today we'll would be talking about a wide array of issues including the economy small business international trade immigration, climate change, and equal pay. issues that affect all americans. with that, i would like to welcome to the stage senator ernie sanders. [applause] [applause]

mr. sanders: yikes we haven't even started yet. mr. palomarez: thank you very much for being with us, we have been looking forward to this and think you for making time to do this. it is important to us that [indiscernible]

secretary clinton at about 60% the question is, mr. senator are you, as they say -- what do you do plan to do to stay viable for the nomination? mr. sanders: let me begin by thanking you for inviting me this is a wonderful turnout. thank you all. we went into this campaign absolutely it has been wonderful,. if you and i were having a chat three-and-a-half months ago and asking if i was running, i would have told you that i really did not know. my wife was not that excited about the idea. she is a very smart woman. we are cutting new into this game. i think it's fair to say that secretary clinton has been thinking about this for a lot longer than i have. let me tell you some of the

issues we were struggling with when we were contemplating whether to get into this. it has everything to do with the answer to your question. did we have a message that would resonate with the american people? back message is that for 40 years the american middle class has been disappearing while the wealthiest people and largest corporations are doing phenomenally well and doing fundamental changes in economics and politics. i thought that message would resonate and it is. the other question we have to tackle is as a result of the supreme court decision which citizens united which is one of the worst decisions ever which says the wealthiest people in america can buy elections. people can line up and they will give you hundreds of millions of dollars. we knew that we would be outspent. we thought we could raise enough money throughout the campaign and it turns out we were right. we have gotten over 300,000 individual contributions.

the average is $35 each. that is a different way to raise money then going to a super pac where millionaires put down half a million or a million or $10 billion. can we raise enough money, i think we can. the third issue is we understood that secretary clinton is very well-known that we would have to develop a strong grassroots movement and we are doing that. just last night we had 3500 organizational meetings in this country. we believe over 100,000 people came out. to answer your question, you are right, the poll numbers you gave are right. but we have the momentum in early states like new hampshire and iowa. we are doing significantly better than the national numbers. i am not guaranteeing this victory but i think we have a very good chance to win if we can develop that grassroots movement all over this country.

mr. palomarez: congratulations certainly the message seems to be resonating. a follow-up question. how would you respond to governor o'malley's likening of the recent surge to that of donald trump's? they are saying both of you are another summer flame. mr. sanders: i am going to say what i've done for many years. when you have 100,000 people attending meetings last night when you have rallies and which 8, 10, 11,000 people come out. when you have a website which is being innovated by 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 major western country honor. -- on earth. that we are the only country to

deny health care as a right. the only country on earth that does not allow family and medical leave or paid sick leave or paid vacation time. that the rich get richer and everyone else is getting poorer. this is not a summer flame. these are issues resonating with the american people who loudly and clearly have said enough is enough. this economy and our political system are handing everything to a handful of billionaires. mr. palomarez: on to the economy and small business. a washington post article you stated that you would not deny it for one second, you are a democratic socialist. one of the most distant wishing factors of your candidacy is that you have, very openly claimed to be a socialist. while they stand for a free market economy where all printers should be able to pursue their jury in -- american

dream with limited legislation i find it commendable to see you are not shying away from your beliefs. in fact we respect that. what we respect most of any candidate is transparency and consistency. however, as a business organization your views do concern me. the question is, how would the sanders economic platform translate into growth for american small businesses? mr. sanders: good question. before i answer this, let me back up and put it into context. , before we decide how to go forward we have to know where we are today. sometimes we don't discuss that enough. where we are today is the median family income in america at $5,000 less than it was in 1999. where we are today is that we

have the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on earth. where we are today is the 45 million americans living in poverty. where we are today is that a recent study came out from economic policy institute and it said this about youth unemployment. a high school graduate between 17 and 20 that is white real unemployment is 33%. hispanic is 36%. african-american unemployment is 51%. 35 million people have no health insurance. we have a child care system which is a disaster. working families in most cases are not comfortable they can find affordable, quality child care. that is some of the realities of the economy today. if u.s. me if i'm a democratic socialist, i am. it means i 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 that we do

that are better than what other countries do. smart people look and steal the best ideas available. we look at cities all over america, what a san francisco doing? what can we steal? this is what we can still. from a business perspective people struggle every day and spend huge amounts of time on health insurance. i would think that a small businessman would like to spend his or her time worrying about the business and how it will grow, not figuring out talking to 87 different people as the how they will get affordable health care for their workers. is a fair statement? mr. palomarez: absolutely. mr. palomarez:mr. sanders: every other major western country has health care as a right. not only would that be a benefit of the people, it would take the burden off small business. we are the only major country

that does not do this. what about family and medical leave? today in america a low income woman gives birth, she has to get back to work in five days. is that morally right? i don't think so. we are the only major country that does not provide family and medical leave. what about education? we both know a country doesn't grow without education. there are hundreds of thousands of qualified bright young people today who desperately want a higher education. they cannot get it. they cannot afford it. that is why i believe we should bring free tuition to public colleges and universities. it helps america. when i talk about democratic socialism, i'm saying take a look at what's happening in sweden. free college, free health care. i think it makes sense to look

at countries that are doing good things for working families. taxes. we may have disagreements. but let me be very frank when you have the most unequal level of income and wealth inequality of any major western country. when you have major corporations, i'm not talking about small, major multimillion dollar corporations with money and the cayman islands not paying money and taxes. that is wrong and i will do away with those loopholes. mr. palomarez: i did want to hear from you, in particular, how would president senders address the needs of minority owned businesses, specifically hispanic businesses? can you share a bit about that? mr. sanders: when real unemployment is as high as it is right now, i think you have to invest in rebuilding our infrastructure. i have introduced legislation

