dred scott was. he pens what was called the secret opinion, he writes his second dred scott decision, hoping that another case will, that he can clarify his position and that he can make good. the case might not have given us the civil war, but it required a constitutional revolution. it set in place this bar against free black citizenship that had to be resolved. it was the civil war that gave us the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments, but whatever the course of history might have been, it was necessary for the nation to go forward. host: that is it. thank you for being here. thank you for your questions.

we will be back next week for the third in our landmark cases. ♪

>> our landmark cases series continues next monday. we will look back at the slaughterhouse case involving state-run monopolies. 1873, butruled 5-4 in the privileges or immunities clause of the 14th amendment does not protect the right to labor. therefore, the state of not violate the 14th amendment when it granted a monopoly to a state-run slaughterhouse. that is live at 9:00 p.m. eastern. you can learn more about the constitutional dramas behind the supreme court significant decisions at c-span.org/landmark cases. you can find the landmark cases book, featuring highlights in the legal impact of each case, rrow.en by tony moor

it is available for a dollars $.95 plus shipping. that is available at c-span.org/landmark cases. sanders talkse about social security, wages, and health care. heats hope at a conference hosted by the group "no labels." ♪ >> good afternoon, everyone. fellow my cuban-american. how many of you are from vermont?

let me take you something, growing up in cuba, there was only one state in the union that i knew. that is because my mom learned to make great pancakes. i had a little bottle that said vermont maple's are. >> once did i knew in the one state i love, so i'm glad to introduce the senator from the great state of vermont. the national vice chair of no labels joined by great colleagues, you heard from senator lieberman and governor huntsman and mike mccarty and charlie black before we are proud to put this together. men and women from political parties and independents are committed to get things done. we are proud of 140 college chapters in the country. thank you, problem solvers. [applause] >> and the hundreds of thousands

of activists around the country. here is a message that i really want to send to candidates pledging to blow things up. we have already done that and it does not work. america wants to move on. here is what we expect, i hope, of our presidential candidates. campaign on your vision for one, america. tell us how you will get the job two, done. disagree without being disagreeable. think big, the bold, and agree to embrace the goals of creating 25 million new jobs in 10 years and fixing social security, medicare, balance the budget in the next 15 years, and make america energy strong and independent. today in politics, like in sports, there are no referees and no penalties, no rules against bad behavior. fortunately, you in this room and the millions of americans out there, are the enforcers with your vote. in sports, we shake hands and

embrace our adversaries. today, that is seen as a weakness. it is criticized. i say, what's with that? that is not the american spirit. [applause] well, i'm here to introduce you a presidential candidate with with whom i politically disagree. you know i am the former chairman of the american conservative union, group with william buckley principles and i , am introducing to you bernie sanders. see, it is not hard to get along , and i'm actually proud to be introducing senator sanders. there is something i want to tell you. he has certainly generated a lot of enthusiasm. have you seen his political rallies? it is like going to a mixed mick jagger concert.

they are about the same age. [laughter] but instead of feeling the vice of brown sugar, it is about feeling the burn. really, that is what happens. [applause] he has learned to work with his colleagues, and in spite of our divergent views, last year senator sanders and senator mccain hammered out a difficult compromise to reform the v.a. health system. so ladies and gentlemen, let's give it up for the land of maple syrup, let's feel the burn, senator bernie sanders. [applause] sen. sanders: thank you very much for that generous introduction. i will make sure to get you all

the maple syrup you need. let me begin by thanking the no labels conference for inviting me. and for the important work they are doing. i think the essence of what they are trying to do, what you all are trying to do, is to get beyond the ugliness of contemporary politics, the very bitter, personal attacks we see every single day, and let's sit down and analyze what the most important problems are that we face as a country and figure out together how we go forward. as al indicated, there will be big disagreements. let's treat each other civilly and respectfully and let's not try to demonize people who may have disagreements with us. [applause] sanders: in my mind, there

is no question but that our country faces some very serious challenges. the challenges we face today, if you include climate change, may be greater than in any time since the great depression. as the no labels conference points out, we need answers not just campaign rhetoric. let me start by saying the bad news, and it is very bad news, an issue we have got to deal with. as a result of the citizens united supreme court decision, we now have a campaign system which, and i use the word -- is corrupt. it is undermining american democracy. i have got to lay that out on the table. i do not think that there is anything democratic about the

fact that millionaires and billionaires can now spend as much money as they want. we are looking at one family spending $900 million in this campaign cycle in order to elect candidates who represent their interests and not the best interests of the american people. let me start this discussion at the top by saying, if we really want to create a vigorous and vibrant democracy were all people, conservatives, progressives, moderate can get , actively involved and run for office, in my view, we have got to overturn citizens united and, in my view, move to public funding of elections. when we talk about the economy, and i thank the no labels conference for focusing on this issue, let us be clear. real unemployment is not what you read in the newspapers once a month. that is the official unemployment rates, which is now

around 5%. real unemployment, including the people who have given up looking for work and those people who are working part-time, is about 10%. and let me touch on something few people are talking about. i hope the no labels people will talk about it. that is youth unemployment. a study recently came out looking at youth unemployment for high school graduates between 17 and 20 years of age. what they found is for white young people, real unemployment was 31%. for hispanic kids, it was 36%. for african-american kids, it was 51%. this is a crisis situation. and if we are more interested in making sure our kids are in school and have jobs, we should be investing in our young people

and not simply in jails and in incarceration. real unemployment, and i'm glad you raised that issue because it has to be talked about, it is much higher than i think people assume it is, and it is of crisis proportions for young people. again the united states of , america, and i hope you all agree with me, should not be having more people in jail, 2.2 million people, more than any other country on earth. we should be investing in jobs and education, not just jails and incarceration. when we talk about how we create 25 million jobs over the next 10 years, there are, in my view, several things we have got to do. first, we have got to understand, and i think there is widespread bipartisan agreement on this, we have got to understand that our infrastructure, roads, bridges, water systems, wastewater

plants, airports and rail system, levies and dams, in many parts of this country we have sufficiently in our infrastructure and according , to the american society of civil engineers, we need trillions of dollars of investment, because in many ways, our infrastructure is crumbling, falling further and further behind many other countries. that is why i have proposed a $1 trillion investment over a five-year period in rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure. that unto itself, would creates up to 13 million decent paying jobs, and, at the same time, because we are improving our infrastructure, make our country more efficient, more productive, and, in fact, safer. so i believe we should have a massive federal jobs program rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure.

