>> rose: welcome to >> rose: welcome to the program, tonight a conversation with vice president joe biden. >> and if we don't cooperate, if we den grade them, if we talk about them being not useful or competent, if we go out there and there's 1.5 billion muslims in the world, if we make the religeon the enemy, where the hell do you think we're going to get the cooperation. >> rose: joe biden for the hour next. funding for charlie rose is provided by its following: >> and by bloomberg, a provider of multimedia news and information services worldwide.

captioning sponsored by rose communications from our studios in new york city, this is charlie rose. joe biden is the 47th vice president of the united states. he has dedicated his life to public service. he was a united states senator representing delaware for 36 years. he has a deep knowledge of foreign policy and served as the chairman of the senate committee on foreign relations twice. last fall he decided not to run for president in 2016. that decision followed intense delib rations with his advisors and family. he has withstood tragedies in his life. he lost his wife and daughter in a car accident in 1972. his son beau biden died last year from brain cancer. in january president obama tasked joe biden with the leadership of the new national cancer moon shot initiative. he's also spoken out about sexual assault on college

campuses and earlier today he spoke at the center for new american securities annual conference. in his speech, he criticized the presumptive candidate for president donald trump and his approach to foreign policy. >> i would like i like a proposal to ban muslims from entering the united states, profiling muslim americans, slandering entire religious communities as implicit in terrorism, calls into question american's status as the greatest democracy in the his-- history of the world. >> rose: i sat down with the vice president in washington for a conversation following his speech earlier today. we have seen in orlando another terrible terrorist attack. in fact, the largest mass killing in america's history. it brings to the fore once again gun control. are you any more optimistic with voting today and tomorrow, this week that at long last some

changes may take place? >> slightly, charlie. but as you know, the last time we have done anything with assault weapons was the biden legislation. and the only reason i look back on it, i was able to get that passed, it was contained in a much larger bill. and everyone was worried about crime. 37% of the people in the pe-w poll, in '94 when i wrote that bill when asked an open-ended question what do you want your government to most work on, it was violence. today it's three percent. so it's not-- it doesn't have the same ship to sail with. but i do think that at a minimum on matters relating to people on the terrorist watch list being able to purchase a weapon, as well as possibly tighter background checks could pass this time. >> and could it pass a house of representatives? >> i don't know. but all i know is that you got

to continue to try. it will eventually pass. where the problem is, that people give up on this and because the public agrees with us. overwhelmingly agrees with us. but because it is not the most-- for someone who opposes background checks or any rational gun policy, for them it's its single most important vote. so you as my congressman could agree with me on everything. but if you don't agree with me on no background checks, i will vote against you. con versely the way it works with paryn politics. >> rose: the president said newtown was the worst day of his presidency. >> i agree. i went up there. as you probably know, charlie, because you were involved, i had become friends with a number of those families. unfortunately, you learn when something bad happens to you, you learn that it can be comfort

to other people who have had it. so because i have lost children, there was an affinity and i was able to-- aniff's gotten to know these families. and that was, i think the most tragic thing that has ever happened. and the way in which these children were killed and, i mean i met with the state time needed emotional counseling because of what they saw, the grew someness of the killing. look, charlie, the-- i remember as a senator, chairman of the judiciary committee holding hearings on this issue back in the '90s. and i remember i had the chief trauma surgeons for three of the largest trauma hospitals in america. new york, i bleefer it was philadelphia and chicago if i'm not mistaken. and they came and testified. and the statistics at the time were that not many more people

were being shot. but many more people were dying. so the woman who had a doctor, head of the trauma department at one of the major hospitals in new york said i used to be able to-- she held up a 22 caliber round. i could pull this slug out of someone's lung and save their life. i could do it out of their-- and she went through it. then she hell up a nine mill meter bullet and the slug was like that. she said this blows the lung out of the body. and what happens is its velocity and the amount of force that is injected. so what happens is now, if someone didn't have a-- the equivalent of an ar-15, it wasn't, it was a different weapon but similar, a lot more people would be alive. many of these people would have been shot. so the reason why the assault weapons and high caliber weapons

are so bad, i mean locale i ber weapons are so bad is because they deliver fatal blows when they strike someone. and if we could just get that across. >> rose: why can't you? i mean it's been-- some of the wisest and smartest people in the country, people with long experience like you, have not been able to get it across. >> well, the reason is, as i said, the opposition is-- i will not mention his name, but when i put together a proposal for the president after newtown, 40 proposals about executive and legislative action to be taken. and we came very close to getting an extended background checks, et cetera. i had one senator call me. he said even though my state, 70% of the people agreed with me, there are 200 protestors outside my office. and so it's the intensity with

which the people who oppose and the funding that comes from the nra and other gun groups that is so-- so well organized. >> rose: are you convinced, some will argue, that if someone is intent on doing great violence, they will find a gun. >> let's assume that's true, okay. whether they find a gun or they find the equivalent of an ar-15 depends on how much damage they can do. it is a quantum difference. you give me a nine mill meter globing and you have a .38 revolver, i will kill more people, you shoot as many but i will kill more. so it matters the weapon and its caliber and its lethality matters. it is like you hear, if they don't have a gun they will get a baseball bat or a knife or whatever. well, they are not going to kill as many people, they are not going to get to as many people.

and if you have multiple rounds or magazines that hold 19 shots and you essentially go boom, boom, boom, they are not automatic but boom, boom, boom, boom, boom. as opposed to like everybody thinks of the western, the old six-shooter. you have to take it out. you have to work it. it matters. it matters the amount of carnage that can occur as a consequence of what type of weapon. >> rose: so you are hopeful that they do something about ar-15st assault weapons. >> when we eliminated assault weapons in the biden bill what happened was it did go down, the number of people who were being killed by these weapons. it's not the total answer by any stretch of the imagination. we picked up thousands of people who are convicted felons who were spousal abusers, who in fact weren't able to go into a store and purchase a weapon. >> rose: are you convinced the fbi is doing everything it can. >> i am. >> rose: that it has all the tools it needs to do the job. >> well, it always needs more

resources in terms of personnel. i mean we could use a larger fbi. >> rose: that is an budgeting issue. >> a budgeting issue, in relative terms. all they they're funded. so but i think it's approaching it in a way where they are honoring the civil liberties of the american people, not violating the constitution, and doing a good job. but i think, for example, if anyone has ever been on a no-fly list, if they just were notified when they buy a gun. >> rose: this say political year and these are political issues. this is what you said in a speech you made several hours earlier, if we turned in would undermine our most important relationships, in a world defined by complexity, if we forget who we are, betray our values and embrace intolerance, we will scwawnder all of our hard-earned progress. most people who heard that thot you were talking about donald

trump. >> well, donald trump falls into that category. but a lot of other people do as well. it has become, thank god not a majority of the american people, it's a very small minority but it is a voice that is being heard around the world, that sentiments is being heard around the world. so when you see people, you know, look, there is a simple reason. if we pull back, do not-- if we scwander the alliance, for example, it matters, charlie, whether or not extremists traveling from france or belgium or germany going into fight with isis and being trained and coming back. it matters whether they get on a plane in brussels and fly to the united states. it matters whether or not because internally they have that access to fly because of the european union. only recently have we gotten to the point where now the

europeans are sharing a passenger list. so if there is a plane bombed by the united states, we want to know who is on the prean because we have extensive intelligence data to warn us that so and so is getting on a plane, is on our list. and if we don't cooperate f we den grade them, if we talk about them being not particularly useful or competent tent, if we go out there and there is 1 moi 5 billion muslims in the world-- 1.5 billion muslims in the world fsm we make the religion the enemy, where the hell do you think we're going to get the cooperation. >> rose: but is that what donald trump is doing in your judgement? >> yes. >> rose: so if you were running against him, you like political battle. you like the battle of ideas. what would be your case? what would be your campaign? >> well, look, obviously i'm not running. but i will be out campaigning heavily for hillary. and the case i will make on her

behalf and on behalf of why she should be president is that if you, in fact, conclude that we don't need alliances, let me back up. it is a different world, charlie. it's one thing if we have to continue to be worried about major regional actors. russia, china and others, iran. but what people are most worried about are the stateless actors. those elements from failed states that are generating extremist ideologies and organizations. that is not met with a standing army. that is met with an intensive interlocking of intelligence organizations, willingness to train those governments and those countries that, in fact, are trying to establish themselves the first time with

the capacity to deal internally with these extremist elements. that all requires cooperation. that requires you to have a relationship. what good does it do if fallujah is freed and ramadi is freed and cleared and the devastation left behind in those sunni towns, we don't help rebuild those towns. another extremist group will pop up. so what are we doing? we can't pay for all of it ourselves. so we're going to donorscome. we're convincing the japanese, the europeans and others, help rebuild these towns. help rebuild them. so you can provide some stability. help the forces in iraq and other places to be able to deal with this kind of extremism. as i said and everybody laughed but tom freedman who i think is pretty good, a good friend, he wrote a long time ago, he said if you don't visit bad

neighborhoods t will eventually visit you. >> rose: there is also this in terms of the fight, john brennan testified before congress. >> yes. >> rose: and it is not a rosie picture. you have made progress. you have reduced the amount of land. but he said they're strong and the games have a long, long way to go. >> well look, i know john well and we're good friends. john said two things. john talked about, and john answers the question directly when he gets asked the question. are we making progress against the quote caliphate, the occupied areas that isis occupies in iraq and in syria. he said yes, we are. but we've still got a big problem because they can metas size around the world. two issues, one, the real concern that was different, the difference between isis and al-qaeda, al-qaeda never was in a position where they occupied large swaths of territory,

literally threatening the stability of other countries as a country. so charlie, i watch you all the time. no, i'm not trying to be solicitous. but i remember almost two years ago you, i forget who you had on. you were talking about how did these guys capture mosul. how did these guys come across the border and capture mus ul, what is going on. everybody is worried that if they were able to consolidate land and power, all of a sudden why did the saudis start to pay attention. they realizedded kingdom was in trouble. they may take down the government, occupy that land and territory. the notion that you would have a quawsi-state being able to topple entire states was something everyone is concerned about. that is not within the power of daryb to do now nor isil to do now. but what is within its power to do, to have a cell with 17 people or four people, with three million dollars or five

million dollars, planning a program where they find two suicide bombers who are going to try to figure out how to smuggle into the united states or into europe to blow themselves up and cause chaos and havoc. that is something we are going to be dealing with for a long time. and the only answer to that, charlie, is intense incense-- intensified intelligence and continued vij lens on homeland security. >> rose: and cooperation with allies. >> and cooperation with allies. but it's not-- look there is a lot of my friends and they are my friends. i will say something outrage us. i get on well with everybody in congress. i mean you won't find many republicans will not say they can deal with me. but it is interesting that a lot of my friends up there are talking about now about how-- how you know we're less safe. or what we're going to do in

syria. but if you notice, no boots on the ground. no boots on the ground. so if you have no boots on the ground, if you are not going to put another 150,000 people, we can put another 160,000 people in syria. we could change the situation on the ground but we're there for a decade. d so it gets down to equipping and training alliances and significant increases in intelligence, and a laser focus on homeless security. >> rose: okay. we'll talk about those two separate issues. let me talk first about iraq. was it a mistake? not to lead troops there? and if you did, would you have not seen the rise of isis? >> okay. two things. that's a favorite example of my friend john, okay. number one, i was handling that policy at the time. we were working very closely, even with mall ak-- mall aki at the time who was asking for hellfire rockets to be able to

get to isis camps out in anbar and-- we were providing it. we argued strenuously to be able to keep five to seven thousand american forces, trainers, special operators who would have been able to work with and continue to train and bolster the well over 100,000 iraqi troops that we trained. and not a single, solitary person in the government, even those who said they wanted us to stay like the kurds was willing to go to the core, their congress, and get an amendment passed saying that those troops would be protected under status of forces. so they just couldn't be plucked up and tried in a court. and every single person said unless we have that protection, we can't put those troops there. you can't leave them there, it's irresponsible. the military said it, john said it, everybody said it. so it wasn't for lack of trying. we tried like hell.

but the overwhelming, and you know iraq well, the overwhelming view by the time that that vote came around, that time came around was that america was an occupying force. and because of the split in malaki's unwillingness to do the things promised relative to the sunnies, it was, we could not get any consensus. so that is number one. so we wanted to stay. number two, had we stayed, had we stayed, would it have fundamentally altered the outcome? it didn't alter the outcome much when we had 160,000 troops there. having 5,000 troop there might have, might have bolstered the iraqis to stand and fight in polices that they didn't. but it was the dislocation caused by sectarian divisions that allowed this all to come back. >> it reminded me for the sake of history, you used to argue for petition. >> i didn't argue for petition.

calvin and i argued for a federal system. and i still think it's the only way. and that is to have a capitol called baghdad, that will control over the borders and foreign policy, but each of the regions which is the sunni region, the kurdish sunni region, and the shia region which is in baghdad south, each of them should have the same kind of autonomy that california has. california has a state police patrol. it's not federal police that go into california. delaware has a state police. my argument was, the kurds are never going to allow a shia national police force to occupy kurdistan. the sunnies aren't going to allow-- it just goes down the line. >> rose: and the shia are not going to allow the sunnies. >> yeah, so to have a national armey kind of like our national guard made sense. but to allow more economy. >> rose: it still makes sense

in your judgement. >> it still makes sense. >> rose: the prime minister wants to march towards moss you will, you being shall shall mosul, you being the point person on iraq, can you retake mosul in the six pont this administration has. >> according to our military, it depends. it depends on a number of things that relate to the military. but it also depends upon, and i talked to abadi all the time, the prime minister. i'm his phone pal. and he is solid. he wants, and by the way, he believes in a more fed rated system. remember, he tried to set up national guards, a national guard in anbar, a national guard, et cetera. he understands that there needs to be-- . >> rose: he also understands that he needs a sunni tribesman. >> bingo. >> rose: in order to retake mosul. >> that's my point. so he is reaching out. the biggest problem he has been getting, he wants us to equip the sunni tribes to help. coming from the shia militia, they don't want any part. >> rose: so what would it take

in terms of your military judgement to retake mosul before this administration. >> it would traik two things. one, we have to get the world, our allies to go in and back fill when, in fact, the-- we-- fallujah is a victory, so that we don't leave chaos behind, and nongovernance and a great exodus. like we did in tikrit. folks came back. >> rose: how manytown of saddam hussein. >> that's right. but they were able to come back, by and large. so that's number one. that's why we need that. number two, we are in a position where there has to be, and i work on this all the time, a modus avendi between the kurds, mr. brasani, the president and baghdad. and that is being worked on. so that the look-- and so here's what has to happen. what has to happen is you can

have the pmf which is the shia militia. they can be part of it as long as they don't go into the city. >> rose: and they are doing most of the fighting, aren't they. >> they are doing a lot of the fighting. >> rose: in the taking of fallujah. >> they are. but the real force is the iraqi special forces. they're the ones that are taking the brunt of it and doing most of it. >> rose: supported by american special forces. >> supported by american special forces as advisors and now the anbar tribesmen are engaged as well and the isf, the iraqi security forces. >> rose: with that convergeence it's possible you could get mosul. >> yes t is absolutely possible. but you need to have, and we have our generals working very closely now, with an agreement on the modus avendi, how to proceed. it's still possible. and part of it is the first thing we've got to get across the river and get to town, a

town an area south of mosul and secure it to cut off the ability for reinforcements to flow back and forth. but it is within the power of the iraqis if they cooperate. >> rose: it would be great for iraq. >> it would be a significant victory. but the rest of the world has to be ready to backfill and come in. you can't-- you got to be able to turn the water on. you got to make the lights work. >> rose: is the rest of the world prepared to come in? >> well, they have-- . >> rose: that is the diplomacy i thought took place in germany when you had all those european heads of state. >> yes, and by the way a lot of them stepped up. so there are billions of dollars pledged. the people that have to step up more, that i have been spending a lot of time with. >> rose: yes. >> are the, ae, the saudis,-- u ae, the saudis, the emiratis, my argue to them is you go ahead and free these aobar towns, these sunni towns, if you don't go in and help rebuild the

bridges, connect one side of the street to the other, build the schools, it's not going to work. >> rose: speak to this. the deputy crown prince was here, and he is doing extraordinary things in saudi arabia. the conventional wisdom is that the saudis were very upset about the iranian deal. they view the iranians as their enemy. and it raised questions about how much they trusted us and so therefore they are reluctant warriors. >> well, let's be blunlt. they have never been what you would call nonreluctant warriors. number one. number two, i find it interesting that the whole world is ready to hold our coat, go get them america. number three. >> rose: hold your coat while you do it. >> wile you do whatever needs to be done, the fighting, the negotiating, whatever. i think what-- is referred to as

nbu-- mbs. >> the new young guy, i think mbs is having as christians might say a bit of an epiphany about why it is not in saudi arabia's interest to look at the region with iran as a zero sum gain. you begin to see them change some policy, be it changes in yemen. you see some recognition of there is space. they were surprised that the saudis signed the deal and actually moved forward in putting cement in iraq reactor, you know, doing things that they were never going to do. and it is a little bit of a generational shift too, going on in saudi arabia, that is a little bit of show-me. and they are being shown that,

well, you know, probably it does make some sense not to push the envelope too far. but united states, are you willing to continue to keep the second piece of this agreement which is if you sponsor terrorism we're going to go after you. >> rose: they're asking are you prepared to come down hard on iranian behavior. >> right. and the question is, we are. and-- . >> rose: what is the evidence of that. >> the evidence of that is all the work we're doing to intercept arms shipments, the evidence says we put up a naval block aid to when the iranians were going to send equipment into yemen and said come on, you know. we risk starting a war. keeping the u.n. commitment that nobody can send in arms. where we can find it, we respond. this is a process. this is a process.

the process is improving. but it's a little bit like you will hear from various quarters that, you know, for example, i was-- i meet frequently with the turkish leadership. i remember them asking me why aren't we going in and establishing a no fly zone and why don't we do this and do that. and i say well you are a nato force. you are right there on the border, you have all these fancy aircraft, why don't you use them. silence. i said you don't want to own it, you don't want to be the guy. >> rose: that's why we are reluctant to create no fly zones because we don't want to own it? >> two reasons. one, the expenditure of resources-- look, we have-- the president has said to, in the situation room to our generals, give me every single occupation including the use of force,

whatever you think would work, tell me, tell me. and they say no fly zone is a big mistake. you haven't seen anywhere where the military is saying what we should do is more troops, more this. what we are talking about is we're going in and piece by piece we're trying to decimate isil and in the process al nousra so that we eliminate the most immediate single threat to u.s. interests. and at the same time we're continuing to work with the international community to try to reach a negotiated settlement to get saddam out of power. has him leave. >> assad out of power. >> assad, i'm sorry, freudian slip. >> rose: which raises the-- which raises the question which san off the wall question there are those who argue look, we've got a problem overthrowing these dictators like mu barack and qaddafi and saddam and it's come back and we might ask the question, would w have been better off if they stayed?

sad asm? qaddafi? mu barack. >> i argue strongly against going-- . >> rose: to libya. >> to libya. my question was okay, tell me what happens. he's gone. what happens. doesn't the country disintegrate? what happens then? doesn't it become a place where it becomes a petri dish for the growth of extreme ism. tell me, tell me what we're going to do. >> rose: and it has. and isil is pouring in people to build a stronger force. >> yeah. and so look, i mean i think here's the thing i am-- charlie, i don't think we should use force unless it meets certain basic criteria. is it in the national security of the united states, our interest directly, number one, or our allies. number two, is it, can we use it efficaciously, will it work. and number three, can it be

sustained? now i can take you to any part of the world, and we put in 2, 300,000, or 150,000 troops. we can absolutely end the carnage but we're there. now are we going to say, you know, my dad used to have an expression. he would say if everything is equally important to you, nothing is important to you. tell me, what is the-- what is our-- what are our greatest concerns in terms of our existential existence? i would argue whether pakistan collapses as a new clear state. whether or not north korea decides to use new clear weapons. whether or not china decides to become rogue and they're not now. whether russia continues to challenge borders in europe. they are existential concerns. is it a concern that there is a bad guy in africa or in the middle east? yes. it is a concern. but what is with within our

wheelhouse to do and can we solve every problem around the world. and so i think we don't often ask enough. and we didn't ask enough in the beginning about okay, i know what the first step is, and the second step. what is the third and fourth step. >> is that the fear you have in syria today? >> yes, yes. >> rose: you don't know, if you take out assad, you do not know what will follow? >> that's part of it. by the way, to take out assad now, you're taking on russia and iran. russia has significant amount o3 firepower there. russia has imposed a radar system that covers a significant portion of the country. so you're going to go in and take out the russian facilities. you're going to take out and take on russian aircraft there. we can do it. we'll succeed. now tell me, is that worth it. >> you tell me, is that a victory for vladimir putin. >> no, when we tried to take him

out, when we tried, when we went to seek the use of force, what happened? >> there was great resistance in congress. >> ang the british parliament. >> across-the-board, okay. that's number one. number two, vladimir putin's in real trouble because he's trying to figure out how the hell to get out of syria. it's costing him billions of dollars. the rest fltd of the world is observing. his fighters aren't that capable. he's showing where he is. he has a great problem in ukraine and europe now. his economy is in-- almost free fall. this is a guy who's not winning anything. >> rose: but he's a player in the world. >> look, i mean he's a player in the sense that he's engaged in practically, as a practical matter supporting a dictator whose killing tens of thousands of his people and so if you call

that a player. but is he influential in the world, no. >> with respect to russia, on the one hand you do not want your european allies to think you are abandoning them in any kind of relationship with russia. at the same time, you argue, you know, you have got to have a conversation, because of the change in technology and the nature of warfare. >> exactly. but for example, it made a lot of sense, charlie, for us to be resisting russia and its actions both in the stands as well as in ukraine and other parts of the world where they're disruptive, at the same time signing an arms control agreement with them. it made sense to do that. so the question is, can we cooperate where there is a mutual interest and we're in no way undercutting any one of our allies or our own interest. and there will be occasions where we're able to do that. for example, for awhile it looked like, and it's still but

i'm not very optimistic that the cessation of hostilities in-- . >> rose: ukraine. >> no, in syria at the beginning, there was some movement. there were fewer people dying. there was a cessation of hostilities. but it's such a pli kateed circumstances there that the russians now, we believe, are doing damage to the syrian free forces, the people who are. >> they just attack them neutrally. >> exactly. >> people we are supporting the russians attacked. >> exactly right. >> rose: and we did nothing. >> well, what we did was look, al nousra which is a terrorist organization is cooperating with some of the people who we have trained because they're going after saddam. they all dislike saddam. so the excuse is that russia is using, is we're attacking al nousra. well, the collateral damage to people who are supporting us is real. so what have we done in iraq?

we have focused on the one thing that can have a significant impact on our immediate self-interest. and that is, getting rid of or doing great damage to isis, to isil. and in the so kalled manga pocket. we are having significant success there. significant success. are we having success in aleppo? are we having success in parts of damascus? the answer is no, we're not. but it is a very complicated situation. and so all of the proposals that have been put forward have been scrubbed by the intelligence community, by the military, by the foreign policy community. and you know, this is managing a bad situation. >> rose: so what did you think of those 51 diplomats in the state department who said we need to be more aggressive? >> let me say two things. the president and i and previous

presidents support the right of any diplomat to have a secure channel to voice a different view. so i'm not going to comment, because it is supposed to be off the record. i'm not going to comment on them in particular. but there's not a single, solitary recommendation that i saw that is a single solitary answer attached to it, how to do what they're talking about. and every one of them that i'm aware of has-- we've done-- the president has been fastidious. calls the joint chiefs of staff, intelligence community, director of central intelligence, the cia, et cetera. tell me what will work. will this work? and the answer has repeatedly been no, we should focus on two things. we should focus on ending the caliphate that the isil is attempting or has attempted to

establish in iraq. we should continue to work with our allies in the region, the turks, the saudis, the jordanians, the emirateis, et cetera, to form a coalition, to be able to do, to be able to put together humpy dumpy when this is over. you know, one of the real problems we've had is you have a country that sunni majority without any sunni leadership. >> rose: and you have sunni leadership in iraq? >> yes. >> rose: in the twieb. >> but-- tribe. >> but not enough. >> rose: what is interesting about this too to me is the idea that you got so many people who want you to do something about assad, first you are smiling. you've heard it so often. >> and yet when you press the elected officials they say what do you want us to do about assad. take him out?

well, how will you do that. well, you can use tland missiles. you want us to declare war? and take on iraq and that is we're going to eventually put another 100,000 troop there. is that what you want me to do? tell me how this ends, charlie. if you are senator charlie rose. tell me how it ends, charlie. are you going to be with me, charlie, when i tell you we have to put down. >> 50. >> well, no, no, no. i don't know about that. so you know, we're doing two things. we're investing significantly in humanitarian relief. we are working like hell every angle we possibly can for the unlikely prospect of we move toor a negotiatedded settle in for a new government. and number three, we're doing everything we can to defeat isil in the region. >> rose: do you think this administration will get

baghdadi? let me put it this way. we have event all-- eventually been able to get every major player including the last head of the taliban. >> rose: omar. >> i think it is just a matter of time. but-- . >> rose: six months. >> well, you can't put a number on it. >> rose: but you do have a lot of information as to his whereabouts and where he might be. >> we are doing everything within our power to locate, identify and find a means to take out people who are significant impediments to any remotely a peace in this area. >> rose: characterize the relationship with china today. >> it is one of competition

that's real. and it is one of so far of an attempt to work out a modus avendi as to how china remains a responsible actor on the world stage. and it's difficult. there is a growing sense of nationalism among the young generation in china. and it's real. >> rose: how does it manifest itself? >> it manifests itself in pressure being put on the government to be more muscular and engaged than the rest of the world. you see it in the south china sea. of china attempting to exert it's influence over the region. china very much wants to you

know, i think their view is that this is our sphere of influence. you go home. >> rose: but you have said. >> but we're not going to. >> rose: in your remarks today, you say to the chinese we are a pacific power. and we have relationships with burma and the phil peengs-- philippines and japan and a better relationship with vietnam. >> and its very much in your interest, china, we remain a pacific power. >> rose: and do they feel threatened by that? >> i think they are drk dsh i don't think the chinese leadership is threatened by it. let me put it this way. look at the dilemma china faces on north korea. china has a sing et great-- single greatest ability to influence north korea by cutting off a, b, c, d, a whole range of things am but it also could cause the implosion of north korea and china bond worries about what happens then on their border. the but the flip is when i tell

president xi, we have a guy up there in north korea who is talking about building nuclear weapons that can strike the united states and not only hawaii and alaska, but the mainland, and that's equally important, but the mainland of the united states. and so i say we're going to move up our defense stvment he says no, no, no, wait a minute, my military thinks you are going to try tone sicialg us. i say what would you do. what would you do? do you think we should stand back? and what happens, what happens if we don't work out something together on north korea, what happens if japan who could tomorrow could go nuclear, tomorrow. they have the capacity to do it virtd allly overnight. >> rose: and that's okay with donald trump. >> that's okay with donald trump. but it's not okay for us to continue to see the prolive raise of nuclear weeps around-- weapons around the world. so china is trying to work its way through its own serious dilemma internltly.

china has to provide tens of millions of new jobs a month. china not only doesn't have enough energy, doesn't have enough water. china needs a growth rate that is excessive in order just to keep pace. so it's very much in our interest for us to see china positively move forward and succeed. but it's a very delicate balance as to how we manage that relationship. and that's why it's so important, charlie, that we set up basic rules of the road in terms of trade and commerce. because if we pull out of that arena, then just the sheer physical mass and power economic power of china, just because they're so big and so large, it will dictate outcomes. >> rose: neither the presumptive democratic nominee or republican nominee support the treaty you think is so important. >> that's true, but i think i believe in epiphanies. >> rose: cancer, which is important to me rand to you, and the moon shot is an important

talk. let me talk about that first. what do you think is possible? >> i think, charlie. >> rose: this is something you know, something you have experienced, something that you have studied the science. >> i think, charlie, it's amazing how much-- first of all, i use the phrase tree times and i apologize. on cancer we are at an inflection point. you have disciplines now working together that never worked together before. like i moneyotherapy, using your own immune system to attack cancer am you have extremely sophisticated changes in targeted radiation. you have significant changes in the various, among the oncologists and things they are learning about what makes cancer cells me tas size, and so on sand so forth. so there is a lot of science out there. one of the biggest impediments so far in my view is not

intention-- intentional but there are a lot of silos being built out there. >> rose: you're not talking to each other. >> not talking to each other. let me give you a case in points. every cancer researcher, i have now spoken to thousands, when i say thousands, i spoke to cancer research group, 7,000 people at a conference, 4,000 people in chicago. i mean these are serious, serious people. they all acknowledge if we had every-- every cancer genome that was done and sent to a lab and determined what that kaj certificate-- and there are over 200 cancers, types of cancer. and we were able to locate them all in one spot, and because of the computing cap ability we have now, being able to go a thousand billion calculations per second, we would be able to use that massive computer power with big data to find out patterns in what works and doesn't work, cures and so my

objective is to be able to do what he with can do in the next five years, would take ten years. part of it is breaking down the silos, part of it is getting more funding for research and development. part of it is bringing z focusing more on prevention. for example, we're in a position, charlie, that you are going to be able to develop vaccines like you have for serve kal-- i mean there is incredible things. they're on the horizon. but we just have got to get people to start to deal with one another. so that's why, nih went out to university of chicago. >> rose: will you continue this after you leave office. >> yes. >> rose: this say passion. >> this is a passion of mine. >> rose: it has to be. talk finally about the friendship with president obama. what it is. >> well, you know-- . >> rose: what is the connection because clearly, clearly relies on you. >> well, first of all he jokes and he says, you know, we make up for each other's

shortcomings. he makes up for a lot more of my shortcomings than i do his, number one. >> rose: what did he mean by that. >> well, what he meant was our stielts are so different. and as well as our experience. and so when he asked me to join him, i asked him why, he said i want you to recover-- you know the system. when we did the recovery ak over 800 billion, had to be spent in 18 months. he said joe, do it he announced in the state of the union without telling me, sheriff joe will do it, everybody clapped, well, remember, i did the whole thing. he never, never intervened. because what happens is whomever the next president is should have somebody that in fact they trust, they know will have their back, they understand they're vice president, not president. >> rose: and will be candid. >> and will be can candid with them. and the deal we made when we did

this. he say do you have any conditions. i said jokingly, two things, i'm not wearing any funny hats and not going to change my brand. and we holler at each other in private meetings, just like two friends. and we have an added advantage, though. our families are close. my granddaughters are the very best friends of his daughters. sasha and my granddaughter maize, they vacation-- like i will ask my granddaughter, you know, they live here in washington, can you come over with pop i'm sorry, i'm at the white house, can i do it to i mean they're genuinely friends. and when you get to know somebody, and this is about-- he always kids me, i am always saying all politics is personal. by that i mean if you understanded -- understand the other man's hopes, aspirations, fears, devils he's dealing with.

if you learn that, you know, we used to, you know, that a man's wife is, you know, breast cancer or his mother has alzheimer or a woman senator you are dealing with has a child that is a diked or something, it is hard, it's hard to not-- to not look at them in terms of their persons. and it is easier to reach agreement. well, the president and i know each other. we talk, we have lunch every week. probably 6 o% of the time we talk about our families, he was there for my son. he was the only one there when my son was dying that i was able to be completely candid with. >> rose: you could talk to him. >> i could talk to him am and i felt obliged, i had to, to let him know what was going on. and he was-- he was genuinely moved and joe, what do you need? i mean whatever you need.

and so it's a again wings i respect him. he has more backbone, more character than any one person, and a lot of presidents have, ka, than any president i've dealt with, the last eight presidents, i trust him. >> rose: coming to the end of a political career, is there anything in you that he grets that you are not going to be in the political life as a candidate. >> oh, sure, look, charlie. >> rose: did you make the right decision for joe biden and his family. >> i made the right decision. >> rose: and don't regret it. >> no, i don't regret it. it was the right decision for me, and my family, particularly at the time. you know, as i said before, charlie, no man or woman should offer themselves for president unless they are prepared to give 100% of their passion, their commitment, their-- but charlie, my dad used to have another expression. he said for real, he said joey t say licky man gets up in the morning, or woman, puts both feet on the floor, knows what they are about to do and thinks it still matters. my whole life from the time i got involved as a kid in the civil rights movement, i got

lucky. i realized early on what mattered to me. what energized me. and-- . >> rose: he didn't leave you a rich man but he left you a fulfilled man. >> i am fulfilled and i don't plan on going away. i'm going to stay in politics. >> rose: you are going to stay in politics. >> i am going to stay in politics. >> rose: will you be out on the campaign trail. >> yeah, i will be out. >> rose: people argue that the constituency most likely to vote for donald trump is a constituency that would respond to you because many of them are working men and women, not of high income, and joe has already spoken for them, constantly was able to communicate with them. >> well look, i think that authenticity sometimes can be a liability. but i think on balance in this season, it is probably an asset. charlie, as i joke and say no

one ever doubts i mean what i say. the problem is sometimes i say all that i mean. and i just, i am absolutely committed to what hillary is trying to do in terms of giving the middle class a leg up, to actually right this ship a little bit. there used to be a basic bargain, charlie. if you contributessed to the success of an enterprise, you got to share in the benefits. that doesn't exist right now. i met with five leading maij e-- major, major, corporate figures at my house for din are. i invited them over. and one of them flew from overseas. the and the subject matter they wanted to talk about was corporate responsibility. and how we sort of lost our way in short-termism and the rest. you have had a lot of people on. i just think there is so much potential and promise for the united states to have a 21s century to be just an incredible-- incredible,

incredible time. and we are so close on not just cancer but on the physical sciences, and so many other things. >> rose: the only chal seng to eliminate disfunction. >> that's right. >> rose: you have said that. have i taken way more time, your entire staff paged me but i told me that i could take as much time as i wanted to. >> i enjoy you. >> rose: you make it right with them for me. >> i think this san actual conversation, i appreciate that. >> rose: thank you, thank you mr. vice president. >> thank you, appreciate it. >> rose: for more about this program and earlier episodes visit us online at pbs.org and charlie rose.com. captioning sponsored by rose communications captioned by media access group at wgbh access.wgbh.org

>> rose: funding for "charlie >> rose: funding for "charlie rose" has been provided by:

[ mid-tempo music plays ]

[ paper rustling ] [ dog barking ] [ dog whines ] [ wind whistling ] [ wind whistling ] [ engine turns over ] [ engine revs ] [ engine shuts off ] [ rainfall, footsteps splashing ]

"film school shorts" is made possible by a grant from maurice kanbar, celebrating the vitality and power of the moving image, and by the members of kqed.

announcer: a kqed television production. sbrocco: and everybody say "opa!" -man: opa! -woman: opa!