tv Washington Journal 11262019 CSPAN November 26, 2019 7:00am-10:03am EST
line: inside trump spent with secretary mattis." ♪ host: good morning. it is the "washington journal" >> president trump heads to florida for the thanksgiving holiday, but not before he participates in two events. he will do the traditional pardon of the thanksgiving turkey. water information on c-span.org. tonight, you will hold a rally in sunrise, florida at 7:00. you can see that on c-span and c-spine.org and are free c-span radio app. former massachusetts governor deval patrick and michael bloomberg into the field for democratic president. not only about the new addition but also if you are satisfied
with the current field of candidates. if you say yes you are satisfied, tell us why at 202-848-800. -you can text us your opinion. all we ask is that you include your city, name, and state. our twitter feed @cspanwj and our facebook/facebook.com/c span. ll to thiso question, some comments this morning, one from erin saying, how about dropping everyone, but bernie sanders and elizabeth warren? someone else on facebook saying, yes. i'm trying to figure out what the deal is with tulsa gabbard. they are fine and capable folks. james davis from facebook, michael bloomberg was not my choice but i can support him now.
he seems more realistic and sane. michael bloomberg and norfolk, virginia with a start to his campaign. asing that he chose norfolk the first stop because the region is a case study for political change. southeast virginia proves that with the right candidate, we can turn areas from red to blue, he said. bloomberg also said he would make a gun violence a major focus of his campaign. with more from his stop in regina, here is michael bloomberg. [video clip] >> you may ask why i am kicking off my campaign and norfolk. it is because southeastern virginia proves that with the right candidates, we can turn areas from red to blue. we need to do that all across this country and today, i am glad to announce that i am running for president to defeat donald trump and to unite and rebuild america. we cannot afford four more years
of president trump's reckless and unethical actions. an existential threat to our country, to our values, and our national security. every day, it seems to bring another example of just how i and 15 is to serve as our president and commander-in-chief. this week was no exception. yesterday, many yesterday, many of you read that the president forced out the secretary of the navy. secretary spencer, "i cannot in good conscience obey an order that i believe forsakes the sacred oath to defend the constitution of the united states." that is an extraordinary rebuke and here, in the city which is home to the world's largest naval base, i salute
secretary spencer for not flinching from his duties. the fact remains, we have a president, a commander in chief, who has no respect for the rule of law, and no concern for ethics or honor. or for the values that truly we must win this election. that, michael bloomberg enters the field for democratic candidates and he is one of many. if you are satisfied with him and the other field of candidates in this cycle, you can lezz know why at (202) 748-8000. maybe you look at the current crop and say none of those are satisfactory to you are may be some or others, you can tell us why as well. give us a call at (202) 748-8001
and you can post on the various social media sites as well. withis the one reason entry of michael bloomberg and deval patrick entering the race in recent days. in new hampshire, it is duval patrick versus time, a story that appears in "the boston globe." patrickallenge facing shows a poll that has him garnering just 1% of the vote. more than half of those surveyed said they will not consider him with edging 43% that say that they are open to considering him." patrick will probably go without many of the trappings of his opponent' campaign. as his staff looks for headquarters back in boston and he says he may bypass renting space and spending more time
lining up house parties to meet voters. on friday as a part of campaign efforts where you can go to find it c-span.org, he talked about some of the reasoning of why he is entering the field and what he is nomination will be. >> i sense that the primary electorate was not settled. i think that has been more than confirmed in the visits i have had since announcing in new hampshire and california and nevada, and iowa, and south carolina. there is a lot of room for folks who want both an ambitious agenda and a record of delivering against ambitious agenda because i think that folks do understand if you really want changes that last, you have to bring other people in. compromisingbout on the ambition of the goal. it is about acknowledging that there may be more than one task to that goal and the others have
contributions to make to strengthening your thinking and your success. from and apart from the very important reform agenda that we have all been talking about, there is an economic growth agenda which has to be a part of our thinking. we have to have an economy that is not so much growing up to the wells connected as it is out to the middle into the marginalized, and we can do that. i have some experience with that as well and the strategies we used to climb out of recession in massachusetts. host: you can see more of that interview at c-span.org. it is your satisfaction or not of the current field of democrats, democrats only in this first hour. milwaukee, wisconsin. dan who says no. hello. caller: hello. what is the question? host: the current field of democratic candidates and if you are satisfied with that.
caller: no, not at all. i used to be a democrat 100%. talking toe only democrats only this first hour, so is that your case, you are no longer a democrat? caller: yeah. the field has become so ridiculous that, everybody we talk to around milwaukee, people are upset that the democrats are even having their convention here. host: let's go to george in bristol, tennessee. caller: yes. i am not satisfied at all at the candidates because i have heard them say very little. everything is addressed to the middle class and i've heard them say nothing about the working poor. the people who go to the grocery store each week and can barely -- the prices keep going up each week in the grocery store and
other items, too. i do not understand because these people, they need to address the working poor, the people who have to eat out of the dollar tree and things of that nature. i am not in the least. i have been a democrat all my life, and there are some good people running. acts like the only constituents that there are are the middle class, and there are a lot of working poor. host: what kind of issues, as they have to talk to issues of the working poor, what do they have to talk about? caller: they need to talk about these people, these trump people, they think everything is great. there is lots of hamburger jobs and things like that for people. that is the one thing that needs to be addressed, it is a part about how great the economy may be the economy doing very well, but not for the people who do not make much
money. host: how do democrats address that? caller: one thing i would like more aboutis start unions and labor and things like that. very littleing about infrastructure, and things that would help people. host: george in bristol, tennessee giving thoughts on working poor issues as he talked about them. let's hear from paul, he is in new york. he is satisfied with the current field. caller: how you doing? i think we have a diverse field of candidates. i like them. the only thing i would say is michael bloomberg is not a democrat. he should not be trying to hijack the parties. host: what makes them not a democrat? caller: he was a republican in new york. and because he cannot to run as a republican because that is donald trump's party now, he thinks he can come over to the democratic party and buy the election. he is not going to be able to do
that because we vote. host: aside from mayor bloomberg amongst the current field, who is strongest in your opinion at this stage? caller: there is still a lot of time. you have bernie sanders, you have elizabeth warren. iu have mayor pete, who personally am not going to vote for or support. host: because why? caller: there are certain things in indiana that he had with the police department where he was trying to -- there is a police chief that was trying to clear up some things and he stopped it. that is an issue that turns me off from him. he is not the only one. there are other people. kamala harris. we have a wide range. as we start getting closer and closer to the election and we start going through the states and what have you, we were a fine it down to who wants to be
-- host: that is paul in new york. nicole off of twitter this the fact that there is still a field and not a strong leader who will fight with a strong team behind her or him is a problem. not the candidate. democrats for this first hour. our guest in east orange, new jersey says no. hello. kyle, hello? caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: i am calling on the [indiscernible] host: are you satisfied with the current field? caller: no, i am not calling on that subject. i am calling [indiscernible] carol in southto carolina. it says no. hello. caller: good morning.