we could create, just by doing that, some 13 million decent paying jobs. when we talk about job creation, it is also important to be talking about not just how we create new jobs, but how we prevent the loss of millions of jobs. here is the simple truth. as a result of our disastrous trade policies, like nafta and permanent normal trade relations with china, we have lost millions of decent paying jobs. what corporations have done is simply shut down in america, moved to low-wage countries abroad, hired people there, and then brought their products back in to this country. since 2001 in america, we have

lost about 60,000 factories not . not all of that can be attributed to trade, but a lot of it can be. if we are serious about creating jobs, we need trade policies which create jobs in america and not just china or vietnam. that is why i not only have voted against nafta, permanent normal trade relations with china, i strongly am opposing the transpacific partnership. furthermore, if we are going to talk about how we create the millions of jobs we all agree we need to create, we need a financial system which makes affordable loans to small and medium-sized businesses. i think we all understand the economic engine of america is not large corporations who by , and large have been downsizing

and moving to other countries, but small and medium-sized businesses. i have a very deep concerns about the current financial system, in which you have a handful of banks on wall street, you have six large financial institutions which have assets equivalent to about 60% of the gdp of the united states of america. and these financial institutions on wall street are not terribly concerned, in my view, about creating jobs on main street or in small towns all over america. i think their greed and recklessness, irresponsibility, is known to all. they caused the financial collapse of 2008. so i think what we have to do is put greater emphasis and support for community banks, credit unions, financial institutions, who are part of the communities they serve, who know the people in the communities.

who know the people who want to buy homes, who know the people running small and medium-sized businesses. and let me be very honest with you i think when you have today , three out of the four largest financial institutions, much larger than when we bailed them out because they were too big to fail, i think it is time to reinstate glass-steagall legislation and break them up. if teddy roosevelt were alive, he was a good republican. if teddy roosevelt were alive today, i think what he would say, he would be saying, is when you have a small number of huge financial institutions who have so much economic and political power, they are doing a real disservice to our economy and i think he would say we should break them up and i agree with , him.

when we talk about jobs, we have also got to appreciate that, while it is absolutely imperative that we create millions of decent paying jobs, it is also equally important that those jobs pay people a living wage. all over this country right now, in vermont, in new hampshire you , have folks who are working two or three jobs. they are working 50 or 60 hours a week trying to provide for , their families, trying to cobble together some health care. in my view, when we have today a federal minimum wage of $7.25 dollars an hour, we have got to recognize that that minimum wage is totally grea inadequate. we have got to raise that minimum wage to a living wage, and i believe over the next

several years, in cities like los angeles and seattle, like they have a gun to do, we have got to raise that to $15 an hour , because i think if someone works 40 hours a week, that person should not be living in poverty. [applause] now you have also raised a very , important issue of social security and medicare. let me briefly touch on them. first, despite some of the rhetoric you may have heard from many politicians, social security is not going broke. i know that every day on television, someone says social security is going broke. we have got to cut it and raise the retirement age. that is simply not accurate. the truth of the matter is according to the social security , administration, social security has $2.8 trillion in its trust fund and could pay out

every benefit owed to every eligible american for the next 19 years. that tells us we do not have a major crisis, but frankly 19 years is still a short time and we have got to figure out how we can extend the life of social security a lot longer to make sure our kids and grandchildren know that social security will be there for them. in my view, the fairest way to extend the life of social security for the next 50 years is to make sure that the wealthiest people in this country, many of whom are doing phenomenally well, start paying the same percentage of their income into the social security system as the middle-class and working families of our country currently pay. right now, as you know, someone

making hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars a year pays the same amount of money into the social security trust fund as somebody who makes $118,500 a year. in my view, that is wrong. what i would do, and we have introduced legislation to do that, what i would do is apply the payroll tax on small income starting at $250,000 per year, and i would use this revenue not just to extend the life of social security, and my proposal would extend the life of social security until 2061, but i would also expand social security benefits. here is the truth. in my state of vermont, i have talked to too many seniors in vermont and seniors all over the country. there are seniors and people with disabilities trying to get

by on horrifically low incomes. you talk to people who are trying to make it on $11,000 per year. the truth is, you cannot survive on that level of income. that means not buying the prescription drugs you need not , heating your home in the winter, not buying the food you adequately need. in fact, we should be cognizant of the fact the average social security benefit today's just $1320 per month. -- just $1328 per month. my view is we should extend social security, expand and we do that by lifting the cap on on taxable income. you have asked a good question about medicare so let's talk , about medicare. when we talk about medicare we , have to broaden the discussion a little bit to talk about health care. here are the simple facts.

