sen. klobuchar: i am the only senator that had my swearing-in party at the canadian embassy. i just wanted to send the message that i think is being sent to our whole country and this isd this week that our number one trading partner and as those proud banners were displayed on the canadian embassy for years, friend, partner, ally. we put that in the capital to send a message because that does not always happen in the rest of the world. even when we help other countries, they do not always want to admit we worked together. canada has always been that way, and i think this is a great celebration of a relationship that has been a long time coming. so thank you. moderator: thank all of you. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

clicks thanks so much, susan. i am thrilled to be here tonight to discuss energy and climate change. hore, energy s reporter for politico. just a quick reminder to join the conversation on twitter using #anewagenda. with me on a tablet stage and pull questions for our panelists. please join me in greeting mr. robin sylvester, president and ceo of ford metro vancouver. of energyresident policy for the center of american progress. a senior representative to the u.s. for the government of

alberta. and anthony swift, director of the national resources defense council canada project. thanks for being here. let's get started. one thing that struck me in today's initial announcement was the oil and gas industry's involvement. specifically on the question of methane, president obama has made a commitment to cut methane by as much as 45% over the next decade, and canada is expected to meet that pledge, but there are some hurdles involved. i hope we can turn first to greg to address them. what more do we need to see other than a base level of commitment? much commonis so ground between canada and the united states. there are potentially many areas to work together on. methane is one. we have a highly integrative --

integrated automotive sector. we are increasingly connected physically as our grids connect and we cross transmission lines. we now have 30 of them. resulting in is a robust and growing trade and clean energy. this is promising area for the leaders to engage in. unfortunately, i think the national conversation has been controlled by keystone xl. i think we are now in a situation where the project is behind us. we have prime minister trudeau's landslide election in october. we can turn the page. i think working on methane is a good example of where the countries can work together. federal governments are going to have to work with their states and provinces to get it done. .hat could be rulemaking

moderator: you have made methane a major point of contention. what are you hoping to see to translate these promises into reality? >> we are hoping to see something closer to the 40%-40 5% reduction by 2025. that would be more ambitious than what is on the table. methane is going to be part of the solution when it comes to the u.s. and canada meeting their climate targets, but it's not going to be the only part, as greg mentioned. there is a broader range of opportunities when it comes to electric vehicle policies, a new

projectsto looking at and policies to make sure we andntivize the clean energy build the clean energy economy we need to transition into and slow down the expansion to some of the higher carbon projects. moderator: absolutely. i am glad you mentioned that, because the next topic is what exactly we should use to judge a project. you refer to a critical climate test as a benchmark. i covered xl for five years and heard climate test and thought, what does that mean? i would like to turn to someone from the government on this. frankly, when ngos refer to a climate test, they are referring to alberta first and foremost. you your perspective, do think a climate test should be

applied and what would that look like? >> alberta understands we cannot continue to increase in missions limits. onscame out with -- emissi limits, so we came out with a climate test. we have carbon priced at $20 a will increase to $30 a ton by 2018. that will fund 90% of alberta's economy. we have put a cap on emissions. believe we can grow the economy while driving down in .issions -- emissions currently, 45% of our energy comes from coal. we are going to replace one third of that with renewables and one third from national gas -- natural gas.

the new government in alberta and with the new government in ottawa, there is a real change coming out of canada. moderator: the climate test could be a benchmark for future emissions and a two degree world. is that something you could see being integrated on a national level? wake's the government has changed its process for energy projects going forward. alberta's expectation is that our climate leadership demonstrates steps forward. the reality as well as that finding a way to market now. they are going by rail. it does the building of a pipeline lead to greater emissions? or is it a lower gad transportation option. the united nations climate discussions focused on

what it would mean to avert a increase,s celsius what scientists have said is the tipping point for climate change. when we talk about the climate test, that is what is in our mirror, looking ahead. greg: i would just comment to say i think the government of alberta deserves a lot of credit for the steps they are taking. they are making up for lost time. the oil sector is going through an amazing and historic change right now, and i think there are real questions about how much various resources are going to be developed in various parts of the world. i think the key thing paris will do is help to get countries on the same page about where we are headed. once we understand that and policies flow from that, i think a lot of certainty will creep out to everyone. also agree that

alberta made a really strong step forward with their climate plan. i might push back a little on the idea that a climate test would merely be a means of focusing on one province or sector. there are really opportunities in the u.s. and canada that have thrived in terms of long-term thatstructure decisions would provide decision-makers of whether ap project or policy is economically consistent with the two degree scenario. wet as a background of how see that working, right now and we are looking at long-term planning, we rely on models that assumed five or six degrees , and those sorts of models assume much higher, robust prices for fossil fuels. moving forward after paris, one tothe necessary steps

provide decision-makers with the tools they need is to model out what a two degrees celsius market does for global prices. for fossil feels and clean energy. -- that very well may be fossil fuels and clean energy. that very well may create a decision-making dynamic where a decision-making -- where projects may be more economically viable. moderator: a good point. let's pull back to 10,000 feet. main goals you anticipate this week on the topic of energy? think it's all, i great they are meeting. i think the prime minister has had a meeting with all the they spend today

talking about climate, clean energy, innovation, and how we can move forward as a nation. to come up with a common goal, common achievable's, for alberta did wasthe steps we like a test ground for canada. steps onlove to take methane and those kinds of things. we are like everyone else anxiously awaiting to see what happens and hope it does create some opportunities for us to create real partnerships either at the national level or the state level. moderator: that was a fabulous answer. to narrow that a little bit, it's president obama's last year. how much of these commitments do you expect could be carried out before the president leaves office? >> i would not underestimate the value of merely reaching an

agreement. i think that's very important for the next administration. i think there are important steps to be taken on methane. i think the arctic is an area ripe for collaboration. the united and states are arctic nations. the arctic is warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. there is a lot that can be done. addressing black carbon, collaboration on arctic science, i think there is a lot the can be done there. i would not underestimate the value of the two countries working together in other international forums. get a strongy to market mechanism to address e missions from aviation. i think that's very important. those are things that can happen this year. to be reserve the right surprised. because i think what you have here are motivated leaders that want to get something done, and when that happens, surprising

things can happen, so i will be watching, as everyone will be for the next couple of days, to be surprised. moderator: often just being on the same stage can be enough, as you state. >> i agree with that point and i might reframe that to ask what can't be done this year. in many ways, the administration and the u.s. have been moving forward in many areas where they have authority to regulate carbon and methane emissions. theome extent, administration still have plenty of room to run on climate and still establish a legacy. you provide what we thought was an amazing case study about the challenges of transitioning to clean energy. could you tell us a bit about what you encountered at your port, switching to clean power, for instance? >> port's a bit of a nexus

between the public's after -- public sector and private sector. trade is critical to our life on a daily basis. having said that, ports and shipping are large energy users. framework we established, which i think is unique in being a cross-border, non-government led framework, was a collaboration between ourselves and seattle-tacoma and -- ports there to proactively set goals for carbon reduction and air quality improvement, recognizing that we positivempact it in a way. goals ford common carbon reduction, particulate reduction, and put in place a process to do an inventory of the port system of each port and report publicly how we were doing.