it is not that i don't like the current field to but i do not like the direction it is going in because of all of the billionaires. .e are being bombarded steyer has thrown a lot of money into south carolina, the four states to have a primary and now we have bloomberg. i watched him as mayor of new york and i thought he was interesting on climate and being anti-smoking. i hope no more billionaires come into the race. host: what is it that bothers you the most? caller: they can come in late and they have the resources to
hire consultants and have the data and can figure out the pathway to buying the election later on. they inundate us with these constant ads. it is crazy here in south carolina with the number of ads, and now it is bloomberg adds all the time as well as stier ads. i just do not like seeing all of that money. it is buying the election and i think that election should be publicly financed. our: are caller in -- caller in new jersey. issue: elizabeth warren's about $200 for every social security recipient because social security was robbed to supply the wars in iraq, afghanistan and i appreciate letting me espouse that information to senior citizens.
we are being ripped off. host: what is it that senator warren is proposing? caller: $200 every month for every social security recipient. host: you say that is a good proposal? becausei think it is our social security fund has been robbed to fight the three wars in afghanistan and a two wars in iraq. they pulled the social security trust fund out to find those wars. according to the information i got off of goodwill because i could not -- goal because i could not figure out where and why. host: is that the only reason you will support her are there others? i read both of her books, and she came from a very poor place and oklahoma. she is a woman, and we need a
woman up there for the first time. host: one of the issues involving the democratic field, those proposals facing for -- facing scrutiny saying that democratic challengers are criticizing their proposals to buy coverage in a government run health plan. the partnership for america's itlth care future, recently released a study that found that public opinion would increase -- public option i would say, would increase the number of people without health coverage. other groups have been releasing studies that are critical of that proposal. 65% of adults said they support a government run public option that would compete with private insurance. polled support a national medicare for all plan. that is in the wall street journal.
the various democratic candidates running for office and you want to tell us whether you are satisfied -- if you say yes, it is (202) 748-8000, (202) 748-8001 if you say no. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. larry in florida says no. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: i am not too satisfied with the batch. i am a lifetime democrat, 65 years old, and the people we have running now seems like they are pandering to every crazy splinter group. i don't understand it myself. we are bending over backwards for tiny portions of votes and it is just crazy. if we keep this up, trample end up winning. host: what are the broader issues that the candidates should be talking about? caller: the economy.
infrastructure. the power grid. it goes on and on, everything important they should be talking about, they are off on another tangent. it makes no sense. host: on the economy, what would democrats have to say or propose that is different than the current state of the economy that we are experiencing? caller:-the democrats have anything to do in economy right now, they will have to keep up with the progress that has been made under this president now as opposed to what we had before, although the times were different and the circumstances were different, that is what happened. seattle texted us saying, democrats are forgetting the base of african-americans who are much more engaged voters and to do nothing to improve our situation of life. minimum wage, gun control, criminal justice reform. we might need to start our own businesses, and buy a new home.
he adds, remember hillary and the tim kaine. that is eric in seattle. texting us as one what you can reach out to us. (202) 748-8003 is how you do that. when you text us, just include your name, your city, your state , and then the comments you want to make. florida, you are up next saying yes about satisfaction with the current field. caller: hello, how are you? host: i am well. caller: i am very satisfied with the democrats because they are looking out for the people, they are getting us valuable our retirement age especially, social security, and especially with senator kamala harris, i do respect her. because of what she went through in her racism experience as well
--nd looking out for especially for gun safety and so forth. i have respect for these guys because they are pulling together and they want us to have a better united states of america. host: what is a specific proposal you have heard from one of the democratic candidates that you agree with? who was talking about that proposal? are you there? caller: yes. one of them is the health care with elizabeth warren. we definitely need better health care. especially to take care of our families. if they get sick or what have you. it is definitely important. economic with bernie sanders, he woke us up with better jobs here. as well as for us to provide for our families. host: i realize it is early in
the process, but do you have a favorite? caller: excuse me? host: do you have a favorite candidate? caller: yes. it is bernie sanders. itt: specifically, is health-care related or are there other reasons? caller: not just health care reasons, but due to the fact that he is interested in safety for the americans and to bring have a unioner to people from other countries, that he wants to bring peace. that he is interested in bringing peace into the world , and especially for us americans -- looking for us and looking for our future. host: that is sergio in florida.
he mentioned kamala harris, if you go to the front page of "the washington times," a stop in south carolina with the headline "harris quotes 'black girl magic'on campaign." she spent the past few days promising to be a warrior with black women who have been showered with praise only to see their everyday concerns neglected. me, --s don't just think thank me for helping you, show me that you see me and going on to say, the reality we talk we knowblack girl magic,' it is special. kamala harris' whose father is jamaican and mother is indian.
