for no reason at all. republicans found time to vote fully repeal the aca time to let key part of the patriot act go dark and are now finding time to defund planned parenthood and limit one's access to cancer screening, birth control and other vital services. they have not found time to lift a single finger to help the middle class. if you look at their to do list if it helps a special interest republicans are going around to it. if it helps middle-class has gone down. something to improve workers rights in the workplace that chance raising the minimum wage three-month. republicans have spent nearly every waking hour placating there base and catering to special interest

ignoring hard-working americans along the way. if they continue to follow the hard right they will fall right off a political close next year. sadly it looks like that is where we are headed with the far right calling for republicans to shut down the government and was the defund planned parenthood. i am confident if republicans try to defund planned parenthood at the end of september democrats will unite against it. this is a republican path. they always find a reason to shut down the government. have republicans learned nothing? i tried to do this over aca and had to walk away weeks later follow me.

we hope to negotiate and come up with a good spending plan for the rest of the year. >> thank you. letting me know a little bit out of order. many states where we have not taken or medicare dollars. there will be a host of issues where we can talk about. i want to touch on the

reluctance a republican colleagues to come to the table about a budget. nothing was set up being more stupid option in sequestration we all no it's coming.coming. as chuck mentioned, we are seeing talk of another government shutdown. the last thing we need is another manufactured crisis. in aa state that is perhaps more reliant on defense dollars than any other state even our most adamant advocates recognize the only way we will avoid the draconian nature of sequestration is to provide funding for defense and nondefense. we have to keep our nation strong. with that, i turn it over.

>> thank you very much, and it is wonderful to be here with my colleagues that are all working so hard on the premise that the united states of america cannot be strong without a strong middle class. when we look at every single issue it's about whether or not it will create opportunity for everyone or just another deal to read the system for the wealthy and well-connected. what we see over and over again is all about either making sure they are running to the most extreme parts of their caucus and the republican party or making sure that those who are already doing extremely well get another chance to do something else during the system for them which is the

bottom line. the only exception to that has been the few times they have worked with us on a bipartisan basis to clean up the filibusters they did in the last six years. i call it filibuster cleanup when they did things like the doc fix$x. we appreciatewe appreciate that they are willing to clean up past messes, but when you look at where they are now going forward over and over again a budget that gives if fully past 16 million working families tax increases in average of $900 that is what was passed in the budget by the house and senate. ..

said you fast-forward to today. once again, here we go again when in doubt attacks women's healthcare and that's now is what is happening again. we are seeing all these things the senator talked about in terms of lifting people up creating opportunity work hard to come have a good paycheck. medicare, social security, all these other things that allow

the great american dream that we've all grown up with. what are they going to do, they are going to attack women's preventative health care. we hear that the representatives that they will not support any spending bill that supports planned parenthood. so, here we go again. we are ready for it. we understand. it is a majority of americans if they want us to fight on their side so that everybody has a fair shot to make it and that is exactly what we are doing. >> it's all about priorities. there are urgent challenges facing america's middle class and the republicans refused to move while america's little class crumbles. i'm highlighting three bills that would make an immediate difference in the lives of millions of americans. first, refinance student loan debt. the federal government shouldn't

be making a profit off the backs of people who are trying to get an education. in the past year since we've asked republicans to lower the interest rate on student loans and cut off the profits, the republicans said no and student loan debt has grown by another $100 billion. so while 40 million people try to deal with the high cost of student loan debt republicans refuse to move. second, raise the minimum wage. no one who works full-time should still live in poverty no one. an increase in the minimum wage would left 14 million kids out of poverty. but the republicans refuse to move. and third, put a little fairness into the scheduling. in other should mother should know if her hours are canceled before she arranges for child care and drives halfway across

town. when a baby gets sick or grandmother falls and breaks a hip no one should get fired for needing to take a few days off from work. any worker that wants to try to go back to school and work a second job to try to support a family or to try to build an economic future shouldn't be fired in retaliation for asking for a regular schedule. the schedules at work though could make a little difference and make a little more security for tens of millions of hard-working families. but the republicans refuse to move. now when lobbyists want something and the company wants to keystone pipeline or when the citibank wants to blast a hole in dodd frank, the republicans moved faster than lightning. but when it comes to things that will help families, the republicans refuse to move.

we are not here to work for the lobbyists, we are here to make this country work for hard-working americans. and if the republicans won't move, then we need to move them out of the way. thank you. >> should a commissioner [inaudible] >> i haven't seen evidence that he should resign himself. >> i wouldn't be prepared to say that at this point. >> are democrats planning on voting on the motion to proceed? >> no, we will offer an agreement to a certain number of amendments alternative to the bill. democrats, a number of republicans to move forward. i think what is going to be holding up the bill is their

side. ted cruz and others in the world to let it move forward. >> [inaudible] there is closing the tax loopholes. we are in for closing all kinds of loopholes. it will allow people to go overseas. the average salary should pay the rate of taxes into somebody making over a million dollars for changing the versions of the companies can't go overseas. lots of different changes. >> some of these things, but no. >> senator schumer one of the advantages.

>> the other purposes - [inaudible] >> we are not proposing the funding in the repatriation. we are proposing the highway bill and tax reform in the international tax reform for some of the money that they make overseas and in their way. and the advantage of that is that it gives a good source of gravity so that we can have a longer-term highway bill funded at a much higher increase around the level of what the president proposed about a 45% increase that is just getting depleted. so that is the reason that we prefer. those that are in the highway bill again if we were able to do the kind of international tax reform that we would like to do, we would find that there would be revenues to things we can't now and we would have to scrounge up these kind of

proposals that didn't meet the favor of the house in any case. >> adding we understand that we need to be focused on being competitive, international part of the closing loopholes and other pieces of the international tax reform that is incredibly important that we do and there's actually a possibility if we do it the right way. the highway bill was a hodgepodge of different kind of things and i would say coming from an energy market this morning and the senator and i there was something put in their way would like to have for the energy infrastructure and that is spending so you can look through the bill to see which way we ought to be doing things like the customs fees for strengthening the border and

customs so this gives us an opportunity to go back and look at what should be done in those revenues. >> can any of you remember the last time the congress did anything on this and also if you could comment on the senator mcconnell's announcement that it would be negotiating in the government >> let me comment in a second. we are urging the senator and the other republican leaders along with the president i believe that the president spoke about it today to sit down and negotiate it. it seems the republicans are headed towards a shutdown. wait for the last minute. september is going to be quite busy. we have the vote coming. wait until the last three days and then the senator mcconnell thinks that he's going to pass a sequestration bill that cuts to domestic programs were medically, cuts defense insisted it or leave it he is risking the government shutdown plain and simple. so, we want to sit down

tomorrow, this afternoon, and start talking about the views. and the strategy seems bright headed over the cliff of a government shutdown. but again the republican colleagues seem to have a take it or leave it approach on issue after issue after issue. we are not saying on september 15 we need to do something. we have done this in a very responsible they said that in the two years we have a bipartisan agreement moving forward and we need a second round of that.

so not participating in the rest of it. to me if you look at the slowdown right now, what we really need is the leader talking to the senate because the slowdown isn't because of us. it's coming with - not because of us because what has been happening is because the dramatic disagreement and it looks like lack of communication between the republicans and the house and the senate. [inaudible] do you think that the party - >> it is going to be just like the shutdown. it's clear that the republicans are saying shut down the government unless i get my way on the extraneous issue.

