we're live at the greenhouse at the brooklyn navy yard in brooklyn, new york, for the cnn democratic presidential debate. we've come to brooklyn just five days before the new york presidential primary. a very important contest for the democrats, with an enormous number of delegates at stake.

we want to welcome our viewers in the united states and around the world. i'm wolf blitzer, and i'll moderate tonight's debate. joining me in the questioning, errol lewis, political anchor for new york one time warner cable, our partner in this debate. and cnn chief political correspondent, dana bash. brooklyn has personal meaning for the candidates who both have been new yorkers at one time or another in their lives. so ladies and gentlemen, let's welcome the candidates. senator, bernie sanders of vermont. [ cheers and applause ] former secretary of state hillary clinton. [ cheers and applause ]

ladies and gentlemen, the democratic candidates for president of the united states. [ cheers and applause ] now, please continue to stand for our anthem sung by the broadway performer and recording artist morgan james. ♪ o say, can you see by the dawn's early light ♪ ♪ what so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming? ♪ ♪ whose broad stripes and bright stars

through the perilous fight ♪ ♪ o'er the ramparts we watched were so gallantly streaming? ♪ ♪ and the rockets' red glare the bombs bursting in air ♪ ♪ gave proof through the night that our flag was still there ♪ ♪ oh, say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave ♪ ♪ o'er the land of the free ♪ ♪ and the home

of the brave? ♪ [ cheers and applause ] >> thank you, morgan james. secretary clinton and senator sanders, you can now move to your lecterns while i explain a few ground rules. as moderator, i'll guide the discussion, asking questions and follow-ups. you'll also get questions from dana bash and errol lewis. you'll each have 1 minute and 15 seconds to answer questions, 30 seconds for follow-up. timing lights will signal when your time is up. both candidates have agreed to these rules. now, opening statements. you'll each have two minutes. let's begin with senator sanders. [ cheers and applause ] >> wolf, thank you very much.

cnn, thank you very much. secretary clinton, thank you very much. when we began this campaign almost a year ago, we started off at 3% in the polls. we're about 70 points secretary clinton. in the last couple of weeks, there are two polls out there that had us ahead. [ cheers and applause ] of the last nine caucuses and primaries, we've won eight of them. many of them by landslide victories. [ cheers and applause ] over the last year, we have received almost 7 million individual campaign contributions, averaging, guess what, $27 apiece. [ cheers and applause ]

more individual campaign contributions than any candidate in american history at this point of the campaign. the reason that our campaign has done so well is because we're doing something very radical by telling the american people the truth. [ cheers and applause ] and the truth is, that this country is not going to move forward in a significant way for working people unless we overturn this disastrous citizens united supreme court decision. [ cheers and applause ] and unless we have real campaign reform, so that billionaires and super pacs cannot buy elections. [ cheers and applause ] this campaign is also determined to end a rigged economy where the rich get richer and everybody else get poorer, and create an economy that works for all of us, not just the 1%.

thank you. [ cheers and applause ] >> secretary clinton. >> well, first of all, it's great to be here in new york. [ cheers and applause ] and i am delighted to have this chance to discuss the issues that are important to our future. i was so honored to serve as a senator from new york for eight years. [ cheers and applause ] and to work to provide opportunity for all of our citizens, to make it possible that we could knock down the barriers that stand in the way of people getting ahead and staying ahead. and during those eight years, we faced some difficult challenges together. we faced 9/11, we worked hard to rebuild new york. i was particularly concerned about our first responders and others who had been affected in

their health by what they had experienced. we worked hard to bring jobs from buffalo to albany, and all parts of new york, to give more hard-working people a chance to really make the most out of their own talents. and we worked hard to really keep new york values at the center of who we are and what we do together. [ cheers and applause ] and that is -- that is exactly what i want to do as your president. we will celebrate our diversity. we will work together, bringing us back to being united, setting some big, bold progressive goals for america. that's what i'm offering in this campaign. to build on the work, to build on the values that we share here in new york, to take those to washington, and to knock down those barriers that in any way hold back not only individual americans, but our country from reaching our full potential. that is what my campaign is

about. [ cheers and applause ] >> thank you, secretary. we are going to deal with many of the issues both of you just raised. i want to begin with a question that goes right to the heart of which one of you should be the democratic presidential nominee. senator sanders, in the last week you've raised questions about secretary clinton's qualifications to be president. you said that something is clearly lacking in terms of her judgment, and you accused her of having a credibility gap. so let me ask you, do you believe that secretary clinton has the judgment to be president? >> i've known secretary clinton, how long, 25 years? we worked together in the senate. and i said that in response to the kind of attacks we were getting from the clinton campaign. the headline says clinton campaign says sanders is unqualified and that's what the surrogates were saying.

does secretary clinton has the intelligence to be president? of course she does. but i do question -- [ cheers and applause ] but i do question her judgment. i question a judgment which voted for the war in iraq. [ cheers and applause ] the worst foreign policy blunder in the history of this country. voted for virtually every disastrous trade agreement which cost us millions of decent paying jobs. and i question her judgment about running super pacs, which are collecting tens of millions of dollars from special interests, including $15 million from wall street. i don't believe that that is the kind of judgment we need to be the kind of president we need. >> secretary clinton? >> well, it is true that, now that the spotlight is pretty bright here in new york, some things have been said.

and senator sanders did call me unqualified. i've been called a lot of things in my life, that was a first. and then he did say that he had to question my judgment. well, the people of new york voted for me twice to be their senator from new york. [ cheers and applause ] and president obama trusted my judgment enough to ask me to be secretary of state of the united states. [ cheers and applause ] so, look, we have disagreements on policy. there's no doubt about it. but if you go and read, which i hope all of you will before tuesday, senator sanders' long interview with the "new york daily news," talk about judgment, and talk about the kinds of problems he had answering questions about even his core issue, breaking up the banks. when asked, he could not explain how that would be done. [ cheers and applause ] and when asked about a number of

foreign policy issues, he could not answer about afghanistan, about israel, about counterterrorism. except to say if he'd had some paper in front of him, maybe he could. i think you need to have the judgment on day one to be both president and commander in chief. [ cheers and applause ] >> senator? >> let's talk about judgment. [ cheers and applause ] and let us talk about the worst foreign policy blunder in the modern history of this country. [ cheers and applause ] i led the opposition to that war secretary clinton voted for. let's talk about judgment. let's talk about super pacs and 501-c-4s, money which is completely undisclosed. where does the money come from? do we really feel confident about a candidate saying that

she's going to bring change in america when she is so dependent on big money interests? i don't think so. >> well, let me just -- >> whoa, whoa -- >> secretary, let him finish. >> okay. >> thirdly, we have got to understand that in america, we should be thinking big, not small. [ cheers and applause ] >> thank you. >> we need to join the rest of the industrialized world and guarantee health care to all people. >> thank you, senator. secretary? >> well, make no mistake about it, this is not just an attack on me, it's an attack on president obama. president obama -- you know, let me tell you why. you may not like the answer, but i'll tell you why. president obama had a super pac when he ran.

president obama took tens of millions of dollars from contributors. and president obama was not at all influenced, when he made the decision to pass and sign dodd/frank, the toughest regulation on wall street in many a year, so this is -- this is a phony -- this is a phony attack that is designed to raise questions when there is no evidence or support to undergird the insinuations that he is putting forward in these attacks. >> thank you, secretary. i want dana bash to continue with the questioning. >> secretary clinton, the government announced yesterday that five of the biggest banks on wall street have failed to develop plans to dismantle themselves in the event of another financial crisis. this is the second time in two years those banks neglected to come up with credible plans. so as president, would you call on regulators to start the process of breaking up these banks, something that the law not only allows, but actually

explicitly encourages? >> absolutely. this is what i've been saying for the past year. no bank is too big to fail. no executive too powerful to jail. i have been talking about what we should be doing under dodd/frank. i'm glad that senator sanders is now joining in talking about dodd/frank, because dodd/frank sets forth the approach that needs to be taken. i believe, and i will appoint regulators who are tough enough and ready enough to break up any bank that fails the tests under dodd/frank. there are two sections there, and if they fail, either one, that there is systemic risk, a grave risk to our economy, or if they fail the other, that their living wills, which is what you're referring to, are inadequate. let's look at what's at stake here. we can never let wall street wreck main street again. i spoke out against wall street when i was a senator from new york. i have been standing up and

