to a
significant degree the business model of wall street is not to give money out to small businesses i believe people put money into banks, banks lend out money to businesses to create jobs and buy homes that's called old-fashioned boring banking. that's what i believe in. what wall street has done is create a business model that says we really don't care about small and medium-size businesses we care about bn and i went on to our self. coming up with the biggest tools imaginable to make huge amounts of money in a highly dangerous equitable activities. and i created the worst economic downtime i personally believe
that the business model for wall street is bad. i don't trust him, i don't believe that they care about the economy of america i believe they care about themselves. i want a small medium in size banking so your people can walk in and people know who you are i know your history, you're going to get a reasonable size loan. i do not want to have people as an island unto themselves. so i believe very much, number one if you check my record you'll find that when i was in the house i was a member of the house finance committee we had the clinton people, we had the republic support, remember what they said. it's a great idea if we merge investment banks with commercial banks, it will be great for us. i never believed it for one
second. so in my mind what we have to do is reestablish we've had to grade them up. they need access to affordable loans. [applause]. >> i want to clarify i know that when you say your people, you mean american small business. >> right, that's a huge issue. >> were going to get to that in a second. but talk about energy and climate change. i think this wiki challenge secretary clinton saying and i quote it's hard for me to understand how one can be concerned about climate change but not vigorously opposed to the pipeline. so the question is what is your
plan to strike a balance between facilitating business growth, promoting energy, while at the same time protecting the impairment? >> let me reverse the order that question. i believe what pope francis said recently i've i believe that climate change is the greatest environmental crisis that we face. we have a responsibility to leave this planet to our kids and grandkids a better place in the question is how do we do that? the way you do that is to have the united states of america lead the world, we can't do it alone it's a global problem.
working with countries all over the world and transforming the energy system into energy efficiency and sustainable technology. the debate is over, it is loud and clear that climate change is loud and clear. so how do we go forward. president obama has made some good initiatives but if were number two how do you do that? one of the ways in terms of energy efficiency in terms of climate change our rail system.
we can take an enormous amount of trucks off the road by having a modern rail system. we need to be weatherizing homes all over this country we are seeing huge growth in solar despite opposition in congress. we need to subsidized by tax credit sustainable energy. to my mind, saving this planet for kids and grandkids is a huge priority. i would invest very heavily in transforming our energy system. >> i would argue the point but since you brought in on your side of the issue onto race relations. let's talk about this, first i want to commend you for your long-standing track record proven track record on promoting
civil rights for decades. and like you the u.s. agency believes in fair treatment and inclusion of all communities. with that said, given the recent protests that trance fired at the convention as well as the criticism received by her response from those protests can you talk to us about the persistent problem in america as president how would you address the racial tensions spent? >> there's no question about it anybody thinks that african-americans were not beaten and killed when under lease custody for decades you
would be mistaken. the difference now is a lot of that activity and actions are being recorded on cell phones. the whole world is seeing what they have not seen before. i think we have made progress in terms of race relations in this country. we should be proud of having an african-american as president. anyone who does not believe that try to gently racism is alive and well in america, that we don't have hundreds of hate groups whose function in life is to pit white people against whites, hispanics, jews, he would be mistaken, that tragedy exists. so what we do about it? it what we do a bout it among all get their things is make sure we have very significant reform in america. what that means is not only do