there was transparency and accountability and also clear, common goals. eachthat led to what for port to work to achieve its goals in its own way, and to prioritize different projects. one of the projects is sure power.- shore we are fortunate to have large quantities of hydroelectric power. switch off the diesel engine and drop power from hydropower. means we need investment right through the chain. we need the ships to invest. we need the infrastructure. we need the significant amounts , and getting all of that to come together isn't always easy. it has been essential to have that common goal and to recognize that we may compete to , buthe ships to port

having a common standard for the environment -- >> that's what i've said about infrastructure. you need long-term predictability. moderator: that's true. >> the more we can create an environment that creates that certainty, the better. >> one more example. in vancouver, we have an .co-action program earning cleaner fuel, meeting various international standards of -- burning cleaner fuel and meeting various international standards of reduction, they get a price reduction. we are proud of that. moderator: interesting. so, hearing what robin is dealing with, does that make the other three panelists even more

amped up about public-private coordination? >> public-private coronation is going to be at big part of this. -- going to be a big part of this. one of the pieces here is that the transition to a clean-air economy is going to require getting the policies right to ensure that industry has the expand andtives to make long-term investments in that will build economic growth. we have seen that play out in both canada and the u.s. no question that there are many more opportunities for that to play out on a much larger scale moving forward. absolutely. as far as the uncertainty factor, i encounter as an energy reporter on cross-border

infrastructure, really, the bulwark. as we learned during the keystone debate, projects are divided between three u.s. agencies. create confusion. folks working on these issues sometimes have trouble keeping it straight themselves. i'm interested in anyone's thoughts who wants to jumps in -- jump in on whether that can ?r should be more simplified >> we saw legislative proposals in the last few years to try to integrate those decisions. i personally don't see a lot of benefit to doing that. typically, energy providers are not competing with oil companies. they are different sectors. what i would focus on, rather than procedural. t or reform, is to focus on -- reform, ispurity or

to focus on the outcome that we want. and the outcome we should want is a cleaner future. >> i would agree with greg on that. not to throw out the hobbyhorse, but to some extent, that is why we need to consider climate in in the we have not infrastructure decision-making .rocess both project sponsors and decision makers need to understand exactly the criteria they are going to be judged on. does this project makes sense in commitmentsof our following paris? i think that would provide more certainty. and the canadian perspective? >> from a public policy regulatory, you want certainty. industry wants that. 25% of the revenues of alberta come from the oil and gas sector. it's as important to us that the

system works as it is to industry. most of portly, people want confidence in their regulars. -- regulators. a major operator down this summer for noncompliance. assured byple felt that that the government would act in their best interest. people need to have faith the government is doing the job it was set up to do. moderator: alberta. -- absolutely. and alberta has made a great start in that. you have the texas of canada putting on a carbon fee when the texas of america is certainly not there yet. how to use c alberta as setting the bar for the entire nation -- you see albert to a setting the bar for the entire nation?

formtax on carbon in some is key to climb and change. while we are very blessed with energy resources from oil and gas, other parts have hydro energy. it's important to come up with approaches that make sense. we can achieve reductions because our admissions -- are high. the way canada works is that each jurisdiction needs to make a plan that works for them, but we believe strongly that each jurisdiction needs to take action. we are very pleased to have a willing partner in the federal government. coronation believed to great greater prosperity and better environmental outcomes. >> in british columbia, we have well.on tax as

very much in line with what you are saying, it is a system that was setup recognizing the environment in british columbia. offsetsnue was setup to -- offset rates. there are still carbon intensive industries in british colombia that have grappled with that tax. there is probably some sort of national or transnational thingsrk that keeps equal competitively, which is essential. whatator: i am not sure the revenues raised will be used to fund. >> funding further transitions to more innovative technologies, and also helping low income families adjust, and communities

that are heavily dependent on coal to make an adjustment to more renewable sources of electricity. don'ttor: so you necessarily see the oil industry doing carbon capture or cleaner projects. >> there has been a huge investment in alberta in carbon capture and storage. been $1.2 billion invested in carbon capture and storage. we have a client change albertant fund now in -- a climate change management fund now in alberta. large point industrial sources pay a fee if there emissions are over certain bar. we are looking at each individual point source having to reduce. now we are going to a sector wide performance standard. industries that perform better

than average will in fact pay a lower amount for longer. it's a strong incentive for industry to be as efficient as possible as quickly as possible. and those revenues will go into funding clean technology initiatives. very interesting. so, greg and anthony, to kick the carbon question to you, what signal do you think this might policy makers?n >> i think we are in a really exciting transition on the planet as a whole. a 25 dollarwe had per 10 carbon tax. manitoba, ontario, quebec, have all decided to do it emissions trading and linked with california. so we -- with canada. so, we are now legally connected.

25 percent of the population lives under the price of carbon. in mexico, we have a $3.50 per , andrice on carbon obviously it is happening in china and the european union. it's happening around the world. i think we are in a time where our children will grow up in a world where these systems grow together in some way. and yet our political debate is so vitriolic about an idea that many of us are already living under. anthony, how can this week of discussions help eliminate that vitriol? one part of this is concentrating on the opportunities that are before us, in terms of energy

strategies and climate policies. many of these strategies fuel economic growth. we have seen that in the united states. the clean energy industry will create jobs and economic development. moving forward at the 20,000 foot level, we are at a stage where a new conversation has --n done really focusing begun really focusing on all of the opportunities for the u.s. and canada to build a deeper integration as they both move forward to meet their paris targets. theink that will be continual goal moving forward. is this solution package enough to bend our emissions curve to meet our 2025-2030 targets? i think that will be a process for which this week is a point, but perhaps not the end point, if that makes sense. moderator: absolutely, which

rings up the power of symbolism, which is on my mind this week because there is a lot of static about whether the targets can be met. every time there is a regulatory push, people start to crunch the numbers. but the two leaders are meeting and have an almost identical climate agenda right now. how do you think our leaders should negotiate the challenge of ok, we have these targets to meet and questions of whether we can do that, and look how important it is that we are meeting? anthony: the high-level meetings of two of the top 10 in matters ers is important symbolically and aspirations are critical.