elizabeth warren talked about michael bloomberg and his entry into the race. [video clip] >> elections should not be for sale. not to billionaires, not the corporate executives. we need to build a grassroots movement and that is how democracy is supposed to work. >> you have a billionaire that will be potentially spending all any of his own money possible to be president trump? >> i think the way democrats will win in 2020 is when we build a grassroots movement all across this country. when wehow it is will get our message out and that is how we are not only going to win in november 2020 but start making big structural changes in january 2021. >> the you see it as a new challenge? >> i just continue to fight my fight. i continue to talk to people every day about what's broken, how to fix it, and the
grassroots movement. >> somebody can enter the race and spend as much money? >> that just cannot to be what our democracy is about. i understand that rich people are going to have more shoes than the rest of us, more cars, more houses, they don't get a bigger share of democracy. especially in a democratic primary, we need to be doing this face-to-face work that lifts every voice. that is how we get this country to work, not only for those at the top about getting it to work for everyone. host: you can see these events at our website at c-span.org as a part of our 2020 campaign coverage. one person in texas saying, as the candidate says they are better term, the rallying cry will be democracy, you are for it or against us. texting us is the way you can reach out to us, because on the
lines, or reaches out to the social media. cleveland, ohio says know about the current field. tell us why. caller: good morning. i am a first time caller. not take it they do seriously what it is to defeat donald trump and stuff. the health care and stuff like that, but i don't think -- they talk about the people that are saying the economy is good and we are getting better jobs and stuff like that. ohio, wecleveland, have a problem with our schools, see itelessness -- we
all the time and stuff like that, and i see a lot of my friends and family working multiple jobs just to get by. i agree with that man that says a lot of people have to shop at the dollar stores because they are not making enough money. i do not think the democrats are addressing that. and iust waiting to see do not have a favorite right now, but i just am waiting to see. clifton, newd jersey says yes about the current field and his satisfaction. caller: hi, how are you. i am tickled pink with the field because i do not feel any one of them could beat donald trump. i love the way things are going in the economy. host: are you a democrat? caller: i am a registered democrat and a union member. sites, i am a construction worker, all for donald trump. every single one of us. host: what is it about that?
caller: freedom. democracy. we do not believe in socialism. we do not want to lose our health care. we are union members. we have good health care. what they are talking about is nonsense. eight years ago under obama, we were barely working. now we are working so much, we don't know which way to turn. is next from california on the current field, says no. caller: hi, i am a democrat and a pragmatist. as a pragmatist, i am worried about this field. i feel like each one of them has , andal flaw unfortunately perhaps amy klobuchar could make it if she had a more visionary outlook in the way she expresses herself. woulds unfortunately -- i personally love to vote, but i
think they are all flawed nationally and we need someone else to jump in. host: you said you are a pragmatist when it comes to this. how does that inform the way you look at candidates, what you think about them, and how you might support them? caller: i think bernie and joe are too old. unfortunately, pete buttigieg will be knocked down for being gay. wonderfulg is a candidate who is asian, and our country is not ready for that, unfortunately. i think personally, they are wonderful. it is frustrating. i wish there was someone that could answer their race and be widely accepted. it a amy klobuchar, is moderate kind of thing because of some of the issues she presents? focuses inhink she
her debate performances and too much on her electability of herself and does not talk enough about her vision for the nation. host: that is sherry and california. this is bill in connecticut off of our text service saying that pete buttigieg is the best, wisest, and most visionary repairte and wants to the democratic part of our democratic republic. all of these candidates and inviting you to go to the website at c-span.org and view the things that we have taken in weather in new hampshire, iowa, other places, and we invite you to do that at c-span.org. ,rom kansas city, missouri marlon says he is not satisfied. tell us why. with the kind of agree
lady that called a couple of calls ago as far as the field of democrats. has a weakness, but the one person that i think could win his michelle obama. that is who i wish would run. -- is michelle obama. that is who i wish would run. host: what is it about her that makes yo think she is a winner? about: she has an aura her where she cares about everybody. not just the rich, the poor, the middle. she cares about everybody. havethink of clinton would won the last election, she would've had a republican congress, senate, nothing would have gotten taking care of. cannot believe the republicans ran on this. i have not heard one thing about health care from republicans.
not one. big sandy,p in tennessee. talk about the current field and your level of satisfaction with them. caller: well, i like mayor raise forentering the the reason that i just saw the ad on tv and he made sense. now, all of the people that are running for president i think would be fine vice presidents. but a call earlier from bristol, tennessee made the statement -- i am and ask union, i -- i am an -union, retired union employee. we paid for our health care. i do not know whether i believe in health care for everybody. you get what you put into it. mayor am getting at is
bloomberg can walk the talk and not just talk the talk. makes -- he made a lot of sense in the ad that i've seen. the other democrat candidates whatresident are avoiding he just said on his ad. host: that is philip in tennessee talking about mayor bloomberg. his ad that has been running. [video clip] >> mike bloomberg started as a middle-class kid who had to work his way through college and then build a business from a single room to a global entity. creating tens of thousands of good paying jobs along the way. he could have stopped there. but when new york suffered the terrible tragedy of 9/11, he took charge, becoming a three term mayor who brought a city back from the ashes and brought back jobs and hope with it. creating tens of thousands of affordable housing units the families could have a decent place to live.
raising teacher salaries and kids' graduation rates, and creating a more open and livable city. he could have stopped there, but when he witnessed the terrible toll of gun violence, he put his money where his heart is, helping to create a movement to take on the nra and the politicians they own to protect families across the country and help turn the tide. funded education for thousands of kids. lobby toup to the coal protect the only home we have on the growing menace of climate change. but now, he sees a different kind of menace coming from washington. there is no stopping here. amerco there is an waiting to be rebuilt where everyone without health insurance is guaranteed to get it and everybody who likes there's can go ahead and keep it. where the wealthy will more , and jobs that just
allow you to get by will be jobs that can let you get ahead. michael blumer for president. jobs creator. leader. problem solver. it will take all three to build back a country. talking toe democrats only in this first hour about the current field of candidates. mike bloomberg being mentioned and others, too. if you want to talk about those, give us a call at (202) 748-8000 and call that line if you say you are satisfied with the current field and tell us why you are not satisfied. you can call us at (202) 748-8001 and you can text us at (202) 748-8003 and post on the media sites as well. if you are on the line, wait for just a few minutes if you can. if you are calling, just a couple of other bits of news to tell you about. the d.c. district court weighted
down with an opinion about don mcgahn, the former white house counsel, and if he has to appear before congress. here is a part of the ruling from yesterday saying, today this court as to the conclusion ablesp -- inescap appearance is a legal construct. in the constitution, no one is above the law. proximity toheir diagnostic and national security advisers, the president does not have the power to excuse him or her from taking an action that the law requires. the story in "the new york times" follows up saying the judge emphasized whether mr. mcgann may show up to be asked questions. it leaves unanswered whether the want to askat they are subject to executive
privilege, forcing mr. mcgann to show up. litigation process might have to start all over again. that is in the new york times. a headline to show you from "the new york times" saying the supreme court temporary blocking of disclosure of tax records from donald trump, that is in the paper this morning. also, when it comes to the issues concerning president trump and his private attorney rudy giuliani, "the wall street journal" picks up saying that the central witness is seeking records and information related to mr. giuliani and two associates. the fbig to the people, has already led to campaign finance charges against the associates. of the concern of the investigation is whether mr. -- federal laws.
