we are not using our money at the yuan to create leverage. nor are we using our markets to create leverage. we fund everyone else's economy. then we turn around and tolerate the kind of things you have been talking about today. being mr. and mrs. nice guy does not seem to be working. it feels like people only understand leverage. so there -- so therefore, i am not sure why we don't use the leverage at the u.n. and with respect to the global marketplace. am i missing something? i am sure you're going to tell me i am. ambassador power: in response, i understand the frustration. the priorities we have had at the u.n. as we get more countries to get -- as we get more countries to pay their fair

share. the share of you in peacekeeping where the united states is the lead funder. you're going to see it go up another 50%. that is the kind of distribution of resource provision that we need to see it the u.n.. people's at -- as people graduate from being underdeveloped countries, they need to step up and take their share of the burden. that is something that is being reassessed. mr. clawson: with respect to china, the american consumer is funding the building of their military and their economic prowess. did we ever talk about not only having them pay for what they pay for what that -- pay for

what they know at the u.n., -- u.n.? ambassador power: the fact of the matter is we as a nation have an interest in global health security, because of the globalized economy, goods of people are crossing the border. i think it doesn't really get at the core national security linkages and human security linkages that exist in 2015. i would note on peacekeeping that peacekeeping is a major prosecution, it is not all forces that are going in and protecting civilians.

we are taking advantage of the global system as well, in order to ensure issues of shares security are being patrolled and demand about -- patrolled and manned by other individuals that americans. peacekeeping share that we pay still leaves the rest of the shares. to put aside the fact that there are other countries going to the dangerous places. other countries are paying 72% of the bill. if you look at nato expense where europeans have not stepped up to allocate as much of their gdp as they should be, the figure is reversed nato's expense expenditures. president obama has launched this aggressive mission to

prevent sexual abuse. radicalization prevented by virtue of having some stability. the rule of law advanced. there are a set of investments that are good for us. the united nations helps us to make them and multiply. when we are able to leverage is a 72%. the regular budget is 78%. chairman: we go now to california. >> your service over the years as a leading advocate for global

rights. i'm going to turn my questioning to internal politics within the u.n. if we look at the makeup of the un security council it doesn't seem like it is time to revamp the permanent membership of the un security council, certainly to include the g4 countries, india, brazil, japan and germany. if we take india specifically, soon to be the most populous nation on the planet. it is a critical ally of the united states. my understanding is that president obama has stated he would be supportive of including india as a permanent member of the security council. can you give me a sense of how this body might be able to work

within the political structure of the united nations to move forward? including more nations as permanent members? ambassador power: it is an excellent question. because it is the 70th anniversary of the u.n., it is a question that many of my counterparts are asking specifically. it is no question when you have a body whose permanent membership has not changed in 70 years. there are people on the outside who ask this alignment of power and influence in 20 and 15 -- in 2015, it is hard to say it is a perfect calibration. the challenge is almost everybody is supportive of reform in the abstract, there are bitter divisions within you and membership about who should get those seats.

while india has the support of the united states. there are other countries who are throwing everything they have as preventing that outcome. what has not happen, you have not seen one version of security council reform that has gathered a majority of countries. even this year, when there has been more action on this issue you have not seen momentum gathering around any reform scenario. the u.s. position is not very -- the u.s. position is very clear. we can recognize the legitimacy that the council poses in terms of its permanent membership. we recognize the growth of countries like india. it is also -- it is also one of

the leading contributors to peacekeeping. it has a large amount to contribute. we are focused on the effectiveness of the u.n. and efficiencies. we are looking beyond that case at how countries would likely perform on the security council. we are looking at issues in relation to voting coincidence. we're looking for countries that share our approach to promoting international peace and security, human rights. seeing the linkages between human rights on one hand and security on the other. it is not clear if it is going to move forward quickly. mr. baera: as -- are there things that this body can do them would be productive in helping to move things along? ambassador power: in order for

it to take hold, this congress would have to ratify any reform package. in the past, when -- while the permanent members it has that changed, maybe one thing that could be done is it -- done is an intermediate step is to pass imf reform. one of the things they look to is congress's ability to ensure -- to support measures that international institutions reflect 2015 measures of influence, including economic influence, as distinct from those a decade ago. it would be a very important show of our attention to the rise of these countries. the need of their voices to be exercised.

for the need for these countries to dedicate more resources to the commons. just as they want more authority, we would like to see them contribute more to everything from peacekeeping to development to humanitarian assistance. chairman: thank you very much. we thank you for being with us this morning. we think you for returning and our brief interruption. i look forward to continuing to work with you on pressing issues raised here. including the plight of refugees. peacekeeping reform and the ongoing crisis in syria. of course with you and the administration on iran sanctions . the committee trust demonstration will be in close touch with us on these negotiations. we do not want to be surprised

in the final agreement you given the position that congress has taken on this. the suggestion that the administration may be backing off its original demand. this is important to us, as is the question of lifting the sanctions. not being on the front in -- on the front and. end. we thank you again, ambassador. see you soon in new york. ambassador power: thank you, mr. chairman. >> sara kate ellis is the ceo of the same-sex marriage and lgbt rights. she will talk about the state of lgbt rights in the united states and an upcoming supreme court decision on same sex marriage. there will be live on c-span

two. at the same time, we will have coverage on c-span3 with senator chris murphy of connecticut. he will be talking about u.s. foreign-policy and ways to broaden the debate, by focusing on human rights and climate change. that is 5:00 eastern on c-span3. >> like many of us, first families take vacation time. like presidents and first ladies, a good read can be the perfect companion. what better book than one that appears inside the personal -- then one that appears inside the personal life of first ladies. 45 iconic american women. fascinating women that survived the scrutiny of the white house. available from public affairs as a hardcover or e-book, through your favorite bookstore or

online bookseller. >> coming up next, from washington journal, a look at hate crime laws in the u.s. a campaign event with bernie sanders. later, a q&a with stephen puleo. >> -- loretta lynch said that the department of justice is looking into whether this was a hate crime. >> a hate crime is a generic

in the wake of the a sass nation of martin luther king junior what's called 18 u.s.c. 1845 was enacted part of the fair housing act. what that did was establish a law that said it is a crime to use force or threats of force against someone because of their race and because they're engaged in a federally protected activity. and those activities are laid out in the statute. things like voting, acting as a juror, attending a public school. that was designed to restrict the jurisdictional reach of the statute. so there was for a long time a

push to expand that law by doing away with the federally protected activity piece of it. so finally congress did pass the hate crime act. ir race color, or religion. john mcardle: if dylan roof is convicted under that law, what does it mean for him? william yeomans: he can be subjected to extensive penalties. the act itself does not authorize the death penalty, but if it is combined with a firearms violation, it can be a capital crime. he could be subject to the death penalty. there are other statutes that could apply here. one in particular which is called the church arson prevention act was passed in the mid-1990's after a spate of burnings of african-american churches.

