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 american

people. president obama said netanyahu's visit threatens to politicize the relationship between the u.s. and israel. that is from cq roll call. next up, today's joint news please be seated. as always, it is a great pleasure to welcome my close friend and partner, chancellor angela merkel, back to the white house. angela has been here many times. but this visit is a chance for me to congratulate her on two achievements. well into her third term, angela is now one of germany's longest serving chancellors. perhaps more importantly, this is my first opportunity to publicly congratulate angela and germany on their fourth world cup title.

as we all saw, angela is one of her team's biggest fans. our u.s. team gets better each world cup, so watch out in 2018. germany is one of our strongest allies. whenever we meet, it is an opportunity to coordinate closely on a range of issues critical to our shared security and prosperity. as angela and our german friends prepare to host the g-7 this spring, it is also important for us to be able to coordinate on a set of shared goals. at our lunch, we will focus on what we can do to keep the economy growing and creating jobs. as strong supporters of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership, we agree there needs to be meaningful progress this year toward an agreement that boosts our economies with strong protections for consumers and workers and the environment. i look forward to hearing

angela's assessment of how europe and i.m.f. can work with the greek government to find a way that returns greece to sustainable growth within the eurozone where growth is critical to both the united states and the global economy. we will be discussing our work to get all major economies to take ambitious action on climate change, including our initiative to limit of the financing for coal-fired power plants overseas and our global efforts to phase down dangerous greenhouse gases. this morning, we focused on global security issues. we reaffirmed our commitment to training afghan forces for a united afghanistan. we agree the international community has to support existing sanctions as part of our diplomatic effort to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon as we work closely to do everything we can to achieve a

good, verifiable deal. two issues in particular that dominated our workday this morning, russia's aggression against ukraine and the international fight against isis. with regard to russia and the separatists it supports in ukraine, it is clear they have violated just about every commitment they made in the minsk agreement. instead of withdrawing from eastern ukraine, russian forces continue to operate training separatists and helping coordinate attacks. instead of withdrawing arms, russia has sent in more tanks and armored personnel carriers and heavy artillery. with russian support, the separatists have seized more territory and shelled civilian areas, destroyed villages, and driven more ukrainians from their homes. these are the facts. the russian aggression has only reinforced the unity of the united states and our allies and partners around the world. i want to thank angela for her strong leadership as we have met

this challenge. chancellor merkel and vice president biden met with president poroshenko over the weekend. we continue to encourage a diplomatic resolution to this issue. as diplomatic efforts continue this week, we are in agreement the 21st century cannot have us stand idle and allow the borders of europe to be redrawn at the barrel of a gun. we have agreed to move forward with our strategy. with our allies, we will keep bolstering our presence in eastern europe. we will continue to work with the i.m.f. and other partners to provide ukraine with critical financial support as it pursues economic and anticorruption reforms.

we discussed the issue of how best to assist ukraine as it defends itself. we agreed sanctions on russia need to remain fully in force until russia complies fully with its obligations. even as we continue to work for a diplomatic solution, we are making it clear again today that if russia continues on its current course, which is running the russian economy and hurting the russian people as well as having a terrible effect on ukraine, russia's isolation will only worsen politically and economically. with regard to isil, germany and the united states remain united in our determination to destroy this barbaric organization. i thanked angela for her strong support is a member of the international coalition working in iraq. germany has taken the important step of equipping kurdish forces in iraq.

germany is preparing to lead the training mission of local forces. germany is a close partner in combating the threat of foreign terrorist fighters, which was the focus of a special session of the u.n. security council. germany is moving ahead with new legislation to prevent fighters from traveling to and from syria and iraq. at the same time, both angela and i recognize young people in both our countries are being threatened and targeted for recruitment by terrorists like al qaeda and isil. protecting our young people from this hateful ideology so they are not vulnerable to such recruitment is first and foremost a task for local communities, families, neighbors, faith leaders who know their communities best. we can help these communities,

starting with the tone and example we sat in our own countries. i want to commend angela for her leadership speaking out forcefully against prejudice and on behalf of pluralism and diversity. she has made it clear all religious communities have a place in germany, just as they do in the united states. we are grateful our german friends will be joining us at our summit next week on countering violent extremism because this is a challenge our countries have to meet together. let me end on a historic note. this year marks the 70th anniversary of the end of the second world war. it marks the 25th anniversary of the reunification of germany. in a time when conflicts around the world sometimes seem intractable, when progress sometimes seems beyond grasp germany's story gives us hope. we can end wars. countries can rebuild. adversaries can become allies. walls can come down.

divisions can be healed. germany reminds us when people stand united, our values will prevail. i'm grateful for my partnership with angela, as americans are grateful for their partnership with the people of germany. chancellor merkel. >> [speaking german] >> thank you. i am delighted to be back in washington. nine months ago, we were here for the last time. this visit has a lot to do with the fact we have assumed the presidency this year and coordinate on these matters closely, as we do on others. obviously, we will address issues related to the global economy when we meet in bavaria.

from a european vantage point, i think we can say we have made significant progress in a number of areas. we have countries now back on the growth path. spain and portugal after reforms have now made significant progress. the new commissioner has launched the growth program in which germany will participate. we will pin our hopes on growth in infrastructure and also growth projects. for example, the digital economy. in the united states, there is a lot of things to be done by the europeans now. i would say a free trade agreement would go a long way towards boosting growth. we know you are very much engaged in the asia-pacific

area. germany will come out forcefully in seeing that negotiations between the e.u. and united states on free trade agreements are pursued in a vigorous manner. it is in our interest and in the interest of the united states. we are dealing with health issues on the g-7 agenda. from the ebola epidemic, we have learned the international community has to be quicker and reacting to such epidemics. germany can give an important contribution to this. we are also interested in seeing it be successful. we are delighted with the conference just completed in germany successfully. we dealt with security issues this morning. this year, germany celebrates the 25th anniversary of

reunification. this would not have been possible without transatlantic partners and the support of the united states of america. we will always be grateful for this. it is one case in point that it is well worth the effort to stand by one's values, to pursue long-term goals, and not relent in those efforts. after we thought in the 1990's things would turn out less complicated, now we see ourselves confronted with a wealth of conflict. we work together in afghanistan. germany has decided in its fight against i.s. to give help to deliver training missions, to deliver also weapons. we work together on the iran nuclear program where we enter into a crucial phase of negotiations.

one priority was given to the conflict between ukraine and russia this morning. we stand up for the same principles of inviability of territorial integrity. if we give up this principle, we will not be able to maintain the peaceful order of europe we have been able to achieve. it is a crucial point. we have to stand by it. russia has violated the territorial integrity of ukraine in two respects, in crimea and also donetsk and luhansk. we are called upon to come up with solutions, to mediate, and also to stand up for the european peaceful order. this is what the french president and i have been trying to do over the past few days. we will continue those efforts.

i'm grateful that throughout the ukraine crisis we have been in close contact with the united states of america and europe on sanctions. this is going to be continued. i think that is one of the most important messages we can send to russia and need to send to russia. we continue to pursue a diplomatic solution, although we have suffered a lot of setbacks. we will see whether all sides are ready and willing to come to a negotiated settlement. i have said i don't see a military solution to this conflict. but we have to put all our efforts in bringing about a diplomatic solution. there is a host of issues we need to discuss over lunch. we will continue to talk about climate protection, sustainable development goals. yet again, thank you very much for the close cooperation, very close coordination, and the

possibility to have an exchange of views on these crucial issues. not only in hindsight can we safely say the united states have always stood by us and helped us to regain our unity and peace and freedom, but we can also say we continue to cooperate closely if it is about solving the conflict of the world today. unfortunately, there are many of them. and we will continue to do so in the future. thank you for your hospitality. >> first question, steve "washington post." >> thank you. you stressed that u.s. and europe need to have cohesion on the issue of sanctions and in dealing with ukraine. the administration is discussing sending lethal weapons to ukraine, which is very different from the chancellor said over the weekend. i was wondering whether this is a good cop/bad cop act or a real reflection of difference of

views on the situation on the ground. if there is no agreement this week, are we looking at a broader set of sanctions? what makes us think those will change the russian president's mind any more than the current ones? >> let me start with the broader point. i think both angela and i have emphasized that the prospect for a military solution to this problem has always been low. russia obviously has an extraordinarily powerful military. given the length of the russian border with ukraine, given the history between russia and ukraine, expecting that if

russia is determined that ukraine can fully rebuff a russian army has always been unlikely. what we have said is the international community, working together, can ratchet up the cost for the violation of the core principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity. that is exactly what we have done. russia has paid a significant cost for its actions in crimea and now in eastern ukraine. it has not yet dissuaded mr. putin from following the course he is on. but it has created a measurable negative impact on the russian economy. that will continue. my hope is that through these

diplomatic efforts, those costs have become high enough that mr. putin's preferred option is for a diplomatic resolution. i will not prejudge whether they will be successful. if successful, it will be in part because of the extraordinary patience and effort of chancellor merkel and her team. if they are not, we will continue to raise those costs. we will not relent in that. one thing i am encouraged about is the degree to which we have been able to maintain u.s.-european unity on this issue. it is true that if diplomacy fails, what i have asked my team to do is look at all options. what other means can we put in

place to change mr. putin's calculus? i have not made a decision yet. i have consulted with angela and will be consulting with other allies about this issue. it is not based on the idea ukraine could defeat a russian army determined. it is rather to see whether or not there are additional things we could do to help ukraine bolster its defenses in the face of separatist aggression. but i want to emphasize the decision has not yet been made. one of the bigger issues we are also concerned with is making sure the ukrainian economy is functioning and president poroshenko and the prime minister can continue with the reform efforts they have made.

i'm glad to see because of our cooperation and efforts, we are starting to see a package come together with the i.m.f., with the european union, and others that can help bolster the european economy so they have the space to continue to execute reforms and anticorruption measures they have made. one of the most important things we can do for ukraine is help them succeed economically because that is how people on the ground feel this transformation inside of ukraine. if that experiment fails, the larger project of an independent ukraine will fail. so we are going to do everything we can to bolster that. but there is no doubt if diplomacy fails this week, there is going to continue to be a strong, unified response between the united states and europe.

that is not going to change. there may be some areas where there are tactical disagreements. there may not be. the broad principle that we have to stand up for not just ukraine but the principle of territorial integrity and sovereignty is one where we are completely unified. >> [speaking german] the french president and i have decided to make one further attempt to make progress through diplomatic means. we have the minsk agreement. it has never been implement it. quite the contrary. the situation has worsened on the ground. now there is the possibility to try and bring about a cease-fire and to also create conditions where you have not every day civilians dying, civil victims

that fall prey to this. i am confident we will do this together. i would not be able to live with not having made this attempt. there is anything but assured success in all of this. i have to be clear about this. but if at a certain point in time, one has to say success is not possible, even if one puts every effort into it, then the united states and europe have to try to explore further possibilities on what one can do. let me point out foreign ministers of the european union last week already tasked the commission to think about further possible sanctions. on the issue of what is effective and what is not, i am somewhat surprised sometimes. just let me mention iran.

for a fairly long period of time, we have had sanctions in place. people don't seem to question them. i think they have been successful if we look at negotiations on the nuclear program. i think it was a very good thing to put some cost on to the russians through these sanctions we agreed on because we see russia seems to be influenced by this. this is why i am 100% behind these decisions. as to the export of arms, i have given you my opinion. no matter what we decide, the alliance between the united states and europe will continue to stand, will continue to be solid, even if on certain issues we don't always agree. the partnership on ukraine and russia, combating terrorism, on other issues, is a partnership

that has stood the test of time. in europe, we are very close. the transatlantic partnership for germany is indispensable. this will remain so. i can say this also on behalf of my colleagues in the european union. >> from the german press agency. you said you have not made a decision as to whether weapons ought to be delivered to ukraine. what would be the line that needs to be crossed for you to decide on armament of the ukrainian army? what do you think will withhold by way of a promise? what can obama due to diffuse the conflict?

putin demanded again that kiev negotiate directly with the separatists. when does the right moment come to do this? looking at the big issues are discussed, this breach of confidence due to the n.s.a. affair of the u.s.-german relations, has that played a role today? >> do you want to go first on this? >> [speaking german] i can gladly start. the question as to how one assesses the effectiveness of certain measures has been dealt with. the president has not yet made a decision. what is important for me is that we stand very closely together on the question of a new

renewed diplomatic effort. we keep each other informed. we are in close touch. nobody wishes more for a success than the two of us who stand here side-by-side. but this would also mean not only having a cease-fire in place, but over and above that have certain rules in place. the russian president thinks there ought to be direct contracts. these already exist with representatives from donetsk and luhansk. the problem of the last few meetings was that there was not that much of an end result, if they met at all, or if the representatives were there at all. this was the core of the minsk agreement, that there are local elections and the outcome is you have representatives that can speak for those regions.

the ukrainian president has paved the way for this. these elections are an essential point that will enable us to say maybe now that can be contact without a trilateral group. this is on the agenda of the many talks we need to make. i can well understand the ukrainian side. on the territory they consider to be part of their territory and anything else would violate the territorial integrity, that they want to see elections take place there. and that has also been stated by president putin that he wants to see those elections happening. . i think there are still different assessments on individual issues there. if we look at the sheer die mention of the terrorists, we

are more aware of the fact that we need to work together very quickly -- closely. the institutions of the united states of america have provided us and continue to provide us with very significant information that ensures our security. we don't want to do without this. there are other possibilities to continue to talk about the protection of privacy versus data protection and so on. combating terrorism was basically -- >> it is important to point out that we have been providing assistance to the ukrainian military general. that has been a long-standing partnership. our goal has not been for ukraine to be equipped to carry

on offense of -- offensive operations, but to simply defend itself. the president have been very clear. he is not interested in escalating violence. he is interested having his country's boundaries respected by its neighbor. there is not going to be any specific point at which i say defense of weapons would be appropriate here. it is our ongoing analysis of what can we do to dissuade russia from encouraging further and further on ukrainian territory. our hope is that it comes through to black. i want to emphasize -- our hope is that it comes through diplomatic means. we are not looking for russia to

fail. we are not looking for russia to be surrounded and contained and weekend. our preference was for a strong prosperous vibrant, confident russia. it 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. in the face of this aggression, we can't 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 are going to continue to do. with respect to the nsa, i will make this point. there is no doubt that the revelations damaged impressions of germans with respect to the u.s. government and our intelligence cooperation. what i have done over the last year year and a half, is to systematically work through some of these issues to create greater transparency and to restore confidence, not just for germans, but for our partners around the world. we have taken some unprecedented measures. for example, to ensure our intelligence agencies treat non-us citizens in ways that are

consistent with due process and their privacy concerns. something that i put in a presidential order and has not been ever done by most intelligent agencies around the world. there are going to still be areas where we have to work through these issues. we have to internally works are some of these issues because they are complicated and difficult. if we are trying to track a network that is planning to carry out attacks in new york or berlin or paris, and they are communicating primarily in cyberspace, and we have the capacity to stop an attack like that but that requires us being able to operate within that cyberspace, how do we make sure

that we are able to do that? we still have to meet our core principles of privacy. given germany's history, i recognize the sensitivities around this issue. what i would ask would that the german people recognize that the united states has always been on the forefront of trying to promote civil liberties, we have traditions of due process that we respect. we have been a consistent partner of yours in the course of the last 70 years and certainly the last 25 years. we reinforce the values we share. occasionally, i would like the german people to give us the benefit of the doubt given our history. as opposed to assuming the worst, assuming that we have been consistently your strong partner. we share a common set of values.

if we have that fundamental underlying trust, there are going to be times where there are disagreements, both sides may make mistakes, there will be irritants like there are between friends. the underlying foundation for the relationship remains sound. christi parsons. >> thank you. the iran nuclear negotiators have now missed two deadlines. should the upcoming march deadlines be the final ones? what are the circumstances in which you think it would be wise to extend those talks? also, some have suggested that you are outraged by the israeli prime minister's position to address congress. is that so? how would you advise democrats who are considering a boycott? >> we understood from the start

when we set up the interim agreement with iraq that it would take some time to work through incredibly complex issues and a huge trust deficit between the united states and iraq and the world. i think there was always the assumption that, although the interim agreement lasted a certain. of time, that we would probably need more time to move forward. the good news is that there have been very serious discussions. that time has been well spent. during this time, issues have been clarified, apps have been narrowed, the iranians have abided by the agreement, this is not a circumstance in which by talking they have been stalling and meanwhile advancing their

program. the program is not frozen, but they have reversed it. we are in a better position than we were before the interim program was set up. having said all of that, the issues now are sufficiently narrowed and sufficiently clarified. we are to the point where they need to make a decision. we are presenting to them, any unified fashion the support by a coalition of countries around the world, a deal that allows them to have peaceful nuclear power that gives us the absolute assurance that they are not pursuing a nuclear weapon. if in fact, what they claim is

true, that they have no aspirations to get a nuclear weapon that according to their supreme leader, it would be contrary to their faith to obtain a nuclear weapon, if that is true, there should be the possibility of getting a deal. a should be able to get the yes. we don't know if that will happen. they have their hard-liners, they have their politics. the point i guess is that this juncture, i don't see a further extension being useful if they have not agreed to the basic formulation and the bottom line that the world requires. if the framework for a deal is done, if people have a clear sense of what is required and there is some drafting and tease

to cross and eyes two., that is different. we now know enough that the issues are no longer technical. the issues now are does iran have the political will and the desire to get a deal. we could not be doing this were it not for the incredible cohesion and unity that has been shown by germany, by other members. i should acknowledge this includes russia. this is an area which they have actually served a constructive role. china has served a constructive role. there has been no cracks in this side of the table.

i think that is a testament to the degree to which we are acting reasonably in trying to solve the problem. with respect to prime minister netanyahu, i talked to him all the time. our teams constantly coordinate. we have a practice of not meeting with leaders right before their elections, two weeks before their elections. as much as i love angela, she was two weeks away from election, she probably would not have received an invitation to the white house. i suspect she wouldn't have asked for one. [laughter] this is just, some of this have to do with how we do business. i think it is important for us

to maintain these protocols because the u.s.-israeli relationship is not about a particular party. this isn't a relationship founded on affinity between the labour party and the democratic party or -- this is the u.s.-israeli relationship that extends beyond parties. it has to do with that unbreakable bond that we feel. our commitment to israel's security. the shared values we have. the way to preserve that is to make sure that it does not get clouded with what could be perceived as partisan politics. whether that is accurate or not, that is the essential

perception. that is something we have to guard against. i don't want to be away. the prime minister have a very real difference -- the prime minister and i have a very real difference around iraq. i have been very clear, and angela agrees of me, it does not make sense to sour the negotiations one month or two before they are about to be completed. we should play that out, if, in fact, we can get a deal. we should embrace that. if we can't get a deal we will have to make a set of decisions. as i have said to congress, i will be the first one to work with them to apply even stronger measures against iran. what is the rush? unless your view is that it is not possible to get a deal with iran. and it shouldn't even be tested. then i cannot agree with that

because i am looking at what the options are if we don't get a diplomatic resolution. those options are narrow and unattractive. from the perspective of u.s. interest, and from the perspective of israel's interest although i can't speak for the israeli government, it is far better if we can get a diplomatic resolution. there are real differences. that is separate and apart from the whole issue of mr. netanyahu coming to washington. >> you just said to the question is what will be effective in the ukrainian crisis and diplomacy has not really made that much progress. can you understand the impatience of the americans when they say that we ought to deliver weapons?

what makes you feel confident that diplomacy will carry the day in the next few days and weeks? on greece, i also have to ask what is your comment of the greece prime minister who says let's and those programs and i will stand by what i said in the election? do you, mr. president -- there are quite a lot of pressures from your government saying weapons should be delivered to the ukrainians. you have said you want to ratchet up the costs that put in has to bear. then make him relent and given. you said all options have to be on the table. what makes you so sure that these weapons will not only go into the hands of the regular

ukrainian army, but then will also perhaps get into the hands of separatists, of militias on the ukrainian side. thank you. >> whenever you have political conflicts such as the one we have now between russia and ukraine, but also in many other conflicts around the world, it has a width proved to be right to try again and again to thwart the conflict. we have spoken at length about the romanian -- about the iranian conflict. there was always a point where you say all of the options are on the table, we have gone back and forth, but then one has to think again. looking just at the middle east, how many people have tried to bring about a solution to this conflict? i'm going to participate and enforce it every time because i

think it has been well worth the effort every time. when you have the situation now when you see people dying every night, you see civilian casualties, you see that dire conditions it is incumbent upon us as politicians, we ok to the people to explore every avenue until something is solved. people who have said in west germany, remember, they said should we keep up a citizenship of germany? they have been criticized as some who harbor revenge just ideas. think of president reagan when he wanted to tear down the wall. many people wondered how he could say that. but he was right. i cannot give you a guarantee

for the wednesday talks. maybe nothing will come out of it. then we are called upon again to think about a new possibility. since we thought about every step of the way about will this be effective, we will continue to do so. a lot of things have to be thought about. i am very glad that, with the american president, i have always been able to put all of the cards on the table and discuss the pros and cons. in my speech, i told you clearly where i stand. we will continue to try it. i think that is why we are politicians. that's why we chose this profession. others have to do other things. researchers have to find new things to explore. we have to see that the well being, the prosperity of our people is in short. we never have a guarantee that the policies we adopt the work. greece, i almost forgot. on wednesday, there is going to be a eurogroup meeting.

i think what counts is what greece will put on the table. at that meeting or perhaps a few days later. the german policy ever since 2010 has been aimed at greece staying a member of the eurozone. i have said this time and again. the basic roles have always been the same. you put in your own efforts, and on the other side, you are being shown solidarity. the ecb, the european union commission, and the imf, have agreed on programs. these programs are the basis of any discussion we have. i have always said i will wait for greece to come with a sustainable proposal and then we will talk about it. >> the point on will a made is right. -- the point angela made is

right. we never have guarantee that any particular course of action works. i like -- as i said before, by the time a decision greases my desk -- a decision reaches of my desk, it is a hard problem. i would never even hear about it. the issue that you raised about can we be certain that any legal aid that we provide ukraine is used properly doesn't fall into the wrong hands, does not lead to over aggressive actions that cannot be sustained by the ukrainians what kinds of reactions does it prompt not simply from separatists that from russians, those are issues that have to be considered. the measure by which i made these decisions is, is it more

likely to be effective than not? that is what our deliberations will be about. what i do know is this. the united states and europe have not stood idly by. we have made enormous efforts investments of dollars, medical capital, diplomacy, in trying to resolve this situation. i think the ukrainian people can feel confident that we have stood by them. people like vice president biden , secretary of state kerry, have spent countless hours on this issue. as has angela and her team on the german side.

just because we have not yet gotten the outcome that we want, doesn't mean that this pressure is not over time making a difference. i think it is fair to say that there are those inside of russia who recognize this has been a disastrous course for the russian economy. i think mr. putin is factoring that in. understandably until the situation is entirely resolved, we are going to have to keep on trying different things to see if we can get a better outcome. what i do know is that we will not be able to succeed unless we maintain a strong transatlantic solidarity that has been the hallmark of our national security throughout the last 70 years. i am confident that i have a great partner in angela in maintaining that.

thank you very much everybody. [applause] >> at today's white house news conference, president obama said he would hold off a decision in sending arms to ukraine until german-led as shirts -- german-led efforts are given a chance. we are asking should the west arm ukraine against the russian rebels? joined the -- join the conversation on our facebook page. on our next washington journal we will talk to congressman gerry connolly of virginia about russia relations. and the escalating conflict in eastern ukraine. then republican congressman luke messer will discuss whether to grant president obama the

ability to help in europe. you can join the conversation by phone, facebook, and twitter. next, senator bernie sanders discusses the economy, tax reform, and college affordability. the vermont independent also talks of any possible white house run. he weighs in on israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu's scheduled address to congress in march. the brookings institution hosted this event. >> i want to welcome everyone here today. i and ej d on. i am a senior fellow here at brookings. it is a great honor to welcome

senator bernie sanders as part of our ongoing conversation on the future of our economy and our shared economic growth. for those of you out there who want to comment on twitter, the hashtag is #sandersatbrookings. it is a pleasure to welcome a self-described proud democratic socialist. these days, the word socialist is the runaround as an event. people are insulted when president obama is called a socialist because they argue he is too moderate to be a socialist. we forget that the vibrancy of the democratic socialist tradition in the united states.

in the american tradition, we are talking about people from michael harrington to people like barbara aaron wright. this is a lively american tradition that has influenced policy in our country in a great many ways. it is refreshing to see a senator who does not run away from a particular part of our american tradition. senator sanders is a senator from vermont. he spent 16 years in the house of representatives, making them the longest-serving independent member of congress in history. he has dedicated his career to public service. he addresses the growing income gap. he has always tried to build our infrastructure and six environmental -- fix

environmental crises. we worry a lot these days about congress being able to do nothing. i think it is worth noting that when two sides are willing to seek agreement and willing to recognize the urgency of government action, you can actually have things happen. very recently, senator sanders with senator mccain and others negotiated a very comprehensive bill to deal with the problems in the v.a. medical system. when we have senator sanders and senator mccain working together, we can produce miracles in public policy. 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]

>> let me begin by thanking brookings for hosting this event. thank you jay for moderating it. thank you for being here this morning. before i begin my remarks in trying to explain what is going on in our country and where i think we should be going, let me say a few words about myself. 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. i mother's dream was to get out of the 3.5 room rent-controlled apartment we lived in for my entire life. we never made it out. what i learned as a kid is what lack of money does to a family. the kind of stress and pressure that families that don't have the money they need what happens to them. that is the lesson i've never forgotten. my wife, jane, and i have been married for 27 years. we have four kids and seven grandchildren. without being overly dramatic, the truth is that my involvement in politics has everything to do with what kind of country i hope they will be living in. as long as serving an independent -- as longest-serving independent, let

me describe my political journey. it 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. i ran for the united states senate on a third-party, the liberty union party. i received 2% of the vote. next year, i ran for governor of the state of vermont and i received 1% of the vote. i was on the move. heading down. two years later, i ran for the senate. i received 4% of the vote and 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. five years later, some friends of mine suggested that i could

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

that is 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 the 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 lengths here, 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. 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 senator 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 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 -- land trust 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

building a program to prevent 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 -- 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 chairman of the segment veterans -- senate veterans affairs committee, 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 4 million lower income americans now getting health care and dental care, which is a huge issue in our country. and 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 of hope, that this would -- 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 -- 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 -- and yet we end up spending , almost twice as much per perp -- 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 of 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 economic, 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 are 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, 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 worth 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 n agenda for america, but relate me briefly summarize it. first of all, you ask the average american what the most important issue they are concerned about, enters a four letter word, called jobs. we need a major federal jobs program to put millions of americans back to work. 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 my view, and this is relevant with the transpacific partnership trade agreement coming down the pipes, we need to take a hard look at our trade policies, which have resulted in the outsourcing of millions of good paying jobs. the evidence is overwhelming. nafta, calf the, they have all failed. it makes no sense to continue a failed policy which leads us on a race to the bottom. we need new trade policies. we need to demand that corporate america invest in this country not in china. in today's highly competitive global economy, millions of americans are unable to afford the higher education they need 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 few months ago, i met with a woman in burlington, vermont. her crime was that she went to school to become a physician for low income people. that was a crime. a result of that crime is that she is $300,000 in debt. that is nuts. and we have got to learn that in countries like germany scandinavia, many parts of the world that are competing against us 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 , major country, without a

national health care program. right now, in fact, i say in -- i say 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 poverty is increasing when millions of seniors, and i see it in vermont, people are trying to get by on 12,000 dollars, $14,000 per year, we should not be about cutting social security benefits, we should be about expanding those benefits. as i mentioned a moment ago, we live in a time of massive inequality. we need a progressive tax system in this country and an effective tax rate. it is not acceptable to me that a number of profitable

corporations have paid zero federal income taxes in recent years, and that millionaire headphone and -- hedge fund managers pay less taxes than truck drivers and nurses. 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, sorry, government in this country is going to work for all of us and not just the top 1%. thank you very much. [applause] >> for the cameras i've got to connect. hold on. are we connected? >> thank you, senator sanders, for that carefully-hedged, cautious political speech. [laughter] >> 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 then i want to bring in the audience. i will have a bias, and i hope you will forgive me. 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 denmark, and we have the danish ambassador

come 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? -- to health care he echoes? 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. for example, 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 to generate a significant sum of money 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 package 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. all over the world. i live 100 miles away from the canadian border. they have a conservative premier, they have a single-payer health care system under a conservative premier 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 royalists 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 are going to rebuild an economy so that it works for all people and not just for the very wealthy.

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 were made. no great surprise, people can add. they do know demographickings. -- demographics. just a couple of points on social security, because there's a lot of misinformation that is 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 deficit 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." [laughter] i just wanted to note that. i will ask this question to get it out of the way. are you running for president? if so, will the result be closer to the 1971 special elections or

the 2012 reelection? >> with a bit of luck, we are beyond 1971. let me say this. it is no big secret. i'm giving thought to running for president. at a time when the middle class is disappearing, when we have grotesque levels of wealth 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 political system, i think it is important to have candidates who stand up for the working class and 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. -- necessarily 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 when millions of people 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. there are 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. but, the gut feeling, the

decision i will have to reach is whether there is that willingness to stand up and fight back. if there is not, i don't want to run a futile campaign. i want to run to win. we need millions of people actively involved. in terms of money that's all this is out absurd the stories. if you had a candidate who reached out and generate a lot of excitement and you had 2 million people, we are going for putting 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 , phenomenal response 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. maybe we have gone over the edge. i don't know. i surely hope not but we have to look at that reality.

>> last on that issue, when candidates run for president they often have two objectives. the first objective obviously is to win the nomination of election but there've been plenty of candidates in our history who have won to advance an agenda even when they didn't win. and so, obviously, you've had to have thought about both sides of this equation if i run and when -- 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 will be hillary clinton. can you analyze the politics? i think the politics matter in trying to advance an agenda not simply win an election spirit if -- >> if i do this and people have

to appreciate how difficult a decision that is, but if i make the decision i would be running to win. but having said that let me also take 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. you know how many negative ads i run it during the whole period? zero. never ran a negative ad in my life. negative ads disgust me. 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 debate. this is a woman i respect, a very intelligent person who i think is interested in issues, by the way. i think we would have a debate about how you would rebuild a crumbling middle-class. and debate about how you reverse climate change, a debate about the 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, to be honest with you. but it is not my style to trash people. it is not my style to run ugly negative ads. never have, never will. would you -- >> would you really register as a democrat yack? >> a lot of my constituents say, you have to go outside the two-party system. and other people do and say you've got to run to you been in the democratic caucus, and if you want to go where the action is and you want to be in the debates and to want to get media attention, you've got to run within the democratic caucus. that is an issue i'm talking to a lot of people about. >> we have a lot of voices. by the way, as i begin with a journalist first and i want to have my friend and colleague, a brookings person and a

journalist, if you want to jump in now or later, let me know. among journalists who are here, who would like to ask a question? hold on. say it again so people were no. >> i am from politico. does the pressure to comprise up to hillary clinton make it harder for you to introduce or sell to voters on their own terms? >> well, i'll tell you a funny story. i do a number of interviews. often, i do what i am doing today, talk about the issues that i think are important. somewhere along the line, able ask about hillary. i try not to attack her. no matter what i say, usually it becomes hillary clinton. to me, if i run, what i am running on are the issues i talked to you about today issues, by the way, which i think the vast majority of the american people understand and support. clearly, in terms of hillary

clinton, her name recognition is about 10 times greater than mine. if i run, it would take a lot of work hitting around the country introducing myself to people. but i will tell you this, and this is the interesting point. when you look at the republican agenda which boils down to more tax breaks for billionaires and large corporations, cuts in social security, medicare, medicaid, education, what percentage of the american people support that? i would say, 10, 15% but when you look at my agenda, massive jobs program to put people back to work, rebuild our infrastructure, raising the minimum wage, tackling climate change, we have a lot more support. so the question is how we get out to people, and how we bring people together to go forward. >> do you view the working families endorsement of all -- elizabeth worn as a setback? >> i am not sure senator warren will be running. >> do you have a thought on senator warren?

>> i knew elizabeth warren before she was elizabeth warren. [laughter] she was a mere brilliant harvard law school professor. we brought senator, well , it wasn't senator, elizabeth warren to the town meetings and she blew me away with her ability to deal with complicated economic issues in a language that people could understand. we had town meetings around the state. i'm a fan of elizabeth warren and we worked together on a number of issues. >> way in the back. when the back there. >> thank you. kevin with the hill. i'm wondering if senator warren, she says she's not running for president if she were to get in , the race, would that change your plans at all for 2016? >> this is kind of what media does. they like speculation. sorry, you will forgive me, i am not much into speculation. >> mark, do you want to come in? mark shields appear in the

middle. welcome, mark. great to have you here. >> thank you, e.j. thank you, senator. no one would accuse you of being morning america with your presentation. >> with you, maybe. >> what does give you hope? >> my wife to -- often tells me that after i speak, we have to have anti-suicide kits. i have been trying to be more cheerful. you didn't catch that obviously. i'll tell you, i'll tell you there's another part of my speech that often give and i'll tell you where i am. this is serious stuff. regardless of one's political views, if we sat in this room, 30 years ago and i were to say to you, i think our country would, which has a terrible

history of rachel prejudice if i told you in the year 2000 and eight, we would elect an african-american president, and he would be reelected four years later, if we would overcome our racism into that, you would have said, what are you smoking? ain't going to happen. we did it. we did it. 30, 40 years ago you had one or two members of the united states senate who were women. today, you have had, we have had states, the government is a woman, senators are women, members of congress are women. and while we still have a long long way to go to break down sexist barriers in this country, nobody would deny that we have come a long way. i remember when i was mayor, i appointed the first woman police officer back in the 1980s. what a big deal that was. walk around capitol hill today it's not such a big deal. overcome huge barriers in terms of sexism. disability issues. when you and i were kids and

families had a baby born with a disability, it was an embarrassment in the part of the family. kids were institutionalized. today we have come a long, long way as a result of the ada and other programs where kids with a disability are loved and welcomed into our schools. they are a part of our communities. we have made more progress on that than anyone would've dreamed. and last but not least, and i know this firsthand because the state of vermont helped lead the effort with regard to civil unions, if you and i were talking 10 years ago and you said, you know i think maybe , some of the more conservative states in america, gay marriage would no longer be a big deal in the year 2015. you would have thought that would be completely crazy, right? and yet i go to kids schools in the state of ormonde, the conservative parts of vermont, and i asked kids, what do you think about gay marriage? they look at me like i'm crazy,

what are you talking about? no problem. you ask me about optimism, those are the areas, some of the areas. where we have now taken it for granted, you've got a black president, so what? 20, 30 years ago no one would've dreamed that would be possible. so i believe we have the capacity to change but i think what we're up against now, by the way, is something tougher. because you are taking on the greed and the power of the billionaire class, of the koch brothers who are out to destroy social security, medicare, medicaid, et cetera. we go back to 1920 to have the money to try to do that. this is a tough fight but am -- i am optimistic. i think we have the capacity to bring change to this country and we have done in recent years. >> thank you, mark, for allowing the senator to listen to his wife's advice. that was helpful. who do we have over there? the gentleman who has his hand up. could you identify yourself he? >> my name is peter. senator i would like to ask you

, your opinion on the speech that prime minister netanyahu is planning to give to congress and would you consider boycotting it? >> yes. i think, look, again people disagree. the president of the united states, he argued the president was even consulted, that is wrong and not a good thing. >> are you thinking of not going? have you decided yet? >> i am not going. i may watch on it on tv but i'm not going. [applause] spent how many of your colleagues do think we'll -- will do that? >> ej, you are sounding like the media. >> i am the media. >> that's right. >> the lady in the front please. >> anything but don't ask me to speculate. >> this verges on speculation. i remember your votes about the gulf war and iraq war.

i'm wondering what we can do and what you think we can do to stop this path we are on of endless war? >> thank you for phrasing it that way. that is exactly what my nightmare is, is endless war. it goes without saying that this isis, it is beyond pathetic to think this is going on in the year 2015, the barbarianism we are seeing. and anyone who tells you have a -- that they have a magical solution to this problem is getting you. they don't. what i do believe, the most important thing we can do, is to demand that the people in the region, by an extremely -- play an extremely active role militarily and politically. 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 thugs. do you know what? that's their neighborhood and i

, think the united states and the west should be very supportive but i think nations , in that region are going to have to put some real skin in the game, more than our right -- more than they are right now. >> can you imagine a use of force resolution against isis that would be framed in a way you could vote for? >> again i don't, look, isis is beyond, what they've done to you can't even speak about it it is so horrible. i want to see them destroyed. but as this woman aptly pointed out, there are some of my colleagues in the congress who really have in mind and endless war. god knows how many years we were in afghanistan and iraq. i was chairman of the veterans committee. we've got 500,000 men and women who came back from iraq and afghanistan with ptsd and traumatic brain injury. thousands of lives have been 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 a magical solution. but at the heart of it must be regional activity on the part of the country's most impacted. >> let me press you on that because this is not a speculative question. if president obama called you up and said, i know there are a lot of people in the senate and the house were very reluctant to keep at wars in the middle east, yet you agreed, we agree that isis is a particular threat. can you write me a resolution that you could vote for? >> again, the devil is always in the details, and i don't want to speculate without seeing a document. i think it's fair to say i do not disagree with the air attacks the united states is coordinating. but i don't want to see a ground presence and never-ending war. >> who else? a lady in the back on the aisle. those two folks on the aisle. >> leeann, sputnik international news.

just had a follow-up question on what you have raised about the oligarchical trend in u.s. politics. and i just 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's a great question. i will answer in a couple ways. first of all, the way it impacts american politics, and again everybody knows my political views. i don't need to be partisan here. if you were the republican party, or any group of people, do you really think you would put up the keystone pipeline as your first order of business? i am against the keystone eye blind, i fought it very hard.

but do you really think that a canadian pipeline which will provide 35 private jobs is the most important issue facing america? you would make -- that's your first bill. do you think it may have some to do with the fact that the coke or others are major owners of leases in that part of canada? how it impacts our foreign policy is that, i am afraid people who have the money will have more influence than will ordinary americans. i'll give you an example. i want to applaud the president. this does not get a lot of attention. the people of greece are hurting terribly. unemployment in greece is 25% 26 percent. their economy has shrunk by a quarter. there are people living in dire poverty right now. right now, what you have 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 that it made. and president obama spoke on that issue and talked about how more austerity in a country whose economy is shrinking, is not the way to go. but, to answer your question globally, the problems we are facing in the united states are not dissimilar to what many other countries are facing around the world. more and more wealth and income inequality, more and more austerity. i think the american people have got to work with people around the world to say that when you have a handful of billionaires owning as much wealth as half of the people in this world, we need radical changes in the way we do economics. >> the gentleman right there. >> larry. i agree with most of what you say, senator. i would offer one caveat. if you're going to invite people to vermont, to burlington, do it

in the summertime. >> the skiing is good. >> what scares me a little bit is, if you are willing -- every do not go over to the democratic side, would you run as an independent? are you willing to be the son of ralph nader? >> no, i will not. let me make it very clear. i will not be a spoiler. >> the gentleman in the back. someone tell me when we are running short of time. we are at the end. >> senator, thank you. i talked to some of our constituents in vermont and they have said that something they like about you is independent nature. i am keeping it nice. [laughter]

>> acquired taste. >> do think that if you become a democrat to run for president, does that hurt you with not only our constituents in vermont but people around the country who may vote or you and like the fact you are not affiliated with a party? >> i think some could be wrong but i think in the last election, in vermont, we got about 25% of the republican vote. i think that a lot of working-class republicans who are not uncomfortable with what i am saying. i think in vermont and around the country, you have a norm is numbers of people to say, you're not a democrat? you're not a republican? i do not know what you stand for, but i'm with you. i'm getting bolder and bolder trying to figure these things out.