one person familiar with the investigation, mr. giuliani has denied ever serving as a lobbyist or agent of a foreign government. that is in the wall street journal. the former navy secretary richard spencer was asked to leave his post by the defense department of secretary, and it was and an interview that he did right after those events on cbs. he talked about the issue not only of aspiring but also issues involving the gallagher case. [video clip] the ramifications of intervening in the review process? >> right now, we are not going to do it is what secretary esper says. what message does that send to the troops? >> what message? >> that you can get away with things. we have to have good order and discipline. it is the backbone of what we do.
wererident review process viewing cello senior -- fellow senior enlisted is critical. they are the girder of good order and discipline. they can handle this and each one of their communities. >> when it comes to the gallagher case, it is president trump tweeting today, saying, i will always protect our great war fighters. i got your backs. this is from fort washington, maryland. mary is satisfied with the field. mary, good morning. caller: good morning. i am very satisfied with the field. i am not satisfied with joe biden or bloomberg. where was bloomberg when the 22 babies were shot down -- and all of the shootings after that. and now he suddenly wants to apologize for frisk and stop? no.
we already have a rich person in the white house who is dangerous. i don't want anymore rich people. host: what is it about the joe biden? caller: business as usual. too much baggage. if he gets the nominee, trompe l'oeil ride that baggage and knock came right out. ride that baggage and knock it right out. host: what do mean about baggage? caller: talking about ukraine and other things. there are a lot of things that if it came out, it would damage him. follow the money. i like elizabeth warren and bernie sanders ticket. for people who say that bernie sanders is too old, half of congress is 80 years old, so he is not too old. host: you say that senator sanders and warren should run together? enller: well, if warr gets the nomination, i hope she
picks sanders or vice versa. and tulsa gabbert, what she says party is democratic absolutely right. we have to watch the neocons. the neocons is joe biden. we have to go forward from where barack obama left us. he told us about russia, and they did not listen. the republicans are the party of we are not going to do anything. they are not doing anything for eight years and they are carrying on. we will have to fill all of
them out of office. host: that is mary in fort washington, maryland. she talked about tulsa gabbert is a in the washington post this ardning saying, ask gabb supporters why they are diehard for her. that the united states get out of the business of polg es
such as the right to not be spied on by the national security agency, authenticity, and integrity also comes up and also citing her tours of duty in the middle east. she is still active in the national guard. made references to her frequent appearances on fox news, meeting with president-elect trump in 2016, and her more criticize meeting sad andsident al-as refusing to call him a war criminal.
james, hello. caller: hi. i think i like bernie sanders. , he is who irs would pick to be president. what makes him your choice specifically? lot of people say that he is for poor people, middle-class, and he does
not want to help the rich, he wants them to pay their fair share. they call him a socialist. i am not saying it is handouts and nothing like that, because i worked all my life and i pay for my own health insurance. you have a lot of people that i know that work two jobs every day and they cannot afford health care. is james in trenton, new jersey. on sunday when senator sanders stopped in new hampshire, to talk about the entrance of michael bloomberg in the race. [video clip] [applause] >> we talk about transforming america. there prepared together by millions to transform our political system which today is a corrupt political system, controlled by billionaires. ♪ -- [applause]
what democracy means to those of us in new england is one person, one vote. it does not mean billionaires buying elections or just because they are billionaires, thinking they can run for president. breitbart news picking up the story from the boston globe saying that senator sanders is taking the lead and new bbardhire and ga picking up a surge. among 500 likely democrat primary voters found senators taking the lead with a 16% support followed by elizabeth warren at 14%, mayor pete buttigieg and joe biden closely behind. next in brooklyn,
new york. says no to the field. caller: how are you? host: fine, go ahead. caller: nobody is strong and the party right now, however, i do not like bloomberg. bloomberg in new york, he was for stop and frisk, and also, the voters voted years ago that you can only run for two terms. andmberg ran for two terms then, with his money, i believe, bought an extra term. they changed it where you can vote for the third term. he ran the third term and won. once he won, he changed it back to now where you can only run for two terms. i don't believe he is a democrat.
i don't know what he is in new york. there is no affordable housing. the developers are building up. and you cannot find affordable housing after he left. i hope that people do not fall for the okie doke and vote him in. host: this is bernie from bronx, new york off of our texting service saying, i am not impressed with any of the candidates. i find them bland, lacking focus, and charisma. yes.s in texas and says hello. caller: thank you. the lady from fort washington or somewhere, she said it better than i could. i completely agree with her, and i want to see bernie sanders or elizabeth warren, or possibly both of them on the ticket.
that would just thrill me to death. i have one little teeny-weeny complaint about what i have seen on some of the things on c-span. if i could tell you that, i would appreciate it. host: quickly. fellow frome is a south carolina, his name is joe. doeslls in constantly, and not pay attention to the 30 day rule. i know for a fact, i wrote it 20,, he called on october october 27, november 14, and november 23 and that is four times in just about a month. the rest of us pay attention and try to go by the rules. i would like to see his feet to the fire, thank you. host: if you are new to the program, we ask people who call into the program if you would do so, do so every 30 days to give
people a chance to come in and clearly, it is more art than science and sometimes it is not exact, but we do our best to abide by that rule and hold peoples' feet to the fire as bob from texas said. thank you for the input on that. jenny is in ohio, and says note to the current field. ander: hi, my name is jenny my answer is no to a lot of them. i do not think they can fight hard enough. can you hear me? host: go ahead. caller: ok. i do not think they could fight hard enough and they are not thinking about a lot of things they have ideals for. they may be good, but a lot of these ideals are going to go to -- and when they get to it, they are not going to pass. that is stuff like free
education, free college, and i do not like the medicare for all and a lot of democrats do not like that. i do not care for a lot of the ideals. i know a lot of people do not he is inmberg, but there, and i tell you what, i know that people are not crazy about everything about him, but, he could change a lot of things that people say he believes in. since he is in there, i would definitely vote for him. from perry inar fort lauderdale, florida. the president heading to florida for a rally. talk about the democratic candidates. caller: i will. i am very happy with the democratic candidates. that i don'tidate is joe biden. -- that i pick is joe biden.