but we have little doubt that these targets are mutable -- meet-able. the steps that have artie been made, they are likely to bend the curve in a way that modeling -- already been made, they are likely to been the curve in a way that modeling has not shown. think another way of putting this is the consequence of not meeting these targets would be substantial and potentially much more catastrophic than any cost of meeting them. the policiesg that we need to meet these targets actually build the economy and will position both canada and the united states to compete in a world transitioning to clean energy. cracks if i could just add, on the canadian -- >> if i could just add, on the

canadian side, if you read the , there isdeclaration an aspirational element and there is a very clear series of deliverables. four working groups have to report to a specific minister under a specific timeline. those meetings have to be made public. and bee to take steps transparent. you have to demonstrate to people what it is. i think it is that element of actually keeping people engaged in demonstrating the work you are doing to make progress and why you are making the decisions you are making. moderator: that's a very important point. everyone loves transparency, especially the press. think one final point i would make is that these two leaders are at different points in their careers. i think prime minister trudeau

deserves tremendous credit for what he has said and what he is doing. he has been in office for six months. to work very i think we will see -- there is a lot of conversation, infrastructure, capacity -building, and thought that will happen in canada in the coming years, and i think that emphasizes the importance of the upcoming election here in the united states, so that he continues to have a partner that is going to agree with him on the policy goals. moderator: robin, from the industry perspective. robin: from my perspective, it comes back to the fact that the more a common roadmap can be created, the more that gives the space and unlocks the private sector to deliver a solution. if we get lost in, sort of, differential approaches with differential targets, we probably do not achieve as big a goal as we could get to. i recognize there will be local

distance -- differences. moderator: we are running low on time. e, to hearus, gitan your thoughts, because we do not know if a democrat or a republican will be here in 11 months. tane: certainly, in canada, we watch the u.s. election closely. more are policies that are pro-canada on the democrat side and on the republican side pit we will with great interest and take it from there. lana: admirably evenhanded. with that, we're out of time. thank you to the panel. thank you to the unanswered your insight has been great. now, for our final conversation, i would like to welcome back louisa savage, "politico" director of events. louisa: thank you, everyone,

forcing with us this evening for our final conversation. we will talk about the refugee crisis and the implications for border security. without any delay i would like to welcome our esteemed panelists. bersin is the assistant secretary for international affairs and chief diplomatic officer at the u.s. department of home and security. dawson is the director of the canadian institute at the simon henshaw, commissioner gil kerlikowske. thank you for being here. six months ago, the trudeau government was elected on the promise of taking in and resetting 25,000 refugees.

last month, that mission was announced to be a cop is. in, allly, canada took told, 20,000 refugees per year. increase,t only a big but in the context of a u.s. comparison, that would be, you know, like taking in almost 20 50,000 refugees into the united states. so, there have been a lot of questions raised in washington about what that really means for this country. i would like to discuss today how this policy is being method compares toow it the united states own refugee policy -- what it means for u.s. border security, and what kinds of new border policies or agreements we can expect to emerge from these meetings from the prime minister and the president this week. i would like to kick it off with laura. you testify to the united states senate explaining canada's refugees policies. and you tell us in a nutshell how the refugees are being resettled, where they are going,

and how they are being vetted? sure.wson: the most important thing to know is this is a low-risk group of refugees coming to canada. women,omething like 60% 20% children -- folks that have been in a refugee camp for a long time, and there is a great deal of the vetting that goes on to begin with. within the happen is government system, they are first vetted by the u.n. high commission for refugees, and they come up with a short list. in the private system, a similar shortlist takes place. once you are short-listed, canadian immigration officials get involved, and there is a lot communications, checking, security, health, medical records -- all of the canadian checks are checked against american lists. it is an automatic process,

until all of the eyes are dotted i'sthe keys are crossed --i's are dotted and the t's are crossed that it is all done before they leave wherever they happen to be. luiza how are they finding homes --luiza: how are they finding homes? ms. dawson: there is a public edit the program. the public program, the government assist them. the proper program, community-based groups, church groups, helping to sponsor the refugees. it is about two thirds in the government program. 130 in the private program. you say it is a big number, and it absolutely is a big number -- 25,000, but canadians have risen to the occasion. the communities have gotten really involved. they are taking this initiative very seriously, very personally, and if you look at canadians boaory -- the vietnamese

people, post-world war ii, post uprising in hungaryt, there is a canadian tradition of taking it large numbers of refugees, -- taking in large summers of refugees, people in need. : tell us about the political context because it is -- imaginegine mike the scenario here of a political leader making this a selling point, where it has been so controversial, but in canada, my understanding is the controversy has been more about are you doing it fast enough or well enough? is that correct? ms. dawson: yeah, that seems to be the case. trudeau has challenged canadians to define the kind of people that they are -- i am a canadian -- the kind of people that we are. at canadians are welcoming, that canadians value diversity, and that canadians provide a safe haven for people in need. if there were a tipping point, it might have been the photo in saw, the that we tragic photo of the toddler on

the beach. canadians saw that, and their hearts were broken. they said no more -- we are going to assist. we are going to do what we need to do to help the syrians anyway we can. only this morning, senator klobuchar said she thought the united states could do more. can you tell us what the united states is doing, what your strategy is on refugees, and also, how does that number get set -- to take 10,000 versus 25,000? mr. henshaw: thanks. about our strategy leads me to want to talk about the overall program, and then i will get into resettlement. the overall focus is supporting refugees overseas where they are, so they can return to their countries once were -- or whatever let them to flee -- has ended. much of our effort goes overseas. the united states is the largest funder of refugee programs

overseas. in syria, and the region alone since the outbreak of the fighting there, we put in $5.1 billion. we support international by theations, ngo's dozens in supporting refugees both inside syria -- well, that is not refugees. that is internally displaced persons inside syria, and refugees around it. our focus in the past few months has been looking at how we can extend support so that we have better education programs for all the children there, and we have been working with those countries that have taken the refugees to try to expand employment benefits for refugees. the united states is the largest reseller of refugees in the world. of refugees the world. we have a consistent and measured program in the last

three years we brought and 70,000 -- program. in the last three years, we brought in 70,000, more than all the other countries brought together. ins year, we plan to bring 85,000, and next year we are looking to go up to 100,000. of that, syrians will be at least 10,000 this year, and more next year. so, we feel that we have our program started, and the -- the syrian program started, and that we are on a good track to bring in a lot of syrian's over the next few. because our program is somewhat measured and carefully laid out, we do have a history of starting, i think, slowly, with new populations. when someone enters our system, it is usually 18 or 24 months before they come out the other side. so, if you look at the syrian numbers here, they are not as high as canada's, but if you

look over the next few years, i think you will see our numbers grow and improve. i will give you a couple of examples of populations we have been working on the past two years to demonstrate that, to show that i'm not just blowing hot air. 140,000 iraqis over the last eight years, and 140,000 burmese out of malaysia and thailand in the last 10 years. so, we have a commitment to bring in an refugees and we're going to continue that. za, u.s., number was set -- i will give a quick answer -- the president says that every summer in a message to congress. luiza: thanks. what happens when the various governors who have come out across the country saying we do not want any syrian refugees in our state -- what does that mean for you -- you have to avoid that state and find someone else to -- somewhere else to send them, or is that just politics?

our political system is polarized that we hear from both sides. but we do here from local communities is great support, and those other people important to us in resettling refugees. we have had some pushback from some states and some governors, but it is a federal process in bringing in refugees and resettling them. we do depend on the support of local communities. we've not want to send people into hostile areas, but we really have not run into that. most local communities that we work with -- and it is a must read hundred around the country -- are welcoming. so, the short answer is no, it is -- has not. luiza: can we pull back the length -- we are talking 10,000 here, 25,000 there. there have been more than one million refugees that have arrived in europe, and there was an article this week that the united nations high commission on refugees said europe could explode, and they said, into "widespread violence" on a count of this.

