tv Washington Journal CSPAN August 20, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EDT
commander on his criticism of the iran nuclear deal. a look at the state of the u.s. auto industry. at 9:15, jason williamson ost: good morning and it's thursday, august 20th, 2015. on our three hour program we'll about police reform and u.s. national security and the state of the u.s. auto industry but we begin amendment and birthright citizenship which donald trump and several contenders calling for an end to the practice of citizenship matic
to anyone born on u.s. soil. we're asking our viewers to in on this latest debate. birthright .s. end citizenship. 202-748-8000 if ou say no, the number is 20277488001. special line for americans whose parents were born.gn hey can call in at 202-748-8002. us at journal at c-span.org. we begin this morning with a of birthright citizenship that if you are born you're a u.s. citizen regardless of the legal status of your parents. was renewed in
this country ever since a of a position plan by trump where he says irthright citizenship becomes magnet.st here's a tweet from republican former louisiana governor bobbie jindal. says -- and of course ted texas he senator there also with a statement last night michael immediate veried absolutely want to end birthright citizenship. trump talked about it interview.
> whole thing with anchor babies and the concept i don't think you're right about that. want me quote it if you to quote it. here you're an american. >> but many lawyers say that's of the way it is in terms this. what happens is they're in mexico and they're going to have for a and they're here come of days and they have the have to to 's going be tested. egardless, when people are illegally in the country they have to go. the good ones and there are work sof good ones will it's expedited, but they come legally. we have a country. you need borders and you need law. i said that for decades. trump hat's donald earlier this week on the o'riley actor talking about birthright
citizenship using the term babies." a controversial term. they noted when a reporter asked night at one of his events if he knew how offensive it, he was found incredulous. he says -- onald trump and jeb bush squaring off at two different events happening at the same time during their presidential around the country of the we're getting your thoughts this morning. hould the u.s. end birthright citizenship. we'll start this morning with joe from georgia on the line for should not ink we end birthright citizenship. this joe? caller: john, i strongly love for 35 years.
elected for president. and i'm so fired up i'm having a at night, leeping john. host: that's joe. we want to hear from our viewers. lines for those who think we it and those who think we shouldn't and first generation americans. john is up next also believes we should end birthright citizenship. john, good morning. caller: good morning. john here. host: go ahead. aller: i think we should end birthrights because those are rules. ittle rules and big rules what's the difference. a little if i rob bank versus a big bank? stop.got to host: would this need a revision of the 14th amendment to make this happen? read the 14th amendment the ur viewers noting it's first section of the 14th amendment. nationalizedborn or
in the united states are citizens of the united states state where-in they reside. caller: i would give them the were of paper saying they citizens and if there are move es i would make them out and then if they want to come back legally then that's fine. i don't have a problem with that. host: john in stafford, virginia. on our ate playing out facebook page, facebook.com/c-span. you can be conducted in a poll there. currently those saying no are ahead of those saying yes in the responses so far. leave a comment with your response including whose comment n no., my no is a qualified i favor it if it could be rewarded.
nd sharon below that says -- and tracy hail hall above that ays -- host: you can participate in the give us a call. on that line for first generation americans don is henderson, rom nevada. good morning. you.r: good morning to host: your thoughts, sir, on citizenship.ight caller: it is they ought to amendment to exclude
illegals r ininclude to the effect that any children illegals cannot be citizens. hey have to go through the procedure just like everybody else, stand in line and go back stand in ountry and citizenship.ly for as one of your e-mails showed, abusing our are system to the hilt. host: let me ask you, those who not in favor of doing away with birthright citizenship say make children responsible for the sins of their parents. that o you make of argument? caller: i think that parents legally came ens to this country, went through the process, i think the become citizens
naturalized or by birth. ost: you're a first generation american. how did your parents come to this country? came in through ellis island and applied for citizenship. even speak english to it took them four years pass the test in english and we became naturalized as i was under a certain age to a naturalized citizen. there is one thing that you got country, tand in this we cannot make illegals legal. are two definitive words. illegal and legal. our government doesn't illegal.d the word host: out in henderson, nevada. homestead, next in pennsylvania. you don't believe the u.s. should do away with birthright citizenship. why is that?
>> i absolutely don't agree with trump and the other four gentlemen that are running for president. we are supposed to be a country that welcomes people and i am of the more that imgrants whether they've come ultimatelyr not help our economy. it makes it better and stronger that we are world accepting of everyone and i want to make one other point. republicans have spent the last 15 years redistricting that it helps them succeed in the congresses and itself very well in the senate and in the house of representatives. rid of all t to get the people that don't either ook like them or act like them or talk like them so that they 49% reelect epublican president this next time and it's not going to
happen. f we don't -- i'm talking generally now -- if we don't change the way we are viewing to haveng, we are going incredible class problems in ultimately.y we're going to have the haves the havenots at war with each other. we can see it in the economy and policies. oppression against women, everything. this donald trump thing has got so wound up and everybody is buying -- not everybody but a lot of people are buying into his rhetoric. it's inflammatory. it's insensitive and it's also disgusting. homestead,'s mandy in pennsylvania. she mentioned four republicans got on this issue. there are more than that. republican out
anti-immigrant race. editorial board rights, as r. trump swells his diminished opponents are following. everal have shuffled on to the santorum and chris christie. birthright repeal citizenship as does governor jindal of louisiana, a birthright citizen himself. read more of their thoughts it's the times. go to betty for those who it.k we should do away with caller: good morning, c-span and thank you for taking my call. i believe that we should end birthright citizenship. last callery to the hat you had i don't know what planet or rock she's sleeping
under but donald trump who is brought person who has this thing to the forefront. llegal immigration is destroying this country. the 14th amendment really came because african-americans were involuntarily brought to and they had children and the 14th amendment those childrenen the right it live in this country. had nothing to do with illegals across the rio grande coming here to suck all the life of this country. their whole idea is not to assimilate. are here for the soul purpose of taking back something never lost. so, yes, absolutely we should went -- we are the nly civilized country left on the planet that's doing this stupid stuff. grip.ally need to get a
there's no way we can keep these people in this country. about how much money it will cost to send them back them.ort just like they came they can leave. illegally.re i don't understand what it is when you e don't get hear the word illegal. illegal.is just that, they need to be deported back to their country and we should be who is goingdecide to come into this country. we're not getting the best and brightest, we are getting foreign es of these mostly latin country. here. the diversity majority of the illegals come from mexico. ago: you said just a minute that u.s. is the only country the world.his in here's actually some stats on that.
several countries in the western birthright se citizenship. here's a map from center of immigration studies. 30 of the world's 194 countries rant automatic birthright citizenship to children born to advanced iens of economies united states and that are two countries rant automatic birthright citizenship. john theory is a researcher on cis and appeared on this program testified before the judiciary committee on birthright citizenship. his numbers, every year 350 to 400,000 children are immigrants in the united states. said,t this another way he as many as one out of ten births immigrant legal mother. that from cis. your calls.
bob is up next. cincinnati, ohio. o you think the united states should did away with birthright citizenship? caller: i don't think so. as the previous caller was it would cost way too much. i believe 200 to 300 billion and secondly, it bugs me that the licans are so for constitution and for the traditional way that the resounded in the 17 to reds and when it comes their zeen in a tpoeb big stuff they fall and falter. they t understand why can't just take what we were stick with it.d host: bob in terms of the cost some ou're talking about, liberal columnists noting that witha policy is doing away
birthright citizenship would cost republicans politically. here is a column and the the ines of the piece, did epublicans giveaway the election by raising birthright citizenship. message of lear spanish voters. it's possible to order you're immigrant while simultaneously saying we should uild more walls and double the patrol.the border want to read more on that in s go to jacob waiting fort george in maryland, a first generation immigrant to the united states. jacob, your thoughts on this idea of ending birthright citizenship. for having me.ou i think that this whole debate issue ping on the real
and that's that here in the there's a person who could be deported because of parents illegal activity and it's immorally reprehensible give them citizenship and citizenship to the child because of their status to be deported. there shouldn't be any problem citizenship for the children, but having citizenship given to people who are believe to stay to have a in the nterest united states and people here. ost: talk about your immigration story. caller: so i think that got put wrong. my grandmother is german. he was in the
air force. visa andover here on a my father owes his citizenship here. fact that she came an ously my father was american, but i think they both it should be legal. because the person is saying hey, i'm here and i want to be i t of the united states and want to be active in the united states. but two individuals or one comes here ho if i get deported, with them being pulled out. or potentially us being get thrown in jail. it's not the way we should be going. host: that's jacob in maryland morning. as we said much of this debate over birthright citizenship on the 14th amend which
eads -- that's part of section one of amendment to the u.s. constitution. for more on the legal background and history we turn now to turlly frequent guest on this program. good morning and thanks for joining us. to ask you, how clear read?is language i just amendment is clear as to birthright citizenship, that's doubt.iously in what is a question is whether language that you just read of subject to the jurisdiction thereof is a qualifier. that is some people view that birthright ng that
citizenship is a constitutional right until the constitution is amended. others look at that and catch phrase, subject to the thereof meaning that it's something that congress can change and not foreigners whoer are illegal in terms of the status and there is some support sides. the irony on all this is that when the 14th amendment was were different views at that time. michiganacob howard of he was oneuggest and of the key drafters this language did not extend to what foreigners.to as lymon trumbull seemed to reflect that. the the great irony this debate
very en with us since its c conception. on big issue to follow up what mr. trump has said, if pu want to end birthright do it? hip, how do you there is a school of thought ith some academics who believe that congress can do it, they that clauseaw using to say that excludes illegal imgrants. if that were to fail, if the courts were to reject that, then would have to go and amend the 14th amendment. two options.the host: you talked a little bit about the history there. issue come up in 1868? one of our previous callers was through the history of the post civil war era. to why it e us back was happening then? > yeah, the biggest reason is
really the dredge scott decision by the supreme court. that was the decision as many know where the supreme court said that slaves could not considered citizens. led after the civil war, so its efforts to deal with just the citizenship status black codes which were limitations being placed on the 14th es and so amendment was a response to that but other issues of equality. and so it was passed. fascinating the supreme actually suggest that it agrees with this birthright on of citizenship. n 1898 in a case of chinese immigrants the supreme court uggested that it viewed the
language as covering everybody under birthright citizenship. aning that said, this is not issue. the supreme court has rendered very clear and decisive opinions on. so there is still a question as to whether congress could step and try to do this. what would happen is that congress would pass the law. would be very likely immediately challenged and it would be reviewed. and if it failed then congress nd the country would certainly know that they would have to mend the constitution to make any such change. host: you talked about the process of amending such change. do you think it could be possible in today's political environment? you know, i have it say that it could very well pass. i generally don't support constitutional amendments worried that
start to hen people mess with the constitution, it works extremely well. leery.ve to be quite but on the other hand, there is obviously a very significant support, particularly on things like birthright in this country and we've seen it in other countries this immigration issue has into power in es europe. i think we can have a civil debate about this. united states is in the minority. there are good arguments on both sides. countries do not recognize birthright citizenship. and canada tates have very liberal views of citizenship and that indeed does reflect our history as a land of immigrants. but i don't think that it's necessarily true that people are don't migrant if they
upport birthright sin citizenship. i think we need to have -- we debatee a good and civil about it. in the become a citizen united states is the coin of the realm as to the definition and the identity of your country. those people who support have ight scitizenship power history and arguments a nationem that we are of immigrants ask that's why we re in the minority and those opposing have equally good arguments and they're going on sixties. the 18 host: jonathan turlly, always your insight and analysis. >> thank you. viewers re taking our thoughts on this debate. beverly is up next and waiting on that line ina
for those who say no to ending citizenship. go ahead, beverly. >> i've been listening to the spoke and all the others. was the amendment abolition of slavery and that's they invoked this civil rights amendment. i didn't read anything in it that talked about illegals. it ou make an amendment and says what it says and it is what it is. aese people have just as much right to stay here as george washington and the others who it have a right. immigrants. what will this do to cruz? this is born here. bigotry.act of
birthright citizenship does not stem from the 14th amendment. a ruling from justice brennan. he created this problem, not the 14th amendment. are using the wrong term. wrong immigrant is the term. nationals reign living illegally in the united states. wife of the the british ambassador to the united states gives birth in the hospital, that child is a subject of the british crown. across theman sneaks border and gives birth in the san diego hospital, and her is a citizen?
