tv Washington Journal CSPAN December 2, 2015 7:00am-10:01am EST
on the feature of the economy. we will talk to the specific editor-in-chief. >> we are at war. of theusing the might finest fighting force the world has ever known. >> that was the defense secretary ashton carter after three hours of testimony on capitol hill. telling congress we're at war. spend 200 special forces to fight isis in iraq and syria. that happens live on c-span. we debate authorization beyond a rock and join fight in syria. we will join their with the presidents decision to expand the u.s. footprint in the war against the islamic state.
at 202748s dial in 8001. republican 748-8000. a 002. send us a tweet at c-span. or go to facebook.com/c-span. you can find more and c-span.org. phone lines are open so started dialing in. more about the administration. it is going beyond the special forces that are going into syria. some numbers have it as high as 200. there is a special task force. the special forces that will be going to fight isis in iraq and syria. we'll get your thoughts on that. the front page of usa today puts the number at 150. this is what they say they will be doing. the team will include intelligence and aimless and special operations troops. often they will include a navy
seals and special forces. -- carter told a house that the commandos will coordinate with the iraqi government and fight alongside the troops. they will have intelligence gathering for forces to strike targets. they will send more special forces to fight against the islamic terrorists in syria as well. they had the initial force of allies willing to fight and take ground from the islamic state. it was a significant deepening of the u.s. involvement in the fight against the islamic state. we go to new york, independent. tell us what you think. feeling is that after
some of them isis are as radical as isis. the fact of the matter is that , but to win this battle the political solution is not yet close. this will be a complicated matter. the solution is far more remote than what people are trying to tell us. if it is that complicated, especially with russian involvement to keep them out of a proxy conflict with russia and the west making it a battleground for the next decade. host: jordan king has called
this their world war iii. do you think it is on that level? caller: it is an exaggeration, but we are creeping to that. this was a judgment call. we're are in a war that started after 9/11. we are going to the next decade. not resolved. yemen is in conflict. i am telling you. host: thank you. from new york. independent. as we told you the top, the they arearliament lobbying the members of parliament to vote for striking isis and syria.
they are seeking authorization for that. that is live on c-span two. as the british parliament is ofating this, the king jordan's writing in today's u.k. telegraph tried to influence the vote. both of these countries are working side-by-side infighting and a rock. they seek capabilities of the royal air force. they have a determined pilot. while we respect borders, terrorist do not recognize them. large areas in syria and are establishing foot holds and africa. i do not believe our countries or the world can afford to wait much longer while we pursue a political solution in syria. this is what we have been doing. we need to work with syrian opposition forces.
equalwe are working with determination, we advance the political process. and willing to fight. we deserve support. scott, in north carolina. a democrat. good morning to you. what do you think? one caller: good morning. -- caller: good morning. thank you for taking the question. i question is that the republican congress is blocking every thing give him a mr. desperate forward to them. it seems like they are hampering an effort to the war. i would like to see that change. insight,uld get any wire of a blocking this war act that obama has put forward, they say they cannot understand it. what i have seen about it and everything is that it seems so simple to give obama a chance to do with the right way.
it seems like there holding us back. take a look at the language the president sent to congress in february. cracks the authorities of the military authorization a new military authority to fight isis. the authority does not authorize the use of the armed forces during offensive ground combat operations. this authorization for the use of military force shall terminate three years after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution unless it is preauthorized. many of you may have been tuning in to c-span and seeing yesterday's hearing with ashton carter. after that committee was adjourned, the chairman of the committee told reporters that in that conversation he said that that his committee has had debates about the trap language
that we have just read, and that in duringld define offensive ground combat operation. republicans say it is up to the commander-in-chief. they have a strategy, but they do not know what it is. it is up to them. they said the new speaker, paul ryan is looking at the new authorization force you fight isis. he did say that and is talking to reporters. he was also asked about what the president had to say at yesterday's hearing. here's what he had to say. carter described special operations troops in iraq in syria carrying out rates and capturing leaders come are those things you are ok with? is that an escalation? >> backup for one second. i am ok with it if that is part of a greater strategy for success against isis. is that we ok with will do a little bit more this and try it. and that is the sense i get from these.
i do not get that the president allows there to be a strategy for success. has a deterrent effect up and down the chain of command. if you know you have to go all the way to the president himself to get 25 more people in iraq, does that not discourage the commanders? that is a big deal to have to go to the president and say i need 25 more people to do this. it is a micromanagement that i think has a dampening effect on the military. chairman of the armed services committee after a meeting. saying that we are at war and that the administration has decided to expand its presence in iraq and syria its fight against isis. will get your thoughts on that. republicans, 202-748-8001
democrats 202-748-8000 independence 202-748-8002. take a look at the front page of the washington times. they said this anti-terror planning began two months ago in october. it was not until two months ago that the war against islamic state was over when you're old that the pentagon and the state department began high planning meetings to get big decisions on how to defeat the army in iraq and syria. decision saidtous that striking at the main source would be financing. the complex of oil trucks heading to the black market. a cash flow that has been ongoing since august of 2014. joan, brownsville, pennsylvania. what do you make of the steps? caller: i think it is too little too late. are notope that they sending our troops on a suicide
mission in not giving them enough support because they are only sending 200. if are going to get involved in this movement, we need to show our force. we have been on the sidelines way too long. people like vladimir putin take the lead, introduces the might that this country has. thank you for taking my call. host: do you think we should put boots on the ground? caller: boots on the ground, have a military in the air. we do not need to go in on the ground until we have full control. host: what about casualties and collateral damage? caller: you know what, there will always be casualties of war. there will always be innocence and death. isis puts their stuff next to civilians. our military has been told not to bomb certain things because it may hurt civilians. if the civilians not do not want to be involved, they need to
separate themselves or take a stand. front page of the wall street journal. militants are holding the city hostage. these islamic fighters are preventing civilians from fleeing the city of threatening hisill those who try after rocky forces more people ahead of independent offensive. air droppingn leaflets since sunday morning people to get out before they launch and operation. residents said the extremist group also wants to use civilians as human shields. a quote from somebody who was stuck inside. >> isis has been circling us preventing us from leaving. we are desperate now. we cannot do anything. we have sick people with no medicine. what is your reaction? i feel for those people. they're having a tough time. but our president by pushing climate control and avoiding the war, avoiding helping the poor
people, we do have the manpower. all he is doing is saying it is a problem of war. that is wrong for what they have in their ranks. in englishl california. democrat. you are next. go ahead. i think it is necessary for special forces to be going into iraq and syria. and, i believe it is a little late for just special forces. i think we need boots on the ground, i hate to say it, but i think john mccain was probably correct early on to go into syria and handle that. at this point, that is out of control. so, we no longer have much control in that area. and in iraq, i think we still have a stronghold. and takeo go in there
them out and out before it gets we alsoout of hand, need united nations totally behind us. and we also need congress all in. because, the united states congress is playing a dangerous the trying to withhold authorization of forces and offers and money and troops. just being all in the game. we're trying to do this now. we will not even be able to get it. host: the world section of usa today yesterday had the islamic state said they see an opening to operate out of libya. of the taking advantage united states leaving after what happened in benghazi. do you make of the debates that is happening in great britain. in the parliament were david
cameron is asking for authorization to strike in syria. you know that it has not happened in congress up on capitol hill. congress needs to get in. we need to be all in. for this. i think this is the correct time. france, and and since now their new administration, we know that. the president is in a difficult situation because he has put his hands in it. now, there is some drawback behind what he has done. and, i think that maybe we could even get him involved. this is the time to go. the time to go is now. obama is just going to have to eat his words. him, andways supported withdrawing those troops out of iraq and afghanistan, the
situation with isis is an uprising that is new and upcoming, and it is time to act now. let's listen to what the defense secretary had to say three hours of testimony. he was before the house armed services committee about the next move by the administration. deployedly november we strike forces into turkey. these and other aircraft combines improved intelligence allows us to significantly increase our airstrikes. this is the highest levels is the start of operations in august. momentum we are sending on the president obama's orders special operations forces personnel to syria to support the fight against isis.
operators bring a unique set of capabilities. it will help us garner valuable ground intelligence, further dancer air campaign, and give us a little forces that will help us regain and control territory occupied by isis. refined further opportunity to leverage such capability, we are prepared to expand it. host: the defense secretary on capitol hill talking about these special operations. we're learning that the new task force will likely expose u.s. troops to greater danger to make harder for officials to maintain that forces remain out of combat. the president who campaigned on ending the war talks as promised that no u.s. servicemen will return to combat. meanwhile, secretary of state john kerry arrived in brussels. he seeks additional helped --
help. described obamas military campaign as ill-equipped to deal with the islamic state. but our services committee said we welcome the creation beside white house actions in iraq and syria and the gradual expansion of u.s. involvement in vietnam. steve, s, independent. what do you think you go -- think? caller: my take on this and my comment is that this is looking awful lot like vietnam which i live through. with cold war attitudes in the expansion in the mission creep in the mingling of the news. this looks exactly like vietnam. i hope everybody is very aware of the consequences and the cost it will be. i think you. host: for you, what does that mean if it looks like vietnam? the peoplehink that
as citizens need to be more awake and more conscious and use their experience and their knowledge and wisdom to realize where our leaders are taking us in this mess. it is a total mouth. why their product nato, i have no idea. was a cold war mission, but that ended after the cold war. there is no reason turkey should be part of nato. it is a confusion of everything. saudi arabia is the root of all of this. they're the ones who funded and creative this. we call the people in saudi arabia our friends. i find that confusing. be interested in this headline, president obama yesterday in paris telling the conference he was there for the climate change talks. turkey and russia putting their differences aside. he will also expressed optimism
that moscow will have a shift and operations for the coming months. they said a political transition in syria will help a coalition fight the islamic state more effectively. the president hopes for cooperation. now, list of economic stations that will close in turkey as payback for the shootdown of one of its planes. us that moscow might also frees the gas prices project to turkey. lockhart, alabama. chris, let's hear your thoughts. the shark looked you have on today. host: what you think about a rock in syria? caller: i agree that we need to bring in more people. we need to bring them into those areas because we need more security up there. amy, new york.
democrat. how are you? caller: i believe that congress needs to get up and do their job and create a system if they do not like the one that is sent to them. they're not doing their job. they're just complaining and moaning about what obama is or is not doing. they are not doing their job. let's listen to what british parliament is saying about their debates. >> let me say a word about how this process can lead to a cease-fire that will be so essential for the next stage of this clinical transition. it begins to identify the right people to put her on the table. we expect the syrian regime to negotiate the united nations. political and armed opposition positions have converged.
we know the main groups and their ideas. in the coming days saudi arabia while host representatives in rio. united states will take discussions on a cease-fire. including in the next week of the support group which we expect to take place before christmas. the aim is clear. a transitional government in six months, new elections in 18 months. key elements of the deal are merging. cease-fire, opposition groups uniting. the key players, america and russia, saudi arabia and iran and turkey all in the room together. my argument is this. not hurt the process. it helps it. that is the eventual goal. cameron arguing before the british parliament for the members there to support an authorization to fight isis
in syria. take a look at the independent out of the u.k. today. their headline on this. david cameron yesterday just terroristot of people sympathizers. they are not happy. referring to the labour party, corbynng run by jeremy and calling jeremy corbyn a terrorist sympathizer, if they do not vote to approve strikes against isis in syria. showing financial times cameras is expecting to win the mandate. this came through on monday when jeremy corbyn the antiwar leader of the opposition party had a divided free vote toward several senior resignations. a significant crutch of labour mps will join the mps from the ruling conservative party.