the united states today spends far more per person on health care than do the people of any other country. that is just the facts. despite the gains of the affordable care act, 15 million more americans now have health insurance we still have 29 , million people in this country who have zero health insurance. and many people are underinsured with high deductibles and high copayments. sometimes, they do not get to the doctor. they can't afford to pay their deductibles. in my view, and i know not everybody agrees with me, but in my view the united states of america has got to join every other major industrialized country on earth and guarantee health care to all people as a right not a privilege. ,now those of us who live in new

new hampshire and vermont, we border on canada. and canada has managed to provide health care to every man, woman, and child in the country in a much more cost-effective way than we do. germany has a different system . denmark has a different system. the u.k. in france, they all have different systems. but the commonality of their systems is everybody has health care as a right. and all of those systems provide health care to their people in a more cost-effective way. and by the way, the health care outcomes for many of those systems is better than ours in terms of longevity, life expectancy, child infant mortality rates. last point, you asked how we balance the budget by the year 2030. that is clearly an important issue. the good news is that since

president obama was elected, we have made significant progress. when president bush left office, we were running up a record-breaking $1.4 trillion federal deficit. today, the federal deficit is $426 billion. that is making some progress, but obviously, it is still a large deficit and we have a national debt of over $18 trillion, and that is a serious problem. let me put the issue of debt and deficit into a broader context and touch on some issues that i think are not widely discussed. when we talk about the deficit and the debt, i hope everybody remembers that when we went to war in afghanistan and iraq, unfortunately, those wars were

not paid for. they were put on the credit card. those wars will end up costing us somewhere between $4 trillion .nd $6 trillion i have a hard time understanding how some member of congress can come forward and say we have got to cut medicaid and medicare and education and nutrition programs for hungry kids, because we have a deficit. but when it comes to war, not a problem. we will just put it on the credit card. i think that is very wrong. [applause] second, when we talk about deficit, it has to be put in the broader context of what has been going on economically in america in the last 30 or 40 years. that reality is, as most people know, is that there has been a huge transfer of wealth going

from the middle-class to the top .1% of the top 1%. the top .1% has seen its share of our nation's wealth more than double while the middle-class lost chileans of dollars. we talk about deficit reduction and government in general that , fundamental reality has got to be understood. the middle-class is shrinking and the very rich are becoming much richer. corporations, many of them are enjoying record-breaking profits. today, the top .1% of 1% owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. is that the kind of economy we think america and the middle class deserves today?

despite people working incredibly long hours, 58% of all new income is going to the top 1%. so in my view, when we talk about investments that have to be made in our country in terms of education and infrastructure, that reality has always got to be paramount. middle-class shrinking and the wealthiest people doing phenomenally well. so in order to make progress reducing our deficit and national debt, we need to make certain our government is running as efficiently as possible and all of you know , that is not the case. a lot of inefficiency and a lot of waste. all that i would add to that general thought is that we also have to take a look at the department of defense. a lot of people say let's just

their money at the department of defense or that is wrong to her we talk about running an efficient government, it has got to include the department of defense. it also means in my view that we need to move aggressively toward real tax reform so those individuals and corporations who have the best ability to pay in fact do so. that may just give you a few ideas on that subject. just to give you a few ideas on that subject. at a time when we are losing $100 billion a year in revenue because corporations are stashing their profits in the cayman islands and other offshore tax havens, we have got to eliminate this legalized tax fraud. it is just wrong. it doesn't make any sense that you are a profitable corporations, making billions of dollars a year in profits, in some cases not paying a nickel in federal income tax. at a time when the 15 wealthiest people in this country increase

their wealth by $173 billion in the last two years, i would significantly increase the estate tax on inherited wealth of more than $3.5 million. furthermore, as warren buffett often reminds us, we have a tax which enables some of the wealthiest people in this country to have an effective, rate, which is lower on truck drivers than it is on nurses, which makes no sense. bottom line, the wealthiest people becoming much wealthier. large corporations in many cases enjoying huge profits. middle-class in many ways disappearing. if we are going to deal with the deficit and the debt, we have got to have a tax system which asks those people on top who

were doing extraordinarily well to start paying their fair share of taxes. very last point. we'll raise the question about making the united states energy secure by 2024. i agree with you -- i want to see that happen as well. but with all due respect, and i say this respectfully, when we talk about energy, there is an even more important issue than just energy independence. i sit on both the senate environmental committee and the senate energy committee, and what i can tell you without the slightest hesitation is that the scientific community is virtually unanimous. climate change is real. climate change is caused by human activity. climate change is already causing devastating problems in our country and around the world

. and what the scientists tell us is that if we do not get our act together now, and transform our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energy, the problem that we are going to be leaving our children, our children, is a planet that will be in a lot worse shape than the planet we enjoy today, and that is morally unacceptable. it is unacceptable to say we don't care about the planet, we are going to go one same old same old, more and more fossil fuel. i want to see us move toward energy independence. the way you do that is aggressively move forward toward energy efficiency, toward a transportation system which is not just dependent on automobiles, and invest wind, solar,in geothermal, and other sustainable energies. let me conclude by thanking the

no labels conference for the good work they do, for trying to get serious discussion on serious issues, or trying to minimize the politics that we see, the personal attacks that we see. whatnk you very much for you are doing and i look forward to working with you in the future. thank you all very much. >> on our next washington journal, we are alive for montgomery county maryland for a look inside the correctional system. here's a preview of the program. >> one thought is a job seeking assistance program for the inmates that are housed here. we are one of the first in the country to be behind the deal but we are not the only ones. what we found is the need of offenders who are looking for work -- it differs than the mainstream population. that is why we are here. we can start preparing them, and

the more likely they are to get employment. we get them eight months before their release. what we do is we go to a unit and we quote them -- this is a voluntary program. you can sign up to come to our program. what we do is we go to the unit and we tell the inmates, soon-to-be customers, what is available here, what things they can do. it is eight months or less on their sentence. they cannot be in pretrial. they cannot have a detainer. those are the individuals eligible. the program itself consists of a 16 week curriculum. there are six weeks of job training, six weeks of job four weeks of personal development. our job is to get them job ready. >> many inmates have work experience but they don't have legal work experience.

they have to talk about their charges. when you and i go in, they don't have to explain -- we don't have to explain that we have a criminal record so we have to make sure they are comfortable talking about it. additionally, sometimes their educational level is not as high as your traditional job seeker. a lot of it is confidence. we really prepare them on how to go prepare themselves, to ensure an employer i can do the job. >> when they see us, they work with us for a number of months. but it is good for them to actually has individuals come from the community and work with them, so they can get a feel for different personality, individuals who are willing to help them. it is important for the community to come in and see what we are dealing with, because sometimes this can be a scary environment, so you automatically will be afraid to deal with sex offenders, but they can come in and see that this is a person that is here.