any result to do anything that are -- is there a strategy here? resettlement has never been the center of a refugee strategy. our policy has been to support refugees where they are and that is the same for the european crisis. our belief is we can make the situation better for refugees in the countries in which they first flight, they are less likely to take dangerous trips to other places. resettlement has always been something we do for the most vulnerable people out of that population. we typically focus on people with medical problems, families led by women, lgbt cases that cannot cope with the local community they are in -- things like that. a way not been, for us, of resolving the refugee crisis. the obama

administration, in its platform in the world, are you telling your about how you think they should be given with a crisis -- is there a concerted effort, or int this ad hoc patchwork europe were some countries are welcoming refugees, others are trying to keep them out? what is the administration's approach to the crisis? so, yes, we are -- mr. henshaw: so, yes, we are in contact with european colleagues. we do provide a little bit of support in the balkans, but we do not see europe as an aid recipient, so there is not a massive program underway. we are encouraging the eu to have a unified policy and deal with refugees in a good and humanitarian manner. there are also some law enforcement and border control areas along with some naval areas that we have worked on with the europeans, which are

not particularly in my -- [indiscernible] luiza: i would like to turn to the assistant secretary. there have been concerns here in the u.s. about what potential security threats refugees could face. at the hearing on the hill, they pointed out -- the fbi director james comey talked to congress last fall and he said screening iraq war refugees was not perfect. there were a few people later arrested on terrorism a rated -- related charges. he also talked about there being challenges because there are u.s. soldiers on the ground -- they are not in the ground in , the way theyia were in a wreck collecting information, and he said if we do not know much about someone, there will not be anything in our data, but cannot tell anyone with absolute assurance there is

no risk associated. can you tell us about the security measures that are being taken with the people being let into the u.s.? the first: proposition is there is never a zero risk in anything in life, let alone security vetting. having said that, as laura said in her comments, particularly with regard to the canadian refugee situation, this is a process that is calculated to reduce the risk, and it is done in a variety of ways. as simon indicated, the flow of refugees into the united states when resettlement is chosen has been ongoing for 35, 36 years, now. this is a process that has been in existence. granted, after 9/11, an increase in the in the context of the is il threat, we were, and the commission will describe how we work to improve the processes in

vetting, so that we are bringing to bear all the resources, all the data that we have with regard to these terrorist risks or criminal risks. what we have done in the context of the canadian situation is actually employ the very robust information-sharing practices that we have, in effect, between our two countries, and that have been strengthened considerably since beyond the border. so, for example, as laura explained, all of the refugees were being brought into canada are being checked against not only canadian databases, the u.s. databases. along the border we have automated the exchange of biometric data so that we can receive biometric data from a federatedk it in search of our holdings in a

security sense, and in real time respond to canada with regard to any derogatory information that we have uncovered. having said that, much of the data that we hold comes from the data that was gathered by military, as your question or iraq anduggested, in afghanistan, and other ways in which we have shared with our partner countries around the world, but to the extent that we do not have that data, against which we can check biographic names, and dates of earth, or biometrics -- fingerprints -- ores of earth, or -- birth biometrics, fingerprints, you are operating in the zone of the unknown. luiza: that would be very interesting -- how do you deal with -- so, commissioner gil kerlikowske is in a position to indicate how we actually use

intelligence assessments to forch in a big data way certain indicators, or certain facts that have been brought to our attention by intelligence, and then you can reduce the pool of potentially high-risk visitors were refugees, and then take action accordingly, but it is not -- it is not as precise as having a watchlist of high-risk persons, against which incomingvet biographic, or biometric information. luiza: commissioner, that was a handoff to you. can you also talk about what changes, if any, you have brought into more security policies in light of the 25,000 syrian refugees that have been taken in by canada? comm. kerlikowske: the one thing

that is very important to understand is we have had this great working relationship with the government of canada. when assistant secretary bersin was the assistant secretary of order protection, he initiated a number of outreach efforts, and now with the new government, we believe that many of those are coming to fruition. so, our ability to exchange and with the royalon canadian mounted police, and other agencies -- and my counterpart at canada's border security agencies, is very, very good. when you explain, and when i believe how laura explained, when the people are being that it, it is very thorough, and when you think about the process in the united states, if you --e attending to do intending to do harm, would you spend the next two years after submitting your fingerprints, photograph, and subjected yourself to incredible numbers of interviews, etc. -- is that

the way you try to enter the country if you want to do harm? -- what is taken out of context -- not out of context, but out of the perspective of both director call me and director -- director james comey and director clapper, they always end their think youith you should be more concerned about than a refugee would be a home-grown terrorist, someone that has been radicalized in this country, not someone coming in. luiza: i want to pick up on something interesting you said -- the process on the u.s. side takes two years, and we're talking about 25,000 in a matter of months. does that raise any particular issues on the u.s. side, and how are you coping with that in terms of border security? i think whatwske: is missing, and i think laura made partial points in this area

-- they are not taking any young men -- frequent, young men of a fighting age could be more concerning. -- frankly, young men of the fighting age could be more concerning. secondly, the population that they are drawing from our people that have left syria for quite some time and have been in camps , etc.. it is not as if someone has crossed the border and is now going to be taken quickly into canada. there are a lot of people over there. it canada, india for have been given to me, is doing a thorough job -- in the explanations that have been given to me, is doing a thorough job, and they are sharing and exchanging information with us. luiza: so, turning now to the meetings that are coming up this week -- there has been a long process since 9/11 of remaking our border management processes focused onile it was security post-9/11, and that we realized it was also a commerce issue and economic issue, and i know your department has worked

hard to facilitate trade. so, what do you see as a potential outcome of these talks this week that would move the ball forward on border management cooperation? i think wekowske: are going to see, and without wanting to steal the thunder from the prime minister and the president, we will be announcing a number of developments of what has really been a radical transformation in the way in which canadians and americans view the border. there used to be a debate about thickening or thinning out the border -- that after 9/11, the border became sick because of the american preoccupation with security. what we have worked out over the last four or five years together is an understanding that the old dichotomy between trade facilitation and security is awesome -- is actually a false not economy. lowertion you have to your security to speed up the

movement of trade across the border has given way to a much more sophisticated view that recognizes we do risk management. we make assessments together to customs and border protection, and this ebsa actually makes dutchman -- and the cbs a makes is aent to which there risk presented by any passenger or any cargo, and having done that you are in a position to expedite the movement of lawful trade and travel. low-risk,udged to be nexus members, for example, that have been that it as travelers, you are a low-risk traveler, and we expedite your movement across the border back and forth from canada to the notices. that, by definition, then permits our resources -- our enforcement resources, to focus on the remaining travelers who are either high-risk, or higher risk, or travelers about which we lack sufficient information

to make a judgment as to where they are high-risk or low-risk. that perspective has, as i said, revolutionized the way in which a move -- in which we move ahead. the old thickening and thinning rhetoric has given way to the notion that we could actually have both by making the haystacks smaller by moving lawful trade travel. by making lawful trade travel, we facilitate the finding of the needle, the higher risk cargo, the higher risk person. luiza: without stealing the thunder -- what can we expect --an exit/entry agreement? what are you even looking for? mr. bersin: let me -- first to to thelet me defer commissioner, but it is fair to say the issues that haven't talked about, entry/exit, preclearance, enhanced information -- have been talked about, entry exit, preclearance,

enhanced information sharing, that should be the subject. luiza: can you explain entry/exit? comm. kerlikowske: sure. we have the ability to exchange information. assistant secretary alan bersin testified on visa overstays, a significant issue, which we needed, because we do not really have a biometric exit system in this country for, for instance, and governance. people come in on a visa, but we do not always know did they leave, and did they leave on time? we need to be able to exchange and do more of that information. if so, i think you will see greater exchanges of information. luiza: so, basically, if you are an american leave in the united states, driving into canada, canada will then turn around and give that information back to the american government to say this person has left the country? also lessikowske: is about u.s. citizens, the more about foreign nationals. luiza: but it will cover u.s.

citizens and canadians -- a canadian coming into the united states will also now have a record of coming in and out. comm. kerlikowske: so, what we have been doing the last couple of years between canada and the united states, as the commissioner suggested, third -country nationals, neither canadians, when you cross the bridge into detroit or winter, we use the canadian entry. the record of entry is good evidence of a u.s. exit. have been doing that all of our borders for the last couple of years. whether or not that is extended will be announced by our leaders over the course of the week. luiza: so, laura, the issue has been, around this whole plan, privacy. some oftalk about what the concerns have been on the canadian side that have been holding this up? ms. dawson: certainly, there are concerns about privacy, but

backing it up, my mom lives on the border. she is a great cross-border shopper. she thought you were tracking this for years. she had no idea she could have carefilling her backseat she could have been filling -- knew.kerlikowske: we ms. dawson: my mom. now that we are systematizing it, institutionalizing it, especially a newly elected government, wants to review the process to make sure it is protecting canadian and u.s. privacy rights, to make sure it is being done correctly. no new government wants to inherited policy from the previous government and not taken around the block and kick the tires. i think that is more what is going on in canada, rather than any significant red flags being raised. luiza: so, what are your best

predictions for what the leaders will announce this week? i am big on entry/exit. i think that is something that is really doable. i think that is something the president would like to see for the beyond the border program that he launched. i think he would like that as a success story, and the canadians, as we have seen, are really motivated towards cooperation. luiza: that is interesting. i would like to go back to the issue of refugees. there is one detail about the canadian program that i think is instant, and, i understand, different from the u.s. program, private is the role of individuals in actually sponsoring refugee families. can you talk about that, and your own personal experience? ms. dawson: absolutely. of they one-third canadian sponsorships are under the private program -- luiza: when you say sponsors coming in private people. ms. dawson: this is the community groups, church groups -- any group of canadians that wants to get together and can

come up with enough money to support a family of four for a full year can find their housing, help them with education, everything they need to get settled and established, because, frankly, canadians are not any different from americans, you know? nervous a little bit when there are a whole bunch of new people in the community, and nobody knows when they come from -- they have different cultures, each different foods, but as soon as they go to their first hockey practice, as soon as they are in school with the kids, dig out from their first blizzard, that makes them canadian. so, this canadian private sector, private-group sponsorship, is a really important way of integrating into the community. i was involved in the united church of canada sponsorship program, and i was just floored by the level of commitment that the volunteers put into not just getting the folks to canada, not just senior citizens from ottawa

trying to figure out how to get an interpreter who could community with someone from sudan, but also, once they were in the once they were in the country, the health, making sure the kids learned to skate and got the sports activities. all the things we take for company's community groups help to support, help to encourage. we were just talking about radicalization. to preventing to do radicalization is to get families in the community, people involved in activity and become embedded in these communities throughout canada. i wonder though, simon, is this getting better or is this crisis getting worse? when you step back and look at the big picture? i want to mention

we settle our cases, people, private through a partnership so refugees in the u.s. are resettled by one of , six of which are fake-based. -- faith-based. is a getting better? it has never been worse. 60 million people are refugees or internally displaced and that is the problem today. we have a system that has worked since world war ii but it is overwhelmed with the numbers. there's not enough money, resettlement, help. world community is focusing on a series of conferences that .ill culminate it is focusing on increasing aid, the amount of money

countries are contributing, increasing the number of resettlement cases worldwide, and increasing the support for refugees in seven countries for which they first fled. we are looking for a new way to focus on these issues to get more support because there is no sign of them going down. what do you see coming out of the meeting this week on the issue of refugees? canada and the u.s. have been leaders in the refugee world for years. i think you'll see a recommitment to the series of conferences over the years and to working out and improvement of the humanitarian system so we can all do more with the help of other nations. luiza: as a final question, i wall like to ask about the . what goes through your mind when you hear this debate about a wall weather is with mexico or canada?

mr. bersin: there is a lot of rhetoric that, as the vice president indicated in a recent meeting, is not the american people are and i think the record simon talked about in terms of the refugee record, let alone the fact all of us are actually immigrants save for native americans. part of our history, part of the coulter. been the traditionally underside of the fact we are all immigrants. i wouldn't take that to suggest that the majority of americans that is need a wall high and mighty from san diego to brownsville. attest wesioner can have used walls in different

places to assist in the security of the border by the notion of a well simply to wall people out is inconsistent with who we are as americans and our history and traditions. i would pass it off as a rhetorical device in an overheated electoral campaign. luiza: i heard it will be a beautiful wall. comm. kerlikowske: we have 18,000 border patrol agents on the southwest border, more than we have ever had. we have unmanned aircraft's, integrated fixed towers, radar, cameras, infrared. our apprehensions along the southwest border are lower within the last year than almost any in the last 10 years. below 400,000.

there was a time we apprehended 1.6 million people coming across that border. those cities from tucson to el paso, they have crime rate that cities in the rest of the u.s. are incredible envious of as to how safe those border cities are and frankly anyone who has ever visited the border would realize how impossible it would be to build a fence or a wall given the terrain and the incredible cost. luiza: you're saying it would be impossible to build on the northern border or mexico? comm. kerlikowske: i haven't that much about the northern border. [laughter] we have over 2000 border patrol agents on the northern border. we have great cooperation. bit -- it's just a a part of the heated rhetoric, unfortunately, going on right now. luiza: on that note, thank you

so much to our wonderful panel and thank you all for being with us tonight. cabc.ld like to thank audience, thank you for joining us. thank you also joined on the and we lookn c-span forward to seeing you at another wonderful politico event. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] ♪