if we can resist the hard right of the people against women's health of any sort with a lot of a short debate co- shutdown. the american people see it. c-span wrote it to the white house coverage continues now with remarks from democratic candidate bernie sanders. he spoke on the u.s. economy and issues impacting latino businesses. held by the u.s. hispanic chamber of commerce, this is one hour and ten minutes.

for the united states chamber of commerce i have the honor of representing 3.2 million hispanic owned firms in the company that collectively contribute over 486 billion. we also advocate on behalf of the major american corporations and we do this through a network of over 200 local chambers and business associations nationwide and while they represent the interest of the businessmen and women that happened to be of hispanic descent, we never forget that we are first and foremost american businesses. and every tax bill that we pay them every job we create, every product that we manufacture in every service that we provide goes to benefit the american economy concerning the

involvement of the presidential candidates with america's hispanic community and it is an association that represents millions of hispanic business owners that we have in the accountability to ensure the voices are heard by each and every candidate. not only as business leaders, but as taxpayers, campaign donors and ultimately as voters. this q&a session is the third in the series. already we have spoken to senator ted cruise and governor martin o'malley. this forum is meant to set the wreck wreck are just great on a issues that concern hispanic americans. so today we will be talking about a wide array of issues including the economy small business, international trade immigration, climate change and equal pay. frankly, issues that affect all americans. i would like to welcome to the stage senator bernie sanders.

[applause] [applause] we love you. >> we haven't even started yet. [laughter]

>> [inaudible] [inaudible] - so the question is mr. senator, are you - what do you plan to do to stay viable for the nomination? >> let me begin by thanking you for inviting me to this

wonderful turnout. >> we thought going into the campaign absolutely it would make no - if you and i were having a chat three and a half months ago and you asked me whether i was running i would have told you i really did not know and i wouldn't have gotten all that excited about the idea. so we are kind of knew into this thing. i think it's fair to say secretary clinton has been thinking about this for a lot longer than i have. and let me tell you some of the issues that we were struggling with that has everything to do with as he executed the question. number two did we have a message that resonates with the american people and that message is that for 40 years the middle class in america has been disappearing while the

wealthiest people are doing phenomenally well. do we need fundamental changes in the way that we do politics in america? i thought that message would resonate and it is resonating. the second question to tackle is as a result of this disaster this supreme court decision from my view it is one of the worst decisions in the supreme court that basically says you can buy elections. people will give you hundreds of millions. we knew that we would be outside. but we thought that we could raise enough money for the winning campaign. it turns out that we were right. we've gotten over 300,000 individual conditions. you know what the average? thirty-five dollars apiece. a piece. that adds a different way to raise money and going to the super pack were they put half a million or a million or $10 million. can we raise enough money to win, i think we can. the third issue is the

understood secretary clinton is very well known and that we would have to develop a strong grassroots movement. and we are doing that. just last night, we had 3500 organizational meetings in the country and we believe that over 100,000 people came up. if that answer the question you were right. the numbers are right. but, we have the momentum in the early states like new hampshire in iowa we are doing significantly better. so i am not guaranteeing this, but i think that we have a very good chance to win if we can develop that grassroots movement all over the country. >> congratulations. i have to say that i certainly the message appears when resonating. follow-up question. how would you respond to the governor's likening the recent surge to that of donald trump as a saying that both of you are

nothing more than a summer fling? >> i have been doing what i do for many years and when you have 100,000 people attending the meetings last night, when you have rallies come out when you have a website that is being inundated but is being inundated by the hundreds of thousands of people who are responding to our message that in this great country it is unacceptable to have the most unequal distribution of wealth and income of any country on earth that we are the only country that doesn't guarantee health care to all people is right, we are the only major country on earth but that doesn't guarantee family and medical leave paid sick leave, paid vacation time, that the rich get richer and everybody else is getting poorer this isn't a summer fling. these are issues that are resonating with the american

people who are saying enough is enough and the political system belongs to all of us and not a handful of billionaires. >> on to the economy and small business. in a "washington post" article, you stated, and i quote i would not die if not for one second. they stand for the strong free-market economy where the entrepreneurs should be able to pursue the american dream limited by the way the government regulation finds it very commendable to see that your not shying away not for a second from your beliefs. in fact we respect very much and what we respect both of any candidate is transparency and consistency. and however as a business

organization your views do concern me a bit. so, the question is -' is how would this economic platform translates into growth for the american small businesses. >> before i answer this important question, but me back to it and put it in the context. we have to decide where we are today. and sometimes we don't discuss that enough. where we are today is that median family income is $5,000 less almost $5000 less than it was in 1999. where we are today as we have the highest rate of poverty in any country on earth. where we are today is the 45 million americans living in poverty, where we are today is in a recent study that came out of the economic policy institute this is what it said about youth unemployment for high school

graduate between 17 and 20 who or why cannot real are white real unemployment is 33% and hispanic is 36% of african-american youth unemployment 51%. 35 million people have no health insurance. we have a childcare system which is a disaster. working families in most cases are not competent for the could find affordable quality child care. that is the sum of the reality today. what does that mean black you have the courage to look at countries around the world that are in fact doing things better than we are just as there are things we do that are better than other countries. they look the look and feel of the best ideas. we look at cities all over america. what rit d. - what are the ideas. this is what we can steal. the business perspective how

many of the business people struggle everyday spending huge amounts of time on health insurance? that is an incredibly large portion. >> and i would think that a small businessman would like to spend his or her time worrying about how the business is going to grow and not figuring out talking to 87 different people as to how they are going to get affordable health care for the workers. is that a fair statement? every country has health care as a right. how about only will that be a benefit to the people in the country but it takes a burden off the small business. is that a good idea, i think it is. ..

it helps america. so, when i talk about democratic socialism take a look what's going on in sweden free college education, free health care. i think it makes sense to look at countries that are doing good things for working families. i am sure we may have a disagreement on that. we may. but let me be very frank great when you have the most unequal level of income and wealth equality of any major western

country, when you have major corporations and i'm not talking about small as this is ultimately in corporations not paying a nickel in taxes i think that's wrong and i will do away with those loopholes. >> you know i did however want to hear from you in particular how would president sanders address the needs of minority-owned businesses specifically hispanic owned businesses? can you share a little bit about that? >> yeah. when real unemployment is as high as it is right now i think we have got to invest in rebuilding our public infrastructure and i think we should do it with legislation that would spend a chilly in dollars increasing $13 million. the hispanic community is heavily involved in construction. i don't know the exact number but a significant or centage of hispanic businesses are in construction. if we start rebuilding our roads

bridges and wastewater plants this will make america stronger and more efficient provide millions of jobs and it would really be a significant boost to the hispanic community. that's one way we can play a role. >> thank you for your response. i would like to chat about something we feel strongly about here at the u.s. hcc and that's equal and that's equal pay. as you know senator in this country women's wages continue to stubbornly lagged a heinz mends even when doing the exact same job with women more or less earning about 70 cents on the dollar and hispanic women more like 54 cents on the dollar. first of all why do you think that is and is president what will you do to a dress that disparity? >> i think it has to do to be honest with you with many of the businesses are owned by many. i think it is also part of a historical trend where 50 years

ago, 40 years ago women were maybe working for few hours a week but that reality has changed as you well know. we have the vast majority of people working women. many of them have kids that are in the workforce and it's unacceptable. your statistics tell us that we are discriminating against women and i very much applaud your organization. not many business organizations do that but it's indefensible. i don't know how anyone can defend seeing women make 78 cents her hour compared to men so i very strongly believe in two things when it comes to that. one you may agree with me and when you may not. the first one i do agree with and have strongly supported it in the senate is we have to move toward pay equity for women workers end of discussion. women deserve the same pay as men.

