and breached in many small ways, intoe have not slid 1930-stop protectionism. it is encouraging the doha round of multilateral trade to get the conclusion. that has not conceded yet, although last year they india did not agree to the agreement. there will be another topic of conversation. this year will be a focus on trade and global value. rest of the agenda, there will be financial, revelatory reform. that would be the core. financial stability board was to strengthen bank capital.

banks that are too big to fail. the resilience tax agreement , both to deal with tax evasion and avoidance that the biggest head like -- headline thing that australians want to get through. we want to crack down on tax evasion. profit shifting, there is a two year action to deal with that stuff. also in the agenda will be international is traditional reform. is that stopping that the us congress has not passed it.

they are paying a big price for that in the g20. there will be some energy or markets, ncy of energy , energy efficiency, and creating a more up-to-date energy. thing about final the g20, australians are aiming a three page communiqué. if they achieve that it will be historic. i wish them luck with that. finally, , changing to china. economics has been a center in

the relationship between the us and china. the goal of between president and president xi jiping a way to expand cooperation in economic matters. interest in both sides for balanced growth. will be a good attention to promote growth of the helm economy of china. for us business there. property protection and industrial policies. cyber ome new concerns on security and the implementation of the antimonopoly law in china. us business have been a discreet right

way -- discriminatory way. 10. i will focus on the export. on the to put a focus bilateral treaty. sides agreed to last year, in theory, they will complete the framework and china will come forward with a negative list. going to be tough and it will take a couple of more years to get a conclusion on bilateral investment. will have a corporation and economic climate issues like change and ebola. talk about the transpacific connection.

>> south east asia, chair. sunny great to see a morning in washington, that the to hington media has pivoted all towards asia. this will be a tough trip for the president. look at this trip, . they wonder who is barack obama. now, after the midterm elections. will try to discern whether he has the commitment and political capital to follow through on early commitments that mike talked about. they will measure him on particularly economics for south-east asia.

economics is the foundational dad rock of security in asia. that means ttp. quickly shifting gears as we know. she will be meeting republicans on friday. four things where they can agree on, like trade. from signals they expect the white house, . they have hint, y seen a can of air south-east asia was mystified. that has been read as indication that the white house on the economic aspects.

the south east asians will be looking for that when he arrives in myanmar or burma. for the east asia audience. this will be the ninth east asian summit. president obama will be getting back on track. + with the same republicans have now taken the senate security ll look as if and political aspect of their pivot. the ttp will be the element of their pivot. that is not the element house, south east asians seared. i hope the white house will look with economic measures as

they look to pivot. can imagine an economic strategy for the interstate without including china. , as matt mentioned includes 12 countries. it is not legible, i think ttp has to be done. asians believe the indicators for that will be statement from leaders and a commitment for tpa. the malaysians will

hold a summit. a lot of attention will they put this year. talk cans will want to and t the structure original forum -- regional forum. plus meetings to do with the eas. president will also participate in the summit that has been institutionalised since president obama has been in office. clever way to say the white house was not sure if they can show up. credit to present obama to institutionalising this

level of engagement. they want to enforce the incredible stock of investment. you will hear more about that. this csis. ked about 10 investment is almost times than india. we are include energy, the biggest investments. meeting in myanmar capital, for those who are skateboarders. it is a paradise.

do a bilateral with the president of myanmar. the president is handling trip very carefully. he also called the leader of the opposition. has two important issues tto manage in the myanmar situation. on most people's minds is a 2015 election. right now, the president cannot run. i think americans will like to see constitutional changes before the election, so she would be able to run. be a hard is will one.

because the white house will try to support continuous reform. this is a country that almost in cloistered itself for 40 years. is a real push from the the house, new slators, including senate leader mcconnell. to address the fact that democracy and reform in be allowed to stop. is also a recognition that you have to be practical about how much change a country can handle.

the effort to es, achieve regional ceasefire. has a strong burma population. that is going very well. sovereign integrity of myanmar is vital. a very important new president of at the apac ill be and g20 meetings. president obama will meeting

for the first time and do a bilateral meeting in brisbane. very should be a important meeting. half of the population. they have japanese characteristics, the individuals will play a very big role in areas like foreign policy and national security in the east asian summit. is a five-year term, coming thing you will see outside the east asian summit is the growing determination to stand up to china.

on security threats. the chinese have not led off, have not let of the foot of the gas. to look at this as charlie brown, is football all k the the time. are holding the serious, saying we are kick the football, and the kid to pull back. so these countries want the us pushing in this role. there is also there is a the south-east n

asia countries apart from joining the investment bank for to be a ed states not defensive position. states has been put into that kind of reactive mode in the asian infrastructure investment bank. area in e free trade the asia-pacific. what we haven't seen, of all from this white house, we have nothing comparative economic strategy for that area. all the pillars, . if they can together and practically strategy . i think will gain east asia from that and they are

a terested in not having centric economic integration or a political integration. thank you very much. we will wrap up with steve up ris. , then we will open to your questions. please use the microphones, and identify yourself. >> thank you very much for pulling us together. i will speak briefly about a mission we have in myanmar. a few words about ebola first. the president yesterday announced a $6.1 billion supplemental for ebola. majority for overseas purposes.

global health security agenda. . it is a lot of money and has with the isis request. will have to benegotiate carefully with congress. might have eight pricetag to compromise with travel bans. going out to asia can raise the others to do ing more. power in een the lead military and with health commitment, but we cannot do this alone. others have come to the table like the uk, the world bank. parts sponse from other of the world and major powers

a s not been enough, despite very aggressive diplomacy by john kerry and others. australia announced a $24 million commitment following of the travel nt ban. which was quite controversial. it has s the exception, announced up to $200 million of commitment. is making the case. it has experience in pandemic flues. effort are sierra leone. this is very positive to have the chinese make a commitment of this kind for many reasons. is threatened by ebola, you will see that by the scanning in airports.

you will see the region is quite alive to the threat. that has changed significantly the last six weeks. any of try to minimise the redundancy with comments. the delegation was sent and we for the south east asian studies. she was a coleader of that with me. . we went there very much prompted by the attitude here in washington. we want a transition that were regression in myanmar. but a focus on governance

issues. especially around the peace negotiations. with special focus on health. to be more moving aggressive and impose more restrictions. the climate has hardened, and the president has to deal with it. terms of our impressions in become an his has overriding prison. there is a lot in play. we don't know what is going to of the in terms constitutional concept. the ethnic states and the opposition, this is a very fluid negotiation.

on the ceasefire negotiation. there was a commitment towards on the term negotiation political agenda. but there has been further bad news. it is back and forth, and still hard to draw conclusions. what is remarkable is that you have major interest like the world bank, the uk, to reform of that sector. as we detailed in this report we are starting to show substantial gains. they make this observation is a 3 to five-year cycle. it is key on the notion that government to work the environment is favourable, the ngos and others can move ahead.

malaria, big focus on threat, to disable therapies that work globally to control malaria. there is an enormous amount of activity right now. to begin to combat that, the brought have to be into the equation. we have resources. think during our visit we spent a lot of time talking to the government and others . it assault. rly brutal back in march. the state abdicated

responsibilities and stood back, while that happened. now they're trying torepair the damage. a problem that terribly to jugated and is not going be fixed tomorrow. but you cannot turn away from and not will we. you have to put stake in the stand up to this abuse, holding the government to account. i will not go into details moslem -- muslim and buddhist violence. -- concessional constitutional manners and electoral preparations. struck a middle path

and try to be cautious. the us engagement. there draws across the rt political spectrum. been able to navigate a difficult and politicised environment. on the electoral piece, wwhich to be the central piece for 2015. . they are underground and doing a terrific job. applaud what , we has happened. we continue with very strong support around the global fund and the world bank. winnie to be realistic around

bridge and around this context transition. shall not make judgement and where nclusions about things are going. judge is another way to something so complicated. >> two questions. how does your relationships between the us and china? how much has the regional original leaders paid attention to the us elections, are they as we are weaker, does obama have to prove that he is still a leader?

the china and community has been xi jiping has been tougher than expected. he acts like mao. the expectation was that against eous pressure attacks d japan, cyber on the us, these things are natural push back. an amount of n pushback for the south-east countries.

so, i would characterise the relationship as one that is not a done word direction , but there is a heightened level of tension. challenge of the present is on a win-win oing on broad economic issues . there has been a regional integration. is hosting an attack, enormous tting an effort into it. push the not trying to us and. they include all the apac

members. for two reasons, there is a set of rules. congress cannot digests it. so we are slowing turning down. of tension is higher. study , a 49% of americans said the relationships were good. the asian leaders think?

the judge is out. lot of rative among a that the present obama has the asian engagement in his blood. he wants to do, but he has been hijacked by the domestic policies. now he might be able to turn to asia for these issues. he said himself, i will be the in the united states, he speaks in behalf of was born in e hawaii. can speak to they americans. and that the understanding that vital americans. asia is to the future of our kids, our

jobs and our security. he lost the elections, she will have to accommodate work with the republicans. got one to make sure i fact right, 49% said they were cooperative. >> there is almost battles you a and the us, mentioned america pushback, that group ries in south-east asia are leading towards china. thailand, perhaps?

the south-east asian countries . you have to want balance in everything. he feels the americans. there playing complete offence, . there will be unasked for china to be more involved. obama has tony abbot in australia for more attitude. they want to see americans playing aggressive in asia. because of the geographical proximity of china. strange rhetoric in china, or they want to do on what actually doing.

quite frankly, they want it all. want china to feel secure to be economically successful, but they want the to also be engaged in a security basis. the china does not use the economic to impose itself on the sovereignty of other nations. me, you guys misunderstand where we are on china. americans to be engaged. thailand president seems like of the er leader south-east asia.

think it is on't particularly useful. what should president obama be in hong kong. he needs d the line. to walk? the constitution in in myanmar is it realistic it is going to change? hong kong. there is

concern in the administration because there is accusations in the chinese media that the us is behind it. out president should speak clearly in support of these people in hong kong, and what they are asking for. good for china's development, and for china's relationships with other parts of asia. that is where they are coming down. harder to do this when you are in beijing. travelling with

president bush and sing about how to speak about these issues in beijing. to speak und a way about religious freedom there. >> if i could stitch the two together. i think the americans have to talk about this. the present have to talk about this. in asia, there is a lot of analysis going around. if you look at the two events happening, the protest in hong kong. and the leader uprising in java. why do you think asia is going?

think south-east asia -- , i think we have a bubble going on in thailand. middle-class is moving forward and they want to hear prison, obama supporting these confections. it is legally possible , and to change the constitution, politically, it how that ard to see would happen. it would be extraordinary. the white house. it is trying to manage. is almost impossible to get that done before the elections. if it doesn't happen, what we should be worried about is in the g the baby out

bath water , and think that the economy is going to fail. of time ot spent a lot in myanmar. i felt like she wants this changed before the election. if cannot be there's an entire the termination to carry on to fight. she thought there was room to make nough votes to changes after winning. there is two provisions that has been in play. one in the constitution because are -- citizenship issues.

another because of seats for the military. i agree with ernie. signals are pretty clear that will not see that for 2015. the odds of sing a revolution was a clear shot for full victory are low. she and your position need to car collision al about how do they lean and play how much do they not play. faces a overnment broader predicament , thinking on do we reach judgement what is fair. if it does not include those

major reforms and opportunity to have a full run. beyond the 2015 elections . there is a real question about is the us approach to appeal to continue. election outcome in myanmar determine the bilateral relationships. >> there was high-level engagement. they achieved an important and historic shift. the white house, signature achievements of the pivot, senior officials of the white house dropped this.

now the president, and city officials put this on the scoreboard and drop it. they probably should have been of sustaining with myanmar. engaging ure we were at the high-level silicon hit the difficulties. not sure we could of achieved a fault free election in 2015. but i think we could of got a high level of engagement than we have had. >> thank you. mention that the imf is

jeopardising us influence in the region. how is it going to affect the position of the us to fail of that reform? and about how they have the pillars, but they do not have to do the reform? at the korea form, it because pushed be y recognised the imf to an effective institution of global economic government stability. to do surveillance and monitoring of economic policies. to make loans is necessary. address the so-called shares and balance of the governance of this decision itself.

try to ody agreed and implement it, but the us failed to do it because congress did not approve it. it is merely a transfer of money which was already committed. that is tremendously , ability and mf to draw people into the imf. frustration of e the larger emerging economies. they want more voice in the vicious there is a failure by the us.

it might end up being useful pieces of the architecture, but an terms of the us having interest in supporting the best elements of the imf . it needs to follow through and make this reform. i am hopeful that in the new will be passed quickly. is there an economic trade that spilling over to those negotiations? >> i think it is affecting or ability to be a champion. i don't think it is specifically affecting the negotiations. in a broad sense, it does

affect the us credibility. >> we have got important the ttp, n place with for instance. it is an important pillar. if we did that would set a high level. we need to do this. is we are failing to do to iculate a broader -- connect the dots oof the ttp with he free-trade areas or korea, and singapore. more on strategy is to make

we are not only a but that we asia, will be inside for this is going to happen. when you talk what we think. in theory to say that to ttp strategy was set of entivise a growing route economies to join this space system in its 20th century. it has actually worked, there is now 12 communities. when japan joined china took a renewed interest. as a kind king at it

of -- china outside as a way and ry and draw china others into this relation. not just about ttp, the reason why so important, is because it is designed to pull people into the system. is absolutely critical in a broader economic strategy. >> thank you. why you give any content on accommodating and why demonstration is looking having obama ut and biden building a special

relationship with him? flaws of the fundamental a the pivot, has been failure to assess the nature of china's behaviour in asia. i think they have different views between demonstration. until recently, though strong that much of china's behaviour were driving by domestic pressures. by the philippines, japan or vietnam, provoking china. there was another viewby the of tagon that this was part a chinese strategy to steadily a certain more control over the asia pacific.

doing so by denying or complicating the us access. my sense is that the center of to understand g china's shift, part of the beijing under xi jiping is pushing back. he himself has a history and father of from his thinking strategically about china. think part of it is that she keeping is a marxist , in the in a that he's interested marxist dialect.

asia, and views in senior asia, from china is that frankly not calibrating because they see a distraction in washington. a window of opportunity. hillary clinton or republican, who will be a harder line. that hypotheses . i have talked number of asian capitals. is a m line is that there consensus growing that there will be more tension with china the next few years. demonstration and have a lock on on in the world.

>> on ttp specifically, the us, japan, trade access agreement. . i thought i had maybe a little discrepancy in views, michael talked about frosty talks, and then you talk spoke them being quite close. midterm ou see the election results influencing whether or not the president gets tpa. >> these negotiations are very hard and complex. they have different levels of development. with the us and japan. there is

a lot of baggage on trade. there is personal issues. so all of that is leading to a strain set of talks. including the bilateral ones between the us and japan. but all the countries have a very strong interest in getting this done. that ultimately cuts through all the tensions of feelings people have, in terms of to erest. everybody wants get this done. i think they are close and the gaps are well understood by both sides. it is just a question of a finalpolitical push. the real obstacle, in practice the lack of tpa has made it

more difficult for the us and japan to reach an agreement. is time for tpa to move. work on ready to moving forward tpa, that must happen. matter, i think tpa has to be passed. especially before the tpp. the sooner appen, . the better. is the worst dynamic wars of the ade 1980's. tension in the room, just like every trade union before those negotiations.

but tpa is really blocking this. the other government, which a bigger economic involvement is stuck internally about questions is the present can deliver in congress. based on the observations of helping the congress. this race of hope on friday may turn around. if i can shamelessly -- , i the ncouraged when i hear stories about tension. it shows that the two sides are getting close to the actual agreement. i believe is consistent.

>> as you mentioned, they have 20 countries signed up. to the last research, australia and japan are considering to join it in the future. how likely will the united states chains is positioned? what kind of circumstances might the us consider joining it? think it is possible for this demonstration. i think that is likely if this gets up and running.

in a practical mannerthe united states cannot join this, special. it's congress is not things they o the have to. to you think they're going approve a multi-billion-dollar appropriations for a chinese lead bank? it is not going to happen. said, like the united states, korea and australia their own concerns about this enterprise. there is a lot of questions about the governor structure and how the power is shared. they going to be environmental standards?

are anybody who gets alone able to buy products, or will there be a favouritism to certain suppliers. there are legitimate questions about ntries that i think joining this institution. china needs to explain those things. some of s realised that these issues need to be addressed to make sure that institution can work effectively. convince people and clarify some of those questions. i am not sure whether korea and are going to join, or if you would enable them to ship those issues. also an argument that,

once you are in is very hard to change things. going to be 30% chance capital, so it will be hard to change things. >> have time for one more. >> just wanted to ask what your might be from the obama sea summit. are we going to expect anything good? >> the most important part is bilateral investment. has been hink there enough movement to actually announce a significant landmark.

the demonstration negotiators are focused on ttp. agreement on d an co2 emissions and the environment. the is a possibility of transparency , for example. some large expect framing agreement on us regulations. , with ied that on 2009 who jintao. it has fallen apart. be uspect the president will

some effort to reproduce and the businesslike. he will speak out at some point. try to find some positives in corporation. xi jiping will properly that is probably ok for now. everybody forhank coming today. this briefing will be posted online this afternoon at csi s.org. follow us on twitter. thanks very much. [applause]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] taking you live now to the american enterprise institute for a discussion with u.s. u.n. samantha the you an power. it sounds like she may be running a few minutes to hide. we are expecting her remarks at 1:00. they now may be 1:05. the associated press reporting on the surreal dream -- on the supreme court that they will be careenging that health law. a federal appeals court upheld irs regulations that allowed

health insurance tax credits under the affordable care act. opponents argued most of those subsidies are illegal. this will be the second case on the health overhaul at the supreme court. heart of theld the law and a 5-4 decision in 2012. again the supreme court agreed to hear a new challenge to the health care law. again, waiting here at the american enterprise institute hear from u.s. ambassador to the u.n. samantha power.

c-span is waiting for remarks to begin by u.s. ambassador to the u.n. samantha power. she will he talking about peacekeeping missions. the ambassador is running late. while we wait, we will take a look at the state of the democratic party after their losses in the midterm elections. this is from today's "washington --rnal here quote

"washington journal." host: we are joined by the president and co-founder of third way. what is third way? guest: it is a centrist democratic think tank in washington that works on economic prosperity to national security to climate change to education. host: one of the columns in "the new york times" that was written in the wake of the results tuesday night described election this way -- . for republicans, they want the trial of the senate for room to spare, easy victory in states and nailbiterle,

in virginia, and up site in north carolina, gubernatorial wins all over the map and a large house majority. it is a wave, whatever metaphor is five to describe a major repudiation of the president and his party. in light of that, where do democrats go? guest: you love to rub salt in the wounds there. that was a good highlight. a couple things. there's no question this is a bad map for democrats, a very bad map. second-term of presidencies are always difficult. and the democrats ran a lot of great candidates and raised a lot of money. all of that is true. however, if democrats do not use this election as a wake-up call to think about nto totnk about , but beyond, so that democrats cannot just win the white house, but also build and sustain congressional majorities, that

will be a huge mistake. essentially two things if you want to sum it up that went wrong in the selection for democrats. one is substantive, what political. on the political, it is all about moderates. stupid.derates, that is what it boils down to. the rockets had to win in all of the senate races those two 2/3 of all moderates because there are more conservative is in the electorate than liberals. that means democrats has to over perform among moderates. guess what -- every single democrat who lost, red or purple state, did not meet the threshold of what they needed to do with moderates. that is the simple story of this election. wellrats did not perform enough with moderates. the substantive side of the election is all those moderate candidates who were excellent candidates and wonderful markicians, mark pryor,

begich, mark warner, although he will pull it out, that is for sure, but all those moderates were great candidates, who had to write ideas for the country. they cannot overcome the anger of the democratic party brand around their next. that anger weighs heavily, because democrats have worked hard to try to turn themselves into a party that is about economic fairness, and what voters are saying, resoundingly, particularly voters in the center, but all voters is we want to focus on economic prosperity, in which every political party figures out the right formula for restoring and sustaining long-term middle-class economic for severity, that is what will dominate politics for the next generation. host: the first message of the president coming out of the election, was it the right message? there have been comments from presidential staffers but said the president does not feel repudiated. the president said he wants to move forward with some sort of action on immigration reform. how did you take the message of

the president in that's first speech that he that's the first press conference? oni think at this point come both sides, from both republicans and a democratic white house, the talk is irrelevant. what is really going to matter is whether they roll up their sleeves and decide to work together. and the new reality in washington -- and this is different in than the 20th century -- the new reality is we are in for long-term divided government. either party is likely to get a filibuster-proof majority in he time in the near future, not in 2016, not in 2018, not in 2020, in both houses of congress. that is not going to happen. the reality is, whatever he said in his press conference, whatever mcconnell and boehner wrote, that is a lot of talk. what is going to matter is after the holidays, when they start heading toward a new congress, are they going to roll up their sleeves up together? the truth is there are a number of very big issues on which they actually can and should find

common ground. happening today with a bipartisan, bicameral meeting at the white house. you mentioned the president's press conference. i want to play a little bit in which the president says he can work up with the rough up and house and senate. here's what he had to say on wednesday. [video clip] the american people overwhelmingly believe this town to stop work well and that it is not attentive to their needs. and as president, they rightly hold me accountable to do more to make it work properly. i am the guy who is elected by everybody, not just from a particular state or a particular district, and they want me to some of theselose divisions, break through some of the gridlock, and get stuff done. so the most important thing i can do is just get stuff done and help congress get some things done. in terms of agenda items, though, julie, if you look as i

just mentioned to a minimum wage increase, for example, and that is something i talked about a lot during the campaign, where voters had a chance to vote directly on that agenda item, they voted for it. and so i think it would be hard to this is just people are not supportive of it. we know the surveys consistently say they want to see that happen. the key is to find areas where the agenda that i have put forward, one that i believe will help strengthen the middle class and create more ladders of opportunity into the middle class and improve our schools and make college more affordable to more young people and make sure that we are growing faster as economy and we stay competitive, the key is to make sure that those ideas that i have overlap somewhere with some of the ideas that republicans have. host: those ideas that the president laid out there, are those the right messages for the future of the democratic party for the next two years? >> the democratic party has to

think on two tracks. one is, what can you do over the 212 months for 2016 -- nine to 12 months? that is not going to be on the minimum wage. it will be on corporate tax reform, trade policy, energy policy. those are places where there is already well-established bipartisan common ground come and visit the places you are going to see. the second piece where democrats need to think about goes to the longer-term message and agenda for the party. our view in third way is very arong that you must focus as party, substantively and in terms of your narrative, on prosperity. and if in 2016 democrats focus on a prosperity message and agenda that is about actually not throwing people a life preserver, but actually fixing

the road and making it go in the direction it wants to go, if that is what they do, their prospects in 2016 and beyond will be really good. if the party six with the same playbook that they used, the same economic playbook they used in the cycle, even though a presidential cycle is better for democrats, it is still not good enough. host: we are talking with the president of third way, here to talk with democratic callers in this segment on the future of the democratic 30. we will start with colleen calling in from long beach, california. caller: hi. i wanted to know what really happened there. was it because the democratic senators and congressmen and all the people running did not back obama's policies? it seems he has clear ones for prosperity and future of people. back sendinglicans jobs overseas in our trade policies and not having corporate loopholes changed and

stuff. they did not do anything come as we all know. we know the whole story. what really happened, and i think because of the egg fox the big fox news message miss jean, they know how to groom the candidates, even though a lot of them are based on negative redeker it and things that were not true -- rhetoric and things that were not true, and try to for their own people, which they did it well. what can we do? do we have to be more negative. do we have to groom our own people better question mark >> -- groom our own people better? >> great question. on the question about the president's record. truthfully, the president has just some significant things and don't our economy out of a ditch. the employment is well. stock market is high. unemployment is to the coming down. here is action -- his actual prettyc record has been

solid, but there was so much dysfunction in washington, so many things that did not work that that did not break through. the second piece of it is that actually a lot of the things the party talked about were things like the minimum wage or reducing interest rates on student loans. these are really important things we . atstrongly support them third way. you got to dig in and do big things, get a much bigger slice of the asia-pacific economic market, really change our schools in ways that prepare us for the 21st century, fix our entitlement programs long run, bring down health care costs, capturing the energy revolution. these are the big among bold reform ideas that we will not aid for product -- we will need for prosperity. on fox news, i'm a fan have fox

news, but they had nothing to do with why this election turned out as it did. it is just not -- they are not begin of, that is not really what happened. what happened was you had very, very good candidates in red and purple states running against a very difficult electoral tide at a time the president was not popular with a party brand on economic fairness that just does not work. host: we're talking with jonathan cowan about the future of the democratic party, but also a look back before democrats can look forward. in terms of looking back on the 2014 election on our newsmakers program, senator bernie sanders joined us, and he talked about where he believes democratic candidates failed in their campaign messages in 2014. here's a bit of what he had to say. [video clip] >> i think many of the democratic candidates did not an agenda agenda --

with resonated with working people, who said it is worthwhile for me to come out and vote picked what is very, very sad, and i would hope people, regardless of their political views, appreciate this, we have a situation where i believe some 60% of the american people did not vote in about 80% of young people and low-income working people did not vote. i would hope regardless of our political views people would see , to saya real problem the least come in a democratic society. but is answer your question, this is what i think -- i think where the democrats have been week an individual candidates have been week, is not standing up and coming up to the plate, saying we have to take on the rightnaire class, because now, especially with the citizens united supreme court decision, the billionaires are able to spend unlimited sums of money, and right now what congress is doing especially the republicans and some democrats,

is working to advance the therests of the 1% and not 99%. you look at the polls, and what is totally amazing is you look at the polls at the polls out there, i do, what do people say? they want to raise the minimum wage to a living wage. have the democrats taken that repugnant strongly on the issue? not enough. host: you can see that full interview with senators and days -- senator sanders on sunday. you can also catch it online as well. jonathan cowan, i want to give her a chance on commenting on some of senator sanders' thoughts on the election. guest: senator sanders is a passionate politician. is people i agree with him we do not have enough people voting in this country. in the greatest democracy the world has ever known, it is an embarrassment that so few people

come out and vote. i favor what they do in australia about which is mandatory voting. i think we should do some combination of mandatory voting and a whole bunch of things to make it easier for people to vote, male-in voting, voting on weekends, why do have voting on tuesday? why isn't it on saturday? i agree. the disagreement is he is just totally wrong. all democrats have been talking cycles istwo election the billionaires and the 1% and the koch brothers. he is wrong that is what they have not talked about paid i do not think it works, because americans want prosperity. they want middle-class prosperity. they do not see it is very much connected to some lengthy conversation about billionaires. very spefically, we had a case

study in arkansas. mark pryor, senator pryor, who lost, strongly backed the minimum wage and his opponent did not take the minimum wage passed in arkansas, and pryor got jumped by 15 percentage points. it tells you it has no political coattails. what voters are saying is, let's give people a raise. that is the right thing to do. that is not going to fundamentally alter my and my trajectory.nomic when you talk about an agenda that is about me and my kids and the future of my country. host: a few of the headlines on the topic. a key question was tuesday's election jobbing involving short-term factors or iparty -- a challenge to the party's message. eugene robinson asks, what is

next for democrats? jared is up next in rockville, maryland. good morning. caller: good morning. there are so many things they could attack it all -- they could tackle, campaign finance it, the political appointee system, but something that would be more within their reach, do , would be to tidy up their own house, congress, but to look at their rules, and now with that the pendulum has strong, the minority parties, but to look maybe 12, 14 years ahead and say how could things work better? why do not we have some rule about bills coming to the floor and for how long they can be open for discussion and can the dominant party just force it down somebody's throat as the democrats did to republicans recently, and also with the filibuster. inuess we have to keep it the senate as always we have to mr. smith goes to washington in the movies, but to do something

to modify that said that we are not any position of such an important governing body having to listen to dr. seuss recited by someone. changese sort of rules will help not just in cuts, but the entire government function better? caller: yes. >> good afternoon. i do apologize, but we have been running a little late. ambassador power has a legitimate excuse. she was in a cabinet meeting. i never had such a good excuse. we will use it and not abuse it today. i am the senior vice president for foreign dependence -- defense policy studies at aei. it is a pleasure to welcome ambassador power. i think this is your first time here, and pester power. all the more welcome. today and pastor power will talk about peacekeeping, united nations peacekeeping, and ideas

for pc fleet before. 120,000 men and women who are serving in u.n. peacekeeping roles around the world. increasingly, they are under threat from kidnapping and worse, and increasingly there is no peace to keep. the united states spends more than any other nation to support peacekeeping operations idea united nations. and the american people a well ask are they getting value for their money. and after power will give a -- ambassador power will give a short talk and the new continuation of conversation and open things up to the audience. let me welcome her to the podium. [applause] >> hello, everybody. today to talkre about u.n. peacekeeping. there is a lot going on in the world right now.

elie wiesel shared with me the following thought -- the winds of madness are building, and i know -- are blowing, and that is how it feels great the urgent, critical issues on our plate should not diver us from an important fact, which is that the united states has a vital interest and a critical role to play in strengthening peacekeeping to meet demands that peacekeepers are currently struggling to meet around the world. i start from a basic premise -- conflicts in faraway places matter in various ways to the united states. these conflicts matter because we recognize that violence within any particular country can quickly caused national and regional instability, displacing millions of people, upending markets, and spilling over into neighboring countries. the hard-earned

progress countries have made toward building democracy. governments and civil society, and they allow criminals and repressor's to thrive. they also matter because the instability created by these conflicts increasingly attracts can uset groups, who the vacuum of authority to terrorize civilian populations and plan and launch attacks. the suffering caused by these conflicts can be a powerful recruitment tool. even conflicts that are not field at the outset by extremist elements can attract and foster or, because state authority breaks down, places of conflict can be comfortable places for extremists to hang out unmolested. mali or thee darfu, wetral african republic, endure these crises at our peril. not only does curbing violent

conflict make us safer, it is also consistent with what our hearts tell us is right. a number of public opinion polls have shown that large majorities of americans support action to prevent mass atrocities from occurring in other parts of the world. we do not want to live in a world where more than 9000 kids are recruited in less than a year to become child soldiers, as as happened recently in south sudan. a do not want to live in world where religious or ethnic communities who have lived together for decades in harmony, such as muslims and christian in the central african republican, learn to hate and fear and demonize one another. dother of america -- neither america's foreign-policy leaders. the possible next chairs of the senate foreign relations committee and another can become a senator's corker and mccain, have long been strong advocates

of preventing such atrocities. so have the committees'current chairs, senators levin and mendedez. the question is, what should america do to stop them? thatnited states has a lot we must do right now. we have a lot on our plate. our troops are fighting isil in the middle east. they are deployed to west africa to beat back ebola, and they continue to serve valiantly in as weistan, all of us faced substantial budget cuts. crises from eastern ukraine to gaza continues to cascade on the broader foreign policy horizon. as president obama said at west point, america must always lead on the world stage, but we should not go it alone. ieven if the united states has an interest in seeing confident but were civilians

protected, at the mean that u.s. forces should be doing all of the updating -or the part --- the abati we should notng send the u.s. military into all places where conflict is burning, civilians are hurting, or extremists are lurking. lessse we have to capable military does not mean we should assume risks and burdens that should be shared by the broader community. this is were peacekeeping comes in. when conflicts in congo, molly, or southsudan -- mali sudan, peacekeeping is the best operation we had. peacekeeping chores other countries shoulder the burden like intruding treats and sharing the cost of operations. provided that peacekeepers deliver on their mandates, multilateral peacekeeping also brings a degree of legitimacy in the eyes of the local population.

because missions are made up of troops from multiple countries with strong representation from the global south, spoilers and militants have a harder time cynically branding them as having an imperialist designs. places where the united states has decided to deploy troops, we have benefited from being able to hand off to the united nations as we did in haiti, allowing the peacekeeping operation been to provide longer-term support for security, rule of law, and political transition. the multilateral nature of peacekeeping helps address the in soider problem we see many matters of international skew to come from the spread of ebola to the rise of isil to the recruitment of foreign terrorist fido's, whereby countries with vested interests in addressing threats rely on the united states to do the lion's share the. pc gaming its other countries to by.d up rather than stand we start from the premise that

in a world where we had a vested interest in seeing the violent conflicts curbed and seeing suffering prevented, america needs peacekeeping to work. wecisely at this moment when recognize this crucial role that peacekeeping can play, shring up are less interest, demands outpacing what we can deliver. we're asking peacekeepers to do more than at any time in history. there are currently 16 u.n. peacekeeping missions worldwide, made up of 130 thousand personal, at least 100,000 of them being uniformed military and police, impaired to 75,000 total personnel a decade ago. that is not to mention the more than 20,000 peacekeepers fighting in the african union's mission in somalia. by far thehis is most peace keepers that have ever been active in history.

yet the numbers only tell a small part of the story. the strain on the system would be challenging enough if we were asking peacekeepers simply to do what these to do, to monitor cease-fires between two contending states. but we are giving peacekeepers brought and commanding responsibilities in increasingly inhospitable domains. we're asking them to contain and at times even disarm violent like the countless rebel groups in the democratic republic of the congo. we are asking them to ensure safe delivery of life-saving humanitarian assistance, such as by escorting emergency shipments of food and medicine to civilians as peacekeepers have done in south sudan. we're asking them to protect civilians from atrocities such as those been carried out in the central african republic. and we're asking them to help provide civility in countries emerging from brutal civil wars, as in liberia, and in virtually

all of these missions we are asking them to carry out these duties in countries where governments are extremely weak and often unable to meet the basic needs of their citizens. peacekeepers u.n. are operating in active conflict areas, the highest percentage ever. employed to often areas where married rebel groups and militias have made clear that they intend to keep fighting, and the warring politicsn moderate increasingly include violent extremist groups who terrorized civilians and you peacekeepers openly, treat peacekeepers as legitimate targets. but precisely at this moment when we are asking more of peacekeeping than ever before, and as we recognize the crucial role that it can play, we see both the promise and the pitfalls of contemporary peacekeeping. we see life-saving impact when peacekeepers are willing and

able to fulfill their mandates, and we see the devastating consequences when they are not. if you examples. where a newan, civil war has displaced more than a million people and killed more than 10,000, just since last december, the u.n. peacekeeping mission has arguably played a critical role in preventing even more bloodshed. on december 15, a day that en --hting betwee government soldiers went house to house searching for ethnic man and executing them in the streets. in one incident, soldiers crammed between 200 and three men into a small building an open fire on them through the window, killing nearly all of them. forcescity of -- rebel targeted the homes and looting cattle. u.n. gates ofe

the space to civilians fleeing the violence, eventually taking displacedan 100,000 persons. on a trip to south sudan, i took in august, i visited u a.n. base where more than 17,000 people were taking shelter. rough as the conditions were for the people on the base, and they were rough, many of them were living in foot-high for deep filthy water, they told me they had access to food and clean drinking water and protection from deadly attacks, which was more than could be said for the south sudanese outside of the gates. recall whenearlier, civilian sought refuge under the flag, peacekeepers made a different choice. in april 1994, some 2000 rwandan a base.ught records in power,re chanting hutu

drinking banana beer and brandishing machetes. when orders came for the piece triggers test for the peacekeepers to evacuate, they followed orders. they had to shriek over the tutsi to get out. not long after to the peacekeepers walked out of the school, militia members walked in, butchering everyone inside. that was then. n. mission inou. south sudan opening its gates and staying with its people at time of great need. at the same time, south sudan today demonstrates the continuing challenge of rapidly deploying peacekeepers and equipment they need. at the outset of this the summer conflict, which continues to this day, the security council swiftly authorized an emergency surge of 5500 troops, nearly doubling the number of troops there on the ground in south sudan. later, theone year

mission today is still more than severelyps short, restricting the ability to project force and provide security for civilians outside the camps. it has also suffered from a chronic shortage of helicopters. this restricts the ability and effectiveness, often in life or death situations. in the democratic republican of congo, there is similar good news, bad news. after years of stagnancy, did you and there has played a really important role in the last year and a half in disarming and defeating powerful rebel groups. alongside congolese forces, these efforts have been led by a mission unit known as the force intervention brigade. , who has been absolutely critical to a heightened emphasis on preventing atrocities, told

fellow peacekeeping commanders at eight recent security council meeting to change their mindset and to stop reporting just what happened yesterday and instead start reporting what we did yesterday, so the accountability is for what we did in the face of what is happening. him hasbrigade under put these convictions into action, neutralizing a number of powerful rebel groups, including the m-23, which had committed atrocities against congolese civilians. the general has set an example of putting himself on the front lines of this aggressive effort, bridges abating in patrols with his troops and even traveling personally to the headquarters of one rebel group to tell its leader to lay down their arms or face a frontal assault. this is not your mother or your grandmother's peacekeeping. and yet even with this singular leadership, we still see you in

peacekeepers in congo fairly routinely failing to protect civilians. on the evening of june 6, assailants attacked civilians at an outdoor church service in a congolese town. many people called the nearby u.n. base, only five miles away. we were begging for help. in some instances they were using the free phones that peacekeepers had provided them for just such an emergency. yet the peacekeepers sat at their base come later claiming they thought the local congolese military commanders would intervene. more than 30 people were massacred. one victim was a four-year-old boy with disabilities who was burned to death. these are the stakes of what gets done right and what gets done wrong. this case.done in this incident in congo was unfortunately not an isolated case, even though the protection of civilians has boost to the heart of -- has moved to the heart of mandates. internalby the u.n.'s

oversight office in march found in 507 attacks against civilians from 2010 two 2013 peacekeepers never used force to protect civilians under attack. have,nds of civilians may an wasali, a teenage girl whipped 60 times in timbuktu for daring to talk to young boys. music was banned. today peacekeepers are playing a critical role alongside the french to help root out extremists. helpingeacekeepers are those in mali to reduce displaced persons by 60% in the pasture, and their presence has

prevented extremists from taking towns like timbuktu, or the community is reconstituting its long tradition of religious tolerance. at the same time, the peacekeeping mission in mali faces serious challenges in projecting force over the vast territory north of the niger river. the mission a struggle to establish base camps and sustain them in an austere environment with unusable roads. the mission has had to spend millions of dollars to transport water to its troops in that environment. worst of all, u.n. are facing unprecedented attacks by extremists. to give a few examples come on august 16 a suicide bomber drove a pickup truck eight in with exposes into the heart of a u.n. can and detonated its way. peacekeepers were killed and seven others were wounded. on september 18, five chad

peacekeepers were killed when their truck rolled over an ied. on october 3, there was an , which killed nine peacekeepers from niger. suffice it to say, when peacekeeping was created six decades ago, it did not have suicide bombers or ied's in mind. when we deployed peacekeepers into some of the most varies in our time, some of these problems would likely be evident even if the world's most advanced militaries were the ones wearing blue helmets. regardless, the problems i have described, slow troop deployment, the challenge of keeping units fed and hydrated, the failure to confront aggressors and protect civilians are problems that are in the u.s. interest to see addressed.

waysld like to share four the united states and our partners can strengthen peacekeeping second better meet the demands of 21st-century conflicts. first, the pool of countries that deploy troops, police, and military enablers has to expand. peacekeeping is increasingly funded by developed countries and manned by developing countries. this is unsustainable and unfair. it will not produce the peacekeeping forces that today's conflicts and our national security demand. it perpetuates divisions between when we have a shared interest in seeing peacekeeping succeed. that is why vice president biden convened world leaders at the general assembly in september for a peacekeeping summit, to press for more commitments from capable militaries and to demonstrate our common cause with those who are performing

this dangerous task. we are encouraging european militaries, many of which are drawing down from afghanistan, to return to you in peacekeeping were they play a very active role in the 1990' s. we are asking east asian militaries to drink more substantially to peacekeeping, some for the first time. these countries will not only bring more troops to operations, but also potentially niche capabilities, such as the surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities that dutch and mali, which should help prevent deadly attacks on peacekeepers and civilians like the ones that have taken the lives of more than 30 peacekeepers in mal in the last year. at the september summiti, many of our partners answered the u.s. and the u.n. call. announced it will

deploy its troops to you in peacekeeping. japan announced it will change its domestic legislation to permit greater participation in peacekeeping. indonesia announced it will more than double deployment of troops to you and peacekeeping operations and create a standby force to permit rapid deployment. more than two dozen other countries, from sweden to chile to china, made commitments. we will continue to urge me contributions of the coming year and world leaders will reconvene in september 15 to make new pledges to peacekeeping. as for our own military in addition to our heightened efforts in afghanistan, against the unitedbola, states also could trip it's about 1400 troops to the multinational peacekeeping force inai. as vice president biden said, we are reviewing gaps if the united states is in position to fill,

and that includes building base camps as we are currently doing for the mission in the central african republic. we're also doing more to share our unique knowledge of confronting asymmetric threats like the ones that peacekeepers are confronting in mali and somalia. lessons we learned from more than a decade of war in afghanistan. they're doing more to help peacekeeping missions make better useof advanced technologies, such as -ied equipment. our second goal in this effort is to ensure that countries with the will to perform 21st-century peacekeeping have the capacity they need to do so. because african leaders see firsthand the consequences of unchecked conflicts, several have been at the forefront of embracing a new approach to peacekeeping, seeking to execute the tasks assigned to peacekeepers and in particular

he the responsibility to protect civilians. hasafrican union demonstrated a commitment to building rapid response capability on the continent and the united states is leading a coalition of international partners in support to this end, in august, president obama announced a new initiative at -- gas africa leaders summit at the u.s. africa leaders summit. united states will invest $110 million each year for the next five years to build the capacity of a core group of six countries , ethiopia, ghana, rwanda, senegal, tanzania, and uganda, and we are hopeful our allies in elsewhere will wel join. and then make a commitment to protecting civilians from violence. to give one example, rwanda's

troops were some of the first boots on the ground when confit corrupted in the central african republic appeared your want the -- in the central african republic. rwandans reinforce their mission, people from other countries trust them. aggressors would attack civilians fear them. the night season has trained hundreds of thousands of peacekeepers in the past decade to the global peace operations initiative launched under president bush. it is an important supplement to that effort. our military experts will work alongside partners like rwanda to strengthen their institutions and capabilities so they can deploy troops when crises emerge and they can't supply and sustain their forces in hostile and inhospitable environments.

in exchange for this support, these countries have committed to maintain the forces and the equipment necessary to undertake rapid deployment. third, we need to build a global consensus in support of the mandates peacekeepers are being asked to undertake. the screen counsel first tasked a peacekeeping mission with the responsibility to protect civilians in sierra leone in 1999. this was in the face of that brutal civil war in their country. constitutingsions almost 98% of you and troops across the world are charged with rejecting civilians. a number of large troop contributors openly express skepticism at the scope of responsibilities the council has subscribed to their troops. these countries cite this traditional principles of peacekeeping, operating with consent of parties have

remaining impartial, and using limited force. this approach is understandable. many of the countries that subscribe to this view served in some of the earliest peacekeeping missions, and which blue helmets were deployed at the invitation of warring parties to observe a cease-fire along a demarcated line. such as one between israel and syria or india and pakistan. in that context, it was fight all that peacekeepers had parties'consent, and that they observed and reported infractions. for more than 20 years, peacekeeping has steadily evolved, and we must question how relevant these principles remain to places like mali at south sudan where peacekeepers are called on to defend peace and protects millions. as the ethiopian prime minister argued, we cannot ask extremist coops for their consent, remain impartial between legitimate governments and brutal militia, or restrict peacekeepers to using force and self-defense

while mass atrocities are taking place around them. if peacekeeping is to be effective in the 21st century, we have to close the gap between the mandates the international community asks his keepers to undertake and their willingness to successfully execute those mandates. if not, it puts the lives of civilians and peacekeepers at the and undermines legitimacy of peacekeeping everywhere. recently, some of the largest and longest-service introduced have demonstrated a willingness to tackle this issue head on. over the last year, bangladesh has conducted a conference of internal review to craft a new peacekeeping strategy aimed at adapting to the demands of contemporary peacekeeping. it has recognized the evolution of peacekeeping and pledged to make protection of civilians and essential component of its troops' training. meanwhile, pakistan so if it removed a sector commander who failed to deploy his troops to protect civilians under attack, and that send a message to eight thousand

peacekeepers worldwide that such action was not condone. last week pakistan declared to the u.n. that it was committed to robust peacekeeping to protect civilians. translating these shifts and posture into unity of purpose will take time, but these are promising steps, and we will work with our partners and the u.n. to encourage more like him. in turn, we must take seriously and seek to remedy the truth can frustrationntries' that they lack sufficient opportunity to share with the security council the practical experience of their troops complexund to taking on and robust mandates which put in harm's way their men and women in uniform. fourth, we need to press the u.n. to make bold institutional forms. it is easy to criticize the you and for all the problems we see undergrad, but that the same time we create much-needed cut

ability for failures and for abuses, we should take note of some profound changes that the u.n. secretary has made to peacekeeping since the catastrophic failures of rwanda srebeniza, to improve procurement, the united nations has made advances. fast year week spearheaded the effort to enact further reforms, including longer troop preserve, to institutional memory, financial penalties for troops who show up without necessary equipment to perform duties, and financial premiums for troops who are willing to accept higher risks, incentives and didn't his stances -- risks. ban ki-moon has just announced a new review of peacekeeping.

a reviewdo not expect to remedy deficiencies in capabilities and shortages in political well, the review should address the shortcomings in peacekeeping that the you and -- that the u.n. itself has the ability itself to fix. inadequate planning, slow troop employment, i'm even mission leadership, unclear and unenforced standards for troop performance, inadequate measures to prevent sexual exploitation insufficient accountability for failure to protect civilians, and an inefficient division of labor between peacekeeping operations and other u.n. agencies. most of the issues i've just described the u.n. secretary can take a strong leadership role. amber states than in turn have to step up. you have to have both. or lines of effort ensuring

peacekeeping better addresses 21st-century challenges. they demonstrate the need for u.s. leadership and to exercise that leadership, the united states must pay our u.n. dues in full. i understand the frustration many americans feel that the united states paying a substantial share of the peacekeeping budget. and with the u.s. share rising of the past decade, due to the formula, that the united states negotiated in 2000 which allow our regular budget contribution re, we agree that the formula should be changed to reflect the realities of today's world. until that happens, we also insist on paying our full dues at this critical moment. if we do not, he will dramatically undercut our power to achieve the reforms needed. we will undermine our leadership. and we will potentially underfund important african-led missions, such as the ones in mali and the central african

republic of. this does not mean we sign over large check and look at the other way. stewards ofary, as taxpayer funds over the last six years, we are pressed hard to improve the cost efficiency of peacekeeping and to prevent significant costs. through u.s.-led reform efforts, you and has cut the person 15%.keeper cost by foughtlso aggressively cost increases, saving hundreds of millions of dollars per year. we have pressed to streamline and write-sized missions where warranted by changing conditions on the ground. in the ivory coast we've cut the number of troops in half run 10,000 to around 5000. in haiti, we've reduced the number after the from 9000 after the 2010 earthquake just over 2000 today, and we were on

course to do the same in liberia prior to the outbreak of ebola. these efforts ensure that governments do not use peacekeepers as an excuse not to take responsibly for their own security. and streamlining missions in this manner frees up troops and resources that are needed elsewhere. we will continue to work to make peacekeeping as efficient as possible without undermining its effectiveness in close coordination with congress. as congress reconvenes next week to consider a spending bill, i plan to continue working with a bipartisan group of lawmakers find a path forward on this critically important issue before closing let me touch briefly on a trip president obama asked me to take last week to take stock of the international response to the ebola outbreak in west africa. hit sierra ebola leone and liberia, little civil wars did. and both nations hosted you and peacekeeping missions.

the u.n.'s mission in liberia is ongoing. arrived ineepers sierra leone in 1999, the cease-fire between parties was shaky. or than 50,000 people had been killed and rebel groups had a be tainted the limbs of 20,000 people. over the next six years, the u.n. sierra leone mission was performing a lot like the contemporary missions i described earlier. it suffered some very serious failures and setbacks, including credible allegations of an outrageous pattern of sexual abuse by troops, and less than a year after the mission deployed, rebels kidnapped hundreds of ofcekeepers, killed four them, and renounced their cease-fire. ans as isierra leone did last week, and a recall a mission that had an impact in helping sera lyons rebuilt after a devastating compact. these capers helped disarm

75,000 fighters, including child soldiers. the blue helmets decommission more than 42,000 weapons. peoplelped 500,000 displaced. after helping the first democratic election in 2005, the u.n. peacekeeping mission was drawn down. one of the questions that kept running through my mind as i toured freetown lastly, what if peacekeepers had never come? what if the country had still been at war? how much faster with the virus have spread? how would doctors and nurses he able to fund the country to help support that country's week health system right now? how would the military be able to help build ebola treatment units or bearer operations if they were tied down fighting rebels? he rarely ask these questions of peacekeeping.

we see the many ways that peacekeepers come up short, the slowness to deploy, failure to protect civilians. what cannot see what is impossible to see is the counter factual. what would any of the more than a dozen countries where you and peacekeepers are deployed today look like without a peacekeeping presence? and omissions do their jobs, as in syria lyons -- as in sierra leone, they make their selves obsolete. they draw down, troops come home, dr. parades, in spite of having risked their lives, they come home to anonymity. yet this what if question is one we must ask ourselves with every mission. what would have happen in south if no you in peacekeepers had u.n.present -- no peacekeepers had been president, or if the u.n. had not opened its gates to