that would spend a trillion dollars over a five-year. =-- five year perido. the hispanic community is heavily involved in the rebuilding and a very significant percentage of hispanic businesses are involved in construction. if we rebuild our roads, water treatment plants, this will make america stronger and more efficient. it will provide millions of jobs and i think it will be a significant boost to the hispanic community. mr. palomarez: thank you for the response. i would like to chat about something we feel strongly about here. that is equal pay. as you know, in this country women's wages continue to stubbornly lag behind men's even when doing the exact same job. with women more or less earning $.70 on the dollar and hispanic women more like $.54 on the dollar. why do you think that is and as

president, what would you do to address that disparity? mr. sanders: i think it has to do, to be honest, with sexism. that many businesses are owned by men. i think it is also part of a historical trend where 50 years ago and 40 years ago, when and maybe were working for a few hours a week and went home and took care of the kids. as you know we have the best majority of people with working women, many have kids and are now in the workforce. it is unacceptable. as statistics tell us, we are discriminating against women and i applaud organizations that can say it is indefensible, i don't know how anybody can defend women making less, whatever the money may be, dollars or cents per hour compared to men.

i very strongly believe in two things. one, you may agree with and one you may not. first i agree with and i strongly support it, we have to move toward pay equity for all women and a discussion. and a discussion -- end of discussion. we may not be on the same page. i believe the federal minimum wage is a starvation wage and is inadequate so i am supportive of efforts of los angeles and san francisco and new york and seattle to raise the minimum wage over a few years to $15 per hour. i have introduced legislation in the senate for a $15 per hour minimum wage. mr. palomarez: we are on the same page with both counts. we are doing very well. [applause] maybe this isn't a summer flame. mr. sanders: it surprising to

me, as you know, we are being forced by many businesses who do not want to strengthen us and i applaud you. you and the organization for having the courage to say that people cannot survive on $7.25 per hour. mr. palomarez: if you look at the track record, 13.2 million of them collectively contributing $486 billion to the economy and growing at a rate of three to one compared to the general market if you look at their employee base. it vastly, they are paying much more than minimum wage to their own employees. . mr. sanders: i'm going to give you some applause for that. mr. palomarez: on to trade. we are doing well but on the trade. an issue that the ushcc has worked on that we don't always

agree with we have worked hard on the administration's trade dress -- agenda 98% of u.s. businesses that do actually export, we believe that access to markets abroad is a good thing for the entrepreneurs we represent with more than 90% of the global market being outside the united states. can you tell us a bit about your concerns with the transpacific partnership? mr. sanders: mr. sanders: please do not misunderstand my position as being something we put a wall around america. trade is a good thing. the question is what kind of trade agreements do we establish ? i voted, when i first got into congress in 1991. i voted against permanent trade

relations with china and i'm hoping to leave the opposition against the tpp. i have always believed and i think the acts show that these trade agreements were essentially written by corporate america and big-money interests by wall street, by the pharmaceutical industry. they were not written with the goal of improving the life of the people of the united states. what they were written to do was say you do not have to pay workers in this country 15, or $25 per hour. you can shut down in america and moved to vietnam or mexico. you can pay substantially lower wages and bring profits back to america. i believe that was the intention of these pieces of legislation and i believe that is what is happened. since 2001, we have lost almost

60,000 factories. i'm not going to tell you that's all it to be the low to trade -- all attributable to trade. a lot of companies say if you don't take a pay cut we will go to china because we can. i believe in trade but not unfettered trade. i do not believe american workers should be forced to compete with workers around the world who make pennies per hour. that is unfair. the tpp has additional provisions which i do not like. we need a trade agreement which works for working-class families as well as people around the world, not just at the ceos of large corporations. mr. palomarez: your track record against nafta and tpp, which you classify or characterize

yourself as anti-trade? mr. sanders: no. i am against these philosophies of trade agreements. i am against a trade agreement which result in job loss of america. we have lost millions of jobs as a result of these agreements. i am against that.. i believe we can establish policies that work with small businesses and work with workers in our country and people in other countries. that is not in the philosophy behind the trade agreements that i have seen in the last 20 years. mr. palomarez: on to one of your favorites. financial institutions. the ushcc works with the broadest array of financial institutions in this country because they provide billions of dollars every year in loans. they are a reliable source and a ready source of credit and capital for small businesses.

when it comes to large financial institutions you have a similar position to governor o'malley regarding free and starting -- reinstating something that i think would break up some of the largest banks. by the way, a position that secretary clinton does not support. can you explain to us, and my numbers, why we should be supportive of your stance on financial institutions? mr. sanders: here's where we are. and it has been in my view for a very long time. we have six of the largest financial institutions in this country. who have access to assets of $10 trillion, which is equivalent to 60% of the gdp of the united states. you have a handful of huge financial institutions that have enormous economic clout.

they issues significant amounts of mortgages in this country and credit cards. the first issue is, for a vibrant economy do we think it is a good idea for a handful of financial institutions to have that much economic clout? vibrant green enterprise economy, i think no. i think of teddy roosevelt were alive today he would insist on breaking these guys up because they are too big. everyone in this room were membered what happen in 2008. in my view, to a significant degree the business model of wall street is not to get money out to your people. i believe in a banking system that people put money into banks, banks lend out money to small or medium-sized businesses that make jobs and help people by homes. that is what i believe in.