what we may not be in the same page about as i believe the federal minimum wage of $7.25 is totally inadequate. i'm supportive of the efforts of los angeles san francisco north in seattle of raising the minimum wage over period of a few years to $15 an hour and i've introduced legislation in the senate and the president would fight for 15-dollar an hour minimum wage. >> we are actually in the same page on both accounts. we are doing very well. [applause] >> are we? >> maybe this isn't a summer fling, who knows? >> is surprising to me. as you know we are being fired vigorously by many businesses who do not want us to raise the minimum wage and i applaud you in the organization for having the courage to say that people cannot survive on $7.25 or $8. >> if you look at the track record of our business owners

it's 3.2 million of them collectively richer beating and growing at a rate of three to one in the general market. if you look at their employee base vastly they are paying much more than the minimum wage to their own employees. >> i'm going to give you some applause for that. [applause] >> onto trade. >> we were doing very well but let's go to trade. >> i have got to go. [laughter] >> an issue that the u.s. agency is worked on over the past several months has been, and we don't always agree with the administration to be clear that we have agreed on this. we avert very hard with the administration's trade agendas i want to ask you, in light of the fact that 98% of u.s. businesses that do actually export or actually small businesses, we believe that access to more markets abroad is frankly a good

thing or the entrepreneurs we represent. more than 95% of global market being outside of the united states and the question is can you tell us a little bit about your concerns with the transpacific partnership as it stands today? >> a fair question. and please do not understand my position as being something that we put a wall on mt. america. the question is what kind of trade agreements do we establish and who benefits from most trade agreements? now i voted when i first got into congress in 1991 against nafta. i voted against cafta. i voted against health trade relations with china and you're quite right i'm helping to lead the opposition against it. why? i have always believed and i think the facts bear me out because number one these trade agreements were essentially written by corporate americans

by wall street or the pharmaceutical industry. they were not written with the goal of improving life for people in the united states of america. essentially what they were written to do was to say to large corporations okay, you do not have to pay workers in this country 15 20 25 bucks an hour. you can shut down an american move to china, you can move to vietnam you can move to mexico. you can pay people substantially lower wages and bring your products back into the country. i believe that was the intention of these key pieces of legislation i believe that's exactly what is happening. two things since 2001 we have lost almost 60,000 factories in american i'm not going to tell you all of that is attributable to trade what a lot of it is. and second of all we are in a race to the bottom so that now companies say to workers well you know, if you don't take a pay cut we have an opportunity

in china so i believe in trade is not unfettered free trade. i do not believe that american workers should be forced to compete against workers around the world to make pennies and i think that is unfair. i don't want to go on long but tpp has additional provisions which i do not like. what i want to see is a trade agreement which works for the middle-class working families of this country as well as people around the world not just for the ceos of large corporations. >> so it track record against nafta and cafta tpp etc., would you classify yourself or characterize yourself as anti-trade? >> nope. i am anti-trade agreement which results in jobs being lost in america. let's be clear we have lost millions of jobs as a result of

these trade agreements. i'm against that. what i believe we can establish trade policies that work are small-business that work for workers in our country, work for people in other countries. but that is not in the philosophy behind the trade agreements that i've seen in the last 20 years. >> onto one of your favorites financial institutions. the u.s. htc works closely with the broadest array of financial cetaceans in this country because they provide billions of dollars every year in sba loans. they are a reliable source and a ready source of credit capital capital for our small businesses however when it comes to large financial institutions you have a think a similar position to governor r. mutt -- governor o'malley's regarding reinstating the glass-steagall act which ultimately i think would break up some of the largest banks. by the way of position that secretary clinton does not

support. can you explain to us and my members why we should be supported of your stance on finance? >> here is where we are and by the way it's been my view for a very long time. we have six of the largest financial institutions in this country who have assets equivalent of about $10 trillion which is the equivalent to about 60% of gdp so point number one you have a handful of huge financial institutions that have enormous economic clout. they issue a significant amount of mortgages in the country and the credit cards in this country so the first issue is for a vibrant economy do we think it's a good idea for a handful of financial institutions to have that much economic clout?

to be honest with you i think of teddy roosevelt were alive today he would be coming in and saying they are too big and too powerful. the second everybody in this room understand what happened in 2008. and let's be very clear, in my view, in my view, to a significant degree the business model of wall street is not to get money out to your people to small businesses. i believe it's a boring banking system. people put money into banks, banks lend out money to small businesses to create jobs, help people buy homes and mortgages. that's called old-fashioned boring banking. that's what i believe in redwood wall street has done is create a business model which says we really don't care about small to medium-sized businesses. what we care about is being an island unto ourselves coming up with the most esoteric financial

tools imaginable that nobody in the world knows that enables wall street to make huge, huge amounts of money and highly dangerous and speculative activities. that led us to the wall street crash of 2008 which created the worst economic downturn since the great recession. i personally believe that the business model of wall street is fraudulent. i do not trust these guys. i do not believe these guys. i do not believe they care about the economy in america. i think they care about themselves. i want a wonder banking system where you have small and medium-sized banks were your people can walk in and someone will know who you are. i know your history you are going to get a reasonable price. you are part of the community and i know you. i've do not want people in an island unto themselves separate of a productive economy. i believe very much number one and has been my view for many many years, if you check my record you will find that i was

the in member the house financial services committee that dealt with deregulation and we had the clinton people and we have the republicans coming before us. do you remember what they said? they said it's a great idea for emerge thanks investment banks with commercial banks with large insurance companies. it will be great for us internationally. i never believed it for one second and thought against it. to my mind but we have to do is reestablish glass-steagall maintained a separate entities but second of all and more importantly we have got to break them up. i they think the economy will do much better and small businesses will have access to affordable loans much more readily than currently. [applause] >> i want to clarify i know when you say your people you mean american small businesses. >> right, i know that. >> right. >> we are going to get to that issue in the second.

an energy and climate. let's talk about energy and climate change. i think this week he challenged secretary clinton on the keystone pipeline saying in that quote it's hard for me to understand how one can be concerned about climate change but not vigorously opposed the keystone pipeline. so the question is what is your plan to strike a balance between facilitating business growth promoting energy independence while at the same time protecting the environment? >> let me reverse the order of that question. i believe in what pope francis said in his recent cyclical. i believe climate change is the great environmental planetary crisis of the century. and i think that we have a moral responsibility to leave this

planet to our kids and their grandchildren. i have seven beautiful grandchildren. i have to reverse the order of your question and the question is how do we do that? i have to tell you that the way you do it is that the united states of america lead the world. we can't do it alone. this is a global problem, working with china and russia and countries all over the world in transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel into energy efficiency and sustainable energy such as wind solar and geothermal and emerging technologies. the debate is over. the science science community has told us loud and clear that climate change is real cause by human activity and causing devastating problems. so for the sake of the planet how do we go forward and i think president obama has made some -- fighting against a a whole lot of people refusing to accept the reality has made good issues

that we have got to go further if we are going to say this planet and leave the world transformed. how do you do that? y. the way to do it in terms of energy efficiency is making common terms of crime it changed moving aggressively toward energy efficiency. our where else system lags far behind europe japan and china. we can take an enormous number of trucks off the road by having a modern rail system. we also need to be weatherwise in homes all over this country and building as well. we are seeing huge growth in solar despite opposition from republicans in congress and went. wendy's is subsidized tax credits with sustainable energy. to my mind saving this planet for kids and their grandchildren preventing droughts and floods and weather disturbances is a huge priority and i would invest very heavily in transforming our energy system.