mr. corbyn capitulated on monday to have a ration of resignations and labor that would have undermined his grip of the party, which he has led since september. the former chair stop the war coalition to oppose the iraq war. the labor leader is a pacifist in all but name. he believes the government has not made a convincing case for intervening. he criticized the prime minister's argument that there are 70,000 moderate syrian the vacuumy to fill created by military action. so, that debate is happening on c-span two. you can watch it live. we will carry it for two hours today. that's the is taking place at 5:00 p.m. eastern time. on authorizations to strike syria. your thoughts this morning. mike, pennsylvania, republican.
the united states takes another step toward fighting isis. caller: i want to say that we have been watching this for years. and i think it is ridiculous. watch,ewscast that you they show over and over again isis it goes from time to time. we have long lines of vehicles out of the middle of the desert. if we could put an airstrike on casualties in no these towns. placesery newscast has where they filmed them like that. there in theas first drop of iraq he said there are miles of nothing. they have to travel from town to
town. they cannot take them out there. is, they called it isis at first. isil,ent obama calls it which means the whole islamic region, instead of just iraq and syria. what does he know that he is not i know when george bush, my son was there every day, the media would say two soldiers were dead, then the next day it was five soldiers. they constantly said that. president bush come he grieved every dead soldier whenever they came back to america. they showed him at the hospital visiting. we've never seem president obama, i have yet to see him on the news visiting a dead soldier or visiting our wounded that come back. i do not know what is going on.
he dide have said that visit walter reed on multiple occasions. he visited people who were wounded and war in iraq and afghanistan. as whenthat as recently he was in turkey. we are getting your thoughts this morning on the presidents administration defense secretary and outs and on capitol hill that they are expanding their presence in iraq and syria. what you think about this? we go to wilma, and ohio. good morning. caller: as far as john kasich run for president, i know for a , thereat if he makes it will be more war. they had a good quarterback for world war ii. our general. we had b-52s over there.
the mesa 52, they took germany off the map. come he gets up there in lies but everything he has done in ohio. look up his record. host: thank you. that was wilma in ohio. want to share domestic news with you. page ofck to the front the wall street journal. there is an exclusive story that they have about closing guantanamo bay. the president has the most recent plan. they have a cost estimate for closing the prison. an alternative in the united states. prompting the white house to reject it in san the playback for revisions. setback for a top priority of president obama and helps the administration delay in submitting a plan for congress. the pentagon estimate requires
six $7 million to close the prison. the operating cost of the guantanamo detention facility now is 400 million. their operant a us-based facility up to something like 300 million. that is the latest on the president's promise to close down guantanamo bay. in domestic news, out of the chicago tribune. as many of you know, rahm emanuel is finally top cop in that city. dismissing the police chief amid mounting pressure after the release of that video showing police fatally shooting the black teenager in chicago. then, this morning, in the papers there is this from the financial times about talks in paris about climate change. nations are now focusing on for ane issues in search admissions accord. president obama has left paris.
other top officials left to negotiate for the next 10 days to try to reach some sort of agreement. toicials are struggling convert their draft intent into a final agreement. then, on top of that, this is the headline in the new york times. congress moves to undercut the president's climate change. tuesdayter he pledged that the u.s. to be the vanguard of nations seeking a global response to climate change. congress approved to measures aimed at undercutting him. in a provocative message they said the president does not have the full support of his government, they have resolutions approved by the senate. they will have he trapped carbon emissions from existing. and have coal power plants. that and the new york times has the story. they said a conference committee has come to an agreement on highway bill $300 billion highway bill. they spoke to the house and senate hoping to get it to the
floor. and to the president's desk for his signature. that is happening on capitol hill yesterday. we have more action expected on several fronts. the other deadline the congress is facing is a bill to fund the federal government a short-term solution runs out december 11 new the editorial board weighing in on the writers that the bill wants to attack. the planned parenthood, do with the fda, they deal with financial regulation. is new york times editorial any their pieces morning saying republicans and the house and senate appeared divided with the house is far right eager for shutdown does not get its way, and the senate leadership desperate to avoid one, for fear it will hurt the electoral process in 2016. that is an opening for mr. obama to do the correct thing. as with the new york
times editorial say. and then in 2016 politics, they want to know that trump will be in virginia. it is part of our road to the white house coverage. that is at; 30 p.m. today. we will happen on c-span2, c-span radio c-span.org. one more headline for you. this is in the business tech section. mark zuckerberg announces with the birth of his daughter that he will give away his fortune. 45 million -- billion is the value of shares that he plans to give away to philanthropy. back to your calls. mark, pennsylvania, republican. what do you make of it? good morning. go ahead. caller: thank you. my question is what took them so long? if you look back, during the bush administration, the last
one. ifmade the statement that united states troops left iraq to early, that it would create a vacuum and that terrorist would just pour into the vacuum. so, it was fairly prophetic when he said that, because it was not long. one obama got in he said while what i want to end the war in iraq? it is an issue of votes. if he is point out political reasons rather than trying to get the job done, all those individuals are sacrificed now lives. all of the effort and gains that were made during the war, he pulls up prematurely and now we have this big problem. forces as good as they are, cannot and an entire war. you will have to use more ground troops.
that'll help special forces move in and take out the other areas. my question is what took them so long? why are we watching the rest of the world handle this when we're supposed to be the leader? you have russia over there taking the front. i'm quite sure that they are not working in our best interest. host: the on what you see on c-span this morning with the british parliament debating authorization to strike isis in syria, the wall street journal is noting this that the german to sendapproved plans reconnaissance and refueling aircraft to the region. berlin and deploy people under the plans. they have expectations that russia will ship firepower rather than defending the regime. let's listen to what the
president had to say in paris yesterday about going forward with some sort of coalition. obama: with the cohesion of the coalition that united states put together and also the increasing intensity of our actions in the area, and progressively on the ground, i think it is possible over the next several months that we will see a shift in calculations and the russians and a recognition that it is time to bring the civil war in syria to a close. it will not be easy. too much blood has been shed. too much infrastructure has been destroyed. to me people have been displaced for us to anticipate. it'll be a smooth transition. isis is going to continue to be a deadly organization because of
its social media, the resources ofhas and the networks experienced fighters that it possesses. it will continue to be a serious threat for some time to come. that we are on the winning side of this. and that ultimately, russia will recognize the threat that isis poses to its country. to its people. this is the most significant and they need to align themselves with those of us were fighting isis. host: president obama predicted that russia will compromise on basharument that al-assad needs to stay in syria and that russia believes that the fight against isis is more important. dave, tennessee. democrat. good morning. what are your thoughts you go -- thoughts yucca -- thoughts? caller: i wanted to bring up the
fact that it is important to protect special forces. these are special soldiers. it costs $1 million to train all of them. every person in the military that a special forces. so, instead of just sending these guys before russia stops believe we should hold back until flat american changes his mind on his tactics. host: thank you. david, massachusetts, independent. caller: i think ed will take a regional forces to actually hold ground in the area. i think that to the imperialists who divided up the land all of that many years ago have divided it in a way that really makes it hard to rule. perhaps, some orders need to be
changed. -- borders need to be changed. this chest beating about who is running in first is outrageous. whether it is the russians or the americans or who is doing what, the facts are pretty simple. we have people who are poor who need work who want to live happy, healthy lives. and, we can be a part of the solution or we can be a part of the problem. right now, i believe we are part of the problem. up, you brought up the british house of commons. they are basically saying some of the things that i heard when we invaded iraq. six months, people are coming together. it is the same story.
it is not people want to win a war and make peace. it is a never ending war. that is what i'm hearing. host: david, massachusetts. donald, michigan, independent. go ahead. caller: by the way, i was born in 1939. we've had wars against italy, ,ermany, red china, north korea north vietnam, it goes on and on. waving're thinking about the flag's, sending now children and our grandchildren off to do this thing again. like the last caller said, this area was divided up after world war i. good was not done in regards to the tribal system. west, including people from
europe went in there after the and saudisources, arabia is probably the biggest troublemaker of the bunch. that is my opinion. host: thank you. i want to go back and get into the house of commons here, because jeremy corbyn's the labor leader and has been against war in a rock is speaking out. canada hasr powers, interesting -- has interestingly withdrawn. during more than one year of bombing isil has expanded am austerity. they had gains including in ramadi. the claim that the superior british missiles make the difference is actually quite hard to credit. when the united states and other , when u.s. and other states are struggling to find a suitable targets.
in other words, extending british bombing is unlikely to make a huge difference. second, the prime minister has failed to convince anyone that even if british camp -- participation can change the balance, they have incredible ground forces able to take back territory now held by isolate. in fact, it is quite clear that there are no such forces. the prime minister suggested that a combination of kurdish military, a free would be a will to fill the gap. he even claimed a 70,000 strong force of moderate fighters were ready to coordinate action against isis with a western air campaign. that claim has not stood up to scrutiny. kurdish forces are a distance away. where isilrea
controls. widesa which confirms a range of troops come few as any would regard as moderate are in other parts of the country. able to ground forces take advantage of a successful anti-isis air campaign are stronger jihadist groups close to the isis controlled areas. host: jeremy corbyn, the leader of the labour party and the british government there, the leader of the antiwar wing of the party is speaking before the british parliament. that is life. that is on c-span2 right now. the debate.ing it'll be a few hours starting around 6:30. the vote will be taking place at 5 p.m. eastern time. now, the prime minister david cameron is calling corbyn and others that are against authorization to fight isis in syria, terrorist sympathizers. he is expected to to get the
votes he will want. that is because jeremy corbyn who has been willing to vote against airstrikes backed down. members of the washington post say it is a cautionary tale airstrikes in syria. caveid their decision to on something about which he is so passionate says it is hard to stay true to your values when you become a member of a big coalition. you are up keith. what do you make about the u.s. taking more steps to fight isis in syria and iraq? chief: i am a retired officer in the u.s. navy. --, i would just like to say host: we're listening. caller: i would just like to say send out a pledge and asked to raise talks that are all saying let's go back to war.
they want to send our troops. when amlike to ask them i going to send my daughter, my son, my neighbors, my friends to and list in the military they can spitet the war. less than 1% of the united states is even involved. host: paul, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i am good. caller: like the gentlemen in front of me, i'm a chief master sergeant from the united states air force. campaign is being directed by the wrong person, or it is being manipulated by somebody. we have the whereabouts and united states air force and other services to do what needs
to be done. we have the greatest weapon in the world it is a b-52. not only is it deadly as a bomb has on athe impact it ground troop, listening to the roar. not many rates across there, even if we kill some but in a kos many as we like will have an impact. anytime an airplane leaves the ground with bombs under its wing , it comes back with bombs under its wings, something is wrong. either the intelligence that we are gathering is wrong, or we are being so restricted that we cannot bombing targets that need to be bombed. something needs to be done. host: paul, pennsylvania. our dish or two more headlines with you. has twoyork times stories about the state had project. is that those who have escaped
it, it said the state project is now in distress more than any other time since the islamic state begin seizing territory. according to a range of interviews that the new york times did come under pressure from airstrikes with new ground defenses by kurdish and shiite militia. the jihadist are beginning to show strength. weird thee's this front page of the washington post said many in iraq see the u.s. as an isis ally. fighters haveaqi seen video supportively shouting u.s. helicopters air dropping supplies to the militants. many claim they have friends and relatives have seen similar incidents. seenary people have also the video and reached the same conclusion. it is widely believed among his rockies that the united states is supporting them for a series of reasons.
