-- has a lot to do with russia and in turn, this also proves that if russia and the united states and others have different opinions on how to deal with this, why not get closer to a solution? it gets mark obligated. it gets more complicated. the more you come to a unified position on a side --assad, the more you will get to a uniform course. yesterday, i talked to the prime minister of iraq and what he told me based on the -- on the basis of the challenge of is, he told us he sees the atrocities committed in a somewhat different light comparing assad and is. but i also think that those who

can never host on assad -- who pinned their hopes on assad, on his being reform, i also say that it's possibly easier to find a solution with russia than without russia. the people have suffered enormously. but with assad, we cannot overlook that. but the west isn't even looking at what we have to suffer in on the other hand, you have 220,000 people who were killed, millions of refugees, and we ought to find a solution. at its a very difficult and complex task.

quest thank you very much, madam chancellor. you have called for transparency and accountability from me and this is why i'm going to lee -- read out the list of names still remaining, so we can implement this correctly. i promised you would be the first to ask a question. in closing, i would like to express hope. i would like to make a request also on behalf of many of the participants present here today. you have started a large effort to bring about a diplomatic solution in ukraine over the course of this weekend and i would like to take up this issue once again. all of us hope that as a result of this weekend in munich, we will be able to send out a strong signal, which will bring

us closer to a peaceful solution and a cease-fire. and by stating one sentence, i would like to remind all of you of the fact that it would not be the first time that we succeeded together in munich together with the russian federation, to take a meaningful and positive step forward. in 2009, the same vice president of the united states of america, joe biden, who is with us today press the symbolic reset button in this very hall. and this was the starting point for the new negotiations about the new start agreement, and one year later, hillary clinton attended this conference and they were able to exchange documents relating to this new start agreement. if that happened was again, we very -- if that happened, once

again, we very much hope it could happen again. we very much thank you for taking 60 minutes to speak with us today. but after this very difficult week and the activities associated with it -- [applause] but german chancellor angela merkel flew yesterday to washington and this morning held a geo news conference with president obama at the white house. you can see that news tonight here on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern. one of the topics they discuss with the conflict between ukraine and russian backed fighters and on social media were asking if the west should provide arms to the military. join the conversation on facebook and twitter.

on facebook, bo wrote that, sure, arming the syrian rebels led to isis, but this time would be different. and patricia said, what we do if russia armed mexico's they could take back texas? you can see more tonight on c-span. but tonight, on the communicators, proposals for net neutrality including net neutrality. >> the chairman has said we are not going to regulate, and i don't know who the next at the chairman is will stop -- fcc chairman is. you may have to -- he may want to throw some thing out more market oriented. i don't really buy the "next chairman" argument, because the rules are only as good as the guy or the doubt on the floor enforcing them. we've got to do my -- our best to set up an infrastructure that will protect consumers, preserve

and open internet, which has been the greatest driver of economic development, free speech, and innovation this world has ever known. >> tonight on the communicators on c-span2. tomorrow morning's washington journal, democratic congressman gerald connolly of virginia and republican congressman luke messer of indiana, both will talk about the u.s. response to isis the situation in ukraine the homeland security bill and other issues and as c-span takes his bus tour to colleges and universities, we are in nashville. we are live every day with your phone calls, tweets, and facebook comments. louisiana governor of luis -- the louisiana governor held a practiced and here's a few minutes of what he had to say. >> from the ukraine situation i

am glad to see chancellor merkel and president obama our meeting today. i do think other folks within the administration and outside the administration that favor the united states providing arms, providing more citizens to our allies and the ukrainian government, i'm for that. i think we need a change -- we need to change president putin's tabulation. we know that he went into crimea because he did not fear real repercussions. we know many of his actions are based on what he views as a white house that itself is going to lead from behind, which is not leading at all. i think there needs to be serious consequences. i do think it's good that the german and french leaders are talking about the possibility of 10%. what i worry about is even if they are successful in coming up with a real agreement with russia and with the separatists the last agreements that were

supposedly to provide space and a demilitarized zone have been violated. anything we can do to change the internal calculus of putin is a good thing. in part, that it could be increased assistance to the ukrainian government. i think all in have also had an impact on president clinton's calculations. >> [indiscernible] class absolutely, i think we could work with allies, but i think we also need to be working with arming the ukrainian government. it is long past due time to do that. they are out i -- our allies. they are committed to a strong position ship with the west and with europe. they are a country -- a strong relationship with the west and with europe. they are a country that wants their boundaries to be respected. at the same time, i think it's good that our president is talking to the german chancellor today.

at the end of the day, however the reason i'm -- i am for providing these arms is because i think we need to change the calculus in russia. it they reality is, our enemies do not sufficiently fear us. and our allies do not sufficiently trust us. if you look at putin's original idea to go to crimea, this goes back to 2009. this president unilaterally withdrew the missile interceptors. and president obama also denied georgia their request for rapid ascent in nato. and then secretary clinton famously try to reset with russia in terms of resetting that relationship, but it obviously did not work. i think what putin read in all of that is weakness. he neither feared nor respected the leadership in the west, especially the united states. and as a result my thinking alike it was a good move for him, both at home and abroad and

in crimea. and now you see the balance -- the violence in eastern ukraine. part of the women can change that is to provide assistance to you the ukrainian government -- to the ukrainian government. also sanctions have not been effective enough. >> bernie sanders that he is seriously considered running for president. -- seriously considering running for president. he sat down at the brookings institution. he also talked about benjamin at 92 -- benjamin netanyahu's visit to washington. he also talked about college affordable it he tax reform, and health care. -- college affordability, tax reform, and health care. >> i want to welcome everyone here today. for today's offices, i'm a

senior fellow here at brookings. it's a great honor to welcome senator cornyn sanders as part -- bernie sanders as part of the discussion on the future of our economic growth. for those of you that want to comment on twitter. it is sanders at workings. -- at brookings. at, not the @sign. i want to say at the outset before i do the formal part of the introduction that it is a pleasure to welcome a self-described, proud democratic socialist here to brookings. you know, these days the word "socialist" is thrown around as an end that the, and the -- as an epithet, and the socialists i know are insulted when president obama's called a socialist because they argue he is too moderate to be a democratic socialist. but the thing we forget is the vibrancy of the democratic socialist tradition in the united states. and bear in mind we're talking

democratic, small d socialist, ie, scandinavia, not the old soviet union. and in the american tradition, we're talking about people from eugene debs to michael thomas to people like barbara aaron right. this is a lively american tradition that has influenced policy in our country in a great many ways. and so it is refreshing to see to have a senator who doesn't run away from a particular part of our american tradition. senator sanders is the junior united states senator from vermont. he's spent 16 years in the house of representatives, the longst-serving independent member of congress in american history. he's devoted his career to public service.

addressing the growing income gap and the shrinking american middle class. he's also been a strong advocate for rebuilding our nation's infrastructure and protecting our environment. he was also the mayor of burlington, and he is the ranking member of the senate budget committee and former chair of the senate committee on veterans affairs. and i just want to note that we sort of worry a lot these days about congress being able to do nothing. and i think it's worth noting that when two sides are willing to seek agreement and are willing to recognize the urgency of government action, you can actually have things happen. and very recently senate sanders, with senator mccain and others, negotiated a very comprehensive bill to deal with the problems in the v.a. medical system. so when we have senator sanders and senator mccain working together, we can produce miracles in public policy. and while senator sanders will not be talking about miracles today, i will close by saying that he is a fan of pope francis. welcome bernie sanders. [applause]

>> well, let me begin by thanking brookings for hosting this event and thank e.j. for moderating and thank all of you for being here this morning. before i begin my remarks in trying to explain what's going on in our country and where i think we should be going, let me say a i few words about myself because my journey and how i got here is, to say the least, a little bit different than many others who have been on this platform. i was born in brooklyn, new york, in 1941. my father came to this country at the age of 17 without a penny in his pocket and without much of an education. my mother graduated high school in new york. my family was never really poor.

my dad was a paint salesman. he never made much money. my mother's dream was to get out of the three-and-a-half room rent-controlled apartment that we lived in throughout my entire life, but we never made it out she never lived to see that dream. and what i learned as a kid is what lack of money does to a family. and the kind of stress and pressures that a family that doesn't have the money they need, what happens to them. and that's a lesson that i have never forgotten. my wife jane and i have been married for 27 years, we have four kids and seven grandchildren. and without being overly dramatic, the truth is that my involvement in poll the ticks -- politics has everything to do with what kind of country i hope that they will be living in. as the longest-serving independent in american congressional history, let me

very briefly describe my political journey which is an unusual one. i first came to vermont in 1964. in 1971 there was a special election to replace a senator from vermont who had passed away. and i ran for the united states senate on a third party called the liberty union party, and i received 2% of the vote. next year i ran for governor of the state of vermont, and i received 1% of the vote. [laughter] i was on the move. heading down. [laughter] two years later i ran for the senate. hadley remembers that race because i ran against him. i received 4% of the vote, and then i ran for governor in 1976 and received 6% of the vote. then i decided to give the good people of the state of vermont a break, and i stopped running for office. but five years later some

friends of mine suggested that i could do well in a race for mayor of the city of burlington which, as you know, is the largest city in the state of vermont. and in that race, i ran against a five-term incumbent, a democratic mayor. i ran as an independent, and nobody but nobody thought that we had a chance to win. nobody. in that very remarkable election -- and the point i want to make to you is a profound political lesson that i learned -- we did what is not done terribly much today, we did coalition politics. and that is, we put together an extraordinary coalition of workers and unions, of environmentalists, of neighborhood activists, of low income organizations. very first press conference i had was at a low income housing project of women's groups, of college students.

that's the coalition we put together. and that type of politics, bringing people together around the progressive agenda is something that i believe was right then and i believe is right today. i should also state that that campaign for mayor cost something like $4,000, and in the process i personally knocked on thousands of doors in the city. on election night when the votes were counted, we won the working class wards of thety by two to one -- of city by two to one and we won the election by all of 14 votes. it was, in fact, the biggest political upset in vermont history. and after the recount, the margin of victory was reduced to 10 votes. now, without going into any great -- actually, there have been books written about this -- i took office with 11 out of the 13 members of the city council those were the democrats and the republican, in very, very strong

opposition to my agenda. and trust me, if you think that the republicans have been obstructionists to the president obama, you ain't seen nothing with what happened in my first year as mayor of the city of burlington. but what happened, and this is also a lesson that i've never forgotten, by doing what we could do despite the opposition and reaching out to people, what happened is a year later the slate of candidates that i supported won a huge victory against the people who were obstructionist. and the other lesson that i will never forget is that the year following when i ran for re-election, we almost doubled the voter or turnout. almost doubled the voter turnout from what it had been when i first won. and the lesson that i will never forget and what i believe is that when you stand up for people and you keep your promise, people will, in fact,

get involved in politics. so i think it was true then, and i think it's true today. um, in 1986 i ran for governor of the state of vermont as an independent, received 14% of the vote. 1988 i ran for the u.s. congress, and in that election i was told by my democratic friends that i would be a spoiler, taking away votes and enabling the republican candidate to win. in fact, the republican candidate did win with 41% of the vote. i got 38. democrat got 19%. two years later i ran again for congress defeating the incumbent by 16 points. in 2006 with the retirement of jim jeffords and with the support of democrats, i won vermont's united states senate seat against the fellow who i think was the wealthiest person in the state of vermont who spent three times more money

than had ever been spent in our state previous to that. i received 67% of the vote. in 2012 i won re-election with 71% of the vote. as mayor of burlington, my administration took on virtually every powerful special interest in the city, in the state. we had a very active city attorney's office. against the wishes of the develop ors and the railroad -- developers and the railroad, we created an extraordinarily beautiful people-oriented water front and bike path on lake champlain, we developed the first municipal housing land in the country, an idea that has spread worldwide. we won national recognition for urban beatification by planting thousands of trees throughout the city, often using a lot of volunteers to make that happen. we made major improvements in our streets and sidewalks, we implemented the largest environmental program by preventing unat leasted waste

-- by building a new waste treatment facility that prevented untreated waste from going into the lake. we started a youth office which created an extraordinary daycare center, after school programs and a sustain center, all of which -- and a teen center all of which 25, 30 years later are still in existence today. we were the first city in vermont to break our dependence on the regressive property tax. we made major changes in the burlington police department to move toward community policing. we started a very active and successful arts center and women's council. and i say all of that to invite all of you to burlington and the state of vermont. [laughter] it's a beautiful place to visit. in 1990 i became the first independent, nondemocrat nonrepublican elected to the u.s. house in 40 years. during my first year there along with four other house members, we put together the congressional progressive caucus which today is one of the largest and, i think, more effective caucuses in the house. one of my first votes in the house was a vote against the

first gulf war. i believe that history will record that that was the right vote as was the vote i cast years later against the war in iraq, a war which has cost us many thousands of brave young men and women, untold suffering for those who returned and has driven up our national debt by trillions of dollars. it has also -- that war in my opinion -- has also opened up the can of worms which we now see in that region of the world in which we are trying to deal with today. while a member of the house financial services committee, i was one of those leading the fight against the decan -- against the deregulation of wall street. and i will never forget having alan greenspan up there are visiting the committee, telling us how great deregulation was. i didn't buy it then, and i don't buy it now. i also opposed the free trade agreements that came down the

pike, nafta, cafta, permanent normal trade relations with china. i never believed then, and i don't believe now that forcing american workers to compete against people who make pennies an hour is a good thing for the united states of america. while in the house i took on the pharmaceutical industry, and the outrageous prices they charge our people. and how it is that they end up charging us far higher prices for the same products than do the people that are charged to the people of any other country. the was the first congressman to take americans over the canadian border and will never forget women buying the same exact breast cancer drug for one-tenth of the price that they were paying in the united states. as a united states senator and former cha i remember of the -- chairman of the veterans affairs committee as e.j. just mentioned, i worked hard in a bipartisan way with republicans in the senate, a number of senators including senator mccain, jeff miller in

the house on what turns out to be one of the more significant piece of veterans legislation passed in recent years. i also led the effort with representative jim clyburn to put some $12 billion into federally-qualified health centers which has result inside -- resulted in some four million americans, lower income americans now getting health care, dental care -- which is a huge issue in our country -- low cost prescription drugs, and i'm proud of that. with senator bob menendez, i helped pass the energy efficiency block grant program which put billions of dollars into weatherization and sustainable energy as we do our best to try to reverse climate change. now, that is my life and political history in five minutes. let me get to something more important now, and that is the future of our country. on saturday, just this last saturday, i had been invited to speak in harrisburg, pennsylvania, and my friend and i were driving back to d.c., and we drove through gettysburg, and

we stopped there for a while at the battlefield of monuments and the museum. and while we were there we, of course, saw the lincoln statues, and we read from his gettysburg address. and you all know about lincoln's extraordinary gettysburg address where he said a hell of a lot more than i said in ten times as much time as he said it. but he said a hope that this nation would have, quote, a new birth of freedom and that government of the people, by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth, end of quote. what an extraordinary statement. and as we drove back from gettysburg to washington, it struck me hard that lincoln's extraordinary vision -- a government of the people, by the people for the people -- was, in

fact, perishing, was coming to an end and that we are moving rapidly away from our democratic heritage into an oligarchic form of society where today we are experiencing a government of the billionaires, by the billionaires and for the billionaires. today, in my view, the most serious problem we face as a nation is the grotesque and growing levels of wealth and income inequality. this is a profound moral issue it is an economic issue, and it is a political issue. economically for the last 40 years the great middle class of our country, once the envy of the world, has been many -- being inbeen in decline.

has been in decline. despite, and here's the important point to make that we have got to answer, despite an explosion of technology, can despite a huge increase in productivity, despite all of the so-called benefits of the global economy, millions of american workers today are working longer hours for lower wages, and we have more people living in poverty than almost any time in the history of our country. today real unemployment is not the 5.7% you read in the newspapers, it is 11.3% if you include those people who are working part time when they want to work full time or those people who have given up looking for work entirely. we don't talk about it. pope francis does, by the way. but we don't talk about the fact that youth unemployment in this country is 18%, and african-american youth unemployment is nearly 30%. shamefully, we have by far the highest rate of childhood poverty of any major country on

earth. i hear a whole lot of discussion about family values from my republican friends but nothing about the fact that almost 20% of our kids are living in poverty. despite the modest success of the affordable care act, some 40 million americans continue to have no health insurance while even more are underinsured with high deductibles, high co-payments, high premiums. we remain today the only major country on earth that does not guarantee health care to all people as a right, ask can yet we end up spending almost twice as much per perp on health care -- per person on health care as do the people of any other nation. now, as all of you know, there are a lot of angry people out there. all across the country. some of them are in the occupy wall street movement and consider themselves progressives, some are in the tea party movement and consider

themselves conservatives. but let me give you an explanation as to why they have every right in the world to be angry. since 1999 the typical middle class family, the family right in the middle of the economy has seen its income go down by almost $5,000 after adjusting for inflation. incredibly, that family earned less income last year than it did 26 years ago back in 1989. the median male worker, that guy right in the middle of the economy, made $783 less last year than he did 42 years ago. while the median female worker earned $1300 less last year than she did in 2007. that is why people are angry.

they're working longer hours for lower wages, they're seeing an explosion or technology, they're watching tv and seeing all the great benefits supposedly of the global economy, and they're working longer hours for lower wages, and they're scared to death as to what is going to happen to their kids, what kind of jobs are their kids going to have. are we better off today economically than we were six years ago when president bush left office? of course we are. but anyone who doesn't understand the suffering, anxiety and fear that the middle class and working families of our country are experiencing today has no idea about what's going on in the economy, and i fear very much a lot of the pundits here on capitol hill don't understand that. it might be a good idea to get off of capitol hill, go into the real world and find out what's going on with working people. meanwhile, while the middle class continues to disappear the wealthiest people in this country and the largest corporations are doing phenomenally well, and the gap

between the very, very rich and everybody else is growing wider and wider. the top 1% now own about 41% of the entire wealth of the united states while the bottom 60% own less than 2% of our wealth. and this one is incredible. today the top one-tenth of 1% -- that is the wealthiest 16,000 families -- now own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. one-tenth of 1% owns almost as much wealth as the bottom 90%. is that really what the united states of america is supposed to be about? i don't think so, and i don't think most americans think so. today the walton family, the owners of walmart, and the wealthiest family in america are now worth about $153 billion.

that one family owns more wealth than the bottom 40% of the american people. in terms of income as opposed to wealth, almost all of the new income generated in recent years has gone to the top 1%. in fact, the latest information that we have shows that in recent years over 99% of all new income generated in the economy has gone to the top 1%. in other words, for the middle class gdp doesn't matter. 2%, 4%, 6% doesn't matter because middle class and working families are not getting any of it. it's all going to the top 1%. in other words, while millions of americans saw a decline in their family income, while we have seen an increase in senior poverty throughout this country, over 99% of all the new income generated goes to the top 1%. an example, an example, the top

25 hedge fund managers made more than $24 billion in 2013. that is equivalent to the full salaries of more than 425,000 public schoolteachers. anyone really think that is morally acceptable, economically acceptable? is that really what our country should be about? but income inequality is not just the moral issue of whether we are satisfied about our country where we have seen a proliferation of billionaires at the same time as millions of families are struggling to make sure they're automobile to feed their kids -- able to feed their kids, it is also a profound political issue. as a result of the disastrous supreme court decision, the 5-4 decision on citizens united,

billionaire families are now able to spend hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase the candidates of their choice. the billionaire class now owns the economy k and they are working day and night to make certain that they own the united states government. according to media reports, it appears that one family -- the extreme right-wing koch brothers -- are prepared to spend more money than either the democratic party or the republican party in the coming elections. in other words, one family, a family which is worst about $100 billion, may well have a stronger political presence than either of our major parties. now, i know that people are not comfortable when i say this, but

i want you to take a hard look at what's going on, take a deep breath, and you tell me whether or not we are looking at a democracy or whether or not we are looking at an oligarchy. when you have one family that has more political power than the democratic party, than the republican party which can spend unlimited sums of money not only on campaigns, but on think tanks, on media, i worry very, very much about the future of democracy in our country. and that is why it is absolutely imperative that we pass a constitutional amendment to overturn citizens united and, in fact, why we must move forward toward public funding of elections. i want young people out there,

whatever their point of view may be, who like the idea of public servants to be able to run for office, to get involved in politics without having to worry about sucking up to billionaires in order to get the support that they may need. now, given the economic crisis that we face -- i talked a little bit about the political crisis, given the economic crisis and i laid out a little bit of what that's about, where do we go? what should we be doing? how do we rebuild a disappearing middle class? last month i introduced a 12-point program that's i called -- that i called an agenda for america, but relate me briefly summarize it. first of all, you ask the average american what the most important issue he or she is concerned about, and the answer is a four-letter word, called jobs. we need a major federal jobs program to put millions of americans back to work. the fastest way to do that is to rebuild our crumbling infrastructure, our roads, bridges, water systems wastewater points, airports, railroads and schools.

it has been estimated that the costs of the bush/cheney iraq war with, a war we should never have waged, will total $3 trillion by the time the last veteran receives needed care. a $1 trillion investment in infrastructure could support 13 million decent-paying jobs and make our country more efficient, productive and safer. and along with senator barbara mikulski, i introduced that legislation two weeks ago. further, we must understand that climate change is real, it is caused by human activity, and it is already causing devastating harm. we must listen to the scientific community and not fox tv and lead the world in reversing climate change so that this planet is habitable for our children and grandchildren. and what that means, that we have the technology to do it transform our system from fossil fuel to energy efficiency,

weatherization and sustainable energies like wind, solar, geothermal and other technologies. and when we do that, we not only lead the world in reversing climate change, we can also create many jobs. we not only need to create jobs in this country, we need to raise wages. the current federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour is a starvation wage. we need to raise the wage to at least $15 an hour over a period of years. no one who works 40 hours a week in this country should live in poverty. we must also demand pay equity for women workers who today earn 78 cents of what their male counterparts make for doing the same work. we must also end the scandal of overtime pay. we are people at mcdonald's who make $25,000 as, quote-unquote managers who make 60 hours a week but because they are managers, they don't get overtime.

further, we must make it easier for workers to join unions by passing card check legislation. .. in order to get good paying jobs. all of you know the hundreds of thousands of young people have literally given up on the dream of going to college while others are graduating schools deeply, deeply in debt.

a result of that crime is that she is $300,000 in debt. that is nuts. and we have got to learn countries like germany scandinavia, many parts of the world people are smart enough to understand that the future of their countries depends on their education their young people get, their college education in graduate school is free. we have got to learn that lesson. free public education does not have to end at high school. president obama is, president obama's initiative for two years of community college is a good start. we have got to go further. further, we cannot run away from

the fact that the greed and recklessness and illegal behavior on wall street caused the worst economic downturn in this country and, in fact, the world since the great depression. that's a fact. i know it's easy not to talk about it, but that is the fact. today six huge wall street financial institutions have assets equivalent to 60% of our gdp. close to $10 trillion. if teddy roosevelt, a good republican, were alive today, i know what he would say. and what he would say is that when you have six financial institutions issuing half the mortgages and two-thirds of the credit cards in this country, it is time to break them up, and i've introduced legislation to do just that. in terms of health care we have

got to grapple with the fact that we remain the only country without a health care program. right now, in fact, i say in this as the ranking member of the budget committee, my republican colleagues are going to begin their effort to try to cut social security benefits. they're going to start off with disability benefits and go beyond that. in my view, at a time when senior povertity is increasing -- poverty is increasing, people are trying to get by on $12, $4,000 a year -- $14,000 a year. we should not be about cutting social security benefits, we should be about expanding those benefits. as i mentioned a moment ago, we need a progressive tax system in this country and an effective tax rate.

it is absurd that we lose $100 billion a year revenue because corporations and the wealthy stash their money in offshore tax havens like the cayman islands, bermuda and other places around the world. the time is now for real tax reform. so let me conclude by saying this: the struggle that we're in now is not just about protecting social security or medicare or medicaid or making college affordable to our kids or raising the minimum wage. it is something deeper than that. it is about whether we can put together a vibrant grassroots movement all over this country which says to the billionaire class,co sorry, government in this country is going to work for all of us and not just the top 1%. thank you very much.

>> for the cameras i've got to connect. hold on. >> we connected? thank you, senator sanders, for that carefully-hedged, cautious political speech. >> i was very quiet. this is brookings -- >> yeah. >> and i didn't want to -- >> this is a moderate version of the speech. i have a whole lot of questions i would like to ask. i'm going to try to limit myself to a few, and can then i want to bring -- and then i want to bring in the audience. i am going to have a bias. i'm going to ask members of the media to ask questions because they're bringing this to other people, but i will open it up to everyone before we're done. i want to start with one philosophical and one political question. the philosophical question is what do you actually think of the market economy? you know, in this long list of proposals you do not propose you know, public ownership of the means of production distribution in exchange, and you are very critical of the way capitalism works. but what is your view of the market economy in general and capitalism in particular? >> well, in that regard i think

i come down somewhere where pope francis is. who i think, by the way, has played an extraordinary role in the last several years in raising issues internationally that have not been raised by such a prominent figure. i think casino capitalism, runaway capitalism which is what we are experiencing right now, is a disaster. there is no way to defend internationally the top 1% owning more wealth than the bottom 90% of the world's population. i think it's impossible to defend that. it is impossible to defend the incredible inequities that we see in american society today. what i believe when i talk about these issues, what i look at is countries like den mark, and we have -- denmark, and we have the

danish ambassador coming to vermont a year and a half ago, and it's not that the government is going to take over every mom and pop store. that is not what we're talking about. but what we are talking about is that in a democratic, civilized society, the basic necessities of life should be available to all people. not a radical idea. it exists in scandinavia and elsewhere. should everybody have a right the health care? the answer is, yes. should everybody, regardless of their income, be able to get as much income as they need? the answer is, yes. in the united states when you have a baby, we managed some years ago to do the family and medical leave act, and you get three months off if you work for a large company without pay. how many americans know that all over the world that women get six, eight months off with three-quarters pay in order to bond with their babies? when you get old, you should have strong retirement security, stronger than we have right now. so, e.j., capitalism does a lot of good things.

it creates wealth, you've got a lot of vibrant, small businesses, entrepreneurs that are coming up with fantastic ideas, that is great. but we cannot at the end of that process have these situations where a handful of people own so much and so many people have so little. so the government plays a very important role in making sure that all of our people have the opportunity to succeed in life. >> now, you hint at this, but i'd like you to be more specific. this is a very ambitious program, a trillion dollar investment in infrastructure broader rather than narrower social security, free higher education and so on. how are you going to pay for this? >> well, it addresses the issue of income and wealth inequality, and you're doing two things at the same time. in terms of social security, everybody in this room understands that if somebody's making ten million a year, somebody is making $118,000 a year, both people are paying the same amount into the social security trust fund.

if you simply lift the cap and begin taxing at $250,000, you will extend social security for decades and be able to expand benefits. in terms of other infrastructure, for example, we are losing about $100 billion every single year because corporations and wealthy people are stashing their money in the cayman islands and elsewhere. real tax reform should be used for infrastructure and education. >> um, there is many years ago two folks you probably disagree with, but they made a very interesting point, richard stanton and ben wattenberg said the problem with liberals is they often come along and say our programs have failed, let us continue. and i raise that quote because while you do say that we are better off economically than we were six years ago, you have a pretty tough litany of what's wrong with the economy as it exists. the real unemployment rate is

11.3%, youth unemployment 18%. i'm sorry, 30 -- and african-american unemployment 30 percent and so on. yet you voted for a number of programs to try to get the economy moving including the recovery act, otherwise known as the stimulus. if somebody listens to you and says, you know, bernie sanders is saying that the programs of the last six years haven't worked, what do you say back to them? >> compared to what? you know, i think history, and you know, i was on the floor eight and a half hours a couple years ago in opposition to president obama's tax proposal so, you know, i have been very critical of him. but i think what you will find is history will judge president obama a lot better than his contemporaries have. i'll tell you programs, e.j. that have not worked, and that is trickle down economics. trickle down economics, which means tax breaks for the rich and large corporations

deregulation of wall street, etc., etc., has been a grotesque failure. and any economic analysis will suggest that that is true. has the obama program, has the stimulus percentage worked? of course it worked. it created millions of jobs at a time when we desperately needed those jobs. so i would argue in terms of infrastructure, putting money into infrastructure and creating jobs, it's not a question of whether it works, how do you ignore the fact that our infrastructure is crumbling? so i am proud to defend in terms of single payer, health care. i live 100 miles away from the canadian border. they have a conservative premier, they have a single-payer health care system because it is more cost effective, provides health care to all of their people. >> but more generally, i mean, i guess when you look back on the last six years, what would you have done that we didn't do to get the economy moving to deal

with some of the problems you're talking about here? >> i would have been stronger than president obama in a number of areas. i think he missed the opportunity politically of doing what roosevelt did when he was elected. and making it clear to the american people what is happening and why is it happening? when he was elected, this economy was on the verge of collapse, financial system maybe wouldn't make it. and at that point what he should have done is what roosevelt did. he should have looked in that camera and said -- what roosevelt said was the economic realists hate me, and i'm going to take them on. i think that's what president obama said. these people have destroyed millions of lives because of their greed and recklessness. i will take them on, ask is we're going to rebuild -- and we're going to rebuild an economy so that it works for all people and not just for the economy. i voted for the affordable care act.

we managed to get $12 million into community health certains very important. i would have gone forward trying to fight for a single payer or at least greatly expanding medicare, making it simpler, more inclusive. >> and what do you say to folks who put a heavy emphasis now on the cost of retiring baby boomers? in other words, basically you're saying that if we simply lift the cap, we can cover that problem. is that your answer to that critique? >> we are exactly where people anticipated we would be when the last social security adjustments -- no great surprise, people can add. they do know demographickings. and right now just -- demographics. just a couple of points on social security, because there's a lot of misinformation that dose out there. social security is not going broke. there's $2.8 trillion, can pay out every benefit for the next 18 years. social security, obviously, doesn't add to the deaf fit because it's paid by an independent source of revenue, the payroll tax.

so the answer is, yes, should we strengthen social security? absolutely. and the way to do that is to lift the cap. i would start at $250,000. >> is there a place for something like wall street in a bernie sanders economy? >> well, look, banking plays an important role, obviously, in our society. and in that i am pretty conservative. what banking is about, traditional banking is i work, i make money, i put it in the bank. i get a guaranteed interest rate, the bank then invests money into the economy. what has happened in recent years is something radically different. wall street, instead of being the grease for the economy taking money in and getting it out to small businesses, medium-sized businesses, what wall street has become is an island unto itself where its goal is to make as much money as it can in however way that it can do it. and i don't want to, again, you

know, try to be, you know, too dramatic here. i happen to believe that the business model of wall street is fraud and deception. and as you know, recently you pick up the papers every single day there's another large bank that is fined, reaches a settlement with the government. so their job is banking plays an important role. it helps get money out to the economy. the businesses that are producing products, producing services. that is what we want from a banking, the banking community. we don't want a small number of people coming up with incredibly complicated, speculative dangerous financial tools. and then when it all goes down the taxpayers of this country bail them out. that is what we don't want. >> by the way, the headline on the event so far is bernie sanders calls himself "pretty conservative." i just wanted to note that. ..

a little bit of luck, beyond 1971. let me say this. no great secret. i am giving thought, when a time the middle class is disappearing grotesque levels of income growth and inequality. when climate change threatens not only this country but the entire planet, when you have a handful of billionaires in the process of buying a united states government and our particle system, i think it is important with candidates who stand up for the working comes of this country who are prepared to take on the big money interest. i am giving serious thought -- don't tell my wife actually. she doesn't necessary agree. >> tell her to turn off the tv right now. >> on the other hand, i also

want to say, when you take on the billionaire class, it ain't easy. and if i do something, i want to do it well and it's important not just for my ego i do it well it's important for millions of people who share the same set of beliefs that i hold. so to do it well we would have to put together the strongest grassroots movement in the modern history of this country with millions of people are saying, you know what? enough is enough. we are going to take on the billionaire class. we're going to have a government that starts working for working values rather than just the top 1%. to be honest with you, i am going around the country and talking to a lot of people. a lot of people coming out. there is a lot of sentiment that enough is enough. that we need fundamental changes, that the establishment, the economic or political or the media establishment is failing the american people.

account feeling i'm going to have, decision on the draft reaches whether that willingness to stand up and fight back. if it's not i don't want to run a futile campaign. i want to run. we need millions of people actively involved. in terms of money that's all other so -- story. this is out absurd the stories. if you had a candidate who reached out and generate a lot and you had 2 million people, we are going for 100 bucks into the campaign, and by the way, in my senate race, you know my average contribution was? $45. if you had 2 million people putting in 100 bucks, that $200 million, that is 20% of what the koch brothers themselves are prepared to spend. can you take that on? i don't know the answer. maybe the game is over. maybe they have bought a united states government. maybe there is no turning back. i don't know. i surely hope not but we have to look at that reality.

>> when candidates run for president, they often have two objectives. the first, to win nominations. there have been plenty of candidates in our history, who have run to advance an agenda even when they didn't win. so i am -- obviously, you had to have thought about both sides of the equation. if i run and win, i run and win. but if i run and lose, how can i have an effect on the agenda of the winning candidate, which, at this point on the democratic side we assume would be hillary clinton. without hurting her chances against the republicans? can you analyze the politics? the politics matter as you advance an agenda. >> people have to appreciate how

difficult the decision this is. if i make that decision, i would be running to win. having said that, let me tell you something about myself. you are looking at a candidate who ran four times for mayor eight times for the house and twice for the senate. do you know how many negative ads i have run? none. in my state, they don't work. if i run, and if secretary clinton runs, what i would hope would happen is that we would have a real, serious -- this is a woman i respect, and intelligent person who is interested in the issues. i think we would have a debate about how you rebuild the crumbling middle class, about how you would reverse climate change, a debate about foreign policy and the wisdom of the war in iraq and how we deal with what we deal with, a debate about trade policy, a debate

about wall street, and that would be i think good for the american people. but it is not my place to trash people and run negative ads. never have, never will. >> would you reregister as a democrat? >> that is a decision i have yet to make. as i go around country, there are lots of people who say look. republican or democratic parties, they are the same. you have to look outside the two-party system. others say, you have been in the democratic caucus in congress. if you want to go where the action is, you want to be in the debates, and you want to get media attention, you have to run within the democratic caucus. that is an issue i am talking to a lot of people about. >> we have a lot of voices -- by the way, as i begin with a journalist first, my friend and colleague, at any point, if you

want to jump in now or later. who among journalists who are here, would like to ask a question? sir, right in the front. hold on. say it again so people who know. >> i am from politico. does the pressure to the very result with hillary clinton make it harder to introduce yourself to voters on your own terms? >> i will tell you a funny story. i do a number of interviews. often, i talk about the issues i feel are important. somewhere along the line, at the end, someone has to ask me about hillary. i try not to attack her. not or what i say, usually it's hillary clinton. to me, if i run, what i am running on are the issues that i talk to you about, the issues which i think the vast majority of americans understand and

support. in terms of hillary clinton, her name recognition is 10 times greater than mine. if i run, it would take a lot of work introducing myself to people around the country. this is the interesting point. when you look at the republican agenda which means more tax breaks for billionaires and large corporations, cuts in social security, medicaid, medicare education, what defenses do american people have? when you look at the agenda, a massive jobs program to put people back to work, raising the minimum wage, tackling climate change, we have a lot more support. the question is, how we get out to people, and how we bring people together to go forward. >> do you view working familiesent of elizabeth warren as a setback? >> i am not sure senator warren will be running.

>> what are your thoughts on senator warren? >> ein elizabeth warren before she was elizabeth warren. when she was a brilliant harvard professor. we brought elizabeth warren to vermont, and she blew me away with her ability to deal with complicated economic issues in a language people could understand. i am a big fan of elizabeth warren, and elizabeth and i have worked together on a number of issues. >> way in the back there. >> thank you. i am wondering a senator warren, she says she is not running. if she did get into the race would that change your plans for 2016? >> this is what media does. they like speculation. you will forgive me, i am not much into speculation. >> mark shields, up here in the

middle. welcome, mark. great to have you here. >> thank you. no one would accuse you of being morning and america with your presentation. >> you, maybe. >> what gives you hope? >> thank you, mark. my wife tells me after i speak we have to pass out suicide kits . i have been trying to be more careful. i will tell you, there is another part of my speech that i often give. i will tell you where i am. this is serious stuff. regardless of one's political views, if we sat in this room 30 years ago, i would say, i think our country has a terrible

history of racial prejudice. in the year 2008, we elected an african american president. and then reelected him four years later. that we would overcome racism and do that. you would have said, what are you smoking? that is what you would have said. but we did. 30, 40 years ago, u.s. had one or two members of the senate who were women. today, we have had states, governors are women, members of congress are women, and while we still have a long way to go, to break down sexist their ears in this country, no but he would deny that we have come a long way. i were member when i was mayor i pointed -- i appointed the first woman police officer in the 80's. what a big deal that was. overcome huge their ears in terms of sexism.

disability issues, when we had a baby born with a disability, there was an embarrassment in the past. today, we have come a long way as a result of the ada and other programs where kids with disabilities are loved and welcome into schools and are part of the community. we have made more progress on that than anyone would have dreamed. last but not least and i know this firsthand, the state of vermont helped lead the effort when it comes to civil unions. if you and i were talking 10 years ago, and you said, i think maybe some of the more conservative states in america gay marriage would no longer be a big deal in 2015. you would have thought that was crazy. yet, i go to schools in vermont conservative parts of the state, and i ask kids what they think of gay marriage. they look at me like i am crazy.

not a problem. if you ask me about optimism those are the areas. some of the areas where you -- we have taken it for granted. we have a black president, so what? 30 years ago, nobody would have dreamed that possible. i believe we have the capacity to change. i think what we are up against now is something tougher. we are taking on the greed and power of a billionaire class of the koch brothers who are out to destroy social security, medicare medicaid etc.. and they have the money to do that. i am optimistic. i think we have the capacity to bring change this country. and we have done it in recent years. >> thank you mark, for allowing the senator to listen to his wife's advice. who do we have over their? the gentleman who has his hand up. could you identify yourself? >> senator i would like to hear

your opinion on the speech that prime minister netanyahu is preparing to give to congress. are you considering boycotting it? >> again, people disagree. the president -- they argue the president wasn't consulted. that is wrong. not a good thing for our country. >> are you thinking of not going? or -- >> i am not going. i will watch it on tv. >> how many of your colleagues do you think -- do you have any sense -- >> you want me to speculate. i don't know. >> i am the media. the lady in the front. >> don't ask me to speculate. >> this verges on speculation. i appreciate your votes against the gulf and iraq wars. i wonder what you think we can

do to stop this path we are on of endless war. >> thank you for phrasing it on that way. that is my nightmare, endless war. it goes without saying that isis -- it is beyond pathetic to think this is going on in 2015. the barbarian is him -- barbarian is him. anybody who tells you they have the solution, they don't. the most important thing we can do is demand that the people in the region play an extremely active role. it will shock people in this room to know that the country that has the fourth-largest defense spending in the world is, not france, not the u.k., it is saudi arabia. owned by a group of billionaire folks.

that is their neighborhood. i think the u.s. and the world should be supportive. but, i think nations in that region are going to have to put some real skin in the game. >> could you imagine a use of force resolution against isis that would be framed in a way you could vote for? >> again, look. isis is beyond -- what they have done you can't even speak of it, it is so horrible. i want to see the destroyed. some of my colleagues in the congress who have in mind and endless war. god knows how many years we were in afghanistan and iraq. i was chairman of the veterans committee. 500,000 men and women came back from iraq and afghanistan with ptsd and traumatic brain injuries. thousands of lives, terribly

impacted. i do not want to see an endless war in the middle east. i don't. having said that, i don't have any medical solutions. at the heart of it, it has to be regional activity on the countries where most impacted. >> let me press you on that. this is not speculative. if the president called you and said, i know senator sanders there are lots of people in the senate and house who are reluctant to keep at wars in the middle east, and yet, you agree we agreed that isis is a particular threat. can you write me a resolution that you could vote for? >> the devil is in the details. i don't know. i think it is fair to say that i do not disagree with the air attacks the u.s. is coordinating. i do not want to see a ground presence and a never-ending war. >> the lady in the back on the aisle.

>> i am from sputnik international news. i had a follow-up question about what you raised about the oligarchical trend in u.s. politics. i would like to know what kind of impact that has on the united states, as a world leader. so, how this trend, in the u.s., impacts economic justice worldwide. >> thank you, that is a great question. i will answer it in a couple ways. first, the way it impacts american politics. again, i don't -- everybody knows my political views. if you were the republican party, or any group of people, you really think that you would put up the keystone pipeline as your first order of business? i thought the keystone pipeline

very -- fought the keystone pipeline very well. do you think a canadian pipeline, which will buy 35 permanent jobs, is the most important issue? that is your first bill young co or, the fact that the koch brothers have leases in that part of canada? i would impact our foreign policy. i'm afraid people who have the money will have more influence than ordinary americans. i will give you an example. this did not get a lot of attention. the people of greece are hurting terribly. unemployment there is 25-26%. their economy has shrunk by one quarter. there are people living in dire poverty right now. right now, what you are having is an effort on the part of the european central bank to talk

about more austerity for greece rather than letting the new government start implementing the agenda and the promises it makes. the president spoke on that issue. he talked about how moral austerity in a country whose economy is shrinking, is not the way to go. to answer your question globally, the problems we are facing in the u.s. are not dissimilar to what other countries are facing around the world. more and more, wealthy and income inequality and austerity. americans have to work with people around the world. when you have a handful of billionaires owning as much wealth as half the people in the world, we need radical changes in the way we do economics. >> the gentleman right there. >> i agree with most of what you say, senator. i would offer one caveat. if you will invite people to

vermont, do it in the summertime. >> the skiing is good. >> to keep away from speculation, i might offer this. it scares me a little bit. if you don't go over to the democratic side, are you willing to run as a democratic, would you run as an independent? are you willing to be the son of ralph nader? >> i will not be a spoiler. there are ways to do this. let me make it clear. i will not be a spoiler and allow the election of a republican. >> the gentleman in the back. some may tell me when you are running short of time. this gentleman last blast question. you have a heavy weight on your shoulders. >> senator, thank you. i talked to your constituents in vermont, and they have said something new like about you is your independent nature. >> i don't know that that is the

word you would use. >> i am keeping it nice. the fact that you are independent, they like that. do you think that if you become a democratic candidate for president, does that hurt you with your constituents and people around the country who might vote for you? >> as i mentioned earlier, i could be wrong, but i think in the last election in vermont, we got 25% of the republican vote. i think you a lot of working-class republicans were not uncomfortable with what i am saying. i think, in vermont and rumba country, you have an arrest numbers of people who say, you are not a republican or democrat, i don't know what you stand for but i like it. there is so much frustration with the two-party system. on the other side, i am getting bolder and boulder trying to fit

-- figure things out. but, i am not mr. bloomberg of new york. i don't have billions of dollars. to try and put together an independent political effort you would have to spend an enormous amount of time and money and energy getting on the ballot in 50 states. these are some of the issues that i am wrestling with. >> i want to close by saying that the late mike harrington used to say he was for the left wing of the possible. i think senator sanders is pushing the definition of the possible, and i think him, and all -- i thank him and all of you for a nation of what can be done, and what is to be done. thank you very much. [applause]

thank you all for coming. >> president obama held a joint news conference at the white house with chancellor anglo american: -- angela merkel. here are a few of the presidents remarks on ukraine. >> it is important to point out that we have been providing assistance to be ukrainian military, that has been part of a long-standing relationship between nato and the ukraine. our goal has not been for

ukraine to be equipped to carry on offenses -- offensive operations but to simply defend itself. president poroshenko has been clear. he is not interested in escalating violence, he is interested in having his country 's boundaries respected by its neighbor. there will not be any specific point at which i say clearly lethal defensive weapons would be appropriate here. it is our ongoing analysis of, what can we do to dissuade russia from encroaching further and further on ukrainian territory? our hope is, that can be done through diplomatic means. i want to emphasize once again for the benefit, not just of the american people, but for the german people.

we are not looking for russia to fail. we are not looking for russia to be surrounded and contained and weakened. our preference is for a strong, prosperous vibrant, confident russia, that can be a partner with us on a whole host of global challenges. that is how i operated throughout my first term in office. unfortunately, russia has made a decision that i think is bad for them strategically, bad for europe, bad for the world. and in the face of this aggression and these bad decisions, we cannot simply try to talk them out of it. we have to show them that the world is unified in imposing a

cost for this aggression. that is what we will continue to do. >> you can see the entire you -- news conference tonight on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern. tonight on the communicators special counsel for the sec on chairman tom wheeler's proposal for net neutrality, including regulating the internet like a utility. >> the chairman said we will not rate regulate. i don't know the next fcc chairman is. he may try to throw out this will regime and do something that is more free market oriented or less regulatory. i don't buy the next chairman argument. the rules are only as good as the guy or gal on the floor enforcing them. we have got to do our best to set up an infrastructure that will protect consumers, and preserve an open internet, the

greatest driver of economic develop it, free speech, and internet -- that the world is ever known. >> tonight, on c-span two. >> on tomorrow morning's washington journal, gerald connolly of virginia, two members of congress will talk about the u.s. response to isis the situation in ukraine, the homeland security's running well, and other issues. as part of c-span's bus to work, historically black colleges and universities fisk presidents joined us from nashville. washington journal is live every day. now, a conversation from today's washington journal. host: we are here to talk about

how communities are viewing law enforcement. the president, in early march the task force on 21st century policing will deliver the report to the president. they are putting this group together to think of ways to better communities and policing. how challenging do you think that will be, based on polls? guest: extraordinarily challenging, given the difference between blacks and whites's views on the police. what i decided to do with my colleagues is look at polls from all the major pollsters to see how views on the police have changed over time. host: what have you found? top institutions in terms of trust, a great deal, a lot of confidence in police. police get 53% compared to other institutes. guest: that is a good rating. it hasn't changed much over

time. when we look beneath the numbers, we see that views of whites and blacks are different when it comes to confidence in the police. whites are much more confident than blacks. it is also useful to look at state, local, and national data. in communities, people are generally more positive. host: what is behind the numbers? that whites tend to have more confidence in police? what did you find out? guest: one of the things we looked at is whether or not americans believe that african-americans faced discrimination by police. the question was first asked in 1969. whites and blacks different -- differentiated in their responses. they have moved closer together since then. whites believe police discriminate against blacks. host: what has been the impact

of michael brown in ferguson, and the grand jury decision in new york? what impact has that had guest: ? guest: people followed that very closely. blacks and whites had very different views about this overall. there were more similarities and the eric garner case in new york city, rather than ferguson. host: how do views differ when it comes to the community police versus this national issue of policing? guest: i was looking at a poll the other day about bankers in general. people were much more positive about their own banker. that is what we see in some of the data collected over time people feel more confident about police in their communities. but there are still black and white gaps. host: explain that more. it seems like this would be part

of the solution. if communities know their police officers, they are more likely to have confidence and trust in them. guest: absolutely. that is an important point. people believe that more training of local police will be helpful in that regard. police who walk the beach most americans have confidence in their local police. they need to address this overall. host: what kind of training? guest: public opinion surveys say, whether or not police should wear video cameras. both whites and blacks think that is a good idea. special prosecutors most people say that is a good idea overall. americans are very skeptical about the militarization of police, both blacks and whites are concerned about that trend. they think perhaps the national guard and military should be eight able to have these weapons, but not police. there are areas of agreement. host: what about the distrust coming from minority communities

in what they see from police officers? a lot of criticism and ferguson was about what the police were wearing and what they were doing , and the riot gear and the militarization. how does that fuel mistrust and lack of confidence? guest: the militarization, seeing police and military uniforms and using military vehicles, that heightens concerns about police in local immunities. that has been particularly true for african-americans. host: our fourth line has been set aside for law enforcement. we will go to david in new mexico. hi, david. caller: good morning. i have a comment. i have a disregard for the police. my reason for that is, and it is

basically, you can blame it on the media. it seems to me like they put police on a pedestal. like they are better than everybody else. one instance of that is whenever there is a cop that is shot, for instance, then, they put everybody out in force, looking for the murderer or whatever. if i get shot, that doesn't happen. so, that is basically what my comment is. host: your response? guest: there is skepticism for the reasons you mentioned. i think that is something that will be addressed with this task force on 21st century policing. host: democratic caller in new york. go ahead. caller: my concerns are this

-- a lethal weapon issue. you have police out there using stun guns, rubber bullets tasers, and not knowing the physical extents of the victims they hit with these, they cause death. why don't they create a table to call it what it is? these are lethal weapons. my second point is, the training police go through. take staten island. there were 10 police around this man. he was unarmed. a nonviolent offense. selling loose cigarettes. 10 policeman with their heads together and decided the best course and outcome was with this man to be carried out on a stretcher. there is something wrong there. host: thank you. guest: the caller has a good point.

some of the polls have revealed similar things. particularly about lethal weapons. a poll done in 2014, 83 percent of blacks and 61% of whites said these weapon should be reserved only for the military and the national guard. there is agreement in that area overall. host: why is that? guest: people think local police forces need to have certain weaponry, but the increased use of military weapons made available to police seems too much to americans overall. host: then, how police forces deal with confrontations, and how they are being trained to handle them, is another issue. this poll from 2014 says most police officers need better training on how to handle comforted patients -- confrontations with civilians.

most officers have training. what are the results? guest: most people say police officers need better training. majorities in both groups, but a big gap between blacks and whites. host: this will be addressed by the white house task force. they will release their report in early march. about what should be done, what sort of training should police officers get? we want to hear from you. what sort of training should police officers get? george in louisville, kentucky. democratic caller. caller: good morning. it is not necessarily about training, my perception is, what type of people are attracted to positions of authority to begin with? a lot of them might be good people but underneath the surface, there is an emotional

psychological need for power over other people. it is often narcissistic bullies that end up in these positions. also, i believe the law of silence, the blue laws silence. when an officer testifies against another officer. the next time an officer confronts another officer about an altercation, a police officer and a citizen, that will be the first time. it will not go after their own. other than that, grand jury's prosecutors will not go after police officers. i think this contributes to my personal distrust. i have been lied about on police reports. i see this as a problem. thank you. host: your opinion on the kind of people attracted to the job? guest: when you approve of your

children or future children becoming police officers, 60% of whites say they approve, 43% of blacks. this was asked in a january 2015 survey. another poll asked whether you would suggest your child think about a future profession, 60% said they would want their child to think about becoming a police officer. it is not the most highly ranked profession when people are asked about it. and in years, doctors, scientists rank higher. but police officers are at the same level as bankers and far above members of congress actors, and union leaders. host: you can see engineer, dr., scientist. those top the list as to what parents would like to see their children choose as a regression. next to that, police officers rank after journalists, before bankers and farmers and priests.

athletes, entertainers, congress people coming in last. union leader actually, coming in last. allen in boston, independent caller. caller: good morning. interesting, since the fbi did their investigation, that the media has been quiet on this whole ferguson thing. how come the question isn't about the media? potentially inciting this country over the ferguson issue. like many have said, there are many black-on-black crimes. how come that is not brought up? why ferguson? i wonder why. they had to incite this country before an election, because we have a black president? host: what about the role of the media? guest: many polls about the

media, people are very skeptical these days about the media. they think it is since they shall list. the michael brown incident led to that. there is a norm us amount of skepticism. host: what about the role of government and funding the police communities, giving the police communities resources? what do people say about that? do they feel that is money well spent? guest: that is one issue that the task force addresses. that is them amount of money available to police for training. host: robert, from st. louis. independent. caller: i would like to say your last guest on bloomberg the washington bureau chief, he mentioned something about benghazi. a bunch of cia guys ready. they are not military.

i wanted to save the embarrassment for c-span. that guy didn't know what you was talking about. in terms of ferguson, i used to live there. i live in the st. louis city proper currently. i used to get stopped by police all the time to the county. white guys. that is what they do. if you are a young guy, they will harass you. they think that we are up to adventurous things a lot of times. i don't think it is as much about race as it is about a young people, young males. and, if there were all lot of young white guys, they would be harassing them as well. it is unfortunate, what happened . it is unfortunate about the police officer and the young man. host: ok, robert. guest: he makes an important

point about the police being sensitive about young people. host: do the polls say anything about the age difference? guest: we haven't really looked at that. the big difference is the racial gap. host: roger from ohio. democratic caller. caller: i want to ask one thing. how in the world can you justify a man being choked to death for selling cigarettes outside a store, and then the white jury or whatever, when they took the case, they did not even prosecute the police. how in god's name is this fair? host: let's get to the question about how people view it, how they view the policing of police and the punishment of police. guest: that is a good point overall. if you look at the polls on the

eric garner situation in new york, whites and blacks were closer together about that situation overall. that raises the question, and it does concern americans particularly african americans about police presence overall. host: how does that break down? the verdict on the grand jury's decision, a grand jury decided not to bring criminal charges against a white police officer in ferguson over the shooting of an unarmed black teenager last summer. you agree, disagree? take a look at how this breaks down. guest: in the new york city situation, you have blacks and whites very different. disapprove, 49% of whites, 91% of blacks. a big gap, but closer together than views about ferguson. host: this is something the task force will have to address? guest: certainly, they will look into these kinds of questions overall.

host: caller: david in new jersey, republican. hi there. caller: i was almost shot by a policeman in error a few years ago. i had an interesting opportunity to speak with him. i have spent my life and health care. i worked in mental health. i talked to him, and he told me things that are counterintuitive to most of what we go through. he says, when you escalate with a policeman, i didn't escalate but he pointed out to me how they respond to people, and it is different than i was trained. i am trained to respond to mental health crises. i asked him, what kind of help to officers get with the general stress the experience and personal and professional life? he's said, if we should someone or something, there is a debrief thing and a process. on a regular preventative basis, there was nothing to help the with the stresses, which are incredible. and you for letting me make my call. host: those are excellent

points. guest: when the situation is escalating, it is difficult for everyone involved. with mental health, it is very different. the stress levels too, are very great. i have not seen any polls on that. host: we are talking about public opinions on the police, getting your thoughts with a senior fellow at the american enterprise institute, conducting a new poll on this issue. marion on chicago, democratic caller. you are on the air. go ahead marion. caller: i wanted to say, in ferguson, even after the michael brown killing by the police, there was two policeman with guns and one little skinny guy with a knife.

and they asked him to put the knife down. he didn't put it down. what i was wondering is, how come they couldn't shoot him with a stun gun or other ways to prevent him from getting to them? they just shot him to death. they shot him about four times. another case i saw on tv, they showed a white guy who got out of a car and pointed his gun at the police, and somehow, they didn't shoot him. as a matter of fact, they didn't hurt him. they got him -- this is why black people fear -- feel a different way. then, you see people calling in and saying, no white kids -- there are white kids who get into trouble and do all kinds of

things. but you never hear about it. you only hear about what the black kids do. host: miss bowman? guest: those points are well taken overall. there is no question that african-americans have a different view. a number of pollsters have look to these questions, for example a question asked by nbc news of the wall street journal in september of 2014. how much confidence you have an police officers in your community? exactly what you said. they treat blacks and whites equally? 28% of blacks said that they are treated equally overall. are they not using excessive or's? air t percent of african-americans get that response. are they doing a good job of enforcing the line your community? 50% of about -- african-americans said yes, they are. really african-americans have a very different perception. what we are talking about in the

polls or perceptions. the caller makes a good point. host: what about this time, 19 95, 40 9% of blacks said they felt the police were doing a good job enforcing the law in their communities. that has risen to 58%. what you make of the difference? guest: it may be a sampling problem. one is a national sample, the others registered voters. it is possible that it was a kind of response to everything they have been hearing when asked by police officers in their communities, people they know, barry but are positive. they felt they needed to say that it this time. host: fill in north dakota, independent. hi, phil. caller: thanks for having me on. i am sitting here watching, and everybody is sitting your complaining about the police. what you want the police to do

to keep you safe? do you want them to turn their backs on certain crimes? do you want them to let angst go? these guys are out there to do their job and keep us safe. so my children and grandchildren can walked on the street and be safe. they don't know was carrying guns anymore. a year olds, 10-year-olds are carrying guns, selling drugs. they don't know if they are safe or not anymore. they are trying to protect themselves. and they're trying to protect us. guest: the data backs you up. in a 2014 poll how strongly do you agree or disagree, the police have a positive impact on the community. 72% of african-americans, 88% of whites. another question asked in december of 2014, how much confidence do you have in the police to protect you from violent crimes? once again, blacks and whites on

the same page, but with different views. 61% of blacks, 81 percent of whites agreed with the statement overall. those are positive statements about the police. i think it is something that reflect what you mentioned in your call overall. host: key largo, florida, independent. caller: i am calling in regards to the law enforcement officers training and use of firearms. on the basis of the caller who called in about ferguson, he was the last caller about five minutes to 11. he said that fbi training is training law enforcement officers like the enemy do what you would do to an enemy. you see that on all the programs, the training at the --

the firearms qualifications, their training is to kill, not to disable or disarm. the law enforcement officers need to be retrained not to kill, but to disable. guest: thank you for that. americans agree that police officers need better training. i don't know about the specifics you mentioned but one question from december 2014, 85 percent of african-americans and 59% of whites say police a better training on how to handle confrontations with civilians. that is the point you made. host: we go to dock in baton rouge, independent. go ahead. caller: hello, miss bowman. a person named bill taylor, have you heard of him? guest: no, i have not. caller: he was a white youth who was unarmed and shot by a

black police officer in utah. the grand jury found no evidence of wrongdoing. no rioting, in fact, nothing was said on the news. i heard about it one day, and that was the end of it. these people are calling in about the police officers, next time their house is broken into, or their wife is getting raped call reverend al sharpton, he will help you. host: let's move on to marie's in new jersey. you are on the air. our fourth line is set aside for law enforcement. we want to hear from you as well. caller: i am from new arc -- newark. i don't understand why you have anybody who has yet to live the

life of being a black person in this country. to act like anyone can be on the same level of this matter, the average black person would be, is just crazy. it is like saying to a person that, i know how you feel if your mom passed away, but their mother is living. you have no idea unless you are put in these people's shoes. it is crazy how, all around the world, they act like there is not a difference. people are sworn in and to serve and protect society. in our communities, it is more of a threat when police roll up. we don't know if we are going to be picked and chose and on that day to be a victim of a crime that they say we committed. host: all right maurice. guest: there is no question the surveys say blacks and whites have different experiences, whether it is

shopping, getting a residential loan, dealing with the police. those are long-standing differences. there was a time of optimism with -- after obama was elected that race relations would improve. that has been tarnished recently. host: what are your expectations for the president's task force, and howdy at think the efforts by this administration will differ from previous administrations? guest: it is getting a lot of media attention. that is good, we can hear what people think about police and what the recommendations are. clearly, there are some areas of agreement between blacks and whites. host: and in arkansas. caller: i'm sorry about ferguson. god made everybody will -- equal , and if michael brown had been

doing what he was supposed to be doing instead of trying to fight and instead of trying to rob a store, pushing someone around, i don't think he would be dead today. who is anybody to say that i am better than you? that is what is happening with this world. the blacks are thinking they are better than anybody else therefore it has been that way -- >> host: why do you say that? what evidence do you have? caller: all the blacks get everything free. they don't work for their money. host: that a -- is a gross generalization about an entire group of people. caller: there is that type of people. i used to work, and i have been to all 50 states, and there was people i would meet who would be black people, and there was

people that i would meet who would -- >> host: we will move on. chapel hill, tennessee. good morning. caller: a couple things i would like to say. i'm a vietnam veteran, retired. back when i was in school, 16 years old, i was parked out behind the school. cops would give us a bad time and kick me around, kicking my feet apart. i was the kind of guy, i loved cops. i wanted to be one. later in life, when i was in my 30's, i was hanging around with a few cops, and they were not protect and serve anymore. they were harassed and intimidated. if they stop you you are a criminal. my little brother was a police officer for 30 years. a fine young man when he

started. when he got out, he was so bitter with everyone, and everyone was a suspect. host: all right, tony. we will take your points. guest: you have good points. we do see differences in perception. it is not surprising that a lot of police officers get hardened to what they do after time. that goes back to the question about the stress police officers face overalls. host: what about the polls about how police officers you the public? guest: i haven't seen polls like that. i'm sure they exist. host: what about information about cops need constant updating of their training? caller: i would like to make a simple point and nobody seems to be addressing. i may wait female -- i am a

white female. my brother was murdered at age 14. he was not involved in drugs. the state of pennsylvania closed his case three years after it happened. i wonder how much a corruptive -- corrupted system they have to clean up first. host: the issue of corruption and how people view police. guest: i am sorry for your loss. that is an issue that has not come up in the polls i have seen. host: not an issue? guest: pollsters haven't asked about it. host: howard, democratic caller. good morning. caller: good morning. retired new york city police officer. there is definitely a problem over the years i have been on the job. did the interview the black police officers, the best way of

taking a true picture of what is going on? there are many instances that occur with police officers in new york city and many other states. i was a member of the national black police association. the council of new york back in the 60's, 70's, and 80's, believe me, there is truly a problem with race relations and the treatment of police. host: that suggestion, by the way, the cochairs of the 21st century policing tax force on your screen -- task force on your screen. they will come up with recommendations to the white house in early march. one last phone calls, blake in mississippi, independent.

caller: hello. i want you to understand that there have been historically, to standards. there have been white, european american society standards, and then there are people of color. i have been a military specialists in which i have specialist information on many missile systems, i have been a manager at casinos, i have been a manager of restaurants. i have been responsible for up to millions of dollars of property and information. yet, going to chicago, my hometown, to visit my family, i decided to get back into the gambling industry. i walked by a vehicle didn't

touch it was accused of breaking into the vehicle, i was locked in cook county jail for six months. now, i can't work in the industry i have been in my whole life. i have no fingerprints, no broken locks, no broken doors. just, the police picked me up. not only that, but they lied to the grand jury and i had somebody's id on me. everybody in chicago knows how racist they are. they put the id on me. i was convicted of a crime with no evidence, no broken locks. host: ok, blake. how is that reflected in the polls? guest: that is absolutely reflected, the kinds of concerns he talked about is what underlies the difference between black and white in public opinion polls.

host: the big take away and the polls? guest: guest: more confidence in police and local communities but still, enormous differences between lax and whites about the militarization of police, need for more training overall, and a lot of distance between blacks and whites. host: it outlines the challenges for this task force. they will make the recommendations in march. to learn more about the poll, go to aei's website, aei.org. carla bowman, thank you for your time. >> chancellor merkel and president obama met at the white house. they spoke to reporters. the news conference is. then, remarks from bernie sanders.

and, louisiana governor bobby jindal talks about -- talks at a n event. the headline from cq roll call after the news conference, obama and netanyahu's rift over a ron wyden's. a suggestion that was inappropriate for israel's prime minister to seek an invitation to address congress before parliamentary elections. the israeli leader reaffirmed his plans to speak to lawmakers on march third. obama had knowledge tn netanyahu have a difference around iran sanctions. netanyahu called a potential agreement with iran a bad deal that will endanger israel. he said, therefore, i am determined to present israel's position before the