>> i would argue the point that since you brought it in the pope on your side of the issue on to race relations. let's talk about this a bit and first by the way i want to commend you for your long-standing track record proven track record in the work you have done in promoting civil rights and equality for decades frankly. and like you did ushcc believes in fair treatment and inclusion of all communities but with that said given the recent protests that transpired at the convention as well as the criticisms that you perceived for your response to those protests can you talk to us a bit about this troubling and frankly persistent problem in america? as president how would you address the racial tensions that stubbornly exist in this country? >> you are right they still

stubbornly exist there's no question about it and i suppose a positive development is if anybody thinks that african-americans were not beaten and killed when under police custody for decades would he sorely mistaken. that is of course what has happened for decades. the difference is a lot of those activities and actions are being recorded on cell phones in the whole world is seeing what the world did not see before. but here's what i think. we have made rug rats in terms of race relations in this country rows we would not be having an african-american as president and we should be proud of that but i think anyone who does not believe that tragically racism is alive and well in america that we do not have hundreds of hate groups whose whole function in life is to pit

white people against blacks hispanics, catholics and everybody else you would be mistaken. but what do we do about it? what we do about it among other things is make sure that we have very significant police reform in america. what that means is that not only do we have bought a camera so that we know what police officers are doing that we also have a new regiment. i think force is used too much. i saw, some people have seen this and a bland video. frankly if that was a white woman nobody would believe for one second that would have happened. yet from a car thrown to the ground assaulted handcuffed thrown in jail dead three days later. for failing to make a signal. you don't get thrown in jail for

failing to signal where you are turning so what we need to do is take a hard look at minimum sentencing right now. we have far too many people in jail for nonviolent offenses. we have more people in jail than any other country on earth. we need to take a hard look at the use of force that police departments now utilize. i think we need to take a very hard look at some of our drug laws. too many people are being arrested and sent to jail for nonviolent offenses and i want to take a hard look at that. at the end of the days we have got to continue the struggle to be, and nondiscriminatory society where people as part of the king, jr. reminded us are just by their character, by who they are as people not by the color of their skin and that means we have to have a justice department being vigorous, fighting discrimination,

fighting against police departments who are doing improper things to minorities and there is an enormous amount of work to do in that raid. >> so you think racism is alive and well? >> i think it's undeniable. >> do you think some people running for the presidency might be a bit racist? [laughter] >> one would hope, look you are never going to rid this country or the world. you stop and you think about this. i've been thinking about this recently. you think back to the origins of the united states. do you remember people who came from europe did to the native americans and when atrocities were committed and then we had slavery and how many millions of people died and were dehumanized as a result of slavery and then we had the attacks on nations and now we are seeing it against latinos. i'm not a psychiatrist and i do

not know why people apparently feel good about themselves when they are putting down an insulting other people. the statements donald trump and eight were clearly outrageous clearly outrageous and it troubles me very much that a candidate for president would stoop to that level. [applause] >> onto the hispanic electorate. in 2012 it's no secret that president obama garnered 72% of the hispanic vote. never before has the hispanic electorate played such a critical role in electing an american president and actually shared this with the president. i went further and i said i believed that never again will an american president be elected without openly courting america's hispanic vote. consider right now in america

every 30 seconds and hispanic turns 18 and becomes an eligible voter. that's a potential 60,000 brand-new voters every single month and that will be the case for the next 21 years in a row so the question is as president or as a presidential candidate what will you bernie sanders do to attract and mobilize america's hispanic vote? >> on her campaign javier we are making progress on that and i think you'll see us doing more outreach to the latino community and we are starting to do that. i would think we are going to do well for two reasons. number one our message of social justice a message that says that every young person in this country has a right to higher education because we are going to establish tuition free public colleges and universities, think that will be up popular meaningful proposal for all people in america but especially minority communities that are struggling economically create our message that when youth

unemployment for the hispanic community is 36% rather than seeing these kids go to jail we should invest in jobs and education and i've legislation and i think that will be appealing to the hispanic community. health care for all appealing to the hispanic communities of the first is i think our economic agenda which says we have got to reach out to working-class low-income families and give them dignity, give them jobs to produce income that will be a proposal i think that many hispanic will respond to. >> secondly there's another issue. ..

which would be vigorous in fighting discrimination all levels. >> some candidates have been accused. specifically do you have a track record regarding issues that you think are important to the hispanic

community? >> above and beyond. i will give you an example. i come from a state that is 95 percent white. that's the reality. now, i'll tell your story if i might in 2,007 as i recall i learned about a horrific situation. a small town in naples florida where it turns out most of the tomatoes hotels or burger king fast food restaurant. the undocumented tomato workers being exploited in the most terrific manner. of course because they are undocumented they have the legal rights.

on the day that i was they're front-page story is that a local contractor was charged with slavery, slavery in the year 2,007 because she was holding workers involuntarily. that is how bad the situation was. people were getting her ruinously low wages. overcrowded. working conditions what we did we held a hearing on my committee, health, education,committee, health, education, labor which was then shared by the late ted kennedy. to make a long story short the impact was we lost a lot of other efforts to improve the wages of those workers

the sen. from vermont i did not have to do that. ithat. i did it because it was the right thing to do. when undocumented workers can exploited it is not only vaguely suffer but every worker in america. [applause] >> you happen to be talking to an english as a 2nda 2nd language center. thank you for doing that. i don't get paid my personal opinion, but that is my personal opinion. on immigration power association views immigration reform as, frankly, an economic imperative that we think is critical for the continued well-being of our economy. the question is how do you propose that we harness the power of immigrants for our economy to continue to be the most competitive economy in the world? >> i think economically and

morally it is unacceptable that we have millions of workers who are living in the shadows. my dad came from poland without any money at all. in louisiana and from they're, actually. the end of my remarks kids came up 1617 tears in her eyes scared to death everyday she knew a member of the family will be reported. the moral issue of people undocumented in this country, some are republican and think the solution is to round up everywhere and throw them out. anyone

thinking about those kinds of ideas is the unbelief. clearly what we have got to do is provide comprehensive immigration reform. that is not only the right thing to do but economically it is the right thing. people working undocumented and have no rights not getting the benefit of the taxes they pay it impacts the whole economy to the tune of billions of dollars. let us also be clear suddenly every undocumented worker in this country disappear the economy would collapse. it would collapse. and many other areas, construction. construction. the 2nd area is, people talk about illegal immigrants.