what wall street has done is create a business model which says we really don't care about small or medium-sized businesses. we care about being an island unto ourselves coming up with the most esoteric financial tools imaginable that nobody knows that enables wall street to make huge amounts of money in 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 the business model of wall street is broad. -- fraud. i do not trust or believe these guys or believe that they care about the economy. they care about themselves. i wanted banking system where you have small or medium-sized banks where your people can walk in and somebody can know who you are and know your history and

give a reasonable priced loan. you are part of a community. i do not want people as an island separate from the productive economy. i believe number one, if you check my record you will find i was a member of the house financial service committee that that with deregulation. we had the clinton and broken people - -- republican people. they said it would be a good idea to merge investment banks with commercial banks with large insurance companies. it would be great for a internationally and i never believed it for one second. in my mind what we have to do is reestablish and maintain separate entities but more importantly we have to break them up. the economy will do better. small businesses will have access to affordable loans much more readily. [applause]

mr. palomarez: i want to clarify, i know when you say your people, you mean american small businesses. i know that. mr. sanders: this is a huge issue. mr. palomarez: we are going to get to that. energy and climate. let's talk about energy and climate change. this week you challenged secretary clinton on the keystone pipeline, saying it is hard to understand how one can be concerned about climate change but not vigorously opposed to the keystone pipeline. the question is, what is your plan to strike a balance between facilitating business growth, promoting energy and independence while at the same time protecting the environment. mr. sanders: let me reversed the order of that question. i believe in what pope francis

said in his recent statement. i believe climate change is the great planetary, environmental crisis that we face. i think we have a responsibility to leave this planet to our kids and grandchildren. i have seven beautiful grandchildren, in a way that is habitable. the question is, how do we do this? i have to tell you that the way you do it is have the united states of america lead the world. we can't do this alone, this is global. working with china, russia india, in transforming our energy system away from. you'll, and -- away from fossil fuel and into wind and solar and other emerging technologies. the debate is over. the scientific community has told us loud and clear that

climate change is real thanks to human activity and is causing devastating problems. for the sake of the planet, how do we go forward and i think president obama has made fights against a lot of people who refuse to allow -- except the existence and we have a way to go before we transform energy. how do you do it? i think one of the ways you do it in terms of energy efficiency is making, in terms of climate change moving aggressively toward energy efficiency. our rail system lags behind europe, japan, and china. we could take an enormous amount trucks off the road by having a modern rail system. we also need to be revitalizing homes. we have seen a huge opposition

to solar by republicans in congress. we need to subsidize tax credits for sustainable energy. sitting this planet for our kids and grandchildren, preventing extreme weather disturbances, is a huge priority. i would invest heavily in transforming our energy system. mr. palomarez: i would argue the point that since you brought in the pope on your side of the issue. on to race relations. let's talk about this. by the way, i want to commend you for your long-standing track record. and the work you have done in promoting civil rights for decades. and, like you, the ushcc believes in the inclusion and commitment of all communities but with that said, given the recent protests that transpired at the convention, as well as the criticism you received or

your response to those protests, can you talk to us about this troubling and persistent problem in america? as president, how would you address the racial tensions that stubbornly existence country? mr. sanders: they still stubbornly exist. there is no question. anybody that has seen one of these, i suppose, positive developments is that if anybody think african-americans were not beaten and killed under police custody for decades would be sorely mistaken. that is what has happened for decades. the difference is a lot of that activity and those actions are being recorded on cell phones. the whole world is seeing. what the world didn't see before. here's what i think. we have made progress in terms of race relations in this country.

or else we would not be having an african-american as president. we should be proud. anyone who does not believe that tragically that racism is alive and well in america that we do not have hundreds of hate groups whose whole function in life is to pick white people against blacks and hispanics and jews, anybody else, you would be mistaken. what do we do about it what we do about it among other things is to make sure that we have very significant police reform in america. what that means is that not only do we have body cameras that we know what police officers are doing, but we also have a new regimen. i think force is used it too much. i saw some people use the center plan video. if that was a white woman,

nobody believes that what happened. yanked out of a car for no reason and toss to the ground and assaulted. thrown in jail, three days later, they say she failed to make a right signal on her turn. you don't get thrown in jail for failing to signal where you are turning. what we need to do is take a look at minimum sentencing. we have far too many people in 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 offenders. 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. we need to take a very hard look at some of our drug wars, to be honest with you. too many people are being arrested and sent to jail for nonviolent offenses. at the end of the day we have to continue the struggle. to become a people who judge based on character, not the color of their skin.

fighting against police departments and minorities -- there is an enormous amount of work to do in that area. javier: you think that array -- racism is alive and well? senator sanders: i do. javier: do you think that people running for the presidency might be a bit racist? [laughter] senator sanders: you will never read this country or the world of this. i've been thinking about this recently and i cannot give you an answer. think back to the origins of the united states, before we were country. remember what those people did the american -- native

americans? and and we had slavery, how many millions of people died and were dehumanized as a result of slavery? i'm not a psychiatrist. i do not know why people apparently feel good about themselves when they are putting down and insulting other people. the statements made by donald trump were clearly outrageous. it troubles me very much. troubles me that a candidate for president would stoop to that level.

javier: good response. [applause] on to the hispanic electorate. in 2012 it is 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. i actually share this with the president. i went further and i said that i believe never again will an american president be elected without openly courting the hispanic vote. right now in america every 30 seconds hispanic turns 18 and becomes an eligible voter. question is, as president, what will you, bernie sanders, due to attract or mobilize? senator sanders: we are making a bit of progress on that in our campaign. you will see is doing more and more outreach. i would think that we would do well for two reasons. our message of social justice, the people have a right to higher education. i think that would be a popular in meaningful proposal for the people in america.