congress passed the law making it a crime to damage church property or to interfere with someone's exercise of their religious beliefs. certainly a shooting of people in church in bible study seems to fit that statute as well. that explicitly carries the death penalty. john mcardle: a lot of reporting yesterday about this racist website that dylan roof had posted. is that going to be a key part of the evidence here? what is the extra burden of proof to make it a hate crime conviction? william yeomans: the challenge is always to establish the racial motivation. frequently, that is murky. in this case, it appears that it may not be murky at all. what investigators will do is look at all the things like the website, all his social media activity. they will talk to all of his friends, associates. they will try to track down all of his activities leading up to

the awful shooting. they will try to establish that this was motivated by his desire to kill african-americans. one of the things that is sometimes difficult in these cases is that you have people who have some racist activity in their background, but it is difficult to make the connection between the racist beliefs and the actual commission of the crime. but in this instance, at least the preliminary reports are that we have him saying, contemporaneously while he was committing the killings, that he was doing it because of race. john mcardle: william yeomans is our guest. we're talking about the history of federal hate crime law. if you want to join the conversation republicans (202) 748-8001, (202) 748-8000 democrats, independents (202) 748-8002. william yeomans is a law

and government fellow at american universities washington college of law. we appreciate your time. we will start with muriel in florida. for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning. i just want to say this person was just evil. he is just evil. i hope people control themselves. i hope it doesn't make it worse by people taking it out on everybody and things happen after this. i just hope people keep calm. people like this boy should be put to death. people like that -- our tax money should not be pay for him to go to trial. like all the others that went into schools and all of the rest

of the places that they killed so many people. they should be put to death instead of having a trial for them. and another thing. why was this person thinking of going into a place where he knew he could never get away with it that maybe had guns? he decided to go to this place where he went to the church. john mcardle: you talk to little bit about the death penalty component. can you expand on that? william yeomans: it is available. it is by no means certain. i really feel compelled to respond to the caller's suggestion that he should be put to death without a trial. i would not want to live in a society where people were not entitled to due process to determine their guilt or innocence. what'll happen is there will be a federal investigation and a

state investigation. a decision will be made as to which jurisdiction will prosecute first. in the normal instance states are usually allowed to go ahead and prosecute. if the charges are adequate and if they do an adequate job of presenting the evidence and if the outcome vindicates the federal interest, the federal government will stand down. in some instances, the federal government goes first because there are advantages to a federal prosecution. in some instances, the federal government will prosecute after there has been a state prosecution that was either unsuccessful or did not fully vindicate the federal interest. john mcardle: on the hate crime's component, south carolina is one of five states without a state hate crime law. what does that mean? william yeomans: under south carolina law, he can only be prosecuted for the regular crimes without the hate crime component.

but he can still be prosecuted for capital murder. certainly the trial will be about his motivation and the fact that he was racially motivated. it may not have a big difference in the outcome. the importance of the hate element at the state level is that it primarily makes a very important statement about what the prosecution is about. in instances that are short of capital offenses, it can enhance the penalties. it is important to distinguish between the state and federal government for those purposes. without the racial motivation, the federal government may not have jurisdiction over a case. congress can only create crimes according to the powers it is given in the constitution. has to act according to one of its prescribed powers and it does not have plenary authority to enact a federal criminal code. it has to be acting to enforce

some particular provision of the constitution. in this instance the 13th amendment or the interstate commerce clause. establishing the racial motivation establishes the federal interest in a hate crime prosecution. john mcardle: for the stats on federal hate crimes and hate crimes reported to the federal government, here is the stats from 2013. 5,922 hate crime is thence reported to the federal government. a breakdown by the fbi of how the lines that those breakdown along racial bias was about half of all of those hate crimes incidents. sexual orientation being the bias for a little over 20%. religious affiliation 17.4%, ethnicity 11%, disability and gender also coming in. you can check those out on the fbi website. we are talking with william

yeomans about the history of federal hate crime laws. j is in temple hills, maryland. line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a comment and two suggestions. first, -- i know they are walking distance from your studio. would you please consider when there are topics of interest to the black community that we hear from not just statistics but from people that have boots on the ground. you have african-american newspapers. there are many sources in the black community. please don't me off. -- please don't cut me off. in south american apartheid they had a reconciliation. . period.

in germany, they had to acknowledge that runs were done. that would never happen here. clinton got close. representative every year introduces a bill that never gets out of office to be considered to study the effects of slavery in the black community. there are a lot of people both black and white the need to be educated on the effects of slavery. there was a young lady the other day that said chinese immigrants came here and build the country. they were not lynched or killed for not working. and they were paid. this was free labor. they came here for a better life in america after the labor of slaves had built up the country. a true reconciliation.

. john mcardle: as somebody who worked closely on civil rights issues during your time at the justice department, a policy for slaver and the assessment on the impacts of the black community. william yeomans: we have never fully come to grips with our legacy of slavery. we still have an enormous gaping racial wound as john stewart called the other night. we have approached it in fits and starts, but we have never been willing to follow through on comprehensive treatment of the issue. we need to do it. the only hope is that tragic incidents like this one can spur us on to more serious commitments. we have civil rights laws which are very important laws. antidiscrimination laws,

anti-racial violence laws. they need to be enforced. there are so many areas where we have not come to grips with our racial divide. in recent months, we have seen the criminal justice system and the problems in that system elevated to national attention. that is enormously important. that has to continue. this horrible incident is another instance that we need to find the positive aspects in it and use it to move forward to deal with these enormous problems. simply looking at the socioeconomic problems of people in this country based on race that are clearly a result of our racial history. his astonishing. median household wealth for african-americans is less than

1/10 of what it is for white house old. facts like that are just overwhelming and we need to address them. our politics have prevented us from doing it. people need to keep pushing to get these issues to the forefront and make change happen. john mcardle: patricia is on the line for democrats. caller: good morning. i wanted to talk about the incident in charleston. and how people want to come and say this is an isolated incident, this guy was crazy or whatever. people don't want to admit that racism is alive and well. a lot of the rhetoric on the conservative radio conservative tv, fox news, all of this rhetoric -- i have called into fox news several times and i left messages and i was so angry

with what i hear. ever since president obama was elected the first term, 24/7 they are condemning this man. i hate to say this, but bill o'reilly said the reason for people are poor is because they are lazy. i called in several times and left a message and i told him the rhetoric that you all are giving the public is going to cause a race war. just wait and see. five years ago, i was walking down the street going to catch the bus to my job here in houston, texas. i was on the street on a saturday morning. two white guys came by and a truck and opened the door to get out of the truck and i started running. this is what they told me. these are the words they told me. run. n-word, take your

a-s-s back to africa. this guy they pulled his head off, dragged him, in west texas several years ago. people ignore this. it is only getting worse. if you read what the guy that killed the people in south carolina said, he said i made up my mind when i saw the trayvon martin and george zimmerman case. all of this is connected together. it is not getting any better. i know this because i make it my business to watch and see what is going on. john mcardle: patricia in houston, texas. on to this issue of hate crimes. has it been proven that hate crime laws have reduced the number of such crimes? william yeomans: it is very hard to establish that a law has been

effective in reducing crime because you are trying to measure something that doesn't happen. but i think there is no question that there is significance to having hate crime prosecutions. what we are saying as a society is that we will not tolerate racially motivated violence. i think it is extremely important that people be brought to justice for engaging in hate crimes. i think that stopping hate motivated violence is a much broader enterprise than simply enforcing criminal law. it goes back to what we were talking about earlier, which is that we need to address the broader problems of racism in our society. that is how we will get beyond this. john mcardle: on the legal side, there was a push to call this an act of terrorism versus a hate crime. can you talk about the legal differences. william yeomans: if it is an act of terrorism without racial motivation, it does not fall under the laws i have described. i think it is in or missing important to keep the focus on race. this is an active -- we can call it racial terrorism.