these people who want elizabeth warren and bernie sanders, if they are the nominee, democrats will not win the senates. do you want to keep your health care? do you likely your doctor is? and that is going to be republicans. that is one reason. this president broke the law. he broke the law to try to get biden out of the race. who the hell else would keep him in there? host: what is it about joe biden that would make him a worthy candidate in your mind? caller: he is the most qualified candidate. he has way more foreign-policy experience than everybody else, he just came off of an eight year successful presidency with barack obama, and he was not the problem like mike pence is. he would get more votes in the general election than anybody else, he will get states like arizona, nevada -- he is the
best candidate. he is the only one who definitely beats trauma. host: that is perry in fort lauderdale. one of the things highlighted in an ad released by the biden campaign was that of the vice president's experience. [video clip] >> i am joe biden and i approve this message. we >> live in the most dangerous moment of a generation. edge.rld set on dictators and tyrants are praised. our allies pushed aside. this is a moment that requires strong, steady, stable leadership. we need someone trusted around the world. this is a moment for joe biden, a president with the experience to lead on day one. host: paula from ohio, good morning. caller: good morning. i am very satisfied with the group of candidates, and i do not want joe biden in.
all, it is tough because i don't like his focus on age. havinglooking at now three older white men running, and bloomberg, when he comes in, and it just makes me sad. as democrats, we have such a diverse field, and it would be really nice to go with something else this time. and i elizabeth warren, if i set aside my concern about his age. i would like somebody to be in there who has a chance for being and furred two terms. i like know, personally the idea of elizabeth warren and pete buttigieg on the same ticket.
host: that is paula in ohio. , il king on twitter saying am an independent who supports democrats with the exception of mayor pete. i think the current democratic a is inadequate to defeat trump. it was a part of his speech that the mayor talked about or imagined and asked viewers to imagine the day that president trump leaves office. here is part of that stop in new hampshire. [video clip] >> yes, the country will be better off and we no longer have a divider in chief occupying the oval office. but that is just the beginning of the work that must come next. if you really think about it, if you really picture what it is going to be like in this country on that day, the sun is going to come up over the united states that is even more divided than we are right now. even more polarized, even more torn up over politics.
just with everything that we have been through, with everything we are about to go country that day, our will be exhausted from fighting and more in need of unity than ever. and yet, something else is also going to be true that day which is the problem is that we are up against as a country. they will be even more severe. none of these issues are taking a vacation for the impeachment process or the trump presidency. we are still going to be dealing with a climate that is approaching the point of no return. we are still going to be living in an economy where the numbers on a page go up, the stock market goes up, and our lives do not necessarily get better because half of america does not see that benefit. we will be living with a crisis of gun violence that has students learning active shooter drills before they learn to read. and these two things are going to be true. need for bold action and the need to do something, and
the need to be able to do it that can bring the american people together. we cannot take a wine and skip the other, it is not going to work. we have to do both. i am running to be the president to can stand on the rubble that day when the trump presidency is finally behind us, pick up the pieces, and guide us towards a future where we are dealing with those problems together because the only way to get it done is together. that is why i am seeking the presidency. [applause] host: let's hear from ryan in springfield, virginia. caller: thank you for taking my call. it is the first time i have gotten through and i listen to you every day. unexcited- i am so about everything with bernie and elizabeth. this last election was my first time voting and i was already disenchanted. more folks from new york trying to tell me what to do from anywhere else in the country, it is dulling my interest of voting
for anybody besides bernie or elizabeth. i do not see anybody that has experience that will get them anywhere beyond biden's policy and bloomberg's pretend record of cluttering up new york after giuliani left. i do not see any way we will get anywhere without looking at the first democratic candidate that actually gave us a proper surgeon democratic voting, and i can only see that in bernie. host: mark in westwood, new jersey. caller: thank you for c-span. i think there is some good talent in the democratic candidates. bernie beve to see the nominee. i disagree strongly with the gentleman from florida who said the only joe biden could win. joe biden will not excite the millenials. he will not get people out to vote. old guys like me always vote. the millenials, they only vote
if they think someone is worth it. joe biden supported the iraq war. he is proven that he has bad judgment. he his status quo. no one is interested in that except for the older folks. even though bernie is an older guy, he has the pulse on what the new generation really wants and the best new rain energy plan out of all of them. if it is not bernie, i would love to see the first woman president be either elizabeth warren or tulsa gabbard. off twitter saying, bernie, warren all fine, and the rest are meh. you can reach us on twitter at @cspanwj. let's hear from senator cory booker on the campaign trail saturday. [video clip] >> do we see each other in america all throughout our country right now? do we honor and value the voice of people who are all --
often rendered voiceless and shiny media. i see you. i love you. what is the quality of our mercy? what is the power of our love? there is nothing we can't to do together, our history has shown it is a testimony to the achievement of the impossible. forr countries look to us help for our values. i see you, i love you. this election is not just about politics and that is not just about the policy platforms. if it becomes about that, grace and decency and love and healing -- if it is about that, we will win back the white house. we will win a lot more than that. the people who betrayed our values just like the republican to retiring right now because they know they can't win.