they made a mistake, that now they are working towards an opportunity to be a better citizen. that is the benefit of individuals coming from the outside. >> on our next "washington journal," talking about the criminal justice system with robert green, who heads the county's correction and rehabilitation department. been a look at some of the challenges inmates have for life after jail. later, the health department discussing the role that mental health and substance abuse issues play in prisons. "washington journal" is live c-span, and you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. more live road to the white house coverage tomorrow. health careivers a

speech on repealing the affordable care act. from the new hampshire institute of politics in manchester at 10:00 eastern. later, john kasich takes audience questions at a townhall meeting in both nebeau, the hampshire. live coverage begins at 12:30 eastern. >> c-span has your coverage of the road to the white house 2016, where you will find the candidates, speeches, debates, and most importantly your questions. this year, we are taking our road to the white house coverage into classrooms across the country with our student cam contest, giving students the opportunity to discuss what important issues they want to hear the most from the candidates. follow c-span's student can contest on tv, on the radio, and online at c-span.org. governor george

the tacky talks about job training in the earned income tax credit. alsonew york republican spoke at a talk. thank you. good to see you. welcome, welcome. it's all yours, my friend. >> good to see you. i hope it is not habit-forming, having a song follow me into the room, but i could get used to that. [laughter] >> my name is john broderick, and for all of my adult life, i was either a trial lawyer or judge. problems, because in the united states constitution, there is a problem-solving mechanism called the american jury system. we take people, randomly

selected, and we give them enormous responsibility. and they have to reach a verdict. we asked jurors in america to reach a unanimous verdict, and sometimes it is whether people live or die. i think if we took the congress of the united states and put them in nature a box, we would never get an answer. [laughter] >> so i think the american people can expect their congress to do with the american jury system has done. the problems are large, but they are not that large. the person i have the privilege to introduce today was governor of new york on 9/11. i think it is fair to say that on that day, he was america's

governor. in the painful weeks and months that followed, he earned the respect of the american people. times,elected three three times, has governor of new york. the last time, he did that when he received one million democratic votes. almost unheard of in politics today. there have been four former governors of new york who were elected president of the united states. this gentleman would like to make it five. when he became governor of new was rated as one of the most unsafe states in the nation. when he left, it was the fourth

safest state in the nation. [applause] >> he moved people, one million people, in new york state from welfare to work. in doing that, gave them their dignity back. when he left office in new york, they had the lowest unemployment rate in the state of new york since they had begun recording unemployment rates. he is an extraordinary fellow. ands a thoughtful leader, i always enjoy listening to what governor pataki has to say. so please join me in giving a very warm new hampshire welcome to governor george the tacky of new york. [applause] ♪

gov. pataki: thank you. thank you very much for that kind introduction, justice broderick. a democrat, enormously respected across the political divide, republicans and democrats, and that is what we need in washington today. someone like him is going to bring the american people together, and you are starting that this afternoon with this problem solver no labels conference. so thank you all for being here, we have to solve problems and we have to come together to do that. [applause] gov. pataki: when i think of

what we need to do in washington, confront our problems, there are three big things. we have to grow our economy better. we are creating the jobs and opportunity, particularly young people like the ones here today, need in the 21st century. [cheering] gov. pataki: we have to shrink the size of the federal government. it is too big, too powerful, too expensive, too intrusive, too bloated, and it has to be shrunk and brought down to size where it serves the people instead of dominating the people. aboute broderick talks how i was governor on september 11. we have got to be far more proactive in rebuilding our military, honoring those who have served and put on the uniform to defend our country, the best people this country has ever produced. [applause] and making sure that we are a safe and secure country. the other candidates are going to say similar things.

they are going to have a plan. i have a plan. the question is -- how do you solve the problem? how do you actually get it done, as opposed to just talking about it? as the justice said, when i was governor in new york, i looked assuring the size of the government, and when i left office we had 15% fewer workers than when i took office, and the government works better. he talked about how when i took office, when i left office, the unemployment rate was the lowest since i started keeping records. when i took office, we had the the 50 states in creating jobs and opportunities, but we change things completely. he talked about how we were the most dangerous state in america. fourth safest when i left. by the way, i did that as a republican in new york state, estate with 3 million more democrats, and i did it with the state assembly where for most of my term there were 103 democrats

and 47 republicans. how was i able to get that agenda through? i'm just going to tell you two stories. one was welfare. when i took office, one and woman -- every man, one in 11 of every man, woman, and child was on welfare. not medicaid, disability -- what had happened was we had created a system where good people have become trapped independency because that was the best thing for their family. so i sat down with the democrats and i said let's work together to end this tragedy. let's replace dependency with opportunity. yes, i want conservative policies like mandatory workfare for those who are able-bodied, yes, i want time limits on welfare, but let's do other things to empower people to take that first job up the ladder of economic opportunity. so we did things like expand the

daycare slot, job-training programs, expanded the earned income tax credit, working with democrats we had over one million fewer people on welfare that had been able to transition to the private sector, to the workforce, to become a part of the american dream instead of dependent on government, working in a bipartisan way. [applause] gov. pataki: thank you. i will tell you one of the stories about how we went from the most dangerous state in america to the fourth safest. i changed the criminal justice system from top to bottom. we passed over 100 different criminal justice laws, tough laws like ending parole for violent felons, mandatory stronger sentences, empowering the police in changing evidentiary rules. the one of the things we looked to do was change the drug rules. i wanted to have harsher penalties for the kingpins, the big drug dealers, or for someone who used a weapon while they

were involved in drugs. the democrats said, we don't want to do those things -- but by the way, there are too many young people trapped in the drug culture. be out there on the street corner and get caught and convicted of a felony, 15, 16, 17, 18-year-old kid -- we want to give them another chance. so i sat down -- let's meet and work it out because i agree with you. we had a battle. we agreed where low-level drug offenders who hadn't been involved with for would be given an alternative to going to jail, where they could spend time in a short incarceration camp and they could have their record wiped out. i could have given harsher penalties for the drug dealers and the guns. in the middle of the night while this, thebating

democratic leaders kept saying brooklyn -- we can to do that. so i call up him.