work?oes that ost: randy is up next in millington, michigan. good morning. you od morning and thank for taking my call. i'd like to start off behind the scenes for bringing us this great program. great.s the nation the reason i believe we shouldn't end birthright, when the 14th amendment arlier, what jumped out at me understand what mr. trump was saying with his interview with mr. o'riley while it hasn't been -- and it says under the jurisdiction, so if ou come over from mexico or canada or wherever and have a baby and go right understand w mr. trump was saying with his needs to be challengedback, you that baby is ause
a citizen because she's not staying under the jurisdiction of any of our states. i can understand where he would challenge that in court by using that phrase because coming over that baby is aby and a citizen because she's not then goinger the right back to mexico you're not under our jurisdiction. host: with a challenge in the courts would you rather the this or would you want congress to step in and you're this distinction talking about? >> well, i think the first step we have to take is a logical one then goingts. right back to amendment, tional
at 11:30 a.m. and panel discussions on civil rights, history and biography. and the literary lives of harper lee. sunday morning author and columnist shares her critical the obama administrati millennials.n's the bia's university on new york's cultural, political nd architectural landmarks and the history to create them and real at 4:00 p.m. on america, the pilot district project. to help improve poor relations between the police and community washington, d.c. after he martin luther king assassination and riots. get our complete schedule at c-span.org. sunday night on q and a, presidential historian and grave
hunter documents his adventures visiting the grave sites of vice u.s. president and president. >> the one that everybody has the le getting to is rockefeller grave site. did you do it? >> we were able to get to it as through an act of god. my father walked farther down cemetery ter of the and saw this gigantic tree and crushed the fence. actually saw nelson rockefeller's grave and have to get me there fairly quickly after that. on c-span's q and a. "washington journal" continues. navy commander was in command as attacked.
how do you think the bombing of u.s.s. cole was remembered? >> it was overshadowed. was fund mentally different than any terrorist attack. had til that point we buildings, world trade center attack, the sy attack on cole was attacking defended this nation and our national security nd it was an act of war and months later the occurred.cks >> two administrations both democrat and republican which say neither party owns national security failed to respond. >> do you think you'll see the in of the war on terrorism your paoelifetime >> i think it will be on going nd probably be like a bell curve. we'll see it peak at some point with probably some more like we ng attacks
experienced but it will begin to off because i think people will realize using terrorism is to achieve either ideological or political ends. about the talk national security concerns. to 2001ommander in 1999 when i retired which is a misnomer. it means that you go back and get a society you and paycheck and go find real work. oing a lot of public speaking and consulting and enjoying life. host: and written a book, al-qaida's attack on the u.s.s. front burner is the title of the book. if you want to join the republicans can 202-748-8000 and
pecial line for active and retired members of the military in this segment if you want to conversation 2027488003. s we're talking about the national security concerns facing this country what is the greatest threat in your mind security he national front? >> the biggest threat that faces the united states is one we that ison ourselves and the $18 trillion of debt. it is con straining our ability across the act instruments of power in overnment, diplomatically and economically and militarily and have influence in the world and national security interests. ost: you want to talk more specifically on the military front and the economic situation is doing to cuts in the military. >> i think it's going to have a devastating cut. we think we continue to make the department of defense the cash cow to cut. problem with doing that is
up because it h constrains our ability to act to crises around the world. navy of 4,000 ships in world war ii to 600 ships in the height of the 280 n build-and now to ships. when you count in rotation and maintenance, we don't have enough sailors to safeguard our hours a day. if you want to be a global ation you to have the ability to safeguard. not only for us but in the ensure that we can allow the free trade and oil and those things. host: con straining our ability the act to things around world. in terms of how quickly has isis threat, do you see any parallels to your xperience with what we knew about isis before they started
taking vast portions of eye lack about al-qaida u.s.s. cole and then september 11th. >> i think there is some similarities. right now it's a regional problem that has the potential o grow into an international problem. if they get the technical and global reach that then da for example they'll represent a threat to the united states of america. right now it truly is a threat countries on and the over there really need to start taking it upon themselves and we providing the support nd logistics for them to go after siisis and solve the probm before we want to get our boots on the ground and solve it for them. host: you've been outspoken on the iran nuclear deal. your concerns about the national security implications of that. the story continuing in today's paper about the deal and members
of congress support and oppose the deal. here's a story from the "wall treet journal" about the inspections process -- jump in you decided to on the iran deal? >> nuclear weapons are the most destructive weapon that mankind has ever jump in on produced. hey're fund mentally different by orders of magnitude than anything we had to tkpwerb it's agreement treaty or on. this crosses party lines. this is not a republican issue democrat or an independent issue. issue.a national security i think it's very unfortunate in this case it has been politicized by this to where people are up based on
party affiliation rather than looking at the true national security is by taking that 159 joined plan covenants of action, reading the details of what is involved, looking at what the inspections are, knowing what the sidebar agreements are with , looking at iran how china are going to a act, how would the sanctions be be implemented if we had to put them in. there are a host of reasons why this agreement is not good for the united states, not good for the region. host: plenty of topics on the table in this segment. we are talking with the former commander of the u.s.s. cole. let's get right to calls. max is in maryland, the line for republicans. caller: hey, thanks for taking my call. it truly is a pleasure to be able to call in on this topic.
unfortunately, on september 11, i think everybody studded to get a heavier dose -- started to get a heavier dose of what terrorism means. i don't think it is something anyone wanted to know as much about, but it seems we are more more confused about what it is. my question is general in the sense that we use this term in some instances and not in others, where as in situations like fort hood, certain parts of the administration are willing to use the term. what in this instance where you have a -- basically a paramilitary group or a militant group attacking another military , you are still using the term terrorism, which seems to be counterintuitive to me. one military apparatus attacking another military apparatus. it doesn't seem to be terrorism.