we have cameras but we also have a new regiment, force is used too much. some people here saw the sandra bland video. frankly if that was a white woman nobody believes that that would happen yanked out of the car for no reason, thrown in jail that three days later. the crime was a failed to make a signal on her turn. you don't get get thrown in jail for failing to signal. so what we need to do is take a hard look at minimum sentencing right now. we have far too many people in jail for nonviolent offensive. we have more people in jail than other countries on earth. we have to take a hard hard look at the use of force, that police department's now utilize i
think we need to take a very hard look at some of our drug laws. too many people are being arrested and sent to jail for nonviolent offenses and we need to take a hard look at that. at the end of the day we need to continue the struggle to become a nondiscriminatory society where people like martin luther junior has taught us that people are judged by who they are not by the color of their skin. we need a justice department that is vigorous fighting discrimination fighting police department's were doing improper things to minorities and there's a tremendous amount of work to do in that. >> so i you think racism is alive and well in america? do you think people running for presidency might be a bit racist? >> one would hope, you're never
reach out to working-class low-income family and give them dignity, give them jobs. i think many hispanic families will respond to that. second there is another issue we have an economic where all working america and given the fact that a disproportionate number of disproportionate african-americans ours struggling. >> i don't want to put words in your mouth and if i captured the essence of the response, you would solve social issues and challenges through economic solutions. >> that's an important way one cannot turn one's back on the
fact that 36% of hispanic are unemployed. millions of hispanics don't have health insurance or can afford it. those those are issues that have to be dealt with. that goes without saying, i would have a department of justice which would be vigorous at all levels in our society. >> some candidates have been accused of what i call his spandrel rain, specifically due have a track record regarding issues that you think are important to the hispanic community? >> i'll give you an example of something, i have to be honest and tell you i come from a state that is 95% white i'm very proud to represent the beautiful state on. we like all of you to come on up. i'll tell you story in 2007 i
learned of a horrific situation in markley florida were turns out most of the tomatoes that are used at mcdonald's and burger king i went to this place and undocumented tomato workers because they are undocumented they had no legal rights, incidentally on the day i was there a local contractor there was charged with slavery. slavery! in the year 2007. he was holding workers involuntarily and forcing them to work. that that is how bad the situation was.
people were getting low wages, i went to homes there terrible, overcrowded working conditions were terrible. we held a hearing on my committee health education of labor which was chaired by the late ted kennedy, a good friend of mine. the impact of that was to improve wages of those workers. i didn't have to do that. i did it because it was the right thing to do because when on documented workers to get exploited it's not only they who suffer but it's every worker in america. [applause]. >> you happen to be talking to in english as a second language
immigrant i appreciate you doing that thank you. so on team aggression. onto immigration. we think it's critical for the well-being of our economy so the question is, how do you propose we harness the power of immigrants for our economy to continue to be the best economy in the world? >> first start economically and morally, it is on acceptable we have millions of workers living in the shadows. by the way i am also the son of an immigrant, my dad came from poland without any money at all. here's a story i was just in louisiana new orleans at the
end of my remarks the young latino lady came up to me with tears in her eyes since she scared to death every day that she or members of her family will be deployed. so you have the moral issue of people in this country being on documented, some people think the solution is to round up everybody and throw them out of the country. if anyone is thinking of those ideas it is ugly beyond belief. what we need to do is provide immigration reform and a path toward citizenship. that's not not only the right thing to do for those people but to your point economically it is the right put thing to do.
