tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 11, 2016 4:29am-7:01am EDT
warrant and was able to go into somebody's desk and search their papers with that warrant, the papers were not just their papers. they are papers were notes that they made about letters out and also letters and, and so there was incidental collection of people who were not the subject of the search warrant from the earliest days of the republic. when we got into wiretapping it became a little more complicated, but once again you cannot listen into the conversations of a mobster without listening into the other side of that conversation. so wiretaps over and over again engaged in incidental communication. so there is nothing new about incidental collection of people who are not the subject of the investigation in question. it strikes me that what is new is the creation of a database to preserve the
incidental collection and the question of minimization minimization did not apply back in the search warrant days of the there was an obliging the return. in the wiretap era, you are required to switch off and not listening check back in. and could you just elaborate more on how modern 4th amendment search techniques and storage of the data takes place in the domestic context under the 4th amendment search requirement
and compare the minimization and the database collection to what we see with the 702 program. >> thank you, sen., for those kind remarks, and i share that sentiment completely. it was wascompletely. it was a pleasure to work with you over the years. your question is a good one. let me break it down into two different questions. first, under 702 there is the need to pool data that might be relevant for the very reason we discussed earlier. when you have an indicator you want to be able to access that information at once. collected from one particular target. it is pulled in a way that often title iii is not. a title iii wiretap
collected by the fbi in one place, maybe not pulled title iii conversations elsewhere. but as a legal matter they are indistinguishable in the following way. you're right, there is minimization. if i am the target the government is duly authorized to collect on me command i am talking to the pizza delivery guy, the agent is supposed to turn it off and turned back in some interval of time later to see if i am than talking to my terrorist confederate or drug dealing confederate. but the reality is, if they are listening and i am talking to somebody else that information is incidentally collecting, it is collected, and regardless of whether that person is involved or not, and that person's privacy is not been reviewed by judge the judge issued the warrant and
authorize the collection against me.me. that is the same thing that is happening in 702. the counterparty has just the same rights to resist the government's ability as the guy in my situation. puts it in a database and enables it to be searched, should that be seen as a secondary event that suggests the requirement for some gatekeeper before they have full access? my time is expired. i cannot continue the conversation further, but thank you for the hearing. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you for your good work in this area and allowing me to go before him. thank you for all you have done, and i, and i have had
experience with this before. i managed a prosecutor's office with about 400 people and400 people and have been personally in the room for these wiretaps. but as many of you noted in your testimony, is critical that our laws reflect his balance between national security interest in privacy and civil liberties. what i wanted to ask you about was that bill itself as we look at the reauthorization ahead and what we should be doing but we consider changes to law. as currently constituted, do you believe it strikes the appropriate balance between the protection of national security and civil liberties and what changes would you like to see? >> thank you, senator.
it does that by providing for ample oversight which is meaningful to all three branches, and also i think you see that balance being played out in terms of the tool procedures implemented by intelligence review by the court and also the intelligence judiciary committee's. resulted in the private civil liberties oversight board with the finding of no instance of intentional misuse of authority. >> thank you. >> i believe it should be reauthorized. part of the effort, the executive branch in 2008 behind the practice of the law and can attest to the way in which it was calibrated at the time. it's also not been static, the implementation of law
has been dynamic and changed over the years and in particular what i think the landmark report which did an intensive and thorough investigation found that the law was not only valuable the constitutional and legal and made recommendations as implemented. >> the concern was that there was too much data to analyze. >> i did read that part. with respect i do not think that there is merit. i can tell you have more data of this type is better than less. the government has the ability to search it command we talked about that. a better chance of finding those needles that we are looking for warrior trying to stop a terrorist attack. they can be a concern in other contexts. i don't think that it is a persuasive argument.
>> i believe section 702 goes further than it needs to in order to accomplish and i would point out some of the cases that have been made public relating to section 702 successes are cases in which the surveillance, section 702 surveillance was of a known or suspected terrorist or someone known or suspected to have ties to terrorism. while there is evidence, it there is no support for the idea. >> ii don't want to -- i'd just -- >> i'm sorry. >> the only way to secure the constitutional validity is to have an individual order when the government collects communication between a foreign targeta foreign target an american, but there are other steps that could be taken that include closing the backdoor
search loophole, narrowing the definition of foreign intelligence, narrowing the pull of people who can be targeted and ensuring that notice is given any time section 702 evidence is used in court or evidence authorized is used. >> would you like to add anything? >> the government should estimate the number of american communications intercepted. second, tighten the upstream collection process and require court approval for queries under 702. there has been no warrant issued for these collections. on the attention shifts to communication with any of 90 plus thousand other people, i think it becomes a moment when the 4th amendment
will require court approval. >> thank you. last but not least, misbranded. >> i do not think changes to the statute are necessary. the people out in our in-depth review did not recommend legislative changes.changes. we did recommend a number of changes to the way that the program operates that can be implemented by the administration or fires a court, and they have been implemented. continuing to work on others, so this would be the appropriate way to handle it. >> senator,. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome to this very important and helpful panel, complex topic and you given some insightful and intelligence responses to difficult questions various
courtrooms on a strong believer ensuring a court is the best possible information to get decisions. as you know, cases presenting particularly not legal issues. i am pleased a version was incorporated in the usa freedom act. enabling the court was among the recommendations, which i thank you. it has been established accordingly, and on several occasions the court has appointed one to serve as amicus. so let me begin by asking
mr. medina, but this is a question for the entire panel, could you discuss why it was initially recommended that there was this change and how you assess the process of implementation and then also whether a technical expert will be shortly appointed to fulfill the role that was envisioned by the statute. >> the origin of the recommendation. we invited a former judge, and he said how frustrating it was to only hear one side in hisin his normal civil or criminal docket he hears one side make an argument, it sounds persuasive. the other side makes an argument, that sounds convincing two. when he was on the 5th, he
only heard one side which led the boards ultimately recommend that there be another side. programmatic approvals of 215 or 702. we have just begun to see how the program is operating. able to make an argument, and having technical advice as well because these programs have important technological implications. brought 1st technology scholar to advise us, and winning the other side of law and technology is important. >> is a member of the p cloud as well the mistrust because it was viewed been
in the court process and no it is not an accurate description, but the public viewed it that way. it is important to have some visibility and for the public to have more confidence, and so the public gets asked that purpose. they have been useful and have helped. >> but the health of the court has not just been an appearance. it is enhancing the perception of actual scrutiny and the value that you describe to judges who hear one side and then the other, not just entertainment value but it is elucidate questions, permits the contrast and conflict of ideas and out of
that contention. better conclusion for the court. >> there is an understanding and the public that was. [speaking in native tongue] your perception. i agree it will refund the courts thinking. >> i wanted 1st to thank you for your leadership. it was important. i do not see the fisa court as a rubberstamp at all. but it has seen its job as getting to yes which is not the role of the judiciary. part of that was that when
there wasn't another party there the court wascourt was not in the role of being a neutral adjudicator between two sides and therefore the court effectively became the other side which was an uncomfortable role for the court and made them more inclined to try to move toward yes. i am hopeful that having an amicus there will ultimately help the court to take more of the stance of a neutral arbiter. >> my time is expired. this isexpired. this is an important topic in an evolving question. for most of my career i was a government lawyer. i want the court to get the yes. at the same time, i welcomed actually a strong adversarial process because it made the case better,
reduce the likelihood of a successful appeal, and we are dealing in a different context for appeals are unlikely, but the result is better and as all of you know, judges worst nightmare is the defendant representing himself. not going to go into these reasons, but your hard work in a difficult area that is about balancing our national values, security and enduring concerns about privacy.
