tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN May 26, 2016 3:00pm-5:01pm EDT
matter of course. we face water restrictions in west texas because of the drought. we ask people to turn their faucets off while they brush their teeth. that became a habit. and water reuse has dropped. didn't change anybody's lives but it helped a little bit of time every single day we went on. we announced it at 1:30 in this space we'll have the food waste fair while we have booths manned by a lot of folks coming around to show the good work that's been going on and to begin to highlight that. i do think their role for public service announcements to help other people become more cognizant of it and sensitive to the fact we don't throw things away. one of those other sayings from my early youth, and i'm haunted by is my mother used to say you need to be a member of the clean plate club. well, that had mixed messages. but it's because today i eat too much and i'm overweight. as a child my mother wasn't interested in wasting food. there are all these kinds of things that we can be better at
and i'm encouraged by that. thank all six of you for coming here today, sharing. miss gunders, i think you get the prize for coming the furthest, from san francisco. but we do appreciate all the work that you do. it is collaborative work, and there's only winners in this deal. and this is something we should be able to get our arms around as we move forward. again, i thank our witnesses for being here today. under the rules of the committee the record of today's hearing will remain open for ten calendar days to receive additional materials, supplemented written responses from the witnesses to any questions posed by a number. this hearing of the committee of agriculture is adjourned. thank you. [ room noise ]
7th, and the presidential candidates are holding rallies throughout the state. at 4:00 p.m. eastern, bernie sanders will be in ventura, california. we'll have live covering. c-span will have live coverage of hillary clinton's rally. tomorrow c-span will have live coverage of donald trump's rally in san diego. the associated press reports republican presidential candidate donald trump has the number of delegates needed to lock down the republican nomination. the news organization contacted unbound delegates, and enough say they'll support mr. trump to push him over the 1,237 delegates needed to avoid a contested convention in cleveland in july.
madam secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states. ♪ ♪ this memorial day weekend on american history tv on c-span3, saturday evening at 6:00 eastern on the civil war. >> sherman could not have agreed more. by the time he captured atlanta in 1864, his thoughts on the matter had fully matured. once again a rebel army had been
defeated and another major city had fallen and still the confederates would not give up. rather than continue the futile wo war against people, he would now wage war against property. >> todd gross on general sherman, arguing that sherman's march was hard war rather than total war and his targets carefully selected to diminish southern resolve. take a tour with senate majority leader mitch mcconnell, viewing some of the oldest rooms in the capital like his private office. >> i had the good fortune to actually be here on august 28th, 1963, when martin luther king made the "i have a dream" speech. i confess, i couldn't hear a word, i was down here on this end of the mall, he was at the lincoln memorial. you knew you were in the
preference something really significant. >> at 8:00, on the presidency, former aides to lyndon johnson and richard nixon talk about the role of the presidents during the vietnam era. >> lbj anguished about that war every single day. and that is not an overstatement. the daily body counts, the calls either to or from the situation room often at 2 or 3:00 in the morning to see if the carrier pilots had returned. >> historian h.w. brand is joined by former lbj aide tom johnson and former nixon aide alexander butterfield to explore the presidents' foreign policies during the conflict, during our five-part series on the 1975 church committee hearings convened to investigate the intelligence activities of the cia, irs, nsa, with colby,
adams, allen, fbi informants and others. >> we are here to review the major findings of our full investigation of fbi intelligence including the co-intel program and other programs aimed at domestic targets. fbi surveillance of law abiding citizens and groups, political abuses of fbi intelligence, and several specific cases of unjustified intelligence operations. >> for the complete american history tv weekend schedule, go to c-span.org. british house of commons leader and conservative party member chris grayling delivered remarks on capitol hill, urging the uk to exit from the european union. he discussed the challenges of the eurozone, trade agreements, intelligence sharing, and the future of the conservative party. the united kingdom will hold an in or out referendum on june 23rd to decide whether to remain
a member of the eu. this is about 45 minutes. i want to welcome everyone to the gold room here in the u.s. capitol complex. it is an honor and a privilege to introduce christopher grayling, leader of the house of commons, here in the gold room of the u.s. capitol complex. chris will talk about brexit, britain, and the united states. brexit, if anyone does not know by now, refers to britain leaving the european union. chris has been a member of the british parliament since 2001 where he's held a number of senior positions both in government and opposition. he was educated at cambridge, and the same college as oliver cromwell, for those english
history buffs and is satisfied cromwell's skull is buried somewhere at chris' old college. in america, we call that real history. there's been a lot of hot rhetoric about brexit from the white house and i'm happy that chris is hear to explain what brexit could mean to the united states. it's also appropriate that chris delivered a brexit address on his trip to america in the united states congress. why? because it was an older congress, the second continental congress, that had its own vote for independence and adopted declaration of independence. a vote for brexit would be a british declaration of independence from the european union. although i cannot predict with any certainty the outcome of the
brexit referendum next month, i know for certain that the special relationship between the united kingdom and the united states will endure regardless of what the outcome is. i wish to introduce my friend, chris. [ applause ] >> thank you, george. ladies and gentlemen, it's a privilege and an honor to address you tonight here on capitol hill. what is a crucial time for my country, actually for both of our countries, and it's a time when a fierce debate is raging about the uk's future. i express my thanks to heritage and george holding for making tonight's event possible. now, i'd like to get to a bit of alternative history. i want to start by asking you to imagine a cold february evening, perhaps new hampshire, back in 2008, a young presidential hopeful, maybe a new senator
from illinois, turning up in front of a crowd of potential supporters on a campaign visit. and i want you to imagine him making a powerful speech advocating change for the united states. it's a tough and complex world, he might have told those supporters. no one country can stand alone. we have to face up to challenges together. of course, we are a proud, independent nation, but there's so much more we could achieve. there is a better way for the future. this, he might have told that crowd, is my vision for the future. we would be better off as part of an american union of nations working together to secure a stronger future for our continent. i want that union to bring together all of the nations of north and south america, it should have its on parliament
and the institutions needed to support it. now that parliament should be in a neutral location. what about panama city? a place on the cusp of the two halves of the americas. we should give that parliament the power to make the majority of our laws. and it's right, you know, we should have common rule in areas like the way our workplaces operate, the rules that govern our transport system the way we manage agriculture and fisheries, the way we regulate our banks, the way we operate our sales taxes, the way we manage aviation. all of these things would be better done by an international organization rather than by us here in the united states. oh, we should allow other countries to add voters and decide what happens here in the united states, even if we disagree with them. and you know we should have a supreme court of the americas, perhaps in mexico city, to
outrank the u.s.' own supreme court and take decisions that will be mandatory in the united states. we should even consider having an army of the americas and do away with antiquated ideas like the united states having its own military. and to achieve this dream, he would have argued, we have to give every citizen of the americas the right to live and work wherever he or she chooses across the whole of north and south america. why shouldn't every mexican have the freedom to move to new york city if they choose? they should be no restrictions on movement at all. so, if the young barack obama had turned up in new hampshire in 2008 and made that speech, exactly how many votes do you think he would have got? not a lot, i suspect. suggesting that the united states
should be part of an organization does not seem to be an obvious way to gain a presidential platform in this country. but, ladies and gentlemen, that is exactly where the united kingdom finds itself today. we have joined such an organization. it began as an economic partnership, designed to facilitate cross border trade, much the same way the nafta does here. but it has become something very different. it isn't yet a united states of europe, though i will explain, it is on that path, but it is closer and closer to becoming a single government for europe and indeed many key players have that as a clear goal. given the issues that the eurozone faces, it is inevitable that it will reach the point of becoming a full federation. now, from the perspective of the united states of america, equivalent body on the other side of the atlantic might seem