such a thing as illegal employers as well. people do not come over the border and get jobs without the full expectation that the employer knows exactly what is going on. among the table. i find it interesting many of my friends ignore the reality. the economy has become stronger and when people have legal status people do not have to worry about being deported, families is separated for the economy become stronger when people are part of our workforce earning decent wages spending money, holding a heads up i. i believe as quickly as possible we should provide legal status to undocumented workers. our policy should be to put families together, not separate them. i am for president obama's executive action. certainly we need to demand the republicans in congress

not turn their backs on this issue and pass means of immigration reform. >> i would like to ask a quick follow-up. recently you criticize the portion of the gang of a bill for wanting to raise the of these is from 65,000 over 200,000. on that portion of the bill you do not agree. >> talk about my mind and argue. here is the way i look at it i situations. i see the absolute need to provide legal protection for undocumented people in the path toward citizenship. the bill passed in the senate. the construction on the augusta. but here is where i do have concern. there is a reason that wall

street and all corporate america likes immigration and it is not in my view that they are staying up nights worrying about undocumented workers. but they are interested in seeing a process by which we can bring low-wage labor of all levels in the country. and i strongly disagree. i mentioned to you a moment ago that unemployment rates for kids in this country high school kids, 36 african-american 51 percent, i do not believe we should be bringing in significant numbers of unskilled workers to compete. i want to see these kids get jobs. and as part of the bill is passed, a billion and a half dollar program for use in this country to get jobs.

that is my view. h 1 b many corporations say i can't get the high-tech guys i need. in some cases that's probably true. there may be a specialty but i have talked to too many people in the high-tech industry who say there are hundreds of people in this country who would like to do that work but the corporations are going outside the country pain people from russia lower wages. i think that is wrong. what aa company has to do to my mind is say, look, we just cannot find any engineers, any computer people. therefore we go out of the country. fine. you have to make sure you go

through the exhaustive process to make sure people in this country can get those jobs. >> in your view you think that these high-tech conglomerates want to bring immigrant labor in so that they can depress wages. wouldn't you think, though it is more of a training and education issue? the end people were people who are unemployed today don't have the skill set? isn't this more a training and education issue than it is raising or lowering the? >> the answer is an unequivocal yes and no. we agree that we are doing an abysmal job educating our young people for certain types of jobs. i have no doubt, and i have seen it in vermont there are highly skilled good paying jobs which our educational system has not enabled young americans to get.

that is true, and i accept accept that. on the other hand, there are corporations who bring people from russia and other countries into america and low wages rather than paying an american worker high wage. >> let's move on. mr. sen.,mr. senator, is they're one differentiating issue in your platform that you think truly distinguishes you and gives you the best chance? >> the best chance to -- >> connect with voters in this country. >> if you check my record, and i urge people to come a i'm political life when i was mayor number of congress i have taken on

virtually every powerful interest in the country. country. i have taken on the private health insurance client taken on the pharmaceutical industry the people from our sitmy state of the canadian borders that purchase medicine at one 10th the price taken on the military-industrial complex. weapon systems i helped lead the effort against the greed of wall street. and on and on it goes. i think at this moment in american history were so few have so much wealth and power that were going to expand the middle class rather than suturing make sure all the kids in this country get a good education regardless of income, provide healthcare if we're

going to create the kind the standard we will we need leadership now is prepared to take on.on. i know that sounds scary what you have right now in my view the other hand for a small number of people with incredible wealth and power is not only have you to control the economy as a result of citizens united, you tell me your anyone else how would you define a political system in which one family will spend more money in this election cycle than the democratic party or the republican party? one family. does that sound like democracy to you? what we have got to do is

rally the american people to say enough is enough. this is the wealthiest country in the history of the world and can provide healthcare and a decent standard of living for all of our people but in order to accomplish that you cannot be naïve. over and over again is not just about electing families. i can't do anything unless there is a movement of people behind me. that is where i think it is not only the agenda but the belief that we need a mass political movement. 80 percent of your people do not vote for did not vote the last election. you are not going to see change in this country. >> as a follow-up hypothetically let's say you continue to gain momentum in the coming months but in

the end you find yourself on the heels of hillary was still end up falling short of the nomination. do you feel you owe it to those people, to your supporters who feel very strongly about you. they feel the burn. [laughter] [applause] >> and it looks like we have a few in the room. >> if they called upon you with you on is an independent? >> the answer is no, and here is why. i am the longest serving independent. as i was the putting what to do one of the decisions i had to make a lot of people the democratic republican party is an extreme right-wing party

the democratic party's to party's to conservative cozy up with big money in corporate america. you have to run outside those two parties. and i thought about it. the only way that we can run an effective campaign is within the democratic primary and caucus. to answer your question it happens that i do that when the process what are outside i made a promise that i would not command i will keep that. and the reason for that is i do not want to be responsible for some right-wing republican. >> so, sen., thankso senator, thank you for spending time with us today in today's discussion, i wanted asked the final question you have compared our nation shortcomings when it comes to issues like

public health care education taxes command other things compared estimations like denmark norway, sweden and we come up short on just about every front. to put things in a different context according to our information ohio's economy is about 575 billion slightly larger than always. north carolina a little over 500 billion slightly larger than denmark and indiana 342 billion is slightly larger as well. if you look at the total us gdp we are at about 17 a half trillion. if you to denmark norway, sweden, and stuck them inside of america you can shake it around and it would roll around like a coconut. is it fair to compare our nation without complexity and gdp totenaciously norway

-- and by the way i love norway and sweden but do you think that is a faira fair comparison? >> and that is a good question. let melet me add to it. we are a far more diverse nation. having a problem with immigration as you know. it is not a question of the size of the gdp. a huge economy. the question is i guess i would say to you the size of the country or the complexity of our economy should we have the highest almost 20 percent of any other western industrialized nation? care about the complexity or the size. we have got to do that. but also should we be the only country? is it possible for large

country to have a healthcare system? i live in burlington, vermont 100 miles away. about an hour away from the border. much larger they can which iscanada which is not a small country. the national healthcare single-payer system for many decades which works as well. >> over including bill country a socialized health care system. to answer your question i am not comparing the size, complexity of american economy to sweden and denmark. i'm talking about a vision of where we want to go command i believe we have the political we will you can guarantee healthcare to all people as a right and could have family and medical leave paid vacation paid sick time, and i think we can also have a much fairer tax system which would result in a lot less wealth inequality and

we have right now. >> i think we have just a little bit of time for a couple of questions from the audience. any questions from the folks in the audience? >> we begin with this young man away sure right here. >> answers on building jobs and putting people back to work does that have to come at the expense of your environmental planning you have laid out? you have been pretty vocal. >> great question. >> a contradiction between creating jobs? let me repeat. i believe that we have got to be extraordinarily bold and aggressive in dealing with climate change, but i also believe that it is not

a contradiction when talking about rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. for example, if you have a strong rail system that can take trucks off of the road and create a much more energy efficient transportation system. when you weatherize homes as we are doing in vermont you are creating jobs and making massive cuts to carbon emission. i do not see a contradiction i think that we can move aggressively for sustainable energy and energy efficiency and create jobs while at the same time effectively. >> where is dan from cnn? then? >> you said i am going to quote you we must strengthen our borders and not allow people to so easily come into the country

long overdue and absolutely right. why did you say that back then? >> a very significant -- compared to what the bill. my concern about the bill i am voting against doing exactly what we discussed which is that there was too much emphasis on bringing low-wage workers and in this country. what i want to see and what is better about the reason is there is a path toward citizenship which is absolutely essential and that i was able to get a fairly significant amount of money into providing jobs to your people in this country which is the difference between those two pieces of

legislation. >> associate press. [inaudible question] >> talk about the initiatives you have in mind particular the latin america and what you have in mind. >> as i mentioned i votedi voted against nafta for a number of reasons and i remind you if you look at the impact that nafta has had on mexico, or one of the impacts massive the location so small farms and mexico driving a lot of workers of those forms into the cities and into a bad situation.