i say, 3:00 in the morning, we went -- and i remember the last one was i wanted harsher penalties. the democratic leadership was his

buys. let's just sit down and see if we can solve this problem in the next 15 minutes. thank you very much. so george, let me begin. we served together as governors back in the day. bethey tend to try and problem solvers and work across the aisle. when i got the word that george wanted me to be up there with

him and talk about climate change, i thought to myself, a republican candidate running for president interested in a conversation about climate change? this is a real man bites dog story we have here, so i have to do this. george, i think that is to your great credit by the way. let me ask the first question -- why is this issue matter so much to you? gov. pataki: first of all, it matters to everyone -- or it should. it is about the future of the globe. if we do not deal with the issue of global warming, we are going to have unforeseen consequences that no one here can predict, that could have horrible negative impact on future generations lives. as i said at the beginning, it is the one area where reducing the size of government -- i wouldn't do it the way obama is doing with massive regulations, higher taxes, the heavy hand of government, picking winners or losers and driving jobs out of

america. i would do it in an exactly opposite way. that is by empowering american innovation, empowering the american belief in treating and creating, so that our private sector, our university sector, governments work together to create the next generation of clean energy products that not only reduce greenhouse gas emissions but create tens, hundreds, thousands of jobs for america. and by the way, if we did need to be so dependent on things like oil, and not just the united states, but the world, russia, iran, other totalitarian states would see their power greatly diminish iand that helps the united states tremendously. unleash the creativity, the innovative ability of the american dreamer, thinker, entrepreneur, scientist. we can have that next generation of energy that doesn't just

slightly reduce greenhouse gases but allows us to do carbon eyes -- to decarbonize our economy while growing jobs. [applause] interestingly, when you first mentioned the importance of climate change, there was a round of applause, and the first wave came from behind us. i was with a pollster in washington, a group of students who are making a trip to washington, and they had a republican pollster talking about the data. her survey showed that this is the issue that matters the most young people in our country, because they get it will shape the future in a host of important ways. so thank you for leaving on this issue. [applause] gov. bayh: are there any areas, in your view, where the two parties can agree on? gov. pataki: sure. i think there is an enormous opportunity for common ground. both parties -- one will see

more solar, wind, next-generation technologies. where republicans differ from democrats, and where i differ, is i don't want to see us pick winners or losers. i don't want to see the federal government invest a half billion in companies that are politically connected. and i want to see our tax dollars to say we like this industry or not this industry. for where we can agree is the causative innovation. let me tell you -- for example, we are working with the company now that has built solar panels. the average solar efficiency is 16%-18% -- they have a 40% efficiency, more than three times as efficient. we will be able to deploy solar across this country in a way that reduces energy costs and creates jobs instead of drying iving up costs. i think reasonable democrats would agree that we want to collaborate.

it is not the federal government that is going to solve this problem, it is the private sector, it is our universities, it is our think tanks, all working together. not the heavy-handed government. things, for example, like expand the r&d tax credit. research and development -- we do that better than in the country in the world. make it permanent. expanded to empower innovation. everyone wants to see us build more energy producing assets in the united states. instead of picking winners and losers, allow the immediate expensing of capital investment. if you put a lot of money into a solar or wind or geothermal technology, write it off right away to encourage the private sector and investors to put money into green energy. i think there is tremendous room for common ground. isortunately, the dialogue such that people don't even talk, let alone try to solve problems, which is why events like this and approaches like

you all believing in, where we work across party lines to find a common future, are so important. gov. bayh: do you have an opinion on energy conservation and efficiency retrofitting homes, so they use less energy in the winter? those kinds of things? higher mileage vehicles so we use less oil on the highways? gov. pataki: heating oil when the price of oil is four dollars a gallon for gas -- there is no question that efficiency is one of the most important things we can do. what i was governor, we put in place a number of policies, incentivizing use of appliances, for example. incentivizing, retrofitting homes, insulation, thermal windows. there is no question that we can do that in a way where the homeowner or the business gets a return on their investment. they will save so much with lower energy costs that it will

pay back over a very short period of time. that is an important part of it. another area where i am sure democrats and republicans -- if we set aside our finger-pointing and try to gain partisan advantage over solving a problem, could come together and solve this problem. there is a good idea out in california -- gov. bayh: there is a good idea out in california that i became aware of. vermont and maine have done this by california has done more. that is they allow local counties to raise on proceeds to then fund homeowners retrofitting their houses. solar panels, insulation and energy efficiency. they use the savings off of that to repay it over a period of time. the federal government is standing in the way, the federal housing a ministration is concerned about whether it will have priority over mortgage and so forth, and they ought to get out of the way and let the states innovate. do you have an opinion on those

state oriented -- gov. pataki: absolutely. the federal government should be in the way, they should be paving the way for programs like this to exist. this itell you one -- couldn't get done. not so much in new hampshire, but on long island, geothermal that thes so efficient temperature under the frost line is always 54-56 degrees. if we want heat in the winter or cool in the summer, you use almost no energy. but a homeowner doesn't have the 12,000 to $15,000 up front to invest. we wanted to get the utilities to upfront it and then pay it out in savings. that is the type of innovative thing where the federal government can empower states, empower local governments, and ultimately empower homeowners to have that opportunity. gov. bayh: there is another interesting angle on this.