especially the minority communities struggling economically area when youth unemployment for hispanic communities is -- economically. when youth unemployment for hispanic communities is 33%? health care for all appealing to the hispanic community. first, our economic agenda says that we have got to reach out to working-class, low income families. give them jobs and decent income, that will be a proposal that i think many hispanic families will respond to. there is another issue and i guess you can get into the issue of immigration. we have an economic message that speaks to all working americans.

given the fact that a disproportionate number of hispanics and african-americans are struggling economically, i think it speaks even more strongly to them. javier: i don't want to put words in your mouth, but if i captured the essence of the response, you would solve these social challenges through economic solutions? senator sanders: that is in them --- is an important way. one cannot turn their backs on this fact of life of health insurance and lack of jobs. breaking down discrimination in america. that goes for my friends. i would have a department of justice that would be vigorous fighting discrimination at all levels. javier: some candidates have

been accused of i called hispandering. do you have a track record of issues that you think are important to the hispanic community? senator sanders: above and beyond the economic agenda? i will give you an example. i have to be honest with you, i come from a state that is 97% white. javier: i love vermont. senator sanders: you get up there? i invite you all to come up. [laughter] i will tell you a story, if i might. in 2007, as i recall, i learned about a horrific situation in florida. a small town near naples. most of the tomatoes used by fast food restaurants, this is where they are grown. i went there to stand with the undocumented tomato workers who

are being exploited in the most horrific manner. because they are undocumented, they really have no legal rights. front-page story in the local paper, you know what the crime this man was charged with? slavery. slavery. in the year 2007. he was holding workers voluntarily. people were getting horrendously low wages. i went to the homes there. overcrowding it is then shared by the late ted kennedy, a good friend of mine. the impact of that, along with a lot of other efforts, was to

improve the wages in standard of living of those workers. as senator of vermont i did not have to do that. it did not give me any votes back home. i did it does it was the right thing to do. when undocumented workers get exploited, every worker in america suffers. [applause] javier: you happen to be talking to an english as second language citizen who grew up in a migrant camp. on to immigration. thank you. immigration reform is an economic imperative, we think it is critical for the continued well-being of our economy.

the question is, how do you propose that we harness that power to continue to be the most competitive economy in the

world? senator sanders: excellent question. for a start, economically and morally it's unacceptable that we have millions of workers who are living in the shadows. i am also the son of an immigrant. i dad came from poland without any money at all. javier: i heard. senator sanders: the story just came out on sunday. at the end of my remarks a group of young latino kids came up. this beautiful lady had tears in her eyes saying that she is scared to death that she or a member of her family will be deported. you have the issue of 11 million people in this country undocumented. some of our republican colleagues would think that the solution is in the middle of the night to wrap up everyone in the country. people thinking about those kinds of ideas are ugly be

unbelief. what we have clearly got to do is provide comprehensive immigration reform with a path towards citizenship. not only is that the right thing to do for the people in this

country, but to your point economically it is the right thing to do. when the undocumented have no right and are not given the benefit of the taxes they are paying, it impacts the whole economy to the tune of many, many billions of dollars. let us also be clear on two points. you may agree with these are not. the first point is -- suddenly every undocumented worker in this country disappears? the economy would collapse. especially in agriculture. many other areas. construction. people talk about illegal immigrants. there are such a thing is illegal employers as well. they do not get jobs about the nation that the employer understands what is going on and pay them under the table. the economy become stronger when people have legal status. full do not have to worry about it. the economy become stronger when people are burning decent wages, spending money, holding their heads up high. i believe that we should be providing legal status of documented workers and that the policy should be to bring families together. not separate them. i applaud the president's executive actions. i think we have got to go further. in the long run we need to demand the republicans in congress stopped turning their backs on this issue and call it comprehensive immigration reform.

javier: i would like to ask a quick follow up. recently you criticized a portion of the gang of eight bill for wanting to raise the cap of h one v visas. that portion of the bill you do not agree? senator sanders: here's the story. to my mind, when we talk about -- argue with me if you want -- years the way i look at it. you are the host, you can do you want. i see tuitions and the absolute need to provide legal status and protection to the undocumented people in this country right now. some 11 million people. with a path towards citizenship. i would go faster than the bill passed in the senate. here's where i have concerns. there is a reason why wall street and all corporate america

likes immigration reform. in my view it is not the they are up nights worrying about undocumented workers in this country. i think that what they are interested in is a process by which they can bring low-wage labor of all levels into this country to depress labels and i strongly disagree with that. i mentioned to you a moment ago that unemployment rates for kids in this country -- i frankly do not believe that we should be bringing in significant numbers of unskilled workers to those people. i want to see these kids get jobs. i managed to get a one billion dollar program in it for youth in this country to get jobs. that is my view. i view it as two separate problems. you have many corporations to say -- you know, i cannot get behind this, right? that's what they say. i think in some cases that is probably true. on the other hand, i have spoken to too many people in the high-tech industry who say -- you know what? hundreds in this country would like to do that work. what these corporations are doing is going outside the country to pay people from russia and eastern europe lower where -- lower wages. i think that that's wrong.