it is an act of racially motivated violence intended to send a very loud and terrifying message to the african-american community. you are not even safe in the sanctuaries of your churches. and that is a powerful, and or mislead disturbing -- a message we cannot tolerate. that is only part of the solution. john mcardle: mark is on the line for republicans. good morning. caller: what about the terror to whites when the d.c. shooters? remember them guys? and the guy on the train that wanted to get up until white people? fort hood? i could go on and on, but you never get involved in that. you never talk about that being racially motivated.

it's always when a white guy shoots blacks. william yeomans: i think it goes back to the history of our country. we have a long history of racially motivated violence of white on african-american violence. obviously those other incidences are serious crimes. they were prosecuted. they were taken very seriously by the justice system. there is no dearth of laws to take care of those instances. i think criminal laws against racially aggravated violence are an outgrowth of the civil rights movement and our recognition that our society has a deeply embedded grain of racially motivated violence that obviously goes back to slavery. racially motivated violence was the foundation of slavery. it is what kept the system going. through the jim crow years racially motivated violence was persistent as an element of social control.

there were over 4000 lynchings of african-americans during the jim crow era. those lynchings were public affairs that were intended to terrify the african-american population. white on black racially motivated violence has a special place in our history and i think has a special place in our legal system. john mcardle: usa today was talking about the history of hate crime laws. they note that some opponents have argued that the expansion of hate crime laws created a special class of victims. other side as a threat to freedom of speech, making it possible to prosecute those opposed to homosexuality. your thoughts? william yeomans: those are humans are just wrong. in order to be prosecuted, you have to commit a crime. you have to engage in violence. that is otherwise a crime. every hate crime that the federal government prosecutes is a crime under state law.

everything that is prosecuted as a hate crime is already a crime. there not some independent means of suppressing free thought. that is just misguided. john mcardle: what about the idea of treating a special class of victims? william yeomans: it is not a special class. what it says is -- it doesn't say only certain classes are covered. it is the racial motivation that is covered. while african-americans are a particularly dramatically affected group lots of other groups are affected. our federal hate crimes apply to religion as well. they have been used in response to attacks on christian churches, on mosques synagogues. fairly broadly. it is not create in special classes. john mcardle: in labeling a crime a hate crime, is it to bring awareness to the public so

we can deal with the hate that is still out there? william yeomans: absolutely. hate crime laws are in or mislead important. what we as a society choose to say, we say that this form of violence is particularly heinous and we are going to punish it. i think that is an enormously important message and it is a message that was so important that southern senators felt it was necessary to block it for decades. even after the law was enacted it was very difficult to enforce it. it was very difficult to convince juries, particularly southern juries, that race was the motivating factor. we have made progress in prosecuting racially motivated violence. that is a piece of the picture. john mcardle: we have about 15 minutes left with william yeomans. he is the former acting assistant attorney general for civil rights in the justice department. we're talking about the history of hate crime laws in this country.

smith is waiting in texas. good morning. caller: good morning. john mcardle: go ahead. caller: ok. i see that in america there are racial incidents going on. you are looking at a low generation coming up and getting their lives painted different. the older guys from the history are not teaching young people the racial history behind us. now you see the young kids looking at it. nothing has changed. john mcardle: are you saying is not just penalties the need to address this, but the education side? caller: yes. william yeomans: i agree. i think our history is

enormously important. i think unfortunately we have seen a growing strain in this country in recent years of people who want to deny that history. you see that play out in our politics and we see it play out in the laws. for instance, it goes all the way up to the supreme court. the supreme court decided that a key piece of the voting rights act was no longer necessary to years ago. in a stunning decision. congress had gone through this extensive process of reauthorizing the voting rights act only a few years before. the court stepped in and five members said well, this law may have once been necessary, but we have concluded we don't need it anymore. it seems to me that this is part of a strain in american society that simply wants to deny that racism continues. it is astonishing. i think it is becoming

unfortunately increasingly difficult to do. -- i think it is becoming fortunately increasingly difficult to do. as we witness these police shootings we see this horrendously racially motivated violence. so i am hopeful that the silver lining in these tragedies is that it will help to overcome the deniers. john mcardle: let's get oklahoma city. sherry is waiting on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. on youtube, i heard about this on the news report. the state in the 2010 christmas holiday celebration in south carolina. they had a christmas party at the state capital for the governor's mansion. and the confederate gallregalia

-- they had people dressed as slaves for the entertainment. my point in bringing that up is that the reason why racism has been so prolific is because you have people who have been elected into political positions who are actually stoking and giving legitimacy to racial hatred against african-americans. they are given power by the hate radio shows and people like pat buchanan, who wrote a book saying the reason why the whites were on the verge of extinction because of racial marriage --

interracial marriage and abortion. whatever. john mcardle: that incident that sherry brought up, is that something you have heard about? william yeomans: i have heard about it and i have seen pictures. it raises the issue of the flag in south carolina on the confederate flag flying at the state capital. and in and i it is inexcusable. that flag people use in order to defend. what is interesting is the flag changed in view between the civil war. it needs to come down.

host: ray on the line for independents, good morning. caller: i think it answered the question from the tournament of pennsylvania. these race hate crimes are holding us back. the two women killed back in february in florida, to white women by four blacks is an obvious racial hate, but you did not hear it on the national scene. i think you just explained that there can only be one way. white on black. i think you just said that and that is not true. tell me one case that you know of that we can look at where a white person was the victim of a

black person in the bug person was prosecuted in hate crime. guest: i can't. -- i can. and prosecution of two african-americans in new york for the stabbing and killing of a jewish student in new york, who was white. of course it can happen. a racially motivated violence can be prosecuted. as i said, these laws are downgrading of racial violence. it has been at the heart of our society for far too long. host: more than half of the incidents reported to the fbi in 2013 not necessarily about race. there are other protected classes as well. guest: there are. the hate crime act passed in 2009 expended the law to

prohibit crimes motivated by sexual orientation or disability or gender. religion is covered as well. it goes well beyond what we think of as traditional and racially motivated violence. host: do you think an incident like this spurs to enact something? is there any movement on that level? guest: it will be interesting to see. there has been resistance in some states. i think it is less likely that states with a strongly controlled republican legislature and governor will enact those laws. those states fall into that category. i would be surprised if there is movement, but i hope there will be. host: jackie from maryland on the line for republicans. caller: good morning. i would like to make a comment about how to talk about racism

in this country. black people are not -- let us pull out the ku klux klan, the not to party. let us ask those people what they want to do these kinds of things. we are victims. let us beloved criminals who do these crimes. . the congress people who vote for racist laws. let us talk about the laws of the country. let us talk about the people who do racist acts. guest: i couldn't agree more. host: on the line for independents, phil, good morning. caller: think you for taking my call. i will take another spin on the flag here. it is a belief system.

