tv Washington Journal 12112018 CSPAN December 11, 2018 6:59am-10:00am EST
10:00 a.m. eastern for general speeches with legislative business at noon. members will consider several bills, including one that condemns russian aggression toward ukraine and another condemning the bush are al-assad regime for its actions in syria. on c-span two, the senate continues debate on the nominee picked to serve as deputy treasury secretary. at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span 3, there is a house judiciary hearing with the ceo of google testifying on the tech companies data collection policy. day, politicothe is hosting a woman's leadership summit with rnc chair and white house press secretary sarah sanders among the acres. -- among the speakers. fromming up, john holcombe the heritage foundation joins us to discuss the nomination of william barr to be u.s. attorney general. harvard business school talks about potential changes to the
h1 visa program for foreign workers. later, the opioid epidemic with regina labelle. moocher -- who served as chief of staff during the obama administration. ♪ good morning. it is tuesday, december 11, 2018. the senate is in at 10:00 a.m. with weekly caucus lunch meetings that 12:30 and we are with you for the next three hours. we begin our program with the supreme court's decision not to consider efforts by republican led states cannot defund planned parenthood -- states to not defund planned parenthood. give us a call and let you know what you think of the supreme court's actions yesterday read
if you support the decision, 202-748-8000 is the number to call. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. you can catch up with us on social media. on twitter it is @cspanwj. on facebook it is facebook.com/cspan. a very good tuesday morning to you. you can start calling now. here is one of the headlines from yesterday from this topic on bloomberg read kavanaugh and supreme court let stand rulings favoring planned parenthood. story joins on the us by phone now to talk about the cases. gv planned parenthood of gulf coast and anderson, planned parenthood of kansas and mid-missouri, what were these cases about? guest: good morning, john. these cases were about the two states trying to cut off medicaid funds to their local planned parenthood chapters and
the question -- the underlying question before the supreme court that decided to hear was whether individual -- medicaid recipients could sue to challenge that decision. lower appeals courts in both cases said they can challenge and let the lawsuits go forward. state officials try to get the supreme court to intervene and reverse that decision and the supreme court decided not to get involved. host: when you talk about the medicaid funds, dig in on that. it's my understanding no medicaid funds can go to abortion services, so what were the funds being used for? guest: that is exactly right. they perform other services. they perform routine reproductive health care for women. they perform testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases.
what was at issue was whether medicaid facilities could continue to provide those services through the federal medicaid program. statesake us back to why were going after these medicaid funds and the 2015 videos that were sort of at the start of this case. guest: these were videos that were surreptitiously recorded involving planned parenthood officials. they were heavily edited and critics of planned parenthood said they showed that planned in theood was involved selling of fetal tissue, which potentially could be illegal. the videos were heavily edited and planned parenthood certainly disagrees with that characterization of what they showed. takinghe supreme court up this case, it only takes four justices to vote to take up the case and for that case to go
forward. he mentioned kavanaugh in your headline. who else dying -- joined in not taking this case. guest: notably, john roberts and the four liberal appointees. normally when the supreme court doesn't agree to hear a case, the vote is not in front of us. because we know it takes four votes and because the three conservative justices, clarence thomas, neil gorsuch, samuel in thell dissented decision not to take the case is a certain matter of math to figure out that kavanaugh and the pivotal votes to keep the court from getting involved. host: talk us through the reaction from the three conservatives who wanted to take this case and why they wanted to take it up. guest: justice thomas wrote for the group and said this is a classic case where the supreme court should get involved because lower courts are
divided. most federal appeals courts said these lawsuits can go forward, but there is one that went the other direction and said they cannot go forward. it is the kind of case the supreme court usually gets involved in. it is very important and affects millions and millions of people and many states who might want to make decisions like this. normally, he says the supreme court would want to take up this that and said the reason -- explains the court's refusal to do his job, i suspect it has something to do with some respondents are named planned parenthood. he clearly thinks and may well be right, that the court wanted to stay away from such a hot button issue that really was loyal --s somewhat legal question about who can challenge a decision to kick
somebody out of the medicaid program. it seemed like it was about abortion because planned parenthood was one of the participants in the case. host: where does planned parenthood go from here in -- with its funding around the country? guest: we now have a division. these suits can go forward. upht now, in two cases before the supreme court, the states cannot cut them off, but those are preliminary rulings. planned parenthood and the individual medicaid recipients still have to win a final judgment in the case and we have the potential that the law around the country will be different, that we won't have a single rule for whether the funds can go to planned parenthood and ultimately, in one form or another, the supreme court could be called upon at a later date to get involved.
host: what is next for the supreme court on the issue of abortion? guest: the court goes on a four week recess, so we should not have supreme court news for a while. the court does not have any big abortion cases pending right now, certainly is they have agreed here. there are some in the pipeline that could threaten roe v. wade, not necessarily to overturn the ruling. the court and the court's conservatives will certainly be called upon to get involved in abortion. right now, the court, at least at this point, does not seem eager to do that. stohr, always appreciate your time, thank you so much. guest: sure thing. host: we are taking your calls on the supreme court rejecting this planned parenthood case.
if you support the supreme court's decision, 202-748-8000 is the number to call in. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. here is a few more of the headlines about this case in today's newspapers. a planned parenthood gets a win. from the new york times, court will not hear cases on planned parenthood. three conservatives object. some of the reaction from democratic members of congress, senator maggie hassan from new hampshire saying women deserve access to quality reproductive health care to matter their income level or where they live. we must remain vigilant against attempts to defund planned parenthood. diana degettefrom of colorado, pleased the supreme court is declining to hear this, which is part of an assault on women, low income americans, and health care providers often their only lifeline. we must end this dangerous
witchhunt. barbara lee noting the breaking news saying this is an incredible victory, but we must keep fighting to protect reproductive rights. one more this morning from congresswoman judy chu of california. planned parenthood exists to make sure health care is accessible to everyone. the supreme court did the right thing by allowing people to receive medicaid. reaction on the other side, americans united for life, one of the pro-life groups saying it is disappointed the supreme court declined to hear the argument and we join dissent on calling on the court to do its duty. anthony? list noting their disappointment in the supreme court's decision -- have expressed of their will, they do not want medicaid tax dollars used to prop up abortion
businesses like planned parenthood. we support their rights to redirect taxpayer funds away rom entities that destroy -- that is some of the reaction from capitol hill, from interest groups. you agree with the supreme court's decision, 202-748-8000 is the number. if you oppose it, 202-748-8001. lisa is up next calling from idaho. go ahead, lisa. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i agree with the supreme court. i think they should give money to planned parenthood because that is what it is. it is planned parenthood. when i was younger, i got all the information i needed to get on birth control, to have
mammograms, to have all kind of tests you need as a woman and they supplied that service for me. i am for people having their right to choose abortion or not. i think they are blowing it out of proportion because they do more things than just abortions. host: were you surprised by this ruling in the wake up brett kavanaugh joining the supreme court? the conservative bent of the court? caller: i was totally surprised when they rejected the case because there are so many people out there that are against planned parenthood. doesnk planned parenthood an awesome job for helping low income people get the care they need where they cannot get it elsewhere. host: that is lisa in idaho. you can join the conversation, 202-748-8000 if you agree with
the supreme court's decision. 202-748-8001 if you oppose it. speaking of brett kavanaugh, some criticism already from the opinion pages from washington and around the country. brett kavanaugh gives aid to planned parenthood by aborting principles of federalism. brett kavanaugh is less of a judicial conservative than the some ofeed even though us who strongly defended kavanaugh from smears once he was nominated, we expressed earlier concerns about his jurisprudential approach. not only did he join john roberts and the four justices often labeled as liberal, he did damage to the liberalism the high court should be upholding. kathleen in mississippi this morning.
good morning. caller: good morning. the kind of conflated about decision. in mississippi, if you don't have medicaid, if you don't have no kind of insurance, just to go to the health department for all children, grown-ups, men, women, they have to pay a $25 charge. in mississippi, if you go to help here just for anything like suicide, children are six or go get -- sick or go get medicine, they don't have insurance. the only thing we have is the health department. we do not have planned parenthood, we have the health department and if you don't have insurance, no medicaid or magnolia help, no good cross, you have to pay a $25 charge
every time you go. i am listening. host: go ahead, kathleen. you are concerned about the ability to access health care in general? caller: yes, to the health department. we don't have a planned parenthood. host: that is kathleen in mississippi. jeff in west virginia. what do you think about the supreme court's decision yesterday? women: i think the poor should have all the help they control and on youtube there was angel brown expects17 kids and she the government to support her against that because she needs to have birth
control and the taxpayers need to help pay for that so she doesn't have any more kids. that is it. host: kathleen is next in london, tennessee, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, kathleen. caller: i just wanted to say i support the decision for the supreme court not to take up this issue. support for planned parenthood and its full-spectrum of services, including the right to abortion. while i agree that maybe abortion should not necessarily be the first choice of a woman, it remains a woman's choice.