and, perhaps its oil. the two front page stories you to consider in the papal -- paper. we will switch topics. we will talk with of the newives select panel to look into activities of planned parenthood. that, later,ed dave reichart a law-enforcement officer for 33 years. he will be healed to talk about policing and criminal justice issues in america. we will get to those conversations right after this break. ♪
>> saturday afternoon at two it festival in book vegas. featuring author talks on race, free speech, and the american west. , it is a wordgic invented by an australian. uncontrollable loss of a place that you know that has been pulled out from underneath your feet. affordl must out to place you been to come some nostalgia is when you are standing still in your watching the landscape out of your window go away. eastern, she.m. would surprise winner gilbert gaul examines the business culture of college football. >> i do not think the players in a few years will be satisfied with a few thousand dollars. them are quite smart, they consumer their money is
coming out much is there, how much coaches are being paid. ask why shouldn't they get more? >> join the conversation is tom mcmillan, president and ceo of the division one a athletic directors association. a live three-hour discussion with cokie roberts. she is the author of several books. we will take your phone calls, e-mails, facebook comments and tweets. watch booktv all weekend, every weekend on c-span two. >> washington journal continues. we want to welcome congresswoman susan delving may call thelicans selected panel on infant lives. it was set up to a conflict of this planned parenthood. yesterday, you and your fellow democrats sent a letter to paul
ryan asking him to disband this committee. tell us why. first of all, we voted against the formation of the committee in the first place. no substance behind any allegations against planned parenthood. it is unclear why we need a select committee. we have committees of jurisdiction right now. we have had hearings already. so, there are other committees that can do any type of investigation that needs be done. in fact, we already had to hearings in the judiciary. no point to this. it is a waste of taxpayer dollars. we believe it is very important, especially in light of recent activities in the violence that we saw with planned parenthood in colorado and other violence that has taken place that we need to make sure our focus is on protecting women's access to health care. making sure that people can go safely to receive their health
care, that needs to be our focus, not a select committee that has no reason to exist. host: what is the status of this a select committee? have you met yet? caller: we have not. guest: the house did pass the formations committee, members committee. but, we have not had a meeting yet. we have been told that we might have a formal business meeting to set up the committee before the end of the year. as of now, that has not officially been set up. until we carefully chairwoman, we do not know when we might be. host: how will it operate? guest: i do not know yet. that is up to the chairwoman. frankly, it it deals with what issues we will focus on. host: you said other things have taken place in the committee. out? ou find caller: it is an ideologically
driven meeting. had a predetermined results. the titles of our hearings were planned parenthood exposed. ,et, if it was an investigation we never had anyone from planned parenthood as a witness. so, it was ideologically driven. i think it was not focused on an investigation. an unedited video, or any real information. unfortunately, these have not been focused on any type of investigation. has had a place in other committees. they are not found any illegal activity. we have not actually look at real information on how the videos were put together. or any illegal activity that might have taken place by the people who put them together. it, unfortunately has not been a process where we have been able to focus on facts.
it has been focused primarily on ideological agenda. dimension marsha blackburn a republican from tennessee will head up the panel. let's listen to its she says about the folks of the work. our investigation will be to review medical procedures of the organizations as well as the relationship that exists between the two entities. we will look at how funds are being used to ensure that taxpayer money is not going to a big abortion business. what is your reaction to go -- reaction? fort: what is the rationale having a select committee? we can talk about any issue that we need to come a we do not need a select committee to spend taxpayer dollars. it is unclear what the rationale the place are putting for finding the committee in first place. again, it is unfortunate that but we needening,
people who are willing to speak up. we need to have a conversation. again, we do everything possible to make sure that women have access to affordable quality health care and are able to make their own decisions. host: i want to show you and our viewers what senator langford had to say. he was on the program on monday. here's what he had to say about the recent shooting at planned parenthood. you and other democrats say and might of this, the select committee should be disbanded. here is what he had to say. nobody would say i'm standing up for life by taking life. it is inconsistent with the movement that is focused on individuals protecting life. the focus on antiabortion is a pro-life focus. to say that you're protesting for children and for life i taken the life of the innocent makes no rational sense. so, this is not somebody who is mentally stable and an advocate for the cause. the society for serious -- with serious mental issues.
host: what do you think? see extremenk we acts of violence take place in colorado. we should make sure that women are not in fear or and timid aided about going to their health care provider, going to get a cancer screening or immunization, or birth control. that has been a terrible situation. the focus needs to be on what we can do going forward so that people can go to their doctor and feel safe. we need to make sure that would protect a woman's right to make her own health care decisions. it does not need to be invaded by politicians. host: do you agree with the washington post saying that the abortion says that -- abortion-rights groups political rhetoric contributed to shooting. guest: i think it is a terrible situation. we lost three lives. had an incredible
impact. not just in colorado, but across the country. we need to make sure that women have access to safe, affordable health care. and, words matter. need to focus that if there is an issue people need to talk about, let's focus on the issue, it should not be about hateful rhetoric. we should be talking about real issues and having an honest debate. host: our guest this morning congresswoman susan delving a which represents the first district in washington state. she is part of the committee been set up activities of planned parenthood. your questions. will go to george, kentucky, democrat. well, i'm sorry i did not catch her name. this -- thank you. the overall he did rhetoric over
the last several years from the gop, whether it is on rush -- orgh, or and call your and coulter, it goes back to the health care reforms of 2009 in 2010. when they went to health care forms to shut them down and shout them down. are yelling baby parts, baby parts. getting tens of millions of people to act of this with anger. people have so much anger. you get so many people stirred up and 70 people angry, they do not treat political opponents like opponents. i am pretty liberal, but i feel like we treated like enemies and not opponents. rhetoric has led to the formation of right-wing militia groups and violent attacks in a lot of places.
we need to calm down the heated rhetoric. but how can we confront these lies in this perception of the video itself, they had it copied and pasted in bits and pieces. how can we confront this? that one thing you talked about that is very important is that we need to have a conversation based on facts and accurate information. it is incredibly disappointing and irresponsible that people have continued to perpetuate misinformation. that misinformation leads to a dialogue that is not focused on coming up with a dialogue that allows people to come together. that is very disappointing. so, words matter. we need to make sure that we are having an accurate conversation. to when leaders in our communities are talking about these issues that they are not putting forward this information.
we need to not talk about these videos that have been proven to have been deceptively edited. we have not seen the unedited videos. people domething that not need to continue to use. host: cynthia, washington, republican. you are on the air. caller: hello. i'm not opposed to abortion. i have a question. have two comments. the first is about you are a nonprofit organization, however, the director makes $560,000 per year, and the utah or representative makes 429 thousand dollars -- four and $29,000 per year. i'm curious how they make that much money. there is another $400,000 director out there. i also have a comment about embryo cells. , the braino pbs
system that they had up several years ago and the book that they published, and embryo cell can be put into any and that cell will become the cell where it is put. in the heart, it will become a hard sell. if it is put in the brain, a brain cell, and nobody seems to understand that or they are not aware of it. i don't know, but i just want to comment about that. event, i am curious about the director making some much money. guest: i think that we should focus on how important it is that women have access to affordable quality health care across our country from planned parenthood who provides cancer screenings, immunizations, birth control and this has been life-saving care that they have provided to people and women
across our country who many times are in rural areas and do not have access to other types of care, low income women and it is imported. federal funds cannot be used, go toward any abortion services, so we are talking about making sure that we have funding for women's access to basic health care, and that is a very, very important resource that we need to make sure is available for women throughout the country. again, it is unfortunate that we aboutving a conversation restricting women's access to health care and we should be talking about what we can do to make sure it is easier for women to have access throughout the country. host: ian is next in maryland, a democrat. welcome to the conversation. caller: thank you for taking my call. guys are that you covering this. i have been wondering why this has not been covered and it has been deafening silence on the
news for some reason. politicalo me these people on fox news, and if you fact check the republican debates, they have 8% falsehoods. this whole campaigning against planned parenthood has been about 8% falsehoods. it is like brainwashing. people are using hatred to manipulate and garner votes for themselves and it is selfish and greedy. when they asked them, like you asked carly fiorina about it, she starts attacking the left. end?e does that all where is the responsibility? if it had been a muslim who shot the place and there was a police officer shot, and iraqi or vendor and shot -- veteran who was shot, if it was a muslim,
there would be nonstop coverage. it is the total bias from the news. host: congresswoman? guest: i think you're right that we need to make sure we are having a fact-based conversation with accurate information. it continues to perpetuate misinformation that has led to more divisive dialogue and that has been responsible, but we have seen the violence in colorado, my state of washington, we had an arson at planned parenthood back in september, so this has not been a single situation, unfortunately, and we need to make sure women are able to go see their health care providers safely and not feel that fear and intimidation that many folks have felt seeking health care, and that is something we need to make sure we continue -- if we want to work hard on something, that is something we should work together on. safe access to health care. have named thens
select investigative panel on infant lives and democrats have -- have named a committee to attack women's health. the twoyou think about sides coming together when that is how the investigations are being labeled? guest: some of the callers mentioned that we are not having conversations about facts. the hearings we have had have not been based truly -- if the conversation was about investigating planned parenthood, they had not been about investigating planned parenthood. it is more about political theater and an ideological agenda and attacking women's health, which is not the first time this congress -- they voted about 18 times to restrict access to reproductive rights and health care -- so what are really want towe focus on issues, we have a committee jurisdiction in place right now that can provide that need abut we do not
select committee to do that. there is reason and rationale that this would pull together, so unfortunately, it appears it is more about continuing to attack women's health care. host: where could there be debate? where could democrats compromise when it comes to procedures that are being done and the selling of fetal parts for research? is their compromise? -- is there any compromise? guest: i think women at the legal bright to make reproductive choices with their doctors. that is a legal right they have and we need to continue to defend their legal right. really talk about research, it has been cleared that no loss of been broken, there have not been the sale of tissue -- there has not been the sale of tissue, that would be against the law. this is about folks with informed consent who decided to donate any tissue ended is being used for research, and that and the laws around the
research were developed under the reagan administration where thatput together a panel was supported by many republicans, including senator mitch mcconnell who helped support the laws, so those are put in place and fetal tissue has been important to research in areas of parkinson's, diabetes, breast cancer, developed the polio vaccine. there has been much research and focus that has produced great results that have helped many people across the country and around the world, but that has to be done in the process that is very closely scrutinized, and placek they were put in back in the reagan administration and continued to be followed. host: we go to barbara, a republican in michigan. you are on the air with congresswoman suzan delbene, a democrat from washington state. go ahead. caller: my comment is this --
why are we funding planned parenthood? why are we having our college kids poisoned by this idea of abortion? -- yes, people have a right to have an abortion, 40 years ago, i gave up my baby to a i made auple and decision that changed my life at 16 years old, but i gave it away because i knew somebody else needed a child. number one. number two, when they publish in the college paper that a child was aborted is nothing more than medical [indiscernible] moral that is beyond any thing or any based standard. [dialtone] guest: i think that we have to continue to inform and protect a woman's legal right to make her own decisions. these are personal decisions between a woman and her family
and her doctor, and they should not be made by extremist or by politicians. that is what we will continue to push for. we continue to push for that and make sure that we are having a fact-based conversation, but i want to make a point will my time that no federal dollars can be used to fund abortion services, so funding for planned parenthood goes toward basic medical care like a screenings, immunizations and birth control. host: what about the argued that the funds are not being kept track of and how planned parenthood uses them? work thatr 90% of the planned parenthood does is focused on basic health care, screenings, birth control, while women visits. that is what these dollars go towards. these are for women who sometimes do not have access to any other clinics nearby, women