they fly the isis flag like they fly the confederate flag. it is the same thing. andrew a young man to violence. we are trying to prevent this from happening. let us bring the flag down and reduce it to a novelty, which it is. we only have an american flag and state flags. that is it. thank you. guest: i agree. as many people said, the flag belongs in a museum as part of our history. that is where it should be. issued not be given any kind of sovereign authority come a which it gets on the state capital ground in south carolina. host: a few more calls with william yeomans. denise and bonita springs, good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a small comment. i was raised in a house where my dad was born in 19616.

no race was ever involved in the education of us children. i am from minnesota. i moved down to florida because i married a man from there, and what a culture shock. there is so much bigotry and prejudice down here. it is not the blacks against the whites with the whites against blacks. it is the people against the people. if you breed hates, there will be more and more hate. there has to be a way to stop the violence and the education of these idiots. in texas for instance, taking our history and changing history -- taking out history and changing history will not make anything better. we took this country from the indians, and they are trying to push it off on everyone else. thank you. guest: i agree.

we need education, as i said. people need to understand our history. i think it is enormously important in being able to move forward as a society intent on solving a great problem. host: we have shown the fbi's hate crime incidents reported in 2013. how are those incidents reported? guest: those are reported by law enforcement agencies. one of the difficulties is that the reporting is voluntary. there is no mandate that jurisdictions cooperate. it means crimes are underreported. many simply do not report. last time i looked at it, the state of alabama reported no hate crime incidents. the numbers are instructive simply because they are large

and they suggest there is a serious problem, but they are by no means complete. host: the department of justice reporting to try to get a better sense of the picture, something you worked on? guest: in the early 1990's, congress finally passed a law that authorized the department of justice to collect statistics. didn't tell the states they had to report statistics, but authorized report reflection. the fbi worked hard to set up a data collection system. they can be improved. host: we have covered this a bit already, but other than enhanced penalties upon conviction, what do hate crime laws add to our body of criminal law? guest: i think they at a very significant expression of our values and what we think is significant. i think it is crucial that we as a society express our contempt

for violence that is motivated by race or religion or color or ethnicity or gender or disability or sexual orientation. these are things that have traditionally inspired hate violence. we as a society need to stay very loudly -- state very loudly that we will not tolerate it. host: onandre, good morning. caller: i just want to talk about the hate crime period. host: go ahead. caller: just in america. when he to come to a solution that there is hate period. it is not a color. it is not a black and white things. it is just hate. everyone is trying to what they want -- everyone is trying

to pick what they want and using it for the wrong cause. we need to come together as men and women and know that we are here to live together and know that the past, we can't change it. we have to move forward. we are always worried about the past and what everyone has done in the worst. host: to think we are focused too much on the past in this country? caller: yeah, we focus too much on the past. you have a generation where it is born, he doesn't know anything about hate and he doesn't have a color with him. you put a bunch of kids together and they play together. as we get older, we divide each other. host: what is your suggestion? how do we do that and move forward? caller: when someone is doing something wrong, he hurts somebody. when he to punish the situation.

do not put a color to it. host: are you in favor of hate crime laws specifically or no? specific laws that call out hate crime specifically. caller: in some ways because some people target certain people. guest: i think obviously hate is at the root. we should do everything we can to eliminate hate, but it is important to understand the root causes of the manifestations of hate in order to address it and move forward. i think it is enormously important that we as a society understand our past so we can move forward constructively and productively. that means gaining a full understanding of consequences of our past and trying to build a

healthy and coherent world. host: steve writes this in on twitter. there is no doubt this hateful simple influenced him -- symbol influenced him. tim on our line for republicans, good morning. caller: a real bummer what happened in south carolina. i think people are starting to really wear out the race and hate thing. stuff like that will happen. people are going to get guns unfortunately. the whole race thing and angle

that is very outdated. nobody is slaves now. has not affected people in years. host: what would be your suggestion? caller: i think probably -- will let me turn the flag thing also. history is history, events that have already occurred. it doesn't affect me at all, and i don't believe it affects african-americans or other minorities. guest: i think the flag stands as an insult to african americans. i think it has a dramatic effect. i take severe issue with the caller's's that slavery has not affected people in years. we still live with the consequences of slavery and the

subsequent racial repression of the jim crow era and the continuing racial discrimination today. if you look around at our society, you will find dramatic inequality, socioeconomic inequality that can only be traced to our history of racial oppression. i think it is absolutely wrong to say slavery has not affected anyone in years. it is affecting people today as we speak. that doesn't mean we have to hearp on -- harp on finding fighting slavery. host: can you talk about eric holder or loretta lynch and how you think they have dealt with this issue and their time as the head of the justice department? guest: i think they have done a

good job. eric holder worked really hard to reinvigorate when he came in as attorney general. if you look at their statistics, they have been extremely active. eric holder was willing to speak out about racial issues in a way to president can't. it is important to have a voice in government. loretta lynch coming in is a good thing for civil rights. as a prosecutor, she was involved in civil rights prosecution. she comes from a background of involvement of civil rights. her family was involved. host: when was the civil rights division established? guest: the civil rights act of 1957 was the first modern civil rights law passed. it was a very watered down thing but it was significant because they filibuster was broken.

strom thurmond said the record for filibusters by an individual. he talked to 24 hours to try to stop that built. it finally -- to try to stop that bbill. it finally went through. a give the attorney general the ability to enforce the 15th amendment which prohibits racial dissemination in voting. the on that, it was a pretty weak bill. congress had to enact the civil rights act of 1964 and to others and the laws i talked about. host: was there one attorney general who you think is the most to strengthen the civil rights division? many were important. book marshall was in some of the

most tense times of the civil rights movement. another was crucial in getting the civil rights act. meant to lead the 1968 act through. they all deserve enormous credit. host: let us go to brenda waiting in virginia. good morning. we have a few minutes left with william yeomans. caller: i was just wondering about the educational question. the native americans were brought over from india first. they were the first slaves, not african-americans. no one ever brought that up. everyone always brought up that it was the african-americans that were the first slaves. we are people. who should not be judged by our color.