i am very pleased the supreme court rejected the planned parenthood case. thank you. host: that is kathleen in tennessee. this is mary in greenbelt, maryland. good morning. caller: i support planned parenthood. my mother was not allowed by the catholic church to use birth control to save her own life. if she was ordered by a priest to disfigure me as her abstinence forever excuse. i spent myife -- life as an abused leper. constantly insulted, forced to work 80 hours per week and when i reported harassment by a male employee who was always drunk on the job, i was fired, retaliation fired by so-called pro-life washington
times and this is what i experienced my entire life and it has been difficult to get authorities to look into this. bring us to this issue of abortion rights in today's supreme court and what you think will happen going forward? caller: well, it is hard to say where it is going to go, but i support planned parenthood. i wish my mother had been allowed to use birth control. i wish i had been aborted instead because of all the abuse i have suffered. because i remain disfigured. i managed to get plastic surgery, but it is never enough. life is a nightmare because i spent my life getting abused by
people riding the subway or trying to take buses. people think i am too ugly to be alive. that is effort -- after efforts on my part not to look disfigured. my family opposed me getting plastic surgery. they were told to keep me disfigured. host: do you have summit he you talk to about these issues? caller: i am sorry, what? host: do you have somebody you talk to about these issues? caller: i have not been able to get authorities to do anything about this. host: we are talking about the supreme court yesterday rejecting a planned parenthood case. the headline from the usa today planned parenthood gets a win is what they are calling it in the wake of that decision not to the up the case two of conservative leaning justices, chief justice john roberts and
brett kavanaugh joining the four so-called liberal justices in choosing not to take up that case yesterday, taking criticism from the three other conservative justices on the .ourt for that decision samuel alito, neil gorsuch, and clarence thomas yesterday. we are talking about your reaction, taking your calls in this first hour of the "washington journal." 202-748-8000 if you agree with the supreme court's decision yesterday. 202-748-8001 if you oppose the decision yesterday. want to keep you updated on what is happening in washington today. we spent a lot of time talking about the upcoming government funding deadline, the potential shutdown back at take place december 21 if a deal doesn't come together today will be a key moment as we watch those negotiations. nancy, chuck schumer headed to the white house with discussions .ith president trump
democratic leaders plan to offer president trump $1.3 billion in funding for a border wall when they meet tuesday, a bit that falls short of the $5 billion president trump is demanding. chuck schumer previously suggested -- would strugglen to pass the house where democrats will not support because they say it is too much. the $1.3 billion number would extend further funding bills for the government of homeland security which democrats want to maintain at existing levels if no new deal is reached. pelosi and schumer have had thed records meeting with president. september 20 17, the pair emerged with a meeting to announce a spending budget deal
that blindsided republicans. not long after, pelosi and schumer emerged from a chinese food dinner to announce a deal like what -- that fell apart. the last time pelosi and schumer met with president trump was a year ago. we will see what happens at that meeting today. all eyes ahead of that december 21 government funding deadline. back to your phone calls talking about the supreme court decision yesterday to reject that planned parenthood case. 202-748-8000 if you support the decision. 202-748-8001 if you oppose it. kevin is next, rock hill, south carolina. good morning. ahead. caller: can you hear me? host: yes, sir. caller: i definitely oppose any tax dollars going to planned parenthood. i feel like the same people who call in and say trump supporters
should fund the wall, planned parenthood supporters could fund -- should fund planned parenthood. if they look at the history of man parenthood and the founder, margaret singer, she was 100% kkk supporter and her whole thing was to get rid of black babies. as far as the lady from mississippi that said something about the health department, the health department has been giving out stuff for years for ,eople to have contraceptives shots, pills and such and if $25 is too much for them to pay, they need to get off their couch and get a job. host: before you go, using taxpayer dollars for abortion services is already illegal. the funding we are talking about in this case -- went to other services for planned parenthood, contraception, cancer screenings . are you ok with medicaid dollars going to those services at planned parenthood? caller: considering the fact
there are plenty of doctors that can do that themselves, they can get screened by doctors. they can go to some of these urgent care facilities and have those things and you have to pay a little bit of money. just not a whole lot. nothing like a hospital and it -- or anyone would charge you. planned parenthood is never held accountable. they will take whatever money and use it for whatever they want. nobody goes in and audits of them. it is kind of like the federal reserve. they are a loose cannon and do what they want. host: what do you think about the move from john roberts, brett kavanaugh to side with the four so-called liberal justices here? caller: i am very disappointed in them. very disappointed. i don't believe planned parenthood is good for anyone in this country and -- the lady i havelled earlier,
friends who are disfigured from accidents or from birth and they have gone through a lot, i have never heard a single one of them say they wish they had been aborted when they were a baby. host: this is james in sterling heights, michigan, good morning. caller: hello. host: go ahead, james. caller: am i on, now? host: yes, sir, go ahead. caller: i have been hearing for years and years about women and all this us, women, women, women . all you have to do is get daddy in there. host: do you want to add anything else, james? to william in cleveland, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. i oppose our federal government supporting planned parenthood roe v. wadeecause
or however you want to call it, the original abortion crepe -- crap from years ago, what about the fathers? don't the fathers have a right? i will say it this way. i had a spouse and i went and got birth control for her only to find out she had not been why did i even- bother to pick it up? as it turns out, she was having an affair and seeking a divorce anyway and she ended up being pregnant. host: that is william in cleveland, ohio. talking about the supreme court decision yesterday not to take up this case concerning the funding of planned parenthood. it is 202-748-8000 if you support that decision. oppose what if you
the supreme court did yesterday. gerald in new york is next, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i support the decision for one reason, the supreme responsibility to us and the public for the guidelines that women can make a decision. if the decisions they make are not healthy for them, as a community, we have to look out for each other. i support their decision. host: that is gerald in new york . mike on twitter with this to say, supreme court did the right thing, planned parenthood isn't just about abortion, it's about accessible women's health in general. to defund planned parenthood is
to sentence many women to their deaths. planned parenthood must stay as is. in south carolina this morning. caller: good morning. i oppose it. planned parenthood says they do everything for these women. i have had numerous people go to them for help and they don't get it they want to know the history about their pregnancies and what they do and what there believes are. it is a force-fed thing. for our justices, all the courts are just biased now. you can see that with what .appened yesterday a state should be able to fight -- the videohing even shows it and they try to abortion is the
last thing, that is god's choice, not man's choice. host: in what way is the supreme court biased? in which way does it lean? caller: they lean both ways, you have seen that yesterday. you have four or five that say yeah, we believe in pro-life and the others are anti-. they do that on every decision you make. roe v. wade and all that. it is leading to a destruction of this country. until they can fix the problem in the judicial system, in our government, there is no way to get the people to follow. they are going to believe everything they have been told. when you tell a lady she will go in and get tested for anything them.ey go in and deny they do not offer these services
for these people. host: that is david in north carolina. it takes four justices to vote to take up this case. only three took up this case. 6 chose not to and therefore, the supreme court will not be prayedup these cases justice gorsuch, justice alito, and justice thomas voting to take it up. margie is waiting in -- caller: i support it until congress passes a law. host: until congress passes a law on what? caller: until congress passes a law that says any man that impregnate a woman and if that woman chooses to have an abortion, he has to pay for it and if he cannot pay for it, he takes that baby and raises it himself. i am listening to all these men calling in and they are not
taking responsibility for their half of what is going on. they are responsible. if they impregnate a woman and the woman says she doesn't want that baby, that man has to pay for that abortion or take that baby and raise it himself and this will cut out all the supreme court. host: go ahead and finish your thought. caller: that is about it because i lost the other half. host: more of your phone calls in a minute and you can call in at 7:30. a few more stories about what is happening in capitol hill -- on capitol hill. will be chief executive on capitol hill set to deliver his first ever testimony to congress. the appearance is shaping up to be a major test of his skills in managing the company's reputation at a time when several of silicon valley's biggest names are in crisis and many google employees are in revolt.
his scheduled appearance comes at the request of house republicans. it will be before the house judiciary committee. the upcoming hearing is expected to become a broader discussion about google's privacy practices . we will cover that at 10:00 a.m. on c-span 3, c-span.org, listen on the free c-span radio app. other end ofr pennsylvania avenue, a story we were discussing over the weekend, the search for a new white house chief of staff as john kelly is the party. mark meadows of north carolina became the first presented his -- to express interest in the job, saying he would be honored of president trump chose him to replace john kelly. mark meadows is the chairman of the house freedom caucus. he said serving as chief of staff would be an incredible honor. the president has a long list of
qualified candidates and i know he will make the best selection for his administration. other names include mick mulvaney, steve mnuchin, matthew u.s.ker, as well as the trade representative robert lighthizer and the deputy campaign manager of trump 2016, david bossi. chris christie also a name being reported in the news as somebody who might be in consideration. ends nexts' term month and republicans will be in the house minority. the washington times noting his north carolina district could also become more democratic in 2020 because of redistricting lawsuits added to the supreme court where democrats hold the majority. we will continue to cover that story as names continue to be floated or if president trump decides to make a decision. one editorial in today's papers
taking a look at john kelly's term as chief of staff saying thank you, john kelly. there are many unpleasant jobs in the world, but somebody has to do them. one is being donald trump's chief of staff. as he prepares to be liberated this month, john kelly deserves the nation's gratitude. he tried to establish order in the president's schedule as well as regular process for policy deliberations. the white house could negotiate tax reform. mr. trump hates discipline, especially self discipline. it is a wonder mr. kelly lasted as long as he has considering the verbal abuse he is -- has so often taken from his boss if you want to read that editorial. back to your calls, about 25 minutes left in his first segment talking about the supreme court decision yesterday, rejecting taking up
this case to defund planned parenthood. cornell is waiting in new jersey. good morning. .aller: good morning, john i agree with the decision partse abortion is a small of planned parenthood. people go there for other health services and for some reason, the republican party doesn't want everyone to have health care. they make it harder -- they have taken the linchpin out of a lot of the things in the affordable care act and they have put roadblocks in the way that many americans think it was a failed system. it had its flaws. when you put roadblocks in the way and take linchpins out of the way and say see, it failed.
the bigger part is i am pro-life, but i am pro-choice when it comes to you. if you want to murder your child, that is up to you and your god. pictures -- the bigger is there are more things planned parenthood does for poor americans or people that have minimal health insurance. i don't know -- they use the abortion thing as a smokescreen because the fact of the matter who spokegentleman about african-americans, most african-americans don't have abortions. , the whitesthe case would be in the majority. they are the ones having abortions.
democrats -- most african-americans are democrats. guess what? they are still becoming the majority because it is the white republicans that are having abortions. host: this is clear in tallahassee, florida. go ahead. inler: i can't believe i got after all this time and thank you for taking my call. i do support the supreme court decision yesterday and i am a never bit nervous, i have done this before, gotten on before. planned parenthood, i think there is a lot of confusion about exactly what planned parenthood is being reimbursed for. for are being reimbursed non-abortion related services provided to women and a lot of the service they are talking --ut are provided in places
remote, some of the places that these same services are not readily provided for. for various reasons, depending on whether there is enough funding available in the states through other means or whether clinics scarcity of that provide these services and also, whether the women can find them affordable. many, many years ago i did visit a planned parenthood clinic and i found them very accommodating. they did not insist on anything. it wasn't for abortion services, but i did not find them to be antagonistic or insisting upon their way in any way. i haven't heard of that. it distresses me to hear people just call up and spew out a
bunch of stuff i don't think has it.validity to support a bunch of opinions is i think what it is or maybe it is just rumors. host: you say you have never called in before. why was this an important enough subject for you to call in on? -- we don't know why people make a decision to end a pregnancy. are left in positions in which they might feel they have no choice. financial positions, they might be abandoned why the father. there are a lot of different reasons and i just feel like -- to call this baby killing -- i think those terms fail to take
in the gravity sometimes with which decisions like this are made. host: thanks for the call from tallahassee, florida. ben is next from bolingbrook, illinois. good morning. caller: good morning to you, young man. how are you? host: doing well. subjectthis is a tough for me because how can someone say a little baby is a health problem? since when is a pregnancy consider -- hello? host: i am listening. caller: when is a baby considered a health problem? the american people spend $4.3 billion on animals a year in this country. people have a baby born premature and they will spend every penny they need to keep that baby alive. i don't know how in the world -- let me tell you something. a woman's body is her body.
that little body inside is not her body. tim tebow's mother was advised to abort him and she did not. what did he turn out to be? until this country realizes the problem in this country and world, it will never straighten out. i talk to people about abortion all the time. my own brother is not for abortion, yet, he looks at me. were you raised by the same parents? if my daughter was raped or i said guys,est there is no reason to ever support a violent act. there is nowhere for women to go for health services? there are clinics all over the place. don't tell me planned parenthood is only using that money for that. you give someone one dollar,
they will say i put $.50 here and $.50 there. host: you say all the time you talk to piece of -- people about the issue of abortion, is that hard to do? caller: not for me, it is not. i turn a lot of people off because of it. i don't care. i am going to stand in front of jesus christ and explain what i have done in life. i am not a wicked person. how could you stand in front of jesus and say i did it because i could not afford it? host: carol in pennsylvania is next. good morning. caller: good morning, john. i agree with the supreme court that they should not take the case and i would like to clarify a couple things. i used to be an escort for planned parenthood. you escort the patients into the building because generally we had people outside petitioning
and occasionally they would say some terrible things to these women. my instructions were if i see somebody who appears upset, appears like she does not want to go or is ambivalent or says anything to me and, in fact, i would tell her to go up -- there and they willsts talk to you because they don't want you to get an abortion if you are not sure. i recommend -- i told a couple of them -- one looked like her boyfriend was forcing her and another just seemed upset. you separate them from their boyfriend and you talk to them alone and both of those women and decided not to have
it that day. host: when you talked to them alone, what did you say to them? caller: i told them, you seem upset. if you have any doubts about this, there are people upstairs that will talk to you. if they don't think you are really comfortable with it, they will advise you not to have it. if you are unsure, talk to somebody that can help you and help you make the right decision for you. that escort job, is that a volunteer job or a paid position? caller: volunteer job. host: why is that something you wanted to do? caller: because i think young women have a right to walk into an abortion clinic, to planned parenthood and they have them in hospitals, but they don't have escorts because people don't realize they are going in for that.