>> this discussion by politico on u.s.-canada relations look at several issues including refugees and the economy. you can find it online at www.c-span.org. this week, an official state visit from the canadian prime minister. he will be in washington with his wife as the couple attend to several meetings before heading to the white house thursday for presidentnner with obama and first lady michelle obama. if the prime minister's first u.s.ial visit to the since taking office last fall. see the toast and more thursday beginning at 6:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. and a look at our prime time schedule starting shortly coming up at about 8:00. wrote to the white house covered

with results and speeches from tonight primary in michigan and mississippi. hearingn2, the senate on combating terrorism and on c-span3 starting at 8:00, u.s. forest service chair thomas tidwell testifies about his agency's proposed budget for 2017. host: we are joined by chad a makeup of the reporter. expectedhrough the polling numbers right now. how the candidates come in to

michigan today. is this expected to be another win for the front runners? polls, they are leading. at least in the democratic primary, hillary clinton has not been taking michigan for granted. she has campaigned here all weekend. she brought bill clinton in as well as her daughter and chelsea clinton has traversed the state in the areas get out the vote efforts. she held a rally in detroit last night and she change her schedule so she could participate in this town hall meeting with bernie sanders. foxnews held a theater in detroit as well. day in and day out campaigning for the last couple fierced she is gauging a campaign about several different

topics with the senator sanders. topics with senator sanders. she went after him in a pretty debate ve manner on the in flint on sunday night over and his bail-out votes vote against the troubled asset liberties relief program in 2009, the wall street bail-out fund the ately helped bail-out of general motors and chrysler. so that's been a pretty spirited campaign. in the republican field, donald leading, but he hasn't been back here since friday. e took off after a couple of rallies across the state, and then basically, mostly has left the state to john kasich, basically, because ted cruz had thursday.ere since until late last night, he arrived in grand rapids for literally an 11:00 p.m. rally. he was almost two and-a-half hours late because of some travel issues, which happens when you're running for

president and trying to get back from mississippi, and marco rubio has essentially left the state after that thursday night debate in detroit and has not been back but, you know, right monif poll puts trump 21 and cruz 23, kasich rubio at a distant 13%. we have in michigan, proportional delegates, of 59 get a es and you have to minimum of 15% of delegates. o if this poll is correct, marco rubio could leave michigan delegates. host: that's 59 delegates on the delegates side, 149 on the democratic side distributed proportionally. some of thoses on anti-trump efforts from other antiestablishment figures. ou had a story out yesterday, romney's antitrump message targets michigan voters. how is mitt romney trying to appeal to michigan voters?

mitt romney recorded a robbo call for the campaign. endorse marco rubio but he said he encouraged people to get out and vote for a candidate we can be proud of, and that's not donald trump, according to him. believes that donald trump will lose to hillary clinton in the general election. it was kind of a repeat of his comments in his speech last he feels n utah that like the world and the country ould not be as safe and secure if donald trump is the president and commander in chief of this an try, so it was interesting last-minute move by the rubio campaign, you know, that has essentially not been participating in michigan for the last couple of days, because put all their eggs in the basket next week for the primary in florida, out to, as i'm told, most of the republican

in the entire, you know, on the master g.o.p. voter list for get-out-to-vote efforts. hawaii lso was used in and mississippi and idaho for the other primaries. host: for our viewers, if you livengood's chad work in their cov >> on wednesday's washington journal, our first guest is lori wallace. joining us to talk about trade policy and campaign 2016. after our first guest, we will announce the winners of our documentary contest. then, jc watts.

guzman watts is joining us to discuss campaign 2016 and the impact this election is having on the republican party. the sure to watch washington journal wednesday beginning live at 7:00 a.m. eastern. join the discussion. t is back at our desk. she is out with a new book, con job. how'd -- that titlet into in of your book. i want to begin with this quote from your book, real racism still exists in modern america and it hurts real people. when hustlers like al sharpton and liberals are quick to label every incident in america racist, from voter id laws to the shooting of black teens, it diminishes the rightful attention that true racism should receive. whyhat is true racism and are some of the issues that you bring up in that example not for

racism? guest: i actually devote a chapter in the book to true racism. it is in the appendix. it is my family's personal story of being disseminated against. when i was a little girl and they applied to a country club and were told that they didn't want my parents to be members because they were black. that case went all the way up to the u.s. court of appeals. 1980, the u.s. justice department filed an amicus brief because they said 13 years after the civil rights act had passed, this is not what america was about. so that to me is true racism and discrimination. i would say, when someone is denied access to something, that is true racist discrimination. when people are called the n-word out right by white supremacist, that is discrimination. ,leve and bundy, the rancher

the incendiary things he said about black people, that is racism. what is happening now is you have this industry where people like al sharpton and cornell west are getting rich off of calling everything racism, jumping into racial division incidents in the united states and profiting on it. jesse jackson is another one. that to me is not being a champion for ending discrimination, that is a champion for making money. host: you say it is something the democratic party is trading off of. guest: it is trading off that. you see the narrative playing out on the democratic side. we have hillary clinton and bernie sanders, which are the democrat front-runners. -- only one fine for the only ones buying for the democratic nomination. they are pandering to black lives matter. we saw last year when bernie sanders is that an event, he didn't give what black people

felt was an appropriate lipservice to black lives matter and he was heckled off the stage. what is that? i want to hear about candidates policies to make all lives better. so right now, there is a race going on a democrat side with the candidates to get so-called black endorsements. it is fast and furious, their meeting with al sharpton. i don't know about you john, but i'm a black woman. i speak for myself. you was a white man don't have white people telling you how to vote. why aren't hillary clinton and bernie sanders getting the endorsement of so-called white americans and so fault -- so-called white spokespeople? they should be talking that their agenda for black america and they haven't. hillary clinton supported her husband's crime bill which locked up and incarcerated more black men than any president in u.s. history. he created the disparagement between sentencing of crack and crack cocaine and cocaine.

that led to the mass incarceration of black americans. i would argue that neither candidate has done anything in their decades of services to help black americans. in your bookue that they are voting against their own interests when they vote for democrats. -- overwhelmingly you have over 90% of black americans the last two election cycles voting for the first black president united states of america in two dozen eight interest 12. i talk about this in con job, the subtitle of the book is how democrats gave us crime, century cities, and racial division. book ison i wrote the to really exposed to america the lies that i believe the democratic party is based on. i have 50 pages of mostly government data to prove every

point i talk about. abortion is not a friend of women's health because according to planned parenthood, three out of 10 women by the time they turn age 45 will of had an abortion. you tell me how that is promoting women's health. we should be talking about abstinence, we should be talking about -- if a woman comes into an abortion clinic, she should be getting counseling on you can have your baby and put it up for adoption. none of that is happening and planned parenthood is getting 40% government funding to fund their $1.3 billion i think i talked about the book that they made in 2013 and 2014. with black americans, what i also talk about is often times you see democrats pitting one constituent against another. they actually cannibalize constituents. there is no party that can be all things to all people. that is a failure of identity politics. your hillarynd

clinton and bernie sanders and barack obama talking that illegal immigration which is actually the imminent -- enemy of black employment in this country. i could probably go on and on. host: last to get to there. we want to bring in our callers. phones are open. ,emocrats is (202) 748-8000 republicans are (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. james on -- in hollywood, florida. line for democrats. james, go ahead. james, your to sit by your phone. josh from kissimmee, florida. for republicans. caller: good morning. i would like to ask your guest how she feels about the narrative that all republicans are racist and the fact that my daughter and i we went to a trump rally in the crowd to see trump, there was nobody was saying racial epithets or anything like that.