when children are born, they do not have a specific color. they play together. we do not need to continue to bring this up because when we do, the more we empower it and give people entitlement. host: do you think it is important to punish specific hate crimes? caller: you have to determine hate crimes as more specific. not by color or gender, but with the action is -- what the action is. a person is not a specific color or gender. is something that is done for someone -- it is a lot a break. people should be punished when they break laws. host: we talked about loretta

lynch and she explains why the department of justice is opening up a specific hate crime is to get into the south carolina shooting case. wanted to show that to our viewers. >> i am not going to go into the specifics of it because we have someone in custody. we want to make sure to preserve the integrity of the case but some of the elements that came out let us to conclude that was a possibility. so we opened it as a hate crime investigation. we be exploring all the motives that might have been in play there. host: that was loretta lynch announcing the federal hate crime investigation. where does this go from there in terms of the timing before specific charges are brought? guest: the fbi is in the field now and going to work, no doubt

working hand-in-hand with state investigators together evidence -- to gather evidence. it will have to be a decision made about which jurisdiction will prosecute. the federal government has to go through the process of taking the case through a grand jury to seek an indictment, and that will take a little bit of time. the state will probably move more quickly if they are the ones want to prosecute first. it is always dangerous to put a time limit about how long an investigation will take because you never know what will come of. host: this is this something to drag out months or possibly years, especially with the evidence we have seen on the website we have talked about in the statements he made during the act? guest: this could move more quickly than some investigations, simply because so much of the evidence to be out there already. the fbi wants to make sure they have nailed everything down before they move forward. i would think months, not years.

host: thomas in maryland on the line for independents. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: first thing we have to eliminate is hate speech. you have to get rid of some of the statements by jeremiah wright or luis farrakhan and al sharpton and michelle obama. she made some terrible statements horrible, at the tuskegee institute. as far as hate crime equal protection, it is not. you have these knockout games with the blacks go around smashing what people in the face, and no hate crime is far as i know there's been on them. host: i will let you jump in here.

if you want to talk about hate speech. guest: it is important to distinguish between hate speech and hate crime. we have very robust protection for speech, which i think is very important. it is only where speech crosses the line into action into a bit of violence that it is prosecutable. i and i think most prosecutors would be worried about prosecuting speech. host: let us go to andy in pennsylvania. good morning. caller: my question would happen to be what happens if the democrats owned most of the south and the parts of the south where they had the slavery come in, i agree that history is a very important part of this. if we are going to correct history, what would happen when the slaves came in and the democrats and we have the slaves

coming into the parts of the area of the south and the democrats had all of the slaves coming in. if we are going to make sure we have an understanding of the correct history what do we do about making sure the kids understand that when the correction of history comes in, we have to make sure they know that david duke was in congress and we make sure they understand who we have all of the correct history of the north and the south and the division, can we make sure we have all of the correct understanding of what the structure of the southwest of the north. guest: it is important to have history to get history right. i always find it interesting that people have an interest in pointing out that the south was politically democratic during the era of jim crow. that as a result of reconstruction because the

republican party led reconstruction and the south became democratic. on the other hand, once the civil rights revolution came along, most of the southern democrats became republicans and we now see we have a solidly republican south. i don't think we should make it our history a matter of -- i don't think it is significant to point out democrats were in charge except as a matter of history and the fact that there has been a major change in party affiliation. many of the same people who are democrats before i now republicans. -- before are now republicans. host: do students these days have an understanding of history and how you approach this topic? guest: i say many of the same kinds of things i say this morning. we are very focused on law.

i want to give them an understanding of how the justice system has an impact on the struggle for racial equality in the country and has been an extremely important tool in helping us move to a more just society. students come in with a mix of awareness. i think clearly our education system is not as good as it could be on these issues. there are certainly students increasingly in this past year especially who are waking up to the fact that there are major issues here we need to address and that there is history behind it they are interested in learning it. host: william yeomans.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption contents and accuracy. visit ncicap.org nick thank you. thank you. well, let me begin by thanking robin for that wonderful

introduction. let me think all the folks at the atrium. let me thank the many hundreds of the field. thank you very much for being here tonight. this is an extraordinary turnouts, and i think all of you for being here. a few weeks ago -- if you weeks ago we decided we were going to do an event in l.a. and i said to myself, we are going to l.a., what of received we can get a room in denver -- why don't we get a room and denver and see if we can bring a couple hundred people together see if we can find some supporters, and after about 10 minutes after the e-mail went

out we knew we had to change the venue. . and here we are tonight. so thank you. let me begin by telling you what no other candidate for president is going to tell you. and that is that this campaign is not about me. it's not about hillary clinton. it's not about jeb bush. is not about any other candidates. this campaign is about you your kids and your parents. [applause] it is about creating a political movement of millions of people who stand up and

loudly and proudly proclaim that this nation and our government belong to all of us and not just a handful of billionaires. [applause] people throughout our history have fought and died to defend democracy. and democracy means today that we need a political movement of millions of people who come out and vote, who educate, and who organize. democracy is not about the last election in which 63% of the american people and 80% of

young people did not vote. that is not democracy. democracy is when people from one end of this country to the other stand up and say that there is nothing that a great nation cannot accomplish. now is not the time for thinking small. we have been thinking small for too many years. we are the wealthiest country in the history of the world. now is the time to think big and to understand all that we can accomplish for all of our

people. this country today in my view, faces more serious problems than at any time since a great depression. and if you add to that, the planetary crisis of climate change, it may well be that today, in our time, we face more challenges than any time in the modern history of this country. [cheers and applause] and what we are here tonight for his to lay those problems out on the table and talk about how we are going to solve those problems. [cheers and applause]

today we live in the wealthiest nation in the history of the world, but most americans don't feel that i don't know that. -- that and don't know that. almost all of the wealth rests in the hands of a tiny number of people. america now has more income and wealth inequality than any major country on earth, and the gap between the very rich and everyone else is wider today than at any time since the late 1920's. in my view, the issue of wealth and income inequality is the great moral issue of our time, it is the great economic issue

of our time, it is a great political issue of our time. [cheers and applause] let me be as clear as i can be. there is something profoundly wrong when the top 1/10 of 1% today owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. there is something profoundly wrong when today 99% of all new income created goes to the top 1%.

there is something profoundly wrong when we have seen a proliferation of millionaires and billionaires at the same time as millions of americans are working longer hours for lower wages, and we have by far the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on earth. there is something profoundly wrong when one family in america, the walton family, owns more wealth than the bottom 130 million americans. this grotesque level of wealth and income inequality is not

only immoral, is not only bad economics, is not only unsustainable, it is not what the united states of america is supposed to be about. [cheers and applause] and you know what? together we are going to change that. it ain't gonig to be -- going to be easy. the billionaire class controls much of the economy, our political life, the media. but what we are doing tonight is sending a message to the billionaire class, and that is you can't have it all. you cannot get huge tax breaks

when children in this country go hungry. you cannot continue to send our jobs to china when millions of people in this country are desperately looking for work. you cannot hide your profits in the cayman islands and in other tax havens while there are massive unmet needs in every corner of this country. the unconscionable greed of the

billionaire class is destroying this nation and it has got to and. -- end. [cheers and applause] and what we say to these extraordinarily wealthy and powerful people is you cannot take advantage of all of the benefits of america if you refuse to accept your responsibilities as americans.