what a company has got to do in my mind is say -- look, we have looked all over new york and california and we just cannot find any high-tech engineers or computer people. go out of the country? fine. but make sure you have gone through an exhaustive process to make sure that the people in this country can get those jobs. that is my concern. javier: in your view, you think that these high-tech conglomerates want to bring immigrant labor in so that they can depress wages. would you not -- wouldn't you think, though, that maybe it is a training and education issue? that the young people of today do not have the skill sets? isn't this more of a training and education issue more than raising or lowering the cap on h1v's? senator sanders: the answer is unequivocally yes and no. javier: so, we agree? [laughter] senator sanders: no. i know it for a fact, i see it in vermont and all over the country, there are highly skilled good paying jobs that

our educational system has not enabled young americans to get. that's true and i accept that. however i will tell you that there are corporations that would prefer to bring high-tech skilled people from other countries into america at lower wages rather than pay an american worker a higher wage area of -- wage. javier: let's move on. mr. senator, is there one differentiating issue in your platform that you think distinguishes u.n. gives you the best chance in this country? to connect with issues in this country -- voters in this country? senator sanders: javier: -- senator sanders: i do. check my record.

throughout my political life i have taken on special interests in this country. i have taken people over the border to purchase medicine in canada at 1/10 the price that women in vermont were paying for breast cancer drugs. taken on the military-industrial, like, where you have weapons systems with huge cost overruns. i've helped to lead the effort against wall street. on and on it goes. i think that it -- that at this particular moment in american history when so few have so much wealth and power, if we are going to expand the middle class rather than seeing it shrink, if we are going to make sure that all the kids in this country get a good education and are able to get a higher education, it would be performed as a right to all the people.

if we are going to be the kind of nation that allows all people to have a decent standard of living, we need leadership now. i know that sounds kind of scary, but what you have right now in my view -- i know that not everybody agrees with me -- i know that in my view you have a handful of small workforce people with incredible wealth and power who not only have huge control over the economy but as a result of citizens united huge control over the political process. how would you define a political system in which one family will spend what -- more money to me it sounds like oligarchy. we need to rally the american

people to say that enough is enough -- this is the wealthiest country in the history of the world and we can provide health care and a decent standard of living to all of our people. in order to a compass we cannot be naive. as i have said over and over again in my campaign, it not just about electing bernie sanders. i cannot do anything unless there is a movement of people behind me prepared to stand up to these powerful people. it is not only the agenda that i have outlined to you. but it is the believe that we need a massive political movement. 80% of young people do not vote, as they did not vote in the last election. if they don't vote, you won't see any change in this country regardless of who is resident. javier: hypothetical, you

continue to make momentum but find yourself in the end on the heels of hillary and find out -- still fall short of the nomination? do you feel you a those people in your supporters who feel very strongly about you -- it is clear that they feel the burn. [laughter] [applause] if they called upon you, would you run as an independent?

senator sanders: the answer is no. here is why. i am the longest-serving independent in the history of u.s. congress. as i was contemplating what to do one of the decisions i had to make -- and a lot of people said "bernie, you are an independent." the republican party is us -- an extreme right-wing party. the democratic party is too conservative in corporate america. you have to run outside the system. i thought about it. i reached a decision that i thought was the proper decision. for a lot of reasons it is the only way it this moment in history that we can run an effective campaign was within the democratic i marry and caucus process. that's what we are doing. if it happens that i do not win, would i run outside the system? i made the promise i would not. the reason for that is i do not want to be responsible for electing someone -- some right-wing republican to be president. [applause]

javier: senator, thanks again for spending time with us today. to end today's discussion i wanted to ask a final question. you have compared our nation's shortcomings when it comes to issues like public health care public education practice and other things. you have compared destinations like denmark, norway, sweden. we come up short on just about every front. to put things in a different context, according to our information, the ohio economy, 575 billion dollars, slightly larger than norway plus. north carolina, slightly larger than denmark's. indiana, $342 billion, is slightly larger as well. so, if you look at the total u.s. gdp, we are at about 17.5 trillion. if you took denmark, norway, and sweden and stuck them inside america you could shake them around and it would roll around like a coconut in a rail car. [laughter]

is it fair to compare our nation with its complex gdp and size to countries like norway -- by the way, i love norway, sweden -- but is that a good comparison? senator sanders: that is a good question. obviously, we are a far more diverse nation than those scandinavian countries are having their own problems with immigration. it is not a question of the size. you are right. the question is addition. i would say that the size of the country or the complexity of our economy, should we not have the highest rate that should we have the highest rate of childhood poverty?

20% question mark of any other western industrialized country? i don't it we can do that. is it impossible for a large country to have a health care system that guarantees health care to all people? from 100 miles away -- unless you drive really fast -- one hour away is to come -- the canadian border. we have had a national healthcare system. we have had a system for a few decades that works for a well. who cares about a rinky-dink country with a socialized health care system? i'm not comparing the size and complexity with sweden or denmark. i'm talking about the vision of where we want to go. if we have the political will, we could have family and medical leave take it.

and i think it could be done with a lot less income and wealth inequality than we have right now. javier: i think we have time for some questions from the audience. any questions from those folks? let's turn on the lights right here. >> on building jobs and putting people back to work, does that have to come at the expense of your environmental plan that you have laid out? senator sanders: great question. is there a contradiction between creating jobs and helping the environment? i believe that we have got to be extraordinarily bold and aggressive in dealing with

climate change, but it is not a contradiction to talk about rebuilding our crumpling infrastructure. if you have a strong rail system, that could take a lot of trucks off the roads and create a much more energy efficient transportation system. when you weather nice -- weatherize homes, like we are doing in vermont, you create sustainable energy efficiency and in fact create job on top of that. javier: there is then? from cnn? i cannot -- wax [inaudible] -- >> [inaudible] "strengthen our borders and not allow people to so easily come into the country. it is long overdue and absolutely right." why did you say that back then when now you're saying you would

not tie it into building a wall? senator sanders: there is a significant difference in scope. it has to do what i discussed a few moments ago. there was so much emphasis on low-wage workers in this country. number one, i was able to get a significant amount of money into providing job for young people in this country. javier: from the associated press? >> in latin america, what of the