second of all i am concerned when i see aggressive china has been in moving over the world. obviously latin america is our neighbor command i am not impressed to the degree we have been reaching out. i support strongly the president's initiative normalizing relations. but to a significant degree we have ignored those people closest to us.us. we have to work with them in intelligent ways to improve there economies. i don't have to tell anyone in this room will we are seeing, the violence and marble which is something we need to pay attention to. broadly speaking i voted against the war in iraq.

history will recall that is the right vote. much of what i feared would happen in fact did. msnbc. >> pro- immigration reform group responding to your interview tough statement saying you are wrong on immigrants coming your statements are traveling you falsely bit immigrants as obstacles to tackling unemployment which are just plain wrong. how do you respond? do you think immigrants can take jobs from americans? >> what they are talking about is completely opening up the border. that was the question.

have a completely open border so that anyone can come in? if that were to happen i strongly disagree. there is no question in my mind that would substantially lower wages in this country. 36 percent of hispanic kids they can't find jobs and you bring unskilled workers in the country what do you think happens? i don't think there is any candidate for president who thinks that we should open up the border and not see that is having a negative impact. to my mind what we do and how we address the problem of 11 million people in this country today moving aggressively toward a path for citizenship, as fast as we can provide protection

any candidate for president. >> release foley with the huffington post. >> i want to follow up more narrowly and open borders. do you believe economists are wrong immigration improves the economy and can create american jobs? >> illegal immigration? the question i was asked essentially an open book and i do not agree. that is one of the virtues of america, people coming from all over the world with no particular set of skills

or ideas which is what makes america a unique country something that we should be proud of. there is a great difference in saying we welcome immigrants those people and those families. >> immigrants make america more american. >> closing thoughts. >> first of all, thank you for inviting me here today and for the work you are doing. i want to thank everybody that put me here today. let me just conclude javier hit the nail on the head full you are a great country

came from mexico. my family came from ireland. from all over the world. that is extraordinary. those ideas we will we make this a very unique country. but today the country faces a huge problem having to do with income and wealth inequality disappearing middle class. i have absolute confidence that if we stand together and not let folks out there divide us because your family came from mexico and my family came home not divide us because your woman he's a man in your black and his wife and your game in your heterosexual, heterosexual if we prevent them from dividing us up and stand together and say all of our kids have the right to go to college.

we're going to come back. no we're not going to have a campaign-finance system that allows billionaires to buy elections, etc. we stand together the future of this country is extraordinary. i worry very much about our future. thank you very much and i enjoyed being with you today >> ladies and german bernie sanders. [applause] [applause] >> bernie. [applause] [applause] >> on monday partnering with the new hampshire union leader for the newspapers august 3rd voters 1st forum.

invited to participate at the event taking place in manchester. see the form of monday at 7:00 p.m. eastern. next, a discussion on current issues facing the senate including energy legislation, climate change, and a bill that would defund planned parenthood. from washington journal this is half an hour. >> republican of north dakota, good morning. >> good to be with you. >> reports about the future of the keystone xl pipeline. you heard something from the state department. >> hearing from a number of sources that it is likely the president will turn down the keystone pipeline project in august when congress is not in session from specifically? guest: i am not going to go into

specifically who is giving us the information, but what has changed is we were getting the word delay and defeat through the by -- through delay, if you will. the president has the latest decision six years. so it is kind of defeat through delay. but now that has changed. i'm hearing he will turn it down in august. host: how long ago did you hear this jekyll guest: -- this? guest: really just in the last few days. host: and this is someone from the state department? guest: we got it from several sources. host: your name came up during a recent press briefing yesterday. can i show you a little bit about what they said? guest: absolutely. [video clip] >> i appreciate senator hoeven's remarks. imf track reclassified as a confidant of our state department. but you should check with him.

host: back to you. they don't classify you as a confidant. guest: number one, i would agree with them. i met a confidant. and i disagree with their position on keystone. i have worked on this project since i was the governor of north carolina -- north dakota. i worked with a lot of people that were involved with this project. but i'm not going to go into specific sources. instead of this, well, they are continuing to delay and they will defeat it with continuous delays, what i'm hearing now is they will turn it down. host: if they do do that, do you have any other recourse aside from that? sr is putting keystroke back and play. guest: the same request we have been working on for some time, which is to approve it through congress. 62 votes in the senate, overwhelming votes in the house the senate vetoed that congressional approval. host: would that be attaching it to another bill? guest: very likely attaching it

to another bill. that would probably be the most likely strategy. the trans-alaska pipeline i believe was approved that way. host: so if keystone does not happen, what does it ultimately mean to you, at least? guest: well, we have to build the infrastructure we need to have the right kind of energy plan for this country. that means the right mix of pipeline, rail, and roads to move energy safely and efficiently around the country from where it is produced to where it is consumed. that is part of building and gg security or energy independence we want. working with canada, we can produce more energy than we need in this country, which makes us secure. we cannot do that without the necessary infrastructure. and that is why, again, it is about having the right next of infrastructure. and also transmission lines. we need all those things. host: senator john hoeven here talking about issues of energy.

serves on the agriculture appropriations committee. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 745-8002 for independents. the first call for you comes from maryland. this is robert. robert, go ahead. caller: good morning. how are you doing? guest: good morning. caller: one of the things i am happy about is the energy thing you have going now. but the problem that i, i do think a lot of americans, are having, is i don't think i see anywhere with the government is able to get something done anymore. how can we help your party get sane people in it to get something done again like we used to have in the republican party? it seems like everybody in this party now is totally crazy. how can we help you get some sane people in this party? thank you.

guest: well, you make an important point. at the end of the day, this is about getting the job done for the american people. i think we need people who are very practical and realistic. as you know, i'm a republican. i believe we have to build a good business climate in this country and empower small business and people across this country too, you know, pursue their dreams and create jobs, grow this economy. with a growing economy, you get more revenue. that revenue is used for things like the highway bill that we are in the process of passing right now. making sure we have a strong military. all the things we need. but to the extent possible empower people to pursue their lives less government interference. so i think it takes, again practical people with back and a philosophy that will roll up the sleeves and work in a bipartisan way to get things done. not grandstanding, but doing the hard work of figuring out

solutions that serve the people of this great nation. i appreciate your question. that is the approach i try will it is not going to do anything for the american people. i don't think we are going to receive any taxes any revenue

from this pipeline. the second point also is that if you really, really wanted this so terribly bad, why didn't you all -- when the president in his second year led the infrastructure bill -- why didn't you put it in infrastructure and try to get it that way? you could have given the president his infrastructure and you could have had this. instead, you made this we are in guest: you asked a whole series of questions there. the pipeline is a hundred thousand barrels a day. a hundred thousand barrels a day for my state, and also montana. north dakota produces 1.2 million barrels of oil a day, but we have to move 700 barrels -- 700,000 barrels a day by train because we can't a little sorry pipeline to move that product as safely and us cost

effectively. again, moving it from where it is produced to where it is consumed. that is what we are trying to do. i am trying to build up the whole network which includes everything. pipeline roads, rail transmission lines. so that we can build an energy plan for this country that is not only about energy security and economic growth, creating more jobs, it also is a national security issue. so we don't have to worry about getting oil from places like opec, russia, venezuela. our adversaries. it is a plan that is very important for this country. that is why we have been working on it. i agree. it should be part of our intersection plan. if i could have gotten it in the highway bill that we are passing now, i absolutely would have. but that passed as a stand-alone measure. and the president vetoed it.