but when we talk about our economy, we're not just talking about the grotesque level of income and wealth inequality. what we are also talking about is the tragic reality the great middle class of america, once the envy of the world, has been disappearing. and i want you to appreciate this because we don't talk about it quite often enough. all of you are aware that in recent years we have seen an explosion of technology. and almost every worker in america is far more productive than workers were ten or 20

years ago. despite that increase in technology and the increase in productivity, the fact of the matter is that millions of people are working longer hours for lower wages and median family income today is almost $5,000 less than it was in 1999. that is the reality and we have to put on the table and we have got to discuss that and we have got to turn that around. i can tell you that in my state of vermont -- and i doubt that -- that's right. and i doubt that it is any different in colorado or any place else -- we have people who are not working one up job,

they are working two jobs, they are working three jobs, trying to cobble together an income and some health care. that is not what the american economy should be about. now, when we talk about the economy and when you ask people what's on their mind they talk about jobs and unemployment. when you read in the papers wruns a month that real unemployment, or that official unemployment in america is 5.4%, don't believe it. because the way the government determines unemployment rates is kind of complicated. if you throw in the fact that we have millions of people who are working part time when they

want to work full time and when you add to that the millions of people who have given up looking for work real unemployment today is close to 11%. and let me tell you something else, which is not discussed at all. and one of the fun things about running for president is you can talk about issues that other people don't talk about. a report just came out a few weeks ago from the economic policy institute, a think tank in washington, and what they said should scare every single american. that is that youth unemployment in this country has reached crisis proportion.

if you include those people who have given up looking for work -- people working part time, young people working part time when they want to work full time, if you're looking at high school graduates from age 17 to 20 the unemployment rate for white and hispanic young people is over 30% and for young african american kids 17 to 20, that number is 51%. now maybe -- just maybe -- we should start investing in jobs and education rather than incarceration and in jails.

[cheers and applause] and when we talk about the economy, we're also not just talking about income and wealth inequality, we're not just talking about unemployment. we are talking about wages. and what we're talking about is that millions and millions of people in vermont, in colorado, all across this country, are working at totally inadequate wages. i was in des moines, iowa a week ago talking to some people. they were at a farmers market. and what they were doing, they were a church-related organization they were collecting food that was not sold at the farmer's market and donating it to an emergency food shelter. and what they said is in des

moines -- and i expect it is true all over this country -- 90% of the people who went to those emergency food shelves >> people who were working, and working full time. one would think that if somebody worked full time, you would earn enough to be able to feed your family. and let me state as clearly as i can that the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage and must be raised to a living wage.

the city of los angeles a couple of weeks ago did exactly the right thing -- they raised the minimum wage -- they raised the minimum wage over a period of a couple of years to $15 an hour. and that's what we should be doing nationally. and when we talk about work and when we talk about wages we have got to end the disgrace of women making 78 cents on the dollar to -- compared to men. we need pay equity for women workers in this country. equal pay for equal work.

now, a couple of weeks ago i announced a series of proposals that were a lot of fun to talk about and i will tell you why. as you know, many republicans talk about family values. oh they just love families and they just love children. they just can't get enough of families and children. but when they talk about family valueses -- you all know what they're talking about. what they are saying to every woman in this country -- you cannot control and have destiny over your own body. what they are saying to women -- and this is quite incredible, hard to imagine that women cannot buy the contra veptives they want.

-- septives they want. and what they are saying to our gay brothers and sisters is you cannot get married. well i have and i think you have a very different vision of what family values should be about. let me tell you what i think family values mean. it means that the united states must end our international embarrassment of being the only major country on earth -- the only one -- which does not guarantee workers paid medical and family leave.

which does not guarantee paid sick time or paid vacation time. now, let me tell you about a family value as deep and as strong as one can imagine. today in america a working class or low income woman gives birth to a baby. and that mom and that father want the opportunity to get to know their newborn baby. that is pretty natural and that is what a family is all about. but if that working class woman does not have enough money, she will have to go back to work in four days, five days, one week

time. and that is why we need family and medical leave which says to that mom and that dad you have one month to spend with your baby paid for. this is not a radical socialistic idea. this is an idea that exists in virtually every major country on earth. and let me tell you about another radical idea. are you ready? i don't know about you but i go around the country and i end up eating in a lot of restaurants and i do not want somebody preparing the food who has the flu who is sick. i want to see workers in this country be guaranteed paid sick

leave. let me tell you something else that nobody talks about. and that is with the collapse of the american middle class, what has happened is that our people -- men and women -- are being forced to work incredibly long hours. i hope some of you know that our people in this country -- the wealthiest country on earth -- end up working far more hours than do the people of any major industrialized country. the american people are working 137 hours a year more than the japanese who work very hard, we work 260 more hours than the british and well for the french we work almost 500 hours a year more than our friends in

france. now, why do i say that? is that an important issue? it is a very important issue. you know why it is? because our people are working incredibly long hours. here's a story. i was in a grocery store outside of a grocery store in burlington, vermont, a few years ago. all right. and a woman came up to me and she said bernie, i just want to mention something to you. my husband and i have one kid, we would like to have more children. but i'm working three jobs, he's working two jobs. and we don't believe that we can be the kind of parents that we want to be. and that story is being told all across our country. people are exhausted. some of you may remember and read in your history books that

100 years ago in the early 1900s workers demonstrated all over this country and they held up banners and they held up signs and posters and they said 100 years ago we are not beasts of burden. we are human beings. we want leisure time. we want to spend time with our kids. we want more education. we want the 40-hour workweek. brothers and sisters 10 o 0 years have come and gone -- 100 years have come and gone. we have seen an explosion in technology and a huge increase in worker productivity. we are not today even close to a 40-hour workweek. today 85% of working men and

66% of working women work more than 40 hours a week. in my view, at the very least what we have got to do as a family value is to guarantee those workers at least two weeks a year of paid vacation. [applause] now, imagine that radical idea that workers should have a couple of weeks where parents could spend some quality time with their kids. and again, all over the industrialized world they don't have two weeks. in fact, they usually have a lot more than that of paid vacation. but let me talk. when pollsters go out and poll the american people and say what is upper most on your

mind? what are you caring about the most? the answer is almost always a four-letter word, j-o-b-is. people are scared to death. if you are 50, 55 years of age, you are worried about walking into your job and finding that your job has disappeared and a young person has taken it. if you are young, you are desperately trying to find a career ladder but you can't find your first job. in my view, the time is now to recognize that we do have a jobs crisis in america, that we need a major federal jobs program. [applause] several months ago i introduced in the senate -- and we will

implement from the white house -- a jobs program which rebuilds our crumbling roads bridges, water systems wastewater plants. [cheers and applause] this is the united states of america. our roads and bridges and water systems and levees and dams should not be crumbling. our rail system should not be behind europe, japan, and china. [cheers and applause] and if we invest $1 trillion in rebuilding that infrastructure, we become more productive more efficient, safer and we can create up to 13 million decent-paying jobs.