i was on the armed services committee, and i always thought this was not a contradiction in terms. i was on the senate intelligence committee. [laughter] gov. bayh: ten years. the reason i mention that -- our government has done pretty extensive studies on the national security ramifications of climate change. on get crop failures going in third world countries, which leads to famine and population shift, more radical views and terrorism. some of our agencies have dealingd that constructively with climate change -- there is a real national security element to that or the united states of america. do you have a take on that? gov. pataki: there is no question that the defense department, the army, the others have made this a priority, and rightfully so. and by the way, the army and other defense agencies have pure research arms where they fund research into things that are militarily applicable, that will help our security, and we should

be looking into more of that. theof the things i want federal government -- i want them to work with universities and the private sector to fund your research. -- pure research. i did that in a little town called albany, new york. we challenge the universities and the private sector to come together and create the next generation of computer chips that power every single computer in the world, and to do it in albany. we put up some initial state capital. long story short, today we have inracted over $20 billion university and private sector research capital investment. there are thousands of research scientists, the most advanced computer chip research, nano research, in the world being done in albany. and by the way, the goal of this isn't pure research -- the goal is jobs and opportunity for every american. today in the capital, we have

factories, factories making something in america -- in this case, making computer chips. over $25 billion invested by the private sector in factories in upstate new york, thousands of great paint jobs, because we invested in pure research with the private sector in the university sector, and we can do that in energy. gov. bayh: forgive me -- i want to make one other point -- i believe it is private sector is that hold the key. in the united states, there is one country that produces fewer greenhouse gases than they did in 1995. do note that country is question mark the united states of america -- do you know what that country is? the united states of america. it is not because of drafting of factories, it is because of fracking. fracking has allowed us to replace coal with natural gas,

driving down greenhouse gas emissions, private sector federalent, but the government initially came up with some of those seen research money to develop horizontal drilling and fracking. that is all we can do. in the process, not just reduce our emissions, but have these new technologies that we can explore around the world, helping other countries assault this problem and creating jobs in america. gov. bayh: one more question, and he was very eager to get your questions. let's just throw open the floor after that, and you can ask about climate change or other things. gov. pataki: anything. gov. bayh: this came up earlier in donald trump's comments. i know hillary clinton was involved in this. the united states of america, for a long time, was juss the biggest emitter of co2 gasses. but that is not the case today. the largest emitters china.

as the governor mentioned, our emissions have plateaued -- we are down compared to where it used to be. china has continued to go up substantially. india has continued to go up. when you talk to the chinese are the indians -- they say it is nice of you, you have already industrialized and have a high standard of living. that tends to be their objective, but since we have one atmosphere and one planet, we are not going to solve global warming if we cap our missions and other people increase. the planet will continue to get hotter, and we will have all these adverse consequences. there has to be some global responsibility, some burden sharing. how would you go about dealing with the chinese, the indians, and others who want to raise their admissions? gov. pataki: that is exactly right. today, the united states produces only 16% of the world's greenhouse gases.

if we cut our than half, there is going to be a much higher level of greenhouse gases emitted because of china and india and malaysia and other companies that are emerging. they are going to be to build -- there are going to be 2 billion more people in the world by 2050 that are going to be wanting to use energy. the solution is not our government raising energy costs on americans through regulation. it is not our government shutting down plants that it doesn't like. it is not our government picking a company or a technology where the people are politically connected. it is empowering innovation and technology. when we do something like fracking, when we create the next generation of solar panels that are much cheaper than any other source of energy, we are not just reducing our emissions, we are creating a technology we can export to china, we can export to india, allowing them

to lower their emissions while we are strengthening our economy. we don't want to impose costs that drive a factory out of america to mexico or china, where they have much weaker pollution control. we want to have lower energy costs, better technology, fewer emissions, and those factories building things right here in the united states for the next generation of american workers. and with the right policies, i have absolutely no doubt that we can do this. gov. bayh: my last comment would be -- ladies and gentlemen, it was theodore roosevelt, an environmentally aware republican, who established the national park system. it was richard nixon who did a whole lot of bad things, but he did establish the environmental protection agency. tradition of republicans who are environmentally aware and concerned. george, it looks like you are carrying on that tradition, so i commend you for that. i will surrender the stage to you.

these folks can vote for you but i can't. they are more important than the. thank you. george for tacky, former governor of new york. [applause] gov. pataki: thank you, senator. he talked about their publican party tradition of carrying about conservation and the environment, and i did that as governor. you mentioned teddy roosevelt -- , named my older son teddy because i think he was a role model in so many ways for what america should be like in the 21st century. so now we open it up -- questions, anything -- we still have over five minutes. yes, sir. just a comment -- i am a physicist and you are one of the first politicians i've heard that hit the nail on the head. there,hnologies are out they can greatly reduce carbon , where the

real problem is today, to deal with the problem is to give them something cheaper than coal, which is what they are burning now, and which is for the chinese the cost of producing electricity from coal is one of the cheapest ways of producing electricity anywhere in the world. capture,ke carbon supercritical carbon dioxide, can replace water as a fracking fluid. gov. pataki: let me thank you -- i want to get to some other questions, but thank you. this is exactly what we have to do -- you mention some of the technologies -- one is nuclear. there are next-generation nuclear's like florian reactors that produce zero emissions, zero risk of meltdown, zero military applicability. we need to restructure the regulatory climate, not the climate in washington, to make it more proactive in working with the think tanks to empower

this next generation of technology so that the united states can export that technology to help the entire globe deal with the issue of climate. thank you very much, doctor. yes, ma'am. >> hi governor. -- you the last panel have to understand compromise is not a bad word but id. think what you did or what any of the panel did was compromise, i think it was collaboration, and there is a difference. when you have a problem and a goal, and you are sitting down together, you are collaborating to come up with a solution, you are compromising. i would like your opinion on that. gov. pataki: i certainly had to compromise during my 12 years as governor. i didn't get everything i wanted. we did our best through collaboration, but ultimately, if you think you're going to get your way 100% of the time, we have a we have in washington now, which is an impasse. that doesn't work.