when people working are undocumented they have no rights, it impacts the whole economy to the tune of many, many billions of dollars. but it's be clear the first point is if suddenly every on documented worker leaves the economy what collapse. construction second the second area is people talk about illegal immigrants but there is such a thing as illegal employers as well. people do not come over the border and get jobs without the full expectation the employee understands exactly what is going on and pay them under the table. i find it very interesting that politicians ignore that. dear point the economy become stronger when people have legal
status, when people don't have to worry about being picked up and the economy become stronger when people are part of our workforce earning decent wages. i believe as quickly as possible that we should provide legal status that we should put families together not separate them, i applaud president obama's actions. executive actions, we certainly in the long run need to demand that the republicans in congress passed immigration reform. >> i like to ask a quick follow-up, recently you criticize a portion of the gang of it they bill to want to on a portion of the bill you do not
agree. >> when we talk about is the way i look at it i see two issues. i see the absolute need to provide legal status and protection to the on deck many people in this country. on a path to citizenship i would go i would go fast on that issue. there is a reason that wall street and all of corporate america likes immigration reform. it is not in my view that they're staying up late worrying about undocumented workers. i think they are interested in seeing a process to which we can bring low-wage labor of all levels into this country to
depress wages in america, i strongly disagree with that. i mentioned to you i frankly do not believe that we should be bringing in significant numbers of unskilled workers to compete. i want to see these kids get jobs, as part of an immigration bill by the way, i managed to get 1,000,000,000 1/2 dollar program for youth in this country to get jobs. so that is my view on that. h1 d i think in some cases there may be a specialty they can't find work, on the other hand i talked to too many people in the high-tech industry who
are saying there are hundreds of people in this country who would like to do that work, but the corporations are doing is going outside the country so they can pay people from russia, eastern europe lower wages than what they can pay american people. so a company needs to do in my mind as to say look we've looked all over california and new york and we can't find any engineers any tech people so will go out of the country. will fine but first you need to go through an exhaustive search that people in this country are being employed. >> so in your view you think these high-tech conglomerates want to bring immigrant labor in so they can depress wages wouldn't you think it's more of
a training and education issue that young people or people who are unemployed today don't have the skill sets, isn't this more a training and education issue than it is a more in cap on h1 d. >> we agree that we are doing a job educating young people for certain types of jobs. there are highly skilled good paying jobs that our educational system has not enabled young americans to get. that's true and i accept that. on the other hand, there are corporations who bring people from other countries into america for lower wages. >> let's move on, mr. senator is
there one differentiating the issue on your platform that you think, truly distinguishes you and gives you the best chance to connect with voters in this country? >> if you check my record and i urge you to do so, throughout my political life when i was mayor and a member of congress, i have taken on virtually every powerful special interest in this country. i've taken on the private health insurance companies i've taken on the pharmaceutical industry, and people to purchase medicine where you have huge cost
overruns. i think at this particular moment in american history there so few who have so much wealth and power that if were going to expand the middle class rather than see a shrink, if are going to make sure that all kids in the country get a good education or get a higher education regardless of income, if were going to provide healthcare expand the medical to all people. if are going to create the kind of nation that it allow all of our people to have a decent standard of living we need leadership now that is prepared to take on billionaires. what you have right now in my view, and not everybody agrees with me but in my view you have
>> is 53 percent of the american people will have the changes in this country. as a follow-up to that, hypothetically let's say that you continue to gain momentum in the coming months on the heels of hillary, but still fall short of the nomination. do you feel that you owe it to to your supporters who feel very strongly about you [applause]
if they could call upon you would you run as the independent? >> i was contemplating what to do a lot of people say you were not independent republican is extreme right-wing to cozier up with big money. i thought about it for a lot of reasons for this particular reason to run the effective campaign and that is what we're doing. so i made the comment that
there is a reason for that. so that a republican and will not be president of united states. [applause] >> senator, thanks again for spending time with us today. you have compared the shortcomings and the issues like public health care and education like denmark or norway or sweden to come up short on just about every french. to put things in a different context according to our information ohio's economy at 575 billion is slightly larger than norway. north carolina 500 billion
is slightly larger than denmark and in indiana is slightly larger as well. with 17 and a half trillion. then it would roll around like a coconut and a real car. is a fair to compare our nation in gdp like a nation like norway? of norway and sweden but is that a fair comparison? >> that is a fair question. far more diverse. but is not a question of the size of the gdp.
but to answer your question with sweden or denmark to talk about the vision if we have the political will we could have family and medical leave and we can also have a much fairer tax system with a lot less in income inequality than we have right now. >>. >> any questions? >> with putting people back to work does that come at the expense of the new plan
while at the same time that we are effectively combating that. >> i will quote you that to strengthen our borders to not allow people that is long overdue and absolutely right. why did you say that back now ben now you don't? >> with the recent bill does is the concern of what we discussed a few moments ago
voted against nafta for a number of reasons. if you look at the impact nafta has had it is massive dislocation to draw though workers off of those farms second, when i see how aggressive obviously latin america is our neighbor to the degree we have been reaching out with the president's initiative but
there are two significant degrees and we work with them in intelligent ways i don't have to tell anybody in this room with the violence and mob rule something united states has to pay attention to. i voted against the war in iraq i think that was the right to vote much of what i feared would happen did happen with the destabilization. >> with that pro immigration reform 40 on entreprenuers
with the headline that you are wrong that your statements are troubling as an obstacle to a tackle unemployment we think democrats can take jobs from americans? >> what their talk about is complete the opening up the border. so do we have a completely open borders so anybody can come? if that were to happen which strongly disagree, no question in my mind but with 36 percent of hispanic cubans who cannot find jobs what happens to them?