big trend to you see? what do you have in mind? senator sanders: i voted against nafta for a number of reasons. in my view if you look at the impact they have had on mexico that we have got to own up to his massive dislocation of small

homes in mexico. drive and workers off of those forms and into the cities and that chew asian. second of all, i will tell you that i am concerned when i see how aggressive china has been in moving oil all over the world. obviously, latin america is our neighbor. i am not impressed at agree that we have been reaching out with latin america. i strongly support the president's initiative in normalizing relations with cuba. we had rather work with them in intelligent ways. i don't have to tell anyone in this room what we have seen in

guatemala, honduras, the kind of violence there that we have seen, that is something the united states has to pay a pension to. -- pay attention to. i voted against the war in iraq. i think that history will record that as the right though. if you read my speeches at that time, it did happen in terms of the destabilization. senator sanders: alex, msnbc? >> [inaudible] back to buy cap companies and entrepreneurs, responding to

your interview yesterday, a very test eight-man headline, that your statements are wrong and troubling and that you all sleep take immigrants as obstacles -- all sleep pick -- falsely pick immigrants. senator sanders: we have to be careful in the definition of the word immigrant. they are talking about completely opening up border. that was the question. should we have a completely open border? that were to happen, which i strongly disagree with, that would know question substantially lower wages in this country. 36% of hispanic kids in this country cannot find jobs, you bring on workers and this country? what do you think will happen? i don't think there is any candidate for president thinks we should open up borders.

to my mind it is -- what do we do? we move aggressively towards a path towards it is an ship. moving as fast we can toward legal status. protection for those people. do you think there is any candidate for president who thinks opening the borders make sense? i don't think so. javier: elise foley, huffington post. >> i wanted to follow-up on the question -- do you believe that economists are wrong around creating jobs and do you think that illegal immigration should be restricted? senator sanders: illegal immigration? >> illegal immigration. senator sanders: no, i don't. my father was an immigrant.

senator sanders: no, i don't. my father was an immigrant. immigrants built this country. that is one of the virtues of america. he had people coming from all over the world with their own particular set of skills and ideas. that is what makes america unique, something that we should be proud of. but there is a great difference in saying that we welcome immigrants and that we will provide a path toward citizenship for those people and families in the country today who say that we will not have any borders at all. javier: i think that we agree on one more thing, immigrants make america more american. senator sanders: that is a huge part of what makes this country great. javier: closing thoughts? senator sanders: first of all, thank you very much for inviting

me here today. thank you for all the work that you and your organization are doing. i would like to thank everybody for being here today. let me just conclude by saying this -- let me hit the nail on the head -- we are a great country. my gut. your family came from mexico. my wife's family came from ireland. we have people whose families came from africa way back when and all over the world. that is extraordinary. we bring those ideas and cultures together. we make this very, very unique country. i think that today this country faces some huge problems having to do with income and wealth inequality and a disappearing middle class. i have absolute confidence that if we stand together and not let the folks out there divide us

because your family came from mexico and mine came from poland, that you are black and he is white, you are gay in your heterosexual, if we prevent them from dividing us up on those and we stand together to say -- you know what? all of our kids deserve the right to go to college. all of us deserve health care. yes, we are going to combat if we prevent them from dividing us up and we stand together to say, you know what, all of our kids deserve the right to go to college regardless of our income and all of us deserve health care. we are not going to have a campaign-finance system that allows billionaires to buy elections, etc. when we stand together, the future of this country's export very. if we allow them to divide us, i

worry very much about our future. thank you very much for what you are doing and i'm glad to be with you today. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen am a senator bernie sanders. [applause] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] >> reporting in new hampshire the valley news of west lebanon senator sanders writes out his platform to an up the crowd of voters who filled into a restaurant in claremont and spilled into the street as they called for a reform to address economic inequality. >> the republican presidential candidates are in manchester new hampshire. on c-span's road to the white house, live coverage of the forum on c-span, c-span radio and c-span.org. the new hampshire union leader along with media organizations are sponsoring this forum are

following the live forum, you can provide your input by any your comments on facebook and twitter. road to the white house 2016 on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> you can join our live coverage of tonight's form with voting candidates at 6:30 eastern time and throughout the day, you can weigh in on what you want to hear in the forum. eric said he would like to hear everyone of the candidates say they are dropping out. and calling for more qualified republicans to replace them. sheila writes honest real, down to earth solutions to secure the border and bring jobs back and get rid of regulations hindering our growth as a country. that is ahead of tonight's form we will continue to read your comments. president obama unveiling new epa regulations dealing with carbon emission about 40 minutes

away from now, we'll take you live to the east from of the white house for his remarks. here is a look at one of the topics we covered today on "washington journal." what lyndon johnson is had to say. >> more than 18 million americans over the age of 65, most of them have low income. most of them are threatened by medical expenses. through this new law, every citizen will be able to have insurance against the ravages of old age.