that is their choice. what i would do or would not do has nothing to do with it. the other thing is that people that are against abortions are also against contraceptives. that seems to me -- it is stupid, i am sorry. to use a contraceptive is a much smarter thing to do then have to get pregnant and make that decision. these are not easy decisions. people don't go in time and time again. i am sure there are some in this world, but you know what i mean. the majority of those women -- some were married, some were single. i spoke to catholic grandparents outside and they were against abortion. their granddaughter was too young having -- going through having a child and while they did not like it, they had to support their granddaughter.
they understood the ambivalence of the whole thing. host: how often did you interact with the people outside trying to get people not to? caller: we were told not to interrupt and not to interact at all. we did not interrupt -- interact with them. we escorted our people through. we told them where to park so they would not be -- they would be more away from the people outside. you are talking about the protesters? host: yeah. where to parkd and i would walk up and walk them down and escort them inside. they don't -- i don't know why you would want to force somebody to have an abortion if they did not want to and i look at it as our children -- they are somebody's children. somebody that is making a very
difficult decision and you want to make sure -- they also do talk before they have the abortion, they go over and they talk to the people in planned parenthood. there is all kinds of rumors going around and propaganda, i think. --nned parenthood really they are not on a crusade to abort children. isy have a program that and there were a lot of young girls not ready to have children. have some compassion for people who have to make this decision and if it were men, i am sorry, we would not have this problem. this would have been through congress and they would not have been such a big fight about it.
you have no idea of the pressure on some of these women. host: thank you for sharing your experiences. kathy in arkansas opposed that moved by the supreme court yesterday. go ahead, kathy. caller: i oppose it, john. i want to thank the man from illinois because i agree with everything he said. i want to thank you because we have a mighty god and people are going to have to answer to him. he is the answer to everything. i am ashamed of brett kavanaugh now. i can't believe he did this. i just can't believe it. suprememocrats and court and whoever is for abortion can even sleep at night. it is murder. when the baby is conceived in the womb, it is alive. they are going to stand before
mighty god and he will give them the answer that day. it will be too late then if they don't change. thank you for taking my call. host: are you concerned about the future of the supreme court? is this something you thought about when brett kavanaugh was being nominated and confirmed, that you thought the supreme court would move in a direction you agreed with on abortion? caller: on abortion, yeah. brett kavanaugh, i think he just wanted the job. i don't think he is going to be any good. i am ashamed of him. i just can't see it. host: that is kathy in arkansas. gary in big stone gap, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you doing? host: doing well. caller: i think they need to shut down abortions. i am a preacher and stuff and i believe in pro-life. i agree with the woman from
arkansas, i do. it is murder. they are going to stand before god one day and they will be held accountable. judgeshamed of bread -- brett kavanaugh, i am. he is supposed to be pro-life. i am ashamed of it. they need to shut it down, they do. host: chris in philly, good morning. caller: hi. good morning. i just called in to support the rejection of the piece. however, i am skeptical of brett kavanaugh's position. i am not sure if this is his first vote that he did. of him to vote in opposition it, clearly making a lot of conservatives upset. i believe it gives the
appearance if you want to call it, the slanted court has been reset to a more balanced court. justices have to talk to each other. robert, someone said just come out in support of this and everyone will be surprised that you did and it will give maybe he will, vote with us sometimes, that is unexpected and conservatives are like, i can't believe he did not vote to hear the case, this is so unexpected. call me cynical, i expect a lot more conservative votes coming from justice kavanagh in the future. hold onto your seats. host: not brett kavanaugh's first vote on whether to take up a case, but certainly one of the early notable decisions by him. what are your thoughts on john roberts? on the chief justice?
caller: he seems to have taken the helm of -- if you want to call it steering the ship. he calls -- comes from the bush administration, correct? host: nominated and confirmed under george w. bush, correct. i think he harkens back to a time when people see the country more united like around 9/11. he is someone that will be for and against both sides. someone who can be impartial, which is what i hope everyone looks for in justices read everyone wants their case is pushed forward and their beliefs . i think there has been a concerted effort to reset the appearance of the court to a land.mpartial law of the this isn't about politics because it has been extremely pun.tened, excuse the
we had justice roberts making statements like we don't have liberal justices, conservative justices, we have honorable people that have been qualified and do their best to interpret the law. , hope, with that decision maybe there will be civility. there has got to be something returned to the court here. host: that is chris in philadelphia. this is william in california, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, william. caller: i am always a little perplexed by -- not one person has called in on this issue has really understood the question. booted orwas just punted, it wasn't really decided on the issue of abortion in any
way. it is a matter of the law of procedure and not one response has really dealt with your question of this case in particular. everybody on both sides of the abortion issue are coming in and saying -- coming on and saying all the arguments we have heard and been familiar with for 45 years. this was not a ruling on abortion, per se. it was a technicality, basically. nothing was decided, they just can go forward, the lawsuits against the state laws can go forward. i think justice thomas had an interesting take on it in his dissent. he said whether you are for a -- for or against it, we are punting and not doing our job because we have lower courts in conflict. lower courts have made different
rulings on a major issue. host: let me show viewers that full statement on clarence thomas and i will come back to you. this was his dissent yesterday. what explains the court's refusal to do its job? i suspect it has to do with summer up -- respondents in this case are named planned parenthood. resolving the question would not affect planned parenthood's ability to challenge the state's decision, it only concerns the rights of medicaid recipients to -- caller: that is what i am saying . this doesn't have anything to do -- i think what he is accusing the court of is not having the guts to do anything that might -- onny waves or cause one side or the other. courtdo you think this will return to ruby ray to return to the question of legality of abortion in this country? caller: frankly, i don't.
i am pro-life and i wish it were different. that is why the whole thing about all the objections to brett kavanaugh like he was a dire threat to roe v. wade was a hyperbole, hyperventilating on the part of democrats. you had that fellow a couple of calls ago or maybe it was the last call. he said he did not trust brett kavanaugh, that he thinks he is just trying to give himself some cover because they demonize the man. i had no false hopes. -- like he hash proven to be like john roberts. these guys are politicians on the courts. not that they are taking one side or the other of the issue, but they are interested in defending the court as an institution. this is a very divisive issue
and they are trying to like -- like solomon, split the baby in half in some way that is going to satisfy the country. host: when was the last time we did not have a politician on the court? caller: well, it is more and more polarized now. peopleice that all the -- who ever surprised everybody with their rulings, they are the conservatives, or republican appointees. the liberals there he rarely break ranks in terms of their .olitical perspective nobody faults them for it in the media because that is the thinking according to most of the media. host: that is william in california. richard has been waiting period in ohio, go ahead. caller: great discussions.
a very important issue. one of the things that is important to look at is there is a bright line of who is going to pay for these killings and supply the guns. it is bad enough people are doing the abortions. then they want the other people to pay -- force them to pay to do the abortions from their tax money at the point of a gun. host: to be clear on it, the medicaid money we are talking about cannot go for abortions. it goes to other services at planned parenthood whether it is cancer screenings or contraception services. caller: it is sort of a sleight-of-hand in the things where they are selling baby parts and forcing us to supply money for that unit and say no way, we are not going to do it. democrat way back when said no
money would go to abortions that come from taxpayers. if somebody else wants to do something criminal, we don't have to supply guns to do their killing. it is bad enough they are going to do it, then they asked the other taxpayers to do an immoral act against their religion and everything else. host: this is richard in new jersey, good morning. caller: hi. host: go ahead. caller: thank you very much. every rational country in the world, europe, scandinavia, legal.japan, abortion is where it is illegal is dictatorships, third world countries -- please ask the next person who once -- who thinks abortion is so bad, why do they want us to join the third world
countries? if you don't like abortion, moved to a muslim country. ask somebody to explain to me why we should join the group that is against abortion, which is all the third world dictatorships, backward countries. why is it? explain that. host: lewis in baltimore, maryland. caller: what i would like to say is it is so ironic and i hear all these older people calling. it's like we have a short memory. nobody supports abortion. .obody wants that to happen you have to remember, there was a time when abortions were legal, you had children found in dumpsters. when you put a woman in a situation where she cannot have a choice.
there is an evilness to us. a lot of times it is not evil but it is a no way out situation. 1970's they were finding babies everywhere. the only people who benefit from a non-abortion law would be disgraced doctors who have lost their licenses. you people don't remember that? wasdon't remember how it when you had doctors who had lost their license would open up back alley abortion rooms in their houses? nobody wants abortion but it is a compromise. you cannot tell a person they cannot do something and think it will be ok. .ou will open up a can of worms it is like nobody remembers. host: lou was baltimore, maryland. one note before we take it to the break.
time magazine has put out the person of the year, calling them the persons of the year, the guardians, or taking great risks in pursuit of the truth but imperfect quest for fax, for speaking up and speaking out. jamal khashoggi, the capital others, times persons of the year. that is it for the first segment. up next, a deep dive into president trump's nomination as william barr as the next attorney general. we will be joined by john malcolm of the heritage foundation. toer on, changes coming these is offered to high skilled workers from other countries. that is coming up later on this morning. ♪
>> sunday night on q&a. party haderican nazi 20,000 supporters. in the middle of new york, stormtroopers giving the salute next to a picture of george washington. that rally was more george washington birthday. there was an active fascist movement in the 1930's, 40's, that it was associated with the phrase america first. >> literature professor sarah churchwell looks at the history behind the phrase america first and american dream. sunday on c-span's q&a. >> when the new congress takes office in january, it will have the youngest, most diverse freshman class in recent
history. new congress, new leaders. watch it live on c-span starting january 3. c-span. where history unfolds daily. as a79, c-span was created public service by america's cable television companies. today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, , the supremese court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. washington journal continues. host: john malcolm it the director for the meese center at the heritage foundation, joining us to talk about president trump's pick, william far to be the next attorney general. you were an assistant u.s. attorney when mr. barr was
attorney general. when you talk about his resume before his ag job and since? guest: i happen to be in the rose garden on an unrelated matter when president bush nominated him to the attorney general, so i have met him. host: did you know him personally before? guest: i had not. it turns out we went to the same high school and college. his parents are professors at columbia university, he got his undergrad there, got a graduate in chinese studies. he then worked as an intelligence analyst and legislative aide at the cia for four years. so he had an intelligence background while going to law school at night at georgetown. he was in private practice for a while. during the reagan administration he served on the staff of the white house domestic policy staff. the term of george the bush he was first
assistant attorney general, so a political appointee, the man in charge of the office of legal counsel which is a body within the justice department with provides legal advice to the justice department and every executive branch. he then served for two years as the deputy attorney general. when richard thornburgh resigned to run for senate, he became the attorney general. he was the 77th attorney general and was therefore a couple of years. host: and only in his 40's then. 60 eight now, so we can work backwards. host: unusual to be that young? guest: yes, but he was impressive in the positions that he served. host: how so? guest: office of legal counsel is a very big position. one of the big questions that came along he was there was whether or not the united states
could, under the constitution, invade panama for the purpose of seizing and taking from power noriega. , heeputy attorney general ran the day-to-day operations of the justice department. usually deputy attorney general's are made acting attorney general. while he was the acting attorney general, there was a crisis in that there was a hostage taking at a prison in town again the, alabama -- talladega, alabama. took hostages, and for 10 days, there was a standoff. it ended with a hostage rescue team going in and no one got hurt. that very much impressed president bush who decided because of his toughness and levelheadedness, he should be attorney general. host: what has he been doing since he left the ag post? guest: general counsel and executive vice president to gte
corporation, which emerged with bell atlantic, becoming verizon. he served in that role for a number of years. for the last two years, he has been at a private counsel. host: what has been your reading since he was announced by president trump? guest: these are very contentious times. i would not than when bill barr was named as attorney general, he was unanimously confirmed by ,he senate, and at which time the senate was controlled by the democrats. he is a steady hand at the tiller. he does not have a close personal relationship with the president. obviously people say he has .iews on executive power he has made a couple critical comments about the mueller investigation, firing of jim comey, sally yates. there are some people that have skepticism about him, but i think you'll be confirmed. host: here is patrick leahy
after bill barr was announced. ofhas a long record public service that needs to be thoroughly vetted by the senate, including comments about investigations. tweet that i look forward to discussing these issues and others at mr. barr's hearing. guest: i suppose my comment to , i think the commons of bill barr made about the investigation were fairly tame. and he may than as a private citizen. he had not access to any of the tears that bob mueller had. he knows bob mueller very well, by the way. they travel in the same circles among washington elites. bob mueller was the head of the criminal division at the time
bill barr was attorney general. they probably met together daily. i'm sure he will answer the questions, whether it satisfy senator leahy or not, no one should make an image to anybody. when he was at his confirmation hearing to be attorney general, he was asked about his loyalty to president bush. he said let me be clear, my loyalty is to the constitution. we are talking with john malcolm of the heritage foundation about the president's nomination of bill bar to be the next attorney general. if you want to join in on the conversation, (202) 748-8000 if you are a republican. (202) 748-8001 if you are a democrat. (202) 748-8002 if you are an independent. john malcolm will be with us through the bottom of the hour. take us back to the confirmation hearing in 1991 and set the scene. joe biden was chairing the judiciary committee at the time. unopposed? what were some of the questions that were brought up during the process?