theoretically attractive. people here in washington describe europe in a way that suggests it is seen as a single entity. i really want to disabuse you of that. the united states and the european union may be comparable in terms of size but they are very different. it is much more realistic to think of the comparison between different parts of the european union, in terms of the comparison between the united states of america and bolivia rather than the comparison between nevada and maryland, we're talking about different countries, different histories and languages, different cultures, different economies, huge gulfs between them. it is those gulfs in a continent that has tried to pretend that they do not exist, that have brought the eurozone to the point of collapse and led to social breakdown in many parts
of the european union. greece has been the worst example. but there are others, too, youth unemployment in spain is near 50%. so i want to tell you a little bit what i think has gone wrong and about why the united kingdom should not be part of what comes next. and also, why it is in the interest of the united states to stay outside the argument. the seminal moment for the european union came, in my view, 17 years ago with the creation of the single currency. the countries that joined the euro created the economic equivalent of the san andreas fault. they tried to create a single economy in a geographic area, where there was no single government, no common culture, no commonality of performance and where traditional escape valves when things go wrong, it underperforming nations, simply disappeared. so the countries in southern
europe ran up massive deficits, living the life of royal at this off the back of a strong currency where the drag drachma and lira should have fallen on the exchange markets forcing countries back to a degree of rectitude. but the greeks retire at 55, ten years earlier than anyone else, and they hope that somebody else would come along and pay the bill. you know what? someone else did come along and pay the bill, the germans, european central bank, imf stepped in to prevent a collapse. about you you can't carry on doing that. in a single currency area, if things look doubtful, the wealthy transfer all of that money to safe havens in places like frankfurt, run on local banks brings them down. the resulting collapse affects everyone. no rescue is not an option. but it's hardly an acceptable option to the citizens of the countries that have to do the bailout. of course, that is where the eurozone finds itself now, and
it can't carry on that way. this way, they've managed to stabilize things once but it is hard to see how they could withstand another major shock. but there's no easy solution, either. you can't just kick a country out of the eurozone without creating a massive collapse either. if greece had been forced out of the euro, it would have been left with a devalued currency, unable to afford to pay its euro denominated debts, defaulted, and left massive losses across the continent. and then, the pressure would have built up in other countries, and the contagion would have spread. it would spread again if and when all of this happens once again. so, the inevitable future is starting to take shape. as my former uk government colleague william hague, former foreign minister said once, the euro is like a burning building with no exits. they have no choice but to make
it work. no choice at all. there had to be a bailout, of course, but the rules have to change. you wouldn't have tolerated a situation where the u.s. bailed out argentina and had absolutely no control over argentinean policy after the bailout. you wouldn't do it in the united states. who on earth thinks countries in northern europe would agree to things going back the way they were before? and that leads them down a single inevitable path. it means political union. there is no other way. there has to be a single government for the eurozone. there has to be a united states of the eurozone. the plans are already taking shape. angela merkel, the italian finance minister, french president, hollande, the presidents of the big eu institutions have all called for political union.
it means according to president hollande a eurozone parliament, a common budget, and a common cabinet. inevitably, it means giving up independent nation status. that is the decision they took back in 1999, when they created the euro. in european terms, it really does mean finishing off our equivalence of the fictitious american union, not just with a parliament in panama city but with a single government for all the americas there as well. europe has no choice but to make its version of fiction a reality. and they're getting ready. they're beginning preparations now. a whole new raft of european legislation to harmonize a new range of powers held by member states awaits us the other side of our referendum in june.
this is a tidal wave of more europe ahead of us. so where does that leave the united kingdom? we didn't join the eurozone in 1999. and only 19 of the 28 member nations of the eu have so far adopted the euro. only two nations, us and denmark, are not committed by treaty to do so and the rest recommitted to joining euro two months ago in brussels in the agreement that david cameron reached with other leaders. it's true we don't need to join the euro. we don't need to join the passport-free area of europe that's caused so many debates during the refugee crisis. we can opt out of some justice and home affairs measures. but the deal that our prime minister did in brussels in february cemented those opt-outs it gave us a few extra protections against being sucked into a european super state but didn't change things. the eu will still make laws for us in the same way.
we can still be outvoted on almost anything and we are regularly. the european court of justice will still act as our supreme court. all of those same areas of our laws will be made in brussels. for example, it's the job of brussels to decide on the working conditions in our factories and our offices. to decide on the environmental rules that can hold back the development of new housing estates. to set the standards for our transportation system as we travel to work. to decide who can be defined as the asylum seeker. whether we levy a tax on tampons as a luxury product, believe it or not, that's a true one. how our farmers work the land. the rules that govern our oil industry in the north sea. how cancer research is conducted. laws on consumer protection.
how powerful our vacuum cleaners are allowed to be, another true one. the rules on fishing in our waters. the aid that we can provide to struggling industries like steel. the hours that doctors work. and i could carry on giving you examples half of the evening. it is a process that continues year after year after year. now the way it works is this, the european union is governed under two documents, the list lisbon streety and the charter of fundamental rights, both vaguely worded documents that vagueness gives freedom to those in the european institutions who seek broad you are powers to the european union to mission creep, in brussels, which take control of more and more new areas of activity. the one that irritated me recently was when, you'll see the stories of two heroic americans who wrestled a terrorist to the ground on a train in the netherlands.
the first reaction of the institutions in brussels was to say, security on our trains is a major problem. we must take control of it in brussels and not leave to governments. that is the mentality of brussels. unless the member countries of the eurozone move to unify more and more of the way they govern themselves many changes will be applied to the uk as well because we're already subject to eu-wide legislation in those areas. so, for example, if the eurozone, as they integrate more closely, take a decision about how to operate their banks, britain and the city of london are affected by the same rule changes and we can do nothing about it. as the eurozone federates and eu becomes a single bloc with a single government, what does happen to that bit stuck on the edge? the united kingdom? we will have little ability to defend our national interest, we will be outvoted all the time but more and more, our law
making will be sucked into brussels. we will be of marginal importance politically, we'll still foot a large slice of the bill, but we will be outvoted again and again. the united states, our friends and allies, would never ever, ever accept that here. why should it expect its closest allies to do so? that is why we must leave. but where does it leave the united states and our mutual friendship? no two countries have worked more closely together over the years to secure peace, democracy, prosperity wherever we can than the united states and the united kingdom. some of the great international partnerships have been between the leaders of our two countries, roosevelt and churchill, truman and atley, thatcher and reagan, leaders who
worked together to shape the world in which we live. we stood side by side in two world wars, in korea, in kuwait, in iraq, in afghanistan, and now syria, as we work to tackle the threat of daesh and try to bring peace to the war torn country. we forged the nato alliance in the aftermath of war. we stood firm with our allies to ensure that peace reigns in europe and that the expansionist efforts of the european unions were resisted. today the work we do together continues as strongly as it ever has. our intelligence professionals work side by side in a seamless battle against the threat of terrorism. perhaps more than any two countries on earth, we share fruits of those labors in a way that strengthens our mutual
security and that of our allies around the world. but our relationship is about so much more than security. the united states is britain's biggest trading partner. the united kingdom is one of the biggest international markets for u.s. goods and services. we share cultural roots, year and year, after oscar ceremony, british actors, actresses, production teams, feature high on the nomination lists. u.s. tv is challenging the best of british on uk tv channels. our people crisscross the atlantic to share in the experiences that each of us has to offer. but above all, we know we can always count on each other. even when the united states faces challenges elsewhere the relationship between our two countries remains vital for both of us.
now, when barack obama visited london in april, he made it very clear that he believes britain should stay in the european union. a number of other u.s. politicians have made a similar argument. often they have done so with honest intent and with what they believe to be the best interests of the united kingdom at heart. but, ladies and gentlemen, the view from washington isn't really the best way of what judging what is right and wrong for the united kingdom. i think president obama was wrong to insert himself into the debate in the way that he did. in the same way that the united kingdom should respect the big decisions taken here in the united states, so the verdict on the future of the united kingdom must be one for the people of the uk alone.
inside or outside the eu, britain's relationship with the united states will, and must, remain strong. neither of us should ever be at the back of the line when it comes to working together. if britain chooses to leave, our partnerships in defense, in intelligence, in counterterrorism, in trade, and in culture, should remain strong and unchanged. neither of us would benefit from growing apart, and neither of us should want that to happen regardless of how britain chooses to shape its future. we have a unique and special relationship that has survived changes in government, changes of circumstance. that relationship will, and must, stay strong regardless of how the british vote in june. as david cameron himself has said, i believe our best days
together lie ahead. ladies and gentlemen, our friends here in washington and across the united states should understand the challenge we face, should understand that dilemma as the eu changes, should understand that people in the united states would never accept the same situation that we together today find ourselves in. i hope and believe our friends in the united states should stand aside, leave the united kingdom to reach our own best view about how we secure our future. thank you. [ applause ] >> i'm happy to take any questions, if anybody has any. yeah? lady here. >> the london mayor, boris johnson, was very firm in
the way that he rebuked obama's comments in april. i'm wondering if you share his opinions that he outlined in the op-ed for "the sun" i think? >> there are things that president obama said when he came to london that i profoundly disagreed with. i thought there was a certain incongruity in the fact that it could take ten years for the united states and united kingdom to agree to a trade deal when it took two years to agree with the australians and two years with the canadians than didn't really feel like a comment from a close ally. my suspicion was that there were quite a lot of politics at play in what he was saying. so, i mean, yes we did disagree with barack obama said. i would hope very much britain would never be at the back of the line when it comes to discussions on any matter with the united states. we are the people who are at the end of a phone line when it is a national crisis hits and i hope we would always be. i thought barack obama was making political comments but
not ones i felt were consistent with what i would have hoped to hear from the country i regard as our closest ally. other questions, anyone? yeah. >> can you say a little about the uk trade outside the european union? once you depart the european union, presuming you do, you will have to or you would like to presumably negotiate trade deals with other nations around the world, and indeed with the european union itself. can you say a little about that? >> i think the important thing -- let me deal with the european union. we are their biggest market. outside the european union, the united kingdom would amount to 17% of eu exports. we are a critical market. we run a huge trade deficit with the european union to 60 billion
pounds a year in goods alone, it's 100 billion pounds a year. only offset by the fact we have a surplus in the services. so we're a crucial market to them. and the discussion seems to always take place in the prism of our access to the single market. i look at it the other way around about the deal we will do with them to ensure that they can continue to access the united kingdom market, crucial to something like 5 million employees across the european union and to key industries like agriculture and france, like automotive manufacturing in germany. so, i am actually confident we will carry on trading normally with the european union. we have free trade arrangements at the moment. i see no reason why that should change. it's not in their commercial interest to do so. when it comes to trade deals around the world, there are a number of deals to which we are already party, those would continue, unless those nations chose to impose tariffs which i think is utterly improvable.
improbable. something it enables us to do is something we can't do right now, negotiate our own free trade deals. past the world fast-growing dynamic economies, and you have to look internationally, europe's being left behind. it is not where the growth of the next 20 years is forecast to be. that is in asia. actually ironically for britain, it's across commonwealth countries where we are not currently legally able to do our own free trade deals and it seems to me a very strange situation that we cannot negotiate as lead country in the commonwealth free trade agreements across the commonwealth. so my view is that we will carry on trading with normally with the european union because it' in their commercial interests to do so. we will be able to push ahead with better trade deals around the world. i'd like to see us do a deal with the united states, even though it is already our biggest trading partner. my guess is it will be a lot easier to agree between us on a bilateral basis than agree a deal between the united states and 27 other members of the european union.
but i see nothing to suggest that we will do anything else except develop new trading relationships and grow. interestingly, the chief economist of the world bank said as much recently. gentleman in the back. >> i want to know how do you reconcile -- obviously sovereignty's the foundational premise for a brexit. there seems to be a huge lack of support of the brexit in scotland, in northern ireland. how do you reconcile this notion of we need sovereignty when, you know, populations who formerly have been advocating for evolution of power were outright independents seemed to be leaning towards union with europe? >> the gap in scotland, for example, is not as big as sometimes suggested, likewise in wales. but i think we have to look this through the prism of us being one united kingdom. we've had a referendum in
scotland, scotland voted to stay as one united kingdom. we have to vote as one united kingdom. there has been talk if we leave the european union, will scotland try and pursue a second referendum, separate from the united kingdom, rejoin the european union. two big reasons i don't think that will happen. the first is that the collapse in the oil price has left the foundations of the potential financial position of an independent scotland extremely shaky. if they had become independent in march, as was their intention, then they would be in deep trouble now, big spending cuts and big tax increases. the other point is that there is no way that they would be allowed to rejoin the european union. from the point of view of the spanish, who have a problem with catalonia, which also wants independent from spain, if the spanish accept the principle that scotland and leave the united kingdom and join the european union, that would be the same as happening in catalonia. that i can't see happening.
the gentleman in front. >> with the terrorist threats in europe at the moment, i was wondering if you could comment on the impact a possible brexit would have with uk/eu intelligence sharing. >> the point of uk/eu intelligence sharing is that our key relationships in intelligence security are with the united states, they're with countries like israel, countries like saudi arabia, countries in asia, and, yes, we work closely. and of course the five is that met here in washington recently. it's certainly the case that we corporate with other countries in europe. but i would argue that our security services and indeed those based in the city are the best in the world. they are an invaluable source of intelligence that allows other eu nations to protect their set citizens. and that sharing will continue because they want it to continue because they need the expertise that we have to
protect their citizens. of course, around the world, our security relationships are all bilateral. there's no obvious reason, in my eyes, why we can't have bilateral relations either with the european union as a whole or with individual member states of the european union in the way that we do with united states, canada, israel, saudi arabia and the rest. i don't think we have to give up our national sovereignty in order to work together to combat terrorism. and since they need us to help them protect themselves, it's inevitable they want to continue that cooperation regardless of what happens. >> do you think a brexit would have any implications for the eu's relationship with russia, in terms of expressing potential lack of unity in the face of increasingly tense relationship? >> i don't think so because the organization that has made the most difference to standing up against any expansionist tendencies from the soviet union
and which has been in the front line now against potential expansionist pressures from today's russia is nato of which we remain a key part. we will remain a key part. interestingly, in the eastern mediterranean, where there's an operation to slow down flow of migrant into europe, it's a nato operation, not a european union operation. and so, i'm absolutely confident that we will be able to continue to work together to resist any attempt by russia to expand its sphere of influence in europe. and i don't think our membership of the european union or nonmembership of the european union will change at all. >> how much [ inaudible ] perhaps less tangible issues of sovereignty, freedom? how is that breaking down? >> well, i mean it's certainly the case if you look at on the ground campaign, two issues that are at the fore, for the
remaining campaign it's economic doom, gloom, disaster follows if we leave, i think with some slightly exaggerating claims, i have to say. on the leave side, the principal argument is around the cost of the european union and pressures that come from having unlimited migration within the european union and therefore the pressure that's placing on our public services. our population's rising by the equivalent of a large to medium sized city every year and that's something we don't believe can be sustained. those are the two key issues at the heart of the battle. but i think the sovereignty point is one that needs to keep being made. it's about us being able to tack take back control of democracy and right now, we have lost too much control of our democracy. and i have experienced this over many years as a uk minister representing britain in the council of ministers in brussels where i have found myself powerless to avoid changes that
will materially affect britain and british business. the european union is not good sat at reducing coth on business. it's always adding costs and bureaucracy. these are things that uk government, i believe i should be able to say no to, they damage my country but i can't. yeah, gentleman there. >> do you think president obama's comments will help or hurt the brexit cause in the long run? >> interestingly, i they they had a counterproductive effect, because a lot of people heard them, thought well, actually, why is the united states telling us what to do? and i've heard quite a few people out on the streets saying they were deeply un-empressed about what he said. i'm not sure it was an entirely bad thing from the point of view of those campaigning to leave. but i think that message i gave you earlier is very important.
we've had a number of interventions by u.s. politicians, by u.s. military figures. i don't think they have thought through precisely what they are arguing for and against. they are arguing for us to continue to give up our ability to govern ourselves as a nation. this isn't an economic exercise. the european union is no longer an economic entity, answers the no long an economic project, and hasn't been for a long time. it's a political project. it has always had the goal of ending up in political union. but the decision to form the euro is what made that inevitability. and i don't think that's fully understood by those in washington who have inserted themselves into the debate in the united kingdom and one of the reasons i'm here tonight, i'm -- one of the reasons i'm doing further meetings over the next 24 hours, is to explain to people here why actually this is a very different debate than the one i think many people here expect us to be having, imagine that we are having. this is seen through economic prism or defense prism.
i don't think people understand the degree to which we are giving up our ability to govern ourselves. that's something i don't think anybody here thinks is a good idea. any other questions? yeah. >> could you speak about the political impact of the vote on leadership and the conservative party, if you can, you know, whether the uk decides to stay in or to leave the eu, if this sort of opens up riffs rifts within the conservative party moving forward, if you can comment on that at all? >> actually, the way it has developed so far is the relations within the conservative party are remarkably good. yes, we are having a lively debate. yes, a few public exchanges. but i have seen no evidence of acrimony behind the scenes and i'm confident we'll be able to unite again afterwards.
i'm firmly of the view david cameron should remain prime minister come what may. there are those who say he should go. i think that's nonsense personally. if we voted to leave last thing i want us to do is start the process off by having a leadership contest, elect a new prime minister a year into the parliament. i think that would be a mad thing to do. but also i think he is best placed to lead us out. he's got the relationships with key european leaders. we have to work this out. there is a formal process. formal processes are never quite what they appear to be on paper. he needs to sit down with key european counterparts, work out how to do this, discuss the broad terms how to carry out working together. i want us to carry on being good friends and neighbors, i just don't want to marry them. and you know, we have to, i think, find modus operandi for
the future. there are too many areas to work together we don't have to do as part of emerging political bloc. we can do it as friends and allies in the way that we work with the united states as friends and allies. yeah? lady there. >> thank you very much for coming over. we really appreciate your insight and willingness to engage in this dialogue. and i admit this question is stemming out of ignorance. i've seen headlines today about additional directives coming out of brussels that would limit political free speech about the european union and i was wondering if that's something you've looked at all and what -- the article seems sensational. i'm wondering what the reality is and how concerned on censorship of british freedom of the press, should you stay within the eu? >> i've not seen any particular suggestion that they would seek to limit freedom of the press. there have been a number of
changes to data protection rules and particular right to be forgotten which came out of a european court recently which certainly allowed some people to remove articles about themselves from search engines. i don't believe they're realistically trying to sensor people from criticizing the european union. certainly doesn't mean that they don't make determined efforts to make sure that individuals associated with brussels are always saying nice things about the european union. it is a condition, for example, of eu pension that you can't attack your former employer. but there is a dimension that did cause me concern that there has been a push in brussels to enable the european union to override some of the constitutional principles of individual member states if the eu decides they're not consistent, with, for example,
the charter of fundamental rights and there's issues in hungary, hungarian government has been criticized by the european commission for some policies and changes it's made to its constitutional arrangements and the way it's working its courts, for example. that poses an interesting dilemma because while you may not necessarily approve of changes made by an elected government it is an elected government. and i think it would be a dangerous step for the european union to start to put itself in a position to override constitutional arrangements of individual member states. but a sense that's going to be superseded as they move towards integration of the eurozone. there will be in the end a single government for the eurozone, i'm absolutely certain a single cabinet, treasury, and so, in reality, that control will happen without any degree of consciousness, it's just an inevitable part of the change
that's going to come. gentleman in the back. >> what is your contingency plan if the referendum is for the uk to stay in the eu? how will you protect your sovereignty? >> the truth is the british people will have taken a decision to stay and the things i've described, i believe, are inevitable. we will find ourselves in a position, five, ten years down the road where we are less and less in control of the levers of power in our country. it's not going to mean we are completely run by the federation of the eurozone, because we're not going to be a part of it, in a variety of areas of law and i listed a few tonight, i could go on for several hours walking through the areas of competence of the european union because there are so many and the lisbon treaty is so vaguely worded it enables them to do anything that they've chose to do. for example, social security, under the terms of the treaty, social security is a member
state competence, it's a matter of the national governance of the eu members. but the european court of justice decided that the rules of around the free movements of european citizens were more important than those provisions that gave member states power of their social security and so therefore it has started to take more and more decisions how we should run our welfare assistance. now that's one example of where mission creep comes from. it is inevitable. i don't have a contingency plan because there is none. we will have voted for something that is going to change in the way i described, and we will find ourselves less able to look after our national interests. i don't suggest we rush out and fight the battle against next year. but i think five or ten years down the road the british people will be saying, what on earth is going on here? any other last questions before we wrap up? is that -- okay. thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen.
the presidential candidates are holding rallies throughout the state. at 4:00 eastern bernie sanders will be in ventura, california, and we'll have live coverage. this morning "the washington journal" spoke about the issues that the candidate is facing now. take us through the inspector general's finding, and how critical was the inspector general of the secretary herself in this report. >> she was very central to this
report. basically this report contradicted the key core defense that she has had on this e-mail issue the whole time, the notion that what she does was allowed. the inspector general found that she was not the case, and was not allowed to do this and broke a number of rules. she sways supposed -- she had some sort of orb base, it sounds like, to tell the top technology officials at the state department. they did not tell them, and these officials told the inspector general, that had she told them, they would have said stop doing this, a key part of this, actually is this sounds like it was pretty hush hush at the state department. some people said, listen, we're not sure if this following the rule, basically what they were told was sit down, be quiet,
mind your own business and, quote, never bring this up again. >> the clinton camp in their response to this report that it didn't come out yesterday, it was leaked though, after members from capitol hill received a copy of this report, correct? >> basically yeah, the xap came out and said, this said that a lot of people used private e-mail. to an extent they're correct. the report talked about the state department having issues with people using private e-mail for work purposes, but they're sort of changing the story. the main takeaway was that her extensive use of this went beyond anything that we had seen at the state department in past years. there was a number of things that contradicted things she had said in the past. for instance clinton has often said there were no hacking issues, they were never concerned about hacking, nobody ever brought up hacking, which is important, obviously, because she had content that was
classified on that server. well, it turns out one of the main findings is that bill clinton's -- one of his top staffers who actually set up the account and server for her e-mailed one of her closest aides named huma abedin, saying we have to shut it down because we are getting hacked. that's a telltale sign, shows that her closest staffers knew about this. i mean, what does that say about the security of this information? her critics are definitely going to be highlighting this, saying she had horrible judgment. in terms of legal repercussions, can the inspector general take any legal action against secretary clinton for this? what does that mean for the ongoing separate fbi investigation? >> this is definitely going to be something they are reading respect of course, the fbi is coordinating with inspectors general both for the state
department and for the intelligence community. i think the hacking e-mail that was found is definitely going to be something they're watching toss if anybody knew this was a potential security threat. i think one of the biggest repercussions bei don't want the legal question is what this will mean for the next couple months. this plays very much toward her biggest negative, which is that people do notice find her trustworthy, and you have donald trump over in the corner calling her, you know dishonest hillary, or hillary is a liar. this is playing right into his hands, because there were so many things in this report that definitely contradicted a lot of what she said about the e-mails and her e-mail use with the private server in the past. >> is the inspector general's job done here with the report? >> i think there will be some follow-up. where he learned that both had been had been herself and her top staffers refused to be
interviewed, sos there a lot of information that still has yet to be gathered and put out there. they say they did not cooperate because they're under investigation by the fbi, and they just want to work with the fbi, and from there, they'll talk afterwards, but she has said from day one that she would cooperate with any probe on this, any investigation of this issue, so this is sort of seems like a change in strategy to only work with the fbi and not work with a nonpartisan entity of the government that was charged with looking into this issue. >> rachel bade has been covering this story since nearly day one at politico. you can check out her work at politico.com. thank you for your time this morning. >> happy to be on. thanks. associated press reports that donald trump has the number of delegates needed to lock down the nomination. the news organization contacted unbound delegates and enough say
they'll support mr. trump to push him over the 1,237 delegates needed to avoid a contested convention in cleveland in july. and tomorrow c-span will have live coverage of donald trump's rally in san diego, california. madam secretary, we proudly give 72 of our delegate votes to the next president of the united states -- ♪
in addition to the graduating classes all over this planet, i wish you to graduate into a word of peace, light and love, but that's not the case. we don't live in a fairytale, but i get the 1% does. >> this memorial day watch commencement speeches in their entirety, offering advice and encouragement to the graduating class of 2016, from business leaders like michael powell at pepperdine, founder of oracle larry ellison at the university of southern california, and maria contriera sweet at whittier college. you can count on yourself. what makes you special? what distinguishes you from others? in business we call it your unique value proposition, figuring out yours is key. >> politicians, senator jeff
sessions at the university of alabama in nunsville. senator barbara boxer at the university of california berkeley, and governor mike pence at indiana wesleyan university. >> to be strong and to be courageous, and to learn to stand for who you are and what you believe is a way that you've changed here. and will carry into the a balance of your life. >> and white house officials. vice president joe biden at the university of notre dame. attorney general loretta lynch at spellman college, and president barack obama at rutgers university. >> is it any wonder that i am optimistic? throughout our history a new generation of americans has reached up and bent the arc of history in the direction of more freedom, more opportunity and more justice, and class of 2016, it is your turn now to shape our nation's destiny as well as your own. so get to work! commencement speeches this
memorial day at noon eastern on c-span. coming up shortly democratic presidential candidate bernie sanders of vermont will be speaking at a campaign rally at ventura college in california. voters in california going to the polls on june 7th to select a presidential candidate. a road to the white house coverage here on c-span3 when the rally for senator bernie sanders gets under way. some other news from the primary today, the ap says the democratic candidate bernie sanders says the at the -- a review of election results yielded no change in the outcome of kentucky's may 17th primary. while we wait for senator sanders' rally to begin we'll get at update from a speaker ryan in his weekly news briefs.
he said it was unfortunate that the house didn't pass the -- >> i want to start with something on the mind of many americans, and that's these long lines at our airports. the people i represent spend far more time at places at o'hare. yesterday the homeland security committee held a hearing with the tsa administrator. that was a chance to get some answers from the public and figure out how to you better prepared, but they are things we can do right now. for example, the house just passed a bill authored by representative john katgo of new york that would expand the use of precheck. precheck lanes process twice the number of passengers at reg hear screenings lanes. this also enhances security, because we're pushing more known and trusted passengers through these lanes. so we have passage precheck bill in the house. i hope the senate will act soon especially ahead of the busy summer travel. okay. i want to talk about the vote we
just had on the energy and water appropriations bill. when i became speaker, one of the economiments i made to our members and to the american people was to open up this process. that means having more members contribute. it means more amendments from both sides of the aisle. it means fewer predetermined outcomes and yes more unpredictability. early on, i stood up here, and said that some bills might fail, because we're not going to tightly control the process and predetermine the outcome of everything around here. well, that's what happened here today. it's unfortunate, because this is a very good bill. it improves or energy infrastructure, enhances or national security. it uses the power of the period to stop harm many regulation. the mere fact that they passed their amendments, they voted
against the bill containing their amendments proves this point. in fact we just moved to go to funding as well as resources to fight the zika outbreak. we are not slowing down here. we will talk to our members about how best to move forward to maintain a functioning and workable appropriations process, and we will continue with that process. we will use the power of the purse to hold this administration accountability. this work is just tar too important. >> i'd like you to ask you about -- and the need for congressional approval. i'm curious. is this really about the constitution or also on ar more
important by didsh. >> it's about the constitution. >> a phone call with donald trump went last year? >> it was a productive phone call. our staffs have been meeting, and we had a good and productive phone calls. >> speaker, how will you approach future appropriation bills going forward? will you try to push the amendment process? >> well, what we just learned is the democrats weren't looking to advance the the issue, but saeb stage the appropriation process. tells us thee trying to stop it in its tracks. what we return, we'll have to get to our members and figure out how best to move forward.
>> yesterday you said the first time this happened -- and just not true that -- >> no, at the time -- during milcon it was, now that the same amendment came, people understood. we brought it up, and we let -- and then the people who brought the amendment forward voted against the bill which tells us -- >> what it is like i said, people didn't know what was happening then. they have a much clearer understanding of what it is now. but remember the authors of the bill voted against the bill contained the amendment that had prevailed. this was about sabotaging appropriations. manu? >> reporter: sort of how -- --
>> what i am most concerned about is we have real unity, because we need to win this election in the fall. there's too much at stake. on and on i could go. the point is i want real party unity. that's what i'm most concerned about. >> reporter: to blame democrats -- for they trying to. >> then why did they pass by voice vote? some of them passed by voice vote with no one objecting to them. no, no, you raised -- go ahead, ladies first. [ inaudible ] >> i voted for it like a decade ago. my position has not changed. we've had this law on the books in wisconsin since 1982, so my
view has not changed. jonathan? >> reporter: in terms of the future of the appropriation, do you still intend -- and what happens with the -- >> obviously we want to pass individual bills. we think that's the best interest of the institution of consequence. when we come back, we will sit down with our members and have a family discussion about how best to proceed so that the appropriations process cannot be saeb stage esabotaged and derai. >> oh, i don't think that's the case. i don't think at the rate it's going, i don't think that timeline is the case. number two, we just voted to go to conference on it. gnome had our appropriators been talking preconference, now we just sent them a new and official conversation. and there's money in the
pipeline already going out the door. next? we're waiting for senator bernie sanders to speak in ventura, california. we'll have live coverage when he rally gets under way here on c spans 3. while we wait for it to begin we hear from a capitol hill reporter about the action on the house floor today that you just heard speaker ryan talking about. is a top story house floor action, tells us more about this amendment and why the bill was defeated. why was it after three days of work on the house floor that this bill went down? >> so i think it really all comes down to what happened late last live on on the floor and there were three lbgt
amendments. maloney has been continued to push for his amendment, which he came to the house floor. the house military crux, which would provide protections to federal contract workers who are lbgt individuals. now, that amendment fell on military construction bill. he committed to bring it up on energy water, and he did. now, republicans included a second degree amendment to his that would basically stipulate that certain parts of the constitution on the would be -- would provide some type of exemption to his amendment that was a bit of a debate on the house floor, but ultimately the house agreed to adopt his amendment. but subsequently following the agreement on maloney's amendment, there were two other amendments that democrats said were related to lbgt discrimination, and that ultimately led to almost all democrats to opposing the energy
water bill on the floor. the two amendments, the first one was from representative rot pittinger from north carolina, basically placed a limitation on the federal government to be able to limit funds to north carolina north carolina is in a state-to-le over the bathroom law, so they viewed that as a swipe against lbgt protections. there was another amendment which appeared to provide a religious freedom exception to mr. maloney's amendment is so despite the fact that mr. maloney's amendment -- well, we had 106 republicans only in favor.
so the final tally, 112-305. what are you hearing now from hughes appropriations chair hall rogers about how the bill's defeat might impact the appropriations process overall? they say that this is not going to stop the process, and speaker ryan immediately after the vote fell told the press that he's going to have a family discussion with republicans about how to deal with amendments on appropriations bills. he laid the blame on democrats for this big falling apart, but you have to note there were 130 republicans who were also against the bill. so this was a clear example of how disagreement over lgbt provisions, both from democrats and from republicans brought the thing down, but republican
leadership does, as i said, remain committed to keep trying to bring appropriation bills to the floor. they may try to change the way the amendment process works, so this kind of sudden disagreement over changes to the bill doesn't keep the legislation from going across the finish line. >> the house today also voted to go to conference with the senate on zika funding through another spending bill. the cq headline says contentious process looms after house vote. tell us about the zika funding issue, how that came together in the house this week, and what are the main differences it funding levels. >> so the house going to conference on zika was a bit unexpected. there was a rules committee meeting called late last night that set the procedure in motion to get the outs to go ahead and go to conference with the senate, but they -- lawmakers in the senate and house arrive at very different places in
conference the republicans have vivid a 622 million emergency aid package -- actually it's not an emergency, just supplemental appropriations offset, which means they have spending cuts elsewhere to pay for the measure. on the senate side, a 1.1 billion emergency package, which means there are no offsets so, you know, that's a huge difference in spending. additionally the house has included some language in what they are bringing to conference that would lessen permitting requirements for spraying pest cites, which has triggered some objections from democrats in both the house and senate, so there's going to be a lot that lawmakers will have to hash out over this memorial day recess, but both parties in both chambers have emphasized they want to get something to the president's desk quickly.
>> kelly is an appropriations and budget reporter for cq roll call. thanks very much for being here today. >> thanks so much. again, we are waiting to -- appears at -- primarily voters at that state going to the polls on june 7th, a road to the white house coverage here on c-span3 when the rally gets up way. until thence from the national press club today, director tom friedan warned that the window for preparing effectively for zika virus in the u.s. is closing. the doctor said that president obama has questioned emergency funding, but both the house and senate are proposing less for dealing with the mosquito-borne
virus. we'll show you as much as we can under senator sanders ease rally gets under way. this is about an hour long. s tom friedan,s on he is especially concerned these days about the growing threat that the zika virus poses for not only the health of americans, but also for the world population, as many of you know, the zika virus can cause severe mi microselfry. and under developed brain, the virus has also it could linked to a neurological disorder that can result in paralysis and death. three months ago the world health organization declared the zika outbreak a public health emergency of international concern. there is no vaccine or cure.
a friedan has been the director of the centers for disease control and on, a physician with training in internal medicine, infectious diseases and epidemiology improving health security globally by preparing for, detecting, rapidly responding to and preventing health threats such as disease, antimicrobial resistance, foodborne diseases and health care acquired infections, reducing the leading causes of death and illness among
americans due to uncontrolled blood pressure, physical inactivity, prescription drug overdoses and hiv and aids. strengthening the public health collaboration by integrating public health and health care. before being appointed to the head of the agency he was a cdc disease detective. hes conducted investigations multidrugs resistance, the cdc assignee to the world health organization, control efforts, the program in india has treated more than 10 million patients and saved more than 3 million lives. where he directed that effort by reducing the number of smoker by 350,000. friedan is a graduate from
columbia university. he -- at yale university. today is the fourth time that dr. friedan has spoken to the national press club speaker luncheon. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the national press club podium dr. tom friedan. when an earthquake hits, we under the need to respond. now, imagine if you had the pow per to stop an earthquake. we together using the tools of public health have the power to stop the health equivalent of many earthquakes that happen around the world. the latest challenge we are dealing with is zika.
this is unprecedented and tragic. it has been more than 50 years since we have identified any pathogen that can cause a birth defect. and we have never before identified a situation where a mosquito bite could result in an infection that causes a devastating birth defect. it is unprecedented, it is tragic, and it is now proven. we know that zika causes micro se recei cephaly, and we're learn more every day. the top priority is to protect pregnant women, and that focus has to be our guiding principle for our work everywhere there is risk for zika.
we have a narrow window of opportunity to scale up effective zika prevention measures, and that window of opportunity is closing. i want to spend a moment to recognize a remarkably generous donation by bayer to the cdc foundation to support a comprehensive program to confront the zika threat in puerto rico. bayer is making a very substantial donation that will enable us to do a number of things that control mosquitos, to support women who choose not to become pregnant during this time with effective modern contraception. they're also one of the sponsors of the zika action plan summit at cdc, where ed was present along with 30 orders officials accelerating the work to protect
people in this country. it's an example of the public sector, private sector. philanthropic sector coming together and doing together what none of us could do as effectively on our own so thank you for your wonderful work supporting this effort. it has been less than five months since we first saw a conclusive evidence that zika may be the cause of microcephaly. in the five months we have learned an enormous amount. ten thing we have learned -- first, it's an extraordinarily complex response. in fall it's probably the most complex i have severe. we have involved almost every single part of cdc. we've had more than 1,000 of our staff involved, whether it's
mosquito control or vie rolling or object constituent ticks, newborn care, many, many parts of our agency of fully activated to support the response. second, it's now clear that zika causes micro cephaly and i vividly remember having our chief pathologist show me the special stains he had done to show that zika virus actually innovating the neural tissue of newborn infants and destroying it. this is a horrible thing to see. it is just the kind of thing you would never want to see, and yet to understand that when a child is born with microcephaly, it wasn't because the skull was malformed, but the virus destroyed the devastated brain
and the excel collapsed around it. it's a horrible situation. third, we have now seen clear elf that even asymptomatic infection with zika during pregnancy can result in microcephaly, we now about four office five appear to be asymptomatic, the person feels fine, they have no way to know if they've been infected. four, zika almost certainly causes guy yam aarre syndrome. it's generally treatable. that's not what's so unusual about zika. what is so unusual about zika is the threat to pregnant women. five, diagnosing zika is hard, but we have matter enormous progress. cdc laboratory scientists have optimized tests, so we now have a rapid, highly sensitive test that can be used in urine or intoed that can detect the virus
in someone acutely infected pretty accurately. we have also made them and disseminated them to 100 labs around the u.s. and nearly 100 countries around the world. we have also improved the cdc igm-mac aliza, and we also have gottena arounds, as well as a more rapid or more complex test to try to determine which of several similar infections the person may have had -- and we have provided more than a million of those 'tises. controlling had mosquito is really hard. it is the cockroach of mosquitos. it lives indoors and outdoors. it bites during the daytime and the nighttime. its eggs can last for more than a year. they can hatch in a drop of
water. in parts of the u.s. such as puerto rico, they're highly resistant to certain insecticides. they prefer people, so they generally spread disease among people, and when they take a meal, they bite four or five people at one. so they're capable of rapidly spreading the infection. there's no -- and i vividly remember in a trip to puerto rico, or lab team had set up laboratory, they had hatched the mosquitos and testing them for resistance. we put them in a bolts coated with insect cried, and we see whether they're knocked down or not. to see them in a bolts that had been coated with what should be a very effective insect cried happily flying around minute after minute, hour after hour, shows you how important it is that we improve the method we have of controlling mosquitos.
seventh, there are also other rides of transmission. where he did not expect sexual transmission would be as common as we've never had a sexual transminks or dengue. that adding a new level of risk and new message it's theoretically possible there could be trans -- that's why we're so grateful for roesch and the tag, they've come up with a terrific highly effective test to screen out the blood supply. eighth, puerto rico has a particular challenge -- now democratic presidential candidate bernie sanders of vermont speaks at a campaign really at ventura college in california. primary voters in california are going to the poll are on june
7th. live coverage on c-span3. >> we are holding rallies just like this up and down this state. by the enof this campaign here in california, i am confidence we will have personally met and spoken to over 200,000 californians. this is a great roots campaign of by the people and for the people. the reason we're going to win here in california and the reason we're going to win a general election is the american
people understand that given the crises facing our country, it is just too late for establishment politics or establishment economics. what the american people understand is we have got to bring forth a political revolution! we need people from coast to coast standing up, fighting back and demanding a government that represents all of us, not just the 1%. this campaign is going to win because we are doing something rather unusual in american
politics. we are telling the truth. in ours we have a corrupt finance system that is undermining american democracy. what democracy is supposed tube about is everyone here knows, is one person/one vote. you get a vote, and you get a vote, and you get a vote. democracy is not supposed to be about billionary and super pacs buying elections. if we get elected, and i'm
increasingly confidented that we will, questioner going to overturn this disastrous supreme court ruling on citizens united. this campaign is going to win because we are telling the truth, in the sense that today we have a rigged economy. what a rigged economy is, is that for 30 years the middle class of this country has been shrinking, shrinking, shrinking in almost all new income and wealth today is going to the top 1%.
what a rigged economy is about is the top 1/10 of 1%. one tenth of 1% owning almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. the rigged economy is when the 20 wealthiest people in this country own more wealth than the bottom 150 million americans, half of our people. a rigged economy is when one family, the walton family of walmart, owns more wealth than the bottom 42% of the american people. anybody here work at a walmart? okay. we've got a few. and here is what's interesting about walmart.
walmart, owned by the wealthiest family in america, pays wages that are so low that many of the people who work there have got to go on food stamps and medicaid. who pays for those food stamps and medication? that's right, working families of this country pay higher taxes in order to subsidize the wages paid by the wealthiest family in america. that is absurd. so sill say to the -- i say to the walton family, get off of welfare, pay your workers a living wage. but it is not just a corrupt campaign finance system. it's not just a rigged economy where today, here in california, my state of vermont, people are working two or three jobs.
mom is work 40 hours, todayed is working 40 hours, kids are working 40 hours, and at the end of all of that, 58% of all new income goes to the top 1%. are you ready for a radical idea? together we are going to create an economy that works for all of us, not just wealthy campaign contributors. but it's not just the corrupt campaign finance system that we have to change. it's not just the rigged economy. it is also a broken criminal justice system. every american should be embarrassed by the fact that we have more people in jail than
any other country on earth. we are spending $80 billion a year to lock up 2.2 million people, disproportionately african-american, latino, and native-americans. our job is to understand why that is occurring, and to change it. my promise to you is at the end of my first term as president, we will not have more people in jail than any other country. and one of the reasons that we have so many people in jail is that across this country, in inner cities, in afric african-american and latino
neighborhoods, in rural areas, we have youth unemployment rates of 30%, 40%, 50%. kids get out of the high school, there are no jobs for them, and when kids hang out with no jobs, bad things can happen. that is why i believe that we should be investing for our kids in jobs and education. not in jails or incarceration. we should not forget that it costs more money to lock smp up than to send them to the university of california. and when we talk about reforming
a broken criminal justice system, we have got to take a look at local police departments all across this country. i was amayor in burlington, vermont, for eight years. i worked closely with the police officers there, and i work with police officers all over this country. the overwhelming majority of police officers are honest, hard-working, and have a very difficult job to do. but like any other public official, when a police officers breaks the law, that officer must be held accountable. we have got to demilitarize local police departments.
i do not want local police departments to be looking like occupying armies, intimidating the people in their community. we have got to make local police departments reflect the diversity of the communities they serve. we have got to end corporate ownership of prisons and detention centers. we have got to change law enforcement culture in this country, so the use of lethal force, shooting somebody is the last response, not the first response. we have got to rethink the so-called war on drugs. isr
it turns out, not widely known, but true. it turns out over the last 30 years, millions of americans have received police records because of possession of marijuana. and i said you to think about it. you're a 19-year-old kid, you've got a police record, you go in you're applying for a job, your employer asked you, do you have a police record? yes, sir, i did. well, i've got somebody else interested in that job. a lot of lives have been ruined because of the possession of marijuana. in addition to that, it turns out that this becomes a racial issue, because studies indicate that blacks and whites do marijuana at about equal rates. well, i don't know if i would
cheer for that, but it's a fact. but -- butt here is what it also turns out. blacks are more likely than whites to be arrested for doing marijuana. so what do we do? this is what i think we do. number one -- we understand today that the federal -- federal controlled substance act lists marijuana as a schedule i drug, the highest level. right next to heroin. now, people can argue the pluses an minuses of marijuana, but no sane person believes that marijuana is equivalent to a killer drug like heroin. and that is why, if elected
president, we will take marijuana you've the federal controlled substance act. possession of marijuana should not be a federal crime, but as all of you know, the discussion to legalize marijuana is a state issue, not a federal issue. four states in this country, plus washington, d.c., have voted to legalize marijuana. as some of you may know, there will be an item on the ballot here in california in november calling for legalization. now, i don't live here in california, but if i did, i would vote for that proposition.
[ chanting "bernie" ] >> but while we're on the issue of drugs, let me just say this, and i think all of you know this. right now in my state, in new england, and i believe all over this country, we're looking at a horrific epidemic of opiate and heroin addiction. it is terrible. what we are seeing every single day is people are overdosing on opiates or heroin, and they are dying. this is an issue that must be dealt with, but it must be dealt with intelligently. in my view, the best way to address that issue is to understand that substance abuse and addiction should not be treated as a criminal issued, it should be treated as a health-related issue.
that means we need a revolution in this country on how we do mental health treatment. right now there are people who are addicted, who are strung out, who would like to get help, but there is no treatment available for them that they can afford. and in addition to that, what is true, although it is very scary, is that walking the streets of america today, right now, you've got many thousands of people who are suicidal, and some are homicidal, and we all know about the terrible mass shootings that we have seen. in my view, what our approach should be is to say to anybody
in america in mental health crisis -- you can get the treatment you need today, not six months from now. this campaign is -- what working people are telling me is they can't maybe it a 9, 10 or $11 an hour, which is why in my view we're going to raise the minimum to a living wage, $15 an hour. s when we talk about equitable wages, i know that every man here will stand with the women in opposition to the fact that today women are making 79 cents on the dollar compared to men.
today we will fight and we will bring about pay equity for women, equal pay for equal work. this campaign is also listening to women who are hearing republicans all over this country. donald trump and the others, who are touting family values. and you all know what they mean by family values. what they mean is that no woman in ventura, no woman in california, no woman in america should have the right to control her own body, we disagree.
by the way, when republicans talk about family values, what they are also saying to our gay brothers and sisters, that they should not have the right to get married, we disagree. this campaign is not listening to wealthy campaign contributors and their needs. we are listening to young people and their needs. what young people are asking me, they're asking me a very simp but very important question. that is, how is it that when they do exactly the right thing, when they go out and get the best education that they can, which is what we want all americans to be able to do, why is it that they're ending up 20,
50, 70,000 in debt. i grew up in a family that didn't have a lot of money. my parents never went to college, but what i want to see in this country is that every child who studies hard, every child who takes school seriously and does well, i want to see that child be able to go to college, regardless of the income of his or her family. now -- now here's the truth. 40, 50 years ago people went out and they got a high school degree, and if you had a high school degree 40 or 50 years ago, you know what? good chance you would be able to go out and get a decent job and make it into the middle class.
but the world, the economy, technology have changed over the last 40 years, and today in many respects, a college degree is the equivalent to what a high school degree was 40 years ago. that is why i believe that today, when we talk about public education, it is not good enough to be talking about first grade through 12th grade. we must be talking about making public colonels and universities, tuition free. now, does anybody here honestly think that making public colleges and universities tuition free is a radical idea? it really is not. the world has changed, our
educational system has got to change ago well. and by the way, as many of you know, in countries like germany and scandinavia, college today is free. they are smart enough to invest and smart enough to know that investing in their young people is investing in the future of their country. it's a lesson we should learn. how many people here are dealing with student debt? raise your hand. whoa. well, welcome to the club. we're talking about millions of people. how much? 100? 120,000? >> okay. all right. what i'm hearing is 100 thousand, 220,000, 80,000.
frankly think about it. what this campaign is trying to do is to get people to think outside of the box, to think outside of the options, the corporate mediaus. ask yourself a simple question. we are living in a competitive global economy. we need the best educated work force in the world. why in god's name are we punishing people for getting an education? [ cheers and applause ] we should be rewarded them, not punishing them. [ cheers and applause ] and that is why i believe that with regard to student debt anybody who is holding that debt should be able to refinance their loans at the lowest interest rates they can find. [ cheers and applause ] and this will mean a very significant reduction in student debt in this country.
now, my opponents and the establishment, they say, well, you know, bernie, he's like santa claus, he's got white hair, he's giving away all of this stuff, free tuition, reducing student debt. how are you going to pay for it, bernie? let me tell you exactly how we will pay for it. [ cheers and applause ] >> eight years ago after the greed, the recklessness and illegal behavior on wall street helped bring this country into the worst economic recession since the 1930s congress against my vote bailed out wall street. [ boos ] well, today wall street is doing just fine. and i believe it is exactly appropriate to place a tax on wall street speculation.
[ cheers and applause ] this country bailed out wall street, now it's wall street's time to help the middle-class of this country. [ cheers and applause ] and that tax would more than pay to make public colleges and universities tuition free and substantially lower student debt. this campaign is listening to people and communities whose voices and pain are not often heard. we are listening to the latino community. [ cheers and applause ] there are 11 million undocumented people in this country. many of them are living in the shadows and in fear. many of them who are at work
right now are being exploited because when you have no legal rights, you can't stand up to a boss who exploits you and cheats you on the job. and that is why in my view the time is long overdue for this country and for congress to pass comprehensive immigration reform and a path towards citizenship. [ cheers and applause ] our immigration policy must be to unite families, not divide them. [ cheers and applause ] and if elected president, i will end the current deportation policies. [ cheers and applause ] and if congress does not do its
job, i will use all of the executive powers of the white house to do everything that i can. [ cheers and applause ] this campaign is listening to the african-american community. [ cheers and applause ] and what the african-american community is asking me absolutely correctly how does it happen that we could spend trillions of dollars on a war in iraq that we never should have gotten into and yet supposedly we don't have the money to rebuild our crumbling inner cities throughout this country. cho chouz. brothers and sister, i have been all over this country in the last year. i was in flint, michigan, where children were poisoned because
of lead in the water in a water system which was, to say the least, totally inadequate. i was in detroit, michigan, where the school system, the public school system is on the verge of fiscal collapse. i was in baltimore, maryland, where tens of thousands of people are addicted to heroine and can't get the treatment that they need to get off of heroine. in my view, instead of rebuilding communities in afghanistan, we should be rebuilding communities in the united states of america. [ cheers and applause ] this campaign is listening to a people who are in real pain, but that pain is almost never heard.
and this is the nayty american community. [ cheers and applause ] all of us know that the native american people were lied to, they were cheated and treaties they negotiated throughout our history have been broken. the native american people have given us so much that we have a debt owed to them that we can never repay. and maybe the most important lesson that they have taught us, an incredibly profound lesson, is that as human beings, we are part of nature. we must live with nature. [ cheers and applause ] and if we continue to destroy
nature, what we are doing is ultimately destroying ourselves. [ cheers and applause ] but despite all that the native american people have given us, in native american communities throughout this country, poverty and unemployment are sky high, health care and education is not of the quality it should be. if elected president we will fundamentally change our relationship to the native american people. [ cheers and applause ] i am a member of is u.s. senate committee on the environment and let me tell you i have that listened and talked to scientists all over our country and all over the world and they are virtually unanimous in telling us what people like
donald trump and other republicans refuse to acknowledge and this is climate change is real, it is caused by human activity and as the people of california already know it is causing devastating problems in our country and around the world. and what do scientists also tell us? if we do not get our act together now, a bad situation will become much worse, more drought, more floods, more extreme weather disturbances, more acidification of the ocean, more rising sea levels. we have a moral obligation as custodians of this planet. that is what we are. this is our planet, wur custodians of it. we must leave this planet in a
way that is healthy and habitable to our children and future generations. [ cheers and applause ] what this campaign is about is getting people to think outside of the box, outside of the status quo and to ask some questions that you don't hear asked in congress and you don't hear discussed much in the corporate media. and one important question is how does it happen that in our great country, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, how does it happen that we are the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care to all people? let me ask you all a question. how many people here today have
no health insurance? raise your hands how many people here are is high deductibles and high co-payments in their insurance policy. what you are seeing is a failed health care system. the affordable care act has done some good things but it has not done enough. so let me be very honest with you and tell you what i have said many times and it gets me criticized many times, but i'll say it again. and this is in my view health care is a right of all people, not a privilege. [ cheers and applause ] i want every american to be able to go to the doctor when they need to go to