it is not right for the future of the country and it has got to stop. that may well require compromise -- let me say it right here, if i can get 80% of an agenda through, i would rather do that then get zero but be pure when i go on tv. it is about solving problems and bring americans together. [applause] gov. pataki: other questions? someone with a microphone. yes, sir. in the back. a student. need -- can someone get a microphone over here? i don't want to run out of time waiting for the mic, but i do want to hear from one of the students. yes. >> i would just like to start off by saying, ladies and gentlemen of the united states of america, that is how you talk to the other side -- that was beautiful. gov. pataki: thank you very much. [laughter]

gov. pataki: it was worth the wait for the microphone. [laughter] >> secondly, i would like to say -- you are, to put it politely, very far down in the polls right now. youree with a lot of things have to say. i'm a democrat, by the way, strange is that is nowadays. to agree with the republican. however, there is always -- gov. pataki: there is always a however. [laughter] how do you plan on getting yourself out there more? gov. pataki: events like this. right now, we have had a summer of political theater, a summer of political drama, but as we get closer to february and the first primary in new hampshire, voters will say ok, yes, we are angry, we are unhappy with washington, we don't trust politicians because they fail and nothing ever changes.

but let's sit down and see who can run the country. who has the solutions? two has the ability, not just to talk about a plan, but to get the plan through congress? i hope that when they do that it forll say, pataki did 12 years as a republican in new york state with 3 million more democrats. we sent him to washington and he can solve our problems. and let me just give you one example of why republicans are so angry and frustrated. obamacare, in my view, is the worst law of my lifetime. in the name of helping the uninsured, which was a worthy goal, it changed health care for everyone, driving up costs, driving up deductibles, and costing a lot of americans jobs because businesses will let you work more than 29 hours or grow their company because they want to stay out from under obamacare. the republicans control congress -- they haven't even been able to send a bill to obama to veto

because they can't get the 60 votes. me tell you what i would do. i would sit down with democrats in say i think this is a terrible law, you have to understand there are deep flaws, let's not just repeal it but let's sit together and come up with what we are going to replace it with. i am willing to work with you. we would get those 60 votes, we would repeal obamacare, it simultaneously replace it with something that reflected the input of both parties and the people of this country . you have to remember -- we are republicans and democrats, but at the end, we are all americans, and it is not about how partisan political advantage, it is about people and problem solving. that is what i am running on and that is what i hope will get people to take another look. thank you [applause] . [no audio] [applause]

>> thank you for taking of the regional greenhouse gas initiative so many years ago. it was something of an 80% solution -- let me give you an example. i put in an air source heat pump in my house, replaced the oil. my carbon footprint is half of what it used to be, assuming that the powers being produced from gas. system, strains the gas the greenhouse gas issues, because it pushes up on demand. somehowe fix it so that we get the power production credit for uses of electricity to reduce greenhouse gas, and in addition, what happens if we used the waste from power plants

-- today under the greenhouse gas initiative, there is no credit for heating cities with waste from power plants. a verytaki: that is technical question, but let me say that we did take an initiative working with other into didern states, have an impact. but i have to tell you, i am concerned about it. i no longer think cap and trade is the way to go. the day i left office -- the idea was we were going to impose a cost on carbon emissions by utilities, but we made it to the consumer, so they didn't have higher electric costs. you can trust government. after i left this government, the new administration took that money to use for their pet programs. when they talked about cap and trade in washington, it would have raised hundreds of billions of dollars in new federal

revenue, rewarded friends, had credits for cronies, and i think the way we have to do it now is to bypass the heavy-handed federal government and empower the creative hand of the american inventor and innovator, and i know that we can do that. another thing you talks about -- getting energy from one place to another -- that is one of the problems right now. we have an honest potential in wind on the great plains and solar resources in the southwest, but they are not near what energy is used. what we should have is when we have a domestic sources clean energy, a more expedited process, the private sector will build those transmission lines, if we let government get out of the way so we can get the permit and not take eight or nine years and hundreds of millions of dollars to get approval. and i thinklutions, that is the point here. i am winding down of my time, but whether it is energy, whether it is keeping us safe, and i have a lot of thoughts on

that, whether it is growing our economy through innovation or by lowering tax burden, particularly on manufacturing, so we can have factories in america again. my grandparents were immigrants. my grandfather worked in a factory, a great path to the middle class. our energy costs are coming down. the value of products made today is going up. we have the opportunity to make america a manufacturing powerhouse again, but instead of having the highest tax of the world we should have the lowest tax on manufacturing in the world. make things in america. solve problems, bring politicians across party lines together. there is no reason in the 21st century we shouldn't have the greatest century this country has ever seen. there is no reason you shouldn't be able to dream things i can't even think of and see them come true during your lifetime. thank you, thank you. that lets you.

[applause] gov. pataki: let's keep up the fight. ♪ >> all campaign long, c-span takes you on the road to the white house. unfiltered access to the candidates at townhall meetings, news conferences, rallies, and speeches. we are taking your comments on twitter, facebook, and by phone, and every campaign eventually cover is available on our website at c-span.org. >> we have more live road to the white house coverage tomorrow on c-span. jeb bush delivers a health care speech on repealing the affordable care act. that is live from the new hampshire institute of politics in manchester at 10:00 eastern. then john kasich takes audience questions at a town hall meeting in new hampshire. live coverage begins at 12:30 eastern.