guest: he had a reputation for independence and integrity. he had run the department very well. by the way, all this talk about barr oneounsel, bill attorney general, named at least two special counsel's to investigate alleged wrongdoing by the bush administration. he had shown a certain independence in that regard. at one point he was asked about abortion, whether there was a right to privacy in the constitution. he said was, yes, i recognize there is a right to privacy in the constitution but i don't believe it applies to abortion. said,r biden at the time i think you are the first person to candidly answer that question and i will reward you for that candor. but these are different times. he got confirmed unanimously. host: talk about his role in pardons stemming from the iran contra affair. every pardons --
president seems to have their controversial pardons. bill clinton had his under eric holder involving marc rich p no question that in the history, president bush pardoned five or six people related to the iran contra scandal, most notably caster weinberger, secretary of defense. it was known that he spoke to bill barr about it. ,xactly what role bill barr had that will be a privileged communication that will remain between the two of them. host: ron wyden, number of the committee, democrat from oregon, answerbarr must questions about whether trump demanded his loyalty or extracted promises about constraining the mueller investigation. a failure to answer those questions will be disqualifying, he says. guest: it is up to senators to decide what is qualified or not. i have no doubt he will ask that
question. no promises were sought and none were given. host: brian is first in michigan. an independent. caller: good morning and thank you. i remember years ago when brian was hosting, and this was the time when barack obama was first nominated president. already selected hillary clinton as secretary of state but he also deliberately did not at in an inspector general the secretary of state's office. i believe that will be a focus of contention. when they took alarm put up all these rules. the board signed off on all of this uranium. the board is a separate entity. those are u.s. citizens. most of them were appointed or put on there by obama. i want to know about the conflict of interest.
even though mr. mueller and mr. rosenstein were not directly on that board, certainly they knew the inspector general's position, differently being .acant they only put in loyal democrats in that spot. it is the first time in our history that we didn't have an inspector general at the secretary of state's office since its inception in 1959. robert mueller, there are no comments on him at that point. he was the head of the fbi. ron rosenstein was the attorney general, i believe, in the state of maryland. this, thereents on are a lot of conflicts there. i had a top-secret clearance in our navy. fully aware of russia's capabilities, lack of capabilities. we would everd
sell in rich to russia or any other entities, and other same time, you move forward a few years, the same people are involved in the so-called investigations of these things. host: we will let john malcolm take on some of the topics. unpackthat was a lot to there. first of all, ron rosenstein was the u.s. attorney at the time of the sale of uranium. certainly was investigated or is being investigated. whether or not hillary clinton put undue pressure to get that deal done. referred to the committee for foreign investments in the u.s. i used to sit and in some of those meetings. it is an interagency approval process. host: is the ag a part of the process? guest: the department of justice. usually the head of the criminal division. i was a deputy at the time that all is a political appointee in
the justice department. i'm not sure about what the history of the igf the state department is. i happen to know the ig at the justice department, michael i holdz, very well, and him in very high regard. he is completely apolitical and dogged about the way he goes about his job. who: a lot of republicans want a second special counsel appointed to investigate the clinton foundation. as mr. barr weighed in on that topic at all? guest: i don't think so, except at one point, i think he said, suggesting smoke collusion of some sort between the trump campaign and the russians, that same kind of smoke exist with respect to the clinton foundation and the uranium one deal. the department of justice said that they would be looking into the clinton foundation. i don't know if they would be looking into the uranium one deal.
i don't know if they would take it up once bill barr was confirmed. host: a republican in berkeley springs. caller: i have two questions. why do democratic senators think they can demand from a republican attorney general no loyalty to a gop president like president trump? yet they don't demand that for the democratic attorney general, like obama put in his best friend. it was known it was a best friend. it is like a double standard. a republican attorney general has to declare independence. i will never talk to this president or even agree with him, whatever. they never stress that with the democratic side. thing is, what is wrong with the attorney general being appointed that does support our president, who is loyal to him? why can't he be loyal to the constitution and our president?
he is the chief executor of our nation. attorney general, even though he is the top lawyer for all of us, he still is a republican and should be in lockstep with our president. they are both chief law enforcement officers. guest: thank you for the questions. i don't think there's any question eric holder had a very close relationship with barack obama. there were some conservatives who believed that eric holder a bend in the law to suit the desires of his close friend who was the president. there is not that sort of relationship to the best of my knowledge between donald trump and william barr. there is nothing wrong with loyalty. the attorney general is a political appointee, they serve at the pleasure of the president. his primary fidelity is to the rule of law and the constitution. there is nothing wrong with loyalty and trying to advance
this administration's legal arguments and political policies , so long as they comport with existing law and the constitution. any officeholder has a higher duty to the constitution than to any individual up to and including the president. host: new york is next. independent. jim. go ahead. caller: i want to ask you a question that may be a little bit off the subject that you would know about it. i feel like we are being invaded by central and south america. everyone is talking about the russians because we are not speaking russian. at the library, and the books have not gotten thrown away in the languages other than spanish. please answer this question. has trump thought about operation wetback that eisenhower did in the 1950's? give a simple
answer. i don't have the slightest idea. host: william barr on immigration issues? guest: he wrote an op-ed with michael mukasey and others raising jeff sessions. one of the things he praised him for was for his tough response on illegal immigration. he was known to be tough on illegal immigration at the time he was attorney general. certainly knows how to respond to crises. there was a large spike in violent crime. i know that he transferred a whole bunch of investigators who had been doing counterterrorism work in order to address gang violence and violent crime. makeis a guy who can important resource decisions to address them. host: what lessons should william barr take from jeff sessions, his relationship with president trump? guest: the one thing he should
take is he should not recuse himself from oversight of the mueller investigation. since he was not involved in the campaign, to the best of my knowledge, had no discussions with ambassador, that shouldn't be a problem. host: what is the independent counsel law? guest: it was a post-watergate allowed at basically three-judge panel of the d.c. circuit to appoint somebody under the law once the attorney general said it meets the oflowing qualifications potential wrongdoing by high-ranking officials. then the d.c. circuit would appoint an independent counsel. that independent counsel, for all intents and purposes, for that matter was the attorney general. we had an independent counsel through the whitewater investigation, ken starr, who after finishing his tenure as independent counsel came up for
reauthorization, and that law was allowed to relapse. bob mueller is a special counsel. he reports to the attorney general is governed by the rules of the justice department. int: this is william barr 1999. talking about the role of the ag in these kinds of investigations. >> i want to say something about the independent counsel are. i think there have been and always will be cases where someone from the outside the department should be brought in to supervise the case. that doesn't mean you need an independent counsel statute that sets up and on accountable individual. prior to watergate and now, we can rely on the old system which is the attorney general ultimately have to bring in someone with sufficient stature to win the confidence of the people so the matter can be handled appropriately. host: your reaction? that: congress came to
very conclusion, that you could appoint somebody from the outside. in this case bob mueller, who could be supervised by the department of justice, and they could do a thorough job to investigate potential wrongdoing. when he was attorney general, bill barr named at least two special counsel's, perhaps independent councils themselves. retired judges. one came in to look at allegations made by a company alleging that the cia had stolen their software, was using their software for covert operations. he appointed another retired judge to investigate a bank that had supposedly made loans to iraq for billions of dollars for agricultural purposes which had been divergent to buy weapons. host: a few minutes left with the john malcolm, getting reaction to president trump's nomination of william far the next attorney general. what is the meese center at the
heritage foundation? guest: the component within the heritage foundation named after se,mies, the 75th -- ed mee named after the 75th attorney general. all manners about of legal issues at our fund. host: fred is waiting in jessup, maryland. republican. caller: good morning, mr. malcolm. will mr. barr have the authority to go after eric holder, loretta lynch, james clapper, john brennan for perjury and lying under oath? secondly, will he be able to hold mueller and the investigation accountable for using an unverified crony russian dossier bot for by the dnc and hillary clinton to obtain pfizer warns to change the election results of 2016? will he be able to do that?
guest: thank you for the questions. with respect to your first question, he will have the authority to investigate anybody for potential violations of federal law. certainly, perjury is a violation of federal law. shape ory way form are pining that any of the people did commit perjury. with respect to your second question about the fisa abuse process, the inspector general michael horowitz has announced he is doing an investigation into potential abuses of the foreign intelligence surveillance act, fisa. reports have been thorough and generally accepted on both sides of the political aisle. i expect he will look into that. how that will impact on the evidence that bob mueller or other prosecutorial offices gather, that is something he would have to look at, if there was a violation of law.
i suppose that is something he would have to consider. host: this is rand paul on sunday on meet the press, asked about his thoughts on barr and his views on executive power. >> on the president's nomination of william barr, it's been noted he has an expansive view of executive power. when i heard that i thought, he may have trouble getting rand paul's vote for confirmation. am i correct? >> that's right. i'm concerned he's been a big supporter of the patriot act which lower the spaniard for spying on americans. he even said the patriot act was pretty good and we should go further. i'm disturbed he has been a big fan of taking people's property, civil asset forfeiture without a conviction. many poor people in our country have cash taken from them and then the governments has proved to us where you got the cash and then you can get it back. terrible thing called civil asset forfeiture. he's a big fan of that.
the first things i have learned about him being from more surveillance from americans is very troubling. guest: senator paul is entitled to his views and i'm sure he will ask the nominee his views subjects. those us -- the patriot act came up years after bill barr was attorney general, certainly pass overwhelmingly, has been reauthorized. with respect to civil asset forfeiture, i'm actually a little bit in rand paul's camp. i believe civil asset forfeiture's should be retained but there should be reforms that make it harder for the government to steal someone's assets without a criminal allegation or wrongdoing by an individual. it probably is tough on asset forfeiture. jeff sessions was top on that. that is an ongoing conversation. regardless of what happens to bill barr, i'm sure that discussion will be ongoing. host: sanders is a democrat from
california. caller: good morning. i am glad to know that mr. meese is still alive. in the early 1980's, i was sent playboya petition about magazine, i believe. should it be canceled? my opinion was no, because there are some good things in there. questions. of anyways, i was wondering if you could tell me what happened, what were the results of that petition? you can reach me at the number that i called in on. i would appreciate the info. say hello to mr. meese.
i hope that he is some i can still admire. guest: thank you for getting up so early, and for the question. just turned 87 years young. i will certainly pass on your good wishes. i'm afraid i don't know anything about that petition. certainly the next time i see general meese, i will ask about it. host: bob is an independent. good morning. caller: can you answer this please? who is the most powerful individual in america? is it the president of the united states or the ninth circuit? guest: [laughter] caller: it seems like the ninth circuit is more powerful than the president. they can overrule anything he wants to do. president obama could sign anything he wanted. instance, was a major thing against the law, for him to let millions of people into the country.
there is nothing to be done about it now. he did that stuff. there was not any circuit judge shutting anything he did down. do anythingnnot without somebody in hawaii or california or west virginia, some judge that is more powerful than the president of the united states, can just take away anything he says. guest: thank you for the question. it is certainly true president very aggressive positions with respect to existing law under the doctor programs, eric holder certainly supported president obama's position, that the ninth circuit -- all the circuits of appeals are powerful. the only recourse to an adverse decision from the ninth circuit is the supreme court.
the supreme court takes very few cases. it is the largest circuit. i'm not denying the veracity of this. i don't think it is an accident that those people who are challenging various aspects of the trump administration almost invariably file their lawsuits in federal court within the jurisdiction of the ninth circuit. i would say,, since he can send troops into battle, is probably more powerful than the ninth circuit. the supreme court is higher on the pecking order the ninth circuit. host: to bring this back to william barr, what are his views on the power of the judiciary, activist judges? guest: he is a conservative. heard him say anything about original is uncommon textualism. i would think he would be an originalist, textual list. in favor of judges interpreting and applying the law as it's written, rather than looking for some hidden intent, gleaned by a
statement from the congressional record. perhaps he will be probed by those matters when he is up for confirmation hearings. of course, he has not been nominated to be a judge, but to head the justice department. he will act through the supreme court through his solicitor general. host: we will be watching those confirmation hearings. thank you for your time, john malcolm. guest: great to be with you. host: the trump administration wants to make some changes to visas offered to high skilled foreign workers. we will discuss that with bill kerr of harvard business school. and then later, regina labelle, who served at the office of drug control policy.
>> sunday night on q&a. >> this american not see party had 20,000 supporters who came to rally at madison square arden. as that footage sewed, stormtroopers giving the nod to salute with a swastika on the to a picture of george washington. that rally was for george washington's birthday. american an active fascist movement in the 20's and 30's, earlier than people think i'm a that it was associated with the phrase america first. >> literature professor sarah churchwell looks at the history of the terms america first and the american dream in her book "behold, america." sunday night on c-span's q&a.
when the new congress takes office in january, it will have the youngest, most diverse freshman class in recent history . new congress, new leaders. watch it live on c-span starting january 3. c-span. we're history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of , theess, the white house supreme court, and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. washington journal continues. author and harvard professor bill kerr joins us for a discussion about the trump administration's efforts to
reform work visa programs, the h-1b program. remind us who can apply for the h-1b visa? a specialtyis for occupation that has a bachelors degree and higher. inis a quite broad program that people can apply from consulting firms, accounting firms, people that c-span would employ can apply. three quarters of the h-1b's are going to stem related occupations. we should quickly note about the program, it is an employer driven program. john would not be applying for a visa. c-span or microsoft would be making the application on behalf of john. how many of those visas are granted every year? 85,000 granted to for-profit companies. 65,000 are broad-based bachelors degree and higher can apply,
whether you have had a u.s. or foreign degree. and we have about 20,000 for people that have received a masters degree from the u.s. school. host: out of how many are apply for, 85,000? guest: the actual application process goes very fast because we run a very quick. forthe policy starts april 1, e supposedly is this day thereafter. receiving applications. than 85,000re applications in the first few days about which almost always happens, what they do is they keep the process open for one week, and then they close the process. last year we got just under 200,000 applications in the first week. how many more applications we might get if we ran up for the other 51 weeks. ant: if someone does get h-1b visa, how long can they stay? guest: three years with a three-year renewal. if it is a single renewal, you
get into some publications. there is a dual intent future that meaning that all you are in temporary employee in the u.s., technically what is called nonimmigrant visa, you can also apply for a green card. then you get into challenges for some nationalities, particularly india and china, very long waiting lines to get through the green card application process. we have ways of trying to extend the visas at that point. host: as we have this conversation with bill kerr, the author of "the gift of global talent." we want to hear from you, especially h-1b visa holders. (202) 748-8003 is the specialized we have set aside if you have a h-1b visa. otherwise, republicans, (202) 748-8000. democrats, (202) 748-8001.
independents, (202) 748-8002. mr. trump is trying to reform the process. how and why? guest: the process itself is one where we don't give preference to people that have the strongest desired skill sets. let's go back to when you make the application. a little under 200,000 requests made for 85,000 slots. in that situation that we reallocated is through a lottery. that means someone that could be coming in and earning $65,000, a good salary, but not a benefit to the economy as an artificial intelligence research earning two or three times that. we don't have a mechanism to correctly allocate that process. other features of this come from will before the trump administration took office, 2016, the of who, in program has been stuck where it was 15 years ago. we have had a bigger economy. one of the things the book tries
to talk through is how we can make the program overall better for today's system. host: what does the trump administration want to do? guest: they have commented in various ways. most of the actions have been around the edges. probably the most important thing that has happened so far h for work to end authorization. h-1b is for an individual. they often bring a spouse. do you let that spouse work or not? the obama administration allowed that spouse to work. the trump administration is seeking to end that. that would affect about 100,000 people. they have also made recent efforts to switch the orders of ,he lottery, to allow that for to boost the numbers of masters students from u.s. schools getting visas. host: you say changes around the edges. i know you talk about it in your book, but what do you think gets to the heart of these programs?
what would be a bigger change in your mind? let us come back to the question of should we increase or decrease the numbers of skilled migrants in this country. with the 65 and on the 20,000 extra for masters degree students, how can we allocate that more efficiently? we have very simple signals. they give out the wages somebody if we were to rank order the applications by those that have a higher wages, that would be one way to take a very scarce supply and elegant them toward better resources. we have to think about making sure the finance industry did not gobble them all up, people in expensive coastal cities, but in the applications themselves, there are simple things we could use to help prioritize who is getting a visa versus who should be asked to come back next year and apply again. people thatms of
get the h-1b visa, it's not all masters degree technical workers. are there other degrees, people that come to the u.s. for more charitable programs? do they lose out if you rank it by salary? i would imagine they are not making as much. guest: some of the people coming under nonprofits actually enter through a part of the program that does not face this cap and there is an unlimited supply. university professors, nonprofit workers. you would have to take considerations for people coming in places where we might want to prioritize because there is a strong benefit to the country but they may not make a high salary. one place that is wrigley mansion is often or ship. we don't have a good pathway in the u.s. for immigrant entrepreneurs. one of the things you want to think about is how we can create a program or vehicle to allow for people that want to start businesses right after mba programs, undergraduates, be
able to do so in the country. host: the book is "the gift of global talent." bill kerr is with us as we talk about the h-1b visa program. if you hold an h-1b visa, we want to hear your stories. (202) 748-8003. we start on our line for independents. david is in baldwin place, new york. caller: good morning. myself being naturalized three decades ago, went through a similar program which was more , scrutinized by the state department of environmental security, to ensure an alien is not taking rightly so the place of an american citizen or permanent resident. being a university professor with hundreds of publications and patents ever since, contributed immensely to the welfare of this great nation. nevertheless, ever since someone
got elected in 2016, the daily lives of the naturalized americans, especially of the high skilled knowledge and ability, is really in the twilight zone in that their career advancement, career opportunities, safety and security of their families, most of them who were born and raised in this country, are totally undermined. i would like to hear the professor comment with respect to some of these predicaments haveare really ironic and caught us between the old place. we are the brain drain from the third world that left the country in shambles behind simply because there were self inflicted pains from within from deterioration or being imposed by outsiders. up onto thee pick below things the caller mentioned. thank you for the comment. united states has benefited from skilled migration at many
levels. one of the things the book tries to pick up on is you go from college-educated workers thinking about inventors to those that with the nobel prizes. contributions to the united states is consistently rising from foreign talent as we go up the higher skill levels. a second thing the caller highlighted, and this goes back to the earlier question about what is the trump administration doing around the policy front.i said it was nibbling around the edges of the actual visa program. the biggest challenge for me with the administration right now is the broader rhetoric for immigration broadly. one of the things we have to remember is migration is a matching process. the united states wants to open up doors to foreign talent to come in. for talent also has to think about the united states as the place they want to be. one of the issues the caller was highlighting, when you have a very anti-immigrant rhetoric and tone, even things that are not
directly connected to a program like h-1b or high skilled migration, that can diminish the united states, people's perception of the country. imagine you are a business and you want to make a big investment like opening up a chemical plant. you are going to think a lot about a very uncertain time and are you going to make that investment? if you are thinking about a high skilled person, do they want to start their business in the united states? do they want to come here for their undergraduate or after school and? those decisions are about investments. the more concerned we have about the u.s. and its future policy, the more people are not willing to take the united states as their first choice. host: wanda is next in california. a republican. knowr: i would like to what percentage of people who work at companies such as google, facebook, and twitter, and who are censoring and
banning free speech of american visas.s hold h-1b it seems to me most of them are from asia. guest: of course, the tech giants also do things that have benefits to society, some of the challenges they are facing. usually the numbers for those companies rate between 10% of to 20% that would have come through on a h-1b visa. they are dependent very much on foreign talent for their workforce. host: sheila is next from tacoma, washington. a democrat. caller: i would like to ask, has he ever been to washington state? programs atred her the technical college at washington state. i have never been to washington state, unfortunately. i have worked with a view company located there.
natural -- is a national process with national rules. that said, i'm always a fan when cities or states do work to make themselves more attractive. virtually every state in the country, even those who would tend to not be very favorable toward immigrants come have something to try to foster immigrant entrepreneurship. host: you mentioned foreign talent coming to the u.s. often times they come to get educated. what happens to those students after they graduate? automatically entered into the h-1b visa program, efforts to get that talent to stay here? guest: you are opening up a huge set of issues. let's go to your premise. yes, much of the talent that comes to the united states is not fully formed as a phd and ready to rock 'n roll. it is someone that is young, talented, and willing to work hard and enter the u.s. schooling system and seek to get
a job after. we have a very poor process right now for how you can take students and transition them into work. in the book, i describe it as a series of pipes. the student height keeps getting bigger and bigger. universities can issue as many visas as they would like to. for a number of reasons, anniversaries are relied on foreign students. host: these are the visas that students are coming into. the university of virginia, where we both went to school, about 5% foreign students, when we were there, 2%. master's, dr. levels, the numbers get quite high. today over a million foreign students in the u.s. so what we have is an inflow pipe of talent that is getting bigger and bigger but we have very fixed size is that happen at the next transition. from student to worker. entering, unless
they met someone in the u.s., enter through marriage or something else, would be entering the h-1b pool typically. that is used to attract talent that is currently resident abroad, but also people on u.s. campuses. we have a number of challenges because now the water that is flowing through the first pipe is too much for the second pipe. pipe is too much for the second pipe. so we are trying to do things like the obd program which provides between one and three years, allowing students to work with a private employer while they try the h-1b lottery to see if they can get accepted. in my book, one of the running characters comes here right before college, goes to brown university, is in the new york finance industry, but is struggling to get the h-1b approval. party because the two roommates had won the
lottery that year and were able concerned -- secure about their employment future. host: about 10 minutes left with bill kerr of the harvard business school. yout of callers waiting for . william from minneapolis. independent. caller: i'm just listening to mr. kerr. i live in minnesota. we have a lot of major companies here, even the major retailers like best buy, target. they import a lot of foreign talent here. to be honest, i think america is really focusing on the immigrants coming across the border, the mexicans taking the low-paying jobs. the real threat to american jobs is the h-1b visas.
these people overstay their visas. mr. kerr knows this but he will not touch on it. theyoverstay their visas, sent for their family members, and they don't go back to their home countries. these companies are immigrating these people over here and sponsoring these workers, and are undercutting american talent. guest: i would encourage the caller to read the book. this is not a single sided view of the immigration process. i try to go through a number of places and shone a light on things we should be celebrating. also shine a light on things that are worrisome. an example, i talk about how a lot of tech firms can use the visa process to keep their workforces younger. one of the places where we see this is among older tech workers who are not able to keep their jobs or face employment challenges. far from saying this is a single, perfect visa system.
it is more here are the challenges and hear other forms to make it better. host: is there a lot of overstay in the h-1b visa program? guest: there are some, but it is not a pervasive challenge. the more we can come back to thinking about things like prioritizing the types of visas we want to allocate, the less we will have some of the symptoms that are less desirable. host: san francisco, california. emily is a republican. caller: good morning. i believe we should have a wall. asked for aump has chilean dollars for our economy. meanwhile, president obama took at $150 billion without authorization. i'm thinking just a little amount would help us to be able to spend more money on these people that we need for so many of our technology and in the
future for jobs. a wall, we would not be fighting two wars. we are trying to get people in that help us and then we have 22 million people who are poorly educated and just get on welfare. what do you think about a wall helping to spend more time trying to get people to work in this country that will help? the caller highlights the many thorny parts of the immigration process. one of the places i spend time in the book is looking at polling data, argue there is a path toward reform for skilled migration. if you look at republicans or democrats, people that voted for trouble or did not, you can get to a majority that are supporting for better policies and reforms. i don't have all the answers for all the other parts of the immigration debate but one of the things i would like us to do
is make progress on this particular front. make more out of our employment-based immigration, get more jobs, more innovation. hopefully that would have a productive dialogue about all the other aspects that are challenging. reforms the trumpet administration is looking to do come does that need congressional approval? guest: there are some parts of the h-1b process that are done through executive action. many parts require congressional legislation. there is an area if you are not quite sure. host: how much appetite is there to take of the h-1b program? guest: that is one that i would have to ask people around here about. 10 years ago i wrote about this first. it was picked up by everyone from friedman to lou dobbs. you can imagine some different views on it. i got really into legislation. 5, 10 years pass. there was not that much change
that happened along the way. here.is appetite some of the recent bills have gotten bilateral and unanimous support for moving forward. but there are also challenges that some people don't want to act on immigration until we do comprehensive immigration reform. i can only imagine for the lawmakers, a tough attention to navigate through. host: christian, lexington, kentucky. democrat. caller: interesting talk today. i was in philadelphia, fresh from business school, one of the people that approach me to work was a recent graduate of wharton. he was from india. a h-1bed to set up tunnel from india to the states. i asked him where we would put .ll of these h-1b applicants
he didn't have any answers to any of my questions, so i didn't go into business with him. i know that is a huge business. people talk about it quite often. my question to a lot of is there aistening, wave that this is going through, that america is turning brown not just from mexico but also something that we are just going to have to get used to, it is what it is? maybe you can talk to that. guest: numerically, applicants from india are the majority. visa holders from india are the majority of h-1b applications. it sounds like the approach, the business that was being designed by his potential business undercutas trying to some of the american work here. that goes back to my initial
premise. we need to allocate the visa inicy, the scarce visas better ways. as long as we are using a lottery system, that favors more the work that is lower, middle skilled versus high-skilled. tunnel was describing, i'm able to submit lots of different applications. i don't care which one actually wins the lottery, as long as someone gets it. contrast that with artificial intelligence research for a start up company. there might be one or two people that fit that bill. they are willing to offer a high wage but they cannot find another 10 that are like that to enter the system. to that argument i would say let's work on allocating the visas in a better way. host: pensacola, florida. eric. caller: i just want to agree about the high skilled workers. to ad just got married
chinese woman. she opened up a massage place. .ctually started teaching him doing a lot of other massages. host: eric is in d.c.. democrat. good morning, thank you for taking my call. instead of this immigration of being such aers problem to our country, why is -- let'sry too stingy just take one area -- to provide an education for american doctors. you go to the hospital, you can hardly understand the doctor. educatewe too stingy to the people we need to pay for their education? so that we would not have such a huge immigration of intellectuals or professional people?
in desperation to have to give them all sorts of incentives. why can we give our own people, our own young people who are in these colleges, those kinds of incentives, so that we can grow that area? guest: i'm going to disagree with the caller. i think a robust education system for everyone is a key part of our national future. even if you take the tech sector, which is an incredibly immigrant heavy, lots of contribution. one out of every 3.5 inventors is foreign-born. that still means two out of every three is a native born. what is often attractive people to come here is the education for themselves and also for their kids. in my district in massachusetts, probably 25% foreign-born in the school system. the same thing that attracts me to bring my kids to that school
is the same thing that attracts families from around the world. a strong education system is a natural born u.s. citizens and also for being attractive to global talent. host: i want to talk about other proposals out there for this high skilled talent, those who don't make it into the h-1b visa program. you talk about the proposal, to offshore, offips california, to bring these workers in on visitation, vacation passports. talk about that. don't know to the degree this is a live proposal anymore, but it speaks to just how strong the poll from the united states can be. in this case, there were some much printers imagining creating very large cruise ships parked off the california coast, and they could come in on daily or weekly basis and do business
work and then go back out. have places like chile tried to to position themselves on the you got denied access to h-1b. , come here. you are going to be able to communicate effectively and now you can figure out how you can get up there. times saying if you are having trouble, come here. there is a great demand and the opportunity for the united states with global talent and we need to make sure that we are able to most effectively attract and utilize that talent. if you have these challenges, people are going to try to find a way around. host: his book "the gift of global talent: how migration shapes is this economy and society." we appreciate your time. guest: thank you. host: up next, we will talk
about the opioid crisis in the united states and where we are at this point and what research is being done to combat addiction. regina labelle who serves as chief of staff for the obama administration's national drug policy forum when we come back. ♪ [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017] >> sunday night on q&a. >> this american nazi party had 20,000 supporters that came to rally at madison square garden , and stormtrooper is getting nazi salute for george washington's birthday. there was a very active fascist
movement earlier than people think that was associated with the phrase america first. >> professor sarah churchwell looks at the history of the terms "america first" and "the american dream." sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q&a. >> when the new congress takes office in january, it will have the youngest, most diverse freshman class in recent history. watch it live on c-span starting january 3. c-span where history unfolds daily. c-span was created as a public service by america's cable television companies. and we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress,
the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. washington journal continues. host: the opioid crisis is a topic we have spent a lot of time on this program. we will return to that topic with regina labelle who served as chief of staff for the national drug policy in the obama administration currently with georgetown's university neil center. we are now decades into the opioid crisis and we set another record in 2017. does the crisis continue to get worse before it gets better? guest: thank you for having me on this morning to talk about the important issue. i appreciate the opportunity to continue to work on the issue. the epidemic is getting worse. though we have
seen some signs that we are leveling off in terms of overdoseion overdose, deaths last year leveled off, but we are continuing to see increases in fentanyl. synthetic opioid that is getting into the opioid supply in the united states. it is a very strong opioid. people have been longtime heroin users may be getting it and they are dying quickly. this issue took a long time to we are today and that is going to take some time to get out. host: the record that was set last year, about 49,000 deaths due to opioids in the u.s. last year. deaths.up from 2000
how much of those increases do fentanyl? makeup? makeup?- do fentanyl guest: it is continuing to increase and that is driving the overdose deaths. host: does everyone agree on the solutions? we have a lot of science that will lead us in the right place. there are still some concerns about the solutions. onre is hesitance to take some of the answers which include medication to treat opioid use disorders. that is an important tool. in some parts, we need more syringe exchange programs. there are a lot of individuals drugs the need to have sterile syringes. i am pleased by how bipartisan
and nonpartisan this issue has been and is an all in approach. host: regina labelle is with us until the bottom of the hour. if you have been affected by the opioid crisis, (202) 748-8000 and all others, (202) 748-8001. did the obama administration prioritize and is the trump administration doing the same? guest: i started in the obama administration in 2009. lot on theocused a epidemic at that time. it was a little different to then and still being driven by a lot of prescription drug pill mills in the southeastern part of the country so a lifetime was spent passing -- florida had to pass laws to cut down on those illicit pill mills .
we spent a lot of time getting inscription drug monitoring place, expanding through the affordable care act expanding access treatment, so we put the pieces into place to address a one piece of the epidemic which was driven by prescription drugs. three waves, it started with prescription drugs, continued with heroin, and now it is fentanyl. it is three layers. have prescription drug misuse in the country. we still have heroin, and now layered on top of that is fentanyl. the trump administration, the budget includes several billion dollars including $1.5 billion that will go to states that they can use to spend on treatment and prevention and recovery support. in the last year of the obama
administration, the congress put in about 1.1 billion dollars, so they are continuing to build on the work. host: states use that money for something you just talked about, syringe exchange programs? guest: yes, they can use it for the programs. there is a federal ban on using it for the syringes, but everything else. host: why is there a federal ban? guest: congress decided that they choose not to spend federal funds on syringes, but they can use in on everything else. obamahow did the administration feel about syringe exchanges, with that something that was taking place? guest: yes. there are still concerns about using federal funds to purchase the syringe itself which is used use, but wen drug will see in the future. host: regina labelle is with us.