how can we get around the media's false narrative? guest: that is a great question. will that is why wrote con job, that is also why a started my blog conservativeblackchick. calm. --.com. if you go back in history way before 1964 when the democratic party started owning the black vote lock stock and barrel as lyndon b. johnson actually signed the civil rights act into law and he marshaled it through. really for political expediency. before that, you had republicans theally champions all things that now the democrat party is giving lip service to. i think more importantly it is people like you and me speaking out and saying, you just told me you are at a trump rally. you didn't have people calling each other incendiary names.

i do not believe that donald trump is a racist. i would have liked him to repudiate much stronger when he came out against the david duke support and white supremacist support. he has since done that, saying he does not want that kind of support. he can't control the votes for him, but he needs to talk in the ,ein of ronald reagan and say if i'm elected president, i will bring all people together and repudiate that kind of trash talk and racist talk. host: are you voting for donald trump the cycle? guest: i have not endorsed a candidate or decided who i will support in the d.c. primary yet. i will vote in d.c. primary as a republican. there are those of us who exist. we are a little over 30,000. i like what donald trump's candidacy is doing for the political establishment called the republican party because inclusionone deaf to and that is why we are in the state we are.

beredicted the party will born anew, even if trump does not prevail in being the nominee or elected. host: your column about donald trump and this issue of the white supremacists and his comments about that. you notes and criticisms for the republican establishment that is taliban has done nothing to grow the party beyond college educated white base over the past four years. remember vividly when mitt romney became our nominee and i was a new ingrid supporter and delegate. every turn to volunteer for mr. romney's campaign and never got responses. i was on television supporting .im, supporting his wife he ran one of the whitest campaigns in recent memory. that means that while barack obama was using, even though i don't believe in barack obama's policies, perception becomes reality. had people ofa

color, he enlisted actresses in hollywood to go out there and help him assert his campaign. you did not have those surrogates looking like the who's who of white america. very opposite was true of mr. romney. true own -- not only in the people on -- talking on his behalf. but also his campaign. he had a bunch of coalitions. they were coalitions in name only. that was reflected in the votes of mitt romney won. he won 60% of the white vote. that was more than any president had one in 1988. forwardhe past -- path is not just the white vote. our nominee today in 2016 will have to peel off minorities, women, independents. reallyht it was disingenuous and really an affront for mitt romney to get up there and start blasting do

>> we are going to see bernie sanders speak life here on c-span. [cheers]

senator sanders: thank you, miami. [cheers] you are anders: beautiful crowd, a loud crowd. [cheers] sanders: and i have the feeling you want to see this country move toward a political revolution. [cheers] let me thankrs: zenya. [applause] senator sanders: i want to thank the congresswoman not only for willingness to put her life on the line to defend our country in the military --

[cheers] senator sanders: but for her emphasis on understanding how important foreign-policy is and that bad foreign-policy results , youngloss of lives americans and people abroad. and that bad foreign-policy ends up costing us trillions of dollars. i just came back from michigan and i visited flint, michigan. all of you know what is going on in flint? in flint, children are being poisoned by drinking water filled with lead. [booing] understands: i don't

how this country has trillions of dollars to spend on the war take careut we can't of flint, michigan. [cheers and applause] now, what this campaign is about is doing something very radical. we are telling the american people the truth. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: and sometimes, the truth is not necessarily pleasant. i wish from the bottom of my heart that i could come before you and tell you how great are noing is, that there problems, but if i did that, i would to you and you know i would be lying.

is have the to do coverage to face the reality of where we are and have the courage to take on the big-money interest -- [cheers and applause] greed isers: whose destroying our economy. so let me tell you several truths that other candidates will not tell you. i say this asd the former chairman of the senate veterans committee, someone who will continue to work hard to protect the veterans -- [applause] veterans have put their lives on the line to

defend our way of life, which means our democratic form of government. and i want to tell you right now that our democratic form of government is under severe attack as a result of this disaster is citizens united supreme court decision. [cheers and applause] now, whatrs: democracy is about -- you agree with me and you want to vote for me, great. you disagree with me and what to vote against me, that's great, that's called democracy. [cheers] sen. sanders: you get a vote and she gets a vote, we all get one vote but what is happening now is we are losing this concept of one person, one vote, and what we see is billionaires buying

elections. [booing] sen. sanders: what we are seeing is one family, the koch brothers , and a few other billionaires -- [booing] sen. sanders: oh, you know the koch brothers. [laughter] sen. sanders: they and their billionaire friends are prepared to spend $900 million on this election cycle. [booing] sen. sanders: their goal is to elect candidates who, of course, will represent the rich and the powerful. have a handful of billionaires -- a handful -- spending more money on a campaign than either the democratic or republican party, that is not democracy, that is oligarchy. [cheers and applause]

[chanting] bernie, bernie, bernie! our first fight is to overturn the citizens united decision. [applause] sen. sanders: our fight is to make sure we have one of the highest voter turnouts in the world, not one of the lowest. [applause] job is to endour republican voter suppression. [cheers and applause] you have cowardly republican governors who are working overtime, trying to make it harder for people to participate in the political process.

is to make it easier, not harder, to increase the voter turnout. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: next tuesday here in florida, let's show the world -- [cheers and applause] let's show the world that democracy is alive and well with a huge voter turnout, huge. about a hugeng voter turnout. what the wealthy and powerful want -- this is really what they want -- they want young people

not to participate in the political process. they want you to say politics is p, they want working-class people to say no when in washington cares about me come i'm not going to vote. when you have low voter turnout, you have billionaires buying elections and that is what we have got to overturn. [cheers] what we have got to show the american people is that when we don't allow the trumps of the world to divide us up -- together, black and white and latino, gay and straight -- [cheers and applause] they may have all

of the money and all of the power, but you know what we got? we have the people. [cheers and applause] >> [chanting] and this is the lesson of history -- when people stand together, there is nothing we cannot accomplish. [cheers] secretary hillary clinton and i have a number of differences and i want to briefly discuss them. one of them deals with campaign finance. for president,

sadly but truthfully, you have to raise hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars if not more. when i entered this race, i had to make a decision -- should i do what almost all candidates a do and -- [cheers] sen. sanders: this is a very smart audience. you answered my question before i asked it. other candidates do and the way it's a done, unfortunately in 2016, what you do is establish a super pac, go to billionaires, two mansions come and you leave with millions of dollars. that money comes from wall street, the drug companies, the fossil fuel industry. where you raise

money. what hillary clinton has done is established several super pacs. she has raised $15 million from wall street. [booing] sen. sanders: in addition to that, she has given speeches to walllosed doors institutionsial like goldman sachs. here's the story on that one. she gets paid $225,000 for a speech. that is a lot of money for an hour speech. i think if you get paid that kind of money for one speech, it must he a brilliant speech. is such ak if it brilliant speech, you want to share it with the american people. [cheers]

sen. sanders: secretary clinton has said she is prepared to release her transcripts if other candidates who do. -- if other candidates do. i am prepared -- are you ready? a dramaticed to make statement right now. all you ready for it? [cheers] sen. sanders: i am repaired to release all of the transcripts -- i am prepared to release all of the transcripts of the speeches i give to wall street. you've got them.