saying continuously, we have the law, we've got to execute under it. so you're right. i will move immediately to break up any financial institution. but i go further, because i want the law to extend to those that are part of the shadow banking industry, the big insurance companies, the hedge funds, something that i have been arguing for now for a long time. >> thank you, senator. senator sanders, you were recently asked to replace the wall street banks with if you broke them up. you said, quote, that's their decision. why would you ask the banks to restructure themselves when you say their whole business model is fraudulent? >> that's right. let's start off with the basic principles. a few days ago, goldman sachs formally reached a senate with the united states government for $5 billion. goldman sachs acknowledged essentially that they were

selling fraudulent packages of subprime mortgage loans. goldman sachs was not the only bank. other banks, of course, did the same. now, i don't need dodd/frank now to tell me that we have glot to break up these banks because they're based on fraudulent principles, because when you have six financial institutions that have assets equivalent to 5 58% of the gdp of this country, they are just too big, too much concentration of wealth and power. the point is, we have got to break them up so that they do not pose a systemic risk, and so that we have a vibrant economy with a competitive financial system. >> but senator, you didn't answer the specific question, which is, not just about breaking up the banks, but why allow the banks to do it themselves? >> because i'm not sure that

the -- what the government should say is you are too big to fail. you've got to be a certain size. and then the banks themselves can figure out what they want to sell off. i don't know that it's appropriate for the department of treasury to be making those decisions. what we need is to make sure that they are safe. [ cheers and applause ] >> dana, you know -- [ cheers and applause ] i love being in brooklyn. this is great. [ cheers and applause ] dana, let me adhere that there are two ways to go at this under dodd/frank, which is, after all, the law that we passed under president obama. and i'm proud that barney frank one of the authors has endorsed me. because what i have said continuously is, yeah, sometimes the government may have to order certain actions. sometimes the government can permit the institution

themselves to take those actions. that has to be the judgment of the regulators. but there's another element to this. i believe strongly that executives of any of these organizations should be financially penalized if there is a settlement, they should have to pay up through compensation or bonuses. because we have to go after not just the big giant institution, we've got to go after the people who are making the decisions in the institution. >> thank you, madam secretary. >> and hold them accountable. >> senator sanders, you consistently criticized secretary clinton for accepting money from wall street. can you name one decision that she made as senator that shows that she favored banks because of the money she received? [ cheers and applause ] >> the obvious decision is when the greed and recklessness and

illegal behavior of wall street brought this country into the worst economic downturn since the great recession -- great depression of the '30s. when millions of people lost their jobs and their homes and their life savings, the obvious response to that is that you've got a bunch of fraudulent operators, and that they've got to be broken up. that was my view way back. i introduced legislation to do that. now, secretary clinton was busy giving speeches to goldman sachs for $225,000 a speech. [ cheers and applause ] so the proper response -- the proper response, in my view, is, we should break them up. and that's what my legislation does. >> well, you can tell, dana, he cannot come up with any example, because there is no example. [ cheers and applause ]

and it is important -- it's always important, it may be inconvenient, but it's always important to get the facts straight. i stood up against the behaviors of the banks when i was a senator. i called them out on their mortgage behavior. i also was very willing to speak out against some of the special privileges they had under the tax code. when i went to the secretary of state office, the president -- president obama led the effort to pass the dodd/frank bill. that is the law. now, we've had -- this is our ninth debate. in the prior eight debates, i have said, we have a law. you don't just say, we're upset about this. i'm upset about it. you don't just say, go break them up. you have a law, because we are a nation of laws. >> thank you, madam secretary. >> i support dodd/frank, but i've consistently said that's

not enough. we have to include the shadow banking. >> thank you, senator. [ cheers and applause ] >> secretary clinton called them out. oh, my goodness, they must have been really crushed by this. [ cheers and applause ] and was that before or after you received your sums of money by giving speaking engagements? they must have been very, very upset by what you did. here is the difference. and here is the clear difference. these banks, in my view, have too much power. they have shown themselves to be fraudulent organizations endangering the well-being of our economy. if elected president, i will break them up. we've got legislation to do that. end of discussion. >> secretary clinton, if i may, senator sanders keeps bringing up the speeches that you gave to goldman sachs. so i'd like to ask you, that

you've said that you don't want to release the transcripts until everybody does it. but if there's nothing in those speeches that you think would change voters' minds, why not just release the transcripts and put this whole issue to bed? [ cheers and applause ] >> you know -- first of all -- first of all, there isn't an issue. when i was in public service serving as the senator from new york, i did stand up to the banks. i did make it clear that their behavior would not be excused. i'm the only one on this stage who did not vote to deregulate swaps and derivatives as senator sanders did, which led to a lot of the problems that we had with lehman brothers. now, if you're going to look at the problems that actually caused the great recession, you've got to look at the whole picture. it was a giant insurance company

aig, it was an investment bank lehman brothers, it was mortgage companies like countrywide. i'm not saying senator sanders did something untoward when he voted -- >> madam secretary -- >> -- with swaps and derivatives, the fact is, he did. >> but what about the transcripts? >> that started the cascade -- >> senator sanders, one second. secretary clinton, the question was, about the transcripts of the speeches to goldman sachs. [ cheers and applause ] >> i said i would. there are certain expectations when you run for president. this is a new one. and i've said, if everybody agrees to do it, because there are speeches for money on the other side, i know that. but i will tell you this, there is -- there is a long-standing expectation that everybody running release their tax returns. and you can go to my website and

see eight years of tax returns. and i've released 30 years of tax returns. and i think every candidate, including senator sanders, and donald trump, should do the same. >> secretary clinton, we're going to get to the tax returns later. but just to put a button on this, you're running now for the democratic nomination. >> right. >> and it is your democratic opponent and many democratic voters who want to see those transcripts. it's not about the republicans -- [ cheers and applause ] >> let's set the same standard for everybody, when everybody does it, okay, i'll do it. but let's expect the same standard on tax returns. everybody does it. and then we move forward. >> thank you. >> let me respond. secretary clinton, you just heard her, everybody else does it, she'll do it. i will do it. [ cheers and applause ] i am going to release all of the transcripts of the speeches that

i gave on wall street behind closed doors. not for $225,000, not for $2,000, not for 2 cents. there were no speeches. [ cheers and applause ] and second of all, of course, we will release our taxes. jane does our taxes. we've been a little bit busy lately, you'll excuse us. but we will get them out. >> senator -- >> well, you know, there are a lot -- >> senator, when are you -- you've been asked for weeks and weeks too release your taxes. >> i think we've got one coming out tomorrow. >> which one? >> last year's. >> 2014? >> yes. >> what about -- >> you'll get them. look, i don't want to get anybody very excited. they are very boring tax returns. no big money from speeches. no major investments. [ cheers and applause ]

unfortunately -- unfortunately i remain one of the poorer members of the united states senate, and that's what that will show. >> so senator, just to be clear, tomorrow you will release the 2014 tax returns from you and your family? >> yes. >> and what about the earlier ones? what's taking so long? because you just have to go to the filing cabinet, make a copy and release them. [ cheers and applause ] >> well, the answer is, you know, what we have always done in my family is, jane does them. and she's been out on the campaign trail. we'll get them out. we'll get them out very shortly. >> thank you. senator, you've slammed companies like general eelectric and verizon for moving jobs outside of the united states. yesterday the ceo of verizon called your views contemptible and said in your home state of vermont, verizon has invested more than $16 million and pays

millions of dollars a year to local businesses. he says you are, quote, uninformed on this issue and disconnected from reality. given your obvious contempt for large american corporations, how would you as president of the united states be able to effectively promote american businesses around the world? >> well, for a start, i would tell the gentleman who is the ceo of verizon to start negotiating with the communication workers of america. [ cheers and applause ] and this is a perfect example, wolf, of the kind of corporate greed which is destroying the middle class of this country. this gentleman makes $18 million a year in salary. that's his compensation. this gentleman is now negotiating to take away health care benefits of verizon workers, outsource call center jobs to the philippines, and

trying to create a situation where workers will lose their jobs. he is not investing in the way he should in inner cities in america. >> all right. senator, but the question was, given your contempt for large american corporations, as president, how would you be able to promote american business around the world? >> first of all, the word contempt is not right. there are great businesses who treat their workers in the environment with respect. verizon happens not to be one of them. [ cheers and applause ] and what we need to do is to tell this guy who is the head of general electric, doesn't like me, well, that's fine. he has outsourced hundreds of thousands of decent paying jobs throughout the world. cut his work force here substantially. and in a given year, by the way, turns out both verizon and general electric in a given year paid nothing in federal income

tax despite making billions in profits. >> senator, experts say that no matter the means to bring back these jobs to the united states, prices of goods for consumers in the united states would go up, which would disproportionately impact the poor and middle class. so how would you bring back these jobs to the united states without affecting the cost of goods to america's middle class and poor? >> well, for a start we're going to raise the minimum wage to 15 bucks. [ cheers and applause ] and number two, while it is true, we may end up paying a few cents more for a hamburger at mcdonald's, at the end of the day what this company desperately needs is to rebuild our manufacturing sector with good paying jobs. [ cheers and applause ] we cannot continue to sustain the loss of millions of decent paying jobs that we have seen over the last 20, 30 years based

on trade agreements of which secretary clinton has voted for almost every one of those. >> thank you. secretary clinton? >> well, first of all, i do have a very comprehensive plan to create more jobs. and i think that has to be at the center of our economic approach. and so i think it is important that we do more on manufacturing. i went to syracuse and laid out a $10 billion plan that would, i believe, really jump-start advanced manufacturing. i have seen the results of what can happen when we have the government cooperating with business. and that's exactly what i will do. when i was secretary of state, i helped to lead the way to increase exports of american goods around the world, which supports tens of thousands of jobs. so i think you've got to go at this with a sense of how to accomplish the goal we are setting.

more good jobs with rising incomes, for people everywhere, from inner cities to rural areas to every distressed community in america. and that's exactly what my plan would bring about. i think we have a pretty good record if we look at what happened to the 1990s. we got 23 million new jobs and incomes went up for everyone. let's do that again in america. >> stand by. hold it. you can respond in a moment. i have to follow up with secretary clinton. you stood on the stage with governor cuomo in support of new legislation to raise new york's minimum wage to $15 an hour. but you do not support raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. as president, if a democratic congress put a $15 minimum wage bill on your desk, would you sign it? >> of course i would. [ cheers and applause ] and i have supported the fight for $15. i am proud to have the endorsement most of the unions

that have led the fight for $15. i was proud to stand on the stage with governor cuomo with sciu and others who have been leading this battle. and i will work as hard as i can to raise the minimum wage. i always have. i supported that when i was in the senate. but what i have also said is that we've got to be smart about it. just the way governor cuomo was here in new york. if you look at it, we moved more quickly to $15 in new york city, more deliberately toward $12, $12.50 upstate, then to $15. that is exactly my position. it's a model for the nation. and that's what i will do as president. >> thank you. >> to get to $15. >> i am sure a lot of people are very surprised to learn that you supported raising the minimum wage to 15 bucks an hour. [ cheers and applause ] >> wait a minute, wait a minute -- wait. >> that's not accurate. >> i have stood on the debate stage with senator sanders eight

prior times. >> excuse me -- >> secretary -- senator, please. secretary -- secretary, the viewers -- >> let's do it. >> if you're both screaming at each other, the viewers won't be able to hear either of you. so please don't talk over one another. >> when this campaign began, i said we have to end this starvation minimum wage of $7.25, raise it to $15. secretary clinton said let's raise it to $12. there's a difference. and by the way, what has happened is history has outpaced secretary clinton. because all over this country people are standing up and they're saying, $12 is not good enough. we need $15 an hour. [ cheers and applause ] >> go ahead, secretary. >> and suddenly -- >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you --

>> her saying she will raise it to $15 is not quite accurate. >> i've said from the very beginning that i supported the fight for $15. i supported those on the front lines of the fight for -- it happens to be true. i also -- i supported the $15 effort in l.a. i supported it in seattle. i supported it for the fast-food workers in new york. the minimum wage at the national level right now is $7.25. right? we want to raise it higher than it ever has been. but we also have to recognize some states and some cities will go higher. and i support that. i have taken my cue from the democrats in the senate, led by senator patty murray and others, like my good friend kirsten jillen brand, who said we will set a national level of $12, and

urge any place that can go above it, to go above it. going from $7.25 to $12 is a huge difference. one in four working mothers will get a raise. i want to get something done, and i think setting the goal to get to $12 is the way to go. encouraging others to get to $15. but of course, if we have a democratic congress, we will go to $15. >> senator, go ahead. >> well, i think the secretary is confused. i don't know how you fight for $15 when you say you want a $12 an hour national minimum wage. [ cheers and applause ] now, in fact there is an effort, patty murray has introduced legislation for $12 minimum wage, that's good. i introduced $15 an hour, which is better. and ultimately, what we have got

to determine is after massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top .1 of 1%, when millions of our people are working longer hours for lower wages, i think we've got to be clear, not equivocate, $15 and minimum wage in 50 states as soon as possible. >> we're going to turn to another critically important issue right now. guns in america. secretary clinton, you've said that vermont, senator sanders' home state, has, quote, the highest per capita number of guns that end up committing crimes in new york. but only 1.2% of the guns recovered in new york in 2014 were from vermont. are you seriously blaming vermont and implicitly senator sanders for new york's gun violence? >> no, of course not. of course not. this is a serious difference

between us. and what i want to start by saying, it's not a laughing matter. 90 people on average a day are killed or commit suicide or die in accidents from guns. 33,000 people a year. i take it really seriously. because i have spent more time than i care to remember being with people who have lost their loved ones. so yes, we have a problem in america. we need a president who will stand up against the gun lobby. we need a president who will fight for common-sense gun safety reforms. [ cheers and applause ] and what we have here is a big difference. senator sanders voted against the brady bill five times. he voted for the most important nra priority, namely, giving immunity from liability to gun makers and dealers. something that is at the root of a lot of the problems that we

are facing. then he doubled down on that. in the "new york daily news" interview when asked if he would support the sandy hook parents suing to try to do something to rein in the advertising of the ar-15, which is advertised to young people as being a combat weapon, killing on the battlefield, he said they didn't deserve their day in court. i could not disagree more. and finally, this is the only industry in america, the only one that has this kind of special protection. we hear a lot from senator sanders about the greed and recklessness of wall street. and i agree, we've got to hold wall street accountable. what about the greed and recklessness of the manufacturers and dealers in america. [ cheers and applause ] >> well, the only problem is -- [ cheers and applause ] the only problem is, wolf, she didn't answer your question. [ cheers and applause ]

you asked her whether she thought vermont was responsible for a lot of the gun violence. you made the point that what she said was totally absurd. >> i asked her, are you seriously blaming vermont and implicitly senator sanders for new york's gun violence? she said no. >> why did she put out that statement? >> i put it out -- >> excuse me. i think i'm responding now. >> go ahead. >> a statement that was refuted by the governor of the state of vermont who was a supporter of hers who said, oh, yeah, in campaigns, people tend to exaggerate. here is a fact on guns. let's talk about guns. that horrible, horrible sandy hook. what's the word that we want to use? murder, assault, slaughter, unspeakable act. back in 1988, i ran for the united states congress, one seat in the state of vermont. i probably lost that election, i

lost by three points, because i was the only candidate running who said, you know what, we should ban assault weapons, not see them sold or distributed in the united states of america. [ cheers and applause ] i got a d-minus voting record from the nra. [ cheers and applause ] and in fact -- and in fact, because i come from a state which has virtually no gun control, i believe that i am the best qualified candidate to bring together that consensus that is desperately needed in this country. >> thank you, senator. thank you. secretary clinton, i want you to respond to that. but why did you put out that statement blaming vermont and its gun policy for some of the deaths by guns in new york? >> well, the facts are that most of the guns that end up committing crimes in new york come from out of state.

they come from the states that don't have the kind of serious efforts to control guns that we do in new york. but let me say this. in 1988, as we've heard on every debate occasion, senator sanders did run for the congress, and he lost. he came back in 1990, and he won. and during that campaign, he made a commitment to the nra that he would be against waiting periods. and in fact, in his own book, he talks about his 1990 campaign. and here's what he said. he clearly was helped by the nra because they ran ads against his opponent. so then he went to the congress, where he has been a largely, very reliable supporter of the nra, voting -- he kept his word to the nra -- he voted against the brady bill five times. because it had waiting periods in it. thankfully enough people finally voted for it to keep guns out of

the hands of people who should not have them. >> senator, i want you to respond, but i also want you to respond to this. you recently said you do not think crime victims should be able to sue gunmakers for damages. the daughter of the sandy hook elementary school principal who was killed back in the 2012 mass shooting says you owe her and the other victims' families an apology. do you? >> what we need to do is to do everything that we can to make certain that guns do not fall into the hands of people who do not have them. now, i voted against this gun liability law, because i was concerned that in rural areas all over this country, if a gun shop owner sells a weapon legally to somebody, and that

person then goes out and kills somebody, i don't believe it is appropriate that that gun shop owner who just sold a legal weapon be to be held accountable and be sued. but what i do believe is that when gun shop owners and others knowingly are selling weapons to people who should not have them, somebody walks in, they want thousands of rounds of ammunition, or they want a whole lot of guns, yes, that gun shop owner, or that gun manufacturer should be held liable. [ cheers and applause ] >> so senator, do you owe the sandy hook families an apology? >> i don't think i owe them an apology. they are in court today. and actually they won a preliminary decision today. they have the right to sue. and i support them and anyone else who wants the right to sue. >> well -- [ cheers and applause ] i believe that the law that senator sanders voted for that i

voted against, giving this special protection to gun manufacturers and to dealers is an absolute abdication of responsibility on the part of those who voted for it. [ cheers and applause ] this is a unique gift given to only one industry in the world, as by the united states congress, as senator murphy from connecticut said, we have tougher standards holding toy gun manufacturers and sellers to account than we do for real guns. and the point that senator sanders keeps making about how he wouldn't want a mom and pop store -- that was not the point of this. if he can point to any -- any incident where that happened, i would love to hear about it. what was really going on? i'll tell you. it has a lot to do with new york city. new york city was on the brink of being able to hold

manufacturers and dealers accountable through a very carefully crafted legal strategy. the nra came to their supporters in the congress and said, stop it, stop it now. and senator sanders joined them. >> senator sanders -- >> let me reiterate. [ cheers and applause ] just to reiterate so there is no confusion. decades ago, before it was popular, in a rural state with no gun control, bernie sanders said let's ban assault weapons, not see them distributed in the united states of america. >> thank you, senator. let's turn it over to errol lewis of new york time warner cable news. >> secretary clinton, the 1994 crime bill that you supported added 100,000 police officers across the country and banned certain assault weapons. it also imposed tougher prison sentences and eliminated federal funding for education. looking at the bill as a whole, do you believe it was a net

positive or do you think it was a mistake? >> well, i think that it had some positive aspects to it. and you mentioned some of them. the violence against women act, which has been a very important piece of legislation, in my opinion. [ applause ] and it also did some things which were to provide more opportunities for young people. so if we were to have the balance sheet on one side, there are some positive actions and changes. on the other side, there were decisions that were made that now we must revisit. and we have to correct. i think that sentences got much too long. the original idea was not that we would increase sentences for nonviolent low-level offenders, but once the federal government did what it did, states piled on. so we have a problem. and the very first speech i gave in this campaign was about what i will do to reform the criminal justice system, and to end the

overmass incarceration. so i think that if all of us go back and look at where we were, senator sanders voted for the crime bill and he says the same thing. there were some good things and things we have to change and learn from. that's how i see it. and i think we ought to be putting our attention on forging a consensus to make the changes that will divert more people from the criminal justice system to start, to tackle some -- >> thank you, secretary clinton. now, earlier this year, south carolina told your daughter chelsea, i think african-americans want to hear, we made a mistake. chelsea said she's heard you apologize. but if the voter hadn't heard it, it's clearly insufficient. do you regret your advocacy for the crime bill? >> i supported the crime bill. my husband was the president who actually signed it. and he has apologized it. >> what do you --

>> i'm sorry for the consequences that were unintended and that have had a very unfortunate impact on people's lives. i've seen the results of what has happened in families and in communities. that's why i chose to make my very first speech a year ago on this issue, errol, because i want to focus the attention of our country. and to make the changes we need to make. and i also want people, especially i want -- i want white people to recognize that there is systemic racism. it's also in employment, it is in housing, but it is in the criminal justice system as well. >> senator sanders, earlier this week, at the apollo theater in harlem, you called out secretary clinton's term super predator back in the '90s. why did you call him out? >> it was a racist term, and everybody knew it was a racist

term. [ cheers and applause ] look, much of what secretary clinton said was right. there was a crime bill, i voted for it. it had the violence against women act in it. we worked very hard to try to eliminate domestic violence. this took us a good step forward. we're talking about the weapon that killed the children in sandy hook. ban assault weapons, not insignificant. but where we are today is, we have a broken criminal justice system. we have more people in jail than any other country on earth. and in my view, what we have got to do is rethink the system from the bottom on up. and that means for a start -- the media doesn't talk about this, you've got 51% of african-american kids today who graduated high school who are unemployed, or underemployed. you know what i think? maybe we invest in jobs and

education for those kids, not jails and incarceration. [ cheers and applause ] and i'll tell you what else i think. and that is, we have got -- and this is the difference between the secretary and myself as i understand it. we have got to have the guts to rethink the so-called war on drugs. too many lives -- [ cheers and applause ] too many lives have been destroyed because people possess marijuana. millions over a 30-year period. that is why i believe we should take marijuana out of the federal control substance act. >> thank you. let's get secretary clinton's response. >> well, look, i think that as senator sanders said about what i said, i will say about what he said, i think that we recognize that we have a set of problems that we cannot ignore, and we must address.

and that is why i have been promoting for my entire adult life, i think, the idea of investing early in kids. early childhood education. [ applause ] universal pre-k, like what mayor de blasio brought to new york. we have got to help more kids get off to a good start. that's why i want a good teacher in a good school for every child regardless of the zip code that child lives in. and to be really focused on how we build ladders of opportunity and tear down these barriers that stand in the way. >> senator sanders, i have a question for you related to this. you've said that by the end of your first term as president, the u.s. will no longer lead the world in mass incarceration. to fulfill that promise you would have to release nearly half a million prisoners. how are you going to do that since the vast majority of american prisoners are not under federal jurisdiction? >> we're going to work with

state governments all over this country. and you know what? in a very divided congress, and a very divided politics in america, actually the one area where there is some common ground is conservatives that understand it's insane to be spending $80 billion a year locking up 2.2 million people. with federal and presidential leadership, we will work with state governments to make sure that people are released from jail under strong supervision, that they get the kind of job training and education they need, so they can return to their communities. on this one, errol, actually, i think you're going to see progressive and conservative support. >> thank you, senator. thank you, secretary. we have to take a quick commercial break. we have a lot more questions for secretary clinton, and senator sanders, right after this.

it's true what they say. technology moves faster than ever. the all-new audi a4, with apple carplay integration. mary buys a little lamb. one of millions of orders on this company's servers. accessible by thousands of suppliers and employees globally. but with cyber threats on the rise, mary's data could be under attack. with the help of the at&t network, a network that senses and mitigates cyber threats, their critical data is safer than ever. giving them the agility to be open & secure.

because no one knows & like at&t. "you don't want to live with mom and dad forever, do you?" "boo!" (laughs) "i'm making smoothies!" "well...i'm not changing." "so, how can i check my credit score?" "credit karma. don't worry, it's free."

"hmmmm." "credit karma. give yourself some credit."

well, i told you to bring a warmer jacket. when? every day since you could walk! now i just say it with my eyes like... folks, park ranger mark. -sup, bro? -hey, forest cop. you're taking up a lot of space. i'm going to need you to move a vehicle. todd, load the four-wheeler into the truck. flo: that's like bundling! 'cause progressive can bundle your boat, atv, and rv with your truck to save you money. don't talk to her. she has rabies. rabies was created by the government. look it up. [ flames whoosh ] [ gasps ] who are you people? yay, grandpa's still alive. i don't want to buy any cookies, little girl. make sure it's ano maintelligent one.. ♪ the all-new audi a4, with available virtual cockpit. ♪

welcome back. let's turn to another critically important issue. senator, secretary, the issue of energy and the environment. secretary clinton, senator sanders has said you are in the pocket of the fossil fuel industry. you say you're sick and tired of him lying about your record. what are his lies? >> well, let me start by saying, we need to talk about this issue. and we should talk about it in terms of the extraordinary threats that climate change pose to our country and our world. and that's why for the last many years, both in the senate and as secretary of state, it's been a big part of my commitment to see what could be done.

but there has never been any doubt that when i was a senator, i tried -- i joined with others to try to get rid of the subsidies for big oil. and i have proposed that again. because that's what i think needs to be done as we transition from fossil fuels to clean energy. and everyone who's looked at this independently, the "washington post" and others who give us both hard times when called for, on facts, has said that this is absolutely an incorrect false charge. so we both have relatively small amounts of contributions from people who work for fossil fuel companies. the best we can tell from the reports that are done. but that is not being supported by big oil. and i think it's important to distinguish that. and let's talk about what each of us has proposed to try to combat greenhouse gas emissions and put us on the fastest track

possible to green energy. >> thank you. we're going to get to that, too, 43 lobbyists for the fossil fuel industry, gave the maximum amount of money to secretary clinton's campaign. that's not saying, and then some people say well, given the hundreds of millions of dollars she raised a small amount, that's true. but that does not mean lobbyists thought she was a pretty good bet on this issue. now, what i think is whether we look at climate change now, we have got to realize that this is a global environmental crisis of unprecedented urgency. and it is not good enough -- you know, if we god forbid were attacked tomorrow, the whole

country would rise up and say we got an enemy out there, we got to do something about it. that was what 9/11 was about. we have an enemy out there and that enemy is going to cause drought and floods and extreme weather disturbances. there's going to be international conflict. i am proud, wolf, that i have introduced the most comprehensive climate change legislation. >> thank you. >> including a tax on carbon, something i don't believe secretary clinton supports. >> secretary clinton, go ahead and respond. >> well, let's talk about the global environmental crisis. starting in 2009 as your secretary of state, i worked with president obama to bring china and india to the table for the very first time, to get a commitment out of them that they would begin to address their own greenhouse gas emissions. i continued to work on that throughout the four years as secretary of state, and i was very proud that president obama and america led the way to the agreement that was finally

reached in paris with 195 nations committing to take steps to actually make a difference in climate change. and i was surprised and disappointed when senator sanders attacked the agreement, said it was not enough, it didn't go far enough. you know, at some point putting together 195 countries, i know a little bit about that, was a major accomplishment and our president led the effort to protect our world and he deserves our appreciation, not our criticism. >> let's talk about that. when you were secretary of state, you also worked hard to expand fracking to countries all over the world. but the issue here -- of course the agreement is a step forward, but you know agreements and i know agreements, there's a lot of paper there. we've got to get beyond paper right now. we have got to lead the world in

transforming our energy system, not tomorrow, but yesterday. and what that means, wolf, it means having the guts to take on the fossil fuel industry. now, i am on board legislation that says, you know what, we ain't going to excavate for fossil fuel on public land. that's not secretary clinton's position. >> thank you, senator. >> let us support a tax on carbon, not secretary clinton's position. >> secretary, go ahead and respond. >> well, i'm a little bewildered about how to respond. when you have an agreement which gives you the framework to actually take the action that would have only come about because under the obama administration in the face of implacable hostility from the republicans in congress, president obama moved forward on gas mileage, he moved forward on the clean power plant. he has moved forward on so many

of the fronts that he could given the executive actions that he was able to take. and, you know, i am getting a little bit -- i'm getting a little bit concerned here because, you know, i really believe that the president has done an incredible job against great odds and deserves to be supported. now, it's easy -- it's easy to diagnose the problem. it's harder to do something about the problem. >> thank you, secretary. we'll continue on this. errol, errol louis, go ahead with your question. >> wolf, wolf! >> errol, go ahead. >> secretary clinton, as secretary of state you also pioneered a program to promote fracking around the world, as you described. fracking is a way of extracting natural gas. now as a candidate for president, you say by the time you're done with all your rules and regulations, fracking will be restricted in many places around the country.

why have you changed your view on fracking? >> well, i don't think i've changed my view on what we need to do to go from where we are where the world is heavily dependent on coal and oil, but princecally coal to be where we need to be which is clean renewable energy and one of the fuels is natural gas. for economic and strategic reasons it was american policy to try to help countries get out from under the constant use of coal, building coal plants all the time. also to get out from under, especially if they were in europe, the pressure from russia, which has been incredibly intense. so we did say natural gas is a bridge. we want to cross that bridge as quickly as possible because in order to deal with climate change, we have got to move as rapidly as we can. that's why i've set big goals. want to see us deploy a half a billion more solar panels by the end of my first term and enough clean energy to provide

electricity to every home in america within ten years. so i have big, bold goals, but i know in order to get from where we are, where the world is still burning way too much coal, where the world is still too intimidated by countries and providers like russia, we have got to make a very firm but decisive move in the direction of clean energy. >> senator. >> here is -- here is a real difference. this is a difference between understanding that we have a crisis of historical consequence here and incrementalism and those little steps are not enough. not right now. not on climate change. now, the truth is the secretary of state, secretary clinton actively supported fracking technology around the world.

second of all, right now we have got to tell the fossil fuel industry that their short-term profits are not more important than the future of this planet. and that means -- and i would ask you to respond. are you in favor of a tax on carbon so that we can transit away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy at the level and speed we need to do? >> you know, i have laid out a set of actions that build on what president obama was able to accomplish, building on the clean power plant, which is currently under attack by fossil fuels and the right in the supreme court, which is one of the reasons why we need to get the supreme court justice that president obama has nominated to be confirmed so that we can actually continue to make progress.

i don't take a back seat to your legislation that you've introduced that you haven't been able to get passed. i want to do what we can do to actually make progress in dealing with the crisis. that's exactly what i have proposed. >> thank you, secretary clinton. >> and my approach i think is going to get us there faster without tying us up into political knots with a congress that still would not support what you are asking. >> senator sanders, you said that climate change is the greatest threat to our change's security. senator, senator, senator, i have a question for you. you said that climate change is the greatest threat to our nation's security. you've called for a nationwide ban on fracking. you have also called for phasing out all nuclear power in the u.s. but when those proposals drive the country back to coal and oil actually undermine your fight against global warming?

>> no, they wouldn't. look, here's where we are. let me reiterate. we have a global crisis. pope francis reminded us that we are on a suicide course. our legislation understands, errol, that there will be economic dislocation, it is absolutely true, there will be some people who lose their job and we build into our legislation an enormous amount of money to protect those workers. it is not their fault that fossil fuels are destroying our climate. but we have got to stand up and say right now as we would if we were attacked by some military force, we have got to move urgency, urgently and boldly. what does that mean? >> senator, jobs are one thing but with less than 6% of all u.s. energy coming from solar, wind and geothermal, and 20% of u.s. power coming from nuclear, if you phase out all of that, how do you make up the deficit?

>> you don't phase it all out tomorrow and you certainly don't phase nuclear out tomorrow, but this is what you do do. what you do do is say that we are going to have a massive program and i had introduced legislation for 10 million solar rooftops. we can put probably millions of people to work retro fitting and weatherizing buildings all over this country. rebuilding our rail system. our mass transit system. if we approach this, errol, as if we were literally in a war -- you know, in 1941 under franklin delano roosevelt, we moved within three years, within three years to rebuild our economy to defeat nazism and japanese imperialism. that is exactly the kind of approach we need right now, lead the world. >> thank you. thank you, senator. let's turn to another critically important issue, the issue of national security and foreign policy.

secretary clinton, president obama says the worst mistake in office that he made over these past seven and a half years was not preparing for libya after moammar gadhafi was removed. you were his secretary of state. aren't you also responsible for that? >> well, let me say i think we did a great deal to help the libyan people after gadhafi's demise. here's what we did -- we helped them hold two successful elections, something which is not easy, which they did very well because they had a pent-up desire to try to chart their own future after 42 years of dictatorship. i was very proud of that. we got rid of the chemical weapons stockpile that gadhafi had, getting it out of libya, getting it away from militias or terrorist groups. we also worked to help them set up their government, we sent a lot of american experts there.

we offered to help them secure their borders, to train a new military. they at the end when it came to security issues, wolf, did not want troops from any other country. not just us, european or other countries in libya. so we were caught in a very difficult position. they could not provide security on their own, which we could see and we told them that, but they didn't want to have others helping to provide that security. and the result has been a clash between different parts of the country, terrorists taking up some locations in the country, and we can't walk away from that. we need to be working with european and arab partners, with the united nations in order to continue to try to support them. the libyan people deserve a chance at democracy and self-government and i as president will keep trying to give that to them. >> senator, go ahead. >> according to the "new york

times," for president obama, this was a pretty tough call, like a 51-49 call, do you overthrow gadhafi, who of course was a horrific dictator. the "new york times" told us it was secretary clinton who led the effort for that regime change. and this is the same type of mentality that supported the war in iraq. look, gadhafi, saddam hussein are brutal murdering thugs, no debate about that. but what we have got to do and what the president was saying is we didn't think thoroughly about what happens the day after you get rid of these dictators. regime change often has unintended consequences. in iraq and in libya right now where isis has a very dangerous foothold. and i think if you studied the whole history of american

involvement in regime change, you see that quite often. >> secretary, we're going to let you respond. >> well, i -- i would just point out that there was a vote in the senate as to whether or not the united states should support the efforts by the libyan people to protect themselves against the threats, the genocidal threats coming from gadhafi and whether we should go to the united nations to seek security council report. senator sanders voted for that and that's exactly what we did. >> no. >> we went to the united nations. yes, we did. we went to the united nations security council. we got support from the security council. and we then supported the efforts of our european allies and arab partners. this was a request made to our government by the europeans and by the arabs because of their

great fear of what chaos in syria would do to them. if you want to know what chaos does, not just to the people inside but the people on the borders, look at syria. nobody stood up to assad and removed him, and we have had a far greater disaster in syria than we are currently dealing with right now in libya. >> senator, go ahead. >> secretary clinton made this charge in previous debates and just repeating it doesn't make it truer. what you are talking about is what i think was what they call the unanimous consent, you know what that is, where basically do we support libya moving to democracy? well, you know what, i surely have always supported libya moving to democracy. but please do not confuse that with your active effort for regime change without contemplating what happened the day after. totally different issue. second of all -- second of all, if i might, in terms of syria, in terms of syria -- >> senator, let her respond to

that and then we'll get to that. secretary. >> there was also in that a reference to the security council and i know you're not shy when you oppose something, senator. so, yes, it was unanimous. that's exactly right, including you. and what we did was to try to provide support for our european and arab allies and partners. the decision was the president's. did i do the due diligence? did i talk to everybody i could talk to? did i visit every capitol and then report back to the president? yes, i did. that's what a secretary of state does. but at the end of the day, those are the decisions that are made by the president to in any way use american military power, and the president made that decision and, yes, we did try without success because of the libyans' obstruction to our efforts, but we did try and we will continue to try to help the libyan people. >> thank you, senator. go ahead, senator.

>> if you listen, you know -- two points. number one, yes, 100-0 in the senate voted for democracy in libya and i would vote for that again. but that is very different from getting actively involved to overthrow and bring about regime change without fully understanding what the consequence of that regime change would be. second of all, i know you keep referring to barack obama all night here, but you in syria, you in syria talked about a no-fly zone, which the president certainly does not support, nor do i support because, a, it will cost an enormous sum of money, second of all, it risks getting us sucked into perpetual warfare in that region. thirdly, when we talk about syria right now, no debate, like gadhafi, like saddam hussein, assad is another brutal

murdering dictator. >> thank you, senator. >> but right now our fight is to destroy isis first and get rid of assad second. >> well, i think senator sanders has just reinforced my point. yes, when i was secretary of state i did urge along with the department of defense and the cia that we seek out, vet and train and arm syrian opposition figures so that they could defend themselves against assad. the president said no. now, that's how it works. people who work for the president make recommendations and then the president makes the decision. so i think it's only fair to look at where we are in syria today and, yes, i do still support a no-fly zone because i think we need to put in safe havens for those poor syrians who are fleeing both assad and isis and so they have some place they can be safe.

>> staying on national security, dana bash has a question. >> senator sanders, in 1997 you said this about nato. you said, quote, it is not the time to continue wasting tens of billions of dollars helping to defend europe, let alone assuming more than our share of cost associated with expanding nato. do you still feel that way? >> what i believe, if my memory is correct here, we spend about 75% of the entire cost of the military aspect of nato. given the fact that france has a very good health care system and free public education, college education for their people, the u.k. has good national health service and they already provide fairly reasonable higher edge case, you know what? yeah, i do believe that the countries of europe should pick

up more of the burden for their defense, yes, i do. >> and just following up, senator sanders, donald trump also argues that nato is unfair economically to the u.s. because america pays a disproportionate share. so how is what you say about nato and your proposal different than his? >> well, you got to ask trump. all i can tell you is with a huge deficit, with 47 million people living in poverty, with our inner cities collapsing, yeah, i do think countries like germany and u.k. and france and european countries whose economy or at least its standard of living and health care and education, they're doing pretty well. so i would not be embarrassed as president of the united states to say to our european allies, you know what, the united states of america cannot just support your economies. you got to put up your own fair share of the defense burden. nothing wrong with that. >> secretary clinton.

>> i support our continuing involvement in nato and it is important to ask for nato allies to pay more of the cost. there is a requirement that they should be doing so, and i believe that needs to be enforced. but there's a larger question here. nato has been the most successful military alliance in probably human history. it has bound together across the atlantic countries that are democracies that have many of the same values and interests and now we need to modernize it and move it into the 21st century to serve as that head of our defense operations in europe when it comes to terrorism and other threats that we face. >> madam secretary -- >> yes, of course they should be paying more. that doesn't mean if they don't we leave because it's not in america's interest.

>> that's going to be part of my question to you. to that point, there are 28 countries in the alliance and the united states gives more money to nato's budget than 21 of those countries combined. if they don't agree to pay more, as you suggested, then what would you do as commander in chief? >> i will stay in nato. i will stay in nato and we will continue to look for missions and other kinds of programs that they will support. remember, nato was with us in afghanistan, most of the member countries also lost soldiers and civilians in afghanistan. they came to our rallying defense after 9/11. that meant a lot. and, yes, we have to work out the financial aspects of it but let's not forget what's really happening. with russia being more aggressive, making all kinds of intimidating moves toward the baltic countries, we've seen what they've done in eastern

ukraine, we know how they want to rewrite the map of europe, it is not in our interests -- think of how much it would cost in russia's aggression were not deterred because nato was there on the front lines making it clear they could not move forward. >> thank you, secretary. senator, let's talk about the u.s. relationship with israel. senator sanders, you maintain that israel's response in gaza in 2014 was, quote, disproportionate and led to the unnecessary loss of innocent life. what do you say to those who believe that israel has a right to defend itself as it sees fit? >> well, as somebody who spent many months of my life when i was a kid in israel, who has family in israel, of course israel has a right not only to defend themselves but to live in peace and security without fear of terrorist attack.

that is not a debate. but what you just read, yeah, i do believe that. israel was subjected to terrorist attacks, has every right in the world to destroy terrorism. but we had in the gaza area, not a very large area, some 10,000 civilians who were wounded and some 1500 who were killed. now, if you're asking me not just me but countries all over the world was that a disproportionate attack, the answer is i believe it was. and let me say something else, let me say something else. as somebody who is 100% pro israel, in the long run -- and this is not going to be easy, god only knows, but in the long run if we are ever going to bring peace to that region which has seen so much hatred and so much war, we are going to have to treat the palestinian people

with respect and dignity. so what is not to say -- to say that right now in gaza, right now in gaza unemployment is somewhere around 40%. you got a lot of that area continues, it hasn't been rebuilt, decimated, houses decimated, health care decimated, schools decimated. i believe the united states and the rest of the world have got to work together to help the palestinian people. that does not make me anti-israel. that paves the way, i think, to an approach that works in the middle east. >> thank you. secretary clinton, do you agree with senator sanders that israel overreacts to palestinian attacks and that in order for there to be peace between israel and the palestinians, israel must, quote, end its disproportionate responses? >> i negotiated the cease-fire

between israel and hamas in november of 2012. i did it in concert with president abbas of the palestinian authority based in ramallah, i did it with the then muslim brotherhood president, morsi, based in cairo, works closely with prime minister netanyahu and the israeli cabinet. i can tell you right now i have been there with israel officials going back more than 25 years that they do not seek this kind of attacks. they do not invite rockets raining down on their towns and villages. they do not believe that there should be a constant incitement by hamas aided and abetted by iran against israel. and so when it came time after they had taken the incoming

rockets, taken the assaults and ambushes on their soldiers and they called and told me, i was in cambodia, that they were getting ready to have to invade gaza again because they couldn't find anybody to talk to tell them to stop it, i flew all night, i got there, i negotiated that. so i don't know how you run a country when you are under constant threat, terrorist tact, rockets coming at you. you have a right to defend yourself. that does not mean -- that does not mean that you don't take appropriate precautions and i understand that there's always second guessing any time there is a war. it also does not mean that we should not continue to do everything we can to try to reach a two-state solution, which would give the palestinians the rights and -- >> thank you. >> just let me finish. the rights and autonomy that they deserve.

and let me say this. if yasser arafat had agreed with my husband at camp david in the late 1990s to the offer that prime minister barack put on the table, we would have had a palestinian state for 15 years already. >> go ahead, senator. >> i don't think that anybody would suggest that israel invites or welcomes missiles flying into their country. that is not the issue. and you evaded the answer. you evaded the question. the question is not does israel have a right to respond, not does israel have a right to go after terrorists and destroy terrorism. that's not the debate. was their response disproportionate? i believe that it was. you have not answered that. >> well, i will be -- i will certainly be willing to answer it. i think i did answer it by saying that of course there have to be precautions taken but even

the most independent analyst will say the way that hamas places its weapons, the way that it often has its fighters in civilian garb, it is terrible. i'm not saying it's anything other than terrible. but it would be great -- remember, israel left gaza. they took out all the israelis. they turned the keys over to the palestinian people. and what happened? hamas took over gaza. so instead of having a thriving economy with the kind of opportunities that the children of the palestinians deserved, we have a terrorist haven that is getting more and more rockets shipped in from iran and elsewhere. >> senator. >> i read secretary clinton's statement speech before apec. i heard virtually no discussion at all about the needs of the palestinian people. almost none in that speech.

so here is the issue: of course israel has a right to defend itself, but long term there will never be peace in that region unless the united states play as role, an even-handed role trying to bring people together and recognizing the serious problems that exist among the palestinian people. that is what i believe the world wants to us do and that's the kind of leadership that we have got to exercise. >> well, if i -- i want to add, you know, again describing the problem is a lot easier than trying to solve it. and i have been involved both as first lady with my husband's efforts, as a senator supporting the efforts that even the bush administration was undertaking, and as secretary of state for

president obama, i'm the person who held the last three meetings between the president of the palestinian authority and the prime minister of israel. there were only four of us in the room, netanyahu, abbas, george mitchell and me. three long meetings. and i was absolutely focused on what was fair and right for the palestinians. i was absolutely focused on what we needed to do to make sure that the palestinian people had the right to self-government. >> thank you. >> and i believe that as president, i will be able to continue to make progress and get an agreement that will be fair both to the israelis and the palestinians without ever, ever undermining israel's security. >> a final word, senator. >> there comes a time -- there comes a time when if we pursue justice and peace, we are going to have to say that netanyahu is not right all of the time.

>> well -- >> secretary. >> you know, i have spoken about and written at some length the very candid conversations i've had with him and other israeli leaders. nobody is saying that any individual leader is always right, but it is a difficult position. if you are from whatever perspective trying to seek peace, trying to create the conditions for peace when there is a terrorist group embedded in gaza that does not want to see you exist. that is a very difficult challenge. >> senator, you gave a major speech to apec, which obviously deals with the middle east crisis, and you barely mentioned the palestinians. and i think, again, it is a complicated issue and god knows for decades presidents including

president clinton and others, jimmy carter and others have tried to do the right thing. all that i am saying is we cannot continue to be one sided. there are two sides to the issue. >> thank you, senator. thank you, secretary. we have to take another quick, quick break. but much more on the cnn democratic presidential debate live from brooklyn, new york. that is coming up right after this.

hey, we're opening up a second shop and we need some new signage. but can't spend a lot. well, we have low prices and a price match guarantee. scout's honor? low prices. pinky swear? low prices. eskimo kisses? how about a handshake? oh, alright... the lowest price. every time. staples. make more happen. ♪ ♪

(laughing) there's nothing like making their day. except making sure their tomorrow is taken care of too. financial guidance while you're mastering life. from chase. so you can. while you're mastering life. ♪

♪ for your retirement, you want to celebrate the little things, because they're big to you. and that is why you invest. the best returns aren't just measured in dollars. td ameritrade®. go to ziprecruiter.com and post your job? to over 100 of the web's leading job boards with a single click, then simply select the best candidates from one easy-to-review list. and now you can use ziprecruiter for free. go to ziprecruiter.com/offer5

welcome back to the cnn presidential debate. we're here in brooklyn. secretary, senator, both of you talk about major reforms to college tuition, health care and social security, all of which will take significant changes from congress currently

controlled by republicans. senator sanders, you're promising health care and free college for all, and those plans would be met with both political and practical challenges. the nonpartisan committee for responsible federal budget says your initiatives would cost up to $28 trillion and even after massive tax increases, that would add as much as $15 trillion to the national debt. how is this fiscally responsible? >> well, first of all, i disagree with that study. there are many economists who come up with very, very different numbers. for example, we are the only country, major country on earth, that does not guarantee health care to all people. and yet we end up spending almost three times what the british do, 50% more than the french. my proposal, a medicare for all single payor program will save -- will save middle class

families many thousands of dollars a year in their health care costs. public colleges and universities tuition free, damn right. that is exactly what we should be doing. and i'd pay for that -- i'd pay for that by telling wall street that, yeah, we are going to have a tax on wall street speculation, which will bring in more than enough money to provide free tuition at public colleges and universities and lower the outrageous level of student debt. wolf, we have seen in the last 30 years a massive transfer of wealth from the middle class to the top 1/10 of 1%. the establishment does not like this idea but, yes, i am determined to transfer that money back to the working families of this country. >> thank you, senator. secretary, go ahead and respond. >> well, again, i absolutely

agree with the diagnosis. the diagnosis that we've got to do much more to finish the work of getting universal health care coverage, something that i've worked on for 25 years, before there was something called obama care, there was something called hillary care. we now at 90% of coverage, i'm going to get us to 100%. and with respect to college, i think we have to make college affordable. we are pricing out middle class, working and poor families. no doubt about that. but i do think when you make proposals and you're running for president, you should be held accountable for whether or not the numbers add up and whether or not the plans are actually going to work. and just very briefly on health care, most of the people who have analyzed what senator sanders put out -- remember, he had a plan for about, i don't know, 18, 20 years, he changed

in the middle of this campaign, he put out another plan, people have been analyzing the new plan and there is no doubt by those who have analyzed it, progressive economists, health economists and the like that, it would pose an incredible burden not just on the budget but on individuals. in fact "the washington post" called it a train wreck for the poor. a working woman on medicaid who already has health insurance would be expected to pay about $2,300. the same for free college. the free college offer, you know, my late father said if somebody promises you something for free, read the fine print. you read the fine print and here's what it says. >> thank you, senator. >> the fine print says this -- that it will -- the federal government will cover two-thirds of the cost and require the state, even those led by republican governors to carry out what the remaining one-third is going to cost. >> we are not a country that has the courage to stand up to big money and do what has to be done

for the working families of this country. secretary clinton will have to explain to the people of our country how it could be that every other major country on earth manages to guarantee health care to all of their people, spending significantly less per capita than we can. i live 50 miles away from canada. you know, it's not some kind of communist, authoritarian country. it's doing okay. they have a health care system that guarantees health care to all people. we can do the same. in terms of public colleges and universities, please do not tell me that we cannot do what many other countries around the world are doing. kids should not be punished and leave school deeply in debt for what crime? for trying to get an education. so, yes, we are going to pay for it -- >> secretary clinton, go ahead.

>> we have a difference of opinion. we both want to get to universal health care coverage. i did stand up to the special interests and the powerful forces, the health insurance companies and the drug companies and perhaps that's why i am so much in favor of supporting president obama's signature accomplishment with the affordable care act because i know how hard it was to get that passed, even with a democratic congress. so rather than letting the republicans repeal it or rather starting all over again, trying to throw the country into another really contentious debate, let's make the affordable care act work for everybody. >> thank you, secretary. >> let's get to 100% coverage. let's get the cost down, and let's guarantee health care. >> secretary, let's talk about social security, another critically important issue. senator sanders has challenged you to give a clear answer when it comes to extending the life of social security and expanding benefits.

are you prepared to lift the cap on taxable income, which currently stands at $118,500, yes or no would you lift the cap? >> i have said repeatedly, wolf, i am going to make the wealthy pay into social security to extend the social security trust fund. that is one way. if that is the way that we pursue, i will follow that. but there are other ways. we should be looking at taxing passive income by wealthy people. we should be looking at taxing all of their investments. but here's the real issues because i've heard this, i've seen the reports of it. i have said from the very beginning we are going to protect social security. i was one of the leaders in the fight against bush when he was trying to privatize social security. but we also in addition to extending the trust fund, which i am absolutely determined to do, we've got to help people who are not being taken care of now. and because social security started in the 1930s, a lot of

women have been left out and left behind. and it's time that we provide more benefits for widows, divorcees or care givers for women who deserve more from the social security system, and that will be my highest priority. >> senator, go ahead, senator. >> interesting comment but you didn't answer the question. >> i did. >> you didn't. >> yes, i did. i did answer the question. don't put words into my mouth and say something that's not accurate. >> essentially what you described is my legislation, which includes passive income. now we've got -- here is the issue. your answer has been the same year after year. in fact, the idea that i'm bringing forth, i have to admit it, you know, it wasn't my idea. it was barack obama's idea in 2008. exact same idea. he called for lifting the cap,

which is now higher, it's at 118 and starting at 250 and going on up. if you do that, you're going to extend the life of social security for 58 years, you will significantly expand benefits by $1,300 a year for seniors and disabled vets under $16,000 a year. what's wrong with that? are you prepared to support it? >> i have supported it. we are in vigorous agreement here, senator. i think it's important to point out that, you know, we're having a discussion about the best way to raise money from wealthy people to extend the social security trust fund. think about what the other side wants to do. they're calling social security a ponzi scheme. they still want to privatize it. in fact, their whole idea is to turn over the social security trust fund to wall street, something you and i would never let happen. so, yes, we both want to make sure that social security is vibrant and well funded and

helping the people at the bottom. >> thank you, secretary. senator, go ahead. >> if i hear you correctly, madam secretary, you are now coming out finally in favor of lifting the cap on taxable income and extending and expanding social security. if that is the case, welcome on board. i'm glad you're here. >> thank you. errol louis, go ahead. >> we are going -- we are going -- as he said, i've said the same thing for years, i didn't say anything different tonight. we are going to extend the social security trust fund. there is still something called congress. now, i happen to support democrats and i want to get democrats to take back the majority in the united states senate so a lot of what we're talking can actually be implemented when i am president.

