the rest of the country. it's despicable. i think bernie sanders could beat him. >> in mesa, arizona, republican line, jan, good evening, what do you think? >> caller: it's for jan? >> yes it is. >> caller: okay. i think he's a really nice man. his family looks lovely but i'm going with donald trump. nobody thinks he can do it. i think he can do it. if you lived here in mesa, arizona, and i've watched my town go down and down and down. we have 50,000 people in our town. the neighbor that i thought i'd live in for the rest of my life we were ran out by illegals they've taken our schools over. it's so bad. we've begged for help. i begged the mayor the same thing with mccain, i'll never vote for mccain again in my life. he's coming up. and slake will be the next one to go mpt you have no idea what we go throw here.

we have blegedegged and pleaded and nobody has listened to us. if you had to pay for all we pay for, the hospitals the tens of thousands of babies, all you have to do in this country is you walk over the line, you get someone pregnant, i can't leave these are american babies. that's something we have to get rid of. i tell you, blacks should be the most upset about that. they should be the most upset. that was put in there to keep blacks safe. and i just went to my 50th reunion to get the party going. and they can't believe what they're seeing. my friends -- i have so many hispanic friends. what am i supposed to call you mexican hispanics or -- >> we will be covering donald trump this weekend the live weekend event. tell you more about that. we want to hear your thoughts on scott walker has he entered the

race. he's had two term governor. he won reelection last year in wisconsin. athens, ohio, on our democrat's line. >> caller: i can't believe i got through. iate have to tell you the first time i got through with paul, it took me 19 years. i'm ecstatic. if you can give me a couple of minutes i am a long winded girl. thank god for jan. i'm a democrat. i can't stand donald trump. jan, i live in athens ohio i am from chicago, illinois hyde park where the president lives. the black community has been decimated. please understand, coz melis one of my favorite places. i love it. i can't tell you -- hundreds of times. these children -- by the way i'm a mixed race. and, also i speak several languages. spanish is not among them. >> tie that back into scott walker, what did you hear about immigration from the candidate today, this evening?

>> caller: because he has completely destroyed -- i come from a family of educators. okay. he cut education. he tried to break up the unions. my dad, thank god survives, he's 90 years old. he served in world war 2 -- what am i trying to say -- in the pacific rim. his ship was shot -- >> thank you. we appreciate your comments. trying to focus here on scott walker and his entry into the race. she mentioned the cuts in the government the governor signing the state budget yesterday. ann is in new york. >> caller: my name is ann, and thank you for listening to my comments. what i like about scott walker i think is the balance. i think he does stand up for his principles the one thing as far

as the union is concerned i feel that the union in the 1930's was for the working man. i feel the union today has become so politicized towards the democratic way. i honestly feel that there has to be some give and take on the unions unions. i work in the school system. i have seen some of the disrepair and as many people in the union who are disgruntled with the union as far as their concerns. so i think -- he also took a pay cut in his own pay to help. so i think the fact that he has a better balance i think that he will be more -- and i also really feel that, you know, the union itself is using this as a wedge. when they are unwilling to make any sacrifices on their own.

you know in the 1930's, you needed to have a representation because there were horrible working conditions. i think the union now has taken advantage of many working class people. many are the people that say they're against scott walker. having people go to someone's house and harass and bully him -- >> of course, the unions in wisconsin leading the charge there in 2012 for scott walker when he was in a recall election. he became, i believe the only governor in the u.s. to survive to win a recall election. anns thanks for your case. let's go next to marion who in south carolina. looks like walker is about ready to leave the room. mary ann hello. >> caller: i'm a real big fan of scott walker's. i think he has done a lot for

the state of wisconsin. i'm a former badger. and my uncle was a former union negotiator for the state. i was really pleased that he finally broke up the unions. it's time we start having these right to work states. people have a right to do this, not to be using their money for union purposes. and they support people that i may not agrie with but i would have to join their union. i feel this is something he has done. i also feel that he starts talking about what we need to do is drug test all of these people before they get to welfare checks. i think this is something that we all need to do. that the entire country needs to do that. they say people will not -- the immigrants are doing work that the americans wouldn't do. they would do them if they didn't get a paycheck every week from the government. these are some of the things we need to get them to do. get their education, get their training. these are some of the things that i think he may be trying to

do as a country rather than just in the state. >> let's hear another view from the state. jumalis on our others line. >> caller: yes i don't really believe that scott walker is all for the poor people. because i've been poor all my life. and i haven't really seen scott walker do anything to help anyone succeed anywhere other than a business i mean, if you remember not too long ago when he and diane hendricks got caught up in a democal down here about how to separate and break up the unions. he's cutting into our livelihoods. i mean did the reach forget they can't be rich without the poor? where do you get your money from after you alleviate the poor? you take what we have then,

because you may want more. i mean i don't think scott walker is really out for the whole benefit for all of these people here. some people, most definitely. most people? most definitely. poor people? and us middle -- it ain't no middle class no more. let me take that back. poor people. they're not looking for us. if we ain't got no money to give them or lay down and give them our soul, ain't got nothing for us. >> scott walker announcing tonight he's entering the race for president in 2016. becoming the 15th major republican candidate. you'll be able to see all of this soon, shortly again on our video library. we'll show it to you after your house coverage over on our companion network c span. we go to bob in willow grove

pennsylvania. >> caller: i'm confused when scott walker calls for us to join with the kurds and the sunnis to fight isis. then the sunnis support isis and isis is sunni. i need someone to explain that to me. how we can count on the sunnis to fight these people. it seems to me the shia would be better ones to help us fight isis. someone needs to explain that to me. >> did his comments further clarify for you or confuse you? >> caller: it confused me. he said to join with the sunnis and kurds to fight isis when isis is sunni. >> let's get back to wisconsin, this is george on our democrats line. >> caller: how you doing? yeah, the problem i see ahead for mr. walker first of all, he did a lot for wisconsin during

the economic crisis. and that's fine. the problem i have is with his recent budget where he cut school funding public transportation funding i'm kind of in line with a lot of what one of your previous callers said, i'd like to meet that guy and talk politics with him. but one of the main problems coming up and i believe it was bernie sanders talked about it, too, is, you know, the federal deficit. and how it's approaching 20 $20 trillion. he doesn't touch on that. there is also social security and other issues he flirted with them a little bit and didn't go into detail on what he's going to do. this is the fundamental problem

i have with a lot of the republicans, including mr. hair himself, donald trump. is what are we going to do to deal with these issues. and that's pretty much i needed to say, thanks. >> let's here from chad in ohio on our republican line. what did you think about what scott walker had to say this evening? >> caller: i was pretty encouraged about him having -- before you can get your aid from your government check that you're drug tested. that's one step closer to employment. i'm encouraged by what he says about education, putting the power back into the state. because washington is so disconnected from every day people. the state has more of a handle on their demographic, the people they have to service. so they have a more what you would say, handle on how to treat and how to educate certain

people. >> do you think he can take those principles as governor and apply that to states as a president? >> caller: absolutely. absolutely. and i mean that's what people are clamoring for. our education system is in such disarray. when you watch documentaries on the parade in new york they house teachers that cannot go into the classroom and teach because they're unqualified but they still have to pay them because they have tenure. that's ludicrous. >> i appreciate your comments. more of your calls on the way, also tweets as well. this one from the campaign from scott walker's campaign a bit earlier. he's headed on the road for the next week or so. want to catch scott walker, here's how. he's heading out to las vegas. he'll be there tomorrow. and then off to georgia and south carolina. up to new hampshire later in the week. that 17th 18th and 19th.

he's focusing on iowa. i want to let you know about our coverage plans on c span. we start looking at the democrats on friday evening. we'll have five democratic candidates for you on friday evening on c span at the iowa state democratic party dinner. lincoln chafee hillary clinton martin o'malley, bernie sanders and jim webb. saturday we're in ames iowa and confirmed speakers include, scott walker, donald trump and a number of others, all of that live coverage this weekend over on c span. focusing on scott walker here, let's hear next from jose in washington, d.c. you're on the air, independents

line. >> caller: i think scott walker he -- >> it sound like you're on a speaker phone, maybe it's a lousy connection. >> caller: i'm sorry. i think mr. scott walker, foreign policy, he seems the same as george bush. we don't need a george bush again. but in terms of union policies i think he will be a really tough president. >> and i'll ask you, do you think the things he did as governor can apply to -- as a president to the states? can he bring that local control to the states as he did to governor and is doing in wisconsin? >> caller: i think that's a great idea. in the senate and the congress

that doesn't work. the power has to go to the local government. >> jose mentioned his foreign policy comments. an earlier comment did too with confusion about what he intends to do about isis. national journal tweet here and the comments of scott walker saying the greatest threat to future generations is radical islamic terrorism. countering his comments with the presidents. who said the greatest national security threat is climate change. to michigan we go to our republican line, and virginia hello, there. >> caller: hi. i was wondering when you were going to get to me. >> thanks for waiting. >> caller: thanks. yeah. obama and his climate change. he's a dingbat. they shouldn't have never got him in. anyways, scott walker, he is making sense to me. he's about the best republican we've got so far that i've heard. and i've heard every one of

them. and he's doing a good job in wisconsin and i think he could do it in washington. if everybody gets behind him. >> let's hear from washington next, back to the nation's capital democrats' line and caroline good evening. >> caller: good evening. how are you? >> fine, thanks. >> caller: i'm calling because i was actually raised republican. i grew up with a military family. and now my family owns and runs a joint small business started in virginia. and just looking at scott walker's abysmal business record in wisconsin, it would be really frightening to see him actually become the president of the united states. >> did you say really frightening or really exciting? >> caller: frightening.

their records show that with him as governor of wisconsin that business start ups were abysal. there are several articles featuring that. and coming from a family that owns and runs its own business, it's really frightening on that front. i think that people should take a deeper look into his policies his economic policies. because they benefit large businesses and not the small businesses that he claims. >> caroline you're calling from washington, did you say your family's business is in wisconsin? >> caller: it's all over the country, actually. it started in a small town of virginia. so i just really think that constituents should take a harder look at his business record before they make any

decision for him. >> we have another caller here from wisconsin. to the state capital madison andrea who is on our others line, good evening. >> caller: good evening, thank you for taking my call. there was a time when i didn't think scott walker had enough charisma to be a real contender in a presidential race. i have to say his speaking ability certainly has gotten better and better. and i think he's going to be a real contender. i don't know at this point that i would vote for him, but i sincerely applaud what he did with the unions in our state. i think that's the only real chance for reform and excellence in our education system. i have worked in jobs and for organizations where part of the staff were in unions, i worked in a position where i was required to join a union. and i really can't say i see any

good in unions at this point in time. i saw that they really protected people because of seniority and not because of performance and excellence. so i sincerely applaud him. and talk about the courage it took. tens of thousands of protesters around the capitol for months and months. death threats. he can be tough. so he says he can fight for us and win. he can. now, i don't know if that's going to be true in all areas. certainly in some. >> his wife mentioned those death threats. she introduced tonnette is his wife. she may not have seen -- she talked about the protests during that recall people. andrea from wisconsin mentioned she thought his speaking ability was better. he's a tweet from casey hunt.

>> walker has used the last six months to improve dramatically in front of a crowd. he was strong at freedom summit. joe, republican line. >> caller: i wanted to say that i think he's very necessary for this point in time for our history. most of the cities in the northeast are bankrupt. the public employee unions have crippled the country, the middle class. you look at the real estate taxes. this has to do with unions and the legacy costs that these corrupt politicians in line with public employee unions have done to the average taxpayer. they're not our public servants. we're the servants. somebody's got to reverse that. that's why he's so popular. and he's speaking to a major issue that i think the entire country -- especially the northeast where there's not at many right to work states where you have a major problem -- i don't care about the private unions. what happens in private, there's

competition in the rest of it. the public should be a public employee. shouldn't be like the same position the public employee has is higher and makes more money than what the private sector does. >> scott walker entered the race six months or so before the 2016 iowa caucuses. he's headed to iowa. let's see where things stand with the field getting much more crowded. 15 candidates. 15 major candidates. the real clear politics and their average, again, this was taken just before scott walker entering the race. real clear politics average polls. jeb bush 17.8%. polling at 9.8% scott walker. donald trump at 9.3% marco rubio 8.5. mike huck bu 7.5% rand paul 7.5 and ted cruz 5.0%. that's the rolling average from the site real clear politics. jim in grand rapids, michigan on

the others line. >> caller: my only concern about scott walker is the fact that he went to marquette and did not mar trickulate. as a former high school teacher i was surprised that he went to school and didn't finish. this is an amazing thing for a presidential candidate to not complete college and become a career politician. i don't understand quite how he can say i know how to do things when he couldn't even complete a college degree. this is not a difficult thing to do. and i think a second thing -- well -- >> do you think a college degree these days is sort of a requirement to be president of the united states? >> caller: i think it would be a minimum requirement. you can't even get a job at a

burger king without a high school diploma. and you can't get a job at a walmart in a managerial spot if you don't have a credential. this man has nothing. he's been a career politician his entire life. all he wants to do is ingrandize himself. >> scott walker ran for the legislature in wisconsin in 1993. he served two terms as the county executive of milwaukee county. now in his second term as governor of the state. kyle will be the last word here in san francisco. republican line. go ahead -- kyle go ahead. >> caller: yes, so i enjoyed the speech. i think governor walker has done a great job in wisconsin. i did have a couple concerns. the media's been talking a lot lately about why donald trump is doing well in the polling. i noticed for all the good things scott walker talked about, i didn't hear anything about the amnesty issue.

i didn't hear anything about the sanctity of marriage issue. those are important issues to conservatives particularly in the iowa and the heartland and a lot of the early states such as iowa and south carolina. and the dilemma that i face with governor walker is he has done so well on the public sector union issue. he's been a great governor. but, unfortunately, he does seem to be cedeing to the establishment on the marriage and amnesty issues. those are issues that to me are very important. if he could move to at least talk about those issues. he said something about religious freedom. it was one line. it sounded like he was having a root canal. it sounded forces where everything else was so passionate. it's a dilemma for some conservatives because he's so good on many other issues. >> do you think donald trump is drawing all the air in the room on the immigration issue, and

other candidates are letting him have that issue? >> caller: yes, i think other candidates are particularly republicans who have been bashing him -- i mean i live here in san francisco. i was very sad for our city what happened to kate steinle. and it's hitting home for me. he seems -- ted cruz to his credit as well -- they seem to be the only ones that are grasping the issue. >> kyle, appreciate your comments. thanks for all your calls and your tweets as well. want to check facebook before we wrap up. facebook.com/cspan. stacy said going by his list of accomplishments in wisconsin he would make an excellent president. wilma said too late he should stick to being a governor. from toby who says i'm not sure what scott is bringing that is new. i think the crowd is getting big and a serious candidate needs to surface. kelly, unions might not like him but he gets the job done.

walker is the best choice bar none on both sides of the party. you'll be able to see all of it online shortly at c span.org. next up, we're going to have a look at progressive politics and the candidacy of bernie sanders and other democrats in the 2016 race from today's washington journal. joining us in new york city this morning is katrina who is an editor and publisher of the nation magazine. thank you for joining us this morning. >> good morning, paul. >> bernie sanders speaks. he did a q&a with the presidential candidate, john nickels. they call it his most revealing interview. the socialist presidential candidate sets out his vision for america. i wanted to ask you, they write here that in the beginning, there were plenty of doubters. but two months into the campaign everything about this candidacy, the sanders'

candidacy, the crowds the poll numbers, the buzz is bigger than expected. that says something about sanders and it also says something about the prospects for progressive politics. what does it say? >> this is a economic populist moment i would argue. in that economic populist wing of the democratic party, the democratic wing of the democratic party is ascendant. somebody was going to fill that space in 2016 in this coming campaign. bernie sanders is filling that. it might have been elizabeth warren. but bernie sanders has staked out his ground. he entered congress in 1990. what strikes me is that millions of people are meeting him for the first time. he announced two months ago, but the crowds suggest -- just grow. and part of it i think paul, is that the main stream corporate media in this country has for a long time sort of

policed the parameters of the possible. i would argue. and led to a kind orphf downsized politics. the views bernie sanders holds about a more fair country and how to get there, tax increases on the very wealthy, the belief that this country belongs to its citizens, not to billionaires, debt free, free higher education. safe and secure retirement. expanded social security. all of these by the way, in the interview we push him on what does it mean to be a socialist. essentially it's being a social democrat. he's been center left in many european countries. he's like a 21st century new deal. according to many gallop polls, for example, majority of american views but for too long, the mainstream media has kind of said he's fringe of his views are fringe. and i submit one example is that

bernie sandsers was a guest on meet the press, the sunday talk show last year for the first time in his 24 years in congress. whereas john mccain is the most frequent guest on meet the press. somewhere in there doesn't make sense. there should be a full airing of the full breadth of views in this good country. the end of the day, the nation is not endorsing anyone right now. but we're saying what we want in this campaign as in any good campaign, is a robust debate. and in any good politics or system, an airing of new ideas. new ideas that lift up at a moment when many people pay attention to a political system. other times they don't. i think in 2016 a lot more people will be paying attention than they might have a few months ago. >> i'll follow up briefly. politico has a piece that says sanders' senate colleagues are stunned by his ascent. is it the message or messenger that's catching on or both? >> very good question.

i don't think all of his colleagues. you have a cohort is in the senate, elizabeth warren, jeff murkily, white house tammy baldwin from wisconsin. these are people who share bernie sanders' views. i think the media in this country too often does the horse race to the detriment of giving people the issues. bernie sanders is running a serious campaign with serious ideas and solutions for the problems he sees in this country as a very serious time. in fact a crisis moment for our democracy and economy. so i think he's caught the wave. he's caught the wave. now, is he and -- is he more surprised about how it's all catching on? perhaps. he himself has been a very sharp critic of a media which hasn't permitted the full range of views. by the way, he says he goes on and talks with reporters does interviews. and many times at the end of those interviews people say, well, what do you think of hillary clinton? instead of pushing him on his

issues. he's not in it to criticize hillary clinton or raise millions of dollars to run ads. he wants to have a serious debate. is our country ready for such a campaign? i think we're seeing elements of such readiness. we haven't seen it. the other measure of excitement the day after he announced he raised $1.5 million. do i like to measure viability of campaigns of candidates either fund raising prowess? no. but he raised $1.5 million in 24 hours. the median donation was $43. he raised more than rand paul or cruz, ted cruz in that same period. so i think there's an element of running as a small donor kind orphof insurgent real ideas campaign that people may be readier for. >> phone numbers obthe bottom of the screen.

we have the editor and publisher. the nation is celebrating its 150th anniversary. what does it mean to be 150, and what's new in store for readers these days? >> so i mean, i find it astonishing. you know i -- but i find it astonishing to survive. think of the lujauvty, 150 years. we were there for the launch of the telegraph and twitter. we've launched a new site, thenation.com. we understand we're here because i think though we cover politics and political parties believe in movements, which make fundamental transformational change, i think we're here because we believe in the power of telling truth to people of challenging the conventional wisdom of pushing the consensus. and raising issues which at one time might see heretical, but at

another time seem common sense. we were at the forefront of opposition to the iraq war in 2003. many liberals were not. we were accused of being anti-american, which is always what happens when you oppose government in wartime. but i think ten years later, the opposition to the iraq war, the view that it was a catastrophe for this country's security see what was unleashed in the northeast became common sense. we've had extraordinarily writers through our time. our special edition is available. martin luther king jr. was our civil rights correspondent for six years. james baldwin wrote a report from occupied territory harlem. he wrote it in 1966 about policing abuses. tony morrison has an extraordinary essay on our issue on the role of writers in time of fear. we launched chris hayes who i hired at age 28 to be our d.c. editor. he has his own show on msnbc.

we have a slew of writers. we've done investigative reporting, we believe in journalism that rights wrongs. new york magazine says the nation 150 years old, don't think many other places they mention tpm going to make it that long. we plan to survive. >> there is the fun cover of the current edition. we'll talk more about hillary clinton and lots of other things. let's get some calls for our guest. carol is calling from boca raton, florida. >> caller: lovely speaking to you. i understand bernie sanders was promising $50 million for jobs. and i would like to know who would pay for the jobs, what his

idea is for paying the deficit down. and the government doesn't create jobs. so what jobs is he talking about exactly? and i'll take the answer. >> i haven't seen that exact framing. good caller. i have seen that he's called for major infrastructure investment. which hillary clinton, i believe, today in her first major address on the economy will also second. i believe bernie sanders you know he has put forward budgets, as has the group the progressive caucus in the house over these last years. i would argue are the most sensible common sense budgets floating around this country. because they call for beginning to pay down the debt but at the same time making investments in this country's future. you know, there is a lot of money that sloshes around in terms of tax breaks for oil and gas companies, for military

companies, for pharmaceuticals. these tax breaks aren't doing a lot except enriching companies which are already very rich. i think you can find ways to create a budget by the way, budget is not just a bunch of numbers. you can find a way to do a budget that is very responsible in beginning to pay down a deficit at the same time making investments. if you realicate the money. there's an interesting idea out there that's not new. bernie sanders is one of the proponents called a robin hood tax or a wall street tax. al tax wall street to invest in main street. you can take on some of the companies which have reaped huge huge riches to find ways without zapping them but to just reframe and restrain them. but to bring that money back to reinvest in a country. what is the ultimate security? a healthy literate secure

country. with its rising middle class, bernie sanders talks a lot about the disappearing middle class, beleaguered middle class. i think that's where budgets should be focused on. rebuilding middle class, rebuilding security alone. >> to the hillary clinton speech that you mentioned. we'll have it light at 10:00. the wall street journal says clinton will tilt toward the left in this economic plan. she'll focus on her differences with republican rivals. she'll accuse them of seeking growth without regard to whether the middle class thrives and they'll say raising -- the speech will also draw implicit contrast with bernie sanders, senator sanders from vermont. he is focusing heavily on ine inequality calling for taxes to aid the middle class.

a little bit more on the pending battle? >> i think you already see -- i hate to do this because i think bernie sanders' candidacy should be viewed as a foil to hillary clinton. it's like what his his campaign mean for hillary clinton to the progressive left? his campaign and issues should stand on their own legs. it will move hillary clinton to speak more urgently and fundamentally to the issue of our time how do you rebuild the middle class. what she is talking about, first of all, in my mind is it left wing to argue that people who work 40 hours a week, for example, should not live in poverty? that, to me, is humane. that to me is a politics the pope could support. the pope traveling around latin america talking about unfettered

capitalism makes bernie sanders look like a centrist. hillary clinton will talk about the bottom up wage stagnation. what can be done to rebuild the middle class. she's going to talk about empowering workers. she's not going to focus as so many democrats have on the role of technology and globalization. she will make the point the fact we have this inequality is not immaculate conception. it's the role of politics and policy to play a role to rebuild an economy that works for everyone. bernie sanders, however, i think gets more to the nub of the problem. it's a position, paul, that majority of americans support. which is increasing taxes on the very rich. i don't think you can really begin to address the defining crisis of our time which is inequality without taking that up. i think it's heretical but the nation at 150 years old covered

this years ago. president dwight eisenhower had a tax. no one is calling for that because we have moved into an era where we're trying to recalibrate after the erosion i would argue, of the safety net over 40, 50, 60 years of largely republican assault. so i think hillary clinton's address will have some interesting ideas. but i don't think she's going to talk as frontally as bernie sanders does about the importance of taking on banks too big to fail. of insuring the banks are responsible to the real economy. that banks aren't defrauding bilking, and you know, criminalizing the economy in which they have been so blessed to work in. >> go to michelle intoma, wisconsin, democrat you're on with katrina. good morning. >> caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call.