let me try to cover ground is very able panel and members. my understanding is the government does not obtain a warrant before querying a database for information about americans despite and expressed understanding for members who were present when section 702 was adopted, but it was not intended to allow this type of warrantless search. can any of you proffer an estimate of how many communications with us persons have been collected that are 702? i understand it is difficult,difficult, but if you can give us an estimate, i welcome that. do you think we should require queries to be tracked in order to obtain information about how often the section 702 database is used in the search for information about american
citizens. >> a challenge and quantifying how many americans communications are collected. our board recommended some, and recently they will be trying to come up with estimates. it is useful to require that there be a report annually to the congress on the number of americans communications that are instantly collected in the methodology used to do that. that is an important part of how the program is operating. >> to answer what david said, the report recommended that the government published more statistics about the impact, and i think there is a good story here about being pushed to do that. the administration recently released numbers on to measures, and it is working hard to come up with a
reliable estimate. the staff is in constant communication with the administration, and they really are working hard to get to the position of getting congress and the public more and reliable information. >> getting an estimate of the number of communications is important. i have heard the intelligence community is working on it, but this is a request that has been pending for years. move the process along. with respect to queries, we do not have numbers of how many times the queries have been run. the fbi is by far, from the boards report, the most active and frequent. and it is important to get that information. the fbi would have trouble figuring out who is a us person.
the nsa does it, the cia doesn't. the fbi should be able to, and one quick point, this incidental collection idea, there is an important distinction between the cases that have upheld the incidental collection of people who are in communication with the target all we arewe're seeing with section 702, and in those cases under title three there was not only strict procedures but a warrant from the beginning to target the original suspects,suspects, and the courts have emphasized the importance of the warrant at the front end because that provides precarious protection to people in contact with the target and narrows the pool of people that can be collected on. >> thank you for that edition and let me ask two more questions if i might 1st. given section 702 was initially adopted for
foreign intelligence and national security purposes, do you have any concerns about whether it is appropriate for communications to be used for domestic purposes? do you think that is a distinction that can be neatly made? and the my last question, what standard does doj apply to determine whether it is obligated to present criminal defendants with notice and how does it ensure compliance to provide section 702 derived exculpatory information. if you. if you answered is a sequence i'll be out of time. >> the distinction is not so much between foreign and domestic, but in terms of the nature of the case and the target. if the target is foreign, there can be warrantless collection. if the government is trying to build a case against an american they go to the court and get an individualized order.
if it is a criminal case they go to a magistrate. that distinction is easy to make. >> thank you for the question. the problem is we were involved with bringing down the wall and congress did that. the wall was based fundamentally on the distinction between foreign intelligence work in criminal work which was a distinction that created this barrier that impaired information sharing. that is the last thing we want to do. we have seen the benefit of having serious information sharing. we don't want to bring us back to the old days. >> thank you. >> did not look at the
i was a proud cosponsor and proud to develop the bills transparency provisions with my friend senator dean heller of nevada. we recognize when the public lacks the scope of the government's surveillance program there is no way of knowing, striking the right balance, safeguarding our national security without trampling on our citizens fundamental private rights, privacy rights, but the public cannot know if we succeed in striking the balance if it'll have the most basic information about major surveillance programs which is why my focus has been on transparency and is why the senator and i crafted the provisions in the usa freedom you now require the government to issue details, annual reports of the surveillance authority issue,,
importantly the government now has to provide the public with estimates of how many people they have had their information collected for certain authorities, record of the communications of foreigners abroad they have to say how many times it has run searches for americans. when the american people have access to that kind of information they can better judge the government surveillance programs for themselves which is not just my view that an opinion shared by bob with, general counsel for the office of director of national intelligence, long addressing brookings last year he said, the intelligence community recognizes that with secretly to for secrecy inevitably come both suspicion and the possibility for piece. they believe they would have been less public outcry if
we have been more transparent beforehand. it seems to me that the same need for transparency applies with equal force we are talking about the number of americans whose phone calls or e-mails of an collected, perhaps incidentally under fisa section 702. members have asked for the numbers. civil society and liberties groups of asked, and just last month 14 members of the house judiciary committee asked for an estimate of the number of americans affected but thus far no one has received a satisfying answer. is it possible for the government to provide an exact count of how many united states persons have been swept up in section 702 surveillance and if not the exact count comeau what about an estimate?
>> it would be difficult to provide an exact count with any accuracy, and i do not think anyone has asked for that. they asked for an estimate. that should be possible. with apossible. with a couple programs it should be straightforward. with prism it is trickier, but that is why there is an offer to work with the intelligence community to try to find a privacy protected way of generating estimates. it is vital because i hear public statements over and over that this program is targeted of foreigners and that the collection is incidental. these are terms of art with specific legal meanings, but most americans are not lawyers. they willwere reasonably assume americans communications, not many are collected. having this estimate is important to pierce through
the legalese and give americans a truer sense of what the program entails which they need. >> this was brought up in terms of confidence. to what extent is that the issue and to what extent is the issue actually, when senator blumenthal was picking at the operational and transparency, the operation of this is more consistent. >> i think that it is both of those. the american public to have confidence, especially when it turns his focus to american communications, knowing how many are being collected, also it would eliminate the question of querying that information.
it is a large amount of information come over five years that is collected. i would also add, a report has been helpful through the privacy shield negotiation with it was a misunderstanding of 702 and did not appreciate people out there that have valuable information. tohink that was helpful resolve the negotiations with the european union on the data flow. the legal structure and they have oversight and -- i in the targeting process. misbrandedis up and looks like i'm way over. --i agree with everyone everything they said. >> i have one question and then senator feinstein has some questions. when i am done with my one question, i'm going to go and
senator feinstein or senator franken will finish the meeting. i want to thank a will before participating, and i am sure all of you are very willing to be resource persons for us over the next few months as we get around to working on reauthorization. i hope you won't do like a lot of people, wait for us to call you. if you have something we need to know that you will talk to me are other members of the committee or my staff. i would invite that. i want to thank you all for artistic rating in this hearing. ms. brown, i believe that transparency in government leads to increased accountability. i know is one of the privacy and provideberties was to additional transparency surrounding the frequency of the incidental collection of u.s. persons communications and i also understand that february
2016 the board described this recommendation as "being implemented." the question is can you walk through the specifics of what the board recommended and provided us with some more detail regarding the status of the implementation of the executive -- in the its secular branch. >> i agree with some of my said, it is hard to judge the impact on american people. the government -- we have had an ongoing dialogue about how to get more information to the public about this. it is very difficult if not impossible to come up with an exact number. when a foreign target communicating with other people,
the government doesn't automatically know the nationality. it would be resource intensive to investigate that. we did think, recognizing those challenges, we did think there were some aspects of the program that could be measured. five was a number of telephonic communication in which one person is located in the u.s., the number of communications concerning u.s. persons of the identified, the number of queries performed that use u.s. identifiers in which and as a disseminates the report. the last two measures are one that the government has now published some information on.