>> errol, hold on. >> go ahead, senator. >> maybe i'm a little bit confused. are you or are you not supporting legislation to lift the cap on taxable income and extend social security for 58 years and increase benefits? yes or no? >> i have said yes, we are going to pick the best way or combination -- >> ah. okay. >> or combination of ways. >> it's always a little bit challenging because, you know, if senator sanders doesn't agree with how you are approaching something, then you are a member of the establishment. well, let me say this, let me say this, we are going to extend the social security trust fund. we've got some good ideas to do it. let's get a congress elected that will actually agree with us in doing it. >> errol louis, go ahead. >> secretary clinton, i have a question from the reader of the "new york daily news," who sent

us a question for you. this is a reader of the daily news who sent this us for you. just a second. hannah green wants to know your position, secretary clinton regarding president obama's nomination to merrick garland to the supreme court. president obama said earlier this week that he would not withdraw the nomination, even after the presidential election. if elected, would you ask the president to withdraw the nomination? >> i am not going to contract -- contradict the president on this. i'm not going to engage in hypotheticals. i fully support the president. and i believe that the president -- the president is on the right side of both the constitution and history, and the senate needs to immediately begin to respond. i'm going to support the president. when i am president, i will take stock of where we are and move from there. >> senator sanders. >> well, there's no question. i mean, it really is an outrage and it just continues the seven

and a half years of unbelievable obstructionism we have seen from these right-wing republicans. i mean, a third grader in america understands the president of the united states has the right to nominate individuals to the u.s. supreme court. apparently everybody understands that except the republicans in congress. >> senator sanders, would you ask him to withdraw the nomination? >> here is the point and obviously i will strongly support that nomination as a member of the senate. but, if elected president, i would ask the president to withdraw that nomination because i think -- i think this, i think that we need a supreme court justice who will make it crystal clear and this nominee has not yet done that, crystal clear that he or she will vote to overturn citizens united and make sure that american democracy is not undermined.

>> you know, there is no doubt that the only people that i would ever appoint to the supreme court are people who believe that roe v. wade is settled law and citizens united needs to be overturned. and i want to say something about this since we're talking about the supreme court and what's at stake. we've had eight debates before, this is our ninth. we've not had one question about a woman's right to make her own decisions about reproductive health care, not one question. and in the meantime we have states, governors doing everything they can to restrict women's rights. we have a presidential candidate by the name of donald trump saying that women should be punished and we are never asked about this and to be complete in my concern, senator sanders said

with respect to trump it was a distraction. i don't think it's a distraction. it goes to the heart of who we are as women, our rights, our autonomy, our ability to make our own decisions, and we need to be talking about that and defending planned parenthood from these outrageous attacks. >> senator sanders, your response. >> you're looking at a senator and former congressman who proudly has a 100% pro-choice voting record, who will take on those republican governors who are trying to restrict a woman's right to choose, who will take on those governors right now who are discriminating outrageously against the lgbt community, who comes from a state which led the effort for gay marriage in this

country, proudly so. >> thank you, senator. >> who not only thinks we are not going to not defund planned parenthood, we've got to expand funding for planned parenthood. >> senator sanders, you've spoken a lot tonight about your votes in congress. you have been in congress for over a quarter of the century, and there as an independent, not a democrat. now you're seeking the democratic nomination, but secretary clinton has suggested that she's not even sure you are a democrat. are you? >> well, why would i be running for the democratic nomination to be president of the united states? but here is a good point. you know, in virtually all of the general election match-up polls between trump and secretary clinton and trump and bernie sanders, in almost all of

those polls, i do better than secretary clinton. both in the cnn poll i was 20 points ahead of trump. i think secretary clinton was 12 points. and you know why? because in fact a whole lot of people -- this may be a shock to the secretary, but there a whole lot of independents in this country. >> senator sanders -- >> and we are not going to win the white house based on just long-term democratic votes. we have got to reach out to independents and i think i am well qualified to do that. i am in this race as a democrat. i have raised millions of dollars for my colleagues in the united states senate to help them get elected. i will do everything i can to open the democratic party to the young people who are flocking into our campaign. >> senator sanders, on that very

subject, on that very subject, secretary clinton mentioning electing a democratic congress several times. she said she raised $15 million for the democratic party in the first three months of this year. you didn't appear to have raised any money for the party. yesterday you did announce that you would help three members of congress who have endorsed you. why aren't you doing more to help the party you say you want to lead? >> the truth, and you can speak to my colleagues. we have raised millions for the dscc. i have written letters if i may use the word huge amount of money so that's just not accurate. but i will also say, and this is important and maybe the secretary disagrees with me, but i am proud that millions of young people who previously were not involved in the political process are now coming into it,

and i do believe, i do believe that we have got to open the door of the democratic party to those people. and i think the future of the democratic party is not simply by raising money from wealthy campaign contributors. i think that the way we are doing it in this campaign, $27 a contribution, not being dependent on wall street or big money, that is the future of the democratic party that i want to see. [ cheers and applause ] >> well, let us talk -- let us talk about where we are in this race. i have gotten more votes than anybody running, 9.6 million at the last count.

that is 2.3 million more than senator sanders. and it is 1.4 million more than donald trump. and i think you have to look at the facts. and the facts are that i'm putting to the a very broad-based, inclusive coalition from the south to the north, from the east to the west with african-americans, latinos, women, union households, working people and i am very proud of the campaign we are running. it is a campaign that will not only capture the democratic nomination, but a campaign that will defeat whoever the republicans end up nominating. >> thank you, madam secretary. senator sanders -- [ cheers and applause ] >> and i want to say -- i also want to say that i do -- i do think it is absolutely critical

and incredible that we have so many young people involved in the political process. i applaud all of those who are applauding you, senator sanders. we're happy that they are supporting you, that they are passionately committed to you and to the issues. but let me also say it's going to be important that we unify the democratic party when the nomination process has been completed. >> secretary clinton, thank you. >> i know something about that. >> secretary clinton, thank you very much. thank you. >> because when i went to the very end of the '08 campaign with then senator obama, we did unify and party and we did elect a democratic president. >> secretary clintons you're out of time. thank you very much. senator sanders, on that note -- senator, please. senator sander, please. i want to ask you a question about this, and then you can incorporate that into your response.

three months now between now and the democratic convention. your campaign manager says that you will absolutely take the fight to the floor if neither you nor secretary clinches the nomination with pledged delegates alone. do you vow to take this fight to philadelphia no matter what? >> i think we're going to win this nomination to tell you the truth. look, let me acknowledge what is absolutely true. secretary clinton cleaned our clock in the deep south, no question about it. we got murdered there. that is the most conservative part of this great country. that's the fact. but you know what, we're out of the deep south now. and we're moving up. we got here, we're going to california, we got a number of large states there. and having won 7 out of the last 8 caucuses and primaries, having

a level of excitement and energy among working people and low-income people doing better events than donald trump and other republicans in poll after poll than secretary clinton is, yeah, i believe we're going to win this nomination, and i believe we're going to obliterate donald trump or whoever the republican candidate is. >> let me say this -- >> secretary clinton, go ahead. >> i think it's important for people out there watching this tonight to know that i also have a considerable lead in pledged delegates. and my lead in pledged delegates is actually wider than barack obama's lead was over me. and in addition to winning states in the deep south, we won florida, texas, arizona, massachusetts, ohio, illinois, north carolina, missouri.