and here's another issue. that we have got to deal with as a nation. it is not a sexy issue but it is enormously important. and that is to understand that the trade policies that we have had in this country for decades have worker. i have voted against nafta cafta, against permanent normal trade relations with china. why? because i understood as i believe the vast majority of americans understood that the function of these trade agreements was to allow

corporate america to shut down in america outsource our jobs to low wage countries and bring their products back in here. in my view, in my view, if corporate america wants us to buy their products, the time is long overdue for them to start manufacturing those products here in the united states of america. and that is why i have helped lead the opposition in the senate to this disaster rust transpacific partnership. i want to say a word about the tpp.

not widely known. and we can go on for a long time. this is what i want to say. it is not just that the tpp and fast track would force american workers to compete against people in vietnam who make 56 cents an hour minimum wage. it is beyond that. i will tell you a story which demonstrates what these trade agreements are all about. involved and an intgral part of this trade agreement is called an investor state resolution process. ok? what is that about? right. this is what it's about. i'll tell you what it's about. the tiny country of uragay a few years ago had a president who was an on colings. what this guy tried to do and did do is work on very strong anti-tobacco legislation trying to keep the kids of his country from smoking. i think that's a good thing. ok?

given the fact that smoking causes a huge myriad of diseases, i applaud people who do that. fill lip morris, on the other hand disagreed. what phillip morris did as a result of trade language included in the tpp is went to an international tribunal and said to the tribunal, what uragay is doing is in violation of our trade agreement because they are harming our future profits. that's right. so phillip morice said look, we can make a lot of money by addicting children to nicotine and killing them over the years and you're taking away our ability to hook kids on cigarettes. and what this trade agreement will see how that resolves

itself. australia is in the same boat. but that tells you everything you need to know about these trade agreements. the bottom line, very clearly is what is good for future profits is what trade agreements are about. not the health, not our environment, not the well being of the people. and that is why we've got to defeat soundly this tpp. now, let me be as blunt as i can be. telling you, if i haven't been blunt already and tell you something i think many of you already know. and that is as a result of the disastrous supreme court decision in the citizens united case make that loud so that

supreme court hears you. all right. by a 5-4 decision, the supreme court rendered one of the worst decisions in the history of our country. and what they said to the wealthiest people in this country -- they said ok, guys. you already own much of america. we are now going to give you the opportunity to own the united states government. and people like the koch brothers and she woulden addleson they said hey that's great. that's great. it's what we've always wanted to do is to own our government. and what citizens united allowed is these people to spend billions of dollars to buy candidates who will make

the rich richer and everybody else poorer. and this issue of campaign finance reform is so important. it is important because it impacts every other issue of concern. if we have a congress or governors or state legislatures that are owned by the billionaire class, we are not going to address the problems facing working families. i have so far made one promise in this campaign. one clear promise. and that is i will have a litmus test for my nominees to the supreme court. and that litmus test is that

anybody i nominate will make it clear to this country that they are going to rehear citizens united and vote to overturn that disastrous decision. i want to see a vibrant american democracy where we're not looking at 63% of the people not voting. we are looking at 90% of the people voting. i want to see a democracy. i want to see a democracy when anybody regardless of his or her views, who wants to run for office, can run for office without being beholdened to

big-money interests. tchawschaws -- [cheers and applause] >> and that is why after we overturn through a constitutional amendment the citizens united we move to public funding of elections. brothers and sisters american democracy and people did not fight and die for american democracy to allow a situation to arise where the koch brothers alone second wealthiest family in america extremely right-wing family, this family will spend more money on this election cycle than either the democratic party or the republican party.

brothers and sisters. if you step back and you look at a situation like that, what you are not looking at, you're not looking at a democracy. you are looking at an algarkic form of government. and we have got to stop that. and being at a university i now want to touch on another issue of just enormous consequence. in a highly competitive global economy which is what we are in, we need the best educated workforce in the world. and what that means -- what that means is that we have got to encourage all of our people

-- and not just young people. middle aged people older people to get all of the education they can regardless of the income of their family. now, think about where we are right now and the absurd situation which currently exists. right now in america in our highly competitive global economy hundreds of thousands of bright young qualified people who want to go to college or get a higher education are unable to do so not because they lack the ability but because they lack the money. now, that is grossly unfair in terms of just taking the ladder

for those young people to make it into the middle class but it is even worse than that when we look at our nation as a hope. what kind of insanity is it that we say to these people we don't want you to become scientists or engineers or doctors or nurses? because you just don't have the money. and that is why i have introduced legislation and will fight for that legislation as president that will make every public college and university in america tuition free.

let me tell you what that means. it's not only -- not only that it's going to make life easier for kids in high school who know that they can go to college. it will permeate all levels of education. kids right now -- i'm sure in denver and in burlington, vermont, who are in the sixth grade, they have gotten the message their family doesn't have a lot of money, they are not going to go to college. why should they study hard? why should they do their homework? but when we make it clear to every kid in this country that in fact if you work hard in school, you will be able to get a higher education. it will transforms this nation.

now, some people may but when we talk about higher education and higher education financing, we also have to understood that there are millions of young and middle aged and not so middle aged people who are today being crushed by horrendous student debt.

a young man i know -- not so young any more -- graduated law school deeply in debt. today he is still paying that debt off at 9% interest rates. now what sense does it make that you can go out and refinance your home today at 2% 3%. you can buy a new car at 0% 1%. but because you commit it had crime of wanting to get an education, you're stuck for the rest of your lives at 8 9%? so part of that legislation will allow people who have student debt to refinance their student debt at lower i want rest rates and what it also

will do is end the absurdity of the federal government making billions in profit off of the i want rest rates paid by low income and working class families. and when we do that we can substantially cut by more than half interest rates for people who have debt today. now, my critics have said it's an expensive proposition that you're proposing. and they're right. this legislation would cost about $70 billion a year. that's a lot of money. you know how we're going to pay for it? by a tax on wall street speculation.

as a result of the fraud, the recklessness of wall street, this country was plunged into the worst economic recession since the great depression. millions of people lost their jobs, they lost their life savings, and they lost their homes. the time right now is not only to pass a speculation tax on wall street. the time right now is to break up the major financial institutions in this country. if a bank is too big to fail,

that bank is too big to exist. now, i suppose that means i won't get much money for my campaign from wall street. but we will survive without their money. let me touch now on an issue which i think addresses our responsibilities as human beings, as parents. and i've got four kids and seven beautiful grandchildren. that is that we have the moral responsibility to make sure that the planet that we leaf to

our kids and grandchildren is habittable. the debates are over. maybe with the exception of fox television. but other than that, other than that the scientists have almost unanimously told us that a, climate change is real. b, it is caused by human activity and the emissions of carbon. c, it is already causing devastating problems here in our country and around the world. and this is what they have also told us. they have said that while the problems are very serious right now, they will only get much, much worse if we don't seize a

short wipped of -- window of opportunity to transform our energy system away from fossil fuel into energy efficiency and sustainable energy. [cheers and applause] and what the scientific community tells us -- and this is really speaks to our responsibilities as custodians of this planet. what they say is if we continue business as usual, if we do not transform our energy system that by the end of this century the planet earth will be between 5 and 10 degrees farenheit warmer. and what that will mean is more and more drought, more

flooding, more extreme weather disturbances more acid if iication of the ocean, more rising sea levels. it will also be a huge national security issue for the entire world because when people do not have land to grow food on, if they do not have water for agriculture or to drink, there will be migrations of people, there will be international conflict, there will be more and more war. the point is -- and the pope made this point just beautifully. and what a hero. what a hero for this entire planet. pope frances has been. that we have one of the important religious leaders on earth speaking out in a way that nobody in congress would ever speak out about what money

and inequality is doing to people all over the world. and now speaking out on climate change. god bless pope frances. [cheers and applause] when i was in college a few years ago, the issue that motivated young people all across this country was civil rights. at that point we had folks giving up their lives fighting in the south to desegregate the south. the fight for voting rights for african americans. and some of those heroes got killed trying to do what they did. in my view today one of the great issues facing our younger

generation is to stand up and demand that america leads the world in transforming our energy system. and when we do that by the way. when we weatherize our homes that are leaking energy, when we have a transportation system that is energy efficient, when we have a strong rail system when we move aggressively to solar, wind geothermal. we create millions of jobs as well. let me say a word about another issue that we have got to finally deal with.

the united states shamefully is the only major nation on earth that does not guarantee health care to all of our people as a right. u my state of vermont borders on canada. all people have health care in canada as a right. germany, scandinavia austria, every european country has health care for all of their people as a right. today in america despite the modest gains of the affordable care act we have 35 million people without health insurance. we have even more who are underinsured with large deductibles and copayments. what we have got to do in my view is pass a medicare for all

single payer program. [cheers and applause] it makes no sense -- no sense -- 35 million people uninsured. more underinsured. our health care outcomes are not particularly good. we have a higher infant mortality rate than many other countries. we have a lower life expectancy than many other countries. and yet we end up paying almost twice as much per capita for health care. and that is why we've got to get the private insurance companies out of health care.

[cheers and applause] now, i am the ranking member -- which means leader of the opposition -- in the senate on the budget committee. i want to say a word about the republican budget that passed last month. and i'm going to tell you this because the media forgot to talk about it. it's important that we talk about it for the following reason. i am perhaps the most progressive member of the united states senate. and so it shouldn't be surprising that i have disagreements with all republicans on almost every issue. not surprising. but here's what -- this is what the republican budget did. and the reason i raise that to

you is i don't mind as the most progressive member of the senate being opposed by the billionaire class and all of their friends. i accept their hatred with joy. because if they hate me, and what i stand for, then i know i'm doing something right. but this is what i do not accept with joy. and that is too many middle class people continue to vote against their own best interests.

i want the people of colorado to tell me whether they think this budget of the republicans makes sense. here it is. 35 million people without any health insurance, what the republican budget did is throw an additional 27 million people off of health insurance. and when i ask as i do, my republican colleagues when you throw 27 million off of health insurance how many of them will die? how many of them will become much sicker than they would have been if they had insurance? there is no response. so i say to my republican friends here working people in colorado you tell me if it is a good idea that millions of men

women, and children are thrown off of health insurance. we talked about tonight the fact that working class middle class families are finding it harder and harder to pay for a college education for their kids. what the republican budget did over a 10-year period was cut pell grants by 90 billion dollars. and i say, to republicans here in colorado and across this country, families that are struggling to send their kids to college, whether they think it makes sense to make massive cuts in the most important federal aid program for college students. the republican party in their budget at a time when millions

of families are struggling to feed their kids made massive cuts in nutrition programs. do my republican friends here in colorado think that kids should go hungry in america? i don't think they do. i really don't think that they do. and furt more we've had a number of republican candidates for president who want to cut social security. cut medicare. so what our job is is to get the word out to our republican friends to stop voting for the billionaire class, start voting for themselves.

all of us are aware that in this country we have made progress in a number of areas in terms of becoming less discriminatory. in terms of civil rights, in terms of women's rights, in terms of gay rights. but all of us know that a lot more must be done. it is not acceptable -- it is not acceptable that young african americans are walking down a street in a city in america and are being brutalized by police. that has got to end. i was a mayor for years we worked closely with police

officers. police officers have an enormously difficult job and most of them do their job honestly and as well as they can. that's right. it's a very tough job. but when a police officer or any other public official commits a crime that crime must be punished. let me -- you have all been very patient as i've rambled on so let me conclude -- let me conclude by saying this. and i'm going back to where i started. i want you to think big not small. i want you to understand that it is not ue taupian thinking to say that every man woman and child in this country should have health care. it is not out taupian thinking to say that working families

should have quality child care. it is not ut openian thinking that child education should be available to all. we can do these things and more we can create the greatest nation that anyone has ever seen. if we stand together. if we do not let people divide us by race, by whether we were born in america or born in mexico whether we're gay or whether we're straight. so i look forward to working with you all in creating the political revolution that this country needs. thank you all very much.

[cheers and applause] ♪ >> congress is back this week prior to their 4th of july break. the senate is in today at 3 p.m. eastern time. and around 5:30 they will vote on two nominations. they will also continue work on fast track trade promotion authority passed last week by the house. that measure face as key procedural vote on tuesday. live senate coverage on c-span 2. and the house is back on tuesday to work on bills related to homeland security and medicare spending. the rest of the week they will take up carbon pollution

standards, e.p.a., and interior department funding. and depending on action in the senate further conversation of trade legislation. live house coverage is on c-span. >> tonight on the commune cailtors, cochair of the congressional privacy congress, texas republican representive joe barton. the issues with privacy and cyber security. >> you've got the basic

principle whose information is it? is it automatically in the public dome main because i choose to use a mobile app and we know that the way these things work they go into the cloud and all that? or can i use it and still have a reasonable expectation of personal privacy? if you take the ladder view that -- latter view that it is personal, that changes the way you regulate and the way you legislate. if you take the position that i am by act of being a part of by participating by using the app i am foregoing my individual right to privacy, that's a different issue in its entirety. >> tonight at 8:00 eastern on the communicators. on c-span 2. >> coming up next on c-span

"q&a" with author stephen puleo talking about his book. >> this week on "q&a," our guest is author stephen puleo. he talks about the assault of charles sumner on the floor of the u.s. senate. mr. puleo: i wanted to figure out what got us to this point. at what point had we reached an american political history and the difference between north and south where a sitting united states senator could be beaten to within an inch of his life on

the floor of the chamber. brian: where did you get the spark? mr. puleo: it has been in my head for years. i have written five books and probably two with the caning in the back of my mind. this issue of how politically we were divided, the slavery debate, how vicious it had become. that sparked my interest. when i began to do the research, i found it fascinating. charles sumner and preston brooks. brian: what is the time period? mr. puleo: after the kansas-nebraska act. 1856. after the compromise of 1850. some conte