who live in rural areas, low income women, and we need to make sure that women have access to affordable and quality health care and this is one part of that. host: we go next to tennessee. patrick, a democrat. caller: hi, how are you? host: good morning. caller: i just wanted to thank you for allowing the congresswoman to be on. she is a breath of fresh air. isive with a woman who getting some checks on herself, going to the doctor, and i just think that people like marsha blackburn are trying to take that away from people. i do not think that is a chairperson job. i think somebody like hillary clinton would do a much finer job. host: we will hear from arlene in florida, next. a republican. what are your thoughts? caller: i would like to know
what the difference was between a baby that is eight months in the stomach and the baby eight months out of the stomach? they break the neck of the baby when they pull it out. also, hitler had the legal bright to go killed jews, but it still was not right. murder.t is i think any woman that murders her own child is not human. guest: this is about making sure that we continue to protect women's rights and making their own health care decisions. that is a legal right that women have. again, we need to make sure that women can make their own health care decisions with their doctors. is a very personal decision and there are many different scenarios that people are under. we can also make sure we do everything possible to make sure that women have access to affordable and quality health care and access to birth
control. one thing i think is very important is when women have access to birth control and have access to health care, there may also prevent unintended pregnancies and that is an important part of giving women access to the choices that they make. host: what about the claim that abortions are taking place at eight months? guest: i cannot talk about that. i am not sure. host: we will go to robert in pennsylvania, independent. caller: i was wondering earlier, the congresswoman said that she did not think this investigation should be going on. why did she joined the committee to investigate this? is she just there to throw monkeywrench into things? we send so many politicians to washington and we want answers. if she does not want to investigate, foul out and let
another congressperson joined the committee. we would like answers. the american public do not want baby parts being sold for profit. we are not trying to take away is justhealth care, it we want answers. if you do not want to give us them or do your job, we will find people who will. that is what this next election is for. thank you. anst: we actually have existing committee infrastructure. we have three different committees who have looked into this particular issue, a judiciary committee, which i said that, energy and commerce committee, oversight committee. the chairman from the oversight committee, a republican, says they have found no evidence of any illegal activity at planned parenthood. we have, as i mentioned earlier, to hearings in the judiciary -- two hearings in the judiciary committee, and they were titled planned parenthood expose, not an unbiased hearing, and no one
was invited from planned parenthood or who helped create the videos was invited. we have never seen the videos that are edited, so if we want to have a conversation, we can do that in the committee's we already have. as for the select committee now, the reason i am on the select committee is because we want to people from the different committees to participate, and if there is going to be a select committee, i want to make sure we have a fair and accurate conversation and that this is not just political theater. but i want to make sure we are standing up to make sure it is a fair and accurate discussion and that is what i will be there at the committee moves forward. host: brenda in ohio, democrat? reena? go ahead. caller: is she not a politician
herself? she said we should not leave it up to politicians -- what is she? you know? poor,was me and i am there is no way, shape or form i would have an abortion unless i term, my very, very early and i would do that at home before i would go up there to her. host: comments there. councilman? -- congresswoman? about manyn, this is women make their own decisions and have their own health care decisions. as i am saying is that politicians should not be making that decision for women, so we need to make sure the law exists today to make sure they have the ability to make their own decisions in conjunction with their doctors and continue to fight to make sure politicians do not insert themselves. host: before coming to congress, you work the vice president that microsoft.
you are serving on judiciary. what are your thoughts on surveillance of americans? i know you are pushing for tighter scrutiny over e-mail and having privacy, what are you pushing for? in light of what happened in paris, are you concerned at all about restricting the cia and fbi and tying their hands on preventing or being able to prevent a terrorist attack here? guest: we had a broad is, especially when it came to light that the nsa was doing bulk collection of information on innocent americans. that they make sure have access to information when they see credible threat, but we in a situationbe where folks are having their information collected and under surveillance when they have the right to privacy. making sure that we put in place
to put in place our civil liberties is always very important. part of that has been our law that says you need a warrant taxes information if there is a need for information, so if you wanted to access the piece of paper from my desk for and that you needed it, you would need to get a warrant. the challenge is that this information is not under that standard, mainly because they are out of date. where if a situation it is in the cloud and over 80 days old, they do not need a warrant to access that information, so there is a theerence between electronic version and the cloud. we're trying to make sure that there is a difference between the digital information.
those are people's expectations. we had a hearing on this yesterday and it is called electronic communication information act britain in 1986, but -- information act britain in 1986, but -- information act written in 1986, but i'm not sure how many people use e-mail. now, it is one of the most common forms of communication. our legal rights are not the same, so we need to update those balls and i think that is an important part of the work we need to do. host: so it would not matter how old the e-mail list? -- the e-mail is? guest: you would need to warn, the fact that it is 180 days old has to do with the way the law was written in 1986, but we need to make sure that digital information and difficult information are treated the same and that people still have that privacy. we still uphold first amendment
rights, visual information rights, and we need to update our laws because our laws are out of date with the way the world works today. host: do you have republicans on board? guest: we do. this is bipartisan and a lot of the work has been bipartisan. the legislation we passed earlier this congress, the usa freedom act, which was to make she week ended the bulk collection of data that i was talking about earlier, that is something that passive bipartisan support in the legislation we have to address this issue on e-mail also has strong bipartisan support, actually, a huge number of cosponsors, the majority of both sides support piece of legislation we had talked about in the hearing yesterday. host: do you think it will vote on the floor? guest: i hope so. we had our first hearing yesterday and i'm hopeful we can move it forward because i do think it is something that would pass and something that would
keep us up-to-date with the way the world works today. host: is this legislation like something that microsoft and other companies would want? guest: i think a lot of folks in the technology world would like to see that because again, it is hard for folks if they feel like information they have will be treated differently and it is hard for them to feel comfortable. for example, in the cloud, or storing it if they think there is a different legal standard it is under, so it should not matter whether it is a digital form or a piece of paper and we need to make sure the laws of the same. onnk a majority of folks both sides of the aisle agree. hopefully we get it moving forward. host: we will go back to calls. tina and alabama, republican. caller: good morning. forgive me for the name, i have a question. i am an american who had has family members die fighting for
liberty. miami called an extremist when i believe in life -- why am i called an extremist when i believe in life? host: is that your question? guest: i think this is letting people make their decisions. you should be a with to make your own decision as should other women and that is what the law says and we will continue to uphold that. host: sander in massachusetts, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i have had a thought in my head when my grandson came to me and we could not afford the close birthm and so they called right. birthright went into action and sent somebody over. person brought that cross, prayed, sent him to meet and sent $300 for clothes for
the child to go to school so that he could have clothes on his back, so it is not only in there to help women one way, it helps in other ways, too. thank you. will go to catherine in alabama, democrat. doing? hi, how are you to a, congresswoman, for trying to get the facts out because i listened to that entire hearing and he cannot get away from it. i cleaned the house frantically listening to it. i was so upset because they were so rude to this woman. it was amazing her composure. have fact-based hearing at all. it was talking points, sat and juvenile. we need to get the facts out that women have their rights and they can choose. oft is a fact that in all these states, they are rolling this back. if you drive by a planned
parenthood clinic, eusebius fever crazy people screaming at -- eusebiusg to get fever-crazy people screaming at people trying to get them to stop. this is another thing that drives me crazy. they let them do this. if they were over there at my husband's clinic they would have them arrested. they would not allow a and yelling that patients over there. that is right in america that our politicians continually lie and misinform the constituents who may not have been education. you must understand these people operate off of the emotional part of their brain. they did not have any logic left . i am over 60. it is terrible. i came back was to help elderly people and now i am elderly. the kkk has been terrorizing us
for years and nobody cares about that. hateare allowed to spew out here and we really need more help. why the understand national level just as regards us because nobody helps. they do not have money in the democratic party down here to get help them to give these people information they need. host: ok, we will talk about misinformation. guest: first of all, we need to make sure we are having a fact and that is something folks should demand. to make sure everything we look at is actual accurate information. so the videos out there, we should have made sure we were looking at unedited videos. i don't think anybody has seen the unedited videos, unfortunately, and we need to make sure that people do have fair access.
nobody should feel fear or intimidation when they go to their doctor. the vast majority, over 90% of a planned parenthood's is they , screenings,e immunizations, basic health care, that we have folks who are in fear of going because of recent events. this is not necessarily something for the intimidation is not something new. we know there is lots of security, planned parenthood clinics in of the claimant's because people are concerned -- and other clinics because people are concerned about intimidation that would take place, and we need to focus on what we can do to make sure that changes. host: five delay, the caller was referring to a hearing that took place -- by the way, the caller was a printer hearing that took place earlier this year with an oversight committee. if you missed it, go to our website at www.c-span.org where we cover the whole thing. we'll go to keith in virginia, a
republican. caller: yes, ma'am. i was just paying attention to some of the previous callers and not everybody is supposed to what planned parenthood does is a crazy person or, as she kind but i was just kind of wondering why, as an american taxpayer, my money has to go to something that i do not believe in? the question i had was the only hereed parenthood around is right in the middle of college towns. i live in a rural area and they have no clinics outside of these college towns. there are other health clinics, but planned parenthood has
nothing to do with them. are runningike they a moneymaking plan. think we should make sure that women across our country have access to affordable quality health care in every part of the country, and that should be our ongoing focus. also make sure that we are upholding the woman's right to make her own health care decisions. that is part of the policy that we will continue to fight for, but any funds that go toward planned parenthood only go toward basic health care needs. once again, cancer screenings, immunizations, the woman visits, makingealth care, so
sure it is planned parenthood or other areas where women have access is important. something we should make sure is available in all areas, including global areas and ruleg sure -- including areas and making sure low income women have access. host: the british parliament is debating whether or not authorized airstrikes in syria against isis -- they have been conducting airstrikes in iraq -- but the british prime minister is asking parliament to seek government position -- government permission to strike in syria as well. what do you make of that even the lack of debate on capitol hill over a new authorization for this president to fight isis and iraq and syria? guest: i think we should have a new authorization. i think this congress needs to weigh in. i do not the cliche rely on authorization for use of military force -- i do not think we should be waiting to rely on
authorization for use of military force. congress should be engaged and involved. have you activate and making sure that congress makes the decision in terms of the appropriate use of military force, that is something -- and we also need a strategy. i think it is important that congress continues to call for strategy in terms of what we are going to do to continue to fight we shouldi agree that be having a conversation about the authorization of use of military force. host: do support the idea of ground troops to fight and what do you make of the announcement yesterday that the administration is sending even more special forces to iraq and syria? guest: i think we should be having the debate in this about what is happening and what we want to authorize. that is something to the earlier point that we have not done. we even talked about it back here, this was not a new conversation, so we need to be
having that conversation said that we provide appropriate authority and we also need to talk to experts, military leaders, get their feedback and have a strategy so we know what the appropriate actions are to take. need if the experts say we ground troops to defeat isis, would you say yes to that authorization? guest: i think we need to hear that information and have that debate in congress before anybody can make that decision. host: one more phone call, pat in tennessee, independent. good morning. first: listen, when you came on the air, you said that something for is you to investigate on planned parenthood. there are a lot of things that and it is not do serving the purpose, but what about that video that we saw?