the transparency report was issued, which was required under the u.s. freedom act very freedom of information was provided to the congress. we are in an ongoing dialogue with the administration on how it has been releasing information responses, they are working very hard to do that with the nsa last week about that. to her staff about it next week. we will continue to press on that and we expect more work will be done next week. >> senator weinstein? >> thank you. theuse of some of discussion, i wanted to bring to everyone's attention to documents. this is a joint unclassified statement about lift. general counsel for the director of financial -- national on page three the
discussed targeting procedures. i would just like to read a short part to ensure compliance theythese provisions, that set up a number of steps in the preceding paragraph. section 702 requires targeting , minimization procedures and acquisition guidelines. these are designed to ensure that the government targets, not u.s. person outside the united states and also that it does not intentionally acquired domestic communications. the targeting procedures ensure that targeting of foreign persons is not indiscriminate, but instead targeted at non-u.s. persons outside the united states who are assessed to possess and expected to receive,
or who are likely to communicate for intelligence information. understood when it passed the faa, that a targeted none the u.s. person may communicate with where discuss information concerning a u.s. person. requires that all collection be governed by minimization procedures that restrict how the intelligence community treats any person. to the best of my knowledge the theseourt has to review minimization procedures annually and approve them along with the recertification of the program. this is page three of that. i think it is interesting for everyone to read. the second thing i wanted to cite is a national intelligence april 30 letter with an agenda that is a response to the
recommendations. interesting first time i have seen these figures. i am reading from page six of that. nsa's minimum minimization prohibit dissemination of information about u.s. persons in any nsa report unless that information is necessary to understand foreign intelligence information or assess its importance, contains evidence of ofrime or indicates a threat death or serious bodily and -- injury. if one of these conditions apply, and as i will often map the situation and will include no more than the minimum amount of u.s. persons information necessary to understand the foreign intelligence, or to describe the crimeware threat.
eightent instances and and the same makes a determination prior to releasing its original report that the u.s. persons identity is appropriate to disseminate in the first instance using the same standards mentioned above. here are the numbers. disseminated 4290 faa section 702 intelligence reports that included u.s. person information. , 4290 the u.s. person information was masked in 3180 reports of those, and unmasked -- 1220ouse and 220
reports. that's her a responsive to the , would anyone like to comment on that? butord hasn't addressed it, it is exactly the kind of information aboard was seeking i'm how many u.s. person identities were disseminated. a lot of time that information is masked, and then ultimately unmasked down the road. the focus of this program is on non-americans. there are misconceptions about
what this program was about. some thought it was only 51% you had to be sure about. the board concluded that it is a 99 plus percent chance of a non-american, because it is a very rigorous process. the other thing we look at his whether the suspected collection. we've felt there was a need for permit. the government hasn't documented why they thought it was sufficient to look at this information. they have now implemented to make sure there is a greater rationale for these collection. >> i would like you to know i was on this committee when this was discussed. there was tremendous concern about the wall really setting
the kind of information. i made the definition at that time that resulted in the reduction of the wall. to this day, i think it is a very important change that was made that enabled information to be constituted. i think in our concern, and because i see the intelligence, you get a sense that there is plotting and conspiracy going on. and the fbi is investigating ongoing cases. an unclassified number, mr. olson, of about 1000 investigations going on today in this country. we should not let down our guard, because to do so is to invite disaster. i believe from the time we began
looking at this, and with the is renewedelp there transparency going on and there is discussion that is helpful. i think the 702 program is really important. it would be most unfortunate and it would expose his country if that program were made ineffective. the key really is to do what we can, i think the faa has done that to provide and the masking and unmasking and how everybody has the numbers with respect to that for the year 2015. i just wanted to make those comments. if anybody has a comment - opposition to backdoor
searches is not a call to rebuild the wall. >> what is a backdoor search? >> that is when the fbi or any other agency targets a u.s. person for a search of data that was collected under section 702 >>. regardless of the minimization that was properly carried out. data, the gets raw nsa and the cia gets raw data using u.s. identifiers. personto address a u.s. query is not calling to rebuild the wall. any agency that comes across that information should share that information and we should work together to address this threat. what the fourth amendment cannot tolerate is the government collecting information communication without a war with the intent of mining it for use
in criminal cases against americans. >> that's where you and i differ. i think all of this data is collected lawfully. case where the dating collected unlawfully, i would like to see it. not that simple. collection and how the data is treated are both parts of the .ame's scheme what makes the collection at the to collectawful without a warrant is in part restrictions on how the dating can be used on the back end. >> let's have somebody respond to that. think you're onto something very important when you discuss -- minimization. there are protections around the throughe report went
detail about high and on -- how a u.s. query can be conducted here in they have to be designed to return foreign intelligence, the board recommended improvements for that, which the agencies are implementing. there is extensive oversight after the fact by the justice department. with respect to the fbi, the fbi does not track u.s. person separately for non-u.s. person queries. they are documented and the person who conducted them is documented. where the protections come in is and use of information or any foreseeable event that 702 information response to a query, that information cannot be used by the allies that conduct the core area unless they are trained to use the information. the attorney general has to serve any of that information.
-- if someone's communications collected are used against him in a criminal proceeding, he has be notified. we know that happens to there was just a case out of a court in colorado where a defendant did a motion to suppress after the government notified him it had been collected. it is now happening. it's very important to keep the limitations in mind. >> if i can make a broader point, which is the targeting procedures that you identified in the first document, the transparency figures. i think those highlight along , and most of the itcussion today, the success represents, this is a law that reflected a careful balance of 2008.
and has to in -- tweak the balance, it is a report that is unprecedented in details leading to those details. -- carefullye calibrated law that has been a major success and i reject the notion of backdoor search, it is a back -- a misnomer to call those backdoor searches. i think this is a very good story at the end of the day. >> thank you very much. we have looked at this, and there are a number of opinions from some of your colleagues on the subject that have been studied. it is lawful and well-balanced.
i hate to say it, but very necessary. only view, it's intelligence lawfully collected that is able to prevent another attack in this country. i hope there will be more declassified examples before terms, before we are in 2017 and face reauthorization. would you adjourn the meeting please? >> i'd be delighted to. senator -- to the the senator from california, the work has been so important in her thoughtful questions. i am going to adjourn this in a second. what is interesting, i thought about this line of questioning,
this is sort of the core of all we have hadch is some very important information from 702 that has sported terrorists attacks. this is crucial. largebelieve that by and with some exceptions that our intelligence community has acted in good faith. backuestion here is going to the framers, and going back happens fear about what when a government isn't acting in good faith, as i think our intelligence committee by and large has.
information that we get through 702 can be misused . you mentioned parallel construction, and again, the framers wrote the constitution because they did not like the british. at the time. they were worried about making some people running the executive ranch of the government that were not as trustworthy as others. that is the reason that we look how that 702 information was
collected about people who are the targets, and who are americans, how that information is -- what the rules are. so that is a misuse. that's my understanding of this. i saw you reach for the button. i think there are situations in which having oversight and alls about procedures, those things, there are cases where that is vital. when you're talking about a warrant to access american communications, you cannot substitute the seizures for a warrant. roberts, theice
founders did not cite a rebel -- fight a revelation -- here are some programs to watch for this we can. on saturday at 10:00 p.m. on afterwords, equal is unfair. >> what we are concerned with is not how much my do have but how did you get it? through something that was fair or through a process that is unfair. that is something we are challenging and saying that is >> not a fair way to treat people. >>mr. walken says the american by --is achieved not sunday afternoon at 4:38, former he of vets for freedom offers his revisions for americans today. >> this book is not about me,
-- it is a call to action. it is meant to inspire, motivate and remind americans of any -- every generation about what it makes america special. , andof the security rifle many in this generation still do . but you don't have to carry the rifle to be in the arena. know anas you all here experiment in human freedom. erin mccue and her book, "political suicide." instead it becomes three rings of horror. we are still fatigued by the time the mod has flung, the skeletons come out of the closet and election day is over.