that is why i'm trying to included as part of another infrastructure bill. host: of you are on twitter says has the drop in prices maybe keystone pipeline unprofitable d? guest: we have to build a long-term plan. oil prices will go up and will go down. but if we don't hold our industry we will not continue to keep prices longer open -- over the long term. we are dependent on opec and like i say, our adversaries. we are trying to avoid that. that means you got to have a long-term energy plan overtime and we continue to grow energy supply in this country. host: but we are producing more. guest: we are producing more. that's exact with my prices have come down. in north dakota, people don't realize we put sanctions on iran in 2011. in 2011 i ran exporting 2.6 million barrels of oil a day. because of the sanctions they are down to 1.1 million barrels

of oil and day. i stayed alone produces more oil than that. here we are in a situation that were the president is talking about leaving all the sanctions on iran so they will be producing oil, the same time he is making it harder to produce oil in this country or get from canada. that put us right back in the situation where we are getting energy from opec. that's not what we want. we need to build a plan for this country. host: would you advocate the export of crude overseas? guest: absolutely. that is vitally important. it's about growing our industry. we have to build the on a global basis. the more we produce, that is what helps keep energy prices lower and that is what keeps prices low at the pump for our consumers. host: here's jim from west virginia. go ahead. caller: good morning gentlemen. i respect the hard work that you guys try to do but this thing with iran and the oil they, and the gun issues, and all the

freedoms that they are trying to lift -- i have no faith in the administration. as far as i'm concerned the president is weak. that is why he wants to sign this pact with iraq because, if you go back to the crimea incident where prudent invaded their -- where present -- putin invaded, he was not going to commit to anything. he backs down. putin basically called him a coward because he would not stand up and do anything about it. with iraq, yet they are talking about they're going to do this, they are going to that, but they have broken 27 treaties within a year of fighting them and did was they wanted to do anyway. that is why this thing with the nuclear deal, i'm telling you, i just don't trust them.

congress needs to shut this thing down. ok, sure they go ahead and try to build a nuclear device with international -- intercontinental ballistic missiles to attack us and what israel off the map. well we have first strike capability in the region, so hey, i'm sorry -- i'm not a prejudiced man. i don't hate anybody. what i hate is ignorance and hate. that is what i am prejudiced against. host: thanks jim. well he was talking iraq, i think you made the agreement with iran. guest: i have very serious concerns about the proposed agreement with iran. i believe that our sanctions have been effective in really hurting iran. i was a very strong proponent of

those sanctions. i cosponsored legislation we passed in 2011 to put the sections in place. i believe the best approach right now is to keep the sanctions in place and even strengthen those sanctions. that is what is really hurting iran, and i am concerned that this agreement would provide hundreds of billions of dollars into iran by releasing them from those sanctions which put them in a position to strengthen themselves. continue their state sponsorship of terror. then in five years they can buy conventional arms, because the sanctions are lifted. in eight years they can buy missile technology. by that time, 10 years, they will have developed their nuclear technology. now they have an arsenal with a nuclear weapon. i really feel instead of this agreement we need to keep the sentence in place and we need to strengthen them. the sanctions we put in place prevent countries from dealing with iran and stealing with our banking system. there are a few countries can

afford not to deal with our banking system. those sections are effective. the administration has provided exceptions to countries under the sanctions instead of fully enforcing all of the sanctions. i think that is what we need to do. rather than approve this agreement -- i don't think congress should approve this agreement -- we should instead keep sections in place and strengthen them. host: is very timeline in the senate when the consideration will take place? guest: we have 60 days from the date we received all documents that means we have roughly september 19th, that range to approve or reject the agreement. again, i oppose this proposed agreements. the alternative is not military conflict -- although all options have to be on the table. the alternative is keep the sanctions in place and strengthen them. host: here is sadie from maryland. hello. caller: good morning. guest: good morning.

caller: please give me a few minutes to state my case. with the keystone pipeline i am wondering if you are going to train american workers, because it since the influx of immigrants there has not been any training and they are training each other. in my neighborhood there are about a thousand homes being built. when you go through the area there are no blacks, no whites. just immigrants. this keystone pipeline, and the iran agreement, it is things to distract us from the fact that we are not getting anywhere care. we need training. we need -- [indiscernible] people to learn these things because we have unlearned them.

guest: i appreciate the question. the keystone pipeline project is an example of a instruction process -- projects that can create good jobs in this country. it is a $7.9 billion pipeline. there is no government costs. it is all private investment. it would create hundreds of millions of dollars of tax revenue at the local, state, and federal levels. it is a good job creator. of course there would be job training from various sources in both the private and public sector for whatever training is needed for those workers. the key is job creation. that is of course what we are doing with this highway bill. we are -- matter-of-factly will finish up today in the senate -- we will pass a six year highway authorization. that is a long-term highway bill that we need for our roads. rebuttal and researcher in this country, and bridges. that is also a huge job creator and we do it without raising the gas tax. without raising any taxes. and making sure we don't increase the deficit.

this is a very important infrastructure bill, but it is also about creating a lot of good construction jobs across this country. we will pass a 90 day extension to get the house time to take it up. we obviously want to work with them to get it completed and put in place. host: they are working on a three month timeline. what does a copy for you? -- , locate for you? guest: today we will have the final vote on the positive the bill. we will also pass the 90 day extension which gives the house time to come back in september, work on their version of the six year bill, and then we hope to be in conference in october. and passed the bill through both houses and get it to the president. we are after a longer bill. we are not after a short term extension. host: did issues like the export import bank amended, kate legault? -- complicate the goal? guest: absolutely. it at the end of the day when i am focused on is getting a

long-term, six-year highway bill. a lot of this -- these interceptor project, those are multi-your project. we can't go with these short-term extensions. this is the first long-term highway bill i think we have done in a decade. this is important for the country. back to the very first question we had about getting things done for the american people. the previous guest had said -- host: the previous guest had said only the first three years get funded? guest: it is authorized for six years. then we will have to come back and find the next three years. but it is fully authorized for six years as state and counties can plan these projects. host: here is micah from here makes, alaska for our guest senator john hoeven. caller: good morning. talking about the keystone pipeline. there is another pipeline that has been in the works for a while. it is the trans-alaska pipeline.

during the palin administration they signed a contract with transcanada to build a pipeline down to the lower 48. i think that was before the energy renaissance in your home state of north dakota and all of it down the lower 48. it seems like that has kind of been put on the back burner. i wonder if you happen to hear anything about that happening? or is it pretty much hush-hush now and we are on to other things? i will take your answer off the air. guest: well, as i understand it right now, i think that is on hold from the standpoint of the trans-alaska pipeline has to move about to million barrels of oil a day but it is only moving about 600,000 barrels of oil a day. it is so difficult and alaska to get permission to drill, it so much of the land there is federal land. it is very difficult to get

permits from the federal government to drill. as a result, alaska's oil production is not going up. they don't have the oil production to fill an additional pipeline. they're not even filling the trans-alaska pipeline right now. again, moving only about 600,000 barrels a day in a pipeline that has a capacity of 2 million. host: on our public and light, jeff is from frederick maryland. caller: good morning. i just wanted to stress and throw this out there. i hear in bits and pieces from callers calling in. i grew up in the 70's. it -- in the 70's there were six people standing in line for jobs. every job you had open. i worked all over this country. lived and worked in the eight states. i ended up here in maryland for my last two years of work. i can't find workers. you cannot find people that want to work. what are the three basic things people need.