this is a time for a movement. it is time for the best of the american movement, which is a movement about how much we care about each other because if i am your president, i promise you will put more indivisible back into this one nation under god. i promise you that our hallmark will not just become a slogan but become the spirit again. host: from tennessee, we will hear from jim. caller: yes. i don't really support many of the democrats, but i do like rd.l -- tulsi gabba i have not seen her on very much at all. host: you are here. i have seen three candidates but nothing about tulsi. i have not seen much on her at all. better ine would be
is is she had more coverage. onould like to see tulsi c-span. host: she appears on the network as a part of campaign 2020. you can find out her and all the other candidates that are involved in the 2020 race, go to our website at c-span.org and type your name into the video library there. from indiana, this is our caller. caller: hello, thank you for c-span. it is so good that you are talking to all the democrats and all of the people in the united states. republicans, too. i like all of the candidates right now and i like to watch all of them.
biden is probably on top right now, listening to cory booker, what you just played, i like him a lot, too. i wanted a woman just because we have never had a woman president , and i would like that. wanted it last time, but i think any of these people would be better than president trump because he is just destroying our country, and people need to wake up to that. and he is lying and cunning people -- and conning people every day. we need to wake up and come together. like cory booker said, love, peace let's have the truth. let's get it out there, you know, get people to do the right thing.
come on. to show youre tweet real quick. this is from j off twitter. i would hate to lose one democratic senator. biden might be the best choice when it comes to the president, he will be at a rally, heading to florida today. he will participate in a rally tonight. that will be in sunrise, florida. you can see that on c-span. watch the four that on c-span.org. watch for that on our c-span radio app. tomorrow spending time with you talking about the rally and the trump presidency, especially reelection efforts. up next, we are going to dig into the u.s.-mexico-canada trade agreement. two guests joining us to talk about the agreement, a stance in congress and the issue they may have, public citizen's lori
wallach and trade works for america's phil cox. coming up later, we will be joined by guy snodgrass, to talk "holding the book, line: inside trump's pentagon with secretary mattis." those and more coming up on "washington journal." announcer: watch an extended weekend of book tv this holiday weekend here here are some features. starting thursday at 1:30 p.m. eastern, haley recounts her time -- nikki haley recounts her time in the trump administration. >> i would always make a point to ask when we go to an area to sit with a group of women -- no offense to the fellas and the audience -- but the women had a way of -- you could sit down
with them, they could tell you what the problem was, how they got to that point, and how to fix it. 3:28ncer: on friday at p.m. eastern, ronan farrow details the efforts made to strengthen reporting. >> this is not a journalistic mission. he was told to cancel interviews as we were told to cancel interviews with rape victims. we were told not to take a single call. i was threatened to be exposed as having been terminated and let go from the company if i ever disclosed that nbc had anything to do with the story. announcer: saturday at 11:00 made.astern -- brian kyl to talkhouston wants about courage. he felt he was impervious. he was shot three times and should have died. when he goes to washington,
pretty close to here, i have a can see just about everything -- burns to the ground. what did we learn? seniorepth is live with fellow and wall street journal columnist jason riley. >> the number of officials and this could -- fewer than 1500 and 1972 more than 10,000 today. i think that -- including the twice looked it black president or that is the voting rights act. announcer: at nine eastern on professors, a explores the political history of tobacco in america. in her book, "the cigarette." she is interviewed by david kessler. >> smoking at the turn of the 20 century, the early 1900s, was considered something almost un-american. it was a right of the foreign
born. so the antismoking movement of the first two decades of the 20th century kind of road that wave of nativism in thinking about what type of behavior is appropriate for nativeborn, healthy americans. announcer: watch an extended version of book tv this holiday weekend and every weekend on c-span 2. "washington journal" continues. host: we are going to talk about the u.s.-mexico-canada trade agreement. us, globaljoin trade watch director for public citizen lori wallach. and also phil cox, from trade works for america. thank you for joining us. give us a snapshot of not only the senset is, but that you take on it, whatever you want to bring about the
conversation. lori wallach, you go first. guest: the good news is that nafta definitely needs to be replaced. wages in mexico are now 20% lower than in china. so nafta has been a mess. the bad news is the deal didident signed last year not fix the job outsourcing of afta but added new -- for year, the president has been stalling fixing that stuff. maybe we will get a deal that actually can make a difference for people, maybe not. the president is going to have to decide if he is going to fix nafta or equip the pharmaceutical companies. host: not surprisingly -- guest: not surprisingly, i have a different take on it. it is about disagreement. this agreement will produce hundred 76,000 new jobs, increase exports and open up new markets for american goods.
it is a balanced agreement with important protections for labor, texans forment, small business throughout the supply chain. it is a reason why you have groups as diverse as the national association of manufacturers, to the farm bureau, even to the progressive policy institute on the left that has endorsed it. i think we are making great progress there it mexico has ratified the agreement. ambassador lighthizer continues to work in a very constructive way with democratic leadership on the hill. you continue to hear speaker pelosi say they are on a path to yes, and i believe we are close to getting it done. when we do get it done, it will not only be a win for the president, it will be a win for speaker pelosi and democrats on the hill. most important, it will be a win for american workers. host: what is different in this agreement that did not exist in nafta? solve i figure it will
the outsourcing problem because you have labor standards and wage standards in mexico. the mexicans have committed to it we sought recently last week, the mexicans put more money into labor enforcement than was originally part of the deal, which i think is exceptional, a show of good faith. that has been they hang up, really the two things that were standing in the way along the labor enforcement provisions. two, the politics of it. willl get into that -- we get into that in a minute. i think the politics are in line to the fact that we have impeachment swirling around, in incentivizey, helps folks to want to get this deal done. so i think we are going to see it get done, whether it is through the -- at the end of the year or shortly thereafter. host: highlighting the fact that there will be legislative actions on the mexico side for collective bargaining, this and
other elements -- what do you think about that, in this version? guest: the problem is right now the standards have lots of loopholes in them and they are not enforceable. so what the democrats in congress are pushing for is to make the standard clear so that people in mexico can have labor rights, wages would come up, and we would outsource american jobs so that people in mexico could buy our exports. but number two, it has to be enforceable. even if mexico passes a new labor law, which happens but now it is under injunctions -- all the company's have frozen it, like happens to obamacare -- or it doesn't get funded. it is 8% of the funding that the government of mexico says it needs to set up these new institutions. even if that happens, if in the end the rules are not followed, it is not enforceable. which, you know, to get to your original question, what is
different, it is not enough different from the old nafta and nafta, except for the new goodies for big pharma, which would handcuff congress in cutting the prices of medicine. the big move is, will the president get the pharma goodies out and strengthen the environmental and labor standards? nafta got rid of all tariffs. it is 0, 0. 50 years ago. it is all about getting those standards right and getting the incentives right. host: since you brought up the pharmaceutical side of it, what is done in this version pharmaceutically that they have concerns about politically? guest: disagreement is an improvement.
