on issues important to democratic primary voters. then a look at u.s.-china relations in light of u.s. military deployments in the south china sea. ♪ republican voters in nevada will caucus tonight. speeches to air much later tonight. you can go to our website for more information. chief campaign staffer has been fired. "the washington times" reporting that senator rubio is picking up endorsements. it's the "washington journal" for february 23. we turn to state politics for our first 45 minutes. president obama met with governors to address their issues. from you, we want to hear about your state's issues, and what

are your states problems and how is your governor addressing those problems? here is how you can call and let us know -- 202-748-8001 for mountain and specific time zones. if you want to post on this thought about your state's problems, you might do so on twitter @c-spanwj. and you can post on our facebook page. of currentampling issues involving governors across the united states, we start in louisiana with the new elected governor, john bel edwards. already addressing the state's budget issues. he says, he's holding a special session to do so. saying that escalating rhetoric majord a grim picture of problems for higher education, health care and other services unless the legislature agrees on how to come up with $930 million

by june 30. he says without legislative action, baton rouge -- some campuses would be declaring bankruptcy. and health care would suffer devastating cuts, including hospital closings. it means the difference between life and death. that is in louisiana. turning to new york, governor cuomo addressing the issue of paid family leave. and talking about it with small business owners. that, saying that this policy has been introduced by the governor, if approved by the state legislature, would give new york the most expensive and least business friendly paid family leave law in the country according to the business council of new york state. yorkerse proposal, new would be eligible for paid family leave for up to 12 weeks to take care of newborn babies and sick and dying relatives. employers would -- employees would be eligible for leave after four weeks on the job, which would take effect in 2018

and apply to all new york employers." that is a sampling of what is going on across the united states won it comes to issue states may be facing. that isirst 45 minutes, what we want to hear from your. what are your state's major problems, how is your governor addressing those problems? it's regional lines. if you live in eastern time 48-8000.d central, 202-78 if you live in known in pacific time zones, 202-748-8001. president obama met with a group of governors yesterday to talk about issues important to them and how the federal government is addressing them. one of the issues that came up is a question from the minnesota governor. he asked the present how the current policy on trade might affect what is going on in the state. here is a bit of the question. [video clip] >> impact of china's exports and dumping has been affecting a lot of other industries. i am wondering if given your thereis on free trade, if

is also way that you can be more aggressive to prevent china from doing what it is doing? president obama: first of all, the good news is we have been more aggressive than previous administrations when it comes to bringing enforcement actions. and this is an area where, even the steelworkers as much as they wouldject to tpp, acknowledge we have done a lot on this. the other piece of good news is that we actually have had a tradeion bill to our promotion authority that just passed the house and the senate and that i am getting prepared to sign that will give us additional tools for enforcement. more resources, more personnel allows us to take more aggressive actions. so, you are going to see firm, tough enforcement of our

existing trade laws. help yourd the issues states trade situation, economics, infrastructure, education? what is the problem and how was your governor addressing it? 02-748-8000 for eastern and central time zones and 202-7 48-8001 for mountain and pacific. lisa is joining us. caller: good morning. in texas, we have at least three ways that are governor is not addressing some of the basic needs for our state. efundededucation is d by $2 billion already. they are trying 2-d find it even further. -- to defund it even further. public education is being defun ded.

i heard of one other state where they pay their junior colleges that those, they can get a free education if they pass high school. whereas, we have no support for our junior colleges. people just have to try to be able to make it regardless of whether they are attempting to finish high school or not. houston, we have also depends a lot on the oil industry. and i believe they have thrown the oil industries under the bus by not legislating ways where it's purposely advantageous for our oil businesses to switch over transition, carefully, gently into more renewable sources and that affects our whole city because we depend on those jobs. for our state. host: gotcha.

lisa in south texas. bill is in north carolina. hi there. caller: good morning. north carolina, the new mississippi. if anyone has been watching, they would've seen that north carolina is basically pushing up against all voter rights requiring i.d. when there is no problem with voting. then if you look at what else is going on in north carolina, we have a governor that came from a power company. the power company polluted our water. the legislature let the power company walk away without any real penalties. to go along with that, let's talk about education. in education, we moved away from public schools. we are building charter schools everywhere using public dollars to support those charter schools. the republican local legislature has taken over and is rolling us back in time.

we are going backward, not forward. north carolina used to be leading the country in textiles, jobs. all our jobs are going overseas. we have seen all the jobs go to other states. north carolina is not aggressive in bringing in new industries. when you look at governor patrick cori, he is bought and paid for -- when you look at governor pat mccrory, he is bought and paid for -- the small guy does not seem to have a chance. host: ted in washington, new jersey, calling about the state's problems and how the governor is addressing it. go ahead. caller: he ought to come to new jersey. all democrats here, and we are number one in foreclosures. we are 50th in job creation and number one in people and businesses leaving. the governor here has tried, but the problem is we have $100 billion pension deficit. they are facing -- there is no money to fix the roads. transportation trust fund to fix

the road is empty. and they already have fees that we have income tax, we have everything on top of taxes. property taxes are the highest in the country. the governor, he put a cap on every time, they cannot raise their taxes over 2%, because there is just no money. what the future holds, i don't know. some people say maybe the federal can bail us out. i'm closely watching this presidential race because i think states like new jersey are going to need some federal assistance somehow, someway because you cannot afford to keep raising taxes. people are leaving here because of the tax increases. -748-8000 for the eastern and central time zone. and 202-748-8001 for the mountain of pacific time zones. is your governor addressing her state's problems is what we are interested to hearing from you. maurice, hello. caller: how you doing?

host: fine, thank you. how about yourself? caller: not doing so well. the governor -- is doing a horrible job. you have the governor in alabama. we are hurting down here. it might look good on the surface. people, you talk to the next or neighbors, your coworker, everybody is struggling. outthing we like to throw -- church. orshink a lot of head past need to rally around bernie sanders, somebody who has a positive outlook on life. not addressing key issues in georgia. infrastructure, i cannot believe it. host: when you say, he is not addressing, is he not proposing any specific legislative fixes to address the problems you're talking about? caller: yes, sir. also, he is trying to overhaul

the education system. justn, it just -- it's amazing how people do not have that deep down compassion for one another. compassion for one another. these politicians and leaders and stuff are not being proactive. we are all living together. years from now, will this earth still be here, 100 years from now? so, it is a real big problem. i feel right down here in the small suburb of georgia, right below atlanta. and sometimes, you know, your neighbors do not even speak to you. it's clearly a black and white issue. and sometimes even animals -- no prejudice -- know prejudice. it's just amazing. i just hope we get together and vote for bernie sanders so we

can get this thing back on track. states problems and ensure governor addressing those problems? john in tuscaloosa, alabama, is next. caller: good morning. we have a governor bentley in alabama. and he is just about to, i guess the worst governor i've seen here. he's taking money out of the schools and putting it in the general fund because -- and he is doing that because he cannot balance a budget. heut a year ago, i thought should of been impeached because he was having, his wife divorced him. he was having an affair with his communications person that works on his staff. and they were using the taxpayers money that he has a

jet that he uses to go around the country. and him and his mistress were going on the jet having their fair. and everybody knows this -- having their affair. i don't know why they never impeached this guy. now what he was a due in alabama, since the gas prices are low, he wants to pu t a 12 cents tax on the gas for all the citizens of alabama. so, i'm supposing so that he can pocket whenn his he leaves office. because his wife divorced him and took him for everything he had. i do not think this governor is doing a good job. in alabama. continuing on about your governors and if they are addressing the problems your

state has. president obama met with governors yesterday at the white house to address specific issues. one of the questions was by the kentucky governor matt bevan asked about how the president would handle the u.s. debt problem. here is the exchange. [video clip] >> what in the next 10 months your administration can do to -- start to change the course of direction that is currently underway? president obama: the real problem that we have when it comes to debt is very simple. it is that our population is getting older and we use a lot of health care, and health care, less, frankly,or than most other advanced nations, partly because we do a lot of emergency room care.

some of it is because we over-prescribed, we over-test. some of it is we drive innovation and technology and people always want the best stuff. host: for that full conversation with the governors, go to our .org.te cspan we are asking you about your states problems and how your governor is addressing them. south carolina, jesse, hi there. caller: hi. how are you? i'm a veteran. i'm service-connected. i have been out of the service since 1982. i started collecting v.a. in 2001. is complete train wreck. the reason why i'm addressing governor haley on this is because she had spoken about the veterans. columbia needs to be investigated. dust because i was denie social security disability back claim., they close my

and said i had to have a hearing for reduction in pay. then they turn around and send me a letter to months later stating that they are not going to use social security disability against me. hearing and 2014 that was ordered by governor haley's office. i got a letter from her office stating i had to go to this hearing. i went to the hearing, the lady i spoke with said don't worry about anything. your pay will not change. you will be fine. all this inept or she got my new -- award letter. and that does not affect my v.a. and anyway, the bottom line is of myy are taking $722 money. i'm struggling. now they are going to take more to give to my ex-wife. i do not understand what is going on down there in columbia. nobody will answer me or talk to me.

they do not want to send me the transcript of the hearing. here i am struggling to get by month whennd some a i was getting $1510 a month. i wanted to address this because governor haley said she would go out for us -- look out for us and she has not. the veteransway, affairs will be the subject of a hearing that takes place today on c-span. it features robert mcdonald and takes a look at the 2017 budget request. this is before the federal affairs committee and the senate -- the veteran affairs committee in the senate. you can see that live on c-span three today at 10:00. from michigan, jamie is next -- you can see that live on c-span 3 today at 10:00. caller: thank you taking my call. -- for taking my call. governor snyder like all of the

rest of the governors, he's a republican. in our state, they found lead in the water in flint. you probably know about that. and he's setting on it. he is not trying to help. he has not donated any water. it's people in michigan that are donating the water. that's not all. he's running the state like a dictator. he to call the powers away from the electoral officials and handed it over to his emergency managers. understand emergency managers. they are not supposed to take over cities, towns, and everything else. and now the schools are hurting because he took funding from them when he first went into office. he taxed senior citizens retirement money. he's took taxes from everybody. and give it to the corporations and his buddies, even the

furniture people. and we are -- having low-paying jobs here. and we used to be a great state before -- as far as work goes. host: next up is betty. in florida. good morning. you are on. host: caller: ok, you are talking to quite an old lady. my man i lost two years ago was 98. he would be 100 today. in florida when they wanted, they demanded picture i.d., the re was no way that i could get him at my age down to the license bureau to get, he's d already given up his drivers license and get them a picture i.d. he had a birth certificate. he was born at home in 1915. and he was republican, and i was democrat. and we always outvoted each

other but it was the democrats that showed up at my house and packed him up, took him down to the license. . buruea. eau. got them a picture i.d. the last time he voted, we didn 't outvote each other. it was the first time he voted for a democrat, which was barack obama, before he died. the republicans felt that they were keeping the blacks and the poor from going. i don't think they realize that they shot themselves in the foot because it was the seniors, like my husband, that was hurt by this. host: gary lives in sassafras, kentucky. good morning. how are you? caller: i'm good, and yourself? host: how about the problems in

your state and how your governor is addressing that? caller: our governor may have been just elected in november this past year. he's doing real good. host: how so? caller: well, he's cutting down taxes and stuff. and cutting the budget. host: ok, that's gary in sassafras, kentucky. keep calling on those issues with your states and how your governor is addressing. we will look at politics as well. nevada -- the republican caucus takes place today. later on you can see those results on c-span. you'll probably be later if you live in the eastern time zone, probably more towards midnight. but if you go to our website at find outrg, you can more information and the responses you will hear from the candidates. as the caucus takes place today. a story taking a look at specific campaigns. -- tedd curz campaign

cruz campaign got the attention over the firing of a key spokesperson for that campaign. senator ted cruz fired his chief presidential campaign spokesman after the staff are shared a false story about rival senator marco rubio supposedly insulting the bible. cruz explains his decision while campaigning in nevada ahead of tuesday's caucuses there. from yesterday, there was a press conference that was held that took a look at this issue. here is a little bit of the response from the cruz campaign. [video clip] anator cruz: yesterday staffer sent out a tweet that tweeted a news story that arcorted to indicate m saying something negative about the bible. the new story was false. that staffer deleted the tweet , apologize. i spent this morning

investigating what happened. and this morning i asked for rick tyler's resignation. this made clear in campaign, that we will conduct this campaign with a very highest standards of integrity. that has been how we have conducted of hyundai on-- conducted it from day one. which is why when other campaigns into my integrity, i don't respond in kind. me throwyou have heard the kind of insult at marco rubio that he throws in the everyday. rick tyler is a good man. this was a grave error of judgment. it turned out the new store he sent around was false, but even if it was true -- the news story he sent around his fault, but we are not a campaign that will question the faith of another candidate. that is why i asked for his resignation because the standards of conduct in this campaign have been made absolutely clear for every member of the campaign. host: taking a look at the rubio

campaign, "the washington post" takes a look at since the end of campaign, the story suggest it is rubio that they are going towards. bush's departure has provided rubio with a much needed injection of money and structural support. they now feel free to back rubio. throughout monday, a string of former bush backers -- including robert dole in orrin hatch of utah. the former bullard,an lincoln also packed up his support. rubio also kicked up backers who previously stood on the sidelines. lansing, north carolina, is where dave is.

we are talking about state problems and how your governors are addressing those problems. you are up next. hi. caller: hey. get your pencil and paper there and write down this website. www.ashmountaintimes.com. it tells in here where our governor has sold a highway project that's federal money isn't paying for in there. bid, butact has been they do not have the money to approve it already. and the governor has been up here to the golf course three or four times getting his kick back. -- we need the federal to check this out. now, 221 widened to be finished by 2024, is what the county

paper says. ohio.lancaster, good morning too. caller: -- good morning to you. governor kasich is our governor. he does not even live in the governor's mansion. did you know that? so, what he is doing is he is costing more money to taxpayers to watch the governor's mansion and the house he lives in. if he does become president, is he going to live in the white house or not? host: specific problems in your state, how is governor kasich resolving those problems. caller: i don't know. i don't pay attention to him. he's boring. caller: my complaint is about the great lakes which has 20% of fresh water. the fracking that is going on our,s being ignored by

both parties, because everybody the state, they got money from the oil companies. world's fresh the water is in the great lakes. and if something is not done, when the fracking continues, we're going to pollute 20% of the world's freshwater. we are only 10% of united states of population. what are we doing? we are crazy. host: has your governor specifically address these issues? caller: no, he hasn't. wrote and my friend letters to the governor, the president. and no answer from any of them. and what are we doing?

a waternt thing is problem but the real water problem will be when they start pumping this waste from the fracking into the aquifers. host: that is jack in michigan talking about his problems. be just joining us. we are asking you to talk about the issues you are seeing and how your governor is addressing those issues. this comes after a meeting of governors with the president yesterday at the white house. thatet sent out yesterday senator claire mccaskill has been diagnosed with breast cancer. it follows a story on the hill today and talks about where she goes on from here. she is expected to make a full recovery. she will be in st. louis for the next three weeks undergoing treatment. --'s a little scary

but i expect a full recovery." she will post information on her senate website and how she will vote on upcoming issues. " to also submit questions in writing for missed senate hearings." from manhattan, kansas, this is robert. robert, good morning. caller: yes, the governor is brownback. don't let him run for president. he is off taxing corporations in kansas. the highway department finds. now he does not want to pay into the state employee pension program. state left out of the when he was first elected and took his pension with him. and found out there is no money in the pension for him, but only paper. -- work.

when he retires and collects on it, this governor is wrecking the state, we don't have any psychiatric care, their closing the psychiatric hospitals. he claims is it that it is an experiment, but it is gone horribly wrong. host: portland, oregon next. hello. you are on, go ahead. caller: i just want to know if there is some way you could get a hold of the governor or e-mail somebody or get on a stock to -- get on facebook to people in the state of oregon, maybe our governor or people and ask them to help in a situation where in ae are being unfair like adult system

foster care homes, what to do -- reports ore incident anything like that, how to fright that out and how to get help if people are not respecting you at the worksite where they work and then you live in the house and there is just like rules around all this stuff and it's not like stop that you would break, but it is stuff like being able to go out and people making up stuff that beingppropriate around the bad guy in the situation like you are the one on probation so you do what we tell you. and getting inme my private life, i would like to know who is about people's rights in mental hospitals and hospitals in general where they run programs for psychiatric people who need it and want it

and should get those services if they want to check in or where people want to check into a psychiatric place where they do activities and they will be told that they have a choice to leave or go. to addressyou tried these issues directly by visiting the governor's website or looking information that way? caller: i'm trying to get a website and if you have one, where would i go? host: i would expect the governor herself or the governor -- government of oregon would have a website if you type that information into a search browser. caller: situations where my rights are being respected and then having it the on the board about your rights and then the whole time, every thing is just not getting forward in work or school, not in social activities or others. we want to ask the government if

there is any sponsor, if they go to sponsor any program like a brand-new program -- host: i don't know the specific answer to that, though i would advise that you go to their website or go to a search browser to type that information in, that it would produce some information as to where you can start addressing those issues. let's go to roberts in florida. -- robert in florida. caller: good morning and thank you for having c-span. i live in a state where the result of retirees. i am a recent retiree myself. rick scott just does not seem to take cognizance of the fact that an oil to state, particularly down in the miami area. we only have three roads that go northwest. i-95, florida's turnpike and i-75.

those roads are choked. opportunity to have light rail, mass transit. governor rick scott said no, we do not need that. suckedte of california up all of those millions of dollars that florida gave up on. leader in is a state light rail. florida is still choked. i'm talking about a florida where we have a lot of retirees. wanted: -- they have one car and they put on 3000 miles a year to go to the supermarket. everybody has to be on the road by 7:00 a.m. it takes 20 minutes to get from my house to i-95, a two minute ride.

in addition, rick scott is a poor communicator. he is unable to put a sentence together. we have a prisoner on death row right now. the governor cannot get it into his heart to grant clemency for a man who might be innocent. governor rick scott is a horror story. host: let's hear next from carol who lives in oklahoma. caller: hello. our governor has the same problems as a lot of other governors. host: go ahead. what she has done to this state, when she first took office she gave tax cuts and now they are talking about giving the teachers arrays and they don't have any money to give the

school teachers arrays and they are talking about giving back breaks35 a year in tax to save the school system and on top of that, asking the citizens to vote to authorize a sales tax increase for the school after she has given all the money away in tax breaks which the majority of people in the state didn't now, all of the public work that needs to be done like fixing roads and bridges, taking care of the department of human services and taking care of the department of corrections and all of the agencies are having to lay off people because she thinks they stood on these tax cuts and she has another problem they have with the fracking and they have fracking all over and

it is causing earthquakes and the public is having to pay for it. tellingrol in oklahoma us about her state's problems and what the governor is doing about it. you can do the same, (202) 748-8000 for the eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8001 for the mountain time zones. the pentagon is poised to admit we will meet the tuesday deadline for submitting a proposal for closing the facility and moving its terrorist detainees, but we understand that the deadline is tomorrow and the attempt is to meet at david set and it will call for the closure of this facility and layout several options on how to do so as obama is pushing to close the prison as a long-standing campaign promise. west virginia, donna.

good morning and thank you for calling us. governor -- i would rate him a d-in effort. we are a chemical-based operation. every chemical company who wants to, and dump in the state is allowed. this is surprising because a lot of the dumping is done in the county of the capital sits in. we have suffered time and time again regarding that. we can't get anybody on the state level to stand up for the people. usey time that we decide to , it ends upvote

that we end up putting people in office that are good for corporate america and not her time- he is not used his for the health issues that affect the state. employment benefits that could be given to workers such as decent pay. lee: we will hear next from in north carolina. caller: i really support our governor. i work in charlotte and he was our mayor in charlotte for 14 years.

in 2014, for the first time since reconstruction, both the senate and everything in raleigh is now republican and it has helped greatly in this state. patrick murray has been a wonderful governor. he will be running again this year and i think he has done a wonderful job with the state. he sticks to his principles and he will not let democrats run over him because he came in after the worst governor we have dor had which was bad for bev perdue. we are proud of our governor. a couple of stories dealing with republican senators and how they are reacting to the potential nominating of a

supreme court nominee to replace antonin scalia after he passed away. senator mark kirk out of illinois put out an op-ed in the chicago sun-times. a replacement must bridge differences. he said he recognized the right of the president to place before the senate a nominee for the supreme court. if fully expect and looks forward to barack obama advancing a nominee. he also recognizes his duty as an order to vote in support or opposition to the nomination along with a transparent release of all requested information. that is mark kirk saying that. also looking at susan collins out of maine. giving her thoughts this morning, initially on cnn saying it is the duty of the senate to give their advice and consent to

withhold. follow thee should regular order and give careful consideration to any a nominee the president makes. withurther goes on to say all judicial nominees but especially for supreme court justice, she considers carefully the nominees. this is an approach i have taken before -- with every judicial nominee who has come before me. several stories this morning, taking a look at statements made by then senator joe biden on the floor, taking a look at senate nominees and this topic was a video you can find on our archives at c-span.org. is carl holtz writing, 24 years later, -- 24 years later, biden's work haunts democrats. exactly what do

democrats are promising republicans would do. pushing back against conservatives democrats noted that that the senate for the new york times, you can go to our website to find more information. there is a bit of that speech back from 1992 from then senator joe biden of delaware taking a look at the issue of supreme court nominations. >> it is my view that if a supreme court justice resigns tomorrow or with the next -- within the next several weeks or resigns at the end of the summer, president bush should consider following the practice of a majority of his predecessors in not naming a nominee until after the november election is completed. consider how it

would respond to a supreme court vacancy that would occur in the full throes of an election year. it is my view that if the -- goes thees away way of president fillmore and johnson and puts forward a nomination, the senate judiciary committee should consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. host: that is a small portion of what he said about supreme court nominations. you can find that pulls feet on our website at c-span.org -- find that full speech on our website at c-span.org. -- the intent of his 1992 speech was to urge --

rafael in louisiana, thank you for holding on. we are talking about issues with your state and how the governor has addressed them. caller: good morning. we got a democratic governor. he is fighting to save our state. he has to cut everything. gave all the money from the state to his cronies. privatized everything that was helping the poor. host: one more call. wendell from maryland. caller: how are you doing? i think our governor is doing a good job. we are a blue state with a lot electedrats, and he was

because o'malley hiked the taxes so high. teacher unions went to in screaming, but the schools are doing a lot better -- went in kicking and screaming, but the schools are a lot better. a bipartisan led legislature is working very well. up, we will continue to look at what's been going on in the news. the debate between apple and the federal government, specifically the fbi, taking a look at the resistance and a terrorism related case. head willormer nsa explain why apple is taking the wrong approach. later on, we talk about a fight between hillary clinton and bernie sanders. also, what the democratic voters

want most from whoever wins? the center for american progress has someone who will tell us. first, let more about supreme court nominations. there was a debate on the senate floor -- statements made by two senators over the issue. minority leader reid and judiciary chair talking about whether the senate should serve -- consider a supreme court nominee to replace justice scalia. they talked about what vice president joe biden said. senator reid talked about the process and how it needs to play out in an election year. here is back to back statements from both senators. moments in theo -- ident's legal authority find no mention of a three-year presidency in our constitution. i do find the constitution, article two, section two which provides president obama in the -- with the authority -- the

legal obligation to nominate justices to the supreme court, contingent on the advice and consent of the senate. this is how our system of government has operated for over 200 years. this constitutional prerogative is essential. it is inconsistent with the constitution. our founding fathers constructed the american democracy with certain assumptions of us. rational,ed us to be to operate in good faith, expected this government to be effective. republican leader's proposal is not of these things, it is an attempt to nullify what james madison and other founders envisioned. the founding fathers never run upd the senate to the clock on constitutional duties, subverting the president's authority and

leaving the judiciary in limbo. the founders of the constitution never anticipated the level of cynicism that we see in the republican party. they are willing to render useless our government's system of checks and balances. they would have the american people believe this long-held practice -- this is simply not true. the biden rules recognize that quote, with the political season is underway, action on a supreme court nomination must be put off until after the election campaign is over. that is what is fair to the nominee and is central to the process. and of quote. -- end of quote. senate consideration of a

nominee under these circumstances is not fair to the president, to the nominee or to the senate itself. recognize under these circumstances quote, the senate judiciary committee should seriously consider not scheduling confirmation hearings on the nomination until after the political campaign season is over. washington journal continues. host: joining us now talking about the debate you have been hearing over apple and the fbi. formally, attorney of the national security agency, good morning. could you give us a sense of what you did at the nsa? guest: at the nsa, i advised the government on matters related to informational strength and cyber security missions as well as

serving with the legislative affairs office. managing the relationship with congress, legislative reporting obligation, that kind of thing. host: when it comes to the current fight between apple and the fbi, can you give us a shorthand of what is going on between these companies? guest: this is a long simmering conflict. the fbi gave voice to this going dark issue back in 2010. the department of justice and fbi and local law enforcement have increasingly come up against the phenomenon of not being able to access and correct information when they have a lawful court order. a number ofught different methods -- sought a number of different methods. they have reached out to technology companies, introduced the notion of legislation to solve this problem. it really comes to a head, here.

the fbi is seeking to access the contents of the phone the one of the san bernardino shooters. apple no longer has the technical capabilities by which they could previously assessed law enforcement and extract data. the government is now moving to compel them under a law to provide a system. the difference from what we've seen previously is that while apple has previously voluntarily made in capacity to extract the data in question, they no longer have the capacity. it is a question that a judge will now determine, whether or not apple could be compelled to create the assistance to the government. host: you wrote this, apple is being mischievous. the company's self presentation as per sitting on the half of the privacy of its customers is

largely self congratulatory nonsense. could you expand? a u.s. company, it has every right to vindicate the right and challenge this order. unpatriotiching about a company challenging a court order that they believe might be deficient under the law. that said, this is a decision that aligns very closely with apple's stated business interests. the reason why i think that some of these more highest statements about the business is about a commitment to civil liberties, which the company may also be committed to, they can mutually liet, what sort of puts a to the notion that this has nothing to do with apple's business model is a previous in the eastern district of new york in which apple refused to comply for challenged in your letter to court order even know they did not have any technical or

security concerns in that issue and in that case, the asserted federal court that complying with the order would cause reputational harm. host: you expended on your thoughts saying that apple is trying to create a zone of impunity over this issue. guest: apple sort of extract letting off of their arguments in the eastern district of new york, we have not team their reply brief on this. it will certainly be interesting. essentially, what they are arguing is a number of things. essentially, the act which is intended to be a gap filling mix -- measure where courts can effectuate their warrants. it is intended to be a gap apple iseasure, so being a little bit mischievous

here and what they are arguing is that there is a law on point called the assistance for law-enforcement act and they claim to be covered by this act and get covered at the same time. defined in there acts but not directed, therefore nobody can regulate them in the space. at the same time, they make an alternative argument. -- this act ishe improper because this is an area where congress should be speaking, this is an important issue. that is a reasonable position for a company to take, the problem is they have made very clear there is essentially no acceptable legislation ahead of work on the hill to fort all reasonable attempts that might result in law enforcement access. what they are doing is both saying this is an area for congress to begin the courts and using that as an and second measure and at the same time, actively working against legislation.

that is why i think it is important that citizens who are trying to a with their own civil liberties and interests make sure that they really keep the arguments clear and understand that apple is a company, not the voice of the people. if you want to call in with questions, we divided the lines differently. if you take apple's side, (202) 748-8000. if you support the government, (202) 748-8001. if you -- for all others, (202) 748-8002. olson, this week, ted the attorney appointed by apple to take up their cause, spoke about this issue and apple's position. fbi ine has helped the this investigation in every way the wall required, but it has to draw the line at re-creating

code, changing its iphone, putting its engineers and creative talents to destroy the iphone as it exists. apple has a responsibility to maintain the trust and faith of millions of people who depended upon apple to produce a product that protects their privacy, their intimate, personal life. this is a pandora's box. we are not just talking about one magistrate. there are hundreds of other courts. there is no limit to what the government could require apple to do if it succeeds this way. olson is certainly a brilliant litigator and will bring the strongest arguments that apple is full of making -- capable of making. he makes the point that apple has to draw the line somewhere, no, the government has to and

medicare meant i mean a federal judge in congress. it is certainly true that apple should only be complying with court orders or warrants that they believe satisfied the process and when they feel they are deficient, i think they do have an obligation to go to cant to make sure a court determine this is a proper application of the law. the notion that apple is taking up this mental on behalf of the process is an accurate. host: is there a slippery slope with this one tailored case? one makes the argument about future cases. guest: people always failed to remember that slippery slope is a logical fallacy and is being used as one here. the --he assertion that it would not really undermine the security of the phone in the

back door as it is located -- colloquially understood. apple can be compelled to write code, then the government should essentially be able to push malicious software updates or apple and their most recent statement had said that the government might be able to compel them to record conversations. there are just two issues with this. this is really the most literal sense, a case about one iphone, one case, one application of the law. that said, it will have entialential -- preced value. if the law is applied in this case, the fact that somebody might not like the result when it is applied in the future case does not mean it would be -- incorrectly applied in the first instance.

they are saying if it is right here, then it's also right somewhere else, therefore it has to be wrong here. what that reveals is, the objections are really centered around objections to the law. the court's job and the fbi''s job to comply with the law and interpret the law and they understand it, it is congress passes job to pass the laws. i think the argument that this will allow apple to do whatever they want being able to force companies, that is the american people thing they want different laws. at odds with our values, there is a process for changing them. host: richard, florida, support -- apple's decision. over the first amendment of the people. phone issay over the

going to be scrutinized by the f fbi and it will cause a problem with people saying what they want to say. that way, put the people subject to scrutiny or investigation. this is not only against apple. it needs to be thrown out completely. it is a fight against the first amendment, is what this is. there are potentially first amendment implications to this case. write a code, you are speaking, and that that could be protected. if the government proceeds in the application of the law, that will result in the government

eventually compelling speech. we would expect apple to raise the argument and it he litigated -- it to be litigated, around the country, closely following the case for those reasons. host: larry supports the government's decision. go ahead. have murders in california by a foreign body, isis in particular. thisare most probably and iting conversation really feel under these circumstances, considering americans to dozens were murdered by ice this, that we complete information on it.

i really feel the company -- excuse me. the company is the ridiculous instating first amendment rights would apply here. they do not apply when it comes to national security. i served my country for 20 years and i stand by the government. ofst: right so i think a lot people recognize there really is a compelling government interest here. think what the caller is getting at is a sense of this being a part of the sb -- fbi's job to fully investigate the crime. the fbi is not saying the keys to solving the case are on the phone or the perpetrators are already known.

saying theyentially do not know what is on the phone. this is a shooting that occurred. his communication with colleagues, certainly impertinent to the investigation. a lot of people are struggling, especially those who don't know, there is a real tension between the lawe the ways protects our privacy and civil liberties, not necessarily disagreeing with apple's is core concerns. we all want to ensure the government is following the rule. ourhe same time, we expect state and local law enforcement to do their jobs and part of that is investigating crime. argument, can't the nsa already do this, or the of ei, or whatever body of government? guest: i have heard this quite a

bit. it makes me a little nervous as an intelligence committee attorney and as an american venison. as soon as i put on that hat, i think, sure, the intelligence committee -- community might have applicable things here. operational reality, all caps of reasons intelligence immunity -- community would not want to broadly.e riley -- congress,he will of legal authorities, etc. as a u.s. citizen, i have seen what the intelligence community is able to do. all of the tools are appropriate for domestic law enforcement. the question is, can't you go elsewhere in the government? in theory, but i think it is

also important to understand the question incorporates that analysis here the government has to prove it is necessary, that they are not able to do it on their own. a judge will be able to say whether or not it is appropriate , how much the government has to represent. can nobody in the government unlock the phone and extract the data? that would be a novel application of the law. it is ultimately to -- up to the courts to decide. host: janet supports apple's decision. florida. caller: i support apple 100%. i feel what the government want is for apple to discriminate.

like are people who killed 26 children at one time. they are looking at a person's race and trying to tie the people to isis because of their race. i feel that is wrong. if you are going to take these people's records, you have to take all is other people who are killing way more than those nine people who got ill. you have got my six people killed in sandy hook. they are not looking at that as a terrorist attack, which it is. at aave to stop looking person's race and thinking every person -- an arab person is a terrorist. you have to look at that.

they should get cliven bundy's record. you don't know what they have. some people love planning a terrorist attack against the government. you're going to pull those people's records, pull everyone's records. host: thank you for you put a lot out there. this is a point the fbi should be a little clearer about. not just a tool to be used in terrorist investigations. local law enforcement, ordinary criminal matters. whenever an fbi director testified last week, he raised two cases where the going dark problem was a real issue. one was the san bernardino to -- case. the other was a case of a louisiana woman who was murdered. case is currently unsolved.

the fbi has no leaves because they were not able to access data. but the government is asking here has implications for its for crimes not just crimes related to terrorism. the tournament government uses to explain the phenomenon of not being able to access the information. you have a court order and satisfy the checks and have probable cause. dark sort of describes the phenomenon of not being able to see within that device and that data. david supports the government's decision p are you are on with -- decision. you are on with susan hennessey. .aller: slippery slope

after all these years of not having a terrorist attack in the u.s., we get into this position again. i am sorry, but sandy hook conversation took me totally off hook. dark internet devices encrypted in such a way that the government has no prayer of you have got them, a scenario where terrorists will be able to communicate completely in the dark on the dark internet with devices that cannot be broken here and will have discussions like this. of where continuation the government loss in terms of gathering metadata, which seemed situation.understood i would like to ask the guest if she knows whether or not the reason the phone -- the authorities were able to track down and stop these terrorist

who were still evidently in town armed and ready to go with additional attacks in the coming hours, how they do that so where i have heard discussions where they had access where they were able to -- they found the phone, they were able to track who they were in touch with and go ahead on that right away. the metadata discussion not tracking phone calls, you have aliens of records out there. the government has to have a centralized place to be able to access that data. telephone companies may or may not cooperate. i think this gets at an important point everyone should recognize here there is always going to be information that the government cannot act test. even if apple voluntarily comes

willrd with this order there are all sorts of methods of communication the government cannot access. access toout getting the information they can get access to. in the future, apple might change the way the knowledge is structured. maintain,d no longer even the ability of a government in this case to her that is apple's is right as me. they are allowed to make the business decisions that make sense for their business level and corporate values. tois not the place of yet ei tell apple a to do in the future or the other company. only saying, where you can help us within the law, we believe

.ou are required to there are questions as to whether or not the plover for asian of metadata which of the get moving forward. time will tell. host: we see facebook weighing in siding with apple. tech companies are lining up against or four p are it what is their interest in the overall case? guest: apple is a little bit of a different company than similar tech companies like facebook or google. apple does not use the data in the same way. they have business incentive not to wear other companies have reason to look at the data. i think the companies that are coming forward, they are like

the rest of us trying to make sense of an enormously difficult question that indicates the future of their ability to create their system. it will be clear this really is a complex matter that it is time to really weigh in and these tech company voices are going to be relevant and critical to the discussion. i expect they will be loud about it resting their interest and also educating the public. they know the potential consequences as well as if not better than anybody. interest can only is theor itself and it role of the elected representatives to decide how we strike that balance overall. a letter by the community of energy -- committee of energy commerce, at least a hearing on this topic.

but we, maryland, supporting owie, maryland, supporting apple's position. that i one point wanted to make, i have served in the civil state and something i have not seen that has not been mentioned or discussed that i would like your guest to address is the fact that apple is a multinational corporation in which the code that is actually developed for the iphone is in byy cases code developed or people whoals represent other nations around the world. the things i heard coming from the ceo of apple, the statement that, yes, they could create a backdoor or this key,

but they have chosen not to. was thererd from that was potential that the fact that they do have employees or people developers that they use around the world, that could create such a key, could perhaps allow that key to get into the wrong hands. when you have a multinational corporation, you may not be able to protect something like this. i do nothing anyone is talking about it. i will take your answer off-line. this raises one of apple''s strongest arguments. little controversy over whether or not this could be rarely characterized. we can all agree that if there is some way to access the system that does my wrist that will exist that does not exist now that represents at least in theory and additional phone or ability or threat factor, i what may be temps down

some of apple's ability to really be overly concerned, about their ability to protect software,y a piece of apple would be holding the software themselves within their own facilities. apple maintained what was technologically different, the main -- maintained a similar software and maintained it for many years there it up until 2014 with the implementation of the ios eight implementation system. were ahnical methods little different but at the end a the day, they had to store version of the software which could have been used to compromise their phone. there are no known exploitations of that or vulnerability. i think while apple has an interest in being honest about the ability to secure ,nformation, i think of this

considering the larger equities and play, questions of physical security,ersus online we have to understand within the balance of how serious the threat might be, in reality or in practice as opposed to just in theory. ort: if you support apple government, all others as well, huntington west, new york, hi there. caller: thanks for c-span and good morning. we have a couple of things here. one of them is the big issue of encryption. and civil liberties, which might be something for the aclu to take a stand on. we also have a small issue of where thecular case, fbi wants specific information about a specific phone.

o'reilly last night said it is all very simple at the lower-level of generality. ask apple for the contents of the phone and have apple give it to the fbi. abouto you think splitting the argument into two pieces as i have just done? i think it makes sense to understand those two separate issues. the case does not really go to it does notyption create the encryption back door he will talk about when they think about the government's ability to intercept medications at f -- communications, etc. this is a particular case. there is not any reason to believe the specific issue could be used to compromise other phones.

i think it is important to be honest about the fact that however the court rules here, it will have some precedent just preferential value. the district attorney has already come forward saying he neededdreds of iphone's for a new york investigation. it will havee reverberating consequences. the government has a job to do and courts have a job to do. the government's job is to investigate a specific crime. this is what fbi agents are attached with their they are deciding in this specific case with this specific application of the law, if that is an appropriate thing. understandtant to they're talking about a very specific thing but at the same

time recognizing much larger issues are coming to a head here. host: paula from albany, georgia. apple: my comment is all bemr. cook, should marched out of the corporate offices and put in jail now for defying a subpoena issued by a federal judge. the american people are living now under exigent circumstances. enough of all of this political correctness. ofays air in favor and theng america american security. thank you. in defense of tim cook and apple, there is nothing unpatriotic to ask whether or

not a court order has been properly issued. the court has issued a court order. part of the court order includes a time with in which apple is entitled to challenge that court order in the system. .pple is certainly not wrong they believe the application of the law is sufficiently want to challenge that. i think a little bit of what the caller is getting at is the notion that a particular corporation or group of individuals would substitute their value judgments in front of our own. understanding it is for all americans collectively representing americans how we want the values to apply. i do think occasionally silken valley can be a little bit of in connectmber and fail to

notther parts of the because they do not understand the technology or because they are wrong but because of their values and where they come down on it is different. pew released a different poll showing americans believe apple should unlock the full -- the phone, about 38% of people believe apple should not. it is a real is question of american values. reasonable minds differ on these issues and we have a process for resolving those differences. you talk about the law and needed changes. fore laws that exist apply a telephone conversation? what are the questions? those companies are

required to provide for the government. imprudent for congress to attempt to shape a law that told companies he should not develop strong security standards or building a back door or even on pace at all how the government might need to on their security systems as they move forward. whatess should clarify that clean the obligations are. apple should not be in the position of looking at the court order and saying we are not sure whether or not the tells us. congress is very clear in the affirmative or the negative of what it play the company is required of the government in its capacity. middletown, delaware, paula, good morning, you are on. and tiredam so sick of the government forcing private people, companies, to do things.

apple did unlock the phone and did get the information to the fbi. we know that. the fbi went and got a court order because basically, to make apple give them the backdoor key andny ipad or iphone remotely, they could turn it on and record you and turn your camera on and record you. they are asking for more than just this particular phone. basically for the key to everybody's phone to listen and then do whatever they want. i will take the answer off of the air. apple stipulates they have not provided the service to the government and yet. they agree that they have not unlocked the phone or extracted the data at issue. the question about whether the here, i docan compel

not think there is anyone who thinks there is an obvious outcome here. of thely in terms appropriate scope of government authorities of all u.s. citizens, they should be working hard to honors and the law and the practice of law enforcement. those are valid concerns. from wayne, illinois, john, good morning and thank you for calling. caller: good morning. how are you? i would like your guest to respond to the fact that just 15 minutes ago on msnbc, the former director of the cia and the nsa stood firmly on the side of apple, michael hayden stating withwe would be left backdoors to all of our devices. thank you.

guest: what he said in the past as recently as yesterday is that he did not believe the government should be compromising apple's's tenders or anyone. he actually has endorsed the government's's position in this case. he expressed in this particular case where apple continues to maintain the capability, i believe he said the law can compel them to help, though he is expressing concerns about what the future presidential lead or where this might us all, which is an issue i think a lot of people are looking at these days. host: pennsylvania. you are on, go ahead. caller: good morning to c-span. i used to be a computer programmer. we can do anything we want once it is coded.

also, i just wanted to give an idea that what happens is the government should hire a hack themay them well and have get into the iphone, which they ,an, and get the information and then apple can turn around and put a patch on it. that is the word. the entrylly close up or the key information and therefore, you could do it one at a time, but the government has to pay. this is an idea that has been put forward by a number of cryptologist and computer science experts, commonly referred to as lawful hacking, that the government should allow companies to develop their systems as they wish and then

just try to break into them. we know there is basically no such thing as a perfectly secure system. so the notion is there should be this cat and mouse game between technology companies and the united states government. theory that is appealing. what the government is attempting to do here is to adopt a middle ground. they are saying, we recognize, support, and believe whatever that altering encryption standards really compromises our collective security in a way that is not acceptable going forward. government has backed off of any efforts there and said, ok, how can we get into the phone as we designed. the question becomes whether or not the government just has to try best and hope he gets lucky or whether or not u.s. companies have to assist law enforcement. there are a number of laws that include technical provisions.

fisa, and this is the notion that the nicest company that operates within the united states of america and seeks the protection of u.s. laws has as a matter of civic obligation a duty to comply with laws and kithose -- occasionally include the provision of services and technical assistance services to law enforcement. jacob from washington, a supporter of apple's position. caller: i had a question of how you talked about john at death maccabees offer to do this for free. he is definitely in favor of no backdoor needed. he definitely said any hacker could do this, not any hacker but someone with skills like him could do this and he offered to do it for free with the fbi and had no reply for three weeks. i would like to get your thought on that. he also offered to eat a

shoe on live television and he was not able to a compost that task. i certainly look forward to seeing that. look, i think this gets to the question of whether or not the government should be required to reach out to third parties. is an interesting question, one the court needs to grapple with, though it is relatively well-established that the government is not required to go to third parties. but it is something congress should consider whenever they drop a new legislation, whether or not the government has an allgation to exhaust commercial remedies before returning to the company for their assistance. host: howdy you see it playing out, what are the options for apple? time will tell. eagerly awaiting when they move off generalities into the specifics of the federal breach.

indicated the intention to oppose the order. a federal magistrate judge will determine whether or not they have to actually comply. apple has not indicated that if they are told to comply that they will not. appear to intend to comply with the law. to the extent apple raises constitutional concerns, first amendment or otherwise, it is more probable those concerns will go up to above court level and eventually to the supreme court. host: our guest is a former attorney at the national security agency and worked at the brookings institution. coming up, what are the most important issues democrats are looking at as the fight continues between who will be that nominee. winnie stachelberg will explain when we return.

and the wilson center's robert daly will be along as washington journal continues. ♪ [applause] >> every election cycle will remind us how important it is .or citizens to be informed goal for ust is the to stay informed. >> a lot of c-span fans are on the hill. youolleagues will say i saw on c-span. >> there is so much more see spend us to enjoy people know what is going on inside it. >> how can we best get people to ?ay attention to spending we find things that are interesting, little different, because therstand, government is so large that an organization has to cut through a lot of noise and the other things going on.

members of congress talking about the wonderful things they are doing, and try to get people be more involved and make it more personal so they understand the impact on them and their families and children and grandchildren. q&a, thomas,ht on president of citizens against government waste, talk about the efforts to bring attention to waste and federal spending. they also publish the book that compiles the list of unauthorized government programs. >> we worked with a bipartisan coalition of members of congress , the court busters coalition and they came up with us the definition. really silly. eventually became the term earmark. we went through the appropriation bills. $3 billion and it went all the way up to $29 billion in 2006.

we can find earmarks in the appropriations bill, we really -- release the congressional pay book sometime around may. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on's c-span's q&a. >> washington journal continues. host: joining us now, winnie stachelberg, the executive vice president of internal affairs. before we start, the center for american progress, how do we describe it to people? a nonpartisan multi-issue think tank. progressive ideas, we really ensure we have new ideas that are the challenges that face the country and our world. not only do we come up with ideas, but we have infrastructure and best communications network to be able to push those ideas out into the bloodstream and get the conversation going. host: does your group and doors

anybody? guest: absolutely not. we are nonpartisan. we come up with the ideas and we try very hard to inject those ideas in the debate. cover the waterfront from national security to health care --the economy, lt -- ltd bg lgbt issues. host: just to put that out there, does that mean any influence as far as the interaction with the campaign? guest: not at all. the president and ceo also anded for the first lady worked on her first campaign to her there really is no influence in terms of interactions with a campaign. say we are a progressive think tank and we have an ideology. we think progressive and pragmatic solutions are the ones that will continue the growth of the country and bring working

families and the middle-class back to where they should be. we have an ideology but no endorsement. thinking at this point as far as what i'm seeing so far? >> you are seeing a highly contested race on the progressive side and scratching your head and wondering what is happening on the conservative look inside. this has been a unique primary season on the democratic and republican side. if you are progressive, you're watching two candidates, secretary clinton and senator sanders really battle it out in the sphere of ideas. seeing policy proposals, a banter back-and-forth about which policy proposals will make the most difference for the american people and are going to address the needs of working families. i think those policy ideas and what you are seeing animate the

primary caucuses we have seen so far, will really be influential as we get into south airline and super tuesday. when it comes to specific ideas or brought ones, what is important looking at these or a progressive looking at these candidates. what is important? guest: they are really looking for ideas around job creation and what -- raising stagnant wages. around continuing the work we have seen the president and this administration do. if you are a democrat, you have to think back to 2007 and 2008 under president bush when the economy headed into the biggest recession and nearly a second depression. hemorrhaging 800,000 jobs per month. since president obama's's administration, we have seen 71 months of economic recovery, steady job growth. toyou are a democrat looking make a choice, you want to see the growth continue and the

progress continue and you want to pick a candidate, secretary whoton or senator sanders, can build on the progress that has been made in this administration. you are seeing a great contest of ideas around the economy, health care, immigration policy, gun violence prevention, criminal justice, and other issues. what is the best way forward as far as building, continuing on where we are seeing so far. there -- guest: there are a couple of things and secretary clinton and sanders are putting forward ideas of how to wait -- raise wages. there are differences. senator sanders is for a $15 minimum wage and secretary clinton is for a $12 minimum wage. but states and municipalities having the option increase further you are seeing ideas around child care and education, college affordability.

those are issues at the top of the american mind today. on the republican side, no one is talking about those ideas or how to address climate change, for example. onone put forward any ideas how to limit carbon pollution. there is a big contrast between the republican and democratic sides going into this. want to ask her questions about the primary season, particularly what the --didates involved question with these proposals out there is how do you pay for it? the best way to pay for them are by investing in infrastructure and the economy, closing tax loopholes.

i think both senator sanders and secretary clinton are for modifications in the tax code. you look at the republican side and a talk about tax breaks for the wealthiest americans. -- other piece that is important to remember is under president obama, and he does not get a lot of credit for this, we have seen the deficit cut by nearly three quarters. want to continue on a path of investment and recovery but also build on that. the other piece that is interesting here is health care. talk around the republicans wanting to repeal the affordable care act and appeal obamacare. the distinctions on the democratic side are important wantshere senator sanders to scrap the affordable care act and move into a single-payer medicare for all system, whereas secretary clinton sees that the system we have, the affordable

care act, is here to stay. 18 million americans now have health insurance that they did not otherwise have. on theunder 26 can stay parents plans are the system is working. we need improvements, but we want to keep the system we have today. in health care, you see distinctions between secretary clinton and senator sanders plan. far as the proposal for secretary clinton, is the affordable care act in your mind sustainable as people enter it and continue to get care? do you see a future that is fiscally sustainable? guest: absolutely. knees to be improved on in ways and we need to continue to invest in it, but as i have been plan,g, senator clinton's it does not add up terms of the numbers and he has not given the detailed. his plan if it were to be put in place is very expensive.

that is another part of a difference. the other piece is whether it is something that can actually be implemented, a single-payer medicare for all system, vermont, the state he is from, one of the most democratic states, the governor there, the democratic governor tried to implement a single-payer system and ended up having to toss that out. one of the things secretary clinton is learning is an ability to be pragmatic and work toward solutions that can actually be implemented. when you look at the exit polls from nevada, you see that for the people who wanted someone 78%could get things done, of those voters voted for secretary clinton. host: the first call for you comes from maryland, columbus, ohio. democrats line. good morning. will vote democrat

whoever the nominee is because we are in trouble if the republicans get in. i could never vote for donald trump, that is a vote for the thisarty, who have brought country down. it is a vote for the nra, sarah palin, glenn beck, all these people i would not align myself with. but what i want to ask you, my on theend here was computer and came across ohio health that governor kasich put almost everybody's health insurance under, whether humana or whatever. .nd guess who owns ohio health donald trump and the koch brothers. they are profiting off of obama's is health care. i want some republican to ask governor kasich or donald trump, does he own ohio health? because he is not going to

change anything. he is laughing from it. thank you. the republican side, we are talking about governor kasich and some of the media are calling him the establishment and some are calling him a moderate. he signed into law a plan that would -- planned parenthood which provides preventative care for so many. he is certainly not moderate. you mentioned donald trump and others. they are not as well. you talk about the democratic side and you would support no matter who the democratic nominee is. as i mentioned earlier, the distinction between the two in the 2016 primaries could not be more stark and the contrast could not be more clear where the democratic side are coming up with ideas to address some of the issues you raised. health care, the economy, stagnant wages. on the republican side, we are

not seeing that. we seeing divisive rhetoric and an angry electorate. independent line, grant. caller: i want to congratulate for doing a wonderful study called fear inc. back in 2011. the roots of islamophobia. it was an exploration of all the .roups funding islamic phobia reportthe authors of the including -- apparently, because aipac was upset, they even invited benjamin netanyahu. i am wondering whether they are ever going to do any good work on islamic phobia and the fact that many of the people funding congressional trips to israel are also funding islamic phobia in america just like fear inc. revealed. that was one of our big

pieces on islamophobia and we continue to do that work as you can see on the republican side. donald trump wants to ban all the muslims from coming into the country. that is certainly a crazy idea. with the caller on a couple of points. the prime minister asked to speak and we agree. from our work in the middle east, we are committed to a two state solution. callersagree with the but his point about islamophobia is a good one. but we have to do as a country and what the president has to do is ensure that we treat all of our citizens fairly and we deal with our refugee and immigration crisis in a way that is important. you see donald trump, whose solution is building a wall. that will not work. we have a very robust immigration team and are working on issues like islamophobia and

other discrimination of across-the-board. democrats line. caller: thank you for being on this morning. i never heard of your organization. i was wondering if you could tell us some about it. the only progressive on c-span has been that guy from bold progressives and excuse my french, but they are a little off the chain. they are good for some things, but i guess i am a more of a realist and from the conversation this morning, it just proves why we need an executive like hillary in there. there are a lot of problems in there that are so complicated, it is three-dimensional chess. i will take my answer off the air. guest: a multi-issue, nonpartisan think tank that was founded in 2003 by president clinton's former chief of staff

now run by the president and ceo. evidence-based research and analytics around the host of issues. we are progressive and by that, we come up with progressive solutions and ideas to address some of the toughest challenges that face our country from the economy to housing to childcare. we have an economy where many of the solutions to address people's needs were based in a reality that does not exist anymore, where we have two parents who work and we need child or to be reflective of that. we come up with solutions and big and bold progressive ideas but we are pragmatic and we do think reality matters in how you fashion solutions. we work with a number of other organizations who are also progressive solutions from

health care to the economy to housing. we are based in washington and we have over 300 staff. of, at least part for the last 13 years, since we have been in existence, part of the progressive infrastructure pushing out new ideas and tackling some of the tough problems that face our nation and our world. host: -- host: joe from tampa, florida, independent line. caller: i listened to bernie and hillary and all i am hearing is more learned helplessness. more welfare, morse to -- more food stamps, more instant gratification, more taxes, more regulation. get back to uncle

george economics. thank you. when i listen to the democratic side and secretary clinton and senator sanders, what i hear is two candidates vying for the democratic really trying are to tackle the issues facing working families and everyday americans. right now, we have stagnant wages, and economy that is sputtering and we need to reinvigorate it. both of them are trying to a dress these challenges in specific ways and closing tax loopholes, and in fact trying to keep the economy in the place so we do not explode our deficits as we had over president bush. economyd earlier, the has been growing, not fast enough, but it has been. private-sector job growth in large part due to president

obama and visit ministration's policy. what they need is a president who can continue to build on those successes. side, thoseessive are the debates. in contrast, what you hear from the republican side is angry rhetoric and very few policy solutions that do not denigrate minorities and immigrants. -- t: host: pamela, democrats line. taking myank you for call. i would like to say couple of things. for all the angry republicans out there who are going to trump , who if anything has more democratic policies than republican policies, they have no one to be angry at but themselves as they put a party that has spent his entire history fostering the rich >>. at the end of the day, that is what this is about. it has been a >> war from the beginning.

the ability for people in america to have a decent living and a decent job and to share the wealth of the country. as long as republicans continue to support other republicans that will continue to benefit the 1%, you will continue to have nothing. on the democratic side, i am a bernie sanders supporter. to me, it will take a revolution to change it. and her husband, as an african-american, they did some good things for us but in the 20 years sense, if you saw three strike minimums, the demonstrations and welfare reform, all of the jobs agreements they signed that sent you have torseas, say all in all, it has been a big negative. i would like to think that since republicans hate her more than they actually hit obama, how she is going to make agreements with them, how she is going to get them to sign on to her agendas

without giving them red meat like president clinton did, thank you. guest: the caller mentions something you see on both sides, a cynicism and an anchor. it exists in both sides on the progressive and conservative side. the next president will have to address that. debate whether someone thinks on the progressive side that senator sanders is more able to do it or secretary clinton. i think you have to look at their records and what they have done in the past and then make these decisions based on that. secretary clinton has been someone who has worked with republicans and democrats from her time in the white house as first lady, when she was senator and when she was secretary of state. the caller mentioned issues that face the african-american community.

we have the south carolina primary coming up this weekend. and we will see coming out of south carolina is support for the african-american community for secretary clinton in huge numbers. i think that is because she has spent her life fighting for minorities and people of color and really rolling up her sleeves and getting things done when it is needed. i do not want to take things away from senator sanders. but i do think his discussions in his support for gun violence , forntion measures example, or criminal justice reform, is something that has come more recently. it is wonderful to see him having evolved on these issues and really putting gun violence likention measures, backing away from immunity for gun manufacturers, but it is something that has been a little bit later to the game than secretary clinton'support. i think you will see in the primary as we head in to the

tuesday super tuesday races. host: the caller brought up actions done under the bill clinton presidency, is that fair as far as what hillary clinton brings? guest: she brings to this primary and to the race and on politicspective and policy. i do not think there is anyone really more prepared to be president of the united states. i think her being first lady while the president was in office is something to look at. she was not responsible for the policies of her husband for sure, but i think she june less and to get things done here in washington, how to work with governors and mayors all across the country. i think she will take that into this primary season. do you think she has

always been a progressive or has she been a moderate who moved to be a progressive? guest: i think she has always been a progressive. someonealways been fighting for working families. she did that when in arkansas. she did that when she was in the white house. all you have to do is take a look at her actions around trying to get health care during president clinton's tenure to see she has been on the progressive side fighting for and fighting for the american people. the scars shet has, things she will take into the white house if she were elected president. guest joining us with discussions about issues important to democratic primary voters. --

host: caller: good morning. the president says the unemployment rate is 5%. hillary clinton says it is 5%. reale sanders says the unemployment rate is 10%. i would like to know who is truth,r is telling the and why are republicans criticizing this, saying that 5% is not the real number, but bernie sanders escapes criticism while doing the same. isst: the unemployment rate 5%. it is important to note one of the things democrat's are looking for is who can build on the progress that president obama has made in bringing the unemployment rate, which was 10% in 2008, down to the 5% where it

is now. look at nevada. the unemployment rate is over 6%. the unemployment rate in many southern states is higher. the unemployment rate for african americans is higher. that is not good enough. secretary clinton and senator sanders are working to ensure there is more employment. secretary clinton has a couple , lookingsting claims to national service during times of higher unemployment. what senator sanders is talking ,bout is the unemployment rate but neither of them has the kind of rhetoric that the republicans do. so it is really that the unemployment rate is 5%. plansats have significant to bring that down. host: pennsylvania, independent line. caller: good morning.

the thing about it is that i hope hillary clinton and bernie sanders do not beat up on each other too much. i think as running mates, regardless of who is on top of the ticket, they will be a lethal combination. hillary and ernie -- hillary and whate can decide together will work for the american people. the republicans are blaming the president about the unemployment rate. the unemployment rate would have been lower if they allowed the president to create the jobs he wanted to create. apart,untry is falling but they refused to do what they have been elected to do -- represent the american people. there were people who lost their jobs in 2008 and still do not qualify -- they have paid social security but did not complete

it. those people are hoping to get jobs so they can get social security later. created.s were never in terms of food stamps, some notch belowust a where they would qualify for food stamps. jobs,y had better paying a lot of people will get out of food stamps. you cannot tell have -- you cannot tell people to have a better life when you do not create the jobs for them to work -- host: thank you. we will let our guest respond. guest: i will touch on two things the caller raised. the first is the primary between secretary clinton and senator sanders. contestedsee it is a primary is making whoever the eventual nominee is a better candidate to run against the republicans.

the debate against ideas, honing arguments, speaking to the american people, discussing issues of national significance, going into each state. i see a contested primary as healthy for our democracy and important for whichever candidate wins the nomination. the second point is something about investment in jobs and unemployment. side, senatortic sanders and secretary clinton are talking about investments. they are talking about our crumbling infrastructure, climate, one thing to invest in a clean energy economy. those will create jobs and help boost our economy. on the republican side, you do not see that conversation. it is important to draw that the station one of the ways you wages, isobs, boost

by investing in our infrastructure and in a clean energy economy, which is being discussed on the democratic side and not the republican side. if you go to the websites of the republicans, there is no mention about climate change. they do not have a plan to reduce carbon pollution. host: you hear about a lot of topics being discussed. on the democratic side, what are wish they would talk about more? things that did not get attention that you think should? that does notng get a just as much as it should is the real specifics about raising wages. there is talk about the minimum wage, investing in infrastructure, which will speak to wages -- but what people are doing is they are working harder, but their wages have not cap up. we have seen a middle class squeeze.

that is the frustration of the american people. i would like to see both candidates on the democratic side talk about how to boost wages. in contrast, you do not see that thell, and all of candidates on the republican side are against raising minimum wage and do not have a plan to boost employers' wages. they do have a plan to have the top 1% burn more. host: from illinois and, go ahead. caller: i am actually independent. i have a few comments. it feels like hillary clinton is the president already. this is not a monarchy. there is an election coming up. obama promised his health care program. what he did not say is that your premiums and insurance would go up 10% to 30%. hesold a bunch of goods that

did not provide all of the answers to. a of people are stuck with the higher health care cost because of his obamacare. hillary clinton has not won the election yet. you have already anointed her. she worked for walmart and has spoken for goldman sachs. she is the 1%. nationalo sit there on tv and act like she is part of the common people is false. guest: you talk about the affordable care act. really, what we have is a health care system that is working. we have 18 million people who did not have health insurance now have health insurance and women have preventive care. you cannot get kicked off of a planned because of a pre-existing condition. people 26 and younger can stay on their parents plan. it is a health care system that

is working. does it need to be improved? absolutely. secretary clinton said that is what she would do, instead of scrapping the affordable care act. she will work to reduce premiums in drug prices. senator sanders has a plan that is different. health care economists and others do not see that his approach, a single-payer medicare for all plans, is the way to go -- it sounds good. it is just in the details in the ability to get something like that through congress is impossible. that plan was tried in vermont, state, and the democratic governor was not able to get it through. a lawlth care, we see that is working, that the supreme court has twice upheld. it is here to stay.

in contrast, republicans will scrap it and knock 18 million people out of the health care insurance market. host: carlos is from texas, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to thank the lady for being there. i want to say a little and then i will cut off, because i know you have other callers. veteran, wounded. knows my life. we did not have health care. my mother used to plant herbs to be used as medicine, because we could not afford a doctor. i was a democrat and became a republican. the reason is that neighbors said if he had money, you are a public and and if you do not have money, you are a democrat. i am a republican now on i still do not have money. what i want to say is hillary

clinton, i think she needs to stop getting hispanic girls on worry about you immigration, let me worry. she is starting to sound like president obama when he told hispanics to vote for him and he would make sure they would become citizens. and they left him in limbo. he plays music and they follow him down to the cliff. what about the embassy? what about the other things you have done and this country has forgiven you? first of all, i asked the man who are you going to vote for? and he said the first black women in office. -- host: thanks. the caller raises an

important issue where the democrats and republicans could not be more different. that is immigration. senator sanders and secretary clinton have committed, in the first 100 days, to address of the immigration system and work to pass comprehensive immigration reform. republicans' answer, donald trump's answer, is to build a wall and denigrate immigrants. at firstarco rubio was for comprehensive immigration reform and now is not. histor cruz, it is one of biggest and longest talking points, to talk about what he the not do to fix immigration system. the contrast could not be more clear on immigration. i think again, senator sanders and secretary clinton are both committed to a dressing the

system. we have you 11 million people in the country illegally. deport alleasible to of those people. they are part of the fabric of our communities. immigrationddress reform in this country. presidentbling that clinton was not able to do it. he had a republican congress that pass comprehensive immigration reform but a republican-controlled house that did not. it is one of the issues that the democratic nominee will talk a lot about in the general election. from california, independent line, nancy. good morning. my phone isink about ready to go out, but i will try to get most of this. the propaganda that the democrats are spewing is unbelievable. just as bad as what the republicans do. as far as unemployment being 5%,

that is a lie. , one of theirm articles, the 10 cities nationwide with the highest unemployment -- six of those are in california, because that is really highest amount of illegal immigrants are. and 28%.ween 22% that is a lie. illegal immigrants have ruined the past for opportunity and 16 topment for our 24-year-olds by taking all of the lower-level jobs. so our kids refuse to do all of them, except agriculture. were talking about the unemployment rate. it is 5% nationwide. it is a different rate in cities and states. i have to disagree on the impact of that immigrants have had on our economy. they really have contributed significantly.

posted our economic growth. contributed to our culture and local economies. the caller talks about young people. i think that is an important group of people, not only in generalmary and the election, but in the country. we have to invest in the young people. not just 16 to 24-year-olds, but people who are younger. we have to ensure we have early childhood education. universal pre-k. we have to really invest in our children. on the education side, higher education is another issue causing concern. it is motivating democratic voters for sure. affordableat we have higher education is something both senator sanders and secretary clinton have talked a

lot about. they have different plans on how to adjust the rising costs of college and ensuring that people who come out of college are not saddled with debt. trillion dollars in debt now, not only borne by the students barred by their parents and grandparents. it is putting pressure on loane's ability to buy a -- to buy a home and get loans. thehat is animating democratic side. host: the president is expected today to announce plans to close guantanamo bay. what does it mean in the larger term as far as how we deal with the people in guantanamo but national security? what do you want a progressive to bring to this debate and discussion? guest: one of the things you are seeing about this debate around national security and terrorism,

and what it takes to keep the nation safe. this president has kept the nation safe and we need to build on it. came into office, vowing to close guantanamo and ran into obstacles, including the republican congress. it remains to be seen whether he will be able to get that done in his 11 months remaining. this will be an issue in the presidential debate on the democrat and republican side. host: gary in maryland, democrat. caller: there are a few things i have in mind. please do not cut me off. i think our president is doing a heck of a job. when he entered office, the odds were against the nation. now look at things. i have been self-employed the brokering realn

estate. i lost everything when the bush , thisent to war with iraq illegal war, i will call about -- i will call it. was a manipulative cost that got so many people in this country -- host: i am sorry to interrupt, only it because -- only because we are running out of time. is not anyone talking about the 47% tax increase that the bush clan let the corporate world get away with, which has taken our economy under? many blacks so unemployed they cannot even bid on crash in this country. these topics have a lot to do

with our economy. it is unjust, unfair, and we need to lead to the topics that matter. you have to be crazy putting a republican in office. every time we put one in office, what happens? war. guest: the caller makes an important point about the work president obama has done. his record speaks for itself. so much out of the democratic side of the primary is really to build on going that legacy and who is going to grow the economy. who is going to raise taxes. who will bring our economy back to where it should be in terms at healthy levels. so the caller is right. brought ournt has economy back from the brink. losing awe were

hundred thousand jobs a month. privatesident sustained sector job growth the last 71 months. the question for a lot of primary voters is which clinton orsecretary senator sanders, is going to build on that legacy. which candidate is going to be ready to be president and is going to take on what the caller is economics policies, tax policies, housing republicans, conservatives, that will undermine our economic growth and recovery. host: the website of your organization is americanprogess.org. winnie stachelberg is the executive vice president for external affairs. china's foreign minister will be in the united states. one of the topics that may or is the moveiscussed

into the south china sea. coming up, robert daly of the wilson center. "washington journal" continues after this. ♪ >> since the start of this campaign, only one network has taking you on the road to the white house. from early announcements to policy speeches to candidates visiting diners in iowa and new hampshire and the campaign rallies. after the results in nevada and south carolina, the republican race has narrowed, the

democratic race has sharpened. we will stay in south carolina with the democratic primary saturday. then we move on to the multistate primaries and caucuses in early and mid march. you can follow the race on the c-span networks, on c-span.org, and on c-span radio. every election cycle, we are reminded how important it is for citizens to be informed. >> c-span is a home for political junkies. >> it is a great way for us to stay informed. >> there are a lot of c-span fans on the hill. >> there is so much more that c-span does to make sure that people outside the beltway know what is going on inside it. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now is robert daly of the wilson center.

the u.s. to rector of the kissinger institute on china. thanks for joining us. we want to talk about these south china sea. it is important to china and the u.s. thisis important about portion of the sea and why it is important to china and why everyone has an interest? have claimedinese since 1947 this is part of their territory. they draw a line around the size of the caribbean and say that at least, all of the land features and the associated territorial waters belong to china. for us, since world war ii, america has been the primary guarantor of peace in that area. it is that umbrella that allows other countries -- south korea, japan, china -- to focus not on an arms race but economic development. we see ourselves as the protectors of the global peace,

which china seems to be claiming for itself. host: you say economic development -- of the world trade goes through the south china sea. china is highly dependent on this for its energy supplies, food supplies, and much of its trade. all of the countries of asia, which are important economically and populace, which the obama administration announced to rebalance asia. we remain, despite china's growth, the predominant military power. it is in everyone's interest we remain a should teach it role. host: one of the guidelines we have seen is the moment -- is the movement of military equipment. guest: there are a couple of island groups. the spratlys, close to the philippines. the paracels. very few of these are habitable.

the paracels are equidistant from vietnam to china. china claims all of these as its second -- as its sacred territory and is building it up, -- ng it would they are also equipping them with military use. ,adars, surface-to-air missiles airways. this is a projection of chinese power into contested regions. other nations also claim the islands and sees that china. claims host: if you want to ask our guests about issues of china, (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. for independence. who are the main concerns? the united states and its alliance system.

that does not mean china is arming for war against the united states. on what he calls food andines of supplies. it has the ability to build up the military and guarantee the security of these lines. it wants to be the guarantor. it is a challenge to the u.s. and to our alliance systems, with japan, south korea, the philippines, taiwan, and australia. host: are their specifics about what kind of military equipment we are talking about? guest: we are seeing missiles which are part of china's anti-access denial system. -- ave

ability toas the take out aircraft carriers with land-based missiles. that is what this is part of. there is also the maritime domain interest. china wants to know what is going on. who is flying, sailing. there is the legitimate use of these of quitman, and then military use, which is concerning not only to the united states, but to china's neighbors. wants to gohip through the waters, they have to ?et guest: permission know. these are the global commons under u.n. law of the sea. sail throughls can without permission. we believe military ships from any nation can also sail through these waters without needing permission. china says commercial ships,

yes, military ships they are uncomfortable with. china would like to be the main strategic actor. that is the big argument. china does not propose to cut off trade food but china seems to be saying that freedom-of-navigation to commercial ships should be a privilege granted to be worthy by china. we believe it should be a right guaranteed under international law to all. guest with us until the end of the program. the first call is from al in new york, democrat line. you are on with robert daly. caller: good morning. i would like to ask one was the last time china actually attacked anybody first? the other question would be, is china actually our friend? guest: excellent questions.

china has not attacked anybody cap --he 1970's, when it when it attacked the enemies in the paracel islands and had a border war with vietnam. militarilyot been aggressive in terms of attacking other nations. it is building up islands, putting in equipment, increasing its capability to fight. is china our friend? this is a complicated relationship. both cooperative and competitive. the united states and china's neighbors have benefited from china's rise, particularly economically. china is a major trading partner in the area. is getting more aggressive militarily and strategically. a lot of these countries value their trade relationship with

china, do not want to threaten that, but they prefer a -- they preferred the united states as a balance against china. so they prefer the united states but want a good relationship with china. china is our partner and a looming adversary. what we try to do is put a thumb thehe cooperative side of relationship. emphasize that over the competitive. that is getting harder to do. host: let's hear from bob, maryland, independent line. caller: i am korean-american. keep a close eye on what is going on in korea. americans are not aware of how is really putting pressure on south korea against the thhebility of bringing the

system against protecting against north korea's possible nuclear attacks. what is the u.s. government doing about it? lotuse china is putting a of pressure on south korea not to bring it. it already has a similar system the can do the same against korean peninsula. i wanted to hear something about that. guest: the u.s. has wanted our ally, south korea, its terminal high altitude area defense, thaad. this is a system aimed at

knocking out high altitude ballistic missiles. we have wanted to deploy that in south korea for a while, in defense of south korea and u.s. bases. south korea is wary of that because they have been warming up to china. they have been warming up under president park in korea and secretary xi in china. and changed in january february, when north korea conducted another nuclear test and launched an intercontinental ballistic missile. president park gave an important speech saying this fundamentally changes their relationship and are now in close talks with us in deploying this missile system, which china objects to strongly. what is worrying is that china has been more active in combating south korea's desire

to have this missile system then it has been in keeping north korea from conducting these intercontinental missile tests. it seems that south korea is leaning towards deploying these systems. host: (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8002 independence. tom from florida. i was curious why we have not heard the united nations get involved in this. primary one of the positions of interest. guest: u.n. sections against north korea? just sanctions, but getting involved in some way. it would not be one national country getting involved. guest: that has been the default decades inveral

dealing with north korean provocations. it has been seven weeks s nuclear test of the weapon in north korea. ity.the u.n. needs unanimou china, north korea's lifeline, will not sign on to any sanctions regime which would cause the north korean government to give up their weapons. to do that, you would need a sanctions regime which would bring kim jong-un to his knees. to do thatnot want because they have an interest in a stable of north korea. they do not want an influx of refugees from the north korea buffer. and china likes to have a buffer

between it and the united states -allied south korea. so even if there is a sanctions package, it will not be strong enough to achieve what we want to achieve. while japan, south korea, and the u.s. are imposing sanctions on north korea. host: democrat line, go ahead. caller: thanks for having me on. the u.s. has a massive forward presence in the south china sea. there are at least five to 10 military command ships employed there. navy ships, aircraft carriers and destroyers. if china were to implement this and start kicking everybody out, the u.s. would know beforehand. so what is the fear if china were to implement that? china has stated several

times they do not want to kick the united states out of the western pacific or the south china sea. they recognize there is a role there. they know they cannot achieve that. weis a gradual buildup already see coming. at the same time, we see a shift in the balance of power. china has the enormous advantage of proximity in the south china sea. they have a tremendous will, desire to carry out their strategic goals. and they are closing the gap in ability. a study commissioned by congress found that by 2030, china will have an aircraft carrier battle sale within a half day's of any crisis point in the south china sea. they will have more to the abilities we will have to respond to. this is not a prescription for warfare. even though we have more

capability in the area now -- submarines, military bases, aircraft carrier battle groups, a growing number of assets -- all of these weapons do not help ,s counter china's intelligent gradual policy of what is called salami slicing. very small increments. advancing interests i building up islands. adding weapons systems. making small moves, non-egregious enough to cause the u.s. to use its massive power but would tip the balance in china's power. we do not have a strategy to counter that. all of the weapons you described -- this is a deterrent to world war iii. not a deterrent to gradualism. host: from florida, independent line. caller: good conversation. i think you took some esteem out of it, and i was going to make, but i will make it anyway.

i will probably not be as friendly and optimistic as the answers being given. russianerring to the system when they were doing the same thing with georgia, uzbekistan, and we were passive about it. ory watched how we reacted did not react. i believe the chinese are very , a patientple country. i think they will, little by little -- this is a stupid analogy, but i remember my favorite movie "the blob." blob goes down the street just getting bigger and bigger. i believe china and the south china sea, they are building these islands and no we will not do with enough about it. ago,was my concern decades about having things made in

china. computers, whatnot. the conditions of warfare in the future could be compromised for us. i was going to ask your thoughts on that. guest: no disrespect to steve -- steve mcqueen, but china acts as a magnet. china once to be the most dominant country in the region, but function by a attractive power. have other countries carry out policies beneficial to china because they want a good relationship. there is no evidence outside of the western pacific and china's nine-dash line that china has europe,eness designs on russia in crimea, georgia. oft they want is a zone deference. something akin to what we have

in the western hemisphere. where they are the primary strategic actor. where it any other nation is contemplating an action, they want china's interests taken into consideration first. more of a magnet as part of china's attractive power, what china would say is a benevolent hegemon. i think china would like to be the most dominant player in the eastern hemisphere. but they are patient, gradualist, and we are not talking about a vision in which the pla is invading other nation states. the biography our guest house, he was the cultural exchange officer of the u.s. embassy in beijing in the late 1980's. how has china changed?

guest: hugely. this is something we have lost track off because we are worried about china's rise. we used to talk about china's modernization. it focus on the fact that china has changed quickly. now we talk about china's rise. this puts the focus on our fears. in the late china 1980's and even to the mid-1990's very large, relatively poor country, where health outcomes for people were poor. information and freedoms were greatly restricted. -- andto china today yes, we have legitimate security fears and xi jinping is carrying out a worrying crackdown on freethinkers -- but long-term, able to travel internationally, can marry where they want, live were they want,

get the jobs they want. they have more freedom as consumers to shape their lives. they have more information. but they cannot take any action that threatens the communist party's monopoly on political power. and the communist party has a monopoly on when you have done that. but if your exercise of freedom does not involve the freedom of speech or assembly but is just the standard of living, you can do that in china now. on a horizontal baseline. we compared china to other countries and say china does not meet international standards. vertical basis. they look at where china was and how quickly it has come to where it is now. they value that progress. so we use a horizontal measure, and they use a vertical one. we have to remember that to understand the choices they make.

host: from florida, democrats line. joe. about china hearing morning to build a canal through nicaragua. do you know anything about it? guest: the nicaragua acquire now -- the nicaragua canal is, for now, canceled. there have been studies done that would go through nicaragua and lake nicaragua which would have twice the capacity of even the expanded panama canal. you would be able to get a higher volume of ships through. ins is controversial even nicaragua because it has been nontransparent. it is rushed through without the proper environmental impacts. the chinese claim this has nothing to do with the chinese avernment but has to do with single chinese businessman. the rumor is that businessman lost a lot of money in the chinese stock market, so the

financing is on hold. i think if this is a real project, it is unthinkable that a would not have the support of the beijing government because of the scale is too large or for now, it is on hold. china has the capacity to build ports, airports, high-speed rail quickly. and the ability to finance those projects. pursuing this in southeast asia, central asia, and in parts of africa. host: dennis is next on the independent line. caller: good morning. that yourganization represent the henry kissinger organization? him,: it is named for but i do not work for henry kissinger. caller: why would you name that?

nothing but ar is war criminal. he should be locked up for years and years. he cannot leave the country because he has a warrants out for his arrest. he is nothing but a war criminal. guest: dr. kissinger does leave the country. i am aware there is a wide range of opinions about dr. kissinger. i am not here to argue that case. kissinger is a two is at the wilson center, which is a nonpartisan government think tank and academic platform. we are named for dr. kissinger but do not represent his views. host: the foreign minister -- will in the u.s. china's activities be discussed? guest: minister wang he will certainly talk about the south china sea and north korea, and

also about a meeting on nuclear and china's xi jinping is expected there. the chinese perceive this as some kind of containment measure? guest: absolutely. we have said we are committing to asia, because we realize this is where most of america's interests lie. population,e the the trade, the money is, where the development is happening. we are sometimes too aggressive and say that this has nothing to do with china's rise. china does not believe that and it is not wholly credible to american ears either. china's rise and some of its behaviors since 2009 was one of the primary factors that cause us to realize we need to pay more attention to asia. in theory, that is where our diplomacy and military

deployments will be focused. 50-50l go from a -- to 60% in 64% the east, 40% in the west. it could be 60-40 of a smaller pie overall. the and was announced by secretary clinton in 2011. china sees it as a plot to contain and surround china. called,lance, as it is is welcomed by china's neighbors. but they have questions about the depth about commitment, our staying power, what price we are willing to pay. one of the callers talked about our activities in georgia. he was casting aspersions on whether we would really be cost into pay in the

southeast asia. caller: what law does china live by? by its owna lives body of laws. what is important about chinese law is that china's law is below the communist party. it is the leadership of the commonest party first, and then a body of laws through which, increasingly, the communist party governs china. from theook at this west, we say this is not really the rule of law. the law is not paramount. it is the rule by law. the will of the communist party comes first. this is the way china describes its own laws. and it is now ruling china through legalistic measures. does not govern the party and there is no independent judiciary. houston, mike from our democrat line.

caller: i was wondering what the current nature of the relationship is between russia and china, given their rocky past. and was there an incident where nuclear bombed a in its own territory so that the fallout would land on russian troops? if that happens, does that a policy with regard to nuclear weapons. the historical story you're talking about, in terms of contemporary russian-chinese relations happened a long time ago. they have a contentious history on a number of fronts. they fought order wars, but those have been settled. we are seeing a chinese-russian entente. of a strongce strategic partnership. xi jinping and then you put in

-- xi jinping and vladimir putin see that there is an alternative set of work orders and national vision that stand in contrast to the equal legitimacy to what they see as the hegemonic u.s.-led world order. xi appearingin and in china. is popular in china. they increasingly work together in the united nations. but there are still limits on their working together. there is a certain amount of smoke and mirrors in trying to present a sino-russian partnership has more than it is to date. that whatnot said

russia is doing in the ukraine and crimea is meeting with its approval. russia has not affirmed china's claims in the south china sea. there is mutual suspicion but they are coming together as well. host: robert daly talking about -- talking about china. if you want to ask questions, (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8000 democrats. .ndependence, (202) 748-8002 caller: i have three comments. -- his analysis of china's economic status is fundamentally flawed. the most polluted planet on the earth is china. this affects their gdp, everything about them.

we think that the air pollution is a problem, but it is just the tip of the iceberg. everything that is grown in china is contaminated with heavy metals. everything made in china is contaminated with heavy metals -- host: we will let our guest respond. an enormoustion is problem in china, as it was in europe and the united states during the height of our own industrial revolutions on which our current prosperity depends. this is what the chinese would say in answer to his question. pollution is age rock on development and something of a chinese people are increasingly vocal about wanting to -- colusa a drag onlution is development and something chinese people are vocal about. have hadn the west

pollution so do not condemn us in poverty. that has been the chinese position. china seeing movement as realizes the in norma's public health cost this is incurring. china's statistics, growing up in northern china where takesion is the worst, off five years off of the average human life span. and china has problems with food --ety, pharmaceutical safety not everything in china is contaminated with heavy metals, but there are concerns the chinese have about their products. host: from florida on the independent line. caller: hello. i think this whole conversation is backwards. instrument for criminality and mass violence and terror on earth is the

united states government. this gentleman is representative of one faction of this mass murdering class. the u.s. a destroyed the middle east. that is why you have millions of refugees fleeing -- host: any specific questions about china? of the coup ind ukraine, the u.s. has encircled china and russia. what you have done is legitimized this criminal g,ency, the kissinger gan who is headed by a war criminal -- host: is there anything you want to say about his statement? guest: his statement is an overstatement. with china, the

united states is quick to preach and prescribed to other countries what they should do of good the story united states, bad china. this is not effective diplomacy. we have major concerns with and the economics, military sphere, in things like food safety. to have. knowledge about our own difficulties and our own dark periods in our history. we undermine ourselves when we preach the u.s. as the paragon of virtue and china is the last holdout of the "commie bad guys." conduct diplomacy based on that. we should talk with china taking in our own history into account. if i can twist and adamant attack in two what is a more

constructive question. host: republican line, georgia. seaer: ima 22 year veteran sailor. i am a fan of the military around the world. daly was theo mr. dam they made in china. it is the largest one. the water is above sea level. it is like a bubble on a tire. it is wobbly. it has caused a lot of climate mess, with the polar ice cap smelting more. i have not -- with the polar ice .ap's melting more that seems more important of an issue then gas running out of our mowers, putting carbon in

our atmosphere. that dam sounds like a bad deal. dam,: the yangztse river one of the largest in the world and has pretty where the biggest lakes to the chinese have concerns about the lake -- not only questions about pollution, but questions about the local climate effects. -- ve not heard there is a concern that chinese engineers expressed about the weight of the lake in the fault zone. that it could contribute to earthquakes in the region. the caller is right. this was a major issue in the 1990's. i have not seen much reporting in the past several years. a lot of americans and chinese

are watching, so if it is as bad as the caller implies, we would have heard about it. host: john in virginia, democrat line. caller: good morning. begad used to say if you your enemy, we are in bad shape. every time we get in trouble, we ask money from china. china owns us. we have a deficit in this country. all of our deficit paid are the chinese. we take money from them. the bottom line is when we take all of these companies moving out of the united states and moving to china, we are building a country for our enemy. china figured out how to fight america. they build ships. bestsee we have the capable attack in the world. they realize that. now they build so many ships that they can defend their land regardless of what happens.

china knows what they are doing. they are not thinking about now. they are thinking 10 or 15 years from now. iny will be the superpower this world and there is nothing we can do about it. they see what is going on in syria. people are fleeing. we are not doing anything about it. case andgetting on our we are not doing anything about it. china knows what they are doing. when are we going to understand that we are investing in a country that is our enemy? most of the visas for students, from china. -- come from china. guest: this has been a big debate in washington. through our trade relations, institutional relations, incational exchanges educating china, have we raised an adversary?

the argument for engagement was not that engaging china would make it like america, but by helping a china that was isolated and hostile participate in world institutions -- trade regimes, climate regimes, institutional linkages china has taken advantage of -- it would bring china into the system and helping be a builder of that system rather than a hostile outlier. the idea of engagement. that succeeded. but in the past two years around the world, there have been other voices that said engagement was naive. we strengthened a country fundamentally hostile to our interests. like we raised a baby tiger that was cute and is now full-grown and is threatening to devour us. we see that attitude having an impact in the presidential

election. the overall attitude is that it is still a competitive and cooperative relationship and that we must emphasize the corporate it. this is not just china the country, this is 1/5 of humanity. we do not want to condemn them to backwardness. we have to try to bring them in as a constructive partner. this is getting more difficult, partly because of our attitude and primarily because of china's growing assertiveness. you brought up this argument that china sort of owns america. was never true. china is the single biggest foreign holder of americans sovereign debt, but most american debt is held by americans. china, at its peak, held at around 8% of american debt. it is selling it off now. where japanperiod

was the number one holder of american debt. we did not hear complaints then. china owns about 7% of our debt. that does not give them leverage over us. host: mike in illinois. real quick. i am a veteran. here is my problem. the wars are over. , iflook around the world they attack, economies will collapse. so this military buildup could be good. all of the countries are worried about the people inside their country. you have people in the streets of every country that are protesting, and riots get bigger and bigger. it is not external threats, it is internal threats. so their military establishment and build up is doing nothing but wasting our money. any company -- any country goes to war, they are shut off by the world.

you guys are dinosaurs. a number of callers have said i am sounding like guest: we do have specific concerns about weapons deployment. overall, i agree with the caller. it is a good note to end on. we do need to emphasize the welfare of people and individual nations. i would agree in principle that we need to attend domestic economic issues. in china is making the investments over -- where we do have real security interest and where we are sworn to defend our treaty allies. it is an attack on the united states. thiss