i wish you could elaborate on the terms and the way we are using them. and another example would be why we choose to label certain groups, such as isil and isis -- fundamentally, why are we changing the name from the taliban or the idea that we need to know these terms seems to kind of muddy the waters. more importantly, the term terrorism and how we as citizens are supposed to understand this term. guest: it is a great question. what you really need to look at is what terrorism fondly -- fundamentally is. a group or an organization attempting to cause terror for either a community or a nation. and what you are seeing in the case of isis and isil is that they are attempting to disrupt a way of life. first in syria, then in iraq. the fact that it is military and
military doesn't mean that they are not a terrorist organization. look at how al qaeda existed and operated in afghanistan under the umbrella and protection of the telegram. they were very large terrorist organization that has the equivalent of a military force. they did not comply with geneva conventions, which is what allowed us to ensure that we did not extend those protections to them when they went in there. so it is that disruption of a society that terrorist groups, whether they are small individuals all the way down to one individual, as in fort hood, or whether they are large military organizations like isis has become today. regarding the terms, there is -- each of these groups is stood up by in individual gathers a group of followers, who creates an ideology, who then begins to form an organization, layout a hierarchy and bureaucracy. when you look at isis, they are
beginning to grow. i look at it as isis has blood. something else if you want. i think that is more of a political decision, not a really -- real military people. and when you go to europe, they are using the term basis -- they despise. host: retired commander could to lippold is our guest. american sailors killed in that attack. over three dozen were injured. he is here taking your questions or comments. from portland, oregon. good morning. caller: good morning. and thank you for taking the call. i would like to ask the commander, why is the efforts not being treated as an
ideological battle jackal -- battle? to me, it would be better to provide radios to the people and educates them on the meaning of the koran. this is totally contrary to the koran, as i understand it. i studied it with another gentleman, so i may be misinformed. host: you are talking about pushing for a heart and minds approach, along with the military effort? caller: that is what the terrorists are doing. guest: i think that we are actually trying to do that. the united states tends to do that more by setting an example than by exley going down and having folks on the street explaining it. i think you have to look at the large number of nations over in the region and for the vast majority of them, yes, in every single government over there in the middle east, there are certain elements that are sympathetic to some of the goals
of these terrorist organizations and that is unfortunate. but overall, their majorities of the government, they realized or religiousstyle beliefs are not come porting and keeping with the koran and its peaceful teachings. consequently, they are even working to try and make sure that what is being taught in the mosques, what is being preached there is more towards the peaceful goals and aspirations that the religion wants to project around the world and not , weou are absolutely right have to work that ideological difference. we have to address that there are differences. we have to understand that there are differences between religions. there are differences between christians between muslims, between hindus. our country is based -- or was based on judeo-christian values. i think we should continue to
set that example for the world. but it should be forced on us like many unfortunately in the islamic religion want to try to do to the rest of the world through the vehicle of terrorism. host: arthur is in chesapeake, virginia near that naval base. arthur, good morning. caller: i would just like to speak on what the gentleman was saying about terrorists and terrorism. we have terrorism right here. [indiscernible] you can'tux klan -- even get in your car without being terrorized. i think his definition of terrorism -- [indiscernible] these people are no more militant than we are. guest: then we are going to
disagree right off the bat because there is a fundamental difference between crating fear and intimidation to the point where you fear for your life and what may go on. in the police departments, obviously with the issue of black lives matter, and i don't want to get off topic your, there were -- here, there are a lot of people who say what please departments are doing is called terror, but they are not. there is a fundamental different and isis and how police departments behave throughout the u.s. i think we, as a country, one of our great strengths is taking steps to enter that will not happen in the future. host: you have been outspoken recently about the iran nuclear deal. the oilut lifting export ban in this country and what that would do for u.s. military efforts to protect our interests around the world.
several issues that congress is taking up. are you interested in running for congress? guest: i kind of tipped my fingers into that will at some point and the reality is in order to run these days, you have to have timing and a lot of financial backing. there may be a number of people out there. i'm keeping that powder dry. but for right now, i am very happy with what i'm doing in life. host: as i said, we have a special line in the segment for former limitary -- military. larry, good morning. caller: good morning. commander, or to the guy that was walking into the pentagon when 9/11 happened? i spent 20 years in the marine corps. in the summer of 2001, i predicted 9/11. we went for the oil. i hate to hear anything else. we went for the oil and that is ,hy we built that take airport a $1.1 trillion embassy. bush should have new everything
he knew -- knew everything you knew. when you hear donald trump say we are going to get our oil, that is what he is talking about. so all this stuff about the ungodly and e-mails -- benghazi and e-mails for clinton, hey, we better take a look at the bush brothers over here. we never had any other reason to go there other than oil. guest: i think that there are a lot of reasons why we, as a navy, safeguard the sea lanes. it is to make sure the goods and economies can flow around the world. when you look at whether we should have gone into iraq, that is a discussion that is still going on and we see that debate going with the presidential candidates on both sides right now. i think that there is a lot to still be discussed with that one. that will be a daschle -- national discussion that will go on for decades. when you look at what we are
doing, we import over 30% of our oil last year, yet you have many in congress pushing today to lift the export ban to be able to say let's take crude oil produced in our country that is not allowed to be exported based on upon -- based upon our expense with the oil embargo in the 1970's and start to exported. that does not make sense from a national security standpoint. america needs to put our national security interests first, and then we can start looking at the rest of the world. now is not the time to be lifting that crude oil export ban. host: the caller brought up 9/11 again. i want to talk about where you were on 9/11, that attack coming less than a year after your ship was attacked by al qaeda. guest: when i originally arrived back in washington following the investigations into the attack and my change of command, i had a former commanding officer asked me to come up to the cia where he was working. we finally drove up there.
went in. got a briefing for about an hour and a half on what cia knew about bin laden and al qaeda before, during, and after the attacks on the?. -- on the u.s.s. cole. i told the assistant deputy director, america does not understand. i believe it is going to take a seminal event, probably in this country, where hundreds if not ,housands of americans die before americans realize we are at war with this guy. 20 minutes after i said that, the first plane hit the north tower. i got in my car, drove south and arrive at -- arrived at the pentagon just after it slammed in there. 395, the major artery going in and out of washington dc, i help to guide traffic and get parents to the child's day care center. so i actually wasn't in the
pentagon on 9/11, budgets and they was well aware of what happened that morning. that statement speaks for itself. we as a nation should have realized the danger they posed. not for political reasons. unfortunately, paid a heavy price. host: from california on our line for republicans, ron, good morning. caller: good morning, commander. thank you for your service, commander. we are waiting for the book that you need to write about the cole incident and the full extent of what happened there. from the beginning to the end. maybe you already have. guest: i did. host: al qaeda's attack on the u.s.s. cole, go ahead, ron. caller: all right, we will get it. and number two is more important. we don't talk about the sunni issue, which is the preeminent
issue in the whole middle east. ok,the sunni issue is this, isis is sunni, right? in iran, there is sunnis who are the rebels trying to overturn the government. in yemen, where you work, the houdis are shia, the good ones. and we are supporting the saudi's and the arab emirate who are also many as. and the sunnis, this is an electric -- electorate situation based on religion. we keep bringing up -- tell us, commander, why we cannot put together a kurdish coalition of the three countries syria, turkey, and iraq? that should be all crude area. that should be the way it should be. but, no, not have the church involved in it and they are
bombing the kurds who are supporting us. so we need to help, commander, to get this thing ironed out and straightened out. the shia are our friends. so, please, explain this in more detail about the rift between the sunnis and the shia. guest: basically you have two major sex in the muslim -- sects in the muslim religion. they have been at each other's throats in many ways throughout that region for history. and you see iran, that is mostly shia. you see saudi arabia, the sunni heavyweight in the region. and that fight continues today. to say that the shia's are our friends, i would disagree with that. when you look at iran, they have killed thousands -- thousands of our troops in afghanistan and iraq through ied's and other things. so they are not exactly our friend.
when it comes to the sunnis, they have been a very stable partner throughout the years. yes, like everyone else will note, 14 of the 19 hijackers came from saudi arabia. they were sunni. but when you look at what those countries have provided us any stabilizing hand to keep that full of oil through the world coming out from there and going throughout the world to be able to allow them to produce, that is what we want to do. you have to pick your lot somewhere. when you look at the kurds up in northern iraq, they are probably the only stable government entity that exists within iraq today. that said, they do have terrorist elements in the pkk. that is why the turks are going after the pkk, not to the kurds. they are going after the specific group. and to be able to carve out an area and create nations, look, part of the problems we're
dealing with over in the middle east today all stem from how the world was carved up post-world war ii by churchill, roosevelt, and stalin because they unilaterally drew lines around the world without taking into consideration where these countries existed in the tribal -- and the tribal and religious nation -- nature of them. host: william is calling on -- in on the line for current or former military. caller: yes, good morning. i was in the military twice, the u.s. navy. i was on a ship and also a destroyer. and i am 72 years of age now. i really appreciate this gentleman being on the stage. what i'm still wondering about and still have never heard and quite don't understand is -- you must have been flabbergasted to be hit while being more to appear -- moored to a pier.
exactly what transpired? guest: thank you and thank you for your service. i was sitting in my cabin. we had pulled in to refill the ship. we expected to be there six to eight hours. during the course of those operations, we had contacted 43 garbage barges to come to the ship to take off the track. the third boat that approach does we assumed was the third garbage barge. as it approached the ship, it was along the same profile and same size. it detonated, blowing a 40 by 40 foot hole in the side. the real heroes of this are my crew. the other ones that were able to get that ship stable. they were the ones that were able that first day to evacuate 33 wounded authorship. in reality, they were the phenomenal heroes of this entire of event. aftermath,ok at the we continued to keep that ship
up and going for 17 days in port until we finally got it towed out of port and brought it back to the united states. she has been back out and deployment seven times defending freedom. just to give you a unique piece of irony, last year, the u.s.s. cole led the parade of ships into new york harbor. host: we will stay on that line for members of the military. donald is calling in. lead author, pennsylvania. caller: good morning, c-span. and good morning, command appeared guest: good morning. -- commander. guest: good morning. caller: commander, welcome home. and job well done, sir. guest: thank you. caller: now the niceties are over with. sir, i am retired navy. i fundamentally disagree with you on the iran deal. i think it is the best deal we could do and have at this time, considering that we have a country like israel we don't even know the count of their
nuclear weapons in that area. understandying to chancedon't give peace a . i hear a lot of these armchair warmongers. rf -- auroa of mistrust around our government. and i'm sorry to see our deterioration with israel because mr. netanyahu -- we are going to spend more money giving it to israel than we are keeping up our own military and our benefits for our retired military people. thanks, commander, again, and i wish you peace. i don't have to agree with you on everything. and i like that answer that you give that gentleman about the
sunni and the shiite and how that was divided. host: we will let the commander into your question. guest: one of the things i went into is i sat down and thoroughly went through every single page of the 159 pages of the joint company hence a plan of action and how this agreement would be implemented. one of the fundamental things that stands out in that agreement as we used to have a policy in the united states that iran would not be allowed to build a nuclear weapon. when you read this agreement, all it does now is it recognizes in the fact of their right to create a nuclear weapon, but it delays the breakout time for them to do that by a minimum of 10 years, and it could be longer, but then again it could be shorter because the way the agreement is structured, it does not give us the ability to go in and have the kind of intrusive inspections that we enjoyed, for example, with the soviet union and then russia in implementing some of the strategic arms talks
that we had with them. allow somet love -- of the snap inspections. allowing, for example, the side agreements with the iaea. i listened to the state department's spokesman yesterday say that as an agreement between the iaea and the iranians. agreementwe led the that is in place right now that in fact is going to come into force whether we like it or not because of a vote at the un security council that we voted for based on a political decision. the reality is when you really get into the details of this agreement, iran keeps their centrifuges, they are allowed to keep doing research and development, they are able to create more sophisticated centrifuges that allow them to reprocess nuclear material quicker and more efficiently. those are the kinds of things that go on that we cannot allow them to have.