out andmmittee can find get the full video and start showing it. host: we will take that point because we are running short on time. guest: we absolutely should demand to see the unedited and full and unedited video and we can look at that video and talk about that in the existing committees that we have for the something weand would be willing to have. we could do that and we would not have to waste taxpayer funds on the special committee. host: more to come on the debate, but we thank you for coming on the program and talking to our viewers. guest: thank you. host: we will take a short break. when we come back, we talk with congressman dave reichert from washington state, a republican cochair of the law enforcement caucus on capitol hill and the former sheriff in washington. we'll get his thoughts on policing in america and the
criminal justice system. later, we had the november and december issue of our magazine issues. this is your job in 20 years. we will get to those conversations after this short break. ♪ >> she was such an authentic person. >> i thought there was more to the story of lady bird than anybody covered. i think the first modern first lady. she had a big staff, important project, she wrote her book as
soon as she left the white house . she really invented the modern first lady. "q&a," be aght on story discusses her book "lady bird" and incorporates recently released pages of the first lady's diary, giving an inside look at the marriage of political partnership of lady bird and lyndon johnson. >> i think it is a perfect example of the conclusion i came to, which was those women saw something in those men, the ambition, the opportunity to really climb and make a mark in the world, and they married them in spite of parental objections, so she is a good example of that. that is why i decided i had to find out more about her. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern and pacific on c-span's "q&a." >> "washington journal" continues. host: we're back with congressman dave reichert, republican of washington, part
law enforcement caucus and former sheriff from king county in washington. thank you for being here. host: i want to talk about policing in america but i want to start with the headline from our chicago this morning on "usa chief ischicago police fired over the shooting of that black teenager because of the video." what do you make of this? everything that happens there and how it was handled. guest: i think one of the things that i always go back to in my 33 year career in law enforcement is being transparent and connected to the community. you have to build a relationship with the entire community that you serve. and you have to be in touch with and build that partnership and trust. if you do not have that relationship, the partnership,
the trust, then things like what is happening in other parts of the country, as we have seen over the last year or so, those things are bound to happen and disease is sort of the catches on fire. i think that is where we are in today's policing community across our country. generally speaking, of course, there are communities that do have that trust in law enforcement, but generally speaking, the community and the police department has lost respect for the police officers and the sheriff's deputies. i think part of that is law enforcement has not reached out to those communities, has not and in somerent, instances, they have not respected the community in return. host: is it a coulter problem
with the police departments? problem it a culture with the police departments? is it in an effort to cover up for police officers who obviously have broken the law themselves? guest: no. int is the good news because the part of the country that i come from, seattle was the county seat in king county, so i with theheriff fourth-largest sheriff's office in the country, so sometimes the people imagine a small country town sheriff, but this was a long organization with helicopters, boats, divers, swat teams and all of those things. serving the county of almost to the county ofo -- almost 2 million people, so it was not a coulter in lot --
culture in washington state and i don't think it is across the country, however, there are bad apples in the profession. you know that in your world. i think the listeners can identify with the places and communities they live in. past are people who get some of those investigative background checks that we do on police officers, psychological exams that we do on police they are humane beings if violating other human beings, and those bad apples make it through periodically, but it is our job, back to transparency issues, it is our job to do you -- to be very tough on those individuals and read those people out. it is critical to keep our community safe. host: what about when a police officer breaks a law or is allegedly breaking the law and suspected of doing something wrong? what about the cases of shooting of civilians where you don't
have a prosecutor prosecute the case? you have somebody outside of the system because of the close relationship that the police and sheriffs in the people have with the prosecutor. guest: that is a great point county, thereg could be a number of investigations that are going on. people have the opportunity to go to two and office in king county and they can investigate the complaint against the sheriff's office. have the prosecutor's office where it will be involved and the investigation, in some cases, when i did this as a sheriff, i actually had of the police units come in or you have the state patrol come in and investigate the sheriff's office or the seattle police department
investigating each other. the other option, too, depending upon there is some kind of question on whether federal law has been compromised, the federal government then enters into another investigation, so you have the possibility of a federal investigation, an internal investigation, and an outside citizen investigation which is the office's office and then you have other agencies .nvestigating, a state agency if you think there will be more controversy around an incident, so those options are available. there is another point that goes back to the first comment, if you want to be transparent and you do not want to hide anything within the police department, he welcomes those outside investigations because if this person is bad news, i want them i spent 33 years in
law enforcement, and i left with a very respected, professional not want it too be tainted by someone who is not there to serve. one of the things i try to do in the sheriff's office was higher people with the heart of the service, so we had core values we went by. in 1997, when i became the shares, we implemented leadership, service, teamwork. cops sometimes have problems remembering things unless they spell a word. [laughter] service is the most important core value and that is part of the servant. this is a lesson for all throughout the country, communities included, imagine how different it would eat if we all began the day with taking of others first -- it would be if
we all began the day with thinking of others first. you have that attitude, we would come to work knowing that i would care about you and you would care about me and we build a friendship. friendship is based on caring and trusting each other, so in order to build that trust, you and i have to be honest. honesty is ok. honesty leads to integrity, and this is our people say sometimes, my police department does not have integrity because they are not transparent and i don't trust them. you have to have a heart of service and the community needs to know you care about them and you have that integrity and that who would team and not want to be part of a team with integrity?? then you're a leader. pressed in the community.
we do have to have times we are going through, but i think all in all, we had a great relationship with the people. host: we want to welcome our viewers the call-in parried we are talking about policing and criminal justice and america. republicans, (202)-748-8000. democrats, (202)-748-8001. an independents, (202)-748-8002. mike is up first from california, independent. good morning. you're on the air with dave reichert, republican of washington and 33 years in law enforcement. go ahead. caller: good morning, greta. good morning, congressman. it seems to me that all federal law enforcement, that is everyone who is legally authorized to kill an american citizen, should have a body camera by this time next year. i think that data is key otherwise it amounts to a public endorsement. may have to comment, sir?
guest: yes, i think there are a lot of tools, technical tools that are available to us today that were not available to us back in the time when i drove the police car around in the early to mid-1970's. body cameras i think can be a tool. disturbed that our society has decided that the only way we can build trust is for us to video each other. you have citizens out there videoing everything a cop is doing, and now we have cops that will put the do cameras on them and we are to build trust because we are spying on each other. we are going to record everything and we cannot trust each other to behave in a way -- again, back to the respect issue -- and that really bothers me that our society has moved in that direction.
however, i think that the most important thing that can be done is connecting with the community and building that relationship and building that trust in a way that is done and how i did back in the day, to visit the people. i would get out of my police i wouldk around and show up and they would say, deputy dave, you are here instead of going, who in theh hell are you? i don't trust you. so, people clamoring for body cameras, we cannot forget that we need to build a relationship and trust. host: public defender is writing office sayingder that about one third of police departments in the united states have started to use body cameras and they typically almost about complete control of the program. police departments decide when cameras should be rolling, how
long the footage is explored, who gets to see it and how it can be used in the future. guest: well, that is the other problem. there are a lot of legal questions around the use of body address -- how do we police officers have the right to just like any american citizen, so imagine you having a body camera on you all day and everything that you did during the day is recorded. hascommunity around you control over your activity for .he entire day i think people need to know what police officers are doing and that they are behaving in a way that is respectful, professional
, however, there are public disclosure laws that can be andburdening to departments police officers. for example, one police officer and then howideo long do you store it? we have already experienced citizens who have requested because they had an issue with police officers. every minute of every hour, of every day, of every recording, i want that. i want a public disclosure request, so what happens is the police department becomes bogged down in providing that information. with every citizen doing that,
you can imagine how much that may cost. then there are union issues and all those things that we have to deal with. i understand the need to make and i understand the community feels they need to make sure the police officers are doing the right thing, but my -- but in my opinion, the best way to do that -- i was a cop for 33 years and i spent worked the police car, i in the jail, a swat commander, a hostage negotiator, i became the sheriff in my last eight years and i was a homicide detective for years and i investigated the .erial murder case the person responsible admitted to 49 and he is in prison for 49 murders. we closed 51 cases. i have had a career that spans
every aspect of law enforcement. in every aspect of that role, it was all about communication and building that relationship and caring about the families of victims and the people that i served. that is really -- i had an opportunity to talk to the national association couple of months ago. elected officials around the country, and that is someone from city council, from baltimore, and she heard me speak and afterwards, asked me about coming to visit baltimore to talk to some of the folks there. she connected with what i was saying about this relationship. you can talk about cameras, all of those things, yes, they are tools, but the bottom line is if the police department is not engaged, those tools are not going to change the world? host: let's get a more calls. john, independent, massachusetts. caller: my father was born in 1905.
he has seen history either change, doctored or covered up. supremacy, basically one race over another, we have been murdering people of color overseas, murdering people of color on the streets, we have had fbi, cia and now we have gps on phones. what is the problem that cops since be put on cameras you guys and got nothing to hide? since you have so much integrity, we have to hold you to the higher standard that you have to wait to kill people without no cause. comments -- itur that peoplementary of the united states the law enforcement that weight and it
has not been responsive to the needs of the communities across the country. in some cases. i have seen just the opposite happen and hopefully you have. maybe you have seen police officers reach out and help. i don't think we hear about those stories very much where toice officers give money families. they will buy groceries for families. i remember one christmas during a green river investigation, the young african-american girl was killed. i went to the home to notify the family and the brother have been given a bicycle for christmas. i came back later to interview the family regarding their daughter, and the bicycle had been stolen. i went home and fixed up to bicycles, -- to the bicycles, changed the fenders and painted them, and took them back to the
home and give it to the unborn. i do not tell those stories to uplift myself to anyone listening to the program, but i tell them because those things happen every day across america and we do not have the good things. to your point, sir, i really believe that it is very easy for you and for me, for any human being to focus on the negative of a person or a group in general. to focus on the in the world and that is a we need to be focused. how do we make this better? i am doing this in congress today because i want to make things better. i went out help bring police and committed his back together. what is at the root of the problem? university professor
i have had my throat slit with stitches inside of my neck, i have stand -- i have stood toe to toe with one individual with a shotgun in my chest and threatening to blow me away. i have kicked in doors to drug .omes, serving search warrants i just shared this story with you. my assignment was to go into the back room of this apartment, i kicked in the door, went to the right, went into the bathroom and found a young man sitting on the toilet. a bandd up, he had around his bicep and the heroin needle in his arm. i told him to put his arms above his head. he raised his hands, but his right hand was slightly, slowly behind half already came out with a gun. at that point, some police officers would have automatically fired. i did not. what i said was -- you know
what, i think i can talk this guy down negative audit. alive and get myself out of fear alive. this is why we do this job. you put yourself on the line and that means taking those chances. it took a while, but finally, he leaned back and drop the gun in the toilet. he went home alive, i went to live in nobody was hurt. alive and nobody was hurt. i think there are police "danger of that we call dog syndrome," heightened awareness. you really have to take a look at the police officer and say, is this a job this person should be in. i have been in that situation so many times and i cannot even describe all of the scenarios
that i have been involved in. i think it boils down to .raining i am not a professor, but let's go to the sociology. i think having 33 years in law enforcement, you can claim some social work experience and maybe some teacher experience in my career. i believe it is about hope and thating a community supports them their education to have this educational opportunity so that they have hope for the future for the kids. it all starts here. you cannot now say, we need to build more prisons. we know it happens, we filled the prisons, you cannot do that. more healthng about
facilities because we have people who are ill, but we have to address that. we have to address that from the bottom. the thing that really frustrates me is driving through seattle and seeing the tent cities and people living under the freeways. how disgusting is that? how inhumane is that? why do we tolerate, put up with thinking that we are helping withe and inviting them their tent stuck in the mud? this is not the solution. drug rehab, alcohol rehab, mental health institutions, jails, tent cities are not the solutions. it starts in our community and it starts with caring about each other. we had the bill we passed not long ago to help foster kids get permanent homes where they have a stable home. host: we will go to dee next,
independent, oregon. caller: it sounds like you are a very good policeman, but i think i'll policeman should wear body cameras. every single one of them, and i would talk to the appetizers of body cameras and say, if the police are not going to wear them, maybe we should. i think every person out here should be wearing a body camera. thank you very much. and thank're welcome you for your compliment. as i said earlier, i think body cameras are a tool that can be directionay be the that our society decide to take is happy every police officer where a body camera. everyk -- is having police officer where a body camera. i think some cases our benefit because i have been the subject of a complaint before that did not happen, and i know most police officers experience that
and it is a comforting and it can ruin -- and it is not comforting and can ruin your entire career. people can be abused by a bad police officer, so maybe body cameras can play a role but you cannot disregard the fact that human beings have to have this relationship, have to be able to communicate, have to connect, or we lose that ability to understand each other. we have now divided our country by religion, economic status, ethnicity and now we have divided police and community. protecte cannot committee by themselves, that is obvious that the community cannot protect their children and can indeed by themselves, so we have to work together. we have to build a relationship,
worked together to build a foundation. we have to change things from the bottom up from the time our children are born and raised and education is the key to creating that opportunity. host: it will go to alabama, a republican. -- we will go to alabama, a republican. caller: good morning. you appear to be the same age as me, men who grew up before the computer age. [laughter] what i am going to say is a lot of the younger police and gender people in general say a lot of -- play a lot of violent video games, that includes policeman. are they -- they might be desensitized to the violence around them.
from thea few scenes military bases and i would see these guys claim those same -- claim those same games at their bases. while, coulder a it be people, including younger people, are getting desensitized to violence after playing those games for hundreds of hours. host: let's take that point. i think you are right. that is the beginning of being desensitized. as he see the world unfold in and watching the events of middle east and other places in the world where people will blow themselves up for a -- will show video of having their heads cut off.
our society globally has been desensitized in a way to those and justic and heinous terrible acts of violence. and our kids grow up sitting at home, watching tv. in the next minute, there is a new shot. they see that in an age -- i'm officially a senior citizen now. a few months ago, i turned 65. but you and i grew up in a different world and did not see those things until we turned a little older. i'm in agreement with your comment. i think the world affairs today make that even works. host: a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. can we get back to the focus of the conversation about the, let's say, the bad apples in a police department? also, i would like to make a
comment about body cameras. body cameras are not going to solve the problem. guest: i agree. caller: body cameras are operated by human beings. what good is having on video the fact that the officer illegally shot someone if the person is already dead? what we need to do is get back to figuring out how to eliminate or reduce the number of bad apples in the first place. i think the training of police officers, unlike it used to be, like to the 1970's, where, the congressman says, police officers were more about community. used to have -- i'm from new york. there were police officers on foot. they had to do a beat on foot, not in police cars. and there were more police officers then there are now -- officers than there are now.
police officers were more in touch with communities, with storeowners come with people who lived in the houses. today, you have less police officers on the congress andfoot, in cars. cars.foot and in the congressman mentioned the bad apples who are quick to the trigger. you have to remember that police -- the pool of police officers comes from human beings. characteristics we have as human beings are not going to change when we become police officers. more your point about officers on foot and also the training that goes into being a police officer. guest: i want to start with his comments, first weed out those that we think might not be into
with the leadership leadership,- service, and teamwork core values. there is a very stringent process. when i was sheriff, we had the citizens participate in the hiring process. they were in the oral boards and listening to the answers that the police officer was giving and had input into the hiring of the police officers that served their community. i think that is one step. there are variations of that effort in helping citizens a part of that process. when you have hired the police officer, training is one of the most critical things you can do. in training police officers, it is pretty important to make sure they understand -- it is pretty important -- it is critically
important to make sure they understand that they are serving a variety of people and they need to learn as much as they can about each of those communities that they serve. host: how long is that training? guest: the entire length of the training in king only lasts -- king county lasts 12 months. by the end of that, if you have not met the standards -- and you are measured every day. if you do not meet the standard, you are terminated. the termination is without cause . it is based solely on the fact that we don't you are going to be a good police officer. you have failed this section of the training or you did not meet this section of standards and you are gone. host: according to this article in the "huffington post," norway requires police to attend a national academy for three years. good idea? guest: i think that is
expensive. [laughter] guest: i am very familiar with our system. i think one year of training is -- it is not the length of training. it is the quality. we have a high polity, very strenuous training. -- high quality, very strenuous you haveand every year follow-up training, maybe twice a year or three times a year. one of the problems with that is that sheriff's offices and leased departments have very limited budgets -- and police departments have very limited budgets. for my agency with 1100 employees, out of a $110 million budget, $87,000 with my training budget for 1100 people. --ting for that training
fighting for that training money is crucial. getting citizens involved in that training process also and understanding what police officer go through and the citizen academies are a great tool, having reserved officer training, people in the community who come out and ride with the police department. not only do you have eyes in the community engaged in policing activity, but you are also building that relationship. one of the things that this task force is looking at is building -- host: the law enforcement task force on capitol hill. guest: the one that i chair in washington, d.c. people need to recognize that members of congress recognize we have a problem across this country. a lot of this is not a federal issue. but it is local, and it should be. citizens know what is best for their police department and
their community. one of the problems is the training issue, which this gentleman hit on, is absolutely critical. when we look at national accreditation --you talked about a national training program. national accreditation is something that every police department and sheriffs office would like to accomplish, but it cost a lot of money -- it costs a lot of money, and it is an ongoing thing, because it have to -- it has to be done every year. year.udit it every citizens review, complaints, disciplinary process, training budget -- and they are critical. if you want to be a nationally accredited police department or sheriff's office, you have to meet these very high standards and continue to meet these high standards every year. so, this task force, gathering information, what i'm hoping for is that we can't they we are not
-- we are not going to say the federal government is going to change your police department, but i hope we can convince people to provide some grant money's for police department and sheriffs offices to have access to that sort of training -- create if you are a citizen standing on washington, d.c., and you see "nationally accredited" on the back of the car, you know that is the highest standard accounting -- standard they can attain. caller: i would like to thank you for your service. i do appreciate that. i have two quick points. the first is something you have said a couple times just in your last comment about being expensive, things like that. our priorities in this country are a little bit i think in the
wrong direction. to think that in a capitalist society we can actually look at police officers and peace officers and first responders and say we are going to get the best quality of people to do these jobs and pay them $40,000 after going to school for a year, we are going to get the right people to do those jobs, is a little bit ludicrous. i mean, i'm a huge supporter of my first responders. i have a three-year-old and a two-year-old. they know the importance of our first responders. moneyr us to allocate into so many weird places -- i'm a big supporter of our military. to not at least look at the possibility of putting more money into who we had eyes peace officers and policing our streets is a little bit crazy to me. the second point i would like to
make, you have brought up body cameras and said that these peace officers have rights and things like that to not have these on all day. i would like to make a comment on that. first of all, these peace you know, our employees. they are here to do a job that they don't have to do. and it is a calling, i agree, but the fact of the matter is these body cameras you spoke about -- i agree with you. they are not just to protect the victims of senseless crimes by police, but they are also to protect the police officers. first, youay that, are saying that these officers have rights not to be on video all day long. i strongly disagree with that. if they are willing to take this job, i think that for their own benefit they should have these cameras on all day. host: i'm going to leave it at the first point, only because
our time is running short. i want the congressman to be able to answer a couple other calls. guest: let me clarify on the camera issue. we have some issues about victims and whether or not victims and/or witnesses want to be recorded. gretae police officer, as mentioned earlier, there are some police departments who have protocols already set up. this is all experimental. we are going to find out how this is all going to work. some police departments have 500 police officers and maybe 15 or 20 by cameras. or 20 body cameras. when do you turn the camera off? if i'm interviewing someone who has been the victim of sexual assault or even berkeley and they say -- burglary and they say, i would like to have you turn the camera off, the camera
is off for whatever period of time it is off, i give the date and time and explain what i've been doing, now you have a blank spot on that camera. any blank spot on the camera, even though i have written order the date and time, the ending and beginning of the blank video, there's going to be a question by somebody, what was that police officer doing during that 30 minutes really? was he really interviewing the victim? did he really have a victim? because this person didn't want to be on camera? there's a lot of questions about when the camera should be turned off. obviously, when police officers are using the restroom we want to be able to turn the video off. when police officers are sitting down in the restaurant and chatting about the day, some of us don't always have the positive -- the most positive comments to make about our supervisors, we don't want to
have that recorded. they might have a bad day with their sergeant. i think those are all questions that we have to be addressing. i also want to go to pay. yes, some areas of the country, police officers are underpaid. again, it is a calling. i started at $100 a month as a police officer -- at $700 a month as a police officer and left the job at a warehouse paying almost twice that. i would do all of that again, even with all the ups and downs. i would like to touch on the video issue, an experience that i had. i was the share of seattle during wto. i had 350 sheriffs deputies on the streets during the riots in seattle. incident where one police officer marching through ran into aattle
young lady who was squatted down with a first aid kit in front of her. she had a first aid patch on her left arm, an insignia. a video was taken of the encounter. what i saw in the video looked like the officer kicked, purposefully kicked this woman. i fired this sheriff's deputy, went to arbitration, was instructed by the arbitrator to hire the person back. i still disagreed with that finding. i took it to court, first time in the history of the state of washington that the state -- that a sheriff had taken an arbitrator's decision to court. the judge told me to take the person back. in my mind, there was no question that the officer had kicked the person from behind and not her -- and knocked her over.