is it perfect? no. in washington you have to compromise, take both sides, and come together and find something that works. i think this is a balanced agreement. nafta is a quarter century old. it is 25 years ago, 1994, that it came into effect. the economy has changed. digital provisions, digital commerce on this agreement are a first of its kind. the i.t. professions are incredibly important. incentivizing u.s. manufacturing, incredibly important. the first of its kind provisions on the environment on small business. in terms of the pharma provisions, what i would say is, we need pharma to be able to innovate. we need pharma to be able to bring new drugs into the market. usmca does nothing to inhibit congress from acting on drug pricing come on anything else they want to do. so from my standpoint, you look at what pharma has done -- they have cured polio, cured hiv, i
have a mom who recently passed away from cancer who could have benefited from more medicines coming onto the market. it is reallyis -- something the left is ginning up to try to kill a deal, for i'm not sure what reason. this is a good deal. 176,000 new jobs for workers. i'm not sure what is bad about that. host: let me introduce callers into this. 202-748-8000 202-748-8001 202-748-8001 free democrats, --202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for a pop against. guest: if you want to know the information, look up www. icc
.gov. you will see a study there. when they did the normal study of this agreement, they actually found it would lose 54,000 jobs. 54,000 jobs. host: who is itc? trade the international commission. they are required to do an assessment of every trade agreement. they did not like the outcome, so they did a redo and they came up with new methodology for the first time ever where they just sort of brought out of the air a new number, a positive value. clear what that means, that is about handcuffing onlines from regulating platforms. so google, who keeps destroying our privacy and trading data, or amazon and the big monopolies. a value forassign regulatory stability, not being able to regulate those guys. a, that is growth
and jobs. when you look at the study itself, this is a job loser. only when they cook the books and do not regulate the big commerce giants do they get those numbers. here is a reason to do this -- and i am hopeful we can get a good agreement -- nafta's damage is ongoing. the reason we are fighting for a good agreement is because we want to stop the ongoing damage. the problem is the agreement the president signed did not have standards to fix those problems and added this unacceptable pharma stuff. i hope we get a chance to talk more about it. you can read it yourself and see it is a problem. host: we will let mr. cox respond. 14 million jobs. there is no question, the itc is anonpartisan -- the itc is nonpartisan organization 176 thousand jobs minimum. i believe it will be more than that. host: before we go to other
nuances of usmca, this is from baltimore, maryland. robert, you are up first for our guests. go ahead with your question or comment. passed in theafta 1990's, the pharma lobby successfully got subsidies goods it- on our directly lead to the shutdown of hundreds of farms, family farms in new mexico, which precipitated exodus to the united states. this is well documented, a pew research study. i have called in with this point before and it is generally met with misdirection. i am hoping one of your panelists can weigh in on what went down and what the effects were. i want toecond -- c-span editorial staff to reconsider the open, free-for-all calling format where callers like me can call
in and have a lot of times completely unmoderated comments that tend to promote or perpetuate a lot of falsehoods that you hear. thanks a lot. host: that point we will leave aside. the point you made. mr. cox, go first. guest: i am not a fan of subsidies in general. countryraveled the frequently over the last year on behalf of this agreement, and you do talk to farmers and they are hurting right now. it is a tough time, so i think disagreement -- we are not offering a vacuum when it comes to farmers in the agricultural community. and usmca, there are a lot of other forces going on -- trade with china obviously, japanese trade agreement. allmondnk if you are an brower in the san joaquin valley, a dairy farmer in
wisconsin, a corn grower in iowa, this is a good deal for you. that is why we have to get it done. guest: corn is duty-free with or without nafta. nafta there is no way to out-- there is not a lot there for farmers. to answer the call or question, you are right. nafta treated food like any orer commodity, like attire steal, and what it did was limit what would stop inputs -- you are right, the mexican had 2.3 million small farm families that were displaced. there is a double whammy, and it is something a lot of people do not want to admit, which is we actually have a trade deficit in agriculture with nafta. before nafta, we had a $2.5
billion surplus. we have gone downhill in the last five years, now it is $9.3 billion deficit in 2018. if you can imagine, our caller in maryland, it is lose lose. u.s. farmers have also seen a deficit. there are 200 30,000 family farmers -- host: where are you getting this information from? guest: this is the u.s. department of agriculture data. host: ok, so this when i am putting to now? guest: that is just mexico, showing canada and mexico. that is the combined nafta, one mexico, the other canada. guest: the trade agreement, usmca opens markets for farmers, which is why the farm bureau strongly endorses this agreement. farmers all across the country -- it is why you have every state -- anm an egg ag state, who are strong
supporters of this agreement. go to the u.s. department of agriculture website and check it up. guest: can ask a question? zero is zero, so how is it opening markets? guest: i don't think that is accurate. if you look at dairy alone, some ariffeds are ter 300%. guest: there is potential market access whether our tariffs are over, $48 billion in the american ag trade, so a very small margins. but after that, we have been duty-free since nafta for 50 years. guest: yeah, we are going to agree to disagree. host: we will take a call. this is from indiana. bill, hello. , my question -- i
was on that committee back in 1981. tradee trying to get a deal through. our position was, the democratic position and the labor position, to change the trading deal to reciprocal. if you had had reciprocal, you would not be in the shape you are in now. thes funny to me that runaround talk about tariffs -- if i am not mistaken, i am 96 years old and i believe i heard the republican party talking about tariffs, which gave us the biggest depression we have ever had. i don't know why they cannot go along with reciprocal. my suggestion, reciprocal.