she recounts memorable missteps in american history. go to book tv.org for the complete schedule. the acting administrator for the centers for medicare and medicaid services testifies wednesday, we have it at 2:00 p.m. on c-span3. bernie sanders celebrated his west virginia win and it campaign rally. he told supporters he is more suited to take on donald trump and hillary clinton. about one hour. [cheers and applause]
it appears that we won a big victory in west virginia. [cheers and applause] and with your help, we are going .o win in oregon next week [cheers and applause] i want to take a moment to thank forpeople of west virginia the tremendous victory. i think it and set being a double-digit victory tonight. [cheers and applause] and this is the state where hillary clinton one by over 40
innts against barack obama 2008. [cheers and applause] west virginia is a working-class state. like many other states in this oregon,including working people are hurting. but the people of west virginia said tonight and i believe the people of oregon on and can is that weext week, need an economy that works for all of us, not just for 1%.
the people of this country are sick and tired of working to they are tired of working longer hours for lower worried aboute , anduture of their kids see almost want to all new wealth and income going to the top 1%. the people of was virginia and kentucky and or gone want an economy that works for all of us. [cheers and applause]
they want to have the united states join every other major country in guaranteed health care for all people as a right. [applause] sen. sanders: they want to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure and create 13 million jobs. [applause] sen. sanders: and the people of west virginia and the people of kentucky and the people of oregon understand that in the year 2016, we have got to make public colleges and universities tuition-free. [applause]
sen. sanders: and at a time of massive income and wealth inequality where the top one-tenth of 1% almost has as much as the bottom 90%, the people of oregon and kentucky and west virginia know that it is high time for the wealthy and large corporations to start paying their fair share of taxes. [applause] sen. sanders: with our victory tonight in west virginia, we
have now won primaries and caucuses in 19 states. [applause] sen. sanders: and let me be as clear as i can be. we are in this campaign to win the democratic nomination! [applause] sen. sanders: and we are going to fight for every last vote in oregon, kentucky, california, the dakotas. [applause] sen. sanders: now, we fully acknowledge we are good at arithmetic, that we have an uphill climb ahead of us.
but we are used to fighting uphill climbs. [applause] sen. sanders: we have been fighting uphill from the first day of this campaign when people considered us a fringe candidacy. [applause] sen. sanders: and our message to the democratic delegates who will be assembling in philadelphia, is while we may have many disagreements with secretary clinton, there is one area where we agree, and that is that we must defeat donald trump. [applause]
sen. sanders: and i am very happy to tell you, we will defeat donald trump. [applause] sen. sanders: and if you look over the last month or six weeks at every national poll, bernie sanders defeats donald trump by big numbers. [applause] sen. sanders: but it is not only national polls where we defeat trump by bigger numbers than secretary clinton, it is state
poll after state poll after state poll. just in the last day -- just in the last day, two national polls have us beating trump by bigger margins than secretary clinton, four statewide polls. in pennsylvania, ohio, florida, and new hampshire. in every one of those polls, we beat trump or do better against trump than does secretary clinton. [applause] sen. sanders: but the reason that our campaign is the strongest campaign against trump is not just the polls, it is that our campaign is generating the energy and the enthusiasm
that we need to have a large voter turnout in november. [applause] sen. sanders: democrats and progressives win national elections when the voter turnout is high, when millions of people are prepared to stand up and fight back, that is what our campaign is all about. [applause] sen. sanders: i am very proud to tell you that taking on virtually the entire democratic establishment, senators, and
governors, and members of congress and mayors -- despite all that opposition, we have now received well over 45% of the pledged delegates. [applause] sen. sanders: and if we do well in the coming weeks in oregon, and california, in new jersey, in kentucky and the other states, we still have that road to victory in winning the majority of pledged delegates. [applause]
sen. sanders: let me mention something else that does not get a lot of attention, but that i am very, very proud of. in virtually every primary and caucus, we win the significant majority of people 45 years of age and younger. [applause] sen. sanders: now, the truth is we are going to work on this, we have to do better with older voters. and we are going to do better with older voters, but when we win in state after state, a significant majority of younger voters, what that tells me and i think it tells the american people, our vision of economics, social, racial and environmental justice in the future of america. [applause]
sen. sanders: and the major reason is that the american people understand that we cannot have a president who has insulted latinos and mexicans. [applause] sen. sanders: who has insulted muslims. [applause] sen. sanders: who, every day, is insulting women in one way or another. [applause] sen. sanders: who has insulted veterans like john mccain and others. [applause]
sen. sanders: who has insulted african-americans in a very profound way. people sometimes forget that before mr. trump was running for president, he was one of the leaders of the so-called "birther" movement. and that movement was a very ugly effort to delegitimize the presidency of the first african-american president in our history. mr. trump will not become president because the american people understand that our strength is in our diversity. [applause] sen. sanders: that we are a great nation because we are black and white and latino and asian american and native american. [applause]
sen. sanders: we are a great nation because we are gay and we are straight. [applause] sen. sanders: we are a great nation because we are women and men. [applause] sen. sanders: and our greatness and our strength is when we come together as one proud people. [applause] sen. sanders: and the american people understand that bringing us together always trumps dividing us up. [applause]
sen. sanders: and the american people understand that we are great when we support each other. [applause] sen. sanders: when your family is hurting, my family has got to be there for you. [applause] sen. sanders: and when my family hurts, you have got to help us. america is about not tolerating a situation in which children go hungry or veterans sleep out on the street. [applause] sen. sanders: and the american
people understand that supporting each other always trumps selfishness. [applause] sen. sanders: and the american people also understand a very profound lesson taught to us by every major religion on earth, whether it is christianity, judaism, islam, buddhism, whatever, and that profound message is that at the end of the day, love always trumps hatred. [applause]
[chanting "bernie"] sen. sanders: our campaign has now won primaries and caucuses in 19 states because we are doing something very unusual in american politics. we are treating the american people like intelligent human beings. [applause] sen. sanders: and we are telling them the truth, even when the truth is unpleasant.
i have always believed that it is far more important to deal with unpleasant truths than to just sweep them under the rug. [applause] sen. sanders: and let me discuss with you some of the truths that we have got to address as americans. number one, men and women fought and died to help preserve american democracy. and we owe our veterans a debt of gratitude that we can never repay. [applause] sen. sanders: and that is why i regard it as appalling that we have a campaign system which is corrupt and undermining american democracy. [applause]
sen. sanders: democracy is not a complicated idea. it means one person, one vote. you get a vote, you get a vote, and you get a vote. [applause] sen. sanders: democracy does not mean billionaires buying elections. democracy does not mean wall street and the wealthiest people in this country contributing massive amounts of money into super pac's.