was it a kick or a trip? even a video is controversial and can be interpreted many different ways. host: congressman, before we let you go, i want to get your thoughts on the president announcing yesterday they are going to be adding more troops to the fight against isis in iraq and syria. do you think the president should go as far as ground troops? the administration says the republican leadership has been awol on authorizing the fight against isis. guest: we just passed a bill here a couple weeks ago that the president signed that requires the president to come up with a plan. this has been our complaint from day one, that the president does not have a clear plan to address the threat of terrorism across the globe. not --ica, like it or and america, like it or not, is this longest, most -- is the strongest, most wealthy country
in the world. we need to take into account what our professionals in the military are saying. what are our generals saying? when we get that expert input, we need to take action. we know that this country is under serious right -- threat. the world is under serious threat. the world is out to kill three americans and other free countries rose -- across this globe. host: would you support ground troops to do that? guest: if that's what our generals and professionals are saying, we need to have that discussion in congress. bring it to a vote. support a claim when the president -- support plan when the president produces a plan. our number one objective here, our number one responsibility is to protect this country, protect the freedom that i grew up with. i was in the air force prior to going into law enforcement. now i'm a cop in congress.
i've been doing that my whole life. and i'm not going to let the freedom of our citizens be robbed by terrorists across the globe. congressman, we have to leave it there. i appreciate you talking to the viewers this morning. come back again. guest: you're welcome. thanks for having me. host: we are going to take a short break. when we come back, we will take a look at the november-december issue of "pacific standard." we will hear about journalists, scientists, ceos, and academics that were issued for this -- interviewed for this issue of "pacific standard." we will be right back. >> abigail fillmore was the first first lady to work outside the home.
mamie pink was marketed as a color and sold to women eager to reprobate her style -- replicate her style. nancy reagan, as a young actress, saw her name on the blacklist of suspected communist sympathizers in the late 1940's. she appealed to the screen actors guild head, ronald p and later hellp became his wife. this book makes a great gift for the holidays, giving readers a look into the personal lives of every first lady in american history, stories of fascinating women and how their legacies resonate today. the book is based on original interviews from c-span's first ladies series.
says, " c-span is a national treasure and its path breaking series on america's first ladies is another reason why." "c-span hasf says, performed another valuable service with it series on the first ladies. no where else can one find such a useful and insightful look into the lives and influence of these women who played a crucial role in the history of our country." a biographer noted that this is an "invaluable collection of rare insight on our nation's first ladies and the important role they played in shaping america." ladies" isok "first available online or at your favorite bookstore. order your copy today.
>> c-span presents "landmark our "landmarke to cases" series, including marbury versus madison, korematsu versus united states, brown versus the board of education, and roe versus wade. landmark cases features introductions, background, highlight, and -- highlights, and the impact of each case. written by tony mauro and published by c-span, "landmark cases" is available for $8.95, plus shipping. at your copy today c-span.org\landmarkcases. >> "washington journal" continues. host: as part of our spotlight on magazine series, we are
focusing on the latest issue of "pacific standard." what is the future of the labor market? here to talk about it is the editor in chief, nicholas jackson. guest: thanks for having me. as we were talking about a little bit outside earlier, it is kind of bleak. i will tell you a little bit about the project first. this started more than a year ago. i don't know how familiar your viewers are with "pacific standard." we are an award-winning magazine that does a lot of investigative reporting and ambitious narrative journalism about, specifically, social justice, environmental justice, educational justice. rk touches on all of those, so it seemed perfect for us. we partnered with the center for advanced study of behavioral sciences at stanford, which has
been ringing about this for a while -- then inking -- which has been thinking about this for a while now. the poor of the project was to reach out to people who think about this issue -- the core of the project was to reach out to people who think about this issue every day. we solicited feedback from them, asking them all the same sorts of questions. what are you the most excited about or disparaged by in regards to the future of work? we saw a lot of themes emerge. obviously, there is the conversation around automation and the disappearance of manufacturing, the rise of the gig economy, which has its pros and cons. right now, people seem to be a little more focused on the cons, because we just don't know what the future of work really looks like. we have some ideas, but we are not sure. host: what will be the jobs? ,uest: there may not be any
which is one potential way we go. in the automation conversation, we are seeing it already. this is amazon rolling out robots in all of its warehouses which previously employed dozens of people. -- employed thousands of people. manufacturingng -- this is replacing manufacturing with automation. there may well be a future in which we just don't have as many jobs as we have had in the past. that is one thing that has come up a lot in this conversation we have had. that is probably the predominant theme in the essays we have solicited and been running on our site for the past four months now. but that leads to larger conversations and bigger questions. it's very possible for us to have an economy that is mostly .utomated and is jobless
what do we do then? ,here are economic issues increasing economic inequality in the united states. host: what did experts say they were encouraged about, happy about when it comes to the labor market in 20 years? guest: some of them are we can solvecause the problems, not be worried .bout these issues people don't like to work, but
a lot of ourerive personal identities from our jobs and work. there is some encouragement that we could get to a place where we don't need to work as hard as we have in the past. if we can solve this oval and -- solve the social and economic issues at the same time, that's not such a bad place to be. we don't want to be in a position where we don't have jobs and we don't have economic -- otherwise, it is the increasing destruction of the middle class in the united states. host: i want to share this quote from rick order for -- from a oforter, "with the exception es -- registered nurses, the 10 highest road occupations for thanext decade make less
$33,000 per year, according to the bureau of labor statistics." guest: it's part of a larger story that she told. she uses one person in particular to frame the conversation. she uses a young man who worked in construction. when the housing collapse came, there was no more construction for him. he passed together jobs -- he patched together jobs that he could find. he took a job at mcdonald's, and in home health aide -- an in-hom and some other jobs from these small networks where you can take up -- can pick up piecemeal work when you have the time. construction and manufacturing jobs on average pay about $20 per hour. service jobs, like mcdonald's and the in-home health aide, pay about half of that, averaging nine dollars our -- averaging $9 per hour.
the jobs we are seeing growth in our all service jobs, and they don't pay enough. -- responses we are getting the service workers have been saying for decades that service work is worth more than we pay. no one has been listening until recently. $15,ou see the fight for where a bunch of large cities have increased their minimum things.$15 and similar on the other side, you have the argument that we need to increase education that we can move people out of these service-level jobs into whatever the next tier up is. guest: we are talking to nicholas jackson, editor-in-chief of "pacific ," about a project they have been doing the last year,
"this is your job in 20 years." we want to take your questions and comments. republicans, (202)748-8001. democrats, (202)748-8000. independents, (202)748-8002. your question or comment for mr. jackson? caller: i see the problem as outsourcing. theourcing pits american worker, which is also a taxpayer, against corporations feel they have the right do what they want to do, when they are actually being funded by the taxpayer. until 20 years out, somebody knows what is going to
happen. they are planning already. but we, the workers, and our children have no idea. i don't know why it's a secret. we don't know where the training needs to be. salary --now what because they are cutting salaries. there are no more pensions. they done stole all that money. -- for the to be a people in america. this is what i see the problems bto be. i would like to know what mr. jackson feels about my comment. guest: thanks for calling in. related to that is the issue that it is not just the companies and corporations outsourcing jobs to other countries. they are reporting their money in a way they never have before. 30 something like $1.5 trillion locked up -- there is some in
like $1.5e is something trillion locked up. it's not going towards new corporations. we do have some solutions. a lot of it is expanding access to pre-k. a lot of it is investing in rural areas and getting access to the internet in places where is till doesn't exist, so people -- where it still doesn't exist, so people can take advantage of some of the technological changes that are happening. it hit me, and interesting stat -- it hit me, an interesting are, 12% of working adults changing where they live every year.
there are bad and good reasons for that. americans don't want to take on any risks anymore. good reasons for that are that we don't have a lot of one industry towns like we used to have, so there is not as much need to move around. there are no more detroits that rely only on auto manufacturing. there is a lot of flexibility provided by technological advances for people to work remotely. ,e have a huge swath particularly in the south, where people don't have access to those services yet. guest: caller also mentioned caller also-- the mentioned trade deals, nafta. according to a 2012 study, only 37% of those who received training under the trade assistance program found jobs oftheir new area
expertise. sometimes, new jobs required relocations that workers couldn't make. other times, the available positions were only part-time, so trainees took less skilled, full-time work in service and food industries instead. outcomes, many younger displaced workers are opting not to go back to school. guest: part of it is -- we don't know why it is that they can't move to the jobs that do exist. reportingople self that they cannot move, but they need to sometimes. there is not much we can do about that. trade agreements, even bringing in other countries to the is reallyon interesting. you could look at the postwar era in the united states, where the economy is growing 4% year after year, like clockwork. wages are soaring.
the federal government, at the peak of its power, is investing in huge projects. the interstate highway system, the welfare program. sending gis to college and men to the moon. there are huge advances happening. that can't exist anymore. we are not going to go back to those old days. part of that is because there is an international competitive landscape that didn't happen. all of our measures and our statistics that we used to look at wages and labor and productivity -- if you look at them on an international scale -- are climbing. people work more than they have ever worked. people are making more money than they have ever made. it is pretty simple, but that's only on an international scale. if you look at the united states in particular, which was so high above everybody else for so
long, things are coming back down to level the playing field of it. host: all right. a republican. caller: i believe the internet and technology have taken away millions of jobs and they have done it over the last 10 years or so. say, barnes & noble, for the newspaper industry, even the shopping industry. how many people shop over the internet? you couldn't shop over the internet. you would have to go into the store and buy something. those people that hurt. that's what i have to say, mostly. host: let me add to that. doesitter, "amazon represent a distraction to r etail. they use brick-and-mortar retail as their showrooms then undercut those prices." guest: i am more than industries.to those
my own hometown of chicago is quickly being reduced to a one newspaper town. it doesn't look good. yes. that's happening. host: what's the future of journalism? you write about it as well in this latest edition of "pacific standard." guest: we do have a piece about virtual reality specifically. timing was quite fortuitous even wasbest given the -- timing "newe fortuitous given the york times" sending out the viewers. technology is taking away jobs. it is also creating them elsewhere. we need to be flexible enough to respond to that. host: the story within "pacific standard's" latest edition,
"insert viewers directly into the story, potentially revolutionizing how reporters and activists do their job." they write that it is likely to create a "shortcut to empathy, it fools oury brain into believing we are actually witnessing an event." guest: there are a lot of conversations. is aassage you picked particularly interesting one, where you talk about being able to trick the mind with psychological tools, which we have used in advertising for decades. we would like to think we don't do them in journalism. but as virtual reality becomes something that everyday people have access to and we will see this a lot more soon, facebook, rift, which
started as a small kickstarter is about to launch on a vast scale, the "new york times" project i just referenced was -- they partnered with google to build this small cardboard viewer that you could plug into your phone or plug into your computer and view -- experience these stories basically 360 degrees -- sight, sound, video. -- you are able to transport people from their homes to these places. there was a focus on refugee children, which is a timely topic i know you have covered a lot here. our reporter for our story when an experienced this also and was stuck -- our story went and experienced this also and was stuck in a crime story where a convicted felon committed some
horrible things. you are able to experience it in real-time and respond that way. host: tony in hubbard, ohio, independent. caller: thank you, mr. jackson, for bringing this issue up on c-span. i didn't get a chance to read your article. economy,over the core the unpaid work that goes on, the volunteer sector? the reason i bring that up is because your job often is unpaid in the service sector. there are efforts to bring complementary currency, local currency, regional currency designs and operations to allow assets and needs to be brought together. i wonder if your magazine and your research has begun to look .t that nascent effort guest: we have not yet, not in a
direct way. i think we will be soon, actually. it comes up quite a bit in a sort of tangential way in a lot exposés we commissioned for this project, in part because there is a lot of work andion about personal identity being so tightly intertwined. if we are going to disrupt the labor market so quickly in the united states -- we are seeing changes on a scale that we have never seen them before. how does that affect people and how they feel about themselves? i know that my work is my life, for the most part. if it were to be disrupted in a big way, it would affect me in a big way. but i think the second part of not, about finding ways to subsidize, but pay for these services that have previously gone unrecognized is part of the conversation that has to happen
around the future that we are building. that's related to the guaranteed minimum income conversation, which i know makes a lot of people, especially not on the far left, very uncomfortable. but it is part of the conversation. what's really interesting is that i think we value social mobility so much as americans of a keyis sort component of being an american, the ability to move up and down between classes over the course of your lifetime. at this age in 2015 in america, social mobility is worse than it is in a lot of the old european countries, where they have massive safety nets already in place. the fear that a guaranteed minimum income is associated think,oth or laziness, i is an unfounded one. host: will go to new york, ted, democrat. caller: thank you, c-span.
thank you, mr. jackson come for your work -- mr. jackson, for your work. like the old saying goes, follow the money. there is not enough reporting done about the ways in which campaign finance money influences american politics. there is not enough journalism open what iso pry going on behind closed doors, naming names, who is involved, who the lobbyists are, who the companies are. hillary clinton was on charlie rose" recently. she was asked about the company pfizer relocating. the next thing you know, they are not paying taxes in the united states. i don't know why there is not some massive effort to boycott companies that -- if our politicians can't
straighten out the matter where we are losing our tax base and corporations are getting away with murder when it comes to taxes, i don't know why there is not some more national effort to boycott companies that take advantage of the system. host: ok, ted. got your point. guest: there are a lot of political issues around this that are interesting. one thing we talk about on our site, if not in the magazine, is the sort of one senator rule. big pretty easy for corporations, especially ones that have a lot of lobbying effort and fund politicians here across the street to get one senator on their side and block lots of the work that my team tries to do. knownaul, for example, is for being the guy that makes it to get recordsus of which companies and which
billionaires are hoarding money in swiss bank accounts. it's very hard to get that information until we have some political change, and there is no real effort underway to make that happen. host: we have a viewer in new hampshire watching. caller: thank you, c-span. interesting conversation. but i stilltired, work part-time as a truck driver for a utility. i haul a highly explosive product. i have to carry a lot of plastic -- licenses, permits, tsa, background checks, all of this. the job pays $25.25. i've been a trucker for 40 plus worked for the0, federal government for 32 years. i'm pretty well set. i'm like the fellow who had to go to mcdonald's, what have you -- unlike the fellow who had to
go to mcdonald's, what have you. as i look at this $25.25 ridiculous. labor and industry cannot even get together to set a good wage. we are depending on the politicians to make wages or set wages for the working people. i have a prediction. in 100 years or less, we won't be any different than the former soviet union. we will be a bunch of little republics out there, because you cannot continue down the road we are continuing. incidentally, gm's biggest record is in china, not in this country, and our government bailed them out. my son's business went under at that time. nobody bailed him out. they put him in jail for not paying his bills. why do we bail out general motors and say to heck with the small businesses that failed?
government is a problem. politicians in general are a problem. again, my prediction, you heard it. thanks a lot. host: let me go to ben in fort worth, texas. bear with me, i've got laryngitis. what can change the road we are on? you can't just have people sitting around doing nothing when you are 25 years old. and it sounds like there won't be jobs here for a lot of people. you can't -- the place is falling apart. it is a serious social problem. host: let's take your point. what do the experts tell you about what needs to be done? guest: thank you for those calls. they complement each other. i think $25 is ridiculous. what's even more ridiculous is you have to imagine that those now, the younger
generation, are making $25 and they don't have the pension and they won't. is, theas soft as this answer right now is what we are doing here. i'm excited that people are talking about this issue, more than they ever have before. we need to get facts out there and get people talking about it. we are going to need to make political change. we need to expand access to early education. we need to expand access to contraceptive care, which is a related conversation, to put people in a position where they can do the work they need to do early in their lives to get the jobs later on. host: we would go to maine -- we will go to maine, independent. you are on the air. caller: i agreed to the previous
caller -- i agree with the previous caller to the man with laryngitis. corporations have basically hijacked our congress. we have congressman who are voting in favor of corporate welfare. --y are gravitating toward operations are going to countries where they are exploiting the people in these countries. these countries have no established minimum wages. they have no child labor laws. they have basically no safety working laws of any kind. and regulations and checks and balances in this country. these corporations are well aware of this. they are greasing the palms of the politicians so that they can skip the country, do what they want. it is supposed to be we the people, not we the corporations, not we the politicians. we need to take control of our country again, the citizenry and
the taxpayers do. guest: this is a little bit radical, but richard reeves, who used to be the deputy for strategy under nick clegg in the about thesea lot issues. yes basically said that one of our only solutions is to amend the constitution. the roberts crew has made citizens united basically bulletproof. that's doing a lot of the damage that the previous caller was just talking about. the only way is to amend the constitution. we need 2/3 of the states. there is a future where there is possible, given that the federal government is in such gridlock now. mayors and others around the country are starting to take this issue of themselves. as they -- this issue up themselves.
as they become more involved in the issues we have been talking about today -- keep in mind that only $9 out of $100 spent on education comes from the federal government in this country. it is something being talked about. host: joanne is a republican in mississippi. you are on the air. caller: i wonder if people realize if they raise their minimum wage to $15, they are going to lose their food stamps, they are going to lose their way of -- lose their welfare, they are going to lose their hud housing, they are going to be paying more in taxes. they are going to lose everything. we should make a lot more money, the government, maybe we can pay our debts off, by raising the
minimum wage to $15 and get rid of all these other things that come to people with low incomes. host: that was joanne in mississippi. north carolina, lynn, a democrat. caller: i think we have been bamboozled for the last 30 years to think only of the supply-side, supply-side, supply-side, and the government is bad. we really need a good government to protect us from corporations and then controlling our politicians. if people had money in their pockets, that would help the economy. money, peopleg have a job. i'm going to a restaurant. we have been damsel, manipulated to only think supply-side. -- we have been bamboozled,
manipulated only think supply-side. guest: i think we do need to get money in people's pockets, but the right people. right now, the money is going to a select group of people. we know who they are. we know why they are getting it. what's really interesting, what marketsts call our inequality is actually less than our actual inequality. we are in a situation where the tax code and the tax laws and coming from the top-down down are actually making our income inequality worse. we need to see some sort of re to be able to put money on the lower rungs of the latter. host: in a distressed economy, a chinese company is no savior. it's talking about a chinese company that has moved into a small town in alabama. wereors and bulldozers
making way for a quarter-mile long cargo plane -- long copper area withed to the massive tax breaks. it was called a catalyst that would lift the fortunes of a county where one in five workers could not get a job. one of the people they talked to scanned the site, snapping a few dark photographs. "a blessing," he remembers saying. he hadn't yet started working at the copper plant at a wage nearly half of what he was expecting while saving coins so he could buy an engagement ring at walmart. guest: i'm not surprised. part of the reason i would guess -- i think we've come to the conclusion that manufacturing and heavy industry is no longer
for the united states. it's not the postwar era anymore. that chinese factory would probably do a lot better in china, where that is their economy right now. we need to move to an information economy. we need new ideas, new businesses, entrepreneurship, and we don't have it right now. the stat that has been going around is that baby businesses in the united states, businesses that are one-year-old or less, is about 8% right now. typically, that is 15% or more. people are not starting new companies, not launching products. host: and this chinese company small town inhis alabama because they were giving tax breaks and also because people there were not expecting high wages. that made this town competitive
to this chinese company. guest: i know we are afraid of technology and it keeps being talked about a lot because it has killed a lot of jobs, but it is not going anywhere. we need to find ways to embrace it and create new jobs. i think a lot of these places would be better off doing that. -- pieces long places looks at this program that, originally, it was created to classes,gital teaching particularly in the crest -- in depressed african nations, then very rick -- quickly realized they could do it here. they launched the program in a small town deep in the arkansas delta where, before it showed up and the technology center was built, the only place you could get internet reception was at mcdonald's with the free wi-fi.
program --nt of this and they are having some success. we endthe peace with -- the piece with someone getting a customer service representative job with comcast, which she is able to do remotely. she is able to do it using her new computer and she can make more money than she has ever made. answer, butot the it is one step towards one. host: let's go to bob in north carolina, independent. caller: mr. jackson, this is a really interesting economic conversation. think about this scenario. since nafta, we have lost manufacturing and production jobs in the united states. if you believe the economic status right now -- stats right now, they count people withdrawn
from the economy -- withdrawing from the economy, and the unemployment rate is much higher than you think. the international economy is having a problem. corporations are hoarding lots of money. now we can have all the infrastructure and internet that everybody can do, but if the world turns around and we have real -- trillionnning a $19 deficit. you can order stuff on the internet around the world. but if we don't make it here, nobody with self us anything -- will sell us anything. think about the shock of that the next 20 years or so. host: first, eddie in massachusetts. a republican. caller: high. -- hi. i'm surprised nobody talks about the size of the corporations.
35%can't be competitive at corporate tax. ireland is thinking about halving its. obamacare has made premiums atrocious. they've gone up quite a bit. we are not competitive. bring the workers back. we want to make something. i'm not anti-corporation. i don't know that many of the people we talked to for this package are. we just know that corporations right now have a sort of stranglehold on the economy in some ways. they can earn a lot of goodwill $1.5leashing some of the trillion that they have been hoarding and injecting it back into the economy. i'm not saying give it away to charities. use it on your own product lines and things.
that's how we can get people back here doing more work. i'm also interested in the 's comments,ler particularly about nafta. i just don't know that sort of closed border position taking additions to this conversation help it in any way. i can see the sort of dystopian future that they are projecting as one possibility, but i think it is as unlikely a possibility as us being able to bring back manufacturing to the united pushs anyway, so we should globalization. host: this is a headline, " adding 217,000 jobs in november." wayne, a democrat, go ahead. caller: i will be real quick
with you all. sanders., bernie nobody has talked about anything. this is important. we've got an election coming up in the man is trying to do the right thing, which is exactly what you are talking about. come on. we've got to vote. 1%, you know what? kiss my you know what. guest: thanks, wayne. people do have to vote. i don't want to tell people who to vote for. that's not what we do. we rely on research, especially social and behavioral science research. that's what sets us apart. what i can say, using the research and related to both his point and the closed border conversation, there is one group that is doing really well in america, right now, with all the
problems we have. the children of immigrants. there is a strong argument on the economic side to open the borders of more than we have -- open the borders more than we have. the children of immigrants create more businesses than we do. host: we have to leave it there. the house is about to gavel in. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] he honorable steven m. palazzo, to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, paul d. ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2015, the chair will now recognize members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties, with each party limited to one hour, and each member otherha