this entrance will help pay for caring and hospitals and nursing homes. under a separate plan, it will help meet the fees of the doctors. here is how the plan will affect you. during your working years, you will contribute to the social security program a small amount each payday to hospital insurance protection. the average worker in 1966 will contribute $1.50 per month. the employer will contribute a similar amount. this will provide funds to pay 90 days of hospital care diagnostic care. and 100 health visits after you are 65. beginning in 1967, you will be covered for up to 100 days of

care in a nursing home. under a separate plan, when you are 65, you may be covered for medical and surgical fees whether you are in or out of the hospital. you will pay three dollars a month after you are 65 and the government will contribute an equal amount. it will be as varied and broad as marvelous modern medicine itself. host: lyndon johnson on july 30, 1965 signing into law medicare. here to discuss is to former administrators of the program. his medicare working -- is medicare working like explained their? guest: in general, yes. medicare was designed to meet an important need for the older population of america. to make sure they have access to

insurance coverage for hospitals and physicians. something that was a challenge to most seniors, even those who were not low income had a great travel getting insurance. it has changed enough. coverage has broadened. 55 million people on medicare now, almost 10 million of whom are disabled and under 65. broadened that way. preventative services are now covered. health patient prescription drug coverage was expanded in 2003 through legislation. the financing has changed significantly. the need that medicare was designed to respond to, making sure that seniors would have access to care, has indeed been met. host: your thoughts? guest: i agree, and i would

assess a couple other items. one is that health care delivery has changed radically since he gave that speech. in those days, most people got their care and hospitals by physicians. over the years, there has been a great need for a bunch of new sources of care, new kinds of providers, skilled nursing facilities hospices, all of that has been added to medicare. it creates a challenge to reorient the program. i think the program has met those challenges over the last 30 years with new payment models, new delivery. the current focus is to address quality. quality has not been as good as it should be in u.s. health care generally and in medicare specifically. the program was taking some steps to try to address that. host: we want our viewers to weigh in on the situation. this is how we have divided the lines very if you are a medicare beneficiary, 202-748-8000

doctors dial in at 202-748-8001 all others 202-748-8002. that me ask both of you this. how would you fix it? guest: you asked the first question of did it meet the directive that the president johnson laid out? yes. in terms of providing ready access. as health care is evolving significantly, not just the focus on quality but on value as well, the delivery system has changed a lot. medicare has been slow in that area. it is somewhat joining the movement in terms of trying to promote value and better quality. physicians are expressing frustration, although less than they had been, because the "

dactics" was passed in april. it was not perfect, but it's all day frustrating problem for many physicians which was not knowing what happened to their fees every january with threats of reductions as high as 31%, although they never happened. even more dysfunctional in the sense that it did not reward those clinicians who were providing higher-quality, better value care. they can movement in general to give patients more knowledge and let them be more active participants in their own health care. medicare solves the racial problem it was designed to solve. there is so much more that we need to do to make sure that the program improves. most important is a run for our children and grandchildren and those beyond them. that will be another discussion. host: what changes would you

make? guest: caller: we need to establish that something is happening that is producing better results. we are not sure what that is. in the last five years, per capita medicare spending has been flat are going up at the rate of the gdp. it is unprecedented. in the history of medicare, it has been said that the actuaries are wrong. we spend more than is pretty. now we are spending less than is predicted. we will probably end up talking this morning about whether this is sustainable or not. something good has been going on. there have been recent studies demonstrating a decreased mortality of medicare beneficiaries, decreased hospitalization rates. there have actually been progress is. my point would be there are reforms. we are not at the point where we

need to take a dramatic departure for restructuring. we can continue to of all. the final point i would make here is that we now how options for medicare beneficiaries which include getting medicare from private insurance companies. 30% of medicare beneficiaries currently take that option. we have more choice in this program than we used to. that is a very positive impact and it gives everybody on their toes because we are moving to a competitive health system. host: let's take one of your points. decrease in mortality rates -- efficiency of the success of the medicare program. is that because the government negotiates that rate? is a because of the way medicare is set up? guest: in some specific places you can point to medicare as the leader of change and certain payment methods. how we pay hospitals -- something called diagnosis related groups. instead of paying for each individual item, they pay the

case rate for the whole hospitalization. in some other areas hospice and others, medicare has been. the general point is the delivery system is changing. medicare in some cases has led and in some cases has followed. we are increasingly understanding that medicare and other actors in the health care system have to be host: do you have some thoughts. guest: you asked specifically is it happening because the government negotiates or administers prices. the answer is no. i can say that with some certainty because it was happening in the private sector even earlier and happens in the private sector as well where the government is not doing the negotiation. i agree with a number of things that bob just said, which is there is some areas where medicare traditionally has led and other areas where the

private sector has led and both have roles in which they can take the lead. but we need to understand that what has been going on in medicare has been going on in the private sector and started even earlier. it started around 2006 or 2007, the slowdown. i think that bob anticipated one point i want to make, which is we don't know why we've seen this dramatic slowdown. there's no question some of it has to do with the very heavy recession that we are just starting to come out of. 2015 is the first year anybody might say we are seeing something that feels like a real recovery. >> people saw the doctor less because they didn't have as much money? guest: it is part of that. it is part they had less money that they were uncertain. they had a big hit in their wealth. the insurance for seniors of

course is more stable because of medicare. but their wealth was hit because the places that took the biggest hits were husbandousing values and 401-k's and that is is under 65 and over 65 and something us economists call permanent income, not just the annual income that you receive. that has an impact on how you spend. there's a lot of change that is being tried right now again actively in the private sector in the under 65 and public and accountable care organizations have been going on the private sector sense 2007 and 2008. just started in medicare officially in 2011. the question of whether the changes that we are seeing will be sustained and what happens when we're in a real robust economy and economic growth which thank goodness we appear

to be going into is something we don't know. we are seeing already some indication this year of a bump up in spending in healthcare. host: we have calls waiting for always. anne in dallas, texas, medicare beneficiary. go ahead anne. caller: good morning. i'm 74 and it has been a wonderful program for me. i have multiple sclerosis and i'm low income. and i have the q.m.b. which the federal government and state of texas pay my part b and then the wraparound and it has been a wonderful program. it upset me when i heard jeb bush said he wanted to do away with it. for people like me i have had to go to the hospital twice in the last say, nine years since i had the program and i have a great doctor and living on $900

a month, even my part d might pay like $2 per prescription for my prescriptions and i don't know what i would do without it. it has blessed me. host: let me jump it. dr. berenson, what do you make of what you heard from anne? she said it is successful and likes her doctors, paying $2 for prescription drugs. guest: that is a good story. i think it does bring up the issue of whether or not the program is broken and needs to be fundamentally restructured or working pretty well and needs to be tweaked at the margins. i believe candidate bush has been one of the republicans saying it is broken and needs to be overhauled and i'm with the caller who thinks that it is working pretty well. host: i will give eric the second call to you. a doctor in tillson, new york. you are on the air.