democracy does not mean republican governors suppressing the vote. and that is why, together, we are going to overturn this supreme court decision on citizens united. [applause] sen. sanders: and why we are going to move towards public funding of elections. i believe passionately in democracy, and what that means is if you are a progressive, a moderate, a conservative, i do not care what your ideology is -- you should have the right to run for office without begging millionaires for campaign contributions. [applause] sen. sanders: i want this country to have the highest rate
of voter turnout of any country on earth, not one of the lowest voter turnouts. [applause] sen. sanders: but it is not just a corrupt campaign-finance system, and the super pacs that we have got to deal with. it is the fact that we live in a rigged economy. for fairly obvious reasons, you will not see much of this discussion on television. but here are some unpleasant realities that we as a nation are going to have to address.
and that is we have more income and wealth inequality than almost any major country on earth, and it is worse today, that inequality, than at any time since 1928. in america today -- and i wanted to hear this because you are not going to see it on tv, you might as well hear it here, that is the top one tenth of 1% now owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. [booing] sanders: in america today, the 20 wealthiest people own
more wealth than the bottom half of america, 150 million americans. [booing] sanders: in america today, one family, the walton family of walmart -- owns more wealth than the bottom 40% of the american people. one family! and here is what a rigged economy really means. the waltons own walmart but pay their workers wages that are so low that many employees are forced to go on food stamps and medicaid. and you know who pays for those food stamps and medicaid? you do!
it seems to me to be a little bit absurd for working families to have to subsidize the wealthiest family in this country. [cheering and applause] sen. sanders: and i say to the walton family, and by the way one of the waltons made a campaign contribution to sec. clinton of hundreds of thousands of dollars, i say to that family -- maybe instead of making large campaign contributions to sec. clinton, pay your workers a living wage! [cheers and applause]
sen. sanders: but we have got to deal with not just a declining and disappearing middle class, not just the fact that we have over 20% of our children living in poverty, not just that we have a corrupt campaign finance system, we also have a broken criminal justice system. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: there is something very wrong in this country when we have more people in jail they end any other country on earth. country on other
earth. we are spending $80 billion a year to lock up 2.2 billion americans. that has got to change. and one of the reasons we have so many people in jail is that in many of our inner cities and many of our rural communities, you have youth unemployment of 30%, 40%, 50%. white kids, latino kids, african-americans kids who have no jobs and no education. and when you hang out on street corners, bad things happen. and that is why i believe it if i am elected president we will
implement investing in our young people and jobs and education. in jobs and education, not jails or incarceration. you know, we have been criticized, our campaign has been criticized because we think too big. we are too radical. maybe it is a radical idea, maybe it is not. but i want this country to have the best educated population, not more people in jail they and -- not more people in jail than any other country. [applause] sen. sanders: when we talk about reforming criminal justice, it is also important to deal with local police departments all across this country.
now, i was a mayor of burlington, vermont, and we want all of you to come visit us in vermont. like oregon, it is a beautiful state. you will enjoy it. i was the mayor there for eight years and i worked with our department not only in burlington but throughout our state. i worked with police officers throughout this country. the vast majority of police are honest and hard-working and have a avery difficult job. [applause] sen. sanders: but when a police officer, like any other public
official, breaks the law -- that officer must be held accountable. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: we have got to demilitarize local police departments. [applause] sen. sanders: we have got to make police departments reflect the diversity of the communities they serve. we have got to end corporate ownership of prisons and detention centers. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: we have got to create a culture in this country which says to police departments, lethal force -- killing people -- is the last resort. not the first resort. we have got to rethink the so-called "war on drugs."
in the last 30 years, millions of americans have received police records for possession of marijuana. [booing] sen. sanders: and if you are a young person trying to get a job, having that police record issue.al serious and i happen to believe right marijuana is a schedule one drug, right alongside heroin. that is crazy. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: and that is why we will take medical marijuana out -- and that is why, if the president, we will take
marijuana off that schedule. applause] and when weers: talk about drugs, let me tell you we have a major crisis in this country in terms of opiate addiction and in terms of heroin addiction and substance abuse. to my mind, the most effective way to treat that crisis because people are overdosing every single day and dying, what we have got to do is understand that addiction is a health issue not a criminal issue. applause] that is why wend need a revolution in mental
health treatment to in this country. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: if you are addicted, you should be able to get the help you need it today. not six months from today. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: we are also facing a very serious crisis in suicide in this country. and when people are suicidal or when they are homicidal -- and i do not have to tell the people of oregon about mass killings. we need to make sure the people who have mental crises get the help they need when they need it. [applause]
sen. sanders: this campaign is going to win because we are listening to the american people and not just the wealthy campaign contributors. [applause] sen. sanders: we are listening to workers who tell me they cannot make it on eight or nine bucks an hour. we need to raise the minimum wage nationally to $15 an hour. [applause] sen. sanders: and when we talk about equitable wages, we are going to make sure that women do not continue to earn $.79 on the dollar compared to men.
[applause] sen. sanders: and i know that every man here will stand with the women in the fight for pay equity. [applause] sen. sanders: this campaign is listening to seniors and disabled veterans and the veterans community in general and what they are telling me is that no senior, no disabled veteran can make it on 10,000 dollars or $11,000 per year social security. republicans want to cut social security benefits. [booing] sen. sanders: well, we have some bad news for them. not going to cut for the
disabled. we are going to expand. we are going to expand social security benefits. this campaign is listening to young people. [applause] sen. sanders: and when we think outside of the box and outside of the status quo, we have to ask ourselves a very simple question. how does it happened that when young people do exactly the right thing and go out and get the best education they can, why 30,000,end up with 50,000, $70,000 of debt? [applause] sen. sanders: think about it for one second and you conclude that is nuts. it's nuts.
we want to encourage our people to get the best education they can. we should not be punishing people for getting an education, we should be rewarding them. [applause] sen. sanders: and that is why we are going to do two things. we are going to make public colleges and universities tuition-free. [applause] sen. sanders: for the millions of people -- and how many people here tonight are dealing with student debt? -- what we are going to do is allow people with student debt to refinance their loans at the lowest interest rate they can
find. [applause] sen. sanders: and we are going to pay for that through a tax on wall street speculation. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: this country bailed out wall street when their greed and illegal behavior drove this nation into the worst economic downturn since the great depression. now it is wall street's time to help the middle class of this country. [applause]
sen. sanders: this campaign is listening to our african-american brothers and sisters. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: and they are asking me, how does it happen that we have trillions of dollars to spend on a war in iraq we should have never gotten into? [applause] sanders: but supposedly we do not have the money to rebuild crumbling inner cities in this country. if elected president, together we are going to be changing our national priorities. we are not going to be rebuilding infrastructure in iraq, we are going to be rebuilding inner cities in america. this campaign is listening to our latino brothers and sisters. we need comprehensive immigration reform and a path toward citizenship. [applause]
they were cheated and treaties they negotiated were broken. and yet, the native american people have provided us with so much. we have a debt to them we can never ever repay and one of the most important things that they have taught us is that as human beings, we are part of nature. we must co-exist with nature. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: and that if we continue as we are doing today,
if we continue to destroy nature, we are ultimately destroying the human species. [applause] sen. sanders: and yet today, on reservations and in native american communities, poverty and unemployment and suicide rates are sky high. if elected president, we are going to profoundly change our relationship to the native american people. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: when we think big and not small -- when we think outside of the status quo, we ask ourselves a very simple question. how does it happen that the united states is the only major country on earth not to guarantee health care to all
people as a right? the affordable care act has got some very important things, but we -- [no audio] [chanting "bernie!"] sen. sanders: ahhh! the sound system has reappeared. see, that is thinking big. you don't have it and is suddenly it is in right of you. but, the affordable care act has done some good things but we have got to do more. and what this campaign is about in all respects is making the
american people understand what we have and should have as americans. every day, the media and establishment tells us, think small. well, you know what? i kind of think if people in the united kingdom, germany, scandinavia, holland, canada can have health care as a right, you know what? i do think that the people of america are entitled to have help care. -- health care. and i want you to think big and think about this. when we pass a medicare for all islth care what it means
anybody goes to the doctor there are when they have to go to the doctor. not worry about a deductible or a copayment. [applause] sen. sanders: and when we pass a medicare for all system, we will not continue to be ripped off by the drug companies who charge us the highest prices in the world. [applause] sen. sanders: and when we pass a medicare for all system, it will mean that millions of people no longer have to stay on jobs they do not like simply because they are getting good health insurance.
[applause] sen. sanders: think for a moment what it will mean to our economy when we unleash the entrepreneurial spirit of millions of people who can leave their jobs now and go out and start new businesses. [applause] sen. sanders: and not have to worry about whether they are going to have health insurance or not. i want to, for a moment, talk about a few of the differences that exist between sec. clinton and myself. sec. clinton thinks we should raise the minimum wage to 12 bucks an hour. not good enough! we need to raise the minimum
wage to $15 an hour. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: i am a member of the u.s. senate committee on the environment. let me tell you, climate change is real. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: and for the sake of our children and future generations, we are going to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel. and one way to do that, maybe the most important way, is to have a tax on carbon. that is my view, that is not sec. clinton's view. in fact, when she was secretary of state, she pushed fracking technology on countries throughout the world. [booing]
sen. sanders: i believe the issue of clean water is going to become one of the most significant global issues we face. in our country and throughout the world. and that is why i believe we have got to end fracking. [applause] sen. sanders: that is not secretary clinton's viewpoint. [booing] sen. sanders: foreign policy, as you know, and military policy is a very important part of what a president does. the most important foreign-policy debate in the modern history of this country
was over the war in iraq. i voted against the war in iraq. [applause] sen. sanders: sec. clinton supported the war in iraq. [booing] sen. sanders: if we are going to rebuild the declining middle class, we need to revamp our trade policies. i voted against every one of these disastrous trade agreements. sec. clinton supported virtually all of them. and on and on it goes.
at this moment in american history we need a president who has the history and the courage to take on the billionaire class. [applause] sen. sanders: and i do not think there is any debate over who that candidate is. [applause] [chanting "bernie"] senator sanders: everyone who has studied history knows that real change always takes place from the bottom on up. never from the top on down. [applause] sen. sanders: and that is the history of workers struggle and the trade unions. it is the history of the civil rights movement.
it is the history of the women's movement. let us not forget, 100 years ago women did not have the right to vote, to get the education or the jobs they wanted. women stood up and fought back. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: and they and their male allies said, women will not be second-class citizens in the united states. [applause] sen. sanders: and that is the history of the gay movement and gay rights in this country. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: against incredible bigotry and hatred, the gay community and their straight allies said that in america
people should have the right to love whoever they want regardless of their gender. [applause] sen. sanders: and here we are today. today in a nation faced by enormous crises, and once again millions of people are going to have to come together, stand up and fight back and create a government which works for all of us not just the 1%. [applause] sen. sanders: and that is what this campaign is about. no president, not bernie sanders or anyone else can do it alone. we have got to do it together. [applause]
sen. sanders: in that regard, i want to thank your senator. [applause] sanders: there are 100 people in the u.s. senate. jeff is the only member of the u.s. senate to support our campaign and i thank him for that. [applause] sen. sanders: next tuesday, there is going to be an enormously important democratic primary here in oregon. what i have found out throughout this campaign is that when the voter turnout is high we do well. we win. [applause]
sen. sanders: next tuesday here in oregon, let us have the highest voter turnout in oregon democratic primary history. [applause] sen. sanders: and let the great state of oregon, the progressive state of oregon, go on record saying, "yes, we want a political revolution!" thank you all very much. [cheers and applause] ♪
announcer: c-span washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. morning, tom cole joins us to discuss this week's ryan and donald trump. and then representative gregory meeks will join us to discuss the upcoming election. and the latest edition of the m.i.t. technology review mosquitoes --the
be sure to watch washington journal coming up in some :00 this morning. onn the discussion will stop capitol hill this morning, looking into the new overtime rules and the impact on small business. coming up on c-span three. hillaryic president clinton campaigned in kentucky at a campaign in louisville she told kentucky they must win in november. this is about 30 minutes. ♪ [applause]
mrs. clinton: hello, louisville! it is great to be here with all of you. i want to thank your absolutely amazing secretary of state, my friend alison lundergren grimes. thank you, allison. i want to also thank mayor greg fisher, who is here somewhere. thank you mayor! but mostly i want to thank all of you for being here with us on this rainy afternoon. we are excited about the primary next tuesday. [applause]
mrs. clinton: you know, these elections are always important. that is how we govern ourselves. i believe that. but boy do i think this presidential election has about the highest stakes we have seen in a really long time. you could not imagine a more different vision for our country than the one between our side of democrats for progress, for prosperity, for fairness and opportunity then the presumptive nominee on the republican side and -- [booing] mrs. clinton: that is why it is important we have a big vote on next tuesday because we have to go all the way to november to win the general election! you know, the way i see this, we have got to break down all of the barriers that stand in the way of any american getting ahead and staying ahead and i have been talking about this now for about a year as i have crisscrossed the country talking
to thousands of people. because yes, we have to knock down the economic barriers but there are other barriers that prevent people from fulfilling their god-given potential and i want you with me to be absolutely on the front of lines of making sure that the american dream is within reach of every single person in this country. [applause] mrs. clinton: number one, we have got to have more good jobs with rising income and i will tell you it is a historical fact that the economy does better when we have a democrat in the white house. i know our republican friends hate it when i say that. but all you have to do is look at the record of the last two democratic presidents to get all the evidence you need.
as i vaguely remember, i know it was a long time ago, but as i vaguely remember, when my husband was president we ended up with 23 million new jobs. and incomes that rose for everybody. that is an important fact because we do not want income just to rise for some. we want them to rise for everybody, not just people at the top. and when bill was president, that is what happened. more people lifted out of poverty. median family income of 17%. -- going up 17%. median african american family income up 33%. everybody did better. that is the way it is supposed to be in america. that is how i was raised. you do your part, you work hard, you get ahead. your kids will have a better life than you did.
that is what i want people to believe and that is what i want to make sure happens. so you might ask yourself, ok. if that is what happened in the 1990's, why did it fall apart? there is kind of an easy answer for that. we had a republican president. and i will tell you, this is serious because i think we had a balanced budget surplus. we had new jobs. rising income. and now we can look back and see that we have not had a raise for most americans in about 16 years. family income is about $4000 less than it was when my husband left office. there was a recent survey done of both with republicans and democrats and they said, when was the best or you can
-- best in year you can remember? and they said, 2000. why was that? because we were on the right track. but the republicans came back with their failed position. trickle-down economics. and then of course they took their eyes off the financial markets and the mortgage markets and we know what happened. the worst financial crisis since the great depression. this is not ancient history. and i remind us of it because the republicans are going to run the same campaign. they are going to run the same economic policies. you can already see it. we cannot let that happen. we were losing 800,000 jobs a month when president obama was elected and i will tell you, i do not think he gets the credit he deserves for making sure we did not fall into a great depression. [applause]
mrs. clinton: and, you know what the republicans all say, they said it in their debates, you'll hear from their presumptive nominee, they will say, while this is the slowest recovery in history. now my friends, that takes a lot of nerve. we would not have needed a recovery of the republicans had not driven us off the cliff in the first place. [applause] mrs. clinton: so here's what i want to do. i have a program to create more good jobs with rising incomes. rebuild the middle class. we are going to invest in more infrastructure. roads, bridges, tunnels, ports, airports. i think it is about time that a bridge you have got right here should be fixed.
