c-span. wednesday marks the 50th anniversary of martin luther king junior's assassination. historian and author taylor branch will talk about the life and legacy of dr. king. from the national civil rights museum in memphis at 1:00 p.m. eastern. our 2020 road to the white house coverage continues with remarks from ohio governor john kasich. he will be a new england's college in henniker, new hampshire. that starts at 5:30 p.m. eastern. , a look at the future of iraq and syria and some of the security challenges in the middle east. that is from the u.s. institute of peace at 10:00 a.m. eastern. >> "washington journal" is next. we will look at recent political and diplomatic developments in u.s.-china relations.

bethany allen=ebrahimian will join us. then, yukon huang and evan medeiros will discuss the future of u.s.-china relations. ♪ the first state of the union, the presidential primary will be visited by two candidates. and the current governor of ohio, john kasich will be there for an event at 5:30 this evening. you can see that life, on c-span and go to the website for more information. it is april 3 and this is "washington journal.' -- "washington journal." with the hopes of giving veterans were access to help care -- health care. we want to hear from you who have received care from theva,

your thoughts on privatizing the agency. here is how you can let us know. for those of you who get care from the va currently, called us at (202)-748-8000. for medical professionals, (202)-748-8001. and all others, (202)-748-8002. you want to give us your thoughts on privatizing the veterans administration when it comes to health care cap posted on our social media, do so at twitter at @cspanwj and on facebook. facebook.com/c-span. va, -- shortly after his removal at the va time he talked about privatization and says "until the past few months, veterans asues were largely dealt by bipartisan way. unfortunately, there is a

political power struggle. these individuals received a privatized veterans health care -- host: that is some of the words schuvid choke -- david lkin. he talked about the idea of privatizing health care. he shared his thoughts with the host. [video clip]

>> i believe the weight have to improve care is to work closely with congress and listen to veterans groups and make sure you are doing what they want. talking tos of time veterans and i practiced medicine in the va caring for veterans, and i was pretty an agenda change that was getting the progress we needed. some political appointees felt we needed to be much more aggressive than i was willing to come and they saw me as an obstacle. >> you accuse them of privatizing va services because it is "aimed at rewarding select people and companies with profits, even if it undermines veterans." super u saying that they cared more about maximizing private sector profits than vitamins? veterans?- then >> i believe everyone should be expressing opinions i have no problem with. people expressing different ways with improving the va. working with the private sector is something i believe strongly in.

host: those are the words of david shulkin and he has talked about privatization. we want to hear from you, especially if you receive care from the va and we went to europe you think it would the a benefit or hindrance. (202)-748-8000 if you receive care from the va. from medical professionals, (202)-748-8001. all others, (202)-748-8002. -- (202)-748-8003. if you want to look at the current availability of centers across the united states for veterans, as of last year, there are about 1200 va outpatient sites available to veterans. when it comes to vet centers, 300 and 145 va hospitals. that is some of the framework in place for that medical care veterans receive, provided by the veterans administration. we will start with william in tennessee, a medical professional. thanks for calling. go ahead. caller: thank you.

i used to work for the va as a pharmacy tech. there is a lot of medication being given out secretary is appointed by the president, and it is only may be four years or a two years, and then another person comes in and the appoint another secretary. so one person cannot change it. host: what about the idea of privatizing and giving care to va veterans to the private industry, doesn't have merit ? guest: they had to be given -- caller: they have to be given their card so they can go to hospitals. i know some of them live

three hours away from the va. host: robert is next in massachusetts. a recipient of va care. hello. caller: i would like to talk about i want to represent myself as a vietnam veteran from the vietnam war. the non--- wednesday closed support in massachusetts -- when they closed support in massachusetts, they took away care from everyone in the area. that in close massachusetts, you kill the dream of people that just worked for the law. minute.ight, -- wait a if that is the case, what about the idea of adding private industry to help supplement the health care?

do you think there is something there? guest: no, privacy should not be done -- caller: no, privacy should not be done. that is what they did in massachusetts. they closed -- my father had to another location. when they closed it down in massachusetts, i had to go to boston. so privatization should never be talked about. military bases open for the soldiers. host: let's go to ed in new jersey, another person who receives care from the va. caller: how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: hooray for c-span. listen, can you hear me? host: you are on. caller: fine. a lot of veterans cannot

of care the quality they get because they don't have the background, but i have a physician as a wife, and the quality of care is always considered very low at the va facilities. in fact, i am advised by her peers that have gone through the va system during residency not to go near one. and you see this on occasion when a story appears of a sprinkling of radioactive material that is supposed to treat a cancer all over a person's body. it happened in philadelphia couple of years ago. therefore, i support privatization. i understand congress does not want to do this because they do not want to make it an insurance program. but this is what the veteran needs. as far as being a faraway from some facility, that is why they did introduce privatization

bill, so pathetically that was more than a certain distance or time for me va hospital could go to a private physician. they have made it so difficult and bureaucratic that nobody really wants to utilize it, and many physicians will not even get involved with it. host: that is ed, talking about the veterans choice program. bloomberg wrote a piece about the removal of david shulkin, talking about that program, writing that it gives veterans options to visit non-va options update face delays or travel burdens and it will run out of funding in late may. shulkin said that law creating it included $10 billion in mandatory funding. congress provided another $4.21 billion in total last year for the program in the department

spends between $200 million and $400 million per month of the program. shulkin said some lawmakers sought to touch a bill to the fiscal 2018 spending package and in some cases it would give ,eterans more non-va options although the measure was not included in the final package amid opposition from some house democrats. the senate veterans' affairs committee approved a bill last november and the house committee advanced build by party line of 14-9 but in december. anthony in new york, hi. caller: i am a veteran and i was somewhat well-to-do up at one time. i only went to the va to go get the pills. they were cheaper. but i found the va to be the best hospital ever. i travel three hours every time i go to the va, which is a three-hour bus trip from manhattan from the hamptons to manhattan. they started -- i started with

the doctors there and stated them. they are all honest and caring. it is well worth the three hour trip. i feel badly for my fellow veterans who are in areas with the cannot get to the va easily. transportation i think is a problem. privatization i am very therefore love. when i would -- i am very fearful of. when i had blue cross blue shield for myself and my employees, the doctors all talk like they are god. i think they are mostly c students and c-students out of school. i have been misdiagnosed so many times and over drugged too many times, but the va doctors were honest, straightforward, and caring. everybody who works in the va, so i stick with them. i did not understand my dad, who was a world war i veteran who

would only go to the va. i said, i have this insurance. i go to the va. that is it. host: ok, let's hear from mark in bronx, new york, a recipient of va care. caller: i am very happy with the va care.i go to the bronx in the, the hospital bronx, and i have called before about this. i get excellent care there. i like the fact that there are only veterans there. i do not want to see my local privatized. i just had an operation for prostate cancer. i just got the blood test back. they are negligible. there is nothing. also foro there psychiatry. medicated.rly i can see where someone in montana or anywhere, not just montana, but anywhere who has

trouble getting to a va that is near them, where it might be privatized and they might be able to go to other places, i like the fact everything is in one building. my medical care, physical therapy, psychiatry care, glasses, urology -- everything is in one building. i am very happy there. host: if people don't have that access like you do, does giving them more options to visit the local doctor make sense? caller: absolutely. there is no question about that. i am only 10 miles from my hospital, so it is very easy to get there. but that is what i wanted to say. i get very good care there and that populate the. thank you. -- and i'm happy with it. host: writing in the stock, senator jerry moran talking about health care and the va. , saying it should not put

bureaucracy in depth vets. write, thiss on to calls narrative ignores the hard

truth that they were fully endorsed by those who want to call it privatization. do not be fooled by this doubletalk, which is all familiar. next from jacksonville, florida, recipient of va care, ed, go ahead. caller: [indiscernible] with respect to know that you vae people active in the health care, they are spread all over the united states, especially on mental health care problems. to get to the va hospital would be an additional burden on these people, so i support the privatization. he gives more options to the individuals. host: if a private doctor does not have a military background, do you think that ultimately is a harm if he is treating a veteran, particularly with a lot

of things going on? caller: i really don't think so. we are talking about the human body. all human bodies have the same traits and capacities, as well. i think it would have no bearing but saying that, if you look back along time ago with the united states post office as the only means of mainly i do see the problems there, and then we came in with fedex, ups, and now we have a streamlined system. and that was taken out of the privatized section. i think that would create a problem. now toe to do something people using the source of the va. host: this off of twitter says the va does not want to bear the responsibility of those who put their lives on the lines for illegitimate wars. va care belongs in the military

budget, not in the hands of a few profiteers. also, bark at me if you wish, but the va care should address only service related medical problems. be phone nine numbers will -- the phone numbers will be on the screen. from colorado, chuck. caller: thank you for c-span. firm believer in the va. great service to the vets. they saved my life, and the thing is, though the doctors cannot reach the va's continuity of care, and they don't have the knowledge of conditions that directly affect veterans. like the va, they also have a

waiting list for appointments. now, currently, i am seeing an acupuncturist that is covered to aoice, but they have such snap when it comes to billing. i have been without acupuncture treatments for over a month now because they cannot get their damn doing right, with this choice, and they get my zip code and switch me to try care. it is like the left-hand does not know what the right hand is doing. in the meantime, i am suffering. if i could go to the va or a va clinic and get acupuncture treatments, that would be great. i have been off methadone, which i was on for like 12 years, due and -- l injuries,

host: when you go to a va facility, do you see the same doctor? go --: my doctor in doing is the, colorado, he same doctor i have seen for years. for over 12 years. the same goes for when i go to albuquerque, seen as how i live in southwest colorado, i have to go to new mexico to the va hospital there. host: let's hear from sandra in massachusetts on the line for others. son thati, i have a just got out of the va. he was working for them for about a week. before that, he was a pharmacist of 31 years. he turned around and could not see eye to eye with the way they were doing things and quit. he wanted to make it better for

the men and women. he did not like what he had seen. two, my brother is on oxygen from the va. the oxygen is deplorable. the machines break down and everything. in order for him to get from here to the va, he would have to have a special car to set up for the oxygen he has. brother that was in the veterans, and a husband. my husband spent 25 miles a day when he had to go to the va to get help -- mental health help. he was an alcoholic. and get up there and back. by the time he got back, he was plastered again. he never got the help he needed. he got it straightforward from a person that was private. and that is it. he did a wonderful job.

13 years he was sober. sneakingd him always drugs and high on medication. host: sandra in massachusetts, talking about her experience, one of the people who criticized the idea of privatization was senator bernie sanders. he is on the veterans affairs committee. on cbs this past sunday, he talked about the idea of privatization. [video clip] >> they have been putting more and more money into the private sector with va money. i do not believe them on that issue. i think the others made to the brothers and- koch i think it is a bad idea.if you listen to veterans across the country , as i do, they will to you there are problems with the va, but by and large, once they are in the system, they are proud of the quality that the va provides. hasact, the american legion

just come out with a publication, which vigorously opposes the privatization. i believe the trunk administration -- trump administration, no matter what they are saying, are working on behalf of the koch brothers. these are the guys who want to privatize everything. host: , goodhusetts, harry morning. caller: good morning. bills,va paid their privatization would be fine, but i had a stroke. i put up with like 12 months not paying -- bill collectors called me every day at 2:00 in the morning to say that the va did not authorize it. they were told when i went to the hospital in the emergency room, i told him i wanted to go to a va, and somehow i went to another hospital. when i woke up, i said, listen, i want to go to the va.

i don't have the money to pay for this. she called the va and she said they did not have a bed and i could stay there. i am still getting the bill collector calls with the ambulance, almost one year, another situation, i had to have a colonoscopy. my doctor, he said, do you want to go here or somewhere else? i said, go wherever you want. veterans choice called me, they said that the appointment, i went to the appointment, and then the va did not pay, so they charged medicare and then the came after me for 20%, and i am in this situation where i don't want to go anywhere but the va now because otherwise, i will get calls from bill collectors. host: aside from billing, if those issues were resolved, would you be open to more of a

privatization of certain aspects of the va? caller: for certain things, but the va in massachusetts, everyone that works there is nothing but professional, i have nevere, and had a problem with anyone that works there. i am getting nervous because my doctor is going to retire soon anti-is a really good guy. he listens to what i have to say women have problems. and pretty soon, i am going to be in a situation where i will try a new doctor at the va and have to go outside the va for things. host: let's hear from the recipient of va care in kentucky. and i: this is orvis suppose privatization. i go to the clinic here, and i have never been in a clinic any better in any place in my life.

it is in this area, i live in a rural area, and to we have to go a long way to have aged test, but if it is privatized, the private places in the area still have to go that far. i have never in my life been treated nicer than i have been the va clinic or hospital in lexington, and i oppose privatization. host: so privatization of the va is a topic in the first hour, particularly we want to hear from those who have gotten care orm the va, either opposing supporting privatization we will share other stories but. if you are on the line, hold on a few moments. if you are calling, continued to call. cash john mccain -- joan mccabe wrote an op-ed talking about this experience, saying i am and emergency room

pediatrician, someone who never thought much about politics, until i was recruited to run for state office after making a statement on the importance of expanding medicaid.

host: there is more to this op-ed, but there it is in the editorial or op-ed section of the washington post. raymond is an west virginia, who receives va care, go ahead. caller: yes, i am a va rendering. i came down here to west virginia. [indiscernible] they are trying to do everything they can do to help us, and they understand the better and more so than a private care would. they work with us with special problems. bedrooms do have special problems.

veterans toose -- have special problems. host: and those of problems you don't think the private industry can handle? caller: they are not designed to handle it, where the va is especially designed to help the va veterans with their problems. and we had many problems that private care cannot even imagine. va is designed to deal with their problems. host: let's hear from a medical professional in georgia. conrad, hello. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i have been active duty military prior and so i am eligible for va care, as well as being a health professional. i am opposed to privatization for the reason of the lack of understanding of military service, the occupational

experiences, as well as the infections disease exposures that many service people are exposed to during their careers, as well as psychosocial stresses . having seen some of the civilian sector, they don't have the capacity. while i strongly endorse the va system for much of it and what see a roledoes do, i of not privatization but the option of supplementation through some of the private sector capacities, particularly for those in remote areas, where there simply are not the same va capacities. host: so va choices than acceptable, a program that you would agree with? caller: i would say that if it is adequately sponsored on and

actually covered on a year-to-year basis, what i think has been problematic is there is often a federal approved budget, but not actual funding that becomes problematic and the veteran is the individual who is next in the process. in terms of one's people get actual access into the system, it is not -- you are not having mahogany furniture, but you are getting the basic essentials of care. in fact, one of the big problems in much of the civilian sector is over prescription and of her treatment in the dachshund overtreatment in the defense of medicine -- in overtreatment in the defense of medicine and the va system, and with the va

system, it is able to negotiate for drug prices, which is where the civilian sector within adult additional costs, so you would have a much more costly process if you look at privatization, as well as the understanding the culture of veterans and their needs. host: from louisiana, this is teresa on our line for others. caller: hello, how are you? host: fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: i am from louisiana. father received -- pardon? host: go ahead. caller: and my father received services at the va medical center in alexandria, and they were absolutely wonderful. va.ot in the he was suffering with dementia, and he was absolutely -- the

care was impeccable. i am a social worker, so i have some degree of knowledge of what should be taking place. [indiscernible] about a year, and i tell you, i think the va. host: let's go to michael in maryland on our line for others. caller: yes, thank you. this is michael. i believe that the federal government does a poor job of almost anything it touches, so i do believe in veterans care. my father was a veteran, but we spent about $160 billion a year on the veterans administration and only about 25% goes to care. i believe that veterans have

some special needs, and that believe that could be handled by a specialized group of psychiatrist for ptsd, and other needs centralized in the middle of the country. a local hospital could have a caseworker with a psychiatrist for a person with ptsd, or a veteran could go and have a tool assistance -- dual assistance for someone specialized, but you could say close to $100 billion a year and veterans would get much greater care because it would be quicker, faster, and the private sector would anything from public dollars. and the private industry almost always does a better job than the federal government, so that is my solution. do some tele-med and get better care. host: that is michael in

maryland. calls on privatizing veterans administration. if you agree or disagree. continue to call on the lines. we will continue with the calls. new hampshire, the first date in the union to hold a primary often gets visited by people potentially looking to compete in a presidential race. two such visits taking place today. pollock steinhauser with the concord monitor -- paul steinhauser joins us to talk about it. guest: we have a 2020 double-header appeared today. it is already feeling like the next race for the white house has begun in new hampshire. host: who is appearing? guest: i will duplicate radio announcing -- in the morning, 20 minutes from now at the new hampshire institute of politics, it is the politics and egg series, a must stop for anyone thinking of running for the white house. we have the former baltimore

mayor, who ran for the democratic nomination in 2016. he did not do so well and dropped out after the iowa caucuses when he grabbed 1% of the vote. he is thinking of another crack at it and he is up in this morning, speaking politics and eggs. if you do that, that is a chip that sparks speculation that makes you part of the conversation. the question for martin o'malley is will he do better this time that must and what would be the difference -- then last and what would be the difference? and then ohio governor john toich came in as a surprise a strong second-place to donald trump and has remained a vocal critic of president trump and is up your speaking this evening at new england college and will be gathering with his supporters from the 2016 primaries here. his trip is sparking speculation that he is seriously considering

a primary challenge against president trump in 2020. host: what is the reception to them? what do you think will be the reception to these gentlemen? , i thinkth o'malley some curiosity by democrats and liberals as to what will be different this time? he was going to be the liberal alternative to hillary clinton. he was coming up here a lot in those days and he was going to get hillary clinton a fight. it did not play out that way. bernie sanders captured the excitement on the left. i think a lot of us are wondering what would a different for martin o'malley and maybe he will tell us in this speech. he was appeared three times last year, hoping democrats running in state elections, and he was doing that all over the country. he has been working hard on the campaign trail, helping 2018 ass in 2017 and they recaptured a lot of those state has seats across the country. for kasich, i think he is sending a message to supporters

and friends appear to stay tuned. we are not that far from 2020. maybe he wants to make sure his coalition appear is still together and hunted if he decides -- and behind him if he makes the primary challenge. this is the preseason now, but six months from the after midterm elections, it begins a new. host: i was about to ask if it is unusual to have visits this early? guest: not that unusual in modern times, in the last 20 to 30 years. last year, we had about 20 visits from seven potential contenders and we had john kasich appear when your ago. it isn't that uncommon anymore in states like new hampshire, iowa, or south carolina. once one election ends, the other begins. we are still cyclical that we are already looking ahead to the next election. host: you also had recent visits by the president and vice

president to new hampshire, as well. guest: we did, in the same week, we had president trump on monday, two weeks ago, to unveil his plan to combat the heroine adobe reader. opioided about -- and epidemic. he talked about that on his campaign. four days later, you had the vice president mike pence appear, talking about the tax cut law and help republican governor raise money at a fundraiser. i think both of them, even though for different reasons, are planting the early 2020 flag because they realize there is a possibility donald trump will be primary challenge and new hampshire has also won 10 or 11 crucial battleground states in the general election. in newaul steinhauser hampshire giving us a sense of what goes on in these events with governor kasich and

governor o'malley. thank you. guest: have a great day. host: for the kasich events, if you want to see that live on c-span, you can watch this part of our road to the white house 2020 coverage of 5:30 this afternoon, governor john kasich at new england college on c-span and www.c-span.org -- c-span radio app. privatization of the veterans administration. where do you stand? " to jay north -- let's go to jay in north carolina who gets va care. caller: good morning. i appreciate everything c-span stands for. i was just one team to call -- i was just wanting to call on veterans affairs. i receive so good of care at the ever since the early 1970's, after vietnam, and they have done me very well. as far as treatment.

now, they have two where they call you -- to where you call you, asking if you are going to be there, and it's something is wrong, they will queue up if you have no transportation. i think the va is doing outstanding. as for the gentleman earlier, before michael, when he was saying things about it, about everything, [indiscernible] becauseve treatment, when you go to hospital after va, their main goal is to help the veterans. people talk every which way about it, but i think if we listen to our [indiscernible] we would be better off. do not seek second opinions,

just listen to our primary care doctors and we will be better off. i hope you feel the same way. host: let's hear from alan in greensboro, and with carolina, our line for others. father,yes, pedro, my now deceased close in the military, and it has been about 30 years ago. he had to have a kidney taken out, and for six months, my daddy was in the va. the va would mail his medicine. he got great care. at that time, the doctors would call and check on my father. but i think what is happening now, and i don't know what was going on then, they were giving bonuses now, so people know it

the are going to get money in their pockets, they're not going to give people the care they need. , i calledthing, pedro in yesterday well -- well, maybe the other day. and because i called on the wrong line, the girl would not give me a chance to say anything. she hung up on me. i called back the next day to comment on something and she hung up on me again, sir. that. did not appreciate she did not give me a chance to say anything, pedro. host: got you, ellen, and you may not know this, but we try to keep people calling the program to call in every 30 days. we understand we have a host of people trying to get on the program and there is limited availability and this fields the phone calls. so we asked, people who call, hold off 30 days the next time,

so that is probably factoring into that. just wanted to explain it to you. let's hear from the american legion national commander. she was on our newsmakers program, which is on their website at www.c-span.org. she was asked about the idea privatization. here are her thoughts. [video clip] as i travel across the united states, i am meeting veterans from all over and a lot who live in rural areas. it is hard for them to get to the va facility. in those cases, we agree we need to have a choice option. we are hoping that funding gets there for the choice option again because we need that to be there. we believe it is a system we are saving. when you look at the va hospitals and what you accomplish and what the va facilities accomplish as far as traumatic brain injuries, post-traumatic stress, and when you think that 70% of all physicians practicing in the united states today had some

part of trading in the va facility, you have to think it is a system where the of taking care of our veterans -- system worthy of taking care of our better in -- of our veterans. they need to be taken care of. host: if you want to see the whole program, go to www.c-span.org. on twitter, it says corporate health care is the reason we have a high cost of marshall outcomes -- of marginal outcomes. mark stone says, i think they should have a choice if they go to hospital see a doctor outside of the va. in jacksonville, north carolina, hi. caller: look, va's system has problems, like all medical systems, but i don't think we should turn over the va system to privatization. host: why? what is it about privatization -- private sector that would be drastically different than the va? caller: because the va is doing a good job.

it is just a have problems like other medical systems. when you turn over the system to privatization, prices go up. and we cannot afford that. host: bernard in chicago, a recipient of va care. caller: i go to the jesse brown clinic or hospital in chicago, and dr. reddy is my primary, and i get excellent care. i am afraid if you get private industry into the va system, it the -- they will flip off dollars -- they will rip off the dollars. i had to go to hospital and i take them that i wanted to go to the va -- well, the bill came up to $27,000 for less than a day. they gave, itests told them i had all of them at the va. they ordered them again.

i finally had to get my son to get me out of there. i love jesse brown. i think they do estimate care. i have been in their system -- i think they do excellent care. i have been in the system since 1995 and i paid a portion of my bill. they are excellent. : stuff, the way they deliver health care, i believe the entire country should have health care like they give the va. host: that is bernard in chicago. stories.of other this regarding the larger topic of immigration in the wall street journal. laura meckler writing that the justice department assured immigration judges they will evaluate their job performance on how quickly they close cases, aiming to speed up immigration cases. the new quotas for judges made fridaythe memo sent immigration judges, follow other directives by the department to expedite handling the cases.

jeff sessions has said that the backlog of the immigration courts allows people who should be deported to linger inside the u.s. judges are required to complete 700 cases a year and 50% should be sent back by the higher court. years, thest five average judge completed 678 cases, but there was a range where some judges completed as many as 1500 cases. in addition, they will meet other metrics depending on the workload. when standard the men's 85% of -- demands 85% of removal cases be completed within three days of a hearing. you can find that in the wall street journal. when it comes to what goes on about amexico, a piece migrant care event going to -- caravan going to mexico. he writes --

host: the president is writing tweet --svi via saying the caravan coming to our weak border had better be stopped before gets there. cash cow nafta is in play, as importing data honduras and the countries that allow this to happen. ohio, brianadison,

is next. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. go ahead. caller: i have very valuable information. the va caret is as good as any private hospital i have been in -- care is as good as any private hospital i have been in. i found out i have a horseshoe, and the problem with the va problem is i needed a specialized surgery, and people do not understand that you always see the interns first, which i am in ohio, so i had the interns, whether from the cleveland clinic, or university around.s, or others they do a great -- they all do a great job and they treat the

veterans like they are humans and machines. host: and you don't think that will happen in a private situation? caller: no, i don't think so because every time that you are at the va facility, they always thank you for your service, and they always want to do the right thing. when i had to have back surgery for my kidney, specialized, i pointout a very valuable that my fellow veterans need to know about. host: let's go to tennessee, james in memphis, hello. caller: hello, good morning. fine client, thank you. -- , thank you. caller: personally, i think everyone who works for the va [indiscernible] withse they can identify what a veteran goes through. have been getting care at the va

since 1971 and more so in recent felt the people really cared about you. now, there wasn't a long wait time for anything of that nature, and you were able to see a doctor. you may get ad do call and they tell you to do this or do something else, and increase your medicines. you very seldom see a doctor unless you go to the emergency room. that is my personal problem on this. host: the hartford current reporting that a representative made an announcement yesterday she will not run for reelection. this is after she faced criticism for mishandling domestic violence allegations against her since fire chief of staff. "she should have

and could have done better" after learning that her top advisor had punched and threatened to kill a female staffer in her office to had one stated. host: that is the hartford current reporting. the washington times taking a look at the challenger against current house speaker paul ryan. it says that speaker ryan could be facing his toughest reelection race in years after randy price reported a huge fundraising haul monday, collecting more than $2 million so far.

-- mr. bryce seemed to have built enthusiasm in the race for the district in the southeast of wisconsin. aided i national liberal groups, his campaign reported $2.1 $4.75 millionnd total since the start of 2017. he had $2.3 million on hand. ousting a sitting house speaker would be a major coup for democrats and mr. wright presents a juicy target or liberal activist after he pushed through president trump's tax cut bill last year and authored gop budgets the proposed cutting entitlements such as medicare and medicaid. let's go to al illusory on the line for others. caller: good morning. line or others. caller: good morning. i want to investigate a law that says some hospitals were used

[indiscernible] and they made -- and some places [indiscernible] and that is the law to some hospital. that is out i have got to say. host: laurel in washington, hello. caller: hello. go ahead. caller: my name is laurel and i have a question. if they are talking about privatization, this that mean they are going to sell off or otherwise get rid of the va hospitals they own it now? if that is the case, i do not believe the veterans would be well served in a standard community hospital. host: why not? caller: well, they have special

needs. i was a mental health counselor, and i worked with a lot of other types of grief counseling, etc., and i do not have the experience myself to be able to counsel and help people who have gone through battle critique, -- fatigue, ptsd, because of battles and wars. i don't have the empathy to be able to help them as well as someone who works with the va would. host: in new jersey, mike. caller: good morning. how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: it seems like veterans and micelles are calling seem to be getting decent care from the va. this an item that may be the [indiscernible]

and then it goes another way, or eliminate the coverage for veterans. fortunately, i have distressed with the government and it seems like everyone -- i distrust with the government, as it seems like everyone does have now, but i seem to have gotten equal care with the veterans as the same with public care and medical. host: this is the new york times talking about the passing of winnie mandela in the obituary section this morning, saying charming, intelligent, fiery, complex, miss mandela was known to her marriage to the revered nelson mandela. it was a bond that injured ambiguously.

host: again, the death of winnie mandela being reported in the new york times. one more call or couple more calls on the topic of va care. steve in ohio, go ahead. caller: thank you so much. you do a fantastic job. missing, i go to the va in cleveland, ohio. they have treated me with excellent care. two not privatize the veterans hospitals. thank you. host: the wall street journal reporting about these promos from their broadcasting stations. the response from sinclair this

morning saying that sinclair in a statement monday said its promotions "serve no political agenda and represent nothing more than an effort to differentiate our award-winning news program from other less reliable sources of news information." -- ocuses on sinclair efforts to force its stations could air attacks against the new outlets. host: that is in the wall street journal. if you go to the los angeles times, a statement from fox news saying they are still supporting laura ingraham. she is on vacation this week after making those comments against parkland students. a statement yesterday from fox news still supporting their talkshow host. sherman,esus, mississippi, a recipient of va

care. caller: good morning. i very much appreciate you. i do use the va care. i also an over 65 and occasionally have used the public system. the va is wonderful. when i go see a provider, date take their time -- they take their time to look through my record, which is all in one place within the va system, and they are able to put together a picture of what is happening with me and go on and further address the problem. host: and you don't think that kind of system will support would happen in a private set up? caller: no, i do not get that in the private set up. it is piecemeal. oft: last call on that topic privatizing of the veterans administration. we have about two hours of the program was, and they are devoted to topics relating to

the relationship that the u.s. has with china. this as a result with the tariff issues you have been hearing about. to start this off, we are going to look at the situation with bethany allen-ebrahimian, contributing say was that the stage as far as the topics to discuss. later on, two perspectives on china's economic and military power. all that when "washington journal" continues. ♪

>> c-span -- where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today, we continue to bring unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. cases,"y on "landmark katz v. united states, where charles katz was tape recorded by the fbi while transporting illegal debts from a telephone booth on sunset boulevard in los angeles. the supreme court's decision expanded americans rights to privacy under the fourth amendment and forever changed the way law enforcement officers conducted investigations. our guests to discuss this case

is jeffrey rosen and jameel jaffer, founder of the national security institute. watch "landmark cases" monday and join the conversation. r #his landmark cases. tag his landmark cases. the constitution and the landmark cases podcasts at c-span.org/landmark cases. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: this is bethany allen-ebrahimian. she's a contributing reporter for followe foreign policy.

in a general sense, how do the two countries each other? guest: before trump took office jingping consolidated power, they saw each other as partners. there's a strategic distrust between the two, but cooperation at arms length. what we have seen since trump took office with his tough rhetoric toward china and xi jin gping's assertive attitude, you are looking at a bit more distrust and a stronger sense of competition and a stronger sense of rivalry. host: what is the source of distrust or are there several sources? guest: several sources. president trump used china as an economic enemy. i think he has used that term. on china's part, they see the uss trying to contain their ambitions, their territorial

ambitions in the south china sea , their ambitions to contribute more to global institutions and to have more military power around the world. on both sides, there's definitely a sense of increasing tension. host: with that in mind, talk about the placement of tariffs from the united states on certain products, the retaliation from china. you saw what happened and what is the larger implication? guest: earlier in march, president trump took the step that he had set his administration on course last year when he asked for investigation into whether or dumping,'s steel aluminum dumping created a national security risk for the our steel and aluminum industries have been hollowed out the past few years. after that report came back, it seemed to recommend the tariffs

and that's what he did. he slapped tariffs on steel and aluminum and not just on tim china, but many countries including our allies like japan, south korea, and european countries. that is what trump did. china immediately stated that they were strongly opposed to that and they would be considering their own retaliatory measures. chinaas happened now is has implemented its own retaliatory tariffs on what hundred 28 u.s. products -- 128 u.s. products, including pork and wine. these are about $3 billion worth up to 25%. host: our guests will continue on with us, but she has talked about some things economic included. you can give us a call. republicans --(202) 748-8001. democrats --(202) 748-8000. independents --(202) 748-8002.

on our also email us and twitter feed. let's hear from the president earlier back in march talking about this idea of putting tariffs on chinese products and the justification for doing so. here is president trump you [video clip] . [video clip] china, weicular with will be doing a section 301 transaction. -- trade action. it will be about $61 billion and that's really a fraction of what we are talking about. i have been speaking with the highest chinese representatives, including the president, and i have asked them to reduce the trade deficit immediately by $100 billion, a lot. so that would be anywhere from to maybe something even more than that. but we have to do that.

the word i want to use is reciprocal. when they charge 25% for a car 2%go in and we charge further car to come into the united states, that's not good. that's how china rebuilds itself. the tremendous money we have paid since the founding of the wto, which has actually been a disaster for us, it's been very an unfair to us. the arbitrations have been very unfair. the judging has been very unfair. knowingly we always have a minority. host: that is president trump talking about this. in the long run, who gets hurt economically more -- the united states or china? exports of steel and aluminum to the u.s. really are not that much. for the steel industry, we do import quite a bit of steel, but

most of it is not from china. it's around 2% to 5%. , which% comes from china is why these tariffs have been levied on 70 countries around the world. -- so many countries around the world. these tariffs are not the way to stop chinese you'll don' steel dumping. it is sent to a lot of countries and then it comes to the u.s. this is not solving the problems of chinese steel dumping. this is just going to hurt the u.s.. a tariff like this, there will be wto cases that come into play. it really alienates our allies letter asking what do we do to deserve this? it is not clear how in the long run it will really solve the problem. host: a larger geopolitics, we went to china for help on north korea and other issues. how do those efforts get impacted by these tariffs specifically? guest: that's a difficult

question and that's part of an issue of the strategic rivalry we have with china. the fact is that we do need china's help, especially on north korea. 90% of north korean exports go to china. china is really north korea's only ally. any kind of pressure that we want to levy on north korea cannot really be effective without china's help. and we see that even as trump has accepted an upcoming meeting with kim jong-un. what we saw last week is that kim made a trip to beijing to see xi jingping. and that shows whether we want it or not, china has a really big role. it is very difficult on the one hand to ask for china's help and on the other hand try to push them away or harm them. host: this is bethany allen-ebrahimian. she is a contributing reporter for foreign policy. the first call comes from roger and alabama on the line for

independents. you are on with our guest. go ahead. caller: china and united states has to work together with each other on this because if one fails, the other does. i am one of the noncollege , part ofwhite males the idiots that got us in this mess to start with. host: that need of dependence on each other, is that a reality? guest: roger was definitely right about that. china and the u.s. have the two biggest economies in the world. they are heavily intertwined. we have to with each other when it comes to global trade issues, when it comes to even security situations. that is absolutely right. host: democrats line, eric's next in maryland. hi. thatr: i always assumed since we started trading with china that everything would be

taken to the d wto. if you had a problem or trump had a problem, the information he got back from his investigation or wherever he got the information from should have been taken to the wto. you make the case. they rule. and that's why we trade with people. i don't understand where trump gets the authority to just slap sanctions on other countries. guest: well, certainly these tariffs are going to be taken to the wto. you can count on that. not just china but other countries whether it's south korea or european countries, they will very likely bring this to the wto. it's important to note that the u.s. has taken many trade cases to the wto and won, including cases against china. host: aside from the retaliated tariffs that china has put, have

we heard a formal statement from china on the united states actions? guest: the foreign ministry spokesperson has delivered remarks on this and they are understandably not happy. host: from maryland, democrats line, robert, go ahead. your next. caller: good morning to both of you. as someone in national security and has been his whole career, i certainly agree that we maintain a robust steel and aluminum industry. we maintain key allies as mexico can travel by land and maintain it. the question i wanted to ask is what it has been -- i guess, what's your thoughts on if subsidies had been the case? it's kind of an indirect way to do it, but in terms of maintaining these two industries. guest: in terms of steel and

aluminum? i think that president trump looked at a variety of possible ways to address this. i think there is a distinction to be made, which you hinted perhaps between the steel and aluminum industries. in terms of military grade aluminum used in fighter jets and the electrical grid, we are down to one plant in the entire united states that actually produces that. if that were to close, the only other plants that make this are outside of this hemisphere. the middle east, russia, iceland. that does seem to be a concern. steel on the other hand, we have many countries produce the kind of steel that we would need. that is less of a national security concern in reality. host: aside from economics, how much influence does china have in the united states overtly or covertly? guest: that's a question we are trying to look at now.

if you look at australia and the discussion in australia, in the past year and a half, what is happening there is equivalent to our debate about russian influence here. for australia, it's china. they have seen in the past decade or so chinese money coming in rather covertly into their political campaigns, influencing candidates. lotsave seen in particular of attempts to control the chinese diaspora there. initial investigations here in the u.s. have revealed some similar trends, some similar phenomena with tight control the chinese diaspora here. attempts to insert money into our political debate, into our narratives here, that is something that right now we are kind of at a snowball effect. there's a lot of increasing interest among the fbi and our security agencies.

you have seen marco rubio, ted cruz pay more attention to this. it is certainly something that will be a building debate in the months to come. host: this specific legislation and some of the elements promote the agenda of foreign governments to report as foreign agents and forces universities to disclose donations from foreign sources of $50,000 or more. wire those important when it comes to china? guest: we talked about the foreign registration act because russia was forced to register. it was an old law passed in 1938 the has a lot of gray areas. there's a lot of ways that people or companies or nonprofits or donors who do have ties to foreign countries or foreign political parties don't have to register. there's a lot of perhaps foreign influence that we are not aware of. what this law would do is try to

exactly -- is a media outlet that has editorial control and foreign funding from the government, they would have to register. that means other chinese media funded outlets here. with universities, there are concerns about confucius institutes. they have attempted in some cases to censor discussion on campus about sensitive issues such as taiwan or tibet. at this point, they are not have to register, and our contracts with universities are very opaque. we don't know how much money the universities are getting and what conditions are. this law would attempt to help bring transparency to those agreements. host: from our republican line from washington state, hello. caller: good morning.

the question i have today has to do with chinese tariffs on american exports prior to 2018. the tariff issue has been going on the united states ever since the united states has existed and before the event states existed -- the united states existed. prior to 2018, and the last two decades, what chinese tariffs have been placed on u.s. exports? guest: the remain a lot of nontariff barriers and a lot of barriers to foreign investment in china. china did not enter the wto until 2001. they have made many promises in 2001 that they would further open sectors of their economy to foreign investment. slowopening up has been and in some cases not particularly existed. nt. there are large sectors of the chinese economy, including infrastructure and key industries such as steel

resources, that are not open to foreign investment at all. their other forms of nontariff barriers. there was an interesting case last year in which chinese internet censorship floated the possibility of it being a nontariff barrier. for example, google cannot operate in china. apple faces a lot of barriers there. there are these kinds of barriers. host: one of the things that constantly comes up in this discussion on trade tariffs whether it's the trade deficit between our two countries. factor that into the discussion and how much of a concern should this be as far as the deficit between imports and exports? guest: that depends on your perspective. for president trump, it's a very large concern. i personally don't feel it's a very large concern. that's the feel of economics right now. china has an export-based model.

many other countries around the world have trade deficits with china. and really regardless of your perspective on it, the thing is that you cannot just simply have a goal of getting rid of a trade deficit. it is not that simple. complex factors come into play. this is our goal. we are going to get rid of that deficit. that should not be the goal. that should be a result of a change in your economic model porsch for changing your stratec approach to trade. as a goal, it does not make a lot of sense. host: michael from illinois, you are on. caller: i would like the lady to comment on this point. i believe that this problem started 30 or more years with the business class in

this country committing treason, shipping our jobs over to china, doing all this technology transfer because you cannot set up a company in china unless you give them access to all your technology or whatever is involved. so it's actually our business community because of greed and self-interest that have created this problem. china would still be a itrd-rate power today if wasn't for the treasonous business community in this country. they destroy the middle class. when we go to what with china, it's the middle class that's going to have to get killed trying to defend this country. that's my comment and i would like her to respond. .uest: sure if yo the idea shipping jobs abroad, we get something in return. wanting to get in return is lower consumer prices. if you have ever shopped at walmart for example, they are

things the tories lee made -- and briefly made in china and cheaper than anywhere else. when you have lower consumer prices for daily goods, that contributes to a higher standard choppers --rever for average shopper's, lower middle class, working-class shoppers. they can increase their quality of life. i think a problem that we have in the u.s. is that we have not put enough resources into creating more jobs to replace the ones that were shipped abroad. on the question of tech transfer , i would certainly agree with you that these technology transfers are a major problem. what happens is chinese companies with basically the support of the government colors our companies -- coerce are companies here and say we will not partner with you unless you transfer technology. there is a coercion coming from

a powerful chinese state. what we need here is for the powerful u.s. government to back up u.s. companies and to say you don't have to do that and to put pressure on china to end that practice. i would agree with you. the technology transfer is a major concern. host: this idea of china when it steals intellectual-property, how rampant is that and how much of a concern is that to the united states? guest: it's a huge problem and is absolutely rampant and has been for a long time. we were talking earlier about maybe covert chinese influence operations in the u.s. one of their main targets is our science and technology. china really wants what the u.s. has and they have been extremely successful in the past 10 to 15 years. let's use the word stealing billions and billions of dollars technology or

intellectual property that u.s. taxpayers have developed with their own tax dollars. that's a huge concern. it's difficult to know exactly how to stop it because here's an example. you have a chinese graduate student who comes to the u.s. and has actually been cents by the cla and he steals some military secrets from his graduate school and brings them back to china. how do you prevent that without basically shutting down all of our acceptance of graduate students that would harm us more than help us? it's a very difficult issue and one the u.s. is trying to grapple with. robertack in march, lighthizer appeared before the finance committee to talk about this idea of intellectual property theft. you can see the hearing in total one you go to our website at c-span.org. here's a portion with the trade representative on that topic. [video clip] allen-ebrahimian >

>> the first question that we ask is do we have a problem with ip theft? and we do. going back to 1991, george herbert walker bush brought at 301 against china for failure to protect ip. , none ofe from clinton which amounted to much. system ofd a dialogues over the time in the wto. during that time on at least 10 different occasions, china made specific commitments not to do certain things in the space. it has not kept any of them. we start with the proposition that one of the most important parts of our entire economy is the ip protection. it's an extreme competitive advantage to the united states and the core of a number of sectors that you do not think of high-tech. we have done a study and will put that study up quickly.

the members will have that as soon as we possibly can give it to you. at the study of about 200 pages and it documents this very serious problem. host: we are talking about u.s.-china relations with bethany allen-ebrahimian. she's a contributing reporter. from indiana, republican line, an thi this is jessica. caller: i'm a nonprofessional with a nonprofessional with the seventh grade education from warsaw, indiana. i'm calling to say i'm a mother protecting her children and i have a right to do that. i want to comment on all this nonsense brouhaha about everybody wanting all the money for all the electronics because i have an issue. of homeless and i love my children and i don't have a cell phone. i'm using a company phone to simply say to my children i love you. all this nonsense about wanting more money for electronics is bs. host: we will go to david in

michigan on the democrats line. caller: i just heard you say that lower prices helped create a higher standard of living. and increased spending that not only causes a consumer demand also increases a higher standard of living and is what used to fuel the american economy. we don't have that now with lower prices. the lower prices and shipping jobs as part of the race to the bottom. sure, it allows people to afford products, but these are cheap products. these are not products that are made here. it does not feel the american economy. it is higher wages and consumer demand that is created by the spending of people making money with the jobs that used to be here. it's what used to create and fuel the american economy. we are indulgence now -- in the

doldrums now because of lower prices and trying to increase the standard of living that way. host: we will let our guest responsd. guest: another way to increase the higher standard of living is higher wages. we have not put the resources into developing sectors or retraining people whose jobs have gone abroad. that is something that hopefully we can work more towards in the future. here issort of issue that a lot of jobs have disappeared because of automation and that is simply not a trade issue. host: this is ted in washington state on the independent line. caller: i've a couple of questions for the guest there. right after the election, there was a big thing about trump getting 300 patents or other

things in china that he had been waiting for that gives have rights on stuff there. i just want to know what that has. the second part of my question is the stuff they make in china, just like the last of him and said, is cheap. used to be able to go buy a toaster and it would last 20 years. now you buy toaster and it lasts maybe a year. all the money that just came back, this is the other question. we just allow the corporations come back and gave them a tax break for taking jobs overseas and let them bring that money back and they are going, we're going to get a couple of bonuses. that's the money that was taken overseas and that's where the money for our middle class went. host: thank you. guest: i will address the issue of the cheap goods coming out of china. that's really a function of the level of development of china's

economy. for example, we think of goods coming from japan these days as high-quality and being expensive and high-tech. that wasn't always the case. in the 1950's and 1960's as japan's economy was being developed, it was made in japan to be cheap, poor quality goods. quickly the quality of their goods improved. i would fully expect that to happen with china and it's already happening as some of the clothing factories and really cheap goods, those factories have left china. they have got to places with left development -- less-developed economies like vietnam and bing bangladesh. it's not a function of china per se but if function of a moment in time where the economy was not developed. host: we are looking at u.s.-china relations. (202) 748-8001 --republicans. (202) 748-8000 -- democrats.

and independents --(202) 748-8002. here's a headline. what happened? month so basically, last the national people's congress, which is china's rubberstamp legislature, passed an amendment that would get rid of term limits on the president of china. so that basically pave the way to be dictator for life if he so desires, which he probably does. this was not necessarily a shock. this has been rumored for a couple of years. specifically on october when there was the last major party congress, xi jingping wrote from president and did not establish -- broke from president did not establish a successor. we did not know who would be coming after him.

that's indeed because no one is coming after him. china isave seen in what we have seen in many other countries around the world in the past few years, which is increasing authoritarianism. i just got back from moscow. it certainly feels authoritarian putinin many respects as has really weakened russia's democracy. putin has played politics to keep himself and power. i would think that what we see is that for some countries, for some strong leaders in some countries, they feel this is the best way to take their country forward or it's a power grab. the power, was the justification for such a consolidation of power? guest: apart from the power

grab, which is the most significant aspect of this, it is true that xi jingping is seen as a very strong leader that puts china first above everyone else. that way he has similarities to trump in some ways. in the past five years under the tenure of xi jingping, china has become far more assertive. it has been able to articulate a global foreign policy which it had not been able to. one thing that xi jingping has done is to crackdown on corruption. comeverage people in china authoritarian government does not have as much to do with their daily lives as the corruption and the bribes that they are required to pay. if they can make your lives better and get rid of the official corruption, that is great. so he is actually pretty popular as far as we can tell amongst many people in china. i think there's definitely a fear that if he leaves, his successor will not be as successful at cracking down on corruption.

perhaps the crackdown may not be permanent. many people do see his policies as being good for china in the long run and see him as being able to continue those policies as a good thing. host: no sense of somebody he is grooming and the long-term to assume things in his personal family or cabinet. guest: exactly. there is no apparent successor . host: let's go to date, ohio. tom, you're up next. caller: i want to say something. automation does take some businesses, but we are still building plans and mexico -- plants in mexico and china. the local news here today had a hard farmer on there. the prices for bacon may go down in america because of the tariffs china put on. they can put all the tariffs they want on our food because groceries are going up and that is what everybody has to have, stuff to eat. this makes no sense at all. it's a communist country.

byare committing treason building their military up. this is what made america america and strong. and we are shipping and out of the country. to hell with the politicians. the only thing they can agree on is to bring people in with lower wages and ship businesses out of our country. guest: on the point of food, america is a major food producer. i do not think these chinese tariffs are going to affect our ability to eat. host: from indiana, democrats line, mary, you're on. caller: thank you and good morning. i'm going to go with the beginning when we had things made in the usa. a do you commit a fire that lasted 25 years.

-- a dehumidifier that lasted 25 years. now it only lasts two years. now i know two people who had theirs sort out -- short out and catch on fire. we are paying a great price for shoddy material. they are not built as well as we used to build things in the united states. we have got to bring our jobs back. host: thanks. any truth to what she is saying as far as the quality of products? guest: i can't speak to that. host: when it comes to china's military, we talked about fronts. what is the general u.s. attitude toward the chinese will take? -- for the chinese military? guest: the chinese military has received huge increases in funding. they have posted a percent growth year on year in military -- 8% growth year on year in military funding.

they have started building a second aircraft carrier. what you see is china really trying to bring their military into the 21st century so that they can fight and win a modern war. that is one thing that they have said they wish to be able to do. certainly the u.s. sees this with consternation. it's a more complex story than that. if you look at for example u.s.-china military to military relations between the two, the relationship is quite good. this is very true in particular of the navy. we are not in a cold war situation. there's a lot of dialogue between the militaries. there's a lot of understanding and i would say especially on china side that while they want to be able to fight and win a war, they don't want to get into a war with the u.s. i think the u.s. does not want to get into war with china. we are in a situation where they

may be in the future increasing tensions as china works on becoming more assertive in the world. they built their first foreign military base in djibouti. they're looking at perhaps building others. it is something to watch with caution but not alarmed. host: who is the enemy than to china if they are building up? who are they most concerned about? guest: the united states. their most immediate concern is the string of u.s. bases in asia. japan.e south korea and the u.s. military presence in other parts of asia as well. china feels suffocated by that . they look at their map around them with china to the north -- with russia to the north and central asia to the west. to all the east and southeast they have the united states. they would love for the u.s. to get out of japan and south korea

and for the u.s. to stop doing their freedom of navigation operations in the south china sea. they would love that and i think they are working slowly toward that to increase their ability in the next half century. host: we saw this pivot to asia concept. does that still exist in any way, shape, or form in this administration? guest: it exists in a kind of rhetorical sense. there is this time that the trump administration has invoked numerous times of the in the pacific asindo opposed to the asia-pacific. that seems to be some kind of iteration of the idea of a kind of ideological, moral construct for u.s. involvement in that region. the indo pacific as opposed to the asia-pacific is actually an interesting term because it expands the region we are talking about in terms of u.s. involvement and it brings india and supply. india is a democracy and arrival of china.

it's a huge country that is also working to modernize its military although at a slower pace. you do see a little bit of that, but there's not any kind of well thought out strategic plan at the moment. host: rick in alabama, democrats line. caller: good morning. i was stuck on the word retraining. this term is used a lot. america should retrain people for the new economy. i would like to know more specifically retrain for what industry? does she mean by retrain for what industry? guest: i'm not an economist and i did not focus on domestic affairs so i can't speak to that. host: with everything and play with the current situation and china, what do you look for as far as how we gauge our future and how we establish relations going forward? guest: it's a tough question. what we have seen from the

national defense strategy is placing china and russia very people andrivals and countries that are threats to us. -- say i oppose that because that is most certainly how the chinese communist party views the united states. when you read what they say about themselves and their own global interests and if you read what they say to the united states, it is very clear that asy view the united states an entity that has trying to contain them and restrain them. they want to get past that. that's the reality. think the united states in the 1990's and 2000s, there was a kind of euphoria about china opening up to the world and becoming democratic. naivete aboutmost

not just china but many countries in the world. what we have seen in the past five years is that simply isn't true, at least not right now. china will be more authoritarian five years from now than they were five years ago. they're are going to be one of the strongest countries in the world. hack in the united states deal with that going forward? it is quite difficult. how do you walk that line between we understand your tried to push back but we also have to work with you? it is fundamentally different from the cold war because we did not have economic relations with the soviet union. none of our allies did either, not really. the u.s. and chinese economies are heavily intertwined on both sides. it's a situation we have not been in before. host: have you looked past both countries putting tariffs and we will work with you even though you seest or dco the tariffs as a short-term solution in the hopes of long-term relations moving forward? guest: i do not see the sparking

a long-term trade war. president trump wanted to get his point across to china and is looking for a quick and short win. something to play to his base and say i fixed the problem with china. i think that's what he's going to do. it's a concern. a trade war is a concern. i do not see it becoming this particular. these tariffs being the same several years and now, that is when things went bad -- i don't see that happening. host: bethany allen-ebrahimian is a contributing reporter for foreign policy.com. thank you for joining us. guest: thanks for having me. our: we will carry on conversation about china and its economic and military fronts. we will be joined by yukon huang and then evan medeiros. they are both joining us when we continue. ♪

>> wednesday morning, we are in helena, montana for the next stop on the c-span bus 50 capitals to her. mike cooney will be our guest on the bust during "washington journal." that starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern. is the 50th anniversary of martin luther king junior's assassination. join us for live coverage from memphis on c-span and american history tv on c-span3.

on c-span today at 1:00 p.m. eastern, we are live from the university of memphis holiday and with pulitzer prize winner taylor branch. wednesday beginning at 4:30 p.m. eastern, live coverage of the outdoor service in front of the lorraine motel come the site of the assassination, marked by religious leaders like jesse jackson. on american history tv on c-span3 tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern, archival events including anchor walter crank current -- walter contrite announcing the an assassination. and wednesday, live coverage with civil rights leaders both past and present including john lewis, may it right edelman, diane nash, gina bellefonte, and tamika mallory. the 50th anniversary of the assassination of dr. martin luther king jr. live today and wednesday on c-span and american history tv on c-span3.

monday on "when m landmark cases," katz v. united states where he was taped by the fbi while transferring debts from a telephone booth in los angeles. the spring court decision expanded americans right to privacy under the fourth amendment and change the way that law-enforcement officers conducted investigations. our guests to discuss the case are jeffrey rosen and jameel of the national security institute and director of the national security law and policy program, both at george mason university antonin scalia a law school. monday.ay my cases" our hashtag is landmark cases. follow us on c-span. we have resources, the landmark

cases companion book, the link to the national constitution center interactive constitution, and the landmark cases podcast at c-span.org/landmark cases. announcer: "washington journal" continues. we continue on in our conversation about china with two guests joining us. evan medeiros is the asian managing director for the eurasia group. we also joined by yukon huang. he serves as a senior fellow for the asia program. thanks for joining us. i will ask you the same question. how do you gauge current relationships between the united states and china? guest: in some ways it's not so bad because we have had discussions and it has not collapsed. to trythe 100 day plan to forge a meaningful relationship on trade issues. when you think about what's been happening in the last month, three proposals and tariffs on

aluminum and steel and potentially something related to force transfers, section 30 100 trade act. you see punitive tariffs being levied on both sides. you see a lot of people talk about trade wars. the question is will discontinue and will they resolve this? you have the political consideration going on. your questions about north korea and taiwan and the south china sea. you put these trade wars and these political factors and you are asking yourself are we seeing potential downhill slide in u.s.-china relations? host: how would you assess that? guest: the u.s. and china relationship has always been defined by cycles of good relations and bad relations. i think we are entering and different phase right now. we are entering into a phase were the relationship is going to be defined more by competition and disagreement that by cooperation. that is largely a function of the fact that traditional areas

of cooperation like the economic relationship are you merging as far more competitive. yukon did a nice job of outlining where we are with trade. security issues are becoming much more competitive. earlier this year the trump administration released national security strategy, the national defense strategy to publicly identified china as a strategic competitor. they talked about china as a revisionist date and group china and russia together. i would say that generally speaking, the u.s. views about the security challenge in the military challenge by china are hardening. even though the relationship has always been up and down, i think the trend line is definitely more toward a more competitive relationship then one in which our interests are divergent more than a convert. as far as those interests, what is best to pursue between the two countries aside from economics and the things you laid out? what should we be focusing on? guest: outside of economics,

there are a variety of global interests where u.s. and chinese that'sts converge and climate change and greenhouse gases and public health in solving security issues like north korea's nuclear program and iran's nuclear program. even on those issues, u.s. and chinese interest do not perfectly overlap and there is deep suspicion on both sides about each other's long-term strategic intentions. even on those issues, we have to be aware of suspicions, distrust, and competition. host: what about these ideas of suspicions and distrust from the countries? guest: if you look at the economic angle, you have the potential for a very positive relationship. china is becoming a very outward investor. the question is where it will go? will go to the united states or europe or developing countries?

people, a400 million large middle-class consumption market. they are increasingly looking for services and the u.s. is the strongest in terms of services and that's an area of collaboration. the u.s. economy is doing very well. it's growing at 2% to 3% coming back from the recession. china's slowdown has stabilized and potentially stayed at a very high level. if you do it right, economically this is a potential win-win. the trade war makes the focus of the problems rather than potential. host: we will talk about this with our guests. republicans are (202) 748-8001. democrats are (202) 748-8000. independents are (202) 748-8002. that, let's of the trade deficit and look at the imports and exports and look at how much we're losing any

administration has said as much. argument and is there validity to that? guest: everyone is focusing on the trade deficit between the u.s. and china as the problem and i would point out the fact that that is the wrong thing to look at. america has had a trade deficit for 40 straight years way before china became an economic power. china ishas causing america's problems is the wrong one. it surged in the late 1990's and really became big around 2004. during that time, they do not run significant surpluses. why does it show up nowadays as a china issued? in asia, you have this production sharing network. those parts go to china. there stumbled into finished products and assembled in the united states.

the iphone is very popular in the united states. only 8000 of that actually stays in china. $200 and $300 of that come from other countries. the largest share of profit goes to apple. what we think as a trade problem with china is a trade relation with the world. economists say do not look at a bilateral deficit but look at a multilateral aspect. about the china problem, the u.s. trade deficit problem economists would argue is really a question about savings. america is a net deficit country in terms of savings because of budget deficits because households do not save enough. when that happens, you always have a trade deficit. host: besides your current work, you were the former white house senior director for asian affairs at the national security council for the obama administration. is there a connection between financial issues or security

issues? are there concerns from that aspect we should pay attention to? guest: the area in which economic insecurity converge is in the area of perception. do american policymakers, business leaders, and consumers see china as an opportunity or as a threat? my concern is that as the chinese economy has developed, the chinese see themselves as a developing country intent to protect certain sectors like a developing country. yukon rightly talked about the services sector in china, which is burgeoning and potentially a huge opportunity for mac and businesses, especially as the chinese middle-class gross and i can businesses want to sell it to that market. the problem is the chinese government protects that market in a way that caps the degree of foreign involvement. financial services, health care, transportation, logistics. american businesses cannot

benefit from that market. what that does is it creates the impression that the chinese are sort of using the power that the government has over the marketplace in china as a way to restrict foreign involvement. sense intes the washington that china is not playing by a fair set of rules, that the playing field is not level, and then you add on top of that issues of chinese protection of intellectual property. if you are an american company and come up with a product division or process its -- product innovation or process innovation, if you want to sell it in china, you are at risk because your chinese partner may steal it from you . that's important because some of america's greatest innovations are in the high-tech space whether it's cloud computing or semi conductors. there's been a lot of incidents of ip theft.

the trade representative's office released a report to weeks ago saying there has been for the last 10 years about $50 billion in theft from u.s. companies. that feeds the impression among business leaders, policymakers, consumers in the united states that china is emerging -- is a rising power and emerging as both an economic threat and a security threat. host: what about those perceptions? guest: the evidence is correct that there is a sense of unfairness that for companies are developing technology that's not being protected. it's basically being taken over by chinese companies and it's not equitable. growth and efficiency is based on the concept of competition, technology, and transfer. when we talk about u.s. strength in the technological economy, i did develop companies. competition allows ideas to be transferred and improved.

if they only stayed at one company, you have a monopoly and it would never work. tech innovation has always been based on the concept that it drives everyone to be better. sometimes it's shared within the country but also a cross country. that is how poor countries grow. their ability to produce more vast products increased. the question is whether that sharing is done equitably or fairly is a legitimate concern. there is a process in china that needs to be addressed and corrected in order to make this a more transparent about a process. host: we will have calls for both of you. the first is danny from maryland. you are on. go ahead. caller: a couple of points. chinabiles -- why doesn't make an automobile and sell it to america? war with highwa taiwan, who wins? why is the president china

afraid of winnie the pooh? host: let's start with economics. is there a factor with the automobiles he brought up? guest: china has just gotten to the automobile sector with the last 10 years or so in terms of china to produce it in some way. --y do have high terrace tariffs. whether it's japanese manufacturers or european, they often enter into joint ventures to flourish. you see a good process developing and china. take general motors, suffering a great deal during the financial crisis. general motors production of cars in china generated the bulk of general motors lost profits. profits.l motors's automobiles have been the fifth largest category of exports to china. it's from nothing practically. automobilesse

produced in america exported to china? they are mercedes, jaguars, suv's, but they are produced here because luxury manufactured in the u.s. a very large share goes to china. china is not yet competitive enough to produce on its own and automobile that i would call attractive in the u.s. and europe. they would like to. i see this as a source of tension in a few years just like south korea was an issue with hyundai. you would say i don't think they're going to make it and how can they compete? now they are quite competitive. it's an opportunity but also competition is going to increase tensions. host: he also brought up taiwan and the call. could you set up the stage of concerns and how the united states plays into that? guest: a great question about taiwan. who wins in the war over taiwan? nobody wins. everyone is going to lose. the chinese see taiwan as core

of the legitimacy of the communist party. if a war starts over taiwan, it's essential for the chinese to devote a lot of energy and resources and it will get bad very fast. for the united states, the u.s. will have to decide what are we going to do? are we going to defend taiwan? are we going to live up to pledges under the taiwan relations act? the problem to the united states is that its involvement in taiwan will be seen as a litmus test for its broader credibility and its allies and partners throughout asia. everybody's going to lose in the war for taiwan. why is xi jingping scared of winnie the pooh? when you do been cute and cuddly to me. [laughter] host: mark, go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. i would like to ask your just a question of what would be the positive or negative of american tariffs.

china charges us 20% on sugar imports and we only charge of them 5%. what are the positives and negatives of our country putting americares on all the countries we do business with? host: this is a long-term strategy for both countries. guest: i see it as a short-term strategy. what the united states is trying to do is create a greater degree of reciprocity. a more level playing field. traditionally the united states with this, the u.s. doesn't really have a lot of doing so because the united states has benefited from being such an open market.

playing field has become so tilted in china's that is why think the administration is taking these actions, which arguably be consistent with american commitments under the world trade organization, but necessary in s order to solve this problem. guest: living with terrorists is ad for everybody, it hits consumers at both ends. tariffs on raises steel and aluminum, u.s. companies have to pay more and numbers of people in the industries vastly exceed people producing raw steel. consequence is american onsumers pay more for their products. china levee higher tariffos pork alcohol on imports from the united states, increases price of commodities chinese, tariffs are not good for anything.

distorted or high in some global standard? the answer is no. and europe have lowest weighted tariff structure in the 4%.d averaging 3 to china is somewhere around 6, 7, higher. for company per capita income is world, low by developing country standards. is makes china different not tariff structure, the fact very a big country, competitive. any deviation is seen as bad. structure, with south korea, much richer, china than south korea's. host: your response? guest: what i would say is the unique about china the yukon is highlighting, fact china is once a developing country, per capita income about 8500, but on the other hand, such a large economy, second

the world, pretty rapidly growing, it sort of has ttributes of developed and developing economy. around le to throw market weight in ways that distort the market economy f. it or malaysia ea wouldn't generate that kind of reaction. fact china has dual identities as an economy that is friction. host: from hammond, indiana, jim is next. hi. hi.er: good morning, gentlemen. first of all, you guys have hit going to ints i was talk about, but with president trump saying he's really the trade bout deficit, i think that is a of red meat for the base. think he is concerned about the technology that is being stolen. all, a lot of this started in '99, when the clinton

administration sold missile technology and satellite computers and super to china at that point. thank you. realize technological advantage is never that stays permanent with any firm with any country, it is time.ver go back historically, of course, america developed over the last years because it borrowed from the kingdom and forth.d technology is not static. talk about technological no one complains. it is a strength and to be ncouraged, but technological innovation, like trade, has social consequences and can lead to lost jobs, displace activities. we accept in terms of ask the n, if you united states encourage technological innovation, the answer is yes. trade has the same issue, promotes nefficiency,

transfers and involves people in ther countries, makes it politically more sensitive. the question about both, whether you are concerned about trade or can countries protect social consequences. hese are more serious in some ways with free trade. hina is so big, the footprint affects the world. guest: i think jim makes an mportant point about distinguishing between trade deficit versus forced technology transfer. the trade deficit is not a good measure of inequity, the trade reflection of savings and investment balance in the united states and jim, my is the administration and president trump is focused n the trade deficit, when that is the wrong measure, what they should focus on are things like access and issues of forced technology transfer, the fact that some of america's best companies that have spent billions of dollars doing

innovation are forced to share with china if they want o gain access to the chinese market. i hope the administration focuses on the real market issues and focuses less on the trade deficit, big for the trump administration. host: anything to the caller's the trump selling or giving access to that? guest: this is a big controversy, the cox did a big report on that. i do not remember all the of it, but look, the united states needs to be that is f any country trying to elicitly acquire technology and has been a in the u.s.-china relationship and it means united tates national security establishment needs to be igilant about preventing competitor from trying to gain access from dual use that would advantage them. you have a military like

in a, that is devoted a lot the last 20 years to modernizing the military and is a real with the united states, the united states needs careful to make sure american companies are not unwittingly assisting chinese military modernization. that?any thoughts to guest: i agree. technology jeopardizes security regulated.eeds to be the problem defining whether it really has military significance which is freely available everywhere. guest, little about our mr. yukon huang, senior fellow asia program. what kind of work do you do? guest: i write about the chinese economy, talk about trade and growth as well as tension factors.by economic host: and the eurasia group, managing group. the eurasia group? guest: eurasia group is risk

advise ncy, we businesses all over the world, american, european, asian how politics and geo-politics will affect strategy. if you want to invest in china malaysia, you need to understand the politics of what is going on if you want to make investments. host: is your firm suffering imposed byom tariffs the united states for china? the effect of the tariffs having sup a big effect markets thatnancial basically touches anybody who is major investment in the united yes.s, simple answer is host: democrat's line, kathy, go ahead. caller: hi. call. you for taking my on a lighter note, i'm a i ll-scale entrepreneur and visit post office two or three times a week to not only pick up packages from china, but to

the those products all over united states. there is a lot of us out here on e-bayll scale that sell on etsy, and flea markets and we make pretty good money. make as much as retail companies do that purchase the same products in bulk and sell for 10 time what is they pay for them. so anyway, that is just a side.r i appreciate it. i have even chatted back and people i some purchase from, some have really sad stories about being tied to and selling rs their product, but i can buy $.99, free or shipping, and retail store sells $9.99.ame product for just letting you know, there is making a it of us little bit of money. thank you. host: thank you. big macro think of issues, smaller scale, too.

input from that? guest: i just want to note that of fastest growing aspect the chinese economy is skipping big retail distribution channels. alibaba came to the united states, talking about trying to establish small business in the equally ates, because small businesses producing things in china. nothing ways payment of hipping to get out of the purely big channel. yukon makes importance point. going to change the world of retail. and we be mindful that big less may be far significant business and place where we buy our stuff as is a erce growth there national security dimension to -commerce, because e-commerce

only works if you can get e-payments to work, electronic payments. the question becomes who is going to provide e-payment services. chinese economy and government has protected the been of e-payments, difficult for major american companies like mastercard and e-payment into the business, that allowed companies with oly pay. oly pay tried to break into the because of s and national security screening process the treasury runs they that.ot able to do e-payments and chinese access to in the united states is becoming a national security issue and interesting the world of e-commerce and e-payments evolve and en the united states chien a. host: rich in centerville, virginia. go ahead. thanks for taking my call. the reading an article

other day about china doing huge modification program in tibet and they're going to withase, trying to do this silver oxide, teps of thousands of chambers for increasing rain production, i think the area is like seven times the size of 10 billion meters of water, whatever the devil the measurement is on that. wonder, here they are, moving past us and we don't focus on that, we pick up on the tariffs. was going on in the united states, we would have the u.n. and everybody else all over for unintended consequences. do you guys know anything about comment?can you make a host: thanks, caller. guest: i don't know. no.st: doesn't surprise me, is my

comment. country, very dry area and question always been, do i promote more irrigation. you are right when you say when cuhavey to modify nature, unintended consequences. tibet ers that flow from to southeast asia, and china and you change ic, if the flows, you could have global consequences. i agree with the speaker, if you get in some areas, should be carefully. advancement of technology, is private industry or supported by the chinese government? state ink a lot is driven. wind turbine f

ransition is because of the terrain. needs to be transmitted to coastal area. what china has been doing, improving transmission line, the best in the world in terms of technology. involving certain areas can lead technological change, people had not expected. >> from new jersey, next from our guest, hello, pat, good morning. caller: hi. either of know from your guests, number one, in the blocks,, we had trading alliances, political communist trade with companies, we didn't turn over our knowledge. knowledge is power in this day and age. aren't we surrendering our uture, economic and possibly political. american company ompete with a state-owned

hemisphere. guest: i would say the cold war today.ferent than largely because of interdependence between china yukon talked nd about flows, the fact america mports something like 500 billion worth of goods from china every year, american businesses, erican benefit from this. companies are deeply invested in china. he world in which you have trading blocks ideological china,n united states and very different world than we have today. to keep in portant interpendent are and do benefit from the chinese investmentd trade and relationship between us. host: mr. huang.

would comment on the major products being transported united states, apple, consumer goods from china, the control of trade into the united states is controlled by american companies. purely china driven issue, actually american companies ydo this?o because extremely profitable, source of low cost consumer goods is great. the other fact is developing ountries, including china are growing from 4 to 6% a year, to 3and europe growing 2.5 f. american companies restrict prospects, they are condemning themselves to profit of prospects which is sustained as opposed to looking at the whole world. emerging market economies are

faster. host: 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. our uests here to talk about the future of u.s.-china relations, recent ntoing that onsolation of power what from that act if any? guest: what it suggests is that where the world chinese communist party will of all aspectsle of life in china. what that means, we are likely progress on ss human rights types of issues, ccess to information, freedom of speech, which as americans is important to us, but also what t means, the party may be playing greater role in economic affairs at the same time. lot more news a reporting recently about how the is ese communist party starting to get involved in multis of joint ventures,

nationals and so the question he consolidates power and control of policy form population and implementation, is that going to policies that lead greater a direction of liberalization, huge question would it solve u.s.-china relationship of creating more even playing field and would it to the united states and china finding a way to work asia and globally or will the party increasingly as greater role in chinese policy making, will it bring the into a na relationship more competitive frame, will the see american to allies like japan and korea as greater threat? big open at is a question mark. when you have institution like

he party playing greater role, it raises questions about what lens through ical which they evaluate their approach to policy making? robert daily describe the will omestically china become repressive, think tank experts will not make public odds with or moderately critical of the of rine because bandwagoning, diminished check embolden, mr. wong, do you buy any of that or of that?ny guest: the political development china increased risk, local that more likely repression of human rights will increase. certainly in the economic community, elements of it are probably unhappy about this. right now the -- more public, free press, you don't have to in

china. miguess, if you polled all the hinese, you probably find that majority still say i support this. despite the risk, why would they? along with this potential control, potential clamping down, there is the question kwe ctually move forward more rapidly now, can we do it more bringing all factors under the control of the party? that is what the argument is. not saying whether it will materialize. commission of super vision, addressing corruption and people concerned about doing so will infringe upon individual law.rties and the rule of onaspect,ced, in fact, people are corrupt, penalize actually, others don't perform up to expectations. he question is, i have certain

guidelines and rules, i expect you to follow it because of the years, local five officials ignored them. this has good and bad about it. there is a question, is china going to become more efficient and competitive? not help in terms of tension to the west. it will increase it. there is u.s.,e, maybe good for us in the long performance. of it t: yukon articulated well. structural changes to the economy, to the political system ensure that we there is power sharing, the degree is a process for transition away from xi jinping,

have concentration of power, huge risk of that flow, inefficient decisions, actually accentuation levels of corruption. so there is i think xi jinping huge, taking big gamble. hat may, you know, may or may not turn out right. it very much is a dilemma. i worry rned because about the fact that the lack of for power sharing, the high concentration of power, the act that nobody knows who is going to succeed xi jinping may lead to highly inefficient is one -making there leader that surrounds himself that know he's not going any place, tendency will e to tell him what he wants to hear, not give him bad news and as a result, not make good decisions. when you look at political culture of china, that is where

to go.tended host: what about transition eventually and it is such a being set up now, makes it difficult for transition later. wrote an article with the title "is china normal," it normal.e political evolution, normal ountries behave in a certain way. we know that china is not moving in the normal way. i pointed out, never so this issue are doing, look at s very logical bad and reasonable to say this is a will increase risk, likely to fail. trikes me as not unrealistic

asump sumption. exercise the wrong way is extremely effective. around t when we look the united states, able to come together and figure out where how to needs to go and get everyone on the same wave length, that is a strength and weakness of democracy. you have deliberation, but you also have a question trying to ring energy together in a constructive fashion. host: aaron, you are next, go ahead. caller: thanks, c-span. thanks to your two excellent guests today. to quicklye for them china's their ideaos lan taphase out internal combustion engines, and space theyology, economic and -- are leaping way ahead of us on this. know also view on cryptocurrency. thank you.

issues, ke those gentlemen, who wants to start? internal on, please, combustion engine. guest: i mean, china, i use this illustration more general point. green technology. warming.ntal global why is it so strongly supported by the chinese leadership, but in the united states, there is a heated debate and many eople feel that's a bad thing, bad thing because it imposes ost on business and therefore may hamper america's ability to grow. likey is it that a country chi embraced green technology, in this case, going to wered and different source of energy, not just cars, but everything else. as potential growth vehicle that you guys produce new things, better things. you can invest, it generates

opposite.ee the in this particular case, internal combustion energy, have hundreds of millions of more drivers, we don't have the land, the oil, of it, nning out importing a lot, can't depend on he world for petroleum resources, we need to move to higher technological level, create that and encourage it. they put a tariff on cars coming in, they want people to experiment in this area. tesla, hard time coming into bad , which is i think a thing, but tremendous amount of money being invested in more energy vehicles. host: from the side of space echnology, anything to add to that? guest: yeah, it's a great question, aaron, about space technology. interesting, the fact china is developing country with income of $8500 per year the government is devoting becoming a space power. reflection of on one hand, they

believe that if you want to be a power globally, that great powers are space powers. that is ally speaking true. i think the other interesting thing is chinese government appears to believe that investing in space will have effects, spill-over effects to commercial technology historically that has been true in the west and i think the chinese are well.alizing that, as the question is how much money nd resources do i pour into find areas to invest in. xi jinping is of committed to becoming space power. whether or not they will try to or a mission to mars anything that ambitious, i don't know, this is clearly a priority for them. host: joe from west virginia. democrat's line. hello. caller: man, the last guy asked

enough questions to of coer the program, you need to give me a little break, pedro. gentlemen are like lobbyists for china and when you do a program, shu have a sort of like an opposing view. imports eason america 500 billion dollars worth of year ts from china each and because the core trip last 25 years the have put laws in place that ncourage that, just like walmart corporation having its eadquarters located in the chinese government's property. doing that, in passing destroyed the ey american economy and that is why people voted for a person like trump, even though he is he what we think he is,

ushes the middle class voters buttons so that we voted for him hate.e this is what we everyone is forgetting, just like your gentlemen referenced last question, this is communist china. there is no freedom over there. don't have to worry about unions. somebody wants to join the trade in china, guy walks out and shoots him in the back of then ad with a pistol and the problem goes away. this in condoning america and making a dictator supposed president. ost: caller, we'll leave it there. guest: i mean, i welcome yukon's -- it is not

actually trade with china, it is sia, it is made in singapore, japan, taiwan, american allies, democracy. like when you buy something from amazon, it is not made by it is just shipped through amazon. a lot of parts coming into u.s. china are made elsewhere. i don't think that is an issue. trade, the economy ways, lly high in some united states or china. they are the same, 35 to 40% of economy and chinese economy is accounted for by than and import, lower germany, with 70 to 80. concept that trade is dominating dominating china in terms of export and import,

is not right.ity major reason it is not right, and u.s. share one common characteristic, huge economies, they are more or less self-sufficient in many ways. the question is, does trade help ways that lize in both sides benefit? evan mentioned earlier, i think in terms of ssue china not being open enough to america's which is strength. we sit here in the united states and ask what is america's what is really important? 8% of america's population manufacturing. more than 85% are in services the interesting thing about the 85% of services, more than rapidly isnd growing what americans are are opportunities for higher-paying jobs that

lighten services. the nteresting aspect of trade in china does not lie in manufacturing products, it lie ecessary america's ability to get more open market necessary china, so u.s. can export more value services, whether ducation, finance, media, architecture, accountancy, generates more jobs for the u.s. ironically, creates more job china.ry by focuses on tariffs, you are whole boat. host: -- hi. you're on, go ahead. hey, yeah, i just wanted to say amen to the previous caller. the whole premise of this conversation is disingenuous when the elephant in the room, all of our trade, ot only from china, but everywhere else, is driven primarily to the benefit of

not the united states of america and its citizens. to suggest that it is benefits america, that is not true. benefits american companies and the point of service industry in this country, telecoms or financial institutions or technology, when you all for assistance or information about these products that are supposedly generating so many jobs in the united get someone in india or some other place far, far, away from here. thing is k the whole another previous caller mentioned the fact that lobby lobbied our government to serve interest against our own people, how can we be self-sufficient nation and be secure if we have no manufacturing base. thank ed okay, caller, you. caller: i think, i appreciate the frustration articulated by

callers. two it is important to keep in mind hat american consumers benefit enormously from trade globally and trade with china. we go to walmart, target, able to buy manufactured price, pretty cheap we're benefiting from global trade. it is better and cheaper for countrys with lower labor cost to produce items than it is united states, so consumers benefit, look at farmers have been very local in the past few days, fruits and produce nuts and pork and beef and then grains, so bean, sorghum, etcetera, farmers benefit enormously. diverse aspects of u.s. society, but the trade

globally and trade with china has benefits. host: from -- go ahead. me just point out manufacturing in the united over the last five years, u.s. employment and anufacturing has been increasing steadily in absolute numbers. numbers of people in china have been declining, it is easy to explain hat is happen nothing china, china discovering services is the future, better-paying jobs, workers, t of automation, you don't need so factories. in the decreasing, not increasing, not ssue of losing jobs here to china, that is giving up jobs. manufacturing jobs here in u.s. actually increasing for the first time in five years. why is that? very heavy lity of items, logistics have been so high more manufacturing which to be done overseas is occurring in the u.s.

u.s. lly, when you think is losing manufacturing jobs isn't doing so. he question then is the increase in low-cost consumer how canow does it help, it help america grow faster or consuming cost of items we spend, generate savings for america to invest and become productive. america and economy over the last 10 years has become more than peopleoductive expected and shows up in it, in on, in the services america is a global leader. unemployment roblem necessary terms of the problem do have is not so easy, europe deals this. scandinavian countries deal with this. it is costly.

concern. this of course in the united states is a big issue. here in the united states, size of the government for social services. host: from bill in illinois, independent line. caller: oh, good morning, a statement i will make than a question. technology has been transferred usurped and stolen by this american company can chinesechase 49% of the entity. 100 years ycle was and went to china to manufacture was les, their technology taken and they were gone in a year. multiply in s only high-tech entities.

protect u can ntellectual property if you allow a company to go to china minority stake holder after a fact it can't be done. in these sted gentleman's comments. thank you. gentlemen? we think of transfer as static, it doesn't. things come up, you come back. apple, how does entail deal with this? come out with new products and discover that is the only way to compete. technology is easily shared. when you look at ibm computers, copy dak, xerox machines, ideas evolve, you can't stop this.

the issue then is transfer overseas. hould china have a rule that says you must transfer and the answer is, it is a common developing ng countries who encourage more people to come in that you have this transfer. the problem is so big, this creates unfair bargaining power. government, government support and dealing with a company. now how does europe deal with this? has actually been much more successful in this because contracts and relationship necessary broader spectrum items and doesn't as much certain items as american companies have. ways to deal with this. has legitimate concern. america should be discussing china, liberalize rule for joint venture and have sole the rights of the technology and does occur in certain areas. is next, ecticut democrat's line. peter, hello.

caller: good morning. for c-span. i just want to know about the umbrella that the united states defensively for outh korea and japan and the basin. if we had honey invested in the united states, i know it is not a perfect world and we can't do that, that would great deal of improvement for the american economy. thank you very much. guest: it's a great question, peter. things to think about, number one, the burden for u.s. orces operating in japan and korea is shared. in both cases, japan and korea, governments pay majority of the share of supporting u.s. countries.those the financial burden for the dominant.tes is not second consideration to keep in mind, if the u.s. pulled out of would fundamentally change and potentially despiebl

that the in the u.s. interest? pulled out of japan and korea, risk both would develop nuclear protect themselves against north korea and security threats from china, highly the bilize that part of world, the asia pacific region now fastest growing part of the world and big growth investment for the u.s., is that in the u.s. interest? president xi from last year talking about denuclearization in the asia pacific overall, here is a bit of what he had to say. on the peninsula nuclear the firm reiterated commitment to achieving denuclearization of the peninsula and upholding nonproliferation regime. and strictly implement u.n. security council

esolution, at the same time, the gsi commit to working toward solution through dialogue and negotiation. and we are ready to discuss with pathway parties the leading to endeering peace and asia.lity in northeast sides maintain communication and the issue. on that china and the united states, countries with in the asianfluence pacific. the pacific ocean is big enough accommodate both china and the united states. step up ides need to communication and cooperation on foster ific affair, common friend, build constructive interaction and maintain and promote and and stability prosperity in the region. host: if that is the case or

does that how practically play out? guest: how does what practically play out? what the president said about building up cooperation between the two countryos shared interest? guest: chinese talk a good game about cooperation with the u.s. stop korea nuke lor plan. basically begin nothing 2016, accelerated its testing of nuclear weapons and missiles, you saw chinese increasingly put skin in the game. starting to s, reduce trade investment in north korea, in order to presh kim leader of north korea, to stop provocative activities. gotten to the point at which it is having real influence on north korea and is one reason kim jong-un, begin thanksgiving year appears o have shifted strategys and reached out to the united states and reached out to china with

first trip abroad. he question becomes, what is ne next? kim jong-un will have a summit summit withtrump, a president moon. the question, will that lead to process?ation in the 2000s, there was something called the six-party in which six parties got and that fell lk apart. get them to y follow through and achieve the denuclearization now when past failed? skeptical of north korean intention and skeptical china will hold north the fire. to ultimately, china doesn't like

north korea having nuclear destiebl azation of the orean peninsula that may be required to force north korea to give up nuclear weapon system sort of too much for the chinese to bear. we talked about today china has home, i oing on at think as long as they can manage he north korean issue and prevent it from moving to war or major humanitarian crisis, they sure e prepared to make th it comes about, it continues and doesn't lead to a disjuncture. host: mr. huang? all, i fully it agree. host: julia. caller: yes. a question about our debt to china. debt with get in china and is there a contact interest rate?he

guest: well, when the u.s. borrows, it builds bonds and china buys these, so does american so public. hina is the largest purchaser of u.s. government securities. luctuates with japan being the largest. even china and japan together, they don't buy majority of the majority of the debt bought by americans, american corporations. america is that more indebted to foreigners and i think is a risk, overdone, partly because they on't account for majority of the debt. even if they did, could they be disruptive in term its of and causing interest rates to rise sharply and having problem with dollar to become weaker? the answer, no, because by doing they reduce the value of their own holdings and won't

it, the debt issue is something to worry about, it is overstated. host: is that a security issue some level? guest: i don't believe so, only security issue if china could leverage. could they use it as a threat to force us to do something we do?t want to as yukon said tis not really a source of leverage. middletown, ohio, gary is next. gary, thanks for calling. go ahead. caller: yeah, i wanted to touch on the trade deficit that we china.th look, they can paint this many when you ways, but have that much to another country, they do have leverage nd they can use it and they will use it. and it is being used right now. as far as donald trump, he shouldn't be making any kind of he gets his il ffairs in order before he puts us into another trade deficit

with any other country. we do carry a trade deficit with china and therefore, we do owe china. when bill clinton was in office, we owed no other country why we , no reason should owe any other countries, day. is my comment for the host: says when it comes to that that leverage a against us? guest: i simply disagree. i appreciate the sentiment question. we always need to be mindful of hina or any country having undue influence over the united states so we can freedom of action for ourselves. deficit is reflection of the savings and interest balance in the u.s. economy, not source of leverage. if you want to look as source of leverage, keep in mind that sells $500 billion of u.s. goods, chinese goods to the states. china benefits from access to the market. to, i united states wants wouldn't recommend it, play

access to market, that could be a source of leverage for the united states. hat is what the trump administration is trying to do now, it will result in etaliation, could let to it-for-tat, that will hurt consumers and businesses. guest: the question of leverage and trade deficit is interesting one. so gary raised point i think is out there. ht china has large trade deficit excuse me, u.s. has trade deficit with 98 countries, not just china. 98. greater debt burden in some bad is this? second thing i would point out, how does it have trade deficit straight year? after all, if you or i household stantly spent more than

owned, that wouldn't happen. trade america have deficit before china became economic or trading power and dollar. the role of the because the dollar is a global currency, america can run trade deficit and pay with dollars and s long as they are willing to accept it, u.s. can -- deficit not an issue. america has xosh tant privilege. perpetually consume more than it earns forever. now get to the question of leverage. what is ultimate leverage? the ultimate leverage is dollar being the global currency allows the united states to control international payment and financial system. trades and uses dollars has to go through the federal reserve to clear that is why america has ultimate weapon in terms of sanctions and potential threats, cutting a country off system.o the banking that is not trade, trade is not

the issue. it's the dollar. think the u.s. has been keen on protecting the role of the ultimate bally tis leverage, it is not about trade deficit. this is paul in fort edward, new york, independent line. caller: hi. i was going to talk about how the trade deficits, the trade agreements wiped out -- i live in upstate new york and manufacturing is gone, come back, still in china. talking about d what is going is to save us, would either guest dollar? the petro in the future, wouldn't it be better if we had more of a rather than trade, two people that are promoting trade? like hais seem c-span's style. lot.s a guest: well, i think china

petro-dollar market, because it is trying to get currency more global currency, just like the dollar is. recognize the dollar conveys to america. reduce dependencdependency. ollar will be global currency for the future primarily because of strength and extensive market in the united states, i don't an issue. is question about trade. trade is not a new issue. free trade is good or bad has of debated for hundreds years, do not debate whether should be farmer, lawyer, and he should be mechanic and automobile company and all three roducing different things, we trade with each other because we are better as being farmer than i am. that is trade. the logic of trade is why countries grow. countries trading forever. issue is whether or not there are cost and disruption to

the process at times and the is yes. can countries do better and people? yes, have not been successful. you distort trading system so one person getting more and potentially yes, the real issue today is sense china is getting more than to, not contributing contribut enough. fair amount of validity to that argument. the question is, how do you address this? it is evident, we have been is not about, tariffs the way. penalize consumers of each country. method? right we haven't gotten into it. two potential vehicles for addressing this. is transpacificic partnership. tpp, president trump basically that when it was already negotiated. why is that the correct vehicle? actually our protection, environmental oncern, the role of state enterprise, unreasonable

transfer, chnology you try to buy into it and they buy into it, start some of these concerns. the other vehicle for address bilateral g is agreement between the united states and china. been a discussion for a long time. it addresses many similar issues. key component of the bilateral investment treaty was this issue about china saying i have a list of industries i will restrict or control. set regulations and distorting and unfair. america, i wantr the list to be very small. i want to come in and do they want to do and i continuing is desirable. here are two means of addressing exactly what people are concerned about and the callers have mentioned these. those, we're n focusing on tariffs, which hurt

pursuing rather than our agreements, bring china to and -- e guest: i agree. york, horse head, new caroline. hi. caller: hi, how you doing. i love your , speakers, such an interesting -- just so interesting listening to speak. i just had a couple concerns and questions. changed ability to deal with russia in equal footing and i we've gotten ourselves into a mess with china for the

same reason. lady, evious caller, the the other lady, brought up the of the chinese citizens and the fact that -- know, jesus, the way they're treated and how much paid.re so i don't know, it just didn't answered.uestion was you answered it and in an with economics, but her question had to do with national security for a $3 bag of salt or walmart or $3 salt shaker at walmart. those are my two questions. tha ded host: thank you. guest: caroline, thank you for the question. it, the think about u.s.-china relationship is dependence,nce, not in other words, we both benefit from the relationship.

i agree with you, we need to be the relationship is one of interdependence because of china's size and growing it doesn't force american companies to engage in practices that result in them to transfer benefit y in ways that chinese companies and disadvantaged american ompanies, that is sort of the debate in washington right now because some of these practices chinese have the used market power in unfair way. in answering the previous question, talked about growing umbers of nontariff barriers, basically the government olicies by china that disadvantage the u.s. ability to continue to benefit from trade china and i t with think the u.s. needs to do a better job of addressing those. bilateral investment treaty, partnership, tools to get at the problem. all that is different than the

ational security question, no instance in which the united states should think of compromising its national because of erests its trade with china. now the technology question and technology transfer, it begins to blent the two issues together and the united states takes the issues very, very seriously. i want to squeeze another call from kansas, dameien, independent line, go ahead. aller: good morning, thank you for having me. -- a fewnt to say that admiration china, for nation in existence as long has. when printing press was invented, you could go to china, book and the book store would pay money. number two, democracy didn't wall. the right? we want ree, why would a war with china because they wrote the book?

thank you very much. that in mind and finishing thoughts, we started with this topic of future of with everything we talked about, what do you look at specifically to gauge where relations wide, could be economic, military, a lot of hings, where do you start as far as looking ahead and gaging, using that to gauge where we are with china? looking forward, we need to think about where the u.s. and china are in asia, and where the u.s. and china are globally, that would give us a sense what of the ectory relationship will look like. are we able to manage difference ecessary asia pacific, manage hrough the fact the chinese military is growing and are the u.s. and china going to be able adjust to one another in a way that creates at quo, um stable status stable balance of power or one is growing,petition to erences increase, begins

assume military dimension and you have some kind of that culation or accident takes the relationship from one f competition to one of outright rivalry. globally we have to pay ttention to the fact that as china rises and becomes more influential in parts of the as china rises and it becomes more influential in parts of the the middle east, latin america for example, are the chinese going to be thinking about global governance, in a way that opens areas of cooperation with the united states. ability ford to the the u.s. and china to manage our differences. there are some real challenges on the security side.