fifty-one% of the african-american kids there is no candidate that thinks we should open the border without having a negative impact but how do we address the problem in this country today we move aggressively for the path of citizenship we provide protection for the borders of america is there any chance? i don't think so. >> the "huffington post". >> now even more with open borders to believe that the economists are wrong but they can improve the economy
to think of illegal immigration should be restricted? >> the answer to that is an open border. but that is one of the virtues with their own particular set of skills and idea something to be very proud but to say that we welcome immigrants for those that are in the country today. >> we agree on one more thing.
>> added said huge part of what makes the country great >> faq for all of the work of your organization and also for being here today. you hit the nail on the head we are a great country my rice family came from ireland that is extraordinary. which makes this a very unique country so dealing with income and wealth inequality i have absolute
confidence to stand together to not let them divide us because your family came from mexico or my family came from poland but if we prevent them from dividing us up to say all of our kids and deserve the right to go to college regardless of income. know we will that have a campaign finance system but if you stand together there will allow them to divide up thank you so much. i enjoyed being here.
to exercise and then to deal with this september we did a trade if we are unable to get the planned parenthood photon monday that we will go after cybersecurity to see if we can achieve something additional for the august recess. >> they voted to support the lot. >> i have no longstanding opposition to planned parenthood frequently in the
legislative process you cannot entirely dictate every aspect. >> [inaudible] >> i just said we will try to move to the bill on monday. we have not even begun to talk about the continuing resolution yet. we will discuss how to fund the government but for the moment we are trying to move bills that have bipartisan support. >> within a couple weeks of each other the highway bill. >> on the highway bill hopefully that will not pile
up a plan to do better the september but you get a result is unfortunate to be taking up a single appropriation bill that is designed to force some discussion on how to find a the government which is unfortunate because for the first time in six years actually is marked up and reported out the appropriation bill so senate republicans are ready to have a normal appropriation process but that was prevented and democrats made it clear that they would not take that up. >> [inaudible] >> we're not talking about that today. read a comeback after august
we will press forward to get the government-funded. >> as the senate voted to reauthorize on this bill is that part of the conference report? >> first behalf to have a conference and as i indicated, and the house will pass a multi-year to go to the conference to see what that produces. >> [inaudible] >> actually i think we had quite a good week here in the senate. thanks a lot.
suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. scott: thank you mr. president. before i start my prepared remarks, i did want to note >> before i start my prayer remarks i want to note that today would have been the first day of the reverend the pastor of the manual nine of charleston south carolina there was of a good opportunity to share that we thank god for the family in the amazing role that they played in this country with issues going forward to keep in mind civility and the grace and capacity the way
we tackle issues with such an important degree ingredient that i hope we discuss other challenging issues we can remember that civility and that notion that we are better together that should be in the public forum as we discuss issues as a nation. today i would like to offer a solution that our hard to find at times but today i think i have found a solution for officers and our citizens to go home safely. that solution, mr. president our body warren cameras worn by law-enforcement officers throughout the country just yesterday in cincinnati and
fortunately we were given another example of how important body cameras are when worn by law enforcement officers. those of us to view the video watched in disbelief as the officer shot the driver in the head. difficult. difficult. official said with their investigation after being shot from the university -- of the cincinnati police officer that footage was invaluable. the police chief without any question allow them to come to the conclusion to rest the officer it was
undeniable. unfortunately we have seen too many incidents around the country. i struggle with this issue sometimes mr. president, because i have so many good friends or officers that some of -- serve the public every single day with honor and dignity. an amazing distinction. dies and young ladies who put on that uniform with pride and i see that as i walked through the neighborhood and talk to people. so many serve the nation and serve their community so well. to keep all of us safer but sometimes and it too often we have seen recently, said
the videos that we have to take a deeper look. our citizens deserve that and deserved for us to take a deeper look and i think without any question, a body camera will protect the public but also the officer and that is why i am here today. mr. president they say a picture is worth a thousand words. and a video is worth 1,000 pictures. one more time if a picture is worth 1,000 words, a video is worth 1,000 pictures.