they need a roof over their head. they need food on the table. they need a way to communicate. the government is giving them away for free and is taking away just what i had when i was younger. i had a need. i wanted my own car. i wanted my own place a live. so i went out and worked hard. we don't have that. we are getting all the things went free. now we can't get workers. we have got to stop giving away all these freebies to people and give them away that they have and the need to get out there. the foreigners are coming in and they are hungry. they want work. that is why they are taking the jobs away. other people are saying well, we don't need to work. we get a free apartment. we get a free obama phone. we get all the freebies. that's my statement. have a good day. guest: i share your concern about the role of government. no question about it. i am very concerned about that.

we have a huge deficit and debt in this country that we've got to get on top of. that comes with economic growth. we have to continue to create more jobs. at the same time we have to get the economy growing which creates more jobs, but that also then, without raising taxes generates a revenue to get on top of this deficit and the debt. but of course the other thing we have to do is we have to engage in our government programs and find savings to reduce spending. i agree with your point. the growth of government is a real problem. too much regulation, too much burden. it does take away incentive. i am very concerned about it as well, and i appreciate the point you are making. host: the obama administration is set to release its plan for climate change next week. how does it affect your state and were you expecting from these rules? guest: it's a real concern. we are a big energy producing state.

i think of 14 states of the country that do a tremendous job with any land reclamation. we are a big-time producer of not only traditional energy, being oil, gas electricity but we also do a tremendous amount in renewables. biofuels ended wind -- and in winter. i believe in a results where we develop all forms of energy. but the plants yet -- plan he is putting forth is a huge problem for are: history because they don't have the technology to meet the requirements in the way the administration has designed the plan. the way we get good at one -- good environmental stewardship is by developing and deploying these new technologies. you have got to have a regulatory environment that enables the energy industry to do it, rather than putting through regulations that will actually shut plants down. that hits our families. that hit our small businesses right in the pockets.

higher costs for families and big-time costs that basis is will have to pass -- businesses will have to pass along. better environmental stewardship, but through adopting, developing deploying those technologies that help us use this energy more independently. host: you've made the point that if cold is invited way to produce clean technology natural gas could serve as its place? guest: we are doing a lot more of national -- natural gas. we produce a tremendous amount of natural gas. we are doing a lot more with new technologies. with coal powered electricity and again the administration needs to work with industry to do it, not afford regulations that will shut it down. it will affect our families and our small businesses across the country if the assertion does not find a way to help them develop and employ these technologies rather than putting

regulations in that shut plants down. host: here is karen from leesburg virginia. democrats line. caller: my comment is, maybe i believe in the united states of america to much. i believe there has got to be a better way. we really have to think about digging a trench, digging a hole through the middle of the country so that oil can go all the way down to the gulf. i think it's ridiculous. if you sit down and think about it, it's ridiculous. congress is always trying to take the easy way out. if you want to fix this problem prop up the rail industry. i'm not saying if it eight broke don't fix it, but this is clearly a stupid idea. regarding iran, yes. iran is powerful because they have a lot of oil. there are a lot of resources here in the united states. there are a lot of people

depending on those resources here. it is always the quick fix. not always the best one. i trust that if iran was to build a nuclear weapon or a ballistic missile that my united states military will take care of that very quickly. that's why i live here and i don't live abroad. i think we need to stop and take a look at all of these radical ideas. we live in the greatest country on earth. let's work with the resources that we have. let's work with the industry and the people that work here. building a pipeline that is coming from canada to the gulf is ridiculous. when you think about it. i'm so embarrassed that people in congress can't come up with a better solution other than that. that is my comment. guest: well you are saying develop the energy here, produce the energy here. don't get it from iran. i couldn't agree more. but again, you got to move the energy from where it is produced to where it is consumed.

to do that you need a transmission lines. you need pipelines for natural gas. we have millions and millions of miles of pipeline moving natural gas and oil. we have transmission lines of that move electricity. we move energy by rail, we move it by track -- by truck. that's why are talking about highway will. but you have to have that for structure and you have to have it in the right mix. all these different halves of energy whether you prefer electricity, oil, gas. whether you like biofuels, solar, wind energy. you still have to have the kind of infrastructure we are talking about to move it safely, cost-effectively from where it is produced to where it is consumed all across this great nation. that is how you build a long-term energy plan where we produce our own energy rather than getting from iran. then we give the sanctions on iran so they don't have the resources to build a nuclear weapon, thereby avoiding military conflict. at the same time you create a growing economy in this country.

you create more jobs. you have national security through energy security. host: james, from wisconsin. republican line. caller: it kind of amazes me that the senators are thinking about signing this agreement when the only alternative is war. it just seems ridiculous that anybody would want to keep having more and more worse. the last thing i -- more and more wars. the money for these wars is coming indirectly out of our social security trust fund. all of these wars are just putting the nail in the coffin of social security. thank you. guest: i appreciate how concerned you are about the situation, but the alternative is not work. the alternative is giving the sanctions in place. understand that we are denying iran billions of dollars. billions of dollars. if this agreement goes forward they're going to get somewhere between 100 and $150 billion

that they can use to get their economy going and they can use to build up their military. they can use it as the largest state author of terror in the world. if we keep the sanctions in place we really keep the pressure on them so they don't have the resources to continue to move forward. that not only makes it harder for them to develop a nuclear weapon, it makes it harder for them to continue their activities in support of terror. it even makes it harder for the current regime to stay in power. it is the sanctions would have an impact over time. when the relief is immediate, it is those sanctions that are the alternative. that is why it by saying is that of those -- this agreement we need to keep a sense of the place because they are having a real impact. that is why iran is so desperate to get the sanctions release. at the same time they are still chanting death to america. they have a record of cheating. they have said they are not going to sponsor -- stop at their state-sponsored terrorism even with this agreement. we have to be very careful here

are to say oh, it is this agreement or military conflict. it is this agreement or keeping the sanctions in place and even making the section stronger. host: senator hoban, -- hoeven we talked about how there will be a vote in the senate about the funding of planned parenthood. when you think about this? guest: we have a bill on the floor next week. essentially what it does is it provides that no federal funding will go to planned parenthood. instead, that roughly $500 million a year will go to community health centers. so the funding for women's health will still be there, but it will go to community health centers, not planned parenthood. there will be no funding -- no federal funding to planned parenthood. instead it will go out to community health centers. they can apply for it through the grant process. that can be used for women's health care. again, we should not have federal funding that goes to

organizations that provide abortions. that is in law under the hyde amendment. that is certain -- essentially what the bill will do. host: the president of planned parenthood, cecile richards, writes in an op-ed today. one of the things she says is that attacking this funding is attacking women. including women who need cancer screening and contraceptives. congress should not allow -- should not get in the way of life-saving care. guest: that is what i say. we are making sure that the roughly five million a year -- $500 million year that goes to planned parenthood will be made available to women's health. this is not an issue about women's health. it is making sure that federal funding does not go to planned parenthood when they are providing abortion. again, the hyde amendment requires that federal funding not be used for abortion. that has been one of the big

concerns for those of us who feel that there should not be federal dollars going to planned parenthood. we are making sure that that does not happen. that federal funding does not go to planned parenthood. the we are protecting women's health by making sure that $500 million year goes to community health centers. host: