tv Politics and Public Policy Today CSPAN November 22, 2016 8:00pm-12:01am EST
coming up, a look at russia under vladimir putin. that's next on c-span3. then a conversation on the potential economic team in the trump administration. later, the ongoing protests of the dakota access pipeline project. after that, white house spokesman josh earnest is asked about the transition process with president-elect donald trump. c-span's "washington journal," live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning, an analysis of president-elect donald trump's infrastructure proposals. its challenges and the current
state of the u.s. infrastructure with the george mason university mercada center and brookings institution aaron klein. then washington examiner national security and defense reporter jamie mcintyre on president-elect trump's national security agenda and his decision to choose michael flynn as national security adviser. be sure to watch c-span's "washington journal" live at 7:00 a.m. eastern wednesday morning. join the discussion. now a conversation about russia under president vladimir putin and how public opinion can be manipulated in russia. we'll hear from a russian sociologist at this event hosted by the wilson center. >> well, good morning, everyone. welcome to the institute. i'm deputy director at the canon
institute. i'd like to welcome you both to the institute and to the wilson center for today's presentation on the 86% opinion polling in russia. i want to begin by thanking the co-sponsors for today's event, the snunt for european, russian and eurasian studies at george washington university. and i also want to welcome c-span to today's event. we look forward to watching the program going forward. this is a part of the kannan institute's speaker series. and today we're going to be talking about the question of polling in russia. despite the economic crisis and declining standard of living, mass support for president vladimir putin's leadership remains high. his popularity rating often referred to as the 86% in russia is a -- to western commentators
but we're delighted to have lev gudkov to come and talk about the nature of vladimir putin's popularity. dr. gudkov is speaking today in a private capacity. not as director of the lavata center. amongst his other titles he's editor in chief of the magazine "russian public opinion herald" as well as a lexerer at the higher school of economics. he has won numerous awards and published quite widely and, obviously, he is the director of one of the major sources of independent public opinion research in russia. so it is my great pleasure to introduce dr. lev gudkov today. he will be speaking in russian, so i ask for those who need translation to use your headsets. >> translator: thank you very much. a great honor for me to speak at
the kennan institute. and the very title of my presentation, we mention the % 86%. and i don't believe in your 86%. people are lying. people are not telling you the truth. how can you ever conduct a poll in an authoritarian -- in a country under an authoritarian regime. i should say that the doubts and suspicions and accusations for falseification for pressuring the public opinion come from all the -- all sides. from those who accuse us of being foreign agents and
undermine the system, as well as from opposition activists who question the reliability of our data. what i'm going to be talking about, kremlin propaganda but the opposition represents a serious challenge because this is a crisis of reality perception which is a very serious issue for russia since we've lost the idea of the future because the freedom of debate and free competition, the very idea of democratic transition is that today. and that created for russian opposition a very difficult challen challenge. there is the depth of the understanding of the means to understand what's going on. and in our research, i claim
that what is important is not the reliability of the data which we see and to the extent to which sociology is a science. this data -- correct. the problem is the interpretation of what's going on. and after this introduction, i'm going to move to describe the state of mind of the public opinion russia. everything that i'm going to show you are going to be result of the national russian representative researchers which are conducted systematically every month. and more frequently, sometimes less frequently in russia. first slide. this is the social sentiment index which shows -- which is
the popular opinion. it combines a number of indices. 12 which are merged into one index. the government assessment of the future of the situation in the country. in other words, this is a very complex index. it is very sensitive and allow us to preview the changes in the society in the public opinion several months before the changes take place. so if you would for the last 20 years, you can see a deep drop in 1990s. the first attempts to move -- to get out from the crisis. there is a new crisis which abruptly breaks with all the
expectations at arrival of an authoritarian leader. this -- no, i'm sorry. i'm referring to this. the growth of all the indexes when putin came to power after he said that we're going to kill all our enemies no matter where we find them after explosions and terroristic activities of the 1990s. suddenly dramatic growth of all the indexes, including the ones for the -- though nothing has been changed. and later with some vacillation,
dependent on these situation, crisis. for example, the disaster in december or the terrorist act in the theater or failure to conduct the pension reform in 2004-2005. however, we observed the growth of the positive assessment of the situation. real incomes were growing by about 6%, 8% a year. the situation is -- we can see that in the period during -- between 2000 and 2008, russia has never --
during this period which became the basis of support to the authoritarian. the crisis of 2008-2009 abruptly interrupted this mood, this sentiment. the putin regime can secure the stability and growth of the level. began to fade all the way to the end of 2013. we were observing the decrease of the general assessment of the situation. growth of tension, disappointment, particularly among the notion of the middle class of russia all the way
to -- and after that, one can say that the situation radically has -- has radically changed. how does it work with the putin regime? the infamous 86%. you can see how slowly his rating was growing, reaching its peak by the summer 2008 when there was the war. sentiments provoked by propaganda and national pride. and later we can see that the trust went down step by step.
and by the end of 2013, putin's rating went down to the low ees. his approval was only 60%. one can see this is a very high index, but even total control over media and later we're going to be talking about the components of this report. this is a very significant factor. in december 2013, january 2014, 40% said that they don't -- would not like to see the putin candidacy be nominated for the presidential elections, and they were sick and tired of -- so this was the lowest point. let me remind you that the period between the 2011, which
was the low eest period. this was a period of the demonstrations when the middle class came out to the street with anti-putin sentiments. criticism on internet, accusations of corruption. the decrease of the united russia ruling party popularity. there was the moment when -- criticism of the corruption and his slogans were supported by 45%, which was the highest point of the criticism. later, right after that's,
incredible, aggressive and entire ukrainian and entire western campaign was unchained. annexation of crimea which provoked a new wave of the military -- excitement and putin's rating, as you can see, jumps all the way to 88% which practically matches what was, in 2008, during the war with georgia. and later he stays more or less the same levels. slightly decreasing. at the same time, the crisis erupted in the country, in russia, which was quite severe and radically different from
what we have seen in '98 and 2008 because this crisis, unlike this crisis, unlike the current crisis, unlike the one of 2008 or 1998, which is a domestic crise, i a systematic crisis. not provoked by the international economic situation. it is not related to the drop of oil prices because the depression of the economy began in 2012 when the prices were higher than $100 a barrel and it meant the regime ran out of resources. official management and the growth of the government expenses. it would be sufficient to say that by the time putin came to power, the government was controlling about 26% of all the
finances. now it controls about 70% or 71%. the state sector, or the state area in the economy has been dramatically increased and the number of dependent of the government populations has been increased. not only retired people but also people who work for the state enterprises or enterprises for the government as a large share as well as law enforcement officers or the so-called teachers, physicians and so-called budget supported by national suggest people. the situation has been dramatically changed. the revenue -- the income with the drop of oil prices and depreciation of the incomes has a painful impact on the middle
class and the most -- the poorest segments of the population. first of all, rural and urban population. all the assessments of the trust of the government went -- nosedived. though one can say thathe crisis in the real assessment of the drop of the real income was not that dramatic. it was only about 50%, according to the government official statistic. it was a little bit more but on a personal level, pursued a much more dramatic drop. however, the situation was not critical, and people manage d t change this.
all was transferred from putin to the lower level of the government. first of all, the government led by medvedev. you can see the blue lines as it goes down. this is particularly annoying and antipathy provoked the legislators, the deputies and the negativity is roughly 62% to 32%. the ratio 60% to 30%. but the most important what happened and what propaganda is using is are the entire western sentiments. and propaganda could be more exact. i'm not going to analyze it because we don't have enough
time, but directed not so much against ukraine but against the policy of integration. bringing integration with the west as models of democraerks liberalism and human rights which might inspire the revolution. and as the result, until ukrainian -- were directed against those who were against putin. specifically, in this situation, people were acting not simply like supporters of reform and democratization, but as the enemies of putin and as enemies -- and, therefore, enemies of russia. this is a very important factor
because it is directly related to the fear of kremlin toward this possibility of -- in russia. the aggressive policy was reinforced and enhanced in 2012 after mass -- in moscow and when the duma adopted the package of 40 laws which limit the activities of the civil society. reintroduced censorship, persecution of opposition activists and this is when the so-called legislation against the ngos and foreign agents was introduced by the propaganda was
against the opposition as hidden western agents who conduct -- who conduct pro-u.s. policy and are the channels of the import of the so-call ed revolutions. the attitude toward putin itself is not -- washington should not pursue this 86% as a result of charismatic character of putin. putin is not charismatic and there is nothing in his image of a charismatic leader, of a demagogue who will show the new path. if you look at -- and i believe this is what is an important chart. the sympathy with exception of
crimea, the people -- putin was liked mostly by slightly more than a third of the population. the negative approach to putin was also not very significant, but the indifference was the most important factor. apolitical approach. this element is the construction of the regimes. the ability to introduce -- the bring the society into the state of alienation toward politics, noninvolvement, one can assess the efficiency of the political technologies because this is the goal of the domestic policy of kremlin.
that's not -- that does not mean that recognition of putin as positive recognition of putin. after the report -- the reports were published, we started to have these questions. and you can see that putin was perceived to a certain extent as the head of a very corrupt system. but the population without having sufficient information about it, accepts it. very few believe that they share completely the provisions of the report that putin is one of the
members of the mafia-style government. by the time of crimea annexation of the share of the people decreases to the minimal level and then goes up again. an unsignificant share of the people who are absolutely -- absolutely reject charges against putin, the direct support for putin, but the main bulk says, well, maybe it is contribute. but i, myself, am not really aware of it at the corruption scandals which create a certain background and encourage that kind of approach. when everybody is --
that's the nature of the system. but for me, the more significant -- not as significant as the next entry. if it is true, what's the difference? if it is true or not, what is important is that the life in the country is getting better. this duplicity, this ambiguity is very important. it is one of the important key components of the indifferences. take into consideration the political experience going back to the soviet time. this is the experience of a person who has learn ed to the oppressive state. to leave the state and to be loyal to be able to display
loyalty to this government. and, in reality, is worried -- is concerned only about his own personal problems. in other words, the strategy of everyday attitude of people is the physical survival in the environment of the government. unlike many, people clearly have an idea what the regime is about. putin is supported by the so-called political police, bureaucrats, oligarchs, military. in the eyes of the population, he is not even a monarch, not so much a monarch as much as the incarnation of their -- therefore, the population better has idea about systematic nature of the regime system.
as i said before, it is very important here. western propaganda, not simply western propaganda but the situation was brought to the level of the eve of the great war. this is a very important component because propaganda, indeed, not only raised this way of national pride and self-assurance and as respondents say, they feel more self-confidence, we have shown that we are strong and everybody started to respect us. this is the idea of a bear who is showing his teeth. was very efficient for the popular mentality.
so during the crimean story, crimean episode, pride has jumped twice, by -- the conflicts of the loss of a great power which was extremely painful and deeply hidden, today was revealed in this aggressive self-assurance as the country -- as the great superpower and more aggressive is the attitude of the government to be more satisfied in the population of russia. and if we take a look at the components of the second -- protection of the national interest and the international
area and restoration of the russian with moral authority. this is very important because in all other areas, putin's activity is assessed in the best case scenario as modest and sometimes even as successful. he has not achieved successes in his fight against corruption. the situation is quite ambiguous and it goes down, which does not make him more popular. the situation is not stable, so the only symbolic area of his achievements is foreign policy. here it was very important that putin, words here in a
completely different environment, in historical myths of the millennial russia of the russian civilization against the rest of the world, and only this system, when it makes sense to assess it because the government and the local regional governments were assessed by purely pragmatic criterias. and the onus is on them for -- which is removed from putin for the state of things. the responsibility. meanwhile, i also like to stress that the western propaganda also raised the level of the soviet perceptions. and one can say the last two years, we are dealing with a dramatic manifestation of
dramatic civilization i would say, rebirth of many soviet ideas and perceptions. not only return to the old idea that the government control of a economy is better than the free market economy because it secures -- it secures a certain stability. stable salaries, free medicine, education and job -- secure jobs. but it also provides certain certainty in the future. people do not remember about [ inaudible ]. it can be used as some kind of guidelines. and the political system of the
soviet time seems to be -- remains to be quite appealing. the western democracy as a model -- as the -- is a very attractive. today is practically -- is not existent. and the current system, although it's starting to be assess ed after crimea is less attractive. there is no need to make some special comments, but it is very important that the united states is the enemy number one, specifically within the framework of this confrontation
of rhetorics and the struggle for the union-backed superpower status for russia, and the united states plays the role of -- all the perceptions of the cold war were brought back. the united states not simply oppose the united states in competition of two systems but also in a military rival. and here we can see that with the launch of the anti-ukraine propaganda and crimea, it's grown a lot with the negative sentiments toward ukraine. in general, the list of the unfriendly nations was always led by the former soviet republics which opted to -- for
integration with the west. latvia, lithuania and estonia. later it was georgia. and then came ukraine. the revolution of 2004 took place, and ukraine is, from time to time, becomes the unfriendly country or even an enemy. but lately within the context of the general anti-western propaganda there's growing antipathy toward germany which is very nonuncharacteristic because it was always a positive sentiment toward germany as well as toward poland and great britain. if we take 2008, we can see the list of the friendly nations and enemy nations. the attractiveness of china has dramatically raised as the
rhetorical -- of the west. but first of all, it's the fault of the united states. there is no doubt, but they carry the burden of the worsening of the situation. and russia was always represented as a victim of the foreign animosity, foreign aggression which allows to use in the domestic policy to preserve the domestic policy. the aggression comes from outside from the only defender, but what is also important is the rise of the anxieties and feelings of the pre-war state of mind because this enhancement of the sense of threat of a great
big war removes all the claims against the government but brings the consultation with the government and decrease the personal ambitions because since it is the war, we need to be patie patient. the most important matter here, we can endure everything as long as there is no war. this is the major -- this is the illustration of the idea that russia was always -- extremely important with -- after putin came to power, the environment of animosity of the surrounding world which allows to secure the domestic
consolidation with the people and the government. but this is specifically toward foreigns. however, confrontation with the west is, according to -- the propaganda creates an impression that's russia counteracts against the western interest and plays a more significant role in the international area. and this is increasing influence brings respect from other nations. restoration of the great power status, this is what people expected from putin, and it is -- the most important element
is the march of 2014 annexation of crimea and anti-western confrontation. if in 1999, 65% felt that russia lost forever its status of a superpower and has turned -- has been turned into a regional power, and the moment of this militaristic propaganda, both in 2008 when there was the war against georgia or annexation of crimea, this feeling of the restoration of the great power status comes back. and this involvement dramatically decreases potential for the social protest both in economic and political -- on economic and political issues.
that does not change the attitude -- domestic attitude toward the government. the government remains a corrupt government but this is inside the country. not outside of it. my time is running out. that's why i'm going to stop here. >> thank you very much, lev. and there's much to think about and many interesting numbers to contemplate in your talk. i will ask the first question, and make sure you're all -- >> okay. so my first question really goes to the nature of the opinions about the old soviet system.
and if you could address the question, when you talk about the rising number of support for the soviet system -- >> [ inaudible ]. >> and i was just curious if you could identify when you talk about the support for the soviet system, whether you can break that down by age groups. in other words, is support for the old soviet system those who lived through the old soviet system, or is the support for the soviet system equally spread amongst all layers of society, including young people?
>> translator: [ inaudible ]. in 1988-89, was a very dramatic sense that the country was on a dead end. at that moment, our research was given a very strange picture. the numbers of the responses like, were they worse than anybody else? we're a nation of slaves. nuclear weapons. how we should not -- we're an example of how not to do things. 7% to 54% for only two years. just in two years. it was an acute stage of collective frustration and the
entire system was pursued in a very negative fashion. after crisis of the mid-1990s, communists comeback began. and difficult economic situation which was a very difficult. we don't even need to discuss it, talk about it, brought a great deal of support in the western models and the growth of nostalgic feeling, sentiments sort of passed, and this card was skillfully played by putin. there was a perception that the reforms were inspired by the west and they were directed at the destruction of the soviet union, as you can see a dramatic
index of the growing number of enemies of russia and, on the other hand, growing nostalgic feelings of the soviets, which was huge by putin and he kept using this argument all the time. and the attitude toward the soviet past is not unilateral. 67% -- this number has not been changed for 25 years. but the attitude for the system is quite different in different social demographic groups, different environments, social layers and age groups. the most critical toward the system are the people of the age 45 toward 55 who have lived
through the end of the soviet system, and they do have experience of resistance towards the growing putin regime. the young people who were not familiar with how it was, ideal picture of the past provided by the media. they have some illusional idea of, first of all, related to the idea of the superpower, which we have lost. and this is very significant for them. the elderly people, particularly those who live in the remote provinces, provincial areas, they are nostalgic about the cityystem which secured a certain level of social
warranties. and the present day situation for them is quite frustrating and tense. therefore, the situation is like this. there is no -- >> i'm going to make a quick note whether you ask your question in english or russian, you need to ask it in the microphone so our interpreter can hear it and c-span can get the feed as well. please speak into the microphone clearly and slower than i am speaking right now. >> we'll start with sergei. >> translator: i believe this is very important in order to interpret all this data which is provide provided -- if you have some kind of tool,
some filters brought into this data, one can often [ inaudible ]. so they are ark trade. they try to be honest. try to give what they -- how do you protect yourself from this phenomena, and do you consider this a crucial problem? >> translator: mythological questions. i personally do not believe that this is a serious issue. they are not different. not radical and different from situations in other countries.
the incident that was described, in other words, joining the imagined majority opinion. all this exists and we should take this into account and it's the transitional sociological practice so there is nothing particular in our situation which would make us different. i believe that there is some kind of invented -- to justify an ability to understand our data. this is the fact that people do not take into account the elements of the leftovers of the syndrome. this is exactly like in the united states. in the first days after
elections, they started to say that people were shy to admit that they were going to vote for trump, which, to me, is the transpondence by some liberal journalist, ideas to the other categories of the population. people are not shy. people are not afraid to answer, to respond. although the element here in this society has been reason after mass protest. to which extent it has an impact on the response is not much because we have checked it many times in different ways. but there are differences. for example, it depends on the technique of the questioning. the telephone questions give you 10% more -- 5%, 10% more number
of loyal answers regarding putin than the face-to-face interview. the situation of a normal human contact, there is a more element of trust. there's a bigger element of trust, and people start to understand whatever is he or she asked about, in general, there are special check procedures which gives us -- which allows us to think that there was no desire to lie and to adjust the answer to pretend to be loyal. the people answering regarding putin, people are quite honest, quite open, however there is this level of the -- there is an opinion that the majority are afraid to answer
honestly. any time we ask, the majority of the people are sincere in responding to our questions. are they afraid or not? and 60-plus percent say the majority say yeah inside. there's a personal adjective which is quite different and therefore this is the problem -- this is the issue of analysis interpretation and not the way to receive data and i believe that there's no great deal of difference in such a collection gathering of information.
>> thank you. the american foreign policy council. i would like to ask a question looking a bit into the future. one of the big issues the russian government is facing is the need for reforl of the pension system which is very generous by sper national standards and extremely expensive and russian government finances. proposed some radical and significant restrictions on age and on benefits. some of these have already been introduced for government employees but the pension system is one of the most fundamental elements between the state and people in russia. and sit the primary means by which much of the older population survives. if between now and the next presidential election there were
and even 16% it was about 4%. the real pension has been decreased dramatically and they continue to be cut because the garment is going to decrease the population and end of putin's regime as well. >> at the same time the pensions are very small and the average pension and average wage was 65 or 70%. today it was 39 to 32%. which is -- it is very hard to survive on pension money and
lonely retired people is one of the poorest of the population along with the females of many childr children. >> and the kennedy institute i want to follow up on a question, how about this for putin, how does this break down? 2012 to a protest and we were told mainly by middle class, professional class folks in moscow and st. petersburg and putin seems to claim the support of the working class what does your data say about what is supporting putin and beyond.
that 60% in 2011. that this was a slow number in the regime. my question about -- anonymity. they have shown there is more or hess maturity who support the regime and there is a quarter which is against a quarter that has no opinion. did i understand it correctly? my second question. it was also very interesting for me to delay it because some of this place and new trend.
the entire context should be changed. either people should be aaware that the foreign policy is the support of the regime and an official does not provide it and in fact does not bring back the status of the great followers and today's successors and gains will turn into more of at the feet and the reason to be ash e ashaled. this should be changed. this category of population which is socialized under circumstances of the new environment, it is worse i was
by the ideology and support more than anybody else. 20% of the youth support t lowest activity is in the age groups of 50 years old and also retired people because indeed the pensions decreasing. >> is this part of the retired peoples. >> if we will check the social segments moscow is the most putin's safety in russia until the latest date, the outage approval was developed 17 plus per cent. in moscow this support was about 20, 25, 28%.
and specifically the middle class russian middle class as the evolution and more impre impressive but after the failure of the mass protest the response is quite different. the growing immigration sentiments or joining the majority because the middle class there were many unhappy people and it got dropped by this and joined the putin followers. to date the ideological propaganda is the difference between different social groups in it's assessment of the policy and putin is not significant.
twice. this is a very significant reason and it's not a good idea for international law. and protect russia from genocide and therefore it's an ethical act because russia restores it's status and an e the thical -- ethical system of protection or defense. therefore despite the fact that official media say there were only volunteers there, people got perfectly avoided the
issue? how -- but. >> in view of the antiamerican propaganda being such a cornerstone of popularity is the notion that president putin -- president trump can make a deal to reset relations with russia, fanciful? >> last question in the back. okay. so just those two questions and then we're done. >> the entire electorate in russia was pro-trump so therefore when we were asking what result, what outcome is more positive for russia, 52%
financial issues and finally we're not going to apply registered agents that means we're going to be punished again and grow twice and then be banned officially so our forecast is very bad. i believe we still have about half a year. but we cannot stop all the activity because we have a lot of contract. >> just a fascinating conversation about what's going on inside in russia. >> i also want to thank our
co-sponsors. the institute for european studies and george washington university and for all of you for coming and a happy thanksgiving. thank you so much. >> prime minister teresa may takes questions from the house of commons. watch prime minister's questions live from london at 7:00 a.m. eastern on cspan 2. here are some of our featured programs thursday, thanksgiving day on cspan. nebraska senator on american
values, the founding fathers and the purpose of government. >> there's a huge civic mindedness in american history but it's not compelled by the government. >> followed at noon with tom harkin and the rise and childhood obesity in the u. s. >> with everything from monster thick burgers with 1420 calories and 107 grams of fat to 20 ounce cokes and pepsis, 12 to 15 teaspoons of sugar, feeding an epidemic of child obesity. >> then at 3:30 wicapedia founder talks about the evolution of the online encyclopedia and access to information. >> there's a small community there and there's 5 to 10 really active users. there's another 20 to 30 that they know a little bit and they start to think of themselves as community. >> a little after 7:00 eastern
an inside look at the yearlong effort to repair and restore the capital dome. at 8, she reflects on her life and career. >> then i did my senior thesis which is a great thing to have done it taught me an incredible amount but also what it was like to be a serious historian and to sit in archives all day every day and i realize it just wasn't for me. >> followed by justice clarence thomas at 9:00. >> seens you is not putting a $2 idea in a $20 sentence. it's putting a $20 idea in a $2 sentence without any loss of meaning. >> and just after 10:00 at an exclusive ceremony in the white house president obama will present the medal of freedom our nation's highest civilian award to 21 recipients including michael jordan, bruce springsteen and bill and melinda gates.
watch on cspan and cspan.org or listen on the free cspan radio app. >> breaking news washington columnist for lawyers, potential picks for treasury secretary and other economic posts in the trump administration. from washington journal this is 40 minutes. >> thank you very much for being here. appreciate it. so president elect donald trump posts a video last night laying out his first 100 days. it has a lot to do with his economic agenda for the country. i want to show our viewers again and let's pull out what he says about the u.s. economy and what he can do in the first few days of the administration. >> today i would like to provide the american people with an update on the white house transition and our policy plans
for the first 100 days. our transition team is working very smoothly, efficiency and effectively. truly great and talented men and women. patriots indeed are being brought in and many will soon be a part of our government helping us to make america great again. my agenda will be based on a simple core principle. putting america first. whether it's producing steel, building cars, or curing disease, i want the next generation of production and innovation to happen right here on our great homeland, america. creating wealth and jobs for american workers. as part of this plan i have asked my transition team to develop a list of executive actions we can take on day one to restore our laws and bring back our jobs. it's about time. these include the following on trade our issue to with draw
from the transpacific partnership and negotiate fair bilateral trade deals and on energy i'll cancel job killing restrictions on american energy including shell energy creating many millions of high paying jobs. that's what we want. that's what we have been waiting for. on regulation i will formulate a role that says that for every one new regulation two old regulations must be eliminated. so important. on national security i will ask the department of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to develop a comprehensive plan to protect america's vital infrastructure from cyberattacks and all other form of attacks. on immigration i will direct the department of labor to investigate all abuses of visa programs that undercut the american worker. on ethics reform as part of our
plan to drain the swamp we will impose a five year ban on executive officials becoming lobby yiss after they leave the administrati administrati administration. >> i will provide more updates in the coming days as we work together to make america great again for everyone. and i mean everyone. >> how is he going to impact jobs and the economy in the first 100 day with that agenda. >> you heard him talk about the transpacific partnership which has been a running theme of his campai campaign. he said he would pull out of that agreement. it could also effect nafta as
well. >> what would that mean for bringing back jobs and how could he do that by resending the ttp as well as making changes to nafta. how does that immediately give americans jobs. >> that's going to be a question for him. he is making a lot of promises but some of the things he is talking about may never come back. some of the manufacturing jobs, a lot of that changed because of technology and automation and that's something that trade deals aren't going to fix. >> what do republicans and this president elect say? what is their argument for eliminating regulations and impact on the economy. >> they have been complaining about all the things put into place whether it is on energy
and environmental restrictions. wall street has had to go through a host of reforms because of the 2008 financial kai sis these are things he talked about. they are basically hand tied because of the regulations now there's a question of whether they will put them into the economy and this is part of their pitch to get the economy moving again. >> what is the -- what is it like to roll it back. she recovered her speech there. she doesn't see his promises on the coal industry actually coming to fruition. >> that's going to be a
question. there's a lot of things that president trump can do under executive mattress just like president trump has done. a lot of those go to court and possibly had stays put on them like so of his immigration policies so that will be a question of whether the tables then will be turned under a president trump administration. and see where that plays out. >> where else do you expect him to take steps to increase economic growth. where else do you -- what do you expect to hear from this new administration. >> well, the interesting thing that he didn't talk about in the video is his infrastructure plan and tax cut plan. it's something that else
democrats would favor under certain conditions. his plan has private funding that i don't think democrats would be crazy about. senator bernie sanders kale out criticizing that aspect of the plan. that's something he talked about spending up to $1 trillion. >> before we get to our callers and we welcome your phone calls and questions and comments about the economic agenda and team let's talk about what positions make up a president's economic team and who is he considering? >> well the most important post that we're all waiting for is the treasury secretary job he haze the former goldman sachs banker and possibly in the lead for that job and he also met with the congressman that's the chairman of the house financial
services committee and also has his own roll back dodd frank plan that he pitched to president elect trump so we'll see where that goes. other interesting names that have come up are jp morgan's chief executive jamie dimon. some reports are out yesterday that perhaps that wasn't actually on the table but there's a lot of names being thrown out there and he's trying to make a point of meeting people that didn't necessarily support him. he met with the head of real estate john grey that's actually a democratic supporter but maybe in the running for treasury secretary. >> what about his inner circle economic advisors. >> what are you hearing about who can take the post. >> he he had a host of wall streeters on his economic council that includes ross, a well-known distressed investor, a billionaire that has his own
hedge fund as well. he's in the running for commerce secretary. we're trying to see what happens with the federal reserve. he had criticized the chair janet yellen saying she was artificially keeping interest rates low to help democrats and talked about possibly replacing her. she would stay on through 2018 but that's not that far away. it's a pretty important post for how the economy runs in the future. >> let's get to questions mark, you're up first. good morning. >> yes. my comment is that trump is doing a really good job and that he has the rest of the world leaders scared about their economy. flying over here and running meetings with him and i think our past presidents got to the point where they got worried about everybody else overseas
and how much money can we borrow to give away to help everybody else instead of even with a disaster how many products from america get shipped overseas that's manufactured here to help them to get those people used to our products even so i think trump shook up the hornet's nest where he is making people think and giving the leaders around the rest of the world saying hey, wait a second. our economy is in trouble and america's not a push over like it used to be that's a great point. he made the chinese very nervous in terms of what he could do with the tariffs that he has threatened so it has shook up the world order. i think the question is whether
some like china could see possible advantages of that as the u.s. recedes from the global stage. will countries like china and russia possibly try to step in and take more of a leadership role. >> what about our neighbors to the south and north and the impact of his trade and immigration talk on their economies and what does that mean potentially for the u.s. economy. >> well, one of the gauges of how trump was doing through this campaign has been where the mexican peso was sitting in terms of the currency markets. we have seen it go up and down depending on where trump was moving in the polls and obviously mexico is a country that's very worried about what could happen under a trump administration. not only with the wall and some of the immigration plans he has actually also threatened to rehold remittances and it's
money the united states sends back home to help relatives there and that's in terms of mexicans coming into the u.s. and mainly at a stand still. >> good morning. >> he has grave concerns about mr. trump and trump kids. and personal business and children for example. and does something within the family and we have seen him on the phone with argentine officials and indian business man talking about his hotels on
the phone and it's a personal residence and this is rim nis sent of this. >> extensive trump ventures in india. one project sunday investigation for land acquisition and irregularities. >> and react to this saying everybody knew that i had these overseas reacting now and he has talked about not being apart of his future administration. and ivanka trump in particular has been apart of some of these
meetings and phone call with foreign leaders and i was looking at trump's finance and descent positions. and the massive amount of influence as the heeder of the united states and how he intends to handle that and remains in question. >> in the u.s. constitution. and because that's going to let trump so far that's meant to
prevent leaders from foreign countries. there's the question of whether trump could violate that once he takes office would be charged with unraveling conflicts. >> good morning, ladies. >> good morning. >> i'd like to dispel this myth about jobs not being here in the united states because of technology. mr. trump is making an issue about it. they're not going to mexico because of automation.
if there are highly automated manufacturer they're going to stay here in the united states because the labor costs are very low. the reason they're going to mexico and china is because of the labor costs and the lack of environmental protection, taxes, all of that and a lot of these companies cannot continue to do their work over here is because they're competing with foreign companies with cheap labor that's being sent and products being sent into the united states, okay? so any company that is manufacturing products that is highly motivated they stay here. the ones that have high labor intensive jobs go to mexico. so mr. trump can fix that. a level playing field. that's one of the reasons why nafta has to be renegotiated to make it fairer so that those jobs stay here with lower taxes and lower regulations and that's
what mr. trump is talking about so i want to dispel that myth. thank you. >> all right. peter. he talked about wanting to renegotiate it. interesting these are not new points from president elect trump and are issues that democrats have also been wrestling with and now as ttp and other trade deals get opened up president obama said they were meant to fix the problem with nafta and now that president trump may undo it i think that the proof will then be in the pudding if these changes actually do then bring back jobs or cause more companies to stay here could be a possible winner.
>> what do you want to see him do first? what do you think he could do to bring back jobs to america? republicans 202-748-8001 and independents 8002. good morning. >> good morning. california has one of the greatest economies in the world and i wonder if california might benefit from the ttp and that if -- i want to say one other thing too is that hillary got 60% of the vote in california. that's all. >> well, we'll take the first
part. >> yeah. well, ttp, the way the obama administration has tried to pitch it although it's fallen on deaf ears a bit is that it does actually provide 18,000 tariff cuts. that's basically 18,000 tax cuts for u.s. exports going overseas. so that includes products out of california and other states. they haven't been able to compete as well because of some of the taxes on their products and the ttp is meant to undo or roll back a lot of those taxes and they have tried to pitch this as something that would help the u.s. economy and
actually create more jobs. it's just has not gained as much tractions as the criticism of the deal. >> hi, go ahead with your question or comment i was just commenting on the manufacturing jobs or percentage of jobs. it's about how technology has impacted jobs in the usa. not moving job across. it's not that they're moving across. it's the number of jobs percentage wise that is effected in the usa. 40% are going overseas. that's a myth. technology has taken away the most number of manufacturing jobs that we see on assembly jobs. they're not moving overseas.
>> i'm having you take that out. >> as i mentioned earlier technology has been a major driver of certain jobs being lost and about 5 million manufacturing jobs being lost over the last ten years or so a lot of that is because of automation and technology the latest concerns is a debate happening here in washington is over self-driving cars and regulations for it. but also who could be the losers because of that. obviously there's taxi drivers and uber drivers and that sort of thing but also the businesses that rely on possibly fixing cars if self-driving cars means less accidents that means all the auto repair shops and small businesses that might be effected by this new phenomenon could also be impacted so there's a lot of sort of unintended consequences from
technology and obviously we all benefit from those conveniences but there is a down side to it as well. it is deutsche bank and i can't get anyone in the united states. they refuse to transfer me to the united states. so i have to talk to someone from some other country who they know how to speak the language
but they really don't comprehend the language. and they're 15 or $20 an hour jobs that all could be coming back to this country that would give at least the lower social economic group jobs which are desperately looking for work. >> all right. any talk about outsourcing of jobs like the one she was mentioning. >> that is also an issue for president elect trump on the campaign trail on something he has continued to emphasize. particularly to india on the counter point of that proponents talk about how they actually want to create more jobs here. high skilled working jobs.
and training and other things that happen. and lower income, the lower skill jobs and the higher ones that are also scared. >> minnesota independent. >> they're actually thinking about it. do a lot for us and i think trump has been there. >> that's been an issue on the campaign trail as have some of his allies including the congressman. he has talked about the need for further transparency. there have been the fed bills that have been proposed in
congress. most notably by senator rand paul. he brought it up continuously i think every year for the last few years and so far the democrats had been the firewall to that but now that republicans control both congress and the white house you can see that change. >> there's an idea of a grand bargain if you will of tax cuts or infrastructure. there's been a problem of u.s. companies moving their headquaters overseas because the u.s. has such a high corporate tax rate. there's been talk on both sides of the aisle on ways to change that. senator chuck schumer that's the dell cattic leader come january in the senate even signed off on tax plan a bipartisan tax plan to sort of change the tax code
to take away the incentives for companies to move overseas. that's something that republicans want to do and if you can put it all together in tax code overhaul that also includes money for infrastructure, in terms of some of the companies coming back to the u. s. and using those proceeds to spend on roads and bridges which is also something that democrats would favor because they would see it as a job creating type of initiative. that is something where there could be a meeting of the minds. the question is do democrats want to give the republicans a win that could help them in the 2018 midterms and the 2020 race. >> chris in shreveport, louisiana. democrat. >> good morning. my kbegs is this, there's plenty of violence in school so what will trump do to improve the
security in school and will he be able to reestablish prayer in the school. >> well, we were talking this morning about economic agenda for president elect trump but there are -- there is a piece in the paperer this morning about his education views. so i'll try to find that for you and mention that to you. but today's focus with gina is economics. she is the breaking views washington columnist with reuters. donald in altoona, pennsylvania, a republican. hi there, good morning, go ahead. >> good morning. i think that policies of the past come back to prevent job creation. a lot of the money is entitlement in section 8 and a lot of these other programs.
it's going to help people to show compassion from 2 years and then it should be a lifetime ban. they could find a job. win the lottery. get married. find a social network or get help from families but too much money is going in the wrong direction and it's not helping. look, i'm from central pennsylvania. we suffered a lot over the past years with high unemployment. a lot of companies have shutdown. donald trump comes to pennsylvania and there was like 10, 12, 15,000 people at his rally. i was there. the voters have said they had sufficient with the policies of the past. we need to lower taxes on industry and businesses and then slowly but surely they will create jobs. >> all right. >> well, that's been one of the disappointing aspects of this recovery is that businesses haven't been investing in their companies, in new equipment and
other types of taxes but you don't want to have a race to the bottom and there's a sense that the u.s. isn't competitive on that front and possibly cutting taxes would help businesses grow more and hire more as well. >> so that caller's questions about education i apologize, i should have asked you what, you know, many people believe education is the key to economic growth, if you educate and we have a better educated american population that means better jobs. the new york times this morning has the story where donald trump stands on school choice, student debt and common core for that
viewer but what has president elect donald trump said about the importance of education or has that been not something he has talked about. >> it hasn't been i would say a core focus of his campaign but you have seen hill in the last few days meeting with people like michelle who used to be the leader of the schools in the washington area and a bit of a controversial figure but trump has tried to make a point of saying he wants to listen to various sides and keep an open mind and ideas to possibly think out of the box or education for the economy and for other issue and career politician if you will hn thought about in the fast. >> independent. >> in regards to those outsourcing as well as actually what you were just talking about with tax cuts how do we feel comfortable that some of this was not generated by unrealistic
expectations for what in terms of profit and in terms of quote, unquote growth and ceo salary and compensation because they're relatively what the average person makes. >> that's been a question of trump's economic plan based on a lot of assumptions that actual economists don't believe are possible. trump thinks that gdp growth will hit 4% under his plan and post player b possibly higher. it's been below 3% during obama's presidency and the fact that it could go higher is a bit of a question. in terms of whether companies will reinvest in jobs and other things to produce growth, it's also a question. the last time there was a repay triyags holiday that gave companies a break to bring back their overseas cash at a lower tax rate it didn't actually invest it into their own firms.
they did share buy backs. they did dividends and yeah they probably also padded their own compensation so there is a question of whether even if you get them these tax breaks. the trump administration helps. >> avondale arizona. >> basically to reiterate what an individual had called earlier and said regarding that the jobs that were being lost were being lost due to automation. the workers were not getting injured and one of the number
one things is loss of time from these individuals at work due to injuries repetitive injuries and things like that. that is not the be all end all. the thing that a lot of people are really missing sight of and they missed sight for the last 10 to 20 years is on the outsourcing of jobs the jobs are going over to places like malasia philippines and things like that. with big pharma going over there and sometimes inferior fillers going into our medication. and everyone else and i don't know if you remember and in some
of these, they're making $1 a day. and to them, that's good money. but if we bring them back into the u. s., you're going to see the quality come up, you're going to see the economy come up and the only way to do that is give the -- >> don't you always see it go up. >> it's in additional 50 cents on the is $1. like on a pair of shoes i have no problem that it is quality.
>> is an additional 50 cents or a dollar or much more than that. >> it could be much more and you take a shopper atwal mart that is looking for bargain prices and whether they turn away from those products because they are more expensive and walmart is an interesting example as they have actually recently based on the he election four states also raised minimum wage. walmart found their employees are are happier and more productive and working harder so whether that goes for the long-term still remains to be seen. it hasn't been as positive for their bottom line but in terms of the morale in their store, their from duck activity it has helped so that could be an example for others.
he does cut taxes for the and it really does benefit the weal wealthier talking about that also help those people with child care and which for lower income families actually doesn't really help them that much they already don't make enough to qualify for those productions. there are questions about.
hedge fund managers on his economic team and interesting and during the campaign he was in conflict with the chamber of commerce, the business round table, which is made up of ceo and the major corporations because they were very worried about his immigration plan, his stance on trade. so he actually wasn't quite in sync with some of the
traditional republican allies that are on the business side. i think they're trying to take sort of a wait and see period. they are more in favor of some of the things that house speaker paul ryan has proposed and hoping that can be somewhat of a moderation on some of president trump's more extreme policies. >> how have the markets been reacting. >> you saw them actually get a bit nervous because so many of them had priced in a hillary clinton win instead of a trump win just after the elections, but since then, s&p, nasdaq, all of them may have been up, bank stocks in particular have been up because they think not only will they benefit for the regulations, but this volatility is actually helping in terms of their trading rerch news. so so far we have seen a bump. that is not to say that that could change because of president trump's plans could effect the markets in a negative
way, especially if he starts a trade war. i think that will get investors pretty nervous. they've been pretty happy, it seems. >> records reached yesterday. >> yeah, definitely. they're going higher, and some of these stimulus infrastructure spending, you've seen a lot of companies, cement makers that's sort of sectors go up in the market because they feel like they'll be able to benefit from some of these policies. >> thank you for your time, appreciate it. >> thank you for having me. >> c-span washington journal with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up wednesday morning an analysis of president elect donald trump infrastructure proposal, the challenges and current state of u.s. infrastructure, of the george mason university, and the
institution klein, then washington examiner national security and defense reporter jamie mcintyre, on president elect trump's national security agenda and his decision to choose michael flynn as national security adviser. be sure to watch live wednesday morning, join the discussion. >> president obama awarded the michael jordan, ellen degenerous, diana ross, robert dinero and architect were among the recipients. you can watch the entire event at our web site, go to cspan.org. now a look at the on going protest of the dakota access pipeline project on the standing rock indian reservation in north
dakota, hosted for policy studies, this is an 1:20. >> i run the new internationalism program here and i would like to ask everybody first, the usual question, please silence your cell phones. we're going to be recording today's presentation, so we don't need rings going on. we wanted to have an opportunity for friends of ips to have a series of discussions following the elections, this is one of many discussions and particularly on this question of the new kind of centers of activism and resistance that have emerged since the election, even before this election,
standing rock had emerged as a kind of a morale car of resistance in all of our movements, all of the progressive movements. resistance to materialization. resistance to the military attacks, attacks on native rights, attacks on water, the environment, attacks on the planet. and in that context the economic gains of major corporations were put forward as not surprisingly far more important than those native rights, the environmental protections, protections of the water, protections of the earth. what we're talking about in north dakota, the dakota access pipeline of 1,200 mile pipeline that will provide some say jobs and help the economy, but in doing so, puts at great risk the people, the land, the water, the history, the culture there's a
remark david who said, "this demolition is devastating, these grounds are the resting place of our ancestors, the an comment stone prayer rings there cannot be replaced. in one day, our sacred land has been turned into hollow ground." the equivalent we might be building a pipeline under arlington cement tear and across the patomic and saying, well, it provides jobs, as if that were, one, true, and two, the only important issue. it's also, i would say, an example of the classic consequences of white privilege in this country, of why supremacy in this country. if we compare it to the treatment of the occupation by the militant bundy family a year or two ago when they occupied federal land and were treated with an extraordinary cautious
hands off careful position, no one from the federal government wanted to move into quickly, no one wanted to risk injuries and appropriated approach, if it were something that were applied across the board. instead, what we've seen is an incredible materialized response, police sheriffs from across the region national guard as well as local, private security guards under the control of the oil companies, the pipeline companies, with a major escalation sunday night that left over a hundred people injured, some of them very seriously. the use of tear gas, rubber bullets, sound cannons, and in the visual reminisce sans of the civil rights movement and how it was attacked, the use of dogs and fire hoses, in this case, it was fire hoses that were used in 26 degree temperature so that many of the people were
hospitalized after being attacked with fire hoses were hospitalized because of hypo therm ya, because it was so cold and being sprayed with freezing water aside from the physical injuries that they can lead to, they were sent to the hospital with new illnesses. there's also this whole question of the economic primacy that is the root of the standing rock pipeline. this is a $3.8 billion pipeline project. and the claim is that the lapd would otherwise be considered worthless because it's not generating large profits for any known corporations. of course, that doesn't take into account the people who live there, the people who live on that land, the people who rely on that water. there's no way to quantify the economic value of the culture of the ancestors graves that are there of the treaty rights that
are being violated with impunity. we could look for one model internationally because we're seeing international responses to this set of attacks that have been going on for the last six or eight months. in the palestine where the claim was made that this was a land without a people because the people who live there, the indigenous population, were not tied to an economically useful for international western countries or corporations. what we now have at standing rock is over 300 tribes that are represented, north american tribes and some from. >> but also young people who had
never been at a protest before but were moved by the question of standing with rock. president obama who, of course, famously said no to the pipeline, which, of course, is now at risk again, has not said no to the dakota pipeline and the army core of engineers the wallet largest native gathering and native led protest since back in 1973. we're going to have three speakers -- >> the mics are for recording. >> we're going to ha three speakers with us today, but we'll start first with a short video, it's about -- it's less than five minutes long, rise withstanding rock put together by the journalist laura flanders
i know what's happening right now is extremely important for the larger picture and what's going on. but i don't know how to make it live other than everybody who is taking a little bit of what's good there and keep that flame lit. keep tending that flame and making sure that it never ends. . and our first speaker, we know that in standing rock, standing rock, water defenders are native led, the protests are native led. there are also nonnative allies that have traveled to standing rock and are bringing back information our first speaker today is julian barnett who recently returned from a visit to standing rock, she focuses on communities of struggle, liberated zones that people carve out to sustain their
movements and work on living the principles of justice and equality they want to see in the world. >> i wanted to start with a gesture that philip said about being an ally. this is a navahoe necklace that a friend gave me a few years ago. and i'm using it today to indicate than to draw attention to the fact that we who are progressive people, who are allies are -- despite even because of our world view have
we want to be respectful and we want to honor native peoples, however, we are all conditioned raised in this system and we have been colonized as well, i'm using this necklace as a way of indicating that a decision needs to be made to notice that we need to pay attention when we are well for example in standing rock and in all movements that we need to very very deliberately decide not to act upon these colonized thoughts
and to be respectful and never to pretend try to speak for the community as a whole. i'm here and so i want to put this into the safekeeping of my brother for now. and i want to show you, as my own experience, as a person who visited and participated in -- which is the large encampment of the several that exists in the rock. so can we see the first slide. that you see as you come by. it's very large. you need to picture these are all photos that i took.
when you come in, you were -- you are greeted by security. this is security at standing rock. now, i contrast that with the materialized police and all of the equipment and so -- whoever happens to be there, with the security team asks you what you're doing, where you're going and, in my case, they directed me to media hill or facebook hill, as it's sometimes called which is one of the few places that you can get the reception. and so we -- behind there you can see the tent. up at the -- most of the public spaces, the indoor spaces were large army style tents and so -- but the angle here allows us to see the solar company is taking
charge this is absolutely critical. this is not a place. this this out in front of the missouri river on highway 1806, does not have telephone or electricity or running water. and i got there a press pass so and many very well considered guidelines about what to take pictures of what and what not, because the secure when you see a ceremony there's been a special arrangement made.
because -- and i was told that the people took pictures, missionary ris, particular, took pictures of native ceremonies. had these ceremonies declared legal, and they were declared legal until 1978. there is a central fire in the middle of the camp, all day it's tended and there are speak outs, prayers songs.
from the fire, from the place, from the biker phone they would call the entire camp was to come and gather. and because of defending the sacred land and the water, and the whole camp was. that this is both -- all of the mundane things happening, but there was a kind of a -- there was a kind of a sacred ethos
over it. -- all of the tribes have brought -- bring their flags and so there's a very impressive avenue down the middle of the karch with the camps raised on high. the flags are always blowing and so that's the main -- the main avenue and then often on people -- on the camps of the various tribes -- everybody is expected to work. this is not something you're instructed to do. people go to work. somebody in the video is saying you share your gift and you share your time and that is really how people get -- what
day is it. what time is it. it has to do with the activity you're doing and what you -- who you're with. i went on my own and not part of delegation. an indigenous she took it to process the corn, she had all of these people in the middle of this open space husking corn. and so i participated in that and they hung to dry and will be
made -- i will be ground for use in the winter. this is one of the few pictures that have people in it because you have -- you have to ask permission of -- before taking picture -- people and then i -- helped this family. this is an extended family. put up a -- and so i was just walking by and somebody -- they needed a little bit of help to hold the pole, i ended up spending a lot of time and with them and befriending, especially, the elder who is right next to me and so we worked on the -- on it. full disclose sure, it didn't really work out so well. but then this young woman, her mother who is the real expert came the next day and she -- she really made the -- she really
they were very good about servicing -- that came every day in the wee hours and this was part of -- it was the nitty-gritty of creating this community. and hear it said camp meeting, 10:00 a.m., 4:00 p.m., every day, anybody who was part of the camp came and who was a visitor would come and participate in these meetings. they were led, they were all native led, but anybody
everybody dade what they needed to say, until nobody had any more to say and believe it or not, the meetings were not all that long and things really did get done this is the medic tent, there's a dedicated the woman who will be calling in is part of the healing team who provide free health care as people need it. >> this is, it says we are still here. this is the camp that was set up in front of the pipeline. this is the camp that was rated. i stayed there on the last night of its existence and that was, you know, so it was had been very quickly built, but, you know, it's just a symbol of put
building, people making self screen signs to -- for the banners that people carry, beautiful signs. and this -- and this can be for the final remarks because this is -- this is the woman who is going to be speaking to us from standing rock. she's a healer. so that is all that's the tour. >> thanks, julie. >> this is great. >> our second speaker, jay winter night wolf, who i have known for many years here in washington, his full name is irksz u oirksd jay is the host
on wpfw the american indian truths, night wolf the most dangerous show on radio, so jay will be giving us more background part of this discussion. >> thank you for inviting me today. . the truth of all of this is that is actually standing for all of humanity. the issue is no whether you're indian or european or asian or black person. it's about what are we going to do to survive on this planet.
if water is not available we all die. death has no color. . we're standing up to protect our grandmother of the earth and the blood that she gives us, which is the water that we drink and live on. the only thing they care about is their bottom line. and i say to those the head of these corporations, when there is no water to drink, what will you do, how will you survive? do you have an exit plan to go somewhere else in the universe,
to exploit it. this is what ewe ear creating and it's all about what the european brought here to america 500 years ago. they bought diseases, greed, they bought arrogance. the only thing they have left behind anywhere they've gone in this world is death and destruction. or do you have anyone with you that tells you what you're doing is wrong.
i'm a grandfather. isle also a great grandfather and i love my grandchildren. what will we have to leave our grandchildren, our next seven generations to follow us if we don't make a change and demand through spirit and force because that's a very intergal part of how you get things done. what do we leave behind? i know you all, all of you sitting here. you either have children or grandchildren, am i right where
do we go from here. the army corps of engineers had a press release, where do they want to stop everything. why do they want to stop everything. because they realize that they broke the law because whenever you go on indian land and you want to build anything or bring about something new, you must have the tribe and come to sit at the table. tla didn't do that. they broke the law. they're guilty. now that we've got this new president elect coming in what
do we tell him. is he listening to any of us, i don't think so. antiimmigrant. this country is built on immigrants. people that came from all over the world to be here. but he's bent on sending people back to south of texas. well, i've got news for you, mr. trump, these people are not illegal aliens, before the european came to the americas, there were no borders. the borders were put in place to separate people to put in control of these economies. the one you've called latinos. there's no country called latin. there's no such thing as a hispanic. that's the pain that spain put
upon those people that came south of texas like the british and the dutch and the french put on us in north america, that's his pain. they are spanish speaking american indians. they are us and we are them. we get so caught up into these self made descriptions of people that we failed to see the humanity in all of it. every color and it's only four colors to human tanty.
agencies. >> e several people who were injured sunday are still in hospitals. i think we have with us now -- we have with us on the phone or we will in a minute, lolib, she's specializing in trauma recovery. she's helping to coordinate the mental health. we're just trying to figure out the technology here.
>> we have a room full of people and cspan here. could you tell us -- we have just a few minutes. could you tell us what you are doing at standing rock and what you are seeing and what you think we need to know here from allies outside of standing rock. and i've seen the way changed and the intensity has ebbed and
has become the voice and catalyst for the of this movement out around the world. >> much of what we've seen in the united states and somewhat internationally is the sense that standing rock has become the moral corps of a lot of movements that are on the rise right now, the environmental movement, the antiracist movements, the -- all of these various movements are convening around support, standing up for standing rock. could you talk about how people there -- how you see that symbolism of standing rock as the centerpiece of these broader movements? >> yeah, well, i think that basically hallmark of this movement is acknowledging the disrespect, racism, discrimination and oppression of the native people of this land. and i think we'll end that by empowering and honoring the most that have been in this country for a long time. we're bringing to light the
people have disrespected all different kind of people of color, and basically just highlighting the needs for all of us to come together and learn to live with respect and honoring one another in a nonviolent way. >> thank you very much. is there anything else you would like to tell us that you think at a very broad audience across this country should know? >> yeah. i think that, honestly, the best thing that everyone do to support us is go into your local community and start bringing the spirit. one of the most important things we're seeing here is the way that people are take k care of one another, almost too much we can handle here. i encourage people to go into their local community and reach out to those in need and reach out across class, race, all that we've created that divide us. and in their name of standing
rock, cross those connections and connect from the heart and also honor prayer and spirit that's been entry cal to this movement understanding that every tradition we can come together and honor the great spirit and this beautiful planet that we live on and all the resources that are given to us. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. [ applause ] thank you all for listening. we're doing to open up for some questions and discussions now for jay and for julie.
do we have questions in the audience. >> so i think some of the activists there, that they're really wanting president obama to take a stand, to stand up and say, no, end this, are there any thoughts or feelings about why he's absent and what role he can or should or shouldn't play in this fight. >> certainly, i feel that president obama could do more. but as so many of us that are realist know that the day he stepped into office, they had handcuffs waiting for him there's been a lot of efforts
that he put forth to make things bet for humanity. but every time he does, somebody cuts his hands off. now know he's only got but a few days left. maybe a presidential executive order to stop this right now. we don't know what's going to happen when this new president gets in. but at least stop it right now and show the world that he's on the right side of history when it comes to protecting grandmother and protecting
we're getting lollib back on the phone. the question that we just had from the audience was having to do with the request being made to made to president obama. while you're there in standing rock, can you tell us what people are saying they want the president to do during his final days in office? >> we want him to stop building the dakota access pipeline. >> say more about the campaign that is under way to ask him to do that. hello. are you still there? >> yes. can you hear me? >> we weren't hearing you for main. can you talk about the campaign that is underway to ask president obama to end the pipeline? >> so i'm not sure exactly what the final campaign is, but basically, he met with our tribal leaders and we're just asking limb to step in and this
end pipeline. at the very least step in and end the violent tactics that police are using against us here. because it is breaking a lot of laws. if he can't ask the department of justice to keep the north dakota county police in check and not treat us like we are in a war when we are unarmed that, would be a start to protect our safety. i'm not sure about the formal way that we're just asking him to stop the pipeline, to end it, just like he vetoed the keystone xl pipeline. he can do that. >> there is a call out in the lobby. can you pick up a piece of paper with numbers to call the authorities. >> there is a petition on the website calling on president obama to end the moves towards the pipeline.
another question. there was -- >> maybe julie can you speak to. this one thing that i was reading recently was just sort of making sure that the native allies we're supporting in the way that makes sense. so i'm wondering if you might offer just what a nonnative person could do from here that would make a difference. and maybe you could also share that. just being respectful and also sort of having the most impact now. what i understand is going to the camps is less useful than donating. i want to know if that is still true. >> were you able to hear that question? >> yes. so i agree that at this point we really need action coming from all sides and all places. it's really intense and challenging here to be on the ground and also we have limited resources just to provide for people. so i think that bringing awareness and putting pressure
on government officials, guys i've seen from the bank that's are funding this and basically just changing it in a systemic way from the top down is the most effective thing can you do. and also donating winter shelter. that's imperative. >> and just to follow up actually on what lali is saying in her earlier remarks. the more that the connections can be made between local organizing and the standing rock message and as -- and as both the moral core and the impulse that is a very strong sense that it is radiating out. and people -- but it takes organizing and takes thought to take that and translate it.
and being informed and separating out whatever news may or may not be accurate so that requires some research and for groups to keep the knowledge flowing and keep making the connections. >> i'd like to ask all three of you, i guess, a question about the intersection of so many of our movements and so many issues that are coming together symbolically standing rock. so we have the questions of environmental justice and environmental protection. protection of water and the land. we have the question of native rights and the whole question of white supremacy and history of genocide against native peoples in this country and how that fits with other anti-racist movements. we have the questions of how the mobilization has brought
together people from other tribes but also around the world. the question of international law is at the root of this in terms of treaty violations. so could each of you perhaps talk a little bit about how those combinations of issues come together at standing rock? do you -- jay, go ahead first. yeah. >> first of all, treaties are supposed to be the supreme law of the land. there are hundreds of treaties made. and every onest treaties have been aggravated. we have tried and tried. we have set and talked and tried to reason with these people. however, they refuse to be human in what they do.
it's a hard road. everybody can see that. i think the question is where does your humanity fit into all of this? when you have people from all over the world weighing in, when and where does it stop? you know, we've come to the cable in times to know avano av. so what's next? and i'm going to pass it on to phyllis, not phyllis, but julie and then i want my sister lali to comment on it.
i'd like to focus in on how they take place in a concrete community. i think that is a key if not the key thing about standing rock that we can take elsewhere. because there are many very vigorous vital important movements going on. what is happening at standing rock is that there is all of these -- all of these aspects are being worked with together in the flesh by people how native and nonnative people work together. and how it is that all of these issues -- all these people come together and deal with all of these issues but focusing on very, very simple basic needs of every single person and the earth, the planet which is water
and land. and so it really -- so there is something that is extremely integrated there. i think it is important, a very, very important thing to focus on. >> do you want to weigh in on this, too? >> yes. i think that what brought manufacture us here and uniting people across so many different backgrounds is that this is for the water and for the earth. and for honoring our relation to this planet and also for honoring to the way we relate to one another aeven from different cultures from different lands. and really realizing that we have to come to a place of more harmony and respect within ourselves and for one another as humans which will translate into respect for this planet. i think that's what's so beautiful about being here and caught the heart and spirit and we're focusing and we're all together regardless of any other
difference clz is the water. >> thank you for that. >> you reminded us that the latinos is a false name for what really many are indigenous peoples. i think an intersection that is going to be brought hard home to us in washington is the rights and dignity of people who are living here who are called undocumented, who are called alien. i think we have to reject this division among people and have that as a basis of our resistance and nonnative
offering of sanctuary achz as we're able to do that. i do think these fights, these stands are related. >> absolutely. >> for many, many years before 1942 right here on the potomac river people from as far south as the southern or the tip of south america and as far north as barrow, alaska came here two or three times to trade. that is recorded history. it's not until the european invader came that things got
separated. i think if we were -- like my grand father you used to always say, whether you talk to me, look at my eyes. because when you look in my eyes, the eyes are the pathway to the heart. you know who i am. it's only going to get worse. with this administration coming in now talking about sending the mexicans back, i don't know how dumb you could be to even think like that.
these are the north american inldians, the original inhabitants of the western hemisphe hemisphere. long before the europeans came here, we had real democracy. and the people of the confederacy had the great law of peace. 30 miles east of missouri is a holy place. every year people from all of the tribes go there to sit in council with each other. so i think we need to go back
and look at history as human beings. and we will find answers there. nobody tried to cover those answers up. nobody tried to burn those answers down. they're still there. put the human back into humanity and a lot of things will change. and as far as what's happening with the police action in north dakota, the president with send a u.s. marshal out there and stop that right away. >> that's another model of the parallels with the civil rights movement, the struggle to get federal marshals to control the actions of local police.
>> i was born in colombia. and i grew up in this country. >> we're losing you again. >> i have the identity of latina and is actually indigenous and realize wlg we understand our history in that context, it really does unite the north and south and central american native people in a way that i think a lot of us forgotten for a long time. so i think that by -- and also we had people here from south america from central america that had taken stands against the same kind of invasion,
genocide and oppression. so i think the connection to this land is really empowering and as to everyone else who has ancestry that has come into this country and these lands in the different way. i'm grateful for that awareness and i hope people that immigrated from central america to this land are respected in a different way. >> thank you for. that we had another question. >> i would like to know what impact has the resistance have made the killers on the land? >> what impact has it made on those who are killing the land and destroying the water? do you want to go first?
>> how it impacted those people, personally, i heard of 27 police officers that have turned their badges in and there also are our statements here. i'm really not sure. the dayst raid, winlt around and tried to look into the eyes of police officers and play the drum in stand of front of them. three out of 75 of those mostly men were able to look necessity mt eyes and see me as a human bei being. what i saw the other night is they were not seeing us as people anymore. and so i -- i'm not sure what, you know, the workers or people think of us.
but i wonder how this impacted them. >> an indirect but very clear way to see the impact is as the resistance or reaction to the resistance grows, this shows that they are feeling more and more threatened. this is not the impact that we would want. we would want a softening, not a hard ening. but the actions are being noticed and it is often confounding. when i was there, i saw that sometimes there was -- the reaction -- it seemed like sometimes there was a huge reaction. sometimes there was no reaction. sometimes they sent this message when nothing was going on about extreme alert and so on.
there is a lack of strategy wlaen needs to be done. certainly -- there is certainly strategy at the level of the company. it seems like there is absolutely no impact as far as people's minds. but as far as the notice being taken by authorities, that is certain. >> jerry? >> i want to say something. the use of fossil fuels is coming to an end very quickly. this pipeline that they're
wanting to complete, is to transport this natural gas to be sold in foreign countries. none of this is going to benefit us. they want to sell it to foreign countries at the risk of destroying a people, destroying their culture, destroying their sacred grounds, their burial grounds for the cost for a dollar. now my question to all of my white brothers and sisters, if
they dug up the graves of your ancestors, how would you feel? because we do have native-americans that have degrees in archaeology. if we decide one day to say let's go to that cemetery over there that white cemetery over there and dig their ancestors up and see if they really did have syphilis or what they died from, that would be classified as sacreligious. there's no difference but they're protected by laws.
where is the honor? where is the honor among human beings? where does that go? and solar energy and wind energy, that's free. but they would rather dig up and frac for oil and dig for grass. you have ever heard of earthquakes on a level of five in oklahoma? where do all the sink holes come from? you take, take, take and do you nothing to put anything back. we're in trouble. we're in big, big trouble. if they won't bring us to the table, maybe we need to bring
them to the table and teach them something about common sense and reality. because they lost it, if they ever had it. >> i would just add that one of the things we have seen a shift, i can't speak at all to what the impact has been on people, but at the institutional level, among other things, when there was several thousand people camped out outside the army corps of engineers headquarters here in washington last week, the head of the army corps came out and had to speak to this crowd who were silent waiting for his answer. he had to say, yes, we did not consult before. we're doing that now. we are hearing this. maybe this is beginning to have that impact whether it will be on the president, whether it
will be on the white house, the department of energy, on the army corps of engineers, some where along there, there are institutional shifts being considered. and we have just a few more minutes. i was going to ask each of our three panelists to leave us with their sense of what we should take away, what we should be thinking about going forward, what the next steps are for supporters of those who stand withstanding rock, those who stand to defend the water and the land. you've been very patient us with on your phone. perhaps you could give us your final words first. >> sure. i would like to share that this is only the beginning. standing rock is a catalyst and it's inviting everyone on this planet to change the way that we relate to the earth. and that this is an awakiawaken
that we feel is happening and i look forward to seeing what will unfold and invite all of you to be a part of it so can you tell your children and grandchildren that you said to protect the water and the earth. >> thank you. >> perhaps the most impactful thing of being at standing rock was to really be part of, to be welcomed into a different kind of community. a place that is really in the process of creating a piece of the new world now. it's not like people sat down and mapped it out. there is plenty of that as well. but it is something that is generated in all of the
interactions, the thinking and the feeling of respect and being together with this overarching purpose. it is something that is extremely -- well, it is something that is -- it's much greater than all of the various piece that's make it up. even though all of those pieces are essential. and i think it also tells us how much the day to day work in the trenches, you might say, doing the cooking, doing the healing of people, all of this is -- it's obviously important and important in all societies. but it becomes part of this whole new -- it's a way of
sustaining long term a movement so it can really, you know, make a place for everybody. and that something that i really encourage people to think about as we create our movements. how do we create, you know, these areas, these zones where we can really make our lives different as we go along, creating -- creating the path by walking. >> thank you. >> as we always look upon everyone else that's not a part of our tribe or tribal communiti communities, we're all relatives.
it's time to be about being human again. and if we don't do it soon, it's going to be too late for all of us. and i'll close as i always close my radio show, i love you all. all of you. even those of that make it almost impossible to love. i love you anyway. let's not talk about it. let's be about it. thank you. >> thank you all. lali was joining us on the phone if standing rock, a holistic healer specializing in trauma recovery. julie barnett recently returned
from a visit to standing rock as an ally there. and jay winter knight wolf comes frous wpfw every week. he is a cherokee tribal member. and just to close us out today, the institute for policy studies was very glad that we had this opportunity to begin a longer conversation about standing rock, about what it says for all of our movements as we build our movements together. ips stands withstanding rock. >> the colombian journalism school hosted a forum on school segregation throughout history with investigative journalist. watch wednesday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. here's a preview.
i wanted to understand why. like what -- what is causing this? why are our neighborhoods segregated 50 years after we passed the fair housing act? why our schools still segregated, but when you look across every measure, black and latino students are getting, you know, the least qualified teachers, less likely to get access to academic courses that get you into an institution like colombia across the country. i wanted to understand why that was. so that's really when my work began to focus on looking at the particular actions that we take in the past and also that people are taking right now that maintain segregation and racial inequality. so with schools, resegregation was a way to do that. if a place had been segregated and then it was intergrated, you could go back to that point where it starts resegregating and show that someone had to do
something. something -- so i started looking at school districts that were order bid federal courts to integrate. when federal courts ordered you to integrate, they lay out certain thing uz have to do. you have to bus the kids or have racial balance and have a white school and a black school. and then once the school district is released from that court order, they can do whatever they want. they can create all black schools if they want to as long as they never say we're doing this because we want to discriminate against black kids. they did do whatever they want. and so it was easy then to go to this point where a school district or school had been integrated and now it was going backwards and you could find who did what, who made this decision that resegregated this school? >> watch the columbia university conversation with school segregation at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span.
>> well, if james madison is the architect of the constitution, and he might be, then george washington is the general contractor. >> george washington, nationalist. >> what he thnt whatted to do is recruit washington in as part of the coup d'etat. hamilton already talked to washington before about this democracy stuff is never going to have to work. you'll have to be our king. washington was a true republican. he believed in republican government. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> up next, josh earnest about the transition process between the obama administration and president-elect donald trump.
. good afternoon, everybody. if you joined us on the trip, welcome back. i hope you caught up on your sleep. maybe a little. i don't have any announcements. i'll go straight to your questions. >> thanks, josh. has the president spoken to the president-elect since their meeting in the oval office shortly after the election?. oval office shortly after the election? >> the president-elect indicated his desire to continue to consult with president obama with, of course, a transition. and you also heard president obama indicate the high priority in a he has place ond facilitating this movement.
so reports that the two may have talked after their white house meeting is not particularly surprising. i can tell you that the president has -- had a conversation with the president-elect since the oval office. >> when the president speaks to other important world leaders, members of congress or congressional leadership, they're able to have private discussions where they keep on top of things. >> that hasn't been trud whether president obama consulted with
other presidents. i think that is the president's privacy that we're trying to protect. as president-elect donald trump indicated in the oval office, he was hoping he would have the opportunity to consult with president obama over the course of this transition. president obama has committed to a smooth transition. >> is the white house hoping trump and his team will be similarly coy in not releasing a lot of details about what the two presidents discuss? >> the president-elect can discuss whatever he chooses to about his conversations with president obama, presumably there will be an opportunity to do that beyond off-the-record meetings. >> reporter: you may have seen the president-elect, his team, at least, is now saying that he won't go ahead and try to prosecute hillary clinton if elected -- once he takes office. is the white house relieved to hear that that seems to be off the table or are you concerned that the independence between the white house and the justice department that you've worked so dutifully over the last eight
years to maintain now seems to be going out the window? >> josh, i think the end of your question is where i would begin which is that we have gone to great lengths in the context of the obama administration to uphold a fore foundational principle of our democracy, which is preventing politics from influencing independent criminal investigations. that is a basic principle of our democracy because we don't want to leave anybody with even the impression that there's the potential that somebody could be treated differently by our criminal justice system because of their political affiliation. this is the principle of every american being subject to the rule of law and every american being equal under the law? so we have gone to great lengths not just to uphold that principle but to even avoid the
appearance of that principle being called into question. and for better or worse in the context of the two and a half years that i've been doing this job, i've been asked repeatedly, even before secretary clinton had announced her campaign i was asked about her e-mail system. eight days before an election i came out and stood before all of you answering questions about a letter from the fbi director that he had sent to congress saying that the investigation had been reopened. and at each of those terms i've made clear that those kinds of investigative decisions and investigative conclusions should be conducted free of any sort of political interference and should be conducted independent of any white house interference. and that's the principle that we have protected. that's the principle that
previous presidents protected and we certainly believe that's a principle future presidents should protect. but, again, i can't speak for the president-elect's team or any decisions or pronouncements he'd make to make. you have to talk to him about that. >> reporter: i want to ask you about the president-elect publicly lobbying for britain to nominate nigel farage as the uk ambassador to the u.s. is the white house concerned by that apparently pretty significant breach of protocol given his status as political opposition to the current leadership? the uk? >> as somebody who has covered the president closely for the last several year years can you know the president has been contentious about not waiting too deeply in another country's politics.
there's plenty of politics in this country to keep everybody busy. so there have been occasions where the president has taken a position on a particular issue or spoken publicly about a particular issue, the brexit question comes to mind. a lot of people made note of the president's public statements about the brexit vote when he visited the uk earlier this year but he was quite direct in laying out his view that this was a decision for the british people to make but he offered his opinion for a couple of reasons -- first of all that we saw some of the opponents of brexit suggest that somehow the united states would benefit or have a favorable view of a brexit vote.
that was obviously not true so the president wanted to set the record straight. the president also felt it was important for people to understand the true feelings of the uk's closest ally as they weighed this decision that was before them. and so the president made the argument accordingly but at each turn in making that argument he went to great lengths to make clear that he respects the sovereignty of the british people and certainly respects the responsibility that the british people and the british government have to make decisions that are consistent with their own countries and their own citizens' self-interest and that's a principle that we've sought to uphold during the president's eight years in office. you have to talk to the president-elect or the people of the uk about whether or not they
are concerned that that tweet may have violated that principle. it's not something i'll weigh in on from here. >> reporter: i wanted to ask you about president-elect trump's recent comments on immigration. yesterday in a youtube video outlining executive actions he hopes to take as soon as he gets into office he said he was going to call on the department of labor to investigate all abuses of visa programs that undercut american workers. does the president have a response to this? does he think that visa abuse by american companies is on the rise? and does he support an approach that would investigate a piece-by-piece each abuse? >> well, listen, over the course of the election i think we made and the president made very clear, even to people who are only sort of paying attention, that the president-elect's vision for the domestic and foreign policy he chose to -- he hoped to pursue is quite different than the priorities and agenda that president obama set over his last eight years in office so it shouldn't be surprising a number of the priorities that the president-elect has discussed are not the same priorities we've been discussing. but for me to weigh in on and
react to or even criticize those well-known differences would undermine the president's priority of ensuring a smooth and effective transition. it's certainly a responsibility of the president-elect to communicate with the american public about what priorities he'll pursue when he takes office. he has that right and ability because he won the election. and the election is over. the debate about the consequences of the election have been resolved and the president is following the will of the american people and fulfilling his institutional responsibility to give the incoming team the best prospects for success when it comes to uniting the country and moving us forward. >> an area where there may be overlap and you might be able to comment is president-elect trump's plans to unravel the daca, the dreamers act that allowed children brought to the u.s. by their parents work authorizations. obviously it was a big push of this administration to get those
people to give their information to the government to come forward. that information will now be put in the hands of an administration who could use that for enforcement. things liked a dresses. what does the presidency now to reassure or to try to provide some comfort to people who felt -- who he convinced to trust the government enough to come forward and share that information? >> i know the president has had an opportunity to talk about this a little bit already. i think what i would say in general is that this does underscore the need for congress
to act on the clear bipartisan agreement that exists about some of the benefits of comprehensive immigration reform. the obstruction by house republicans prevented the realization of that goal and ultimately house republicans who continue to retain the responsibility for governing the country with their majorities in congress will have to evaluate whether or not they want this country to enjoy the significant economic benefits of common sense comprehensive immigration reform. the second thing i would note is that the president-elect since the election has given voice to the same kind of prior tease and criteria that this administration has long pursued. the president-elect has indicated his emphasis when it comes to deportation should be on criminals, that's actually the policy that this administration has been pursuing
for quite some time. that's the policy that we turbo charged in the context of the president's executive actions that were announced a little over two years ago now. so that -- you know, ultimately it will be the responsibility of the president-elect to determine what sort of priorities his administration will pursue, the kind of enforcement priorities that are laid out in the context of the dreamers' executive action taken by the administration was something that largely rested at the department of homeland security so certainly the president-elect's choice for secretary of homeland security will be a consequential one but ultimately the president has
made clear that those individuals who qualified for daca, the dream act executive actions that this administration pursued are individuals who are in the united states through no fault of their own. these are individuals who are american in every way but their papers. and these are individuals who attend the same church, attend the same school, shop at the same stores, live in the same communities as americans across the country and our country benefits from making an investment in those young people because those young people made an investment in us and many of them have gone to college and demonstrated the kind of entrepreneurial spirit that benefitted our economy. many enlisted in our military and fought and died protecting the united states of america and the people who live here so there's a strong case to make about the valuable contribution these individuals have already made to the united states and a strong case has been made about how unraveling them and dividing families in the way that some suggest would be bad for our
economy and entirely inconsistent with the kinds of values that have long been severed by american policymakers for generations. >> reporter: one last question. will the president withdraw merrick garland's nomination to the supreme court? >> well, listen, the president believes strongly that chief judge garland is the best person in america to fill a vacant seat on the supreme court, that's why the president nominated him. presumably there are some republicans who agree. they agree for a variety of reasons, they agree in part because chief judge garland is the most experienced supreme court nominee in american history. he spent 19 years on the federal judiciary and no one can call
into question his qualifications, certainly the non-partisan american bar association didn't call into question his qualifications, they rated him unanimously well qualified for the job. you had republicans who in the past who described chief judge garland as a consensus nominee, as somebody who is going to set aside his own political leanings and focus on a judge's responsibility to interpret the law. merrick garland led the investigation into the bombing in oklahoma city and played a key role in bringing to justice those who killed more than 100 americans in oklahoma city more than 20 years ago now so chief judge garland is somebody who is qualified, he's a man of impeccable character and a man who served his country and it's disgraceful the way that the republican in united states senate have treated him.
even setting aside their failure to fulfill their basic responsibility as elected officials, as elected representatives of the american people in the united states, so this is a -- his treatment and the way this situation is likely to end is a scar on the institution of the united states senate and it is a scar that i do not anticipate will go away quickly and that is rather unfortunate. but you can certainly be sure that president obama will continue to have chief judge garland's back until the end of this congressional session. >> reporter: i wanted to ask -- you talked about ensuring a smooth transition and helping the president-elect. in his video yesterday he said on day one he would signal his tension to withdraw from tpp. i'm wondering for you guys, do you still plan to submit a final statement and the draft of the implementing bill for congress or is your support for tpp at this pointing a dem wick the realization that there's no interest on capitol hill and certainly not for the
president-elect. >> we certainly were well aware of the public statements of the president-elect and this is true of both candidates. neither of them was supportive of the transpacific partnership. i don't have any future steps to preview but i would acknowledge the prospects of tpp being ratified by this congress oar before president obama leaves are not very good and that's unfortunate. >> reporter: are you going to try? >> i don't have any steps to preview at this point. i think the argument that would make is simply that this is -- if congress does not move forward with ratifying the transpacific partnership, it is a significant missed opportunity for the american people, in part because there were some pretty clear signals from other tpp countries that they actually intend to move forward even if the united states does not and
that will put u.s. businesses and workers at a disadvantage. you have other countries with significant economies and growing economies where the united states already does business but u.s. businesses and workers will be put at a disadvantage because we don't benefit from the created by the tpp. you will see other countries part of tpp move in and capitalize on the market share u.s. companies have lost. in the asia-pacific. and this's a real shame because so much of the anxiety that was -- according to many analysts -- expressed in the context of the election -- was rooted in the idea that the forces of globalization have had a negative impact on too many american workers. and those workers were frustrated that their government hadn't done more a help them and their companies counter those forces of globalization. that's exactly the strategy we have laid out and it's tragic so see that be rolled back, to see that that policy that could address some of the concerns be rolled back by the person who
claims they share those concerns so that's deeply disappointing, this is also concerning when you consider our broader relationship with china because we know right now even as we speak china is seeking to advance their own trade agreement with countries in this region that we know is going to further disadvantage with u.s. workers and businesses. so it's not a situation where congress refusing to advance the tpp that the status quo is maintained and we'll find a different solution. the fact is the u.s. will be consequentially negatively affected by the refusal of the congress to ratify the tpp in terms of lost opportunities and lost market share but also in terms of lower standards being implemented by china.
the last thing i will say is there was discussion about the campaign about nafta and the need to improve nafta. that's what the tpp would have done. it would have included some environmental and labor standards that would have been increased and made enforceable that the context of tpp that was not true in nafta and that potential improvement is on the verge of being cast to the curb, if you will. and that's rather unfortunate, too. so there are significant lost opportunities and it will be difficult, i think, for, frankly, democrats and
republicans in congress who oppose the tpp moving forward to justify this action or inaction as the case may be and to lay out some sort of coherent strategy for addressing these concerns. this administration pursued a coherent strategy. we worked for years to negotiate the kind of agreement that would advantage u.s. workers and our broader economy but it looks like that responsibility may fall to someone else. ill think they will have a hard time putting together the kind of coherent strategy with as much promise as the one this
administration put forward. >> reporter: i know the president was asked about the director down in peru but the president's answer was broad and so i wanted to ask a couple tighter questions about -- i thought you did a good job. >> be specific. [ laughter ] >> would you like to sit up here and handle this one? i can take a break for a minute. >> reporter: did the president receive a recommendation from secretary carter to remove director rogers and has the president made a determination about whether there should be severed changes of command between the nsa and military cyber operations?
i say all this acknowledging i'm probably not going to get more than gardner did. >> fair enough. you wouldn't be job if you didn't ask and i wouldn't be doing my job if i gave up a whole lot more, particularly when it comes to something as critical to our national security as cyber security. something something i think was evidence in the president's answer, something the president has been thinking about a lot, about what we can do to enhance and further fortify the kinds of cyber protections that the american people and the u.s. government rely upon to ensure the protection of our national security. if the president was unwilling to describe the advice and
recommendations he's getting from his secretary of defense, it would be out of line for me to do so i won't talk about the kinds of advice or recommendation the president has received from the dni or chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or the secretary of defense. but i can tell you that this is a question more generally about how to structure our national security apparatus, that the president has been talking about this with his team, as it relates to admiral rogers you heard directly from the president in pretty unambiguous terms how the president views admiral rogers as a patriot and somebody who devoted a significant portion of his life to protecting our country and i
think all of us can be and should be grateful for his service thus far. if the president were to make a decision about changing the organization of this structure by dividing the responsibilities of the nsa director and 2 commander of cyber command into two different jobs, that's an announcement i would let the commander in chief make. >> reporter: last one. all four major stock indices yesterday closed at record highs. i know you don't comment on day to day fluctuation bus there have been a decided uptick since president-elect trump was elected so i'm wondering if you can reflect on why investors may seem encouraged by the prospect of transitioning from an obama economy to a trump economy. >> i typically am quite reluctant to talk about individual market movements and i suspect there are plenty of analysts out there who have their own theories about market movements over the last couple weeks and -- so i'll let those highly-paid analysts do that work. the market movement that i would comment on is the one we've seen over the last eight years. most stock indexes have more than doubled under president obama's leadership and i do think that that speaks well of the kind of economic strategy that president obama has implemented and it certainly will be a very high bar for a future president to live up to but hopefully they'll give it a good shot. mark? >> reporter: josh, in your answer on merrick garland, does that mean that president obama will resubmit the nomination in january during those days when the new congress overlaps at the end of his presidency? >> i don't think anything to preview at this point about whether or not the president would resubmit his nomination
but obviously the president i think shares my -- i'm confident shares my view that the senate's treatment of chief judge garland is deplorable. >> reporter: speaker ryan today is urging president obama not to put forward any steps that would bolster iran's economy, he's worried there might be new concessions in the pipeline. does he have reason to worry? >> well, i have anything to preview at this point. what i can tell you is this administration through january 20 whether fulfill our on ligations around the iran deal that have prevented iran from advancing their nuclear weapons capability. in fact, that capability has been substantially rolled back because of this international agreement the united states brokered with our closest allies. and the results of the deal meant that iran had to ship out 98% of its enriched uranium, had to dismantle two-thirds of their centrifuges, thousands of centrifuges were dismantled. that they had to render harmless their plutonium reactor and they have adopted and complied with the most intrusive set of inspections ever imposed by a country's nuclear program. so the steps that have been taken thus far have enhanced the national security of the united states significantly. they've also enhanced the national security of our closest ally in the middle east, israel, and our other european alleys in particular feel very good about the progress this agreement has
yielded. in fact, it has exceeded not just the expectations of those of us who believe the attorney deal was the right approach but it has refuted every criticism that we heard from opponents of the deal. there was a suggestion at the very beginning that iran would never sit down and negotiate this kind of an arrangement in good faith. once those negotiations started there was a sense that was put forward by opponents of the deal that iran wasn't interested in negotiating an agreement, that they were just negotiating for time. they were wrong about that, too. once the agreement was reached critics said iran would never comply with the deal. never live up to the terms included on the paper. they were wrong about that. even the israeli intelligence community that had significant doubts about the deal have confirmed what we've seen from other places which is that iran has lived up to the terms of the deal so while iran lives up to the terms of the deal the united states is going to make sure we're fulfilling our commitments to make sure the deal doesn't
fall apart and we know that our allies -- the president had the opportunity to talk about this with countries that were part of the international agreement to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and they shared that sentiment. the next administration will have to decide what they want to do moving forward but the risks of pulling out of that agreement or doing something in violation are grave. >> reporter: the speaker is also asking president obama to sign a ten-year extension of the iran sanctions act. is that something he'd be willing to do? >> we know there's been a robust debate in congress about the wisdom of this approach. if there's a bill passed by the congress we'll obviously take a close look at it. i know much of the rhetoric on capitol hill is them -- is advocates of bill saying they want to give the president tools
to impose sanctions against iran where necessary. the truth is, the obama administration has significant authority to impose those kind of financial penalties and we have not been timid about using them. this administration has repeatedly through the treasury department imposed sanctions against iran for a ballistic missile program that extends beyond the accepted guidelines of the international community. we've imposed sanctions against iran because of their support for terrorism in the region. we have imposed sanctions against iran because of their repeated and flagrant violation of universal human rights. so these are tools that the administration already has and we have certainly shown a willingness to use them. but, you know, if congress wants to put more on the table, then we'll take a look at what they propose. we certainly are not going to, however, sign a piece of legislation that would undermine the ability of the international community to continue to
successfully implement the international agreement to prevent iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons. >> reporter: and one last question on today's event. can you tell us or remind us how president obama selects the recipients of this medal of freedom? >> well, i know this is a process that was created by -- an award created by president kennedy. and the president every year looks forward to this opportunity that he has to acknowledge the contributions of people, mostly americans, to the world and to the united states and it's a rather distinguished group of individuals. and you will see human-driven cars and autonomous vehicles operating side by side as the technology continues to emerge. so, it will be interesting to see how this works. >> yeah, i would like to actually contradict what i just said. i think that, you know, the next generation could be much less
about tangible goods. this could be a generational issue. are richly deserving. okay? all right. andrew? >> thank you. i want to go back to the question about donald trump's prosecution of hillary clinton. you spoke about a core principle about democracy. do you think the president-elect's comments and thoefz his staff are risk eroding the core principle of democracy? >> well, listen, i -- there's ample opportunity for people to weigh in this debate. and certainly many people, democrats and republicans avail
themselves that opportunity in the two weeks leading up to the debate. i suspect that comments to dale give more people a reason to weigh in. but i'm not going to weigh in from here. i think the one thing i didn't mention in my previous answer that is relevant here is that there was an investigation. the investigation was led by independent officials at the department of justice including the director of the fbi. this is an individual who is a registered republican. this is something who served as high-ranking official in the bush administration as a political appointee. he's somebody confirmed in the united states senate by majority of democrats and majority of republicans when president obama appointed him to the job. president obama selected him for the job because of his demonstrated ability and long-standing track record of putting aside political considerations to focus on the law. and his conclusion after the evidence was presented to him
was that no reasonable prosecutor would move forward with the case. he made that recommendation public. that was approved by senior officials of the department of justice including attorney general, herself, somebody with decades of experience conducting criminal prosecutions. so i guess the point, andrew, is that we don't need staffers in the next white house to resolve the question about whether or not a prosecution should move forward. this decision was already reached by senior officials at the department of justice in a way that should resolve everybody's concerns about the potential for political
interference. and it's important this long-standing tradition and principle that is the foundation, or at least one critical part of the foundation of the criminal justice system is one that is not just upheld but one that is carefully protected. it is erosion as the potential to raise questions about whether or not everyone in the country is going to be treated fairly and under the law. cheryl. i'm sorry. i didn't mean to cut you off there. >> the president has spoken quite a few times about the negative impact of partisanship and the need for reaching across the aisle. i was wondering if you think the outreach to the trump campaign offers an example for democrats in that regard? >> i'm not going to comment an congressman gabbert's conversations. what i can tell you is president obama invited president-elect to come to the oval office and meet with him. so at this point i don't think i have the standing for
criticizing anybody to have a meeting with the president-elect. i think the president was pretty blunt over the cower of the last week when he was traveling in europe and latin america where he encouraged people in the united states and around the world to wait and see. when it comes to assessing the purr suits of the next administration. obviously i think that's what we'll all be doing. >> is the administration granted a license to sell over 1xplanes to iran? >> i saw some of this reporting before i came out here. i encourage you to check with my colleagues at the treasury department. that's the agency that handles those licenses and makes those decisions. okay? cheryl. >> i need to know if the president would sign short-term continuing resolution through march or how do you see the budget issue being resolved this year. >> the approach that we have
taken since the beginning is that the american people, the american government and the american economy benefit from certainty. one piece of certainty that the federal government owes the american people, and the american economy, is budget certainty. there's no reason that congress shouldn't be able to fulfill their basic responsibility to provide an annual budget for the u.s. government and to do that on time and to put forward a budget that is consistent with a set of principles about the best way to govern the country. we're going to continue to advocate for the longest possible budget agreement we can get. but ultimately congress is going