[cheers and applause] [chanting] is hownders: now, that secretary clinton raises some of her money. we do it in a different way and i want to tell you something. this is really important and kind of revolutionary because if we want to break political dependence on wall street and the big money interest, the only way we can do it is to have campaigns funded by the middle class and working families. [cheers and applause] we beganers: so when this campaign, what we said was something pretty simple but radical. we said to working families, we know many of you are hurting but

support at to campaign that will take on the billionaire class, that will transform our country, we need help. do you know what happens? this is unbelievable. i never in a million years would have protected this happened. and the last 10 months of our campaign, we have received 5 million individual contributions. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: that is more individual contributions than any candidate in the history of our country up until this point. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: does anybody here know what the average contribution is?

>> $27. sen. sanders: i love it. that's right, $27. to paraphrase abraham lincoln at gettysburg, this is a campaign of the people, why the people, and for the people. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: congresswoman gifford touch on another important difference between secretary clinton and myself and 2002, there was a debate in congress on what turned out to be the most

important foreign policy issue in the modern history of this country and if all of you remember, president bush and vice president cheney and that that group, they thought it was a good idea to invade iraq. [booing] sen. sanders: i listened very, very carefully to their arguments and i concluded that they were not telling the truth. i voted against the war. applause]d secretary clinton, who was then in the senate, heard the same arguments. she voted for the war. [booing] sen. sanders: and that war turned out to be the worst

foreign-policy disaster in the modern history of this country. and it gives me no joy to tell you this but if you go to my website, listen, read what i about my fears about what would happen and to a significant degree, what i said was right. [cheers] let me touch on another issue, which is obviously important to florida and all states all over this country. is -- hold it. this is a sharp audience. [laughter] sen. sanders: you are about 12 seconds ahead of me. [laughter] sen. sanders: i am a member of

the u.s. senate committee on the environment. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: i have spoken to scientists all over our country and scientists all over the world. the debate is over. climate change is real. [cheers] sen. sanders: climate change is caused by human activity. change is already causing devastating problems in florida, america, and around the world. [cheers and applause]

and here is what is really scary. if you listen to what the scientists are telling us, what they are saying is if we do not get our act together in a short time, by the end of this century, this planet will be 5-10 degrees fahrenheit warmer. what that means is it means more drought -- and we already seeing drought all over the world. means more flooding -- we are already seeing more flooding. and otheror florida coastal communities, more rising sea levels. means the increased acidification of the ocean.

we are destroying our oceans. it means more international conflict as people all over the world fight for the limited natural resources. to my mind, this issue is a no-brainer. consider ourselves to be moral people and to consider the needs of future generations, we have got to move aggressively in taking on the fossil fuel industry. [cheers and applause] and transforming our energy system away from fossil fuel to energy-efficiency

. [cheers and applause] have got to: we lead the world. we can't do it alone. we have to work with other countries around the world. what has toalready be done. we have incredible potential with solar panels. incredible potential with wind. i was already getting 30%-40% of its electricity from wind. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: we can do incredible things with energy efficiency, making our buildings more energy-efficient. we can create a state of the art

rail system, which takes trucks off roads. [cheers and applause] virtually every scientist who studies this issue knows what has to be done. into something really amazing and incredible and that is -- this connects the dots to what i said a moment ago. think how is it that there is no republican candidate for president who will you theore you and tell simple truth of what i have told you? that climate change is real? -- the answer gets back to a corrupt campaign-finance system. applause]d

here is the truth -- that if a republican came before you handset said i've read the literature, we have to do something about it, on that day, the koch brothers and other campaign contributors would say you are not getting any more money. [applause] sen. sanders: that is what a corrupt campaign-finance system is doing to our country and i say to those republicans who are too cowardly to do the right thing -- [applause] worry about your kids and your grandchildren and the future of this planet rather than your campaign contributions. [cheers and applause]

sen. sanders: in this campaign, we are listening to the american people. and what we are hearing from the american people is that workers cannot make it on eight dollars, nine dollars, $10 an hour. you can do the arithmetic as well as i can. an hour by $40 a week by 52 weeks a year, he don't have enough money for a person to live on, let alone a family. i remember i was in nevada.

a young woman, early 30's, came up to me and said "i've got a six-year-old daughter. an hour, i have student loans, i'm scared to death about what will happen to my. are and to me couple -- me." that is why in america, we have got to understand the $7.25 minimum wage in this country is a starvation wage. we will raise that minimum wage. [cheers and applause] we are going to raise that minimum wage to a living wage, $15 an hour. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: in america, if you

work 40 hours a week, you should not be living in poverty. end of discussion. [cheers and applause] this campaign is living -- listening to senior citizens. senior citizens and disabled veterans are telling me is they can't make it on $11,000 or $12,000 a year. this is important because as a nation, we have to understand a nation is judged not by how many millionaires and billion as we have, but how we treat the weakest and most vulnerable among us. [applause]

sen. sanders: here in florida, we have many seniors in my state . if you look at the course of prescription drugs -- the cost of prescription drugs, of health care, of keeping your house warm or cool, no one can make it on $12,000. what my republican colleagues in the senate what to do, what they want to do is cut social security benefits. [boing] sen. sanders: what i want to do is increase social security benefits. [cheers and applause] this campaign is listening to young people.

[cheers] sen. sanders: and what the young "whye are telling me is does it happen that just because we go to college or graduate school, we are stuck with debt for decades?" [cheers and applause] just out of: curiosity, how many people here are dealing with student debt? i rest my case. sure italked -- and i'm is similar in this room -- i have talked to people in my own state. a young woman wanted to become a doctor, went to medical school, is practicing primary health

care to low income people. she graduated medical school $300,000 in debt. talk to a young dentist in iowa, graduated dental school, $400,000 in debt. iowa, to a young man in left college after two years, $60,000 in debt. talked to a guy in nevada -- this is incredible -- he's 35 years old and has been paying off student debt for 25 years. he is more in debt today than when he started. [booing] sen. sanders: here is what this campaign is about is thinking outside of the box, thinking outside of the status quo. [cheers and applause] do not accept the

status quo, do not accept crazy reality. it is crazy -- everybody tells young people in this country education is important. everybody says "get all the education you can." everybody says we live in a competitive global economy, we need the best educated workforce possible. peoplen are we punishing for getting an education? [cheers and applause] [chanting] sen. sanders: again, what i beg

of you and of the american people, take a step back and look at the crazy things that go on in this country. today is the wealthiest country in the history of the world. nobody knows it because almost all of the income and wealth is going to the top 1%. we cannot me that make public colleges and university tuition-free. [cheers and applause] sen. sanders: now, my opponents say this is a radical and crazy idea. tell that to the people in germany and scandinavia already doing it.

[cheers and applause] sen. sanders: they are smart enough they are smart enough to know because they want the best intellectual capabilities of their people to become developed. what we want to do in this kid in is to tell every america -- i come from a family with not much money. my parents never want to college to college. i want every kid in america, and the fourth and sixth grade, i want the boys and girls to know if their kids to their school work well, yes, they will get a college education. and for those people who are crushed with