she is currently with georgetown university. what is the own neil center? guest: it is on global health and that is a global health institute. the project i have been just started and public policy, and i hope to be looking in the next two years at looking at and removing barriers that stand in the way of addressing addiction as a public health issue. individuals,ed women and children who need family-based treatment, and a plethora of those type of issues. host: special lines if you have been impacted by the opioid crisis, (202) 748-8000 all others, (202) 748-8001. ryan is up first for massachusetts. wondering what your position is on legalization of 90% ofiven that 80% or
all drug use is recreational use. it seems like the problem is the black market and that is a lot that is caused by the drug war. host: the legalization of all drugs are certain drugs? caller: yes. host: all drugs? caller: yes. caller:guest: there is legalization and commercialization. what we have seen in some states such as washington and california is commercialization. you basically have shops that are set up to sell marijuana. decriminalization, and it means if you are charged with possession, you are not incarcerated. the objective of the work i'm going to do is to make sure if individuals are incarcerated, that they are given evidence-based to treatment. to right type of treatment deal with their opioid abuse disorder or any kind of abuse disorder. individuals charged merely for
possession under if we decriminalize drugs, if you are charged with possession, you would not to be incarcerated. at best, a ticket. issue ofinly, the legalization, we have seen that in many states in terms of marijuana. we have not gotten there yet in terms of the other drugs. host: should we get there? can look to we countries like portugal that have experimented. i, personally, i am not in favor of legalization of a number of drugs because i think you need at doing need another drug on the market that is commercialized like marijuana or cigarettes, or alcohol, where, for the use of cigarettes and we have seen the results of that. david.alifornia,
good morning. caller: i would like to offer a definition of the opioid crisis in that, while some people have abused opiate medications since we have restricted the use -- i am an individual who has had numerous orthopedic surgeries over the years, now 60 years old, and i am left with a lot of residual pain. a lot of doctors refuse to nowcribe opiod medications leaving me in the lurch. i am one of the victims of this because of a few, high, noteworthy cases like michael jackson or prints -- or prince, and the people who really need medical attention are being left in the dark. i will take my answer off the phone.
part: yeak -- yeah, a big of the opioid issue is how we treat pain. there are millions of people with untreated pain. what we should not be doing is making people with legitimate pain issues not have access to the treatment they need. that treatment can include opioids, and also physical therapy. that needs to be done in terms of research of how to treat pain, but also having insurance companies cover alternative pain treatment. host: how do you strike that balance? guest: that is something that this administration and the past administration looked a lot at that in terms of how do we make sure that positions, able tooners are identify someone who might have a substance abuse disorder and help them get the help they need. and distinguish that person who
may have need for opiods. -- opioids. not a doctor, but striking the balance is a topic of great discussion. host: how do we know if we are getting better at striking that balance? are there metrics? we do in this country, not treat addiction as a public health issue today. we do not have enough physicians who are educated about addiction or can treat individuals with addiction. host: california is next, michael. medical marijuana advocates. -- i am a medical marijuana advocate. it has been pretty hard over the years. ugsm 56 and i have used dr
off and on most of my life, since 10 or 12 years old. surgeries inspinal the last 15 years, and i've been sick. opiates have helped me with that because i have really bad pain from hepatitis c. now i have back pain, nerve damage, and the doctors for the past 10 years would not prescribe me any medication. need something. i was forced to the streets. meaning, i was forced to buy the did notfrom people that need them.
came to the point that it was too hard to get ,hem, and i switched to meth and went back to meth after 20 years of not using any illicit drg. -- drugs. i found myself stuck on it. i am around a bunch of people who are addicted, i am addicted to drugs, but i'm using it for pain. i do not know what to do. host: thank you for sharing. guest: thank you, michael, and i am sorry about what has happened to you as well as your current challenges. saying that what you are is a phenomenon we are seeing around the country. we are seeing an increase in use.use an injection drug
the only thing i would encourage you to do is to seek help through a local na or aa meeting. perhaps a faith community, an d you are in my thoughts and prayers. host: what advice do you have thathe last two callers say, this was working and they come up against a doctor who is concerned about prescribing opioids? guest: right. again, and i am not a clinician. knowhe prescribers often and understand how to prescribe necessarilydo not understand the other types of such asatments
physical therapy or acupunt -- acupuncture. so talk to your doctor or your insurance company about what alternatives are available. host: bob from kentucky, on the line for those impacted by the opioid crisis. let -- i just wanted to guest: it is one of the three forms of medications used to treat opioid medications. -- opioid addictions. it goes by another name, all play,have there role to all our research and evidence-based, and all three are effective at reducing overdose deaths and helping to sustain recovery. host: how do these three
different treatments work? it's a decision that is made between the physician or practitioner and patient. they are provided in different forms. methadone you get at a clinic, and another is office-based and a doctor's office. they are a very important and effective role in helping people recover from opioid abuse disorders. host: hyattsville, maryland, adrienne is next. are you with us? in california impacted by the opioid crisis. son was one of the statistics. he was hit by a car on a bicycle
and became addicted to opioid pills. as they became less expensive and available, he switched to heroin, and try to get off you using an alternative and what we found is, the marijuana treatment. we saw a special in april called pot vs. pills, and that has reduced the cravings more than anything. and weow six months off, would like to know why the government cannot start working with this research because the nih is having great difficulty because marijuana is illegal and so many states. rehabs,ttling this end
we have found that this has worked with the cravings. host: what is his name? caller: eric. host: congratulations to eric. guest: the national institutes of health has been doing research and continuing to do research on the role that cannabis can play in recovery. during the obama administration, and it continues in this administration, several barriers that would allow for more research to be done in this regard. there is research that is continuing. host: who are the people that are becoming addicted to opioids at the highest rates? guest: people who are overdosing and dying, it is primarily 45-year-old white men. the district of
columbia, the average person who is dying of an opioid overdose is a 50-year-old black man. differentlittle bit than the rest of the country and the reason it is happening in the district of columbia is because of the fentanyl crisis, but it has been overlooked. the continued overdose deaths that are happening in cities we are in today. host: who else is being overlooked in this crisis? particularly pregnant and parenting women have a particular challenge because obviously if you are pregnant and parenting, you need take care of your children and yourself. you need to have family centered treatment to which congress passed legislation earlier this year that will promote that, so there needs -- their needs are distinct. host: how would legislation promote the bat? more: it allows for flexibility in spending to prevent children from going into
foster care to try to give families what they need. if you have a substance use disorder, you need to take care of yourself but also, you may need other things to maintain that family unity which in the long run is going to be better for the mother or father as well as a child. host: less than 10 minutes left , the formerlabelle chief of staff for the office of national drug control policy. tom in annapolis, maryland. caller: hi, regina. thank you for everything you have been doing. one of the things that i do not know that has been hit on, we have a 23-year-old daughter who was in and out of rehab and she is clean now. wasreturn on investment what we saw while she progressed worse. it started with buying oxycontin off the street and out of their tolerance grew and grew, it became harder and harder to afford what the dollar oxycontin.
then it was fentanyl, then injecting.n afford to bennot drug addicts and increase tolerances and that is why they get involved in heroin. if they had the money, they could afford to stay on oxycontin, but it drives them into this horrible world of overdosing and injecting drugs with fentanyl. my daughter overdosed three times. it is absolutely horrible. host: thank you for sharing your story. guest: thank you and tom's story is like many others. addiction is a progressive disease and it is a disease of early onset. individuals will develop a tolerance and they need more and more drugs. and what is cheaper and more available is heroin.
people go to that. is the disease of addiction and that is what it does. i am very happy to hear that tom's daughter is in recovery today. it is a long road for parents and for anyone who has a loved one who has the disease of addiction. but the good news, there 23 million -- are 23 million people in this country in recovery. it is possible. host: your device for those parents and caretakers? guest: it is very challenging. you are not in this alone. part of afortunately, very large community in this country. it is a community that supports one another. one resource, the partnership a veryg-free kids has nice toolkit for families where they can find information.
they even have navigators are people you can call to kind of talk you through the process. it is overwhelming to think about -- you want to keep your kid safe, but you do not think you have the same jury child away or get outpatient treatment to get them healthier. the partnership for drug-free kids is a good resource. host: derek is waiting in alabama. caller: yes, i just want to say places -- of these like a few callers ago spoke about her son using marijuana as opposed to opioids. here in alabama where marijuana is illegal, you probably have some of the highest cases of opioid abuse. i just think that should be looked at closer. likeize it nationally it or did and tax whatever, but it keeps a lot of
people off opioids. i hate pills, so that is one way i could never be addicted to opioid because there goes marijuana. again, that needs to be looked into. isst: there is research that ongoing right now and there is some research that shows a correlation between lower rates of opioid use and marijuana legalization. those are things that need to be researched. host: when they looked at another during the obama administration? guest: i think there is more research now because barriers were removed so people will investigate more. investigating the issue and the real purpose of marijuana more thoroughly. host: chase, baltimore, maryland. guest: thanks for taking my call. i have been addicted to opioids for about 10 years now.
never pills, always injecting .erioin and fentanyl i have been to nine different treatment centers and i have been on medicated assisted therapies. what i've found to now is that with now t-rex -- with naltr they dod the other two, not work anymore for the fentanyl. they do not block the cravings and i am currently on 245 milligrams of methadone, and it is not enough. my legs kick at night, and horrible cravings, and people are besides themselves because they think it is an extremely high dose, and it is not enough for me. i've always had a much higher tolerance than other people, but it is just the way i am.
who, the three medication assisted therapies that are not working because they are no longer effective for fentanyl, why is there not something else? why is there only three as opposed to fit for everyone when there are so many other opioids that could be utilized or in other countries where they have heroin assisted treatments? wired and not more options available? host: thanks for the question. guest: thank you, chase. as chase mentioned, there is heroin assisted treatment than other countries. there was a survey that came out atst week that discussed th the possibility of having that and the united states -- there is a lot of discussion. healthy, wet people also want them to be safe and we
need to recognize that every individual is different and what may work for one person may not work for the others. the fda has approved some s tudies to look at additional forms of treatment in addition the three or four approved forms of medication, so we are not there yet. host: one more call has been waiting from new jersey. caller: i am a natural doctor. elle and themrs. lab government to should repeal drug laws because it calls the biggest epidemic in the history of man. lawyer so she probably so they make laws legal can still come down on all of the people that made rug through all -- drug addicts through all of the years and the fda that is killing children through vaccinations, and the
psychologists telling children to give class to narcotics to children in grammar school. this is a tragedy. these people should be put on trial for treason. host: got your point. guest: this is a hot issue. one of the reasons i enjoy working on this is because it is so important to so manyi in this country. there are lots of opinions. is we are now discussing addiction as a public health issue as we never have before, in a positive way. i think going for it, we will continue to have such debates, but i am hoping that we can turn the boat around. work we mentioned your with the obama administration and georgetown university, if in the look you up archive, they will note that she worked with the citizens for c-span. what was that? guest: many years ago one we had
far fewer numbers of stations, c-span was threatened with being terminated from a couple stations in the country. washington, d.c., i lived in seattle, and i relied on c-span for what was called a window for democracy and it was important that c-span continued, and c-span a longer needs me, and you are thriving. it is good to be here. host: did it work? guest: yeah. that was the cable company at the time but decided it needed room for other channels, so they said they were going to terminate c-span and put on a channel, so we got people organized, tci then celebrated c-span and kept it on the air. host: is the citizens are c-span no longer around? guest: no. host: we appreciate your work,
regina labelle. guest: thank you. today an openend phones, any public policy issue you want to talk about. you can start calling in now and we will be right back. ♪ on q&a.y night >> this american not the party had 20,000 supporters who came to rally at madison square garden in the middle of new york. stormtrooper is giving the not see salute with a swastika next to the picture of george washington. that was for george washington's birthday. there was a very active fascist movement in the 1920's and the 1930's that was associated with the phrase america' first. thearah churchwell looks at history of the terms "america
first" and "american dream." sunday night at 8:00 eastern on q&a. takesn the new congress office in january, it will have the youngest, most diverse freshman class in recent history. new congress, new leaders. watch it live on c-span starting january 3. c-span where history unfolds daily. c-span was created as a public service by america's cable-television companies. today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court, and public policy events in washington dc and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider. "washington journal" continues.