>> now, remarks from presidential candidate, governor martin o'malley. democrat also served as baltimore's mayor. this is part of the no labels conference held in manchester, new hampshire. ♪ >> thank you. we have governor o'malley already to go -- he is a las vegas, and i have this spectacular talk that i wanted to provide for 90 seconds. i will cut it short. but i do think these goals are important, and i would single out that 25 million jobs in 10 years because i see a lot of these people in green t-shirts -- they will need those jobs. our country needs those jobs. , to helproblem solvers get those jobs.

governors, big states beginning with "m," we also headed our governors association's. we are both catholic. and he is running for president and i am not -- that is where we part ways. but since he is ready to go and he wants to take questions, get ready, because i will becoming to you for some questions for our first candidate for president appearing for this historic no label convention. ladies and gentlemen martin o'malley from the great state of maryland. [cheering[ ] gov. o'malley: thank you very much.

by correction -- you can see the backdrop behind me then i am not yet in las vegas, but it will be going out. i am talking to you from baltimore, maryland, land of the free and home of the brave. it is a great opportunity to be able to talk with all of you, at least in this way, and i am looking forward to the democratic party finally joining the game and having the debate about how we solve our nation's problems. it is a wonderful idea, isn't it? parties having debates? look, i want to thank senator lieberman. i want to thank governor huntsman. i also mother thank governor engler. i especially want to acknowledgment a jacobson, who i have known for many years and is the founder of the no labels movement. i thought it would share a few ideas with you before we go to question and answer. as i often say when i'm giving a talk on the chair in new hampshire, if you have answers, make sure you raise her hand first. what we are doing in the context

of this presidential campaign is not only selecting a person to lead us forward, but also we are in a search for answers. that deeper understanding that we must achieve as a people that precedes the better actions we need to take as a country, the better actions that will make our country stronger so we can give our children a future with more opportunity rather than less. let me do a couple things in the next few minutes before we open it up. i want to share with you first of all my take on what i believe the theory of our case is as a nation, then i want to share with you a bit of my experience, which is the experience of solving problems. then i want to talk to about something i am seeing in our country, which is not only a yearning for new leadership, but the emerging of a new way of uperning, which i see coming and emanating out of our cities and towns, and also coming up

from the attitudes and perspectives of the next generation. we?s begin hon shall we are a part of a mystery called the united states of america. the promise at the heart of that mystery is a very real and concrete promise. it is a covenant among us and between us, that says wherever you start, you start through your own hard work and talent. you should be able to get ahead. economy that works for all of us, call it the american dream, it is the actions that solve problems and address challenges in every generation, so that we can include more of our people more fully in the economic success of our country -- that is what it means to be an american. the heart truth of our times that we must acknowledge is this -- we have come a long way since

the wall street crash of 2008. our country still faces big challenge is an big problems. thanks to president obama's leadership, we are now creating jobs again as a country. and of course we are the only species on the planet without full employment, so there is no progress without jobs. butcountry is doing better, the hard truth of our times is that 70% of us earning the same or less today than we were 12 years ago. that is not how are our economy is supposed to work. that is not how our country is supposed to work. there is a growing injustice in our country today, and this growing injustice is leading to income inequality like we haven't seen for 100 years and declining opportunities for our kids. the problem of solve itself, we need to solve it. we are americans. our economy is not money, it is people. it is all of our people. so we have to invite one

another, democrats, independents, and republicans, to return to the table of democracy and solve these problems. not with words, but with actions. is not thece experience of the legislator, executive, a person who has forged a new consensus after new consensus in order to get things done. what sort of things? i am talking about tackling the worst violent crime problem of any city in america and achieving record reductions in violent crime, even as we achieve record reductions in incarceration rates. we are talking about making public schools number one. making college more affordable for more people by going four years in a row without a penny's increase in chilollege.

passing marriage equality and the dream act, passing the most comprehensive gun safety legislation of any state in america. none of those things were easy. they were all difficult. and we didn't get them done by running through our labeled coins. no. instead, we invited one another to come with ideas, to help us solve these problems. that is the new way of leadership that i believe the people of our country are demanding of all of their elected leaders. one of the happy things i came home with after traveling around the country for a year before i made the decision to run for president was the realization that most people in our nation feel better about how their cities are run today.than they did 10, 15 years ago.

why is that? it is not because cities are rolling in cash. we haven't had a federal program for cities in decades. the reason why people are feeling better about how their cities are governed is because of entrepreneurial men and women who take on that title of mayor and go to work every day to get things done. they are not afraid of the information age. they know everybody can see and know things at the same time they do, so they don't assess with trying to maintain a time advantage. i once heard a speech that said -- people are now smarter than their leaders and they know more. aswhat does this mean for us a state in the country? i believe that we need to embrace new technology, the internet, geographic information systems to make our state and federal governments performance

all of us asthat citizens controlling this enterprise can see whether we are doing any better this week than last week. most of our governments have been run under the tyranny of last year's budget. lots of department heads can tell you what sort of budget they want for next year but very few of them can tell you specifically, at least at the state and federal levels, whether we are doing this week in solving problems than we were last week. but in cities, they can. increasingly. the nature of leadership has changed as i see it. this is especially -- i want to talk to the young people in the room. in the time that you have come of age, there has been a big shift in leadership. i am going to hold something up and show it to you. that leadership was this triangle, this hierarchy, this pyramid of command and control, where the

leader needed to be at the top and have all the information and record it, and things got done on the basis of because i said so, or worse, on the basis of ideology. but the nature of leadership has changed in the information age, and the place for the leader to be now is in the center of that emerging truth. in a circle of collaboration and cooperation. and yes, dialogue and communication, around problem-solving. asking one another every day -- are the things we are doing working to achieve a better result or not? if they are, we should do more o f it. if it is not, we should stop doing it or do less of it. that is the way i have always governed, and i think part of what has allowed me to do that is that i am of a different generation in some of my older

baby boomer brothers and sisters or parents. i don't ask if an idea is from the left or right or whether it is democratic or republican -- i ask whether it works. if it works, we do it. that is something we have done. what does that mean for our country today? means we need it to take actions and have the guts to show people that the things we are doing are actually working. we are a great people and still have another 240 years of creative service had of us. i have laid out 15 strategic goals to rebuild the truth of the american dream is so every family can get ahead. so wages can go up again with productivity, and not down. a gatewayge degree is to a life of opportunity, a trapdoor to a lifetime of debt.

to thehere our shoulders great challenge of our time of climate change and actually create a 100% clean electric energy grid by 2050 and create 5 million jobs along the way. let's be honest with one another. it is about actions. each of the goals i have put ,orward, things like cutting the deficit from gun violence in half over the next 10 years, all of these have dates attached to them. why? dreamfference between a and a goal is a deadline. these problems will not solve themselves. we need to solve them. thank you foha