and i believe strongly an important piece of the puzzle to help rebuild trust with law-enforcement officers and the communities they serve are the body warda cameras. i don't know that there is a single solution. i have looked but i don't know. there is not a panacea. but there are many critical steps we must take on issues confronting communities and challenges whether poverty or reform or as we have seen , instances we have seen amazing studies that have
confirmed there is a 90% drop in complaints against officers. that is an astounding number. 90% drop in the complaints? a 60% drop in the use of force by officers. so look on every side of the issue there is not the black side or a white side. but there is a right side and a wrong side and if you can be in a position where the officers go home at night to a loving family family, and citizens of the community go home at night
to loving families and warm embraces, if they had the body board camera it will happen every day some plays in our country. how can we not figure out the best way to be into the hands of our police officers? this does not touch on the fact the unfortunate video april 4th. charleston is south carolina of walter scott. it helps bring clarity to iran incredibly painful
situation. and after months of meetings with dozens of civil rights groups, police, and others others, yesterday i introduced this safe officers say fit -- citizens act of 2015. it is to provide it -- local and state law-enforcement agencies with the resources to equip their officers with body warrant carries. fully paid for re dedicated grant program. fully paid for. to help local law enforcement agencies purchase body carries. i am very opposed that we should penalize local law
enforcement in any way or shape or form. state law enforcement should be in charge of the state's but give them the tools and resources to make sure the situation i described is positive. members of the community as they have an interaction if there is a solution or an opportunity to see that happen more often, but provide $100 million over the next five fiscal years. it just requires the simple 25 percent match and certainly suggest those who apply for the grants will
have the policies in place regarding data retention and privacy requirements and other areas because i believe local and state departments can determine their own procedures for those localities around the country. i believe this is the best way that we can help. we can provide that seed capital, the resources to start that conversation about how many lives have been saved. how many folks get to go home.
also adjust to other points mr. president, i had the privilege of speaking to this sun of my mentor to help to change my life and i've spoken his graduation two years ago july 18 a couple years ago an amazing man so when i think about the reality of the words, i think about it of real people and real places. those who want to serve the country but also in real terms than real people who suffered through.
the co-sponsors and cory booker from new jersey to make sure we start the conversation with senator grassley on this important topic. i would ask for the words of mrs. judy scotch the mother who lost her son. i had a chance to speak to her on a number of occasions teaching me the power of forgiveness but at her request was simply no more
mothers would have to unnecessarily bury their sons. that is a pretty simple request mr. president. help us achieve that goal. that this legislation with law enforcement officers to provide resources without taking over law-enforcement. i believe the sooner we get there the better off our nation will be.
>> he did not start off as a private the english sea captain the was trusted by both the shipowners with that beautiful sailing ship from jamaica known as the weakest city on earth bringing in the sugars and the dyes but that one day joseph banister stole his own ship been recruited day pyrite crew and turned into a pie rich. -- pirate
last monday and at that moment iran sondos letter refuting the ability to use snap backs. the same letter outlines that extension of current sanctions would be in violation of the agreement. i know we had exchanged the other day where was asked if we had sanctions that are rolling off in 2016 and we just extended those of you would be something to snap back to. i know senator menendez has made a strong point about this. that itself would be in violation and iran would