caller: good morning. i'm a primary care doctor in upstate new york. i know pedestrian care has done -- medicare has done many good things. however, what is going on now under the auspices of quality is really a disaster. it is called meaningful use. anyone who does it knows it is neither meaningful or useful t. is computers and checking boxes and driving us crazy. it is killing us. can you please comment on this. anyone involved with the program is not paying attention it the fact that it is a disaster. host: ok, eric. guest: the meaningful use provisions had to do with legislation passed in 2009 meant to encourage physicians to adopt the use of electronic medical records, which is a very important part of trying to make sure that information is readily

available on people when they change where they receive care, if they are in emergencies elsewhere, to avoid having repetition of tests or information lost in terms of transmission. now, has in worked as well as it should have? sounds like for this physician not. i don't know what kind of system he bought. there was a lot of opportunities to choose the kind of system that would work well for individual physicians. my main concern about the promotion of the use of electronic medical records is different from this physician's and that is we don't do anything to really assure inter interoperability between the kind of electronic medical systems he might use versus what is in use at the community hospital where he lives or if the patient goes to manhattan or is spending the winter in

florida to make sure that the physician physicians that his patients might see might be able to pull up the records electronically. i'm concerned about the specifics. but we need to move off the paper charts that were being used. it has a lot of down sides including not being able to transmit information. he hope he is sharing with his medical society what exactly it is about meaningful use that is making his life more difficult as primary care physician. that's not what we want to see. guest: i'm with the doctor. i have written about the offense -- we have this term called value based purchasing, the idea we can pick a few quantitative measures and reward or penalize doctors that the doctor is going to move based on incentives doctors moved into better behavior. it is misconceived and is back

firing because doctors are reacting the way this physician did. it is not just meaningful use. there is something called the value based payment modifier and physician quality reporting system. these are quality measures that purport to be able to assess the quality or value actually of a physician. the behavioral economists tell us that it is probably a mistake to go in this direction. for professionals who have complicated jobs who ro doing lots -- who are doing lots of different things that are all valuable to pick a handful of measures and reward and penalize may get better performance on those particular measures but their overall intrinsic motivation is compromised. there is no evidence this approach works for teachers or other segments of the economy, about you in healthcare both parties -- there is bicameral

bipartisan endorsement. it just passed the congress in the recent legislation that we are going to move in a big way toward value based payments to doctors based on a handful of quality measures is wrong and should be reconsidered. host: sally from olympicaolympia, washington on medicare. caller: i was a recent medicare patient and i'm of that age and i had excellent care. i recovered from something that my doctor was even surprised about. but one thing i would like to pass along to people is the alternative practitioners. we have to pay attention to them them too. it is up to us to heal our bodies through proper food, proper exercise knowing that we are in charge of our own

healing. it is not up to anybody else. i don't want to spend those extra dollars. i would rather spend my money on something else. host: we will take alternative medicine. gail, is that allowed under medicare? guest: some of it it. it depends on the system you choose. bob mentioned earlier almost a third of people on medicare choose to receive it through private plans rather than traditional medicare. many of those include alternative providers as part of the plan. but of course you can -- and i do -- interpret the commenter's comments in a broader sense which is that we need to be responsible for our own health. we know we need to exercise and eat properly and drink alcohol in moderation if at all. and that we are also responsible for our bodies. this is not something we just

can farm out to the physicians and hospitals or nurses and think that will resolve all of our medical issues. host: next call for dr. berenson from newark, california. on medicare as well. caller: my question actually has two parts because first of all traditional medicare in my opinion would give me much more choice because i can decide which providers i go to. but the problem is the 20% co-pay co-pay. all it takes is one major illness or accident and that 20% co-pay can create a real financial burden on a retiree like myself. and then the second part of that

is is, given that we pay so much out f pobgtof pocket for our services, how is it that other countries seem to pay so much less and have such better out koplscomes? guest: let me take the first one first. one of the problems medicare has is it doesn't cover catastrophic costs. it never has. people have essentially unlimited financial liability. for anybody who can, they purchase or receive supplemental insurance to fill those gaps and they often cover the co-payments. almost 90% of medicare beneficiaries have some form of supplemental coverage for that 20% co-pay. the caller apparently doesn't. that is one problem is that low

income individuals but before the medicaid level often can't afford supplemental coverage and are exposed to those kinds of expenses. it is one of the advantages, or one of the appeals let's say of medicare advantage plans is they do provide catastrophic coverage and put an annual limit on what somebody can pay. so, some of us have suggested that the basic benefits structure needs to be overhauled. on the question of why don't we do as well as other countries that is a complicated one and i wish i had a simple answer. we have -- i won't even jump into that right now. host: you were taking notes, gail. guest: the point bob mentioned and the woman mentioned are really the issues that most seniors need to understand. first, almost everyone has something besides medicare. 90%, retire yes coverage,