we are not stopping them from getting a weapon. we are delaying the inevitable. host: members making their opinions known about the nuclear agreement ahead of that debate that will happen when congress comes back next month. senators who announced their support, senators reid and white house, both of both -- rhode island. senator reid notes that no one assumes that no one will change its stripes, that is what it is based on a basis of interest -- inspections. guest: this agreement is a costly strategic mistake. that is the bottom-line that unfortunately has been put in
place by the administration by negotiating it in the manner they did and crating the conditions that allows iran to have a path to a bomb. while it may do my that breakout -- while it may delay that breakout time, it does not eliminate it. that is a huge strategic wrist -- risk that we cannot afford. when you look at the nature of the inspections, if they are so intrusive, why is the iaea having to negotiate sidebar agreements yet we are the leaders on this agreement? that shouldn't be happening and the american people really need to get into the details of this joint comprehensive plan of action and understand exactly what is laid out in there, what is implied in there, and how we are going to do that. we don't have it yet. you have political endorsements of this agreement without the senators and congressmen getting into the details. national security does not belong to the democrats or
republicans. at the logs to the american -- it belongs to the american people. host: we are talking with commander kirk lippold, he is with us for about the next 5 or 10 minutes. charles, woodbridge, virginia. you are up next. caller: good morning, commander. i don't even know where to start. we could talk about all the subjects. the middle east is a mess, but to specific subjects. about the iran deal, anyone who is naive, and apparently john kerry is very naive and so is the president, but to think you iranians and the chinese and russians at the same table -- they will continue to become stronger and think 20 to 30 years in the future. these guys are going to own this place. nato has tohing is
get their act together and start building their military. they have got to start spending more money. they are seen as the weakest link anywhere. thanks. guest: i will adjust to of those points. one of the biggest problems you have with the agreement right now, and you touched on it, rests with what they call the snapback inventions -- provisions. in order for the sanctions to go into place, it requires a vote by the un security council. when you look at the amount of economic support that the chinese, which are licking their chops to get into iran, when you look at russia who also has two teaching interests in the region strategic -- who has interests in the region and can do things -- iran would practically have to detonate a nuclear weapon. the snapback sanctions are literally a joke because they aren't going to happen. it is going to take the lotto --
to be ableral action to put any kind of sanctions back in the place and thereby isolating the chinese and the russians. you are absolutely right. host: back to that line for current and former members of the military. fayetteville, north carolina. go ahead. caller: commander, i would hope that you would listen. about the said agreement between the politicians. the people need to understand what would happen to us if we have the disagreement on this -- nuclear. we have a -- to realize that a little bit of something is better than a whole lot of nothing. these countries have trusted america. and to come up with an agreement with iran to get rid of those
nuclear weapons. our is going to happen to dependability, our reliability, a trustworthiness and our loyalty with those other countries? it is really sad that our commanders can't see this. you know, we used to be loyal. but we are not loyal anymore. we choose political parties. what you should be concerned about, and you would throw me overboard if i done to you what congressman have done to our president, we talk about treason and mutiny. we would have never went with another foreign country against you. it is said that we have -- this country is going down, commander. and we have got to get this political stuff out. we have got to get back to duty, honor, and country. we need this agreement. i used to run under the tables and they said nuclear and give us this nuclear training and stuff like that. i spent 30 years up on the lines
on the 30th parallel and in and in -- 38 parallel germany and out so happy when somebody had sense enough to get with russia and do away with all that aggression. and mr. reagan say, turn down this wall. but when it comes to a terrorist, who is a terrorist? if i am killing you and you are killing me, i'm a terrorist. and when you are killing me, you are a terrorist. we are all terrorists. host: i thought you were done. commander, a chance to jump in. guest: when you say that some agreement is better than none, and some cases it is not. if it has been poorly negotiated and doesn't have the provisions in their that stop iran from having a pathway to a bomb, then it is not a good agreements. ,nd when you really look at it if you want to put it in harsh terms, a lot of people say, well, even the president, if you don't pass this agreements the
only alternative is war. that is a false toys that has been put out there -- choice that has been put out there by the president. we do not have to make that choice. there are many things that we can do that does not lead us on a path to war. spent its blood and treasure over the last decade and a half leading for what we thought were our national security interests to give this country safe. and thankfully we have not had large-scale terrorist attacks here at home. they also said, well, it is just a small piece of land in europe. if we give that up, we will have peace in our time. if we give the iranians perhaps a tenure period to demonstrate period toear demonstrate a path -- willat show that iran never, not just delay 10 years,
never have that path to a bomb. host: massachusetts, richard is waiting on a line for independents. caller: good morning. i would like to talk about -- you said that the garbage barges were coming in and they pulled up alongside and detonate. that wasn't what i read in the paper. and besides, they showed the gun. there was no gunner on deck to keep that ship protected while it was in harbor. getting refueled. what really got- detonated. it wasn't that ship was rammed by a boat. and when you said that, that really irked me. caller: well, i am going to jump in right here because the first thing i would do is urge you to not believe everything that you
read in the newspapers and the media puts out. is i wouldtom line encourage you to get the book and read it because it is a factual account. the boat did not ram us. that is what was put out by the media. it drifted down the side of the ship to come to the middle where the previous garbage barge had been. we did have armed sentries topside. we had people that earlier in the day had attempted to come on board and he ended up with and i'm 14 and his face because he face- an m-14 in his because he had not clear the procedures. and so consequently, we were ready. what we did and expect was a waterborne improvised explosive device. the navy had never trained for it. we had never practiced against it. we were unaware that this type of threat existed to and when al
qaeda had existed in that port for over a year watching navy ships pull in, had attempted an attack nine months before the attack on my ship, and nothing was detected by the intelligence community, we walked into a blind spot. the intelligence community failed. and as a result, 17 of my sailors were killed. host: time for one or two more calls. dan has been waiting. youngstown, ohio. the line for republicans. caller: yes, this president, even when we had terrorist attacks right here at home at the fort, he refused to call it a terrorist attack. this guy is selling us down the river. i can't believe that people can't see that. toany congressmen are going vote for this treaty, they have to be out of their minds. this president has not fought terrorism. he is selling this country down the river. he can't see the terrorism is right here at home! guest: well, i don't think that
the president in any way is selling us down the river. obviously, i along with a lot of people have a fundamental disagreement and how he is leading this nation and the policies he is putting in place. the national security constraint he is putting on a military and the fact that he is reducing at the way -- reducing it the way it is. and when you look at this agreement, it is a capstone. with thisagree were -- iranian nuclear agreement. i think it is a strategic mistake. and i think the people involved, especially the american people who are going to live with the consequences of it, need to understand what is in that agreement. 159 pages? that is half of a book will spend reading in your spare time anyway. get to know what we'll get than -- get to know it really good and then call your elected representatives. host: we will try to get in one
more call. the line for democrats. could you make it quick check of caller: yes -- quick? caller: yes. thank you, commander, for your service. we spent 10 times more on the fence than our nearest competitor -- defense than our nearest competitor. for us to say that we need to spend more money on our military and build our military up and our closest ally, which is israel, two days before the election, netanyahu said that the palestinians will never have a state. and at the or two after the elections, he says that he is going to work with them having a state. netanyahu also stated the same thing when we're going into iraq, even donald trump is beating the drum that he was against iraq. and for some reason, the matter how much we spend on the war on
poverty or the money that we spend on the military, it is never going to be a not. host: we are running out of time. guest: you have to look at it. when you build a large military like we need, what you have to do first and foremost is the side what you national security interests are going to be. then you determine how you are going to safeguard them. then within budget constraints, build a military necessary to safeguard them around the world. that is really the steps you have to follow. right now, we have gaps in that. ourare not able to secure -- national security interests. if you are going to be the leader in the free world, which the united states has been ever since world war ii, then you have to make that investment. we can be more efficient in doing it. we should call the pentagon and department of defense out for doing it. i mentioned that 4000 ships.
we did it with about 1000 animals and we want -- admirals and we won world war ii. about 100it with animals and -- admirals and we won world war ii. host: commander kirk lippold was the commander of the u.s.s. cole when it was bombed. appreciate your time this morning on the "washington journal." guest: appreciate it. a pleasure. host: up next, we will be joined by matt blunt, the president of the american automotive policy council. and later, we will be joined by jason williamson to talk about their efforts to reform police practices. we will be right back.
>> our road to the white house coverage continues live from the eye with state fair on c-span, c-span radio, and c-span.org. as the candidates what the fairgrounds and speak at the candidates' soapbox. on friday morning, it is senator ted cruz. and on saturday, republican governors chris christie at noon and bobby jindal at 1:00. join their -- the twitter conversation. campaign 2016, taking you on the road to the white house. >> with the senate in its august break, we will veto -- we will feature "booktv" prime time. and for the weekend, here are a few special programs. saturday, we are live from jackson, mississippi for the
inaugural mississippi book festival. beginning at 11:30 a.m. eastern with discussions on harper lee, civil rights, and the civil war. i'd saturday, september 5, we are live from our nation's capital. followed on sunday with our live in-depth program with former second lady and senior fellow at the american enterprise institute, lynne cheney. 2.ooktv" on c-span television for serious readers. ladies,"eek on "first we learn about ellen and eat it wilson -- edith wilson. after a year and a half serving as first lady, she balled gravely -- called gravely ill -- falled gravely ill and passed away.
she also became the first first lady to travel to europe. alan and edith wilson -- ellen and edith wilson on "first ladies." examining the public and private lives of the women who fill the position of first lady and their influence on the presidency. sundays at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "american history tv" on c-span3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: matt blunt is the former republican governor of missouri from 2005 2 2009. he now serves as president of the american automotive policy council. for our viewers who are unfamiliar, would you represent these days ago guest: we have three member -- these days? guest: we have three member companies. fca, ford, and general motors.
the industry is incredibly important to the united states' economy, but we would argue that those three companies have a unique and even more potent economic impact. the: do you also represent downstream dealerships for those company products? do you represent the union folks? guest: we work closely with the union labor force, as well as the dealer networks. represent andly really are focused on representation of the public policy interests of fca, ford, and general motors. and with a principal focus on foreign trade issues. we export more cars and parts from the united states than anything else. the leading export sector. so having a public policy that supports and sustains those exports is really important. they will export about a million vehicles from the united states this year.
so it is very important that policymakers are aware of the economic impact of the industry. and, of course, thinking about it as they should policy. the industry overall really does have a tremendous impact on our economy. it is about 3% of gdp. it supports millions of jobs all across the country. really every state is an auto state in terms of some jobs that associated with the automotive industry. and certainly there are today four manufacturers that operate in the united states and make an important contribution to our economy. ford, and general motors really have an even more significant impact. two out of three american auto workers work for our three member companies. three out of five assembly ford, ore fca, general motors.
far more of the capital investment that has occurred over the past five or six years has occurred by our country -- companies. host: -- especially with that transpacific partnership that congress is going to be talking a lot more about, we want to invite our viewers to call in with their questions or comments. you talking about the state of the american automotive industry. blunt is the former governor of missouri. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 745-8002 for independents. you have cited some of the stats from a recent report that your group came out with to sort of give a sense of the size of the u.s. auto industry. how does the auto industry compared to other manufacturing sectors? guest: it is really -- there is no other manufacturing sector that has as many jobs associated with it as the auto industry does. as i mentioned, we are the
leading export sector of the united dates -- states, exporting about $140 billion a year. a critical part of our manufacturing infrastructure is tied up in the auto sector. it is hard to imagine how the united states could sustain the sort of manufacturing infrastructure we have today without the auto sector, without all of the jobs that are associated with it. we represent the original equipment manufacturers. states, including my native missouri, the largest manufacturing sector is auto suppliers. and auto suppliers sustain hundreds of thousands of jobs all across the country. , fiatand when you say fca chrysler america? guest: that is right. host: we are talking about the recent report. viewers can take it out on their website. you talk about some of the
internal comparisons to other manufacturing sectors. how about other comparisons to the rest of the world? guest: i think we are doing extraordinarily well. it is one of the largest markets in the world. china has exceeded the united states in terms of volume, but we are still the largest market in terms of volume -- value. we are a critical market for every auto manufacturer in the world. they care about what happens in the north american market. so this market is very important. and our three member companies are doing well globally. host: how do they stack up against the foreign automotive companies? the bmws, the mercedes. guest: i think very well. there are some companies that have a niche, like luxury manufacturers. but our companies really provide a wide range of products. they are right at the cutting
edge, in terms of quality. environmentalof quality, safety features. we are producing a world-class product. we have gone through in the united states a challenging restructuring, as they have evaluated their size compared to the markets that exist and become more efficient and leader, but because of that, they are really competitive locally. we are producing -- over 100 products are produced in the united states that we export to 100 countries. host: we want to get our viewers' thoughts here. billie is up first. miami, florida. go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. now for something completely different. donald trump, in his interviews, is talking about four building a factory in mexico -- ford
building a factory in mexico and driving the cars into the united states without the united states getting any credit or money for the jobs being taken into mexico. i would like your opinion on that. and what about the tariffs he is talking about. guest: sure. there is no question that mexico lk of smallortant ta vehicle manufacturing. the companies that we represent, but also the japanese, korean, and european auto manufacturers have utilized mexico. ford is sorthat, of an interesting company to be a god. -- company to pick on. no company produces more cars in the united states than fca, ford, or general motors. they have used -- moved some products from mexico back to the united states. they had moved some of the
medium duty truck production back from mexico to ohio. they have made other changes, moving things like the transit, which was produced in turkey, to my native missouri. so i think they make decisions about where it makes the most sense to produce a particular product, but if you really look at the facts, if you really dig into the numbers, there is a strong commitment by all three of our member companies to the united states. ford has had about 80% of their american capital investment in the united states. so these are companies that are investing in america in a way that is unique and powerful and exceeds anything foreign manufacturers are doing. host: want to get your thoughts on how this issue is specifically impacting the labor talks in the u.s. auto market. here is a story from the "wall street journal," --
guest: we certainly leave the labor negotiations to the individual companies. we watch them closely, but we don't get involved in them. but i think it is fair to say that everybody wants to ensure there is product to produce in the united states. that is why it is important we have a public policy that the slope of the barriers we have to producing products in the united states. that is why you need tax policy and environmental policy that makes sense, practical, a you to produce products in the united states for american consumers and, as i say, consumers all around the globe. one of the issues we have really focused a lot of attention on and i think helped to highlight is the need to address foreign currency minute relation -- manipulation, which has a tremendous impact on our ability to sell autos, but in third markets as well as.
-- as well. economies that have a history of manipulating and evaluating their currency to gain a trade advantage. host: let's go to pikesville, maryland. lewis, you are on. caller: yes, thank you for taking my call. i just recently leased a car with a gasoline motor. and in three years, the car will have a certain value. how have the -- conduit the use of the theyustion engine -- targeted the use of the combustion engine? i feel like the guy who still has a horse and buggy and looks up the street and sees a ford model a come down the street, when will my car the zero value compared to all the electric and hybrid models? thank you for taking my call.
guest: i think in terms of value, you are safe in the near term. i leased and owned vehicles at all have combustion engines. but obviously, our member companies and others are explained other innovative options. i think you are going to continue to see a mix of different types of -- of how a train out there, whether it is in hybrids or plug in electric hybrids. i think you'll see a lot of options for consumers. and certainly in the near term, the combustion engine is going to remain an important part of that makes. host: what make and model do you drive echo guest: -- drive? guest: right now i have a buick enclave. it is a great car. i am really happy with it. host: let's go to ron. the line for democrats. caller: good morning. good morning. thank you, c-span. and welcome to your guest. i would just like to point out
it is my believe that president obama pretty much single-handedly saved the auto industry, as well as the banking industry and the housing industry. against democrats and republicans against the huge bailouts. and i believe if it wasn't for that thati do realize was a president bush thing. president bush started it. president obama had the insight to continue it and save what little bit of infrastructure we had left after president bush allowed it to crash. our economy. excuse me. and all the deficit that we have, that with a huge crimping on everything. , halfd like to point out that deficit was on a credit card when obama first raised his hand to become president.
i think we are $19 trillion in debt now, but half of that at that point in time was all president orders. bush. and so, yeah, -- host: ron, we will let the matt blunt take the first part of your question. guest: i think both presidents recognized that the auto industry was a critical industry. and that it was difficult to imagine a vibrant american manufacturing sector that is competitive globally without the auto industry. and they made, i think both presidents made political decisions to help ensure the industry remained viable. and i would applaud both presidents for their leadership on this. focus on it. and commitment to the industry. going forward, we believe it is important to continue to have public policy that allows the industry to grow, as it has
grown over the past five years, and continued to be a real driver of exports and a real driver in the economic recovery. i think most people would agree that the economic recovery has not been as vibrant as anybody would like. without the auto sector and the growth we have experienced, it would be even less vibrant than it has been. i certainly would command the leadership of people in both political parties, including presidents bush and obama, for what they did to get the industry through a tremendous crisis. host: our industry is still paying back parts of the bailout? guest: i think individual companies -- there may be. but i think a lot of that has been at least taking care of in the united states. i think there are some canadian components host: let's go to --
components. host: let's go to illinois. you are on with the president of the american automotive policy council. caller: hello, mr. blunt. -- [indiscernible] know what are we doing wrong that we have so many recalls that we have to bring cars in? even though when i got my car -- [indiscernible] so then i -- [indiscernible] host: we will let matt blunt address the recalls. guest: sure. it is their responsibilities in terms of their product and recalls. i think the fact that there have been so many recalls would
demonstrate that companies are committed to finding any and all defects regardless of magnitude and correcting them. and to some extent, it is a recall process that is working. cars are being recalled and hopefully repaired and put back on the road. so, obviously, there are companies committed to quality. they are committed to really cutting edge technology. the auto industry spends more on research and development than almost any other industry. and our three member countries -- companies all spend more than tech giants like apple and boeing and others, who you would really think of as drivers of innovation. the amount of research and development that goes into a car is remarkable. in everyut $1200 single vehicle that is coming out and being put on the road to
so there is a real commitment to quality. in tremendous expenditures to try and improve the drivers experience and the safety performance. host: how did you go from the governor's mansion to the president of the policy council? guest: missouri is an important automotive state. we have a diverse economy and missouri with a lot of great agricultural -- great agriculture and white manufacturing -- white collar manufacturing. familiar withe just how important this industry is. thatu are in a state doesn't have a significant automotive presence, you want it. every state wants it. every country wants what we have in terms of automobile manufacturing because these are good quality jobs that will support families.
and they are jobs that create a number of other jobs. the job multiplier for automotive manufacturing jobs when you open up a new plant is really just tremendous. so every country in the world wants with the united states and really a handful of other economies have today, and that is the ability to have this massive production of this important product. host: in frederick, maryland, vincent, you are on. caller: good morning. my question is it seems to the auto industry has been doing so much outsourcing in the last 10 years. i think there is a correlation between that and the number of recalls. it seems like there is an inordinate number of recalls in the last decade. in some cases, it seems like you read about it every other week. autoink the artist -- industry, if they are so proud of outsourcing those components, they ought to be able to list which countries the parts are from so we know where the junk is being made. thank you.
guest: certainly, a lot of that information is available about the percentage of a vehicle that is from the united states. our companies do particularly well. motors aregeneral almost double the domestic content of the other foreign manufacturers. but domestic content, i am referring to the components and parts that are in the vehicle. nearly 15,000 components and parts are in the complicated vehicles we drive today. so global supply chains are important to all manufacturers around the world. but the companies that we are fortunate enough to represent at the policy council really do have a commitment to domestic content and utilize a lot of great american products. host: in ashburn, virginia, the line for republicans. caller: hello. a few months ago, i heard on
ago, i heard on c-span the secretary of transportation was talking about how when he was younger it was part of the american dream that you save up your money when you're a teenager and buy a car. but nowadays people in my generation -- i am 20 years old -- seem to be less car people so to speak. i was wondering if you are concerned about alternative means of transportation like ridesharing or public transportation. the companies are very focused on partnering with ridesharing services and investing in those types of businesses. they recognize that there are changing patterns. the car is really an important culture and how our economy functions and how
most people get to work. i think the car will remain an important part of american life for decades to come. there are some changes with younger drivers. younger americans having a different perspective on cars than previous generations did. twitterger green on wants us to get to the trade deal. does the auto industry support the tpp? guest: we are advocates of free trade. we are not just philosophers of free trade. we are able practitioners of free trade. we believe it can work. we have endorsed every free trade agreement the united states currently has. we are hopeful that the final version of the tpp is an agreement we can support. we have voiced concern in the past that the agreement needs to adequately address foreign currency manipulation.
particularly with asian economies. non-tariff number of barriers that exist in economies like japan that keep foreign manufacturers out. japan is the most closed automotive market in the world. that we sellhicles on an annual basis are imported. in japan it is only about 6%. we need open markets. willl free trade agreement open markets like japan but have historically been closed and that is a critical priority. i know our negotiators are working hard to do just that. we hope that we can support a tpp that meets the high aspirations that were set when the tpp was launched. that remains to be seen. the final watching weeks and months of the negotiations as they wrap up.
host: did the white house reach out to you? guest: i would commend the administration, the ustr has worked closely with us to address the technical barriers to trade that exist with the tpp countries. we have been working with members of the house and senate and administration to make sure they are aware of how important it is we think it is to address currency manipulation. it is easy to undermine a free trade agreement by devaluing currency. we have seen that happen in the past. host: robert in maryland is on the line for democrats. wondered how many employees do these big three companies have now compared to what they used to have in the past? two hundredve about thousand today.
that is smaller than in the past. restructured have and become more efficient and effective. 200,000e about employees. that is two out of three american auto workers. that work for fca, ford, or general motors. when you look at the tremendous capital investment, our three companies have invested over $30 billion in capital expenditures in the united states to refurbish plants, rebuild plants, ensure they are able to produce a high-quality product they can be competitive in a very competitive automotive marketplace globally. on theet's go to tom line for independents. caller: good morning. time i've beenst able to get through to c-span in over two years.
i would like to speak to the previous statement. that was a laughingstock. equalll men are created which was a lie. the native american, so-called american indian, was never included in that and we weren't citizens until 1924. the automotive industry -- host: bring it up to the automotive industry. i know that. let people in that segment talk about the military and stuff. 1980's, ford, general motors, and chrysler all moved to mexico and told plants
down there. pickup. i bought a new and paid $3600 for it. 1984 i bought another one for over $30,000 and they were made in mexico. they went to mexico and build plants for two thirds cheaper than they can build in the united states and paid the workers there five dollars a day but the price went up astronomically. host: what is your question? caller: the pickup i had just before this one was made in mexico. saysickup that i have now assembled in america but the parts under the hood is made all over the world. i will let matt blunt jump in. guest: there is no question that mexico has emerged as an
important manufacturing platform. that is not just for fca and ford and general motors but for all manufacturers. when any of our companies assemble a vehicle in mexico, there is going to be a lot of american parts in that vehicle. a lot of domestic content produced right here in the united states. make informedies decisions about how to invest and where it makes the most sense to make a particular product. ford has moved transit back to my native missouri from turkey. it moved trucks from mexico to ohio. of dollars --ions billionmotors put $1.4 to keep that plant competitive in the global economy.
you see that type of capital expenditure over and over again in the united states to keep those plants running and employing americans. brian is on the line for republicans in florida. good morning. caller: good morning. what your last caller was just talking about -- donald trump has brought up that ford themselves are building a 2 plus billion dollar plant down in mexico. e a car assembled in mexico. i just bought a car battery made in mexico. it seems like these investments are going out of the country more than they are staying here. there is no question that there is investment in mexico by all global automakers.
it helps the mexican economy grow and produces opportunity for mexicans, which probably helps alleviate some of the illegal immigration that these folks are concerned about. having said that, look at the facts and where the investment is occurring. ford was mentioned. ford's north american investment has been in the united states. the companies we represent are committed to american manufacturing. it is hard to imagine american manufacturing without them. certainly it is hard to imagine that this recovery would have been like without the auto recovery inng that terms of job creation and capital investment that keeps the united states competitive in the global economy. want to check out the new report from the american automotive council, it is
ocouncil.org. guest: it is an academic style report that really demonstrates how important the industry is to the united states. host: john is up next in illinois on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: thank you for having me on. host: go ahead. the importance of the union in a commercial light is one of those points about which there is room to entertain a difference of opinion and which on men who have any points with the subject. our intercourse with foreign countries as well as with each other. this is from the federalist 1787, written by
alexander hamilton. thank you. i endorse the sentiments of the federalist papers. host: sam on the line for independents. good morning. caller: hello. i am originally from japan. i know japanese automakers and the markets very well. and i have been in the u.s. long ofugh to compare the quality the u.s. and japanese markets. quite unfortunately, the cars made in japan are still in terms of quality better than the made in u.s. for example, if you see consumer top 10, seven out of the
picked foreign cars. was one of the top 10 cars. is how dareto you aresay japanese markets closed? and how dare you say that the japanese markets -- japanese manipulated?with a b guest: global automakers are committed to improving quality. most studies i have seen would demonstrate that american quality has continued to improve and is on par with global competitors. when you look at the japanese
market, it is clear that it is closed and closed intentionally. to american closed auto manufacturers. if it was just closed to american manufacturers that would be one thing. but it is closed to all manufacturers. you essentially have luxury european manufacturers that have a small sliver of the japanese market. most of the market is closed to koreans, americans, and others. we are competitive in markets all around the world. markets all around the world, we compete head-to-head with japanese and korean and europe an auto manufacturers. japan is an outlier. it is the most closed auto market in the developed world and they keep it closed through nontariff barriers and through devaluing their currency. today a lot of that has occurred during much larger quantitative
-- than anything we have seen in the united states. historically they use direct market intervention which we ought to address and try to eliminate. they undermine the market by buying u.s. dollars. japan has the second-largest foreign currency reserves in the world after china. they have accumulated those reserves in an effort to devalue their currency. 80 currency has moved from in 2011 225 today. to 125 today. that is a significant devaluation. as we compete all around the , we have competitive products.
has aurrency manipulation tremendous impact on our ability to assemble a vehicle i the united states and a symbond selt overseas. matt blunt is here. could you talk about the renewed violence in st. louis? very familiart with the details on this latest event. criticalpeaking, it is that public safety officials and law enforcement worked closely together to send a message that violating the law and violating people's personal property rights will not be tolerated. ofhink in the initial days the response to the terrible tragedy that occurred in my state, there was not enough
focus on trying to ensure that a signal would be sent that violations of the law wouldn't be tolerated. i'm hopeful that everybody can continue to learn from one another and learn lessons from these other events and quickly deal with this latest crisis. host: do you think governor nixon did enough to manage the community and police relations a year after the michael brown murder? much: i have not commented on my successor performance. i'm sure governor nixon is committed to try and address things as quickly as possible. whenever there are strained relations between the state and local authorities and the state leadership and local communities, that can undermine the ability of the state to respond.
authorities can work together to quickly resolve this latest challenge. matt blunt, former governor of missouri and current president of the american automotive policy council. we appreciate your time. up next, we will discuss the policeefforts to curb violence and reform policing practices with jason williamson. that is in just a minute on washington journal. ♪ follow the c-span cities tour as we travel outside the washington beltway to communities across america. >> the idea is to take the out on the road beyond the beltway to produce pieces that are a little bit more visual and provide a window into these cities that viewers would normally go to that have
really rich histories and a rich literary scene. >> a lot of people have heard the history of the big cities like new york and chicago. what about the smaller ones like albany, new york? >> we have been to over 75 cities. 95 cities in april 2016. >> most of our c-span programming is event coverage. these are shorter pieces that take you someplace. we partner with our cable affiliates to explore the history and culture of various cities. >> the cable operator contacts the city. because it is the cable industry bringing us there. >> they're looking for great characters. you want viewers to be able to identify with these people. >> it is an experiential type of program where we take people on
the road to places where they can touch things, see things. and learn about the local history, which plays into the national story. >> it should be enticing enough that they can get the idea of the story, but also feel as if this is in our backyard. >> we want viewers to get a sense that, i know that place. mission bleeds into what we do on the road. be able to to communicate the message about this network in order to do this job. it has done the one thing we do, which was build relationships with cities and our cable partners. >> watch the cities tour on the c-span networks. see our schedule at
c-span.org/citiestour. >> washington journal continues. host: jason williamson joins us now. he is an attorney with the american civil liberties union. he joins us this morning. we are seeing violent protests in and around st. louis. in the years since the michael brown shooting in ferguson and all of the policing issues that came from that and subsequent incidents, where has the aclu tried to focus its efforts? aclu is a national organization that also has at least one local affiliate in every state in addition to puerto rico. as a national office, there are several programs and projects within the organization that are focusing on criminal justice issues.
fromally runs the gamut police encounters to what happens once you get arrested to what happens once you get to court and go to trial and are sentenced. and then our local affiliates do a lot of really important work on the local level dealing with the particular issues that may be affecting the communities they are based in. shop are both a litigation and an organization that recognizes that a lot of these problems can't be solved simply by going to court. we think it is a multifaceted approach that needs to be taken. host: in trying to make change, where would you say your group has been most successful in the past year? perhaps we could take partial credit for this, but generally speaking, the fact that these terrible tragedies have occurred over the last
several years -- while it is certainly heartbreaking, it does provide an opportunity for us to engage in a conversation that is a long time coming. so i think a lot of the forward movement is a result of the incidents that people are seeing on their tv screens and on their phones and so forth. we are trying to take advantage of this moment. because there are folks within the community doing some really important work to shine a light on police brutality in black and brown communities around the country. we are trying to use a combination of litigation, non-litigation advocacy, public education, and whatever forms we can get involved with including having discussions like this one to raise awareness about what is happening and what the community is asking for and what we think we need to do to get there. host: are the courts listening?
our members of congress listening -- are members of congress listening? guest: i think it is a mixed bag. the law with, respect to the fourth amendment and some of the issues related to police encounters is not very good. in my view, the fourth amendment protections have been eroded federally over the last couple of decades. so it can be difficult to get real substantial wins in court. having said that, i'm sure you are aware of the floyd versus city of new york case from a couple of years ago. it was a federal case in new york. the court found that the nypd was engaged in his crematory policing -- discriminatory policing. that has led to a significant
settlement and effort to change the culture and policies and practices of the nypd. given that the nypd is the largest police department in the country, i think that sent a message to departments across the country that, while you may have to take different approaches to law enforcement, the fourth amendment still applies, as does the 14th amendment. and you have to be respect of people's rights, their lives, and their likelihood even while enforcing the law. livelihood even while enforcing the law. unfortunately it is an uphill battle. with respect to congress and local and state legislators, there are people who are paying attention in a way they were not a couple of years ago. i think that is by and large
because of what we have seen in haveideos and things that gotten so much airtime over the last couple of years. the effortsankly, of local communities to raise their voices and protest and make it clear to their representatives that this is not acceptable and that real police reform needs to happen. bestof these issues are dealt with on the local level. while there is certainly a role for the federal government to play, we are hoping to influence lawmakers at the local and state level to do the right thing and pass legislation that will require police departments to be more accountable to communities, to be more transparent in the and toey are doing, encourage them to make sure that police officers are equipped and have the training they need to effectively police the
communities they're supposed to be serving and protecting. host: the washington journal went down to richmond, virginia to talk about these policing and community relations issues with the least chief down there -- police chief down there. meantime, if you want to call in and talk with jason williamson, our phone lines are open. republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. .ndependents (202) 748-8002 in, i wante calling to ask you about one concern that came up after ferguson. the militarization of police departments around this country. where are we in terms of efforts that have changed the type of equipment that police can have and deploy in these sort of protest situations?
this is a problem that we have been looking at for some time. the aclu released a report on militarization not long before the michael brown incident occurred. what we have found is that militarization is and has been on the rise for some time. that is the result of a number of things. primarily it is the fact that there are incentives for local police departments to purchase these weapons. the weapons are often provided through various programs that the federal government runs where they are giving excess weaponry and materials to local departments. i think what happened in ferguson really shined a light on wha something communities of color have been aware of for a long time, which
is that there are often inappropriate uses of force by law enforcement in our communities in a disproportionate way that really serves to do nothing more than escalate the situation. as we saw in ferguson. i think what happened in ferguson has again awakened lawmakers to this. i think the president himself is on record as saying that we don't want to turn our police departments into paramilitary organizations. we shouldn't be treating our communities like war zones. one of the things that was striking about the data that we discovered around militarization bulk of the al instances in which tanks and armored vehicles are used by law thercement, it happens in context of executing search warrants, often for drug sales.
so these are not situations where you have a hostage or someone who has barricaded themselves behind a wall and is threatening to shoot and kill people. these kinds of weapons may be appropriate in situations like that, that is not by large how they have been used. instead, they have been used to andorize neighborhoods really make already tenuous situations that much more fragile and causing things to escalate in a way that is really dangerous for everyone. so we are hopeful that the federal government is now taking a closer look at those programs and hopefully intending to scale them back. host: paul in virginia on the line for independents. i am a registered
democrat but consider myself an independent because the democrat party has moved way too far to the left. getting to the conversation here, everybody is talking about people talking about police reform. what about personal behavior and reform in personal behavior? it starts at home and also starts at school. the reason they have all of these so-called militarized vehicles is because the crime is so high in those neighborhoods. you have police officers being shot. if you don't want the police harassing you, one of follow the law and quit harassing people and doing all of the other little crimes? goes, as michael brown i'm sorry, i saw the video. the man attacked the police officer. he did not come with his hands up, that is a lie. freddie gray and the others, i
agree. the police officer was in the wrong using excessive force, but we have to look at common sense and look at personal behavior that is driving this. as long as you have people acting like animals and savages again society, that is how they have to be treated. host: jason williamson, we will let you respond. guest: first of all, the language the caller is using betrays a certain perspective that is dangerous, referring to people as animals and savages is not helpful. obviously, not accurate. the other thing is, the vast majority of people living in these communities across the country -- i'm talking about communities of color, poor communities -- are law-abiding citizen to have none -- done nothing wrong. to suggest that people, as a general matter, that the people
in the community are to blame for police brutality, i think, is problematic. now, to the extent that there are people committing crimes and in communities of color, of course, there is a level of responsibility we have to consider, but i don't think we do that to the preclusion without also talking about the responsibility of the government and law enforcement doing their job. frankly, i don't care how high the crime rate may be in a particular neighborhood. the constitution says what it says. the fourth amendment does not say that it only applies in certain situations, or only applies when the police and do not find themselves in a high crime situation. in fact, there is an argument to be made that the fourth amendment protections become most important in those very scenarios because you want to make sure that while the police
are going about the business of enforcing the law, they are also respecting the rights and liberties of the people who live there and people who they are supposedly serving and protecting. ae caller simplified complicated issue. yesterday, we talked about, going down to richmond, we spoke with the police chief down there about young people and their disrespect for authority, the role of parents. i want to play a clip from that segment. >> it seems to me that youth in a certain right of passage that they have to be disrespectful to authorities and adults. that is creating some problems and challenges. one of the things i'm working on along with the superintendent of public schools, we are locking up a lot of young kids, our future, for minor offenses.
small fights, using profanity. we are introducing them to the juvenile justice system and we wonder why we have a problem with police. so we are working on creating a diversion program that will be between the police department and nonprofits putting them on the right path. most important is the parents, the mothers have to be a part of that. we are always missing the parents. home, but werts at are inherent in that. police are the face of government. we are going into disenfranchised neighborhoods where people are living in difficult situations every day. we come in and we are seen as the bad guy. when they make the call, they expect us to be there, but when we are trying to build a relationship, they do not want any part. host: jason williamson, your thoughts on some of the chief's thoughts? guest: i agree, in part.
i certainly think there is a andain contentiousness in terms of the relationship between communities .f color and the police there are many reasons for that. certainly, parents are part of the equation. i also think police officers have to give respect in order to get respect. best to dodo their that, i think there are many who approach black and brown young people without the kind of respect that you might expect. we are talking about a very large history in this country of opposition between law enforcement and communities of
, while theyds today may not have been alive in the 1970's, have60's, a palpable awareness of that history, of those dynamics. , the consequences of pulling these kids into the juvenile justice system are significant and that the government needs to think long and hard about how we are addressing these issues and understanding that the criminal justice system and juvenile justice system is not always the best alternative. i would say is probably most often not the best alternative, and can lead to future problems down the road for those kids. should note, before his work at the aclu, jason williamson was is a defense attorney and founding member of the juvenile regional services.
reviewerrks as a staff on the criminal law side of the aclu. .aking your questions kerry is up next in arlington, virginia. independent. forer: thank you yesterday's show and today's show but there is another show that should be had. jason, thank you for your work. i come to the conversation from another perspective and i have brought it to congress. i did find the papers that show how wall street and main street have different sets of criminal punishments, so to speak. i think it is very important. talking to law enforcement, they would rather go after a bernard f, the exampledof that many point to, then going after these kids. a lot of these kids are actually nice kids if they are spoken to
in a way that shows that they can be in charge of their own future. i would love to give out my website address -- may i? jason, i like to meet with you, i'm in arlington area. i watched the legislators when i give them documents that are of government and other documents, and they are stunned that they had never seen it before. my website is center forcopright integrity.com. started learning about wall street and how they have a free pass that congress wrote. host: jason williamson? guest: i certainly think there are issues around how law-enforcement prioritizes its work, where it puts its resources. i agree there are all kinds of contexts in which the law may be compromised, and that law
enforcement probably pays too much attention to what is going in communities of color rather than also focusing on what is happening on wall street , inside the big banks, and so forth. that policed departments are faced with unique circumstances in the jurisdictions where they exist and they have to make decisions about how to allocate their resources. i am not a law enforcement expert, so this is not to say that someone else should be dictating what those priorities are, but i think it makes sense for police departments, both at the local and federal level, to look long and hard at how they are spending their money, where their law-enforcement attention is being paid, and what the results are. one of the things that we talk a lot about is the failed war on
drugs that has been going on for and how 30 or 40 years unsuccessful it has been in curbing either drug use or violations of drug laws. that is an area where police department around the country are devoting tons of money and , two results which are questionable, at best. that is an example of where the police probably need to take a hard look at how they are spending their time and figure out how they can make people feel safe, do their jobs, but also not waste taxpayer time and money. host: spring, texas, harry is on the line for republicans. you are on a line with jason williamson. caller: i feel like you never when is thetion,
black community going to take responsibility for yourselves? you are not going to ever, from [inaudible]ever, from white people. you have to solve the problem for yourself. we are the bad guys and you are the good guys. going to listen to anything the white people tell you. you have to solve your own problems. host: jason williamson, your response? guest: a couple of things. that there are not internal conversations happening within brown and black communities around the country with respect to what is happening in our own communities is just unfounded. the fact that this gentleman, or others, are unaware of those
conversations does not mean that they are not occurring. trust me. there are plenty of black folks who are aware of the internal issues that we need to work through as a community. but we are not operating in a vacuum. the problems and the dysfunction -- are,ealing with our, at least, due in part to slavery and jim crow in this country. there are things that we need to look in the mirror and deal with , and there are also ways in which the police and the government, more generally, is exacerbating those problems and not making things any easier. again, with respect to the policing issue, i go back to the constitution. which is to say, regardless of the internal issues that may be
occurring in the black community , the police, the government generally, has a responsibility to abide by the law, to abide by the fourth amendment and 14th amendment. none of that has any bearing on the responsibility of the police to treat people with respect and dignity, and to make sure that they are doing their jobs nationally, in a way that comports with the constitution. host: brooklyn new york. john is on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: go ahead. mr. jason, i want you to think about something. why don't police shoot unarmed kids? why are there not more black policeman? here in new york, we have 40,000 police.
i am a vietnam veteran. i went to the service. we had thousands of black people joining up to go to war. home, they tell us, black people don't want to be police. you need to focus on what will work. why you don't focus on getting more black police. why is there discrimination with these applications? if you have 25 black police and three white, there will not be no shooting blockades. williamson, i will let you respond. guest: it's an important point and i appreciate the caller raising it. first of all, i think this is certainly part of what police departments should be thinking about.
there was a lot of conversation about this in the aftermath of ferguson, looking at the composition of their police department. thates, there should be attention across the country. that just makes sense. host: i just want to play out a story from "the new york post" on the racial makeup of the new york police department. that story from earlier this summer noting the force estimates about 16% of police officers in the nypd are african-american. 10% of officers going through the july 2014 training class are african-american. just some numbers to the issue that the viewer product. go ahead. guest: i think we have to be careful because i do not think that the race or ethnicity of
police officers is really the central problem here. this is really a problem about police culture generally, that affects officers of all stripes. until we do something about the way that the police department institution, simply putting black faces in blue uniforms is not going to solve the problem. i think what we need is police officers who have a certain baseline level of respect for and understanding of the communities in which a are working. to the extent that is more likely to be the case, if you have people of color serving as police officers, it makes sense and we should do that. but we should not be fooled and think, if we have half of our police department black, that means problems around russia prior data profiling are going to -- racial profiling are going
to disappear. one of the things that we should also be talking about, in terms of the composition of police departments, is residency, where these officers live. again, that could end up translating into more police officers of color. where accountability is concerned, if a police officer knows that he will also see the same people at the grocery store, at the bank, at the post office, whatever the case may be, he or she may be more likely to think twice in interacting in their capacity as a police officer. there is an argument in some jurisdictions that it makes sense for some police officers to live in and around the neighborhood that they are policing. there are a lot of places,
including new york city, where that is not necessarily the case. host: arlington, tennessee. gary is on the line for republicans. good morning. good morning. i want to speak to jason about a problem that really bothers me. friends.lot of black in fact, i live off of social security. they have come to me and they said god told me to give you this gift. it breaks my heart to watch the blacks year after year vote for democrats who do not want charter schools to better the blacks. check out chicago and all the .ifferent locations jason said it has been going on for about 30 or 40 years. that is why, because you have these liberals who will support the teachers and the unions so they can get the votes. blacksow as long as the don't get an education, they
depend on the government, and they will vote for the democrats. are notarter schools related topic of conversation right now, but jason williamson, do you want to chat about that or move on? guest: it raises a larger issue which we have touched on already , that there are many factors in the underlying condition that we find ourselves in. education is obviously a huge piece of that. education reform is absolutely necessary in black and brown communities and probably more generally across the country. it is part of a laundry list of issues that needs to be dealt with, if we are going to be serious about making sustained change. that includes housing issues. that includes health care. that includes criminal justice reform.
i certainly agree that education is something that we should be thinking about. as it relates to black folks democrats, obviously, it is much more complicated than just trying to reduce this to a conversation about charter schools. host: jason williamson is with the aclu criminal law reform project. our guest for the next 10 or 15 minutes. let's go to mike in sarasota, florida. line for independents. caller: good morning. i would really like to discuss what is going on with the police. i know they are trying to protect us, but the violence can do a little too much. i see all these protesters and rally heirs, and yet they are harassed. some of them are not being violent themselves but they are harmed. people, butor those if they support something really awful, i would understand.
i trust the police but i do not really like to see how all of this brutality happens. host: jason williamson. i trust the police but i don't like to brutality. your response to that? guest: trust is an issue in communities of color between the folks who live there and the police. it is telling that the caller prefaced the comments by saying that he trusts the police. ,f there were a level of trust then we probably would not be having some of these .onversations i think, while police brutality is certainly not new, and is not color, theple of video footage and things that have been made public over the last couple of years has shocked
and surprised a lot of people for whom that is not their daily reality. there are many communities around the country where people feel comforted when they see a police officer walking down the street. and for many people of color, that is a foreign concept. that, i think, speaks to the dysfunction in the relationship. because im hopeful think the fact that we are having this conversation now means there is an opportunity that we should be taking advantage of to make real reform and to push police departments to do the right thing. host: leah is in sandy, utah. line for democrats. good morning. caller: hi there. there has been a program using microwave our transformer drones against arab-americans, to try to get them to go into dangerous
situations overseas or to do intelligence work. at the same time, they have also them on arab-americans, 12-year exposure to microwave drones, police torches -- host: jason williamson, something you know anything about? into thatill not wade one. maryland.stine in line for republicans. grew up in baltimore, i am 50 now -- will be. that you the change mentioned, like the war on drugs. it is said because these huge drug cartels were using children to sell them. it seemed like the police -- and that is when they started going after the youth. i also wanted to make another comment. when i grew up, we had cops walking the beat.
we knew them. i grew up in baltimore city and baltimore county. i saw the difference where, in the white neighborhoods, you respect the police, you get involved. my black friends, their parents -- no, you do not talk. you don't want to talk to them, you don't want to be a snitch. it seems like a cultural thing. i wonder if you have an opinion on that. especially on a war on drugs because they were going after the kids. now you have the gangs and the black on black crimes, and it breaks my heart. i want to make a change. i have my granddaughter. i just want our world to be a much better place for all of our kids, you know? host: jason williams, tw what topics there. -- two topics there. guest: on the first, whether
this is a cultural issue, i think it is. you have to put all of this into context. at the end of the day, parents want to protect their children. as black parents who are aware of the history of police brutality in this country, particularly against black people, we feel the need to make sure that our children are prepared and equipped for the world that they are going to walk into. if that means sitting them down and telling them, this is how you need to go about your interactions with the police, that is what we will do. that is a sad reality, but i think it is something that will continue as long as parents and communities feel like there is a danger involved when a police officer in iraq's with a young -- interacts with a young black person. as we have seen from incidents
over the past few years, that is still a very real danger. with respect to the war on drugs , it is, i think, now starting failure.ognized as a i think that acknowledgment is a long time coming. i do not think that there is any value at this stage in treating drug use and addiction as a criminal matter, but rather, we should be treating it as a public health matter, as it is. not only that, many of the drug arrests and prosecutions done in this country is around very low-level drug possession crimes. the aclu released a report in 2013 about marijuana arrests and the disparity in marijuana arrests around the country.
on average, black people are roughly four times more likely to be arrested for marijuana .ossession than white people one of the reasons we decided to focus on marijuana is because we also know that usage rates among blacks and whites are basically the same, which is to say people are being treated badly for engaging in the same behavior. to the extent that drug law enforcement is happening, it is happening disproportionately, and it's happening in a way that is not having the kinds of effects that may be law enforcement might have envisioned when they started to go down this road. it is a shocking waste of time, money, and resources, and often leads to discriminatory policing
, which really, at bottom, is the issue that we are dealing with. host: we should note, the aclu website is easy to find, aclu.org. time for one or two more calls with jason williamson with the criminal law reform project. tonya is in martinsburg, west virginia. line for independents. caller: presidents can be impeached, governors can be convicted and sent to prison ,erms, but the police unions they do a great disservice to this country. these are police unions. they don't want anybody else to be caught up in labor. thathave these labor laws are not even available to the general public. the military can't back home and they say what a tough job we have. our servicemen go overseas. they cannot wait to get back
there. i am so tired of hearing these police and everybody else saying what a tough job they have, and their families want to see them. i saw a black man get killed in new york where i was born 30 years ago. he was so drunk, he did not hear the cop when he said don't move. andook a step off the curb his home was right across the street and was trying to get home. these police need to be held criminally responsible. enough with these states paying all these moneys to these families. they should be matching the money instead of taking and the general public's money. host: guest: i think it's hard to deny that police unions are very powerful. and influential.
have been an entitlement in some ways to reform. the primary interest or objective of the union is to protect the interest of individual police officers and their colleagues. to thees not lend itself kind of accountability that i think is necessary in communities of culler. -- of color. i think that she mentioned the question about holding police officers criminally responsible or imposing some sort of discipline for illegal or inappropriate conduct. to the extent the police unions are standing and the way of making sure that officers are held accountable for their actions. i agree that is a huge problem. host: we are going to end there.