in atthe house is coming 10:00 this morning and we will take you live there for coverage when it does, but for the next 25 minutes, it is open phones on "washington journal." republicans,1 (202) 748-8000 democrats, (202) 748-8002 if you are independent. one of the issues we could talk about is this op-ed signed by 44 former united states senators that appears in the "the washington post" -- the senators must defend democracy. we were on the eve of the conclusion of special counsel robert mueller's investigation and the house's commencement of investigation of the president. the likely convergence of these two events will occur when simmering regional conflicts and global power continues to
threaten security, economy, and geopolitical stability. we are at a reflection point in which our national security interests are at stake. and the rule of law it to function freely must be upheld. constitutional crises have threatened our foundations and it has been the senate has stood in defense of our democracy. today is once again such a time. 44 united states senators, democrats and republicans. al d'amato, john daschle, chuck hagel, john kerry, joe alongman, al simpson,
with john warner. that is in today's "washington post." the issues are up to you as we turn the phone lines over to you. democrats, (202) 748-8000 republicans, (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. mike is up first, a republican. about thes, immigration down at the border. i know a lot of the people all over the world want to come to this country, but they always say this is the nation of immigrants. back in the day, when the i tell yo -- the italians and irih as i remember, none of them received government welfare and assistance.
they do not want to put a new border fence down there, and in my opinion, they have got people climbing the wall. toy should electrify it, keep people off of it. host: the president wants $5 billion at this funding deal that has to come together and if it does not, the government shutdown will take place. if you cannot get that, is it worth a government shutdown to you to hold out for $5 billion for the wall? caller: yes. because look how much money is legals comingil into this country for medicals, the schooling, the incarceration. look out much money it would save, an average of $70,000 per immigrant. host: mike, where'd you get
your statistics? caller: a government watchdog group -- i cannot remember the name of it off the top of my head. ladies in mye two county that it $15,000 per in the, and they work school system from the free lunch to the education. --average of $15,000 a a $15,000 a year. immigration i have no problem with. mexican --n-law it my mother-in-law is mexican. my nephew paid his money. brad, andalifornia,
independent. caller: i would also like to talk about immigration. we would love to hear from you but you are going in and out. flatwoods,to kentucky. republican. yes, keep bringing people into the united states, that is what is causing all of the problems. add? anything you want to caller: yes. bringing the people from another country, immigrants -- that is what is causing all the problems. virginia, axandria, democrat. caller: it seems like a lot of folks that call in have
statistics about the walls and where the problems are coming from. the immigration policy cannot be solved with a wall. it is like solving homelessness and hunger with a gingerbread house. in thisve immigrants country and the law-abiding citizens, and yeah, there needs to be legal immigration, but for the gentleman to say that we need to electrify the fence to harm people who are escaping the in other countries that has caused these is really ludicrous. c-span deserves a better caliber of caller. host: do you think that border security is a problem and if so, how would you fix it? guest: more security is a problem but we need to have policies. guns do not substitute policy. you cannot have soldiers going there attacking people who are fleeing violent. -- violence.
host: what do you think will work? guest: legislation, communication, throwing money at a problem does not solve it but we need better legislation and we need people to understand what the laws are before they get here and we need people who are sensitive to the plight of the people who are fleeing, and we do not seem to have that sort of decency coming from our side of the border. host: joe in indianapolis, indiana. independent. caller: yes, i was just magazine" -- "time has four different covers praising the president and khashoggi issues. host: for those who do not know, it is the guardians, it is the persons of the year, those speaking up and speaking
out in the announcement of time's person of the year gala caller: that is one of four c overs, but that is about all the press could do to upgrade -- they are right there with congress on their inability, it is all about mueller on the left side of the political spectrum and on the right side, it is about how the judicial system is mueller the fact that -- he refuses to touch any issue -- these judges need to be exposed on why they will not do anything about the dossier. they were giving something about obviously hillary paid for. on the left, it is the same way. they are putting everything in
the mueller reports and the american people see through both sides. it is so ridiculous, i am so thankful for c-span. host: one of the other covers that you were talking about from time magazine, their persons of the year, the capitol gazette, the shooting that happened. gary is up next in georgia, good morning. caller: it is easy to solve the immigration problem. to find theto do people that are hiring these people and that would take care of illegal immigration anywhere. most of the people calling in, they are white people. they are the majority of the people were hiring these people. host: i am not sure that callers
have identified their race when a call in. caller: well, i am just saying that the majority of illegal immigrants are hired by wealthy white. and the people calling in, they sound white. what can you do about that? you need to find the people that are hiring these people. that would take care of it. thank you. host: about 15 minutes left in open phones. we will be taking you live in for gavel to gavel coverage for the house floor at 10:00. that is when the house is expecting to come in. you can head over to c-span3 at 10:00 for this hearing on google data practices with the house judiciary committee. will be chief executive delivering his first ever theimony as congress, skills and managing the
company's reputation when several of silicon valley's big names are in crisis. a broader discussion about google's privacy practices. 10:00 on there at c-span3 if you want to watch that. next, new york, independent. caller: thank you for c-span. my comment, it is ironic that you mention the article. senators whoer think we are in crisis, which i believe we are, and john mccain, if he were alive, who was a great patriot -- i am not a republican, but i love what he did for our country and how he stood up. spoke louder than his words while other people were making billions of dollars,
he served his country. just like the admiral who spoke out against trump's policies. anything that donald trump seems to touch seems to turn to crap. and there is so many of our proveleaders who themselves in service to this nation without any great compensation, but only because they love this country. people are ignoring their warnings. i love america and i think it is a sad thing when you ignore the wisdom of the people who served this country. the put their very lives on line to risk everything because they love freedom of the press. they believed in the rule of law. they believed that we could be better than what we are, and that we are compassionate, merciful nation. i do not think that any of these
trump putsres that out there, they are only meant to distract us. we should be standing together and finding a common ground. three senators have spoke out, saying, i do not care that donald trump got elected. thank you for listening. host: that is nitro in new york. you talk about the president is speaking about. he has been active on twitter this morning. here are a few of his comments talking about the issue of several earlier callers had brought up. border security and illegal immigration. this bike a large caravans that have been heading to our country, people have not been able to get through our newly built walls. they areary is now --
now staying in mexico are going back to their original countries. a great wall, however, would be a better and easier less expensive solution. are forcrats however strictly political reasons, and they now block border security. to president says, they want open borders and is brings large-scale crime and disease. our southern border is now secure and will remain that way. ie president goes on to say, look forward to my meeting with nancy pelosi and chuck schumer. that is just some of what the president was tweeting this morning. meeting at thee white house taking place with the democratic leaders from the house and senate. it will be a key moment in the ongoing negotiations over a potential government shutdown if an agreement is not reached before midnight on december 21. the government will be in a
partial shutdown. about 10 minutes left in our show today, want to hear from you and open phones. robert in richardson, texas, a democrat. caller: this is my first time literally actually calling you. i have never watched this channel, sometimes i have when i was in college. this immigration, i do not understand it to be honest. i'm about 51, i come from a live in europe, played football professionally, and all the players came from different countries. this country, literally, this really kills me. how can other people call other people immigrants who want the and we as a nation took the land from the indians? i do not understand that. saycan people sit there and
that this is our country. no, it is not. it is not our country. took the country, we took the land from the indians. people get this right. it from the indians and then we call it your own and then you want to get mad when somebody who wants to come over here to improve their life and improve their family to get an education, you can go to europe and germany. they have free health care. we are the most powerful people but we do not have universal health care, we do not have free lunches, we do not have three colleges. polices are underpaid, are out shooting people without weapons, but you want to talk about immigration. ok. you know what? if we did not have these people out here pitching our food, pitching our land -- you going to go out and do it? i used to live in california.
lroy,o to salinas, gi you'll see people out there picking your food that you eat every there and you want to talk about immigration. people, you need to wake the hell up. it irritates me. host: you say you use the play in the nfl? what do you do now? do you work on any of these sort of issues? guest: yes -- caller: yes, i do. i am a self published author, i own my own sportswear, i am a proud father of five daughters ranging from 36 to eight years old. my fiance is a school teacher in texas and she is working on her phd and she is only 36. host: what are your books about? caller: psychological prowess. as also during the summer, an alumni of thee nfl, we do
bob for underprivileged children. it just burns my soul that we have the president of the united states on twitter like a girl, -- we liveout things during bush. carter,ere -- nixon, clinton, both bush's. i am a democrat, and bush was better than this. i have never seen -- host: considering your past experience, what your thoughts on the kneeling issue in the nfl? caller: oh my god. .eople, get a clue i do not understand it. this one man took on the.
-- took a knee. it kills me. they talk about, we are disrespecting the flags. are you kidding me? right now, walter reed is understaffed. you do not even have a person that works the veterans administration. right now, our soldiers are under pain. -- underpaid. you onlynd still, hear the national anthem. listen to the whole national anthem. they play the remakes diversion. you do not stand during the national anthem -- there is .owhere -- i mean, god, man it kills me. what kills that is is that some people who are upset at the people who actually kneel, jerseys.ear their
host: russell is up next from california, good morning. this question is about the opioid crisis. what i have read is that tops every drug as far as deaths per year and i was wondering how much money goes for that. have been in a 12 step program for 33 years and i've seen the whole gamut of drug use, people who come in, and only maybe 1% to stay sober of these opiates. the main problem or the main issue i think when people do not stay sober is in the aa program, it says that no human power can
-- i just want to make that statement. host: in warren, massachusetts, republican. caller: thank you for hearing me. i could talk for hours but i am not going to. when i point that i see watch you guys every day. i'm having a hard time --erstanding this caravan these countries that are pressing them so badly, they are livesg their countries and from of the caravan and burning the american flag behind it. if you are pressed in the oppressed in-- are the country, why would you use that country's flag to move forward and burn the american flag behind it? i do not understand. that is an attack on us.
thank you. host: raymond from silver spring, maryland. democrat. caller: good morning. though statistics that i do not hear about, the labor department the babyt that up to boomers retiring and getting too old to work, we have job openings and what we need -- and then we have job is that some americans do not want to do. and therehealth care is a shortage and those jobs are typically filled by immigrants. we need to stop playing political games like republicans and really get to solving the problem.
we have people that have been in the country for 20 years or more still undocumented. they own homes and businesses. we need to bring them out of the shadows, make them legal so they can pay taxes, and support this. most republican businesses it, but the republican politicians use it only for political games. do not commits crimes because they do not want to be deported, so we need to together and, up with a solution and have the comprehensive immigration bill passed. host: do you think that is possible in this congress? guest: it is not, unfortunately.
those republicans that voted for it will not vote for it again. but that is because of politics. the real problem goes unsolved. of skilledrtage workers. we have jobs that some americans do not want to do. most of us are foreigners. the farm workers, most of them are foreigners and it is good for the economy and good for business. the last caller said, who was going to pick the fruit, mow the lawn? these are the jobs that immigrants do because they do not have much education. we need to solve problems and stop playing political games like republicans. save we can get in one more calfo