i was calling because i do like bernie sanders. he is straight and up front. he wants to down wall street and the big banks that tend to put some failure in our economy. i, too believe that for our economy to get a boost and to go in the right direction, we need to tax the wealthiest people. they seem to get around the tax breaks and everything. and, yet, the republicans will say, oh, that's just a tax break and the poor and middle class are getting handouts. well, if the big corporations that are million dollar profits and billion dollar profits should be able to pay their taxes on those things. and, you know, i'm thankful that bernie sanders is going to be straight and take on wall street. because a lot of our failures in our economy is because of them

controlling so much stuff that we just -- the poor and the middle class just don't have a chance anymore. i don't understand it. >> thanks for calling michelle. >> you're seeing in this moment. i talked earlier about the ascendancy of a kind of populist wing. i mean that in the best sense of the team. there is also a right wing populism that roams the land and roams the world. a economic progressive populism that's there's more attention being paid to low income people. we forget our contributing editor of many years, our great editor one of his favorite statements was the united states of amnessia. history is roaring back. we forget wall street -- the hyperfinancialization of our economy the derivatives which

blew up our economy, the reckless casino capitalism that is so much a part of wall street, these exotic instruments which bankers sometimes don't even know about, i think we need to rein that in so there's connection between the real economy and the wall street economy. there are simple things that are matters of raw fairness. why is it as warren buffet, a billionaire says that he pays fewer taxes than his secretary. there are so many tax breaks because the richest have something i would call the income defense industry. the have the best lawyers, the best accountants,ther best investment advisors. there's no reason that private equity firms should have something called this carried interest tax break. where they get off paying far lower taxes on investments capital gains tax. let me put it simply, wealth

should be taxed if not equally at a higher rate than work and i think it's really very unfair in this country that wealth is taxed often at lower rates than work. and so people get shafted. and in that shafting, people like bernie sanders find an anger and a passion among millions who want to right the wrongs and find a different path forward. it's not revenge or vengeance. it's simply saying, you know there's a fairness, there's a fair deal here we should try to get back. >> let's go to illinois. river grove, illinois, republican named john. you're on with the editor and publisher on the nation, good morning. >> caller: good morning, sir. >> what would you like to say john? >> caller: i would like to say that more people should read the federalist papers that was written in 1787.

about energy in politics. and what's happening today is in the book. it's actually detailed. article nine is about what happened recently with the flag issue. and article 11 is about commerce in the navy and number 64 is about treaties. everything that's happening today is in the book. business should be taxed as commerce. as the business should be taxed but not the wealthiest person. that's more like an income tax. >> good caller, you know, what's going on with some of the taxing

of corporations is massive tax evasion. listen, i'm not anti-business. i think there's a role for business. honest, strong business, which helps create jobs, which participants in this country's life and community. but too often these corporations are truly unpatriotic. they shut down factories in communities. they take their money out of the country so that they don't get taxed. they don't contribute to the revenue base of this country. i think in that lack of patriotism we need to say let's strike a new deal. and that term new deal i'm not using lightly. we need a new deal. a new social contract. and that is something that is very much prodemocracy and very much it seems to me coming back to the federalist papers at the heart of the best you know, kind of role in this country is

a social contract that honors the rights of workers, the contributions of workers, honors communities. and also gives business the right to do well. but this maximization of short term profit, the failure to invest long term in communities, just the ripping off of profits in order to benefit a few shareholders or to take money and reinvest it in profits, all of this is not part of what i think founding fathers really thought about when they thought about the roll of commerce and business in this good country. >> what do you make of this so-called trust gap concerning hillary clinton? is it real in your view? and what's caused it in your view? and what could be done about it? >> so on some level, i try to avoid the personality scrum

coverage of campaigns. i want to see where she moves on the issues. but i do think that, you know, she comes -- it's an extraordinary situation. i've never accepted that the clintons are a dynasty. the bushes are a dineynastydynasty. rand and ron paul are a dynasty. hillary clinton has had a extraordinary career. i do think for example in her handling of the e-mails, it's not at all clear that any laws were violated. but there was a flouting of regulations a little bit of trimming here and there. and the danger as she kind of in her first groouinterview last week seemed to be readings lawyers' notes, it confirmed the narrative that has floated around the clintons for a while. which is that they play by their own rules. it kind of compounds that

narrative. and so it's a problem. but i think she has a campaign, you know, it's hard to believe we're only a few months into it. there hasn't been a first debate. i think the debates on the democratic side should be moved up and there should be more of them. but i think she has the ability to address that. i do think the policies, how people will lead a country the staggering difference between the republicans and the democrats on the economic issues republicans would tear apart the safety net. they'd roll back or try to -- healthcare. they'd cut social security, cut medicare. >> lower taxes for the richest. roll back the wall street reforms we've seen. those are the fundamental issues. i think hillary clinton has a chance to speak to the trust issues more honestly. we hope to get an interview with hillary clinton. it's not just bernie sanders, we are reaching out to martin o'malley former governor of

maryland. we had we'd like to interview all the candidates. you know you talk the corporations are in some democratic system. they're not. they're owned by shareholders. you call it unpatriotic for the companies to do what they do. they're not in a democracy okay. they're in capitalists. there's a dividing line. what is the progressive nature of our country? our national debt is $18 trillion. where does that end and where does any sort of trust happen for the average american citizen when it comes to we can't protect our border, which means we really don't have like donald trump said, we really don't have a country if we can't

defend the border. on top of it what are we supposed to figure. we'll end up being $25 trillion in debt? the biggest national security risk is our national debt. >> i disagree with that. i think one takes the debt seriously. but one also understands there's a fetish about the debt. we have the ability to live within our means, be responsible. as i said, pay down the debt. but do so in a way that is in sync with the value of our country. the fetish with the debt we have the ability to control our own currency to revisit policies and regulations. by the way the corporations, even milton friedman didn't see the short-term maximization as part of the corporate charter. but that's what happened. in corporations have to operate

at a national environment. they want to be free of all policies and politics. that would lead to anarchy in my view. it would be a brutal world if corporations ran rough shot over the right of countries of sovereignty. they operate by their own rules and laws because they have the money often to lubricate systems by their representatives through this campaign finance system we have. to have seven lobbyists for every representative. you can't say corporations are unto themselves. they're chartered by states. they are chartered. they have to abide by certain rules and regulations. in terms of the border, i don't think this discussion is totally off base. the wrong questions are being asked. first of all, why are people coming here? we need to address the root causes in the countries from which immigrants are coming. immigrants continue to this

country in so many ways. they have contributed in ways donald trump averts his views. he is a bully a bigot. he is jump starting a conversation which the republican party tries to avert its eyes from. in so many ways he is threading what the republican party has become since its southern strategy, rite of -- i would submit some of the racist funders and policies and politics and people in that party. and i think they have a lot of soul searching to do. it is a suicidal politics for the republican party. but more than that it is a really ugly odious politics. talking about right-wing populists. you hear the likes of donald trump in europe. he's similar to these kind of neofascists, running around france or eastern european

countries. and i think it's a very dangerous sign. i'm torn between the media giving him more attention and so much involved with ratings. and i think sunshine is off in the distant when hope is that he will fall just as -- if you want to talk debt donald trump has built this so-called empire ponzi scheme, built on debt. nbc gave him a show and he became a folk hero. we have seen it through our history. oftentimes those folk heroes go down. >> david, ocala, florida. you're on the air right now. >> caller: good morning katrina. >> good morning. >> caller: young lady i respect your clarity in how you speak. america is quite intrigued in how you deal with things. i have to ask you a question and

you me an answer in right or wrong on whether i'm thinking at this level. the last segment was on lgbt community and what supreme court did. as far as i'm concerned underneath the constitution of the united states of america -- and i do want your opinion on this. under life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, okay we have a government that is charged with not only taking care of the majority but also taking care of the minority rights. when i look at what the supreme court did with the decisions for the lgb i don't see any religious right in any way or losing any of their rights. i see it as the supreme court holding up the rights of the minority, which you're charged to do in the congress of the united states of america.

do you agree or disagree with that? >> i agree. i agree. i don't see any religious liberties being infringed. i see an expansion of freedom. and if i might just add to what you said, you know so often court decisions come after a long period of social movement, of social transformation. and the court decision in a sense ratifies what has already been going on in states and communities and various movements in association of people talking about the constitution and our rights and liberties. so i think at its best court decisions do protect the rights of minorities. do expand freedom. and in that i agree with you. >> what do you make of the debate over the confederate flag? >> i think it's been healthy for this country, which again i come back to this united states of

amnesia. for too long eyes have been averted from our history. now, the nation don't forget, was built by abolitionists committed to ending slave isry. the greatest story of reconstruction. abraham lincoln. eric forner has an essay on the issue of the unending battle to secure the right of which we are given. but that battle goes on. in the confederate flag i see racism and oppression. it is remarkable to see what happened in south carolina, took a terrible tragedy. but that flag coming down. that's why coming down i think we now need to look hard at the structural racism in this country. william barber, the second of north carolina and extraordinary figure haven't read about him, do check him out.

he's the head of the naacp in north carolina. he's written for us. he leads something called moral mondays. and just yesterday he in north carolina they are launching the restrictions in voting rights act. we're living at a time when the flag, the confederate flag and its racist oppressive symbolism coming down but we're still weighted with a racism imbedded for example, i would argue in the restriction of early voting online voting, hours to vote. which disproportionately affect poor, young people african-american people. >> the next washington journal, the latest developments and an update on the house select committee on benghazi plans to proceed with its investigation. we will hear from a couple members of congress.

first a member of the energy and commerce committee. and later republican congressman mike pompeio. washington journal live every morning on c-span. and you can contribute by phone and facebook and twitter. book tv is television for serious readers. join us this saturday 11:00 a.m. eastern for all day live coverage of the harlem book fair. the african-american literary event with author talks and panel discussions we are live from our nation's capital for the national book festival

celebrating its 15th year. and lynn cheney. coming up on c-span3, a discussion on u.s./china relations is and common interests in the middle east. and then a roundtable on fixed income markets and liquidity and a look at u.s./vietnam realizeds 50 years after the war. and a congressional briefing on internet defamation lawsuits and their impact on freedom of speech. this aoefrbt the shanghai institutes for international studies. it is 90 minutes.

good morning, everybody. welcome to center for american progress. we're glad to see folks here on a rainy monday morning. i'm vice president for national security and international policy here. i would like to welcome our distinguished guests from shanghai. they have both managed to get to washington despite a typhoon that disrupted all air operations out of shanghai. so we're extremely happy you're here safe and sound. we hope the jet lag won't keep you from raising strong arguments and lively discussions this morning. back in february 2014, the china

u.s. change institution and shanghai institute neuer international studies discussed a report on a new model for major power realizes. it stressed it needed to be more about avoiding conflict. they needed to look at forward-looking actions and cooperations to tackle joint problems like counterterrorism and climate change. at a private dinner following that launch of that report some months before i joined, i hear a lively discussion taking place in the middle east. from energy security to countering violent extremism. it seems clear there were common interest. it was not clear whether the two nations wanted to work together or could figure out a way to do so.

the culmination of a year of research and exchanges between the two organizations. it started with that dinner and continued through a series of video conferences and high-level dialogue in beijing, china in march of this year. both sides viewed the regions as an incredible promise but marred by uncertainty political risks. they asked whether the u.s. and china could find areas of win-win corporation far afield while managing regional concerns and growing tensions in asia itself. they looked at egypt's prospects for future stability the legacy of the arab spring, and the ideas for coordination between the u.s., new silk road and china's belt and road concepts.

longstanding issues in the u.s./china relationship remain moving in a positive direction and some significant areas towards greater tension. but today we look for common ground in a volatile region that is important to both countries. the united states and china have a special responsibility over global influence. before we kick off the panel discussion, it's my great honor to welcome alan wong, of the exchange foundation for opening remarks. alan has been a vital partner facilitating and coordinatoring dialogue with the shanghai institute and others. it's a great pleasure to have him again. alan?

>> thank you very much. welcome to this panel discussion. i note that very soon the world will celebrate 70 years anniversary of world war ii. it reminds me somehow how fortunate my generation that we have seen no major conflict of that magnitude in our times. but it also reminds me, you know, we shouldn't take this for granted. there are plenty of predictions that an emerging power like china will inevitably come into contact with an established power like the united states. my colleagues from cap and

international studies want to believe otherwise. that there is preordained about this. and we always believe we should grant every opportunity and create the necessary conditions to improve mutual understanding to expand strategic trust and help establish an even stronger violation for u.s./china bilateral relations, which is the most important relations of our times. the high-level people-to-people exchange has just taken place recently. i was going through the lists of accomplishments of both and was quite pleasantly surprised and encouraged by the breadth and

depth of the items listed. in the sebd alone, there were 127 items listed. and despite what we read and hear every day about the disagreements between two countries, south chinese seas and the new national security laws of china, et cetera. overall relations have been on an upward steady trend. again, we must also must look beyond our bilateral relations and explore possible means of cooperation in other parts of the world. we are prejudiced to be a part of it. we join our close and very

capable partners led by deleon and also of course international studies by professor yang to explore the cooperation in the middle east, which is the most volatile region in the world. through their unrelenting efforts for more than a year, they have produced these studies. and i'm very much looking forward to the panel discussion and their conclusions. so once again, all of the colleagues in siis on behalf of my organization, a nonprofit organization based in hong kong to moat u.s./china relations, thank you all very much. [ applause ].

and thank you all. thank you all for being here. i'm really excited to have this great group with us. this is one of the more innovative things we have done. people don't think about the u.s. and china in the middle east. but the fact is both of us have vital strategic interests in the region. clearly a lively dinner set off a year of back and forth and dialogue and culminated in being able to issue a report today. i'm just going to quickly let you know who is on the stage with us. immediately to my right is a senior fellow shanghai institute and deputy director of the department of american studies. dr. wu is focus said on

china/american security relationship and arms control and nuclear deterrent issues very relevant in the middle east as we speak right now. immediately to her right is rudy deleon senior fellow here at the national security team at cap. he's been at cap since 2007. many of you know rudy well. former deputy secretary of defense for the united states. he has been very deeply engaged in u.s./china relations. among the people here he probably splits his time between the middle east and china more than anyone else. he is perfectly suited for this job today. immediately to his dr. is senior fellow shanghai institute for national studies. and looking at the middle east.

and finally ryan is senior fellow here and runs the middle east program at the center for american progress. well-known to many of you. and he focuses on the middle east and south asia. this is his opportunity to get exposure to china and think about how the two major powers could potentially cooperate in the region. what i'm going to do is ask each of our panelists to give a few introductory remarks. we will go into discussion and open it up to the audience for questions and answers. >> thank you very much is. good morning, ladies and gentlemen. it is my great pleasure and a privilege to be here.

and? china we say if you want to play a role you have to be through the grilling of people in the united states. i'm a little bit different from some people. they try to emphasize on the question problems of the china/u.s. relations. very often i would like to play the role of aeu most beautiful part of the china/u.s. realize. now, what my thinking about the project are china/u.s.

cooperation on the middle east affairs. i think there are three reasons why we embark upon this very meaningful profit. first of all the strategic importance of the middle eastern region. and this is the concentration of all the difficult conflicts relations of country to country, major power, religions et cetera. if you want to understand how the international affairs are working, you must understand how it works. secondly, some people say now we

reduce the dependence of united states on the middle east oil and the gas of the shale revolution et cetera the united interest is on the wane but i don't think so. this is very superficial. and the understanding, they the most of their money, manpower, political will. and just look at the secretary of state, john kerry. how many times he is doing on the middle east affairs. and also this is a place where china and the united states could complement each other.

the united states is the most strong strongest and influential country in the region whereas china maintains good relations with all the conflicting parties. and also china's dependence on middle east not only the energy but also others are increasing. and final is becoming from a regional power to a global power. so china needs a more proactive role. we can discuss and work together.

the united states and china do not necessarily see eye to eye on everything. however, we could work under the overarching concept of new model of major power relations between china/united states to tackle with this very serious challenges. and this is why and how both parties come together thanks to the china/u.s. exchange foundation in hong kong. and i'm very pleased this is what you have in your hand. thank you. >> thank you, doctor. i'm going to turn to rudy for a few minutes for opening remarks. >> thank you very much. once again, the two of us were

co-owners of this project. it did again, as vikram noted, in 2014 when we were having the discussion on new major powers relation. this was a chapter in a very recent book. it looked at rising powers and established powers from the perspective of germany and britain. and i think for no other reason but many others the fact is in the 21st century the united states and china will be setting a different course. one vastly different than traditions out of europe. and i think it's reflected in the audience here today where we see many friends many engaged voices in the debate. both across the pacific but also some of the leading experts on middle east policy here in attendance as well. so when we had our discussion more than a year ago, we note

said that in fact working together means working together as two countries on areas where there can be win-win. but more important to have a dialogue where there are issues of disagreement. now, as we press forward and as we look to a summit meeting in washington that is coming between president obama and president she in the september time range, we know there will be working together as highlighted by the most recent strategic and economic dialogue that just occurred but also know there are other issues of disagreement, most predominantly the cyto question which is front page news and has been front page news as well as some of the issues of the south china sea. but in these video conferences and dialogues in the discussions that brian vick ran and i and dr. hart our other cap colleague

and john were able to participate in march we were looking at how we might forage a better relationship on critical issues in the middle east. it's the energy center. but finding ways to make a constructive response in dealing with extremism, we have seen the consequences of extremism to the west, that was 9/11 and some of the attacks in europe and france in particular. the fact that all of our security forces were on vigorous alert over this fourth of july weekend to deal with some of the extreme threats coming from the middle east. we know that these are issues that are not going away. and we know that there are other stakeholders in the region, including china. and that one of the things that is extremely important is where

there is common ground. can the u.s. and china work together. and more importantly, not be played off against each other among all of these constituencies. so in our discussions both in the video conferences i'll let brian discuss egypt and the middle east geo-political issues, as well as dr. w. but one area on the new silk road. one belt one road. the chinese term for the same issues, we looked at this how we might use economic strategy to find complimentary and consistent ways of working together in central asia collaborating in complimentary ways looking to expand local economic growth through connectivity in a very, very critical region. the silk road, the one belt one road really takes us to

pakistan, which is an avenue both for trying to work in a constructive way but also recognizing that pakistan was the origins of the al qaeda in afghanistan as well. and so how can these two common interests of the u.s. and china in finding a better path forward in the middle east work together in central asia in pakistan, in afghanistan, in a complimentary and consistent way. collaboration is important because this is one of the least integrated, least developed areas of the world. and that they suffer from an insecurity that can push forces into the west, as well as east. and so we also know that this is a region with rising youth bulges and that they are projecting to face increasing unemployment.

similarly, the ability to meet the sustainable security goals in this region is one that will require political and diplomatic attention as well as an economic focus, if we are to find a constructive path going forward. i'd like to thank our colleague add cap vie, harding muck tar awwad, all part of our developing these issues and putting forward the report today. but i think it's interesting when you talk with people as we have cap and the shanghai institutes that you can find framing the question and starting a discussion putting words down on paper can actually lead to a constructive path forward. we'll have our differences. we'll have issues that are of critical divide. but that there are common interests and that it will be

important for the u.s. and china to work together on these issues of central asia, on these issues of the middle east as we move forward. vikram, thank you for hosting us. thank you for co-editing this paper and for always being on the video conferences, which when they are 12 hours time difference one side is getting up very early in the morning or staying late in the office. we thank those folks and alan long and the china exchange association for partnering with vikram as well. >> thanks rudy. your thoughts? >> thank you very much. i'm very glad to be here and have this opportunity to join the discussion on china/u.s. cooperation on middle eastern affairs. i read the report and i share with many opinions of colleagues

presented in the report. i think that -- i totally agree that china and united states have actually many common interests in the middle east. the two countries can cooperate with each region. and another thing i want to mention here is that actually chinese and american scholars share a vision what is happening in middle east now. they both notice there is a great transition, transformation in the middle east now. it is just opening. and it is just in the process of the transformation. and china and the united states to some degree have to adapt to that kind of change. that is a very big change in the middle east.

it seems that the united states is bringing a strategy to the middle east and trying to build up kind of a new balance in the region, to bring a relationship in that region. of course the united states is a major player in middle east. china at current stages still not as active as the united states. but just like the professor said just now, china should be and will be more active in the region. so the two countries have to consider how we cooperate with each other. it is kind of a big change in that very important region in the world. and the third thing i want to say is about the project of

china and the united states. i do think they are subparts. the two countries can cooperate with each other. very interesting they are overlapping geographically in this region. especially afghanistan. central asian countries and south asia, india pakistan. so that's one of the ways they can cooperate. and the other thing is they pay a lot of attention to economic development in this region. and i think that is the way to some degree to stabilize the region and contribute to the stability of the region. so it is possible for china and united states to coordinate on that kind of concrete project.

and of course on that project, china and the united states need more dialogues, discussions. because the two projects designed from different departments. for example, each other basically is how to say, in charge by the state, and development committee. so it is basically about the economic tkwolt. development. so how to carry out that dialogue between the governments. and it will be important to push forward. >> thank you so much. it's great to have you here. and we're finally going to turn to brian. brian explored some of the trickier areas. as he was saying in the

introduction, common interests are pretty clear. how the interests are prioritized and how you approach countries going through dramatic challenges and how we approach countries that have internal problems but we would like to help them move different directions. profoundly differently. we have looked at egypt in work and also in pakistan where there are interesting new areas we can have discussion. >> thank you. thank you all for coming. thank you, dr. wu and dr. yang. we appreciate the dialogue. we at the center of our middle east work have had an extensive dialogue with key actors in the middle east, the region, and obviously with our friends in europe about what to do at this time of change. and doing this project i think was essential to try to look ahead with a longer term perspective of where things are going in the region and what are

the possibilities. i thought i would make one overarching comment about the u.s. china cooperation in the region and talk about three issues. one, the issue of silk road second egypt, and third iran briefly. although our reports don't address iran, it is a very important day. quite obviously today in the middle east the snapshot is key countries and a lot of nonstate actors are in a fierce competition for power and influence. in some parts like iraq and syria, we have seen the tearing down of governance and stability. if there's one message from the package of or reports and dialogue is that the u.s. and china as two great global powers should avoid picking sides in the many different sides of the conflicts of the middle east. it would accelerate the process of fragmentation. and i come out of this dialogue

and this report hopeful that there is a basis for discussion but also mindful that there is a lot of work more that needs to be done between the and you say china. we may have long-term common interests in the broad sense of things. when it gets down to the details of what we do it's very difficult. the u.s. remains the dominant military power in the middle east. for the very loose talk, some of our closest allies of the u.s. being disengaged, no other outside power has the networks and capabilities that the u.s. does. and other actors as we know including china, benefitted from this overarching strategic umbrella we have used for decades. it's framed. it's changing in the middle east. and i think the u.s. is just at the start of repositioning its overall strategy to the region. at the same time, i think this is where we'll get into this broader point, china has had a

long-term strategy not only in the middle east but around the world of nonintervention. not taking positions essentially on a region that actually wants outside actors to choose sides. in essence, i see china's role to develop favorable economic relationships while avoiding many conflicts of the region. in some ways i thought about this. what the obama administration tried to do in broad strokes in 2013, when you think bit of trying to use diplomacy to engage the israelis and palestinians. trying to engage diplomacy with the syrians. and the four-point plan in 2012 all of these things led bisect kerry they tried to do in the middle east, is very much what i think china would like to do. as we see from 2014 and the lesson of 2014 that the region taught us, especially groups like isis and daish taught us,

all of those aspirations of trying to just use diplomacy without the other tools of security measures, it's harder i think to achieve results. and here we are in 2015. and i think the fundamental challenge that the u.s. and china that to round out this overall point faces in trying to explore the avenues for cooperation is to try to avoid the mistakes that were made in previous decades in the last decade by other outside powers. the way i see the middle east in its fragmentation in certain key countries like yemen, the u.s. and china need to avoid the mistakes made by other outside powers of just extracting value of a region without helping the region produce its value. we can think of models present day and previous ones where outside powers went into regions and essentially took what they needed for their economy without

helping those regions build up the structures. and i think a key lesson of today's middle east is very much the problems of the middle east are borne out of the extremism of today and the mistakes of the previous decade. rudy mentioned it and others have too, it is essential for key countries of the region in the middle east where there is a lack of trade and transportation within the region itself. if you go to egypt regularly you go to some of the lesser developed parts of the region, not the gulf countries, there is extreme need for the types of investments that i think china is capable of doing. the u.s. i think is capable, is less willing after the last 15 years or so given the costs. and there is a complimentary perhaps. energy development quite obviously. china is becoming more dependent

on the energy resources of the region. to help the middle east become this hub to link asia africa and europe is a long term project where we should continue the discussions and see where it maps up. again, this point of creating value within the region while we do that is essential. value meaning how does the u.s. and china help create jobs and job growth in places like egypt if our countries come in with countries that don't address the youth bulge and things like this. the type of extremism we have seen on full display in the middle east will only grow. so if we have an extractive approach one that doesn't foster institutions, that will be very difficult. second on egypt. and i think at a time when everybody is focused on iran and

giving the next deadline on talks, and isis, and given we have a program tomorrow with general allen on isis it is the most populous country in the entire region. i think for the last four years it has teetered on the brink of political and economic and social collapse. i think it is still in a very tenuous phase at this point. and when we talk about adopting or adapting the new silk road to place like egypt, there's obvious places where it feats in. with the attempt to build the second suez canal and help egypt become a much more place to link countries together. we may have differences of views. and we can talk about this. how is the best way for egypt to approach the extremism and terrorism problem. as we see in the last few weeks, this problem is not only gotten

worse, it has made things much more difficult in places not only in the sinai peninsula but cairo proper. and this is where, again i think not only what type of inclusive economic growth we want to try to promote to help the societies establish value but what type of politics do these societies actually have. what's sustainable. in my view egypt today is on the brink of not only islamists but not allowing them to be the space that creates a sustainable security. everyone though our reports don't mention it, and we wisely didn't mention it because of the uncertainty in the iran talks throughout this whole period when we had these dialogues. because you get into this business of analyzing something that is just not complete. this is quite good at that. we are about to do more of that. deal or no deal we will divide

into camps and things for the rest of the summer at least about what happens here on iran. i think though we didn't talk much about it in the papers we had discussions on the sidelines. to me obviously u.s. and china had a shared interest in preventing iran from getting a nuclear weapon. but the devil was in the details. deal or no detail to analyze that. but if there is a deal, both of our countries have a responsibility to be very careful how we implement on what that deal looks like. people talk about snap back of sanctions. we didn't discuss whether they could be translated into mandarin or chinese. but it will be essential. and i think china going back to my overall comments, nonintervention in foreign

policy becomes much more difficult when you have an agreement than when you don't. how do we figure out the best way to cooperate. china is iran's largest trading partner. it affects them in a different way than the united states. china, as we also know from its history, has had a history of weapons sales in the region and around the region. and i think we need to stay focused on that. and china i think no matter what happened, deal or no deal on iran will have the difficult balancing act of how to maintain positive relationships with saudi arabia and riyadh and a working relationship with tehran as well. i'll close by potentially saying the middle east is obviously in a period of equilibrium. what we are trying to do is the outside powers, the great powers of the united states and china, should try to be as constructive as possible in adjusting the equilibrium. if we make a mistake by choosing

sides, say iraq or in seay on different sides, rather than try to foster some common goals there i think would be very difficult. but i think in conclusion though, it's harder when you get into the details of cooperation. the u.s. has its own views. it actually believes i think still on balance that it needs not solely a military approach but a different type of political engagement and diplomacy and in some ways the toughest is with our closest friends. so i'll close there. >> thank you. thank you very much, brian. a lot of food for thought from all of you. and i want to make sure it's time for members of the audience to get questions too. but i do want to get to a few important issues. while i have the chair. the first thing i want to ask about. i think i'll ask both our chinese friends to help us think

through. how does china view this emergence of isis? and specifically this unfolding and metastasizing of global terrorism and extremism? i ask in light of the justice weekend of uighurs being transported back from china to turkey. and this sort of seems that china is starting to be affected by terrorism and extremism much more in a way a that western countries have felt they are being affected by it and now facing similar challenges. how do you both ensure you are addressing the concerns and needs of a domestic population and preventing a move to extremism and participating with other countries encountering

these global networks. i think it's not clear for many americans what china see its role as an international coalition against isis and how it analyzes the connections between the global extremist movements and what's affected china directly. and dr. wu if you would like to chime in. >> thank you. this is a very good point. china hopes that the emerging and the worsening of the isis, and they have a lot of other names, the extremism and terrorism is a great challenge to the whole international community. and we think we should not only

tackle with the symptoms but also the courses which could be traced into the local development, domestic politics stagnation of economics and religious sectarianism, et cetera. so this is a real new challenge to the world to the united states, to china and others. secondly this is even more serious challenge than let's say the 9/11 or the others because in the year 2001, these

terrorists were still disbursed and also intangible. but now they even created the so-called estate. they are there. anti-houstonitys, et cetera. and this should never be allowed. this is why china and the united states and other countries join others in condemning isis. because china and the united states have different practices. for instance, you have your airlines, coalition of the winning and able et cetera. but china has other ways of

thinking and implementing. thirdly, china itself is a victor of terrorism and extremism. for instance, the single of china, the heart of the country, was attacked by the terrorists. just like an attack against the white house or something of the same battle. and now we found thousands of terrorists and extremists

smuggled out into syria iraq to fight and to gain experience and the few of them smuggle said back. so these are the real anti-human challenges. and china wants to work with the united states and others to do that. so is in china we pay greater attention to the harmonization of society. we try to eliminate the poverty. one of the soils for breeding this extremism and this terrorism. of course sometimes like the

strong to kill a cancer, they have the side effects. some occurred because we do not know what is the battle way. some could be soft or improved in the course of development of the medicine. and so we also need to learn from the united states and other countries. so i think i am better to stop here and dr. wu. >> i just want to adhere a few points. there might be many reasons for the rising of the terrorism and extremism. but very important reason is that the balance of power the

original balance of power in the middle east to some degree broken and now we need a little bit to resume that kind of regional order or kind of system. but it consumes time. i mean the united states and other countries maybe make efforts to that kind of direction. but important force have to form the meeting of countries in the middle east for their development. to some degree we still need some kind of patience in that kind of process. and the second thing i want to say is that the countries like china and the united states really need to exchange our cooperation. especially with that kind of border on that kind of border protection and issues.

also, i think the countries need major powers outside the region need to create some kind of atmosphere for the region to stabilize their relationship. and also of course china/united states maybe need to invest more to that kind of society building which is conducive to that kind of stabilizing the situation. so there are a lot of different areas china and the united states can cooperate not just on the military side but the social, financial and other areas. >> if i could add, i mean again, the root causes i think are essential in looking at the region holistically is important. and the idea of harmonization within societies is a great idea for a place like syria or iraq. but we're a long ways off from that. i think, again, whatever happens with the iran nuclear talks the

aspiration of trying to help the middle east achieve some sustainable equilibrium is the right one. two areas that i think one that may be a longer term prospect and one that's a little more mundane and concrete, one is both u.s. and china discussing with the regional powers quite candidly that their support for support proxies, whether iran or our friends in the arab gulf is deeply unhelpful whether it's in yemen, syria or iraq, that is it contributing to the fragmentation of these societies. if there's one fundamental to explain what's going on in the middle east today, it's hard because it's so complex. but the one thing is that countries that have more resources quite off from oil resources are deploys those in proxy fights throughout the region. and getting to at least a cease-fire in some of these fronts, if not all of them, i

think is essential to do that. and that part is more candid talk i think openly and quietly from the u.s. to key partners in the gulf region. matter what happens with this iran deal there's still a worrisome role that it plays with its proxies and extremists too. i think sending that signal that we need to be serious about the asymmetric threat that it has posed is not helpful to the broader ring general. so that's sort of i think a longer-term fight. i think the second and more mundane are things like when we get to the details of implementing an economic agenda in the region. ly think of egypt i think of a country that has so many different problems, but one thing that it hasn't done yet, which is a reform of energy subsidy systems, this is something, a problem that many countries in the region have had. pakistan had it as well too. president sistersy took one half step in the right direction. it's essential because without energy subsidy reform these

societies are eating up so much of its own resources, its own budget, that is necessary to do infrastructure development, to actually set the framework for long-term stabilization and prosperity in egypt. and those sources of things aren't as ambitious but i think are very tough to do because of systems that have been in place for decades. so if we actually had a meeting of the minds and talked about the details of how to help egypt move through its next phase, i think we'd agree on many things including the need for bureaucratic reform, better governance. but i think the u.s. and china might disagree on the style of governance, maybe, i don't know, about what sistersy's using right now. so those -- i think there's a lot of work to be done. and i close by saying, the outside powers of the u.s. and china can do much to set the table but ultimately i think we all agree it requires leadership within the region, it's tore stay the hand of vengeance on these sectarian battles or to push through on very historic

difficult economic reforms like the energy subsidy reform in egypt. >> vikram let me make a few brief points. one, i should have noted that our report is available online for those that are watching on c-span and elsewhere on the video. if you go to the cap website, the report is posted today and it's available to all. building out because i think just the fact that we started this conversation with our china friends is important. but one of the things that we have come to know is that the middle east is not a single issue. it is the security and another point is when president obama talked about the rebalance to asia, there was this view that somehow the u.s. was losing its interest or its commitment to the middle east. i think we have completely disproven that, not only in our dialogue by finding mutual goals for the region but reflected by

the administration's hard efforts to continue to focus on the security of not just simply a single issue, the defeat of isis, but the security of israel, the free flow of energy out of the persian gulf to deal with the prevention of extremism in individual countries other than in iraq and syria and that moving forward, if we want to broaden and get into the questions of economic strategy and diplomatic strategy, it's going to have to be more than just simply what we've seen in the past. skin in the game is an american colloquial term but it means participation in hard issues where, for the united states there's not necessarily a win-win there. we're doing it because of the importance of creating stability

stability. alan wong in his opening comment noted for 70 years asia has been able to see this peaceful rise because it has not been consumed with regional rivalries but instead, everyone can focus on economic development. that is unfortunately not the case in the middle east. and so we see a variety of tension points coming together. and so as we try to move beyond just simply the security questions but to the questions of, can diplomacy in the impasse in syria or can there be a prom program that actually does prevent an iranian nuclear weapon, let alone the regional issues they're going to require a cooperation that is consistent with the major powers' model. and i think is one where the u.s./china dialogue is in its initial phase.

certainly these will be good issues to put on the agenda for washington as well as the economic, the cyber the other immediate issues in the u.s./china dialogue when we get to september. >> let me see if i can press any or perhaps all of you on this. three of you have said that, the rebounds to asia, america's increasing energy independence, don't mean anything about changing u.s. strategic interest in the middle east. the united states will continue to be as interested, will continue to be as focused. and there are voices on the left and the right certainly of the political spectrum. so across the -- in the united states, that would not only say that's wrong they would say the united states should really take a big step back and that china is -- and the rest of asia are enjoying the benefits of american security for their energy supplies and letting

america do the heavy lifting against terrorism and regional fragmentation, and that the only way to get others to step up more would be to step back a bit. so do you really believe that u.s. interests will stay the same? i think there's a broad center in the united states that thinks that's vite because the u.s. should play a leadership role in the -- in ensuring there's a better world. most of us probably agree with that. but do you really think there's no prospects for a change in how the united states in the next decade or two actually looks at the middle east? >> well i said, almost parenthetically, i said i think we're at the start of a shift in the u.s. strategy to the region. i think we've begun it. almost no matter who becomes president in 2017, i think the lessons that have been learned over the last 15 years of first going into the iraq war, getting more deeply engaged and built on sort of a framework of u.s.

engagement that essentially began decades and decades ago but got deeper after 1979. the whole security footprint that we've had in the region. i actually think it's change is as we discuss it. and obama is unique in the fact that he's reflecting, i suspect where the next administration might go. which is not full disengagement. i was saying no other outside power has the presence that the u.s. has. but when you look at and your question left, right, just the general consensus here, i think there's a general view that the u.s. need not bear all of the burden, that we need to figure out ways to build partnerships first within the region, and that's where i think the coalition that the obama administration started to assemble against isis is the makings of something that may have some potential. there's some common interests there amongst all of the different actors. the notion that other countries

like china have been already involved in maritime security and other things. how do we actually welcome this in a way that the u.s. still remains present? we're not disengaging but we're changing the nature of our engagement. i suspect in the 2020s no matter what we'll still have a unique relationship with israel. i think no one else has done this and will continue to do it. but throughout the region, i think we really would welcome, a, first who are the partners that are most reliable and capable from within the region? then b, who else can help? because my main point is that the u.s. whether it's a republican or democrat, right or left, in 2015 they're looking at the middle east and scratching their heads and wondering what more can we do differently? we got hyperdanlged and we're involved in places like iraq. we pulled back and things seemed to get worse in certain places. now we're back in a little bit. i think one of the lessons is we can't do it all. that's where -- maybe others disagree, but i don't think the u.s. is going to step back

completely. but i do think we're at the start of defining, how do we help the region, a pathway for it to become much more integrated with itself and then with the rest of the world? and the u.s. can't do that by itself. >> i think the strategic importance of the middle east to the united states remains there. however, the focus and emphasis of the u.s. strategic attention might be changing. along with the course of the developments. for instance the united states for a long period of time focused on arabic and the palestinian vis-a-vis the israeli. but now at least you have got

three, the palestinian, israel, the confrontation is still there. but we have the gulf region and the east coast and the west coast. they are opposing each other. and the third one is about the transition. started from tunisia. now to many countries. so the missions are changing. and the united states means are changing. and secondly, the mechanisms, the ways of dealing with the complex situation are changing as well. for instance, the united states used to rely very much on the so-called quartet. which excluded china from that. but now with this iranian