these are good jobs. these pay good money. but they also make us more competitive. why should we allow all of these investments that our parents, our grandparents, our great-grandparents made, go to waste? it makes no sense whatsoever. let's put america to work. these are jobs you cannot export. they have got to be done right here in kentucky. and then we are going to bring advanced manufacturing. there are a lot of people who say to me, we cannot do that. i do not buy that. i believe we can make it an america again. we've got to have a plan. we have got to invest in tax incentives for countries that -- for companies that will actually produce manufacturing jobs here instead of shipping those jobs overseas. [applause] mrs. clinton: but there are a lot of things we have got to invent and build and we should do it here in america. my husband was at morehead state the other day and he cannot stop talking about it, because he was meeting with students who are doing research building tiny
satellites for nasa. right there at morehead state. i am telling you, the young people of america, if we give them a chance, they will invent the future and to create the jobs that are there. and you know how we're going to combat climate change? not by denying it. i love it when the republicans are asked, what do you say about climate change and they say something like, i do not know i am not a scientist. and i have been saying for months now, well go talk to a scientist. you can go to the university of louisville, the university of kentucky, there are a lot of scientists there who will explain it to you. but i am also excited because some country is going to be the 21st century superpower when it comes to clean renewable energy. either germany, china, or us. i want it to be us. the jobs, the technology, the
businesses, the exports. you see, i have this idea that our future can be even brighter than our past. that the best years can be ahead of us if we start acting like americans again. roll up our sleeves and get to work. we are going to do more for small business because that is where most jobs come from. clear away the obstacles. my dad was a small businessman and i love small businesses because you never know what can be made from a small business and i want to do more to help you get ahead if you have a small business. and i do believe we should raise the federal minimum wage.
now, i got to tell you it is really painful when you look at people who are working hard full-time and they are still in poverty. i mean, you should feel like you have got a ladder of opportunity up if you're doing what we want you and expect you to do. two thirds of minimum wage workers are women. a lot of them single-parent supporting their children. i want to raise the federal minimum wage. if states want to go above it, that is their business. but we have got to get the floor up so that people have a chance to make it in america by the debt of their hard work. and i tell you, it is way past time to guarantee equal pay for women's work. [applause]
mrs. clinton: this is not just a women's issue, this is a family issue. if you have a mother, a wife, a daughter, a sister who is shortchanged, you are being shortchanged. and it is not only the family income being shortchanged, the woman who is getting less than what her pay should be is getting shortchanged in retirement. getting shortchanged and social security. it is not just a one day, one week, one pay, one year phenomenon. and i do not know about you but i can tell you -- [chanting "hillary"] mrs. clinton: well, i could tell you that as a woman who has
shopped most of her life, i have never gotten a discount when i got to the cashier. i have never had anyone say, you are a woman so you only have to pay $.78 on the dollar. or an african-american, you will have to pay $.68. or latina woman, $.58. that has not happened yet stop -- that has not happened yet. but we have to be fair and that is how we build this country. we believe in hard work and opportunity. i will tell you something else, i started out in lexington today and -- [applause] mrs. clinton: -- and i was talking to some young parents, moms and dads. i had a conversation like that in virginia yesterday. we are making it so difficult for young families.
the stresses on young families today seem to be much greater in lots of ways because between the fact that you are not getting raises like people used to expect and you are not getting equal pay for your work and childcare can cost as much as sending a child to a university and you got all kinds of challenges if you have a new baby or a sick spouse or a sick parent, you cannot get time off. we are really making it hard and i think it is time to bring family policy into the 21st century. it is not the way it used to be. we have got to support these young parents. i have been doing this work my entire adult life. first job i had out of law school was with the children's defense fund. and i know how important it is
that we give people hope. that we give people a real sense that we're all in this together and that they do not feel like game is rigged against them and the deck is stacked. so i'm going to keep advocating for good jobs, rising income, into good work-family balance so that people can deal like they are being there to their family while they do their work in their workplace. every time i advocate for this, you know, the republicans all say -- there she goes. playing the women's card. and i always say, you know what -- if talking about equal pay and women's health and paid family leave is playing the women's card, then deal me in!
[applause] clinton: you are a great crowd today. [cheers and applause] mrs. clinton: ok, you know what else? we have got to do more on education and we have to start at the beginning and go all the way through. we need early childhood education so every kid is prepared and we need to work with our teachers. like the one who is out here earlier today introducing allison. we need to be supporting our teachers not scapegoating our teachers. giving them what they need to do their jobs. and i have a plan for debt-free college. if you go to a public college. and the reason we can afford to do this is because we can invest in the education of young people
from middle-class working poor families. not the wealthy. i do not believe in free college for the wealthy. i do not support that. my opponent, senator sanders, does. we just have a difference. but he also requires that one third of the cost for free college be paid by the state. i do not know about you, but i do not think your new governor is very friendly to higher education. [link] -- [booing] senator -- so my plan avoids that, and we
fund it directly. another thing we are going to do is pay down student debt by letting you refinance your student debt like a mortgage or a car payment. i am excited about this because there is so much student debt out there and it is holding people back and holding them down. $1.2 trillion in student debt. let's get the student interest rate down. let's give people a chance to pay back as a percentage of their income. let us put a date certain when it ends and let's keep that government from making money by lending money to students and their families. [applause] mrs. clinton: now, i also will tell you i will defend the affordable care act and i am what i hear may out of the governor's office in kentucky. [booing] mrs. clinton: i am especially saddened because i think you all know this, but kentucky under governor bashear was widely praised for running the best affordable care transition in
the whole country. your state exchange called "connect" was bigger,richer. you guys did it right and it is working. you had the second-biggest drop in the uninsured and the country, nearly 9% it is down to. and i was visiting the family health centers here in louisville and talking to doctors and nurse practitioners and patients and i have to tell you, it brought tears to my eyes. people who are getting health care for the first time in years. people dealing with problems that they had to ignore. people feel healthier, more productive, like they can put in a good day's work because they now have the treatmeant they deserve and need to have. and it is so distressing to me
when anybody in public life who has all the health care he or she needs wants to take it away from poor people, working poor people, small business people, and others who do not have the health care they need. [applause] mrs. clinton: i do not understand it. i really do believe we're all in this together. we are stronger together. how does it help me or help our economy if you have hundreds of thousands of people in this state who cannot afford the health care they need? that does not seem like a productive outcome at all. so i am hoping maybe you're governor will come out with a plan that does not strip away the health insurance that hundreds of thousands of kentuckians now have. i sure hope that is the case
because that is the kind of country we should be striving to be. where we do take care of each other. [applause] mrs. clinton: and there are two issues, i want to get the cost of prescription drugs down and i think we can do it now. and i want to do more on mental health and addiction. [applause] mrs. clinton: both of those issues, we are just not doing enough. there is still too much stigma about mental health, right? if you have diabetes, you tell your family and friends you have diagnosed with that, right? if you have depression, you're not sure you want them to know. and you may not even go get the help you need because you are embarrassed. it is time to end the stigma. we are learning so much about the body, about our genomes, about how we work.
and we are all one body. whether it is mental health or physical health, need to do more to help people who are suffering. [applause] mrs. clinton: and i know kentucky is facing a big opioid crisis. and we have got to do more because we are losing thousands of people a year to overdoses and i was very pleased to see family health centers today to learn they are starting opioid treatment but we need that everywhere because people need help and they need to be saved from overdoses. a lot of them do not know they are overdosing. my husband and i have lost children of dear friends of ours. adult children. who had no intention to die, but
they took a pill after they had a beer or two. and they never woke up. this is the single most heartbreaking story i hear as i travel across america and as your president i assure you we are going to do everything we can to save lives. divert people from the criminal justice system. give them treatment. help them into recovery and let them get on a better track. we are also going to reform the criminal justice system and and the era of mass incarceration with more diversions and more second chance programs. i think it is one of our biggest
challenges and i want us to lead the way at the local and state levels supported by the federal government. you know, there is a lot of great work for us to do in our country right now and i think everybody running for president should have to meet the test of whether or not they are telling you about how they are going to improve the lives of americans. what are the positive results that we are seeking? i also think they should level with you about where they stand on all of the hot button issues. the issues about rights. because there is a big difference between us. i will defend a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. [cheers and applause] mrs. clinton: and i will defend marriage equality. and i will defend voting rights. and i will work to end citizens united and i will work to rid our political system of unaccountable money.
i talked a lot about that in this campaign. i take it personally that citizens united case was another right wing attack on me. the right wing never gives up on attacking me, have you noticed that? honest to goodness, i think they are really going to throw and everything including the kitchen sink this time. but i have a little message for them. they have done it for 25 years and i am still standing. [cheers and applause] [chanting "hillary"] mrs. clinton: it is also really
important when you go to vote on tuesday to remember your voting not just for president but for a commander-in-chief. and the highest obligation of a president is to protect america. i take that as a solemn obligation and it is why i have been so concerned about the reckless talk coming from donald trump. i have to tell you, it is a long list now that he just sort of throws things out and people say, maybe he does not really mean it. when you are running for and serving as president, you had better mean what you say. so when he casually says he does not care if more countries get nuclear weapons, i shudder. the last thing we need are more countries with nuclear weapons, i am trying to reduce the number
of nuclear weapons. that is why negotiated a treaty with russia to do just that. we do not need more countries, we need fewer countries with nuclear weapons. when he says he wants to withdraw from nato, the most successful military alliance in history, i say -- what are we going to substitute for it and how are we going to work with our friends and allies against all of the threats we face? and when he says, let the iranians or russians go after isis, well, hello, the last thing we need is iran taking over syria, taking over lebanon, and threatening israel and europe and everybody else. so i have got to tell you, if i am so fortunate to be the nominee i am looking forward to debating donald trump come the fall. [cheers and applause]
mrs. clinton: and you know, finally, we have got to unify america. i mean, a house divided against itself, as abraham lincoln said, cannot stand. we cannot be scapegoating, finger-pointing, blaming, and demeaning and degrading and insulting our fellow americans. do we have disagreements? yes. that is in our dna. that is healthy. there are a lot of different ways to achieve our goals and we have a good back and forth about how we achieve them. you do not do that by denigrating people. demeaning people. that is not what we are. and it is time we said "enough." we are willing to have good political debates but enough with the hate rhetoric and the insults. [applause]
mrs. clinton: let's look for ways that we can work together. let's recognize what did make our country great. because you see, i think we are great. but i think we can be greater if we do what we must do. and so many of the targets that donald trump and so many of the other republicans aim at, it is part of how we became great. this effort to undermine worker rights and union rights is undermining the middle class. undermining the core of who we are and how our economy operates and how we can get stronger and more prosperous. attacking immigrants? we are a nation of immigrants, right! attacking muslims? well, muslims have to be on the frontlines to protect us against terrorists. they have got to tell us what they hear and what they see. that is what we learned in new york after 9/11. i have lived this.
and one of the ways we picked up information was by making sure that american muslims understood that they were welcome to pick up the phone and to call the police and to report what they saw and what they heard. it helped to keep us safe and it will again. that is why we cannot be dividing ourselves. we need to be united against terrorism. [applause] mrs. clinton: and demeaning and denigrating people with disabilities? that is not who we are. insulting women? i don't care what he says about me but i do resent what he says about other people. other successful women. women who have worked hard. women who have done their part. we are, after all, 51% of the country.
[cheers and applause] mrs. clinton: i have never seen us have such a divisive campaign and i am going to do my best to keep talking about what the issues are. what i see as our future. the kind of positive vision i have for america. i am going to build on the good work that has gone before. i am going to do everything i can to bring people together. i will go anywhere, anytime, meet with anyone to find common ground. absolutely. [applause] clinton: that is what i did as first lady, that is what i did as a senator, that is what i did as secretary of state. [applause] mrs. clinton: i am all about getting results for america. the way i look at it is, are people going to be better off
when i and they hung when i started? -- are people going to be better when in i end than started? are more families going to have better jobs with rising incomes? are more kids going to have better educations and better health care restaurant are we going to come together as a nation and that of falling apart? i think that is our big challenge of the 21st century because i will tell you, there there is no other country, none. i went to 112 countries as your secretary of state for you. there is no other country that holds a candle to us when we are good, nobody is better. i want us to roll up our sleeves and get to work. and i feel especially strongly about that because i have a granddaughter now and those of you who have grandchildren, you know. you are just obsessed with them. it is really kind of weird. you just sit there and stare at them. and you do it because you are so overwhelmed by love and you see your child or your son or
daughter, who is now a parent. but it is also because you are thinking about the future and and you are saying to yourself, i don't want anything ever to go wrong for this precious child. i do not want her to ever face hard times. although they come in everyone's life. but you see, it is not enough that my grandchild has opportunities. i want every child and every grandchild here in this city, this state, i want every child to have the same opportunity to grow up and fulfill his or her god-given potential. that is what i will work on every single day and this campaign and in the white house. please come out and vote on tuesday. thank you! [applause] ♪ [playing "fight song"]
rules on house ways in the subcommittee on health live today at 2:00 p.m. eastern time. and the administration's new coveragerules live 9:30 a.m. on c-span3. up next on c-span is washington journal and then the u.s. house returns for morning hours. at noon, work on a series of hills on opioid abuse and addiction. coming up, representative tom cole on the meeting this week he between speaker ryan and donald trump. also talk about relief in the deadly wake of the tornadoes in oklahoma. and the latest edition of the m.i.t. technology review about thatack not -- genetic
with mosquito-borne viruses. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016]] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] host: good morning, everyone. donald trump and bernie sanders on again last night. bernie sanders ousted hillary clinton 51-36% in west virginia. but the former secretary of state continues to pile up super delegates. and so the gap widens between her and senator sanders. we'll begin this morning with the campaign. went to talk to military members only this morning. a recent "military times" poll shows that the majority of you prefer trump to hillary clinton by a huge margin. who is your