host: bill, thank you very much. is reciprocal achievable? guest: bill, great point. this is a lot of what the president has been arguing for, not only with usmca but also with some of the negotiations with china and other countries. he campaigned on it. it moves quickly and i think the president deserves a lot of the credit for renegotiating what again is a 25-year-old trade agreement in nafta. these things are never easy, but you need to have some leadership, both out of the white house and on capitol hill to try to get these things done to make sure that we have more trade agreements that are more fair if to the american worker. that is what usmca is. guest: on your point of reciprocity, before nafta we had a small trade surplus with mexico, and a small deficit with canada. 25 years into nafta, we have a
$180 billion deficit, starting with reciprocity and we went into the tank. that shows basically what happened over time. but here is what is crazy or that itc study, -- but here is what is crazy. that itc study, even that version says you will only see 1.8 billion dollars of deficit reduction. so, no, this agreement unfortunately does not get us through reciprocity. if we can get the pharma stuff out and get the labor and environmental standards enforced, it is worth viewing because it will stop the ongoing job outsourcing. no one should think this agreement will be the answer to everyone's problems. host: lori wallach is the global trade watch director for public citizen, which is? wast: public citizen founded by ralph nader in the 1990's. we have about 5000 numbers.
-- 500 and numbers. go to our website. host: and phil cox, trade works for america, who is behind that? ofst: it is a coalition 300,000 people that live there voices on this agreement. host: phil cox, when you talk the politics of the situation, with nancy pelosi saying yesterday they might be close to achieving a deal even though they have concerns. what does that tell you about whether this thing will be done or not in a short manner? guest: to use a football analogy, i think we are on the 2 yard line. we have been at it for over a year, but as i said, i think for two principal reasons, if you are a democratic member of congress and you are in a competitive congressional district or a district that president trump won in 2016, and there are 31 of them, and 50 plus are in competitive districts, i think you are looking for that bipartisan vote
going into your reelection to be able to say i don't agree with the president, i voted to impeach the president, but i believe this is a good deal for the american worker, so i am going ahead and voting for usmca. on the one hand there is that come on the other hand there is impeachment. obviously it is sucking up a lot of the oxygen in this town. there is a lot of drama around it. if you are, again, nancy pelosi, it is important that you can demonstrate to the country that while you are going through impeachment, you are governing. again, most importantly, this deal is good for the american worker, and that is why we need to get it done. host: speaker pelosi said they are that close. she said that, even if they are that close, there are still concerns about the current deal. what does that tell you about the politics of the situation? guest: it is all about getting the agreement right. the democrats are extremely
committed to trying to fix nafta because after a million u.s. jobs have been certified as going tota, with more mexico every week. mexico is not being paid enough to have a decent standard of living. emma kratz are committed, basic -- democrats are committed, working with the president there they are very unhappy. the problem is the president has stalled for an entire year about making these fixes, and they are not grandiose fixes. there are plenty of things in the agreement that if you wanted to make it perfect, you could fix. this is about making sure that the agreement could stop the race to the bottom outsourcing and not lock in prices. yesterday he said that he wants to see it in writing but the administration will be offering fixing those kinds of problems. that is the right way to go.
i have a questioning about the funding of phil sen. cruz:. about phil's group. would just say that ambassador lighthizer and his team at u.s. cr and the white house has been working and cooperating in very good faith with the democratic leadership on the hill. you know, there has been a very constructive dialogue over the course of the last really six months, in particularly the last few months. are meeting speaker pelosi and leadership more than halfway, so that is the reason we are as close as we are. we will see what the white house comes back with in terms of what they are willing to commit to on paper. it seems like we are close to getting this done. that will be a good thing for the american worker. let's hear what the president had to say yesterday. pres. trump: usmca is a great
trade deal for farmers, manufacturers, all types, including union. it is sitting on nancy pelosi's desk. she seems incapable of moving it. she keeps saying she wants to get it done, but we're talking about many, many months, sitting on her desk, no vote. she does not to have -- she does not have to help with the democrats because they will vote for it, most of them. and i guess all of the republicans are going to vote for it. the way the system works, she has to put it up for a vote. i understand a couple of the cio, they areil asking her to hold it for a are askinge afl-cio her to hold it for a while. afl-cio whoople in actually like -- richard trumka, nice guy. but nancy pelosi should put it
up for a vote because soon you will have canada and mexico saying what's going on, send the agreement back, let's not make the deal. and i would not blame that on all -- that at all -- not blame them at all, let's blame it on nancy pelosi. it is a phenomenal deal for our farmers, for everybody. it is a great deal for our country. it replaces one of the worst trade deals ever made, nafta. so we have a great deal, she has to put it up for a vote. all she has to do is say we are putting it up for a vote. like immediately. a lot of time is being wasted. you could have mexico and canada pull it pretty soon. if they do, it is her fault, not mind her to we give you a great deal. it is her fault. got to get going. she is really traumatized. thank you very much. wallach, he put it directly in speaker pelosi's court. guest: the speaker has worked
very hard, as have other democrats, for over a year, to get the pharmaceutical monopolies out so they do not lock in high medicine prices. those rules require every country in the agreement to get big pharma special protections so they do not have to have competition free generics. is a lot of undermining of what the democrats happened to bring down medicine prices per they will not pass a bill that does not have that in it. the speaker has passed 300 pieces of legislation, so the notion that phil has mentioned that they need to show they are doing things is ridiculous. the -- it is on the desk of the grim reaper, phil mcconnell, who will not pass one. ofporate coalitions are part the reason this has been stalled for so long. if you look at the big corporate
coalition groups and the trade adjustment database -- and i know you want proof -- i brought the entire print out here. , half a million jobs outsourced by the companies in these corporate coalitions who are pushing for no change to the agreement the president signed, and also a lot of pharmaceutical funding. tothe coalitions do not want change the agreement-pressuring for no agreement. as a result, we are at a standoff or an entire year. host: we will let mr. cox respond to that. guest: the most important point is that if the vote are there, what the president said is correct. the speaker has the power to put this on the floor. she will have a huge bipartisan vote, passing this agreement. we have been traveling the country, principally meeting with folks, and district are held by democrats, freshman
democrats, democrats in sort of the competitive suburban districts around the country. the more people learn about this agreement, the more they like it. i think the votes are there. to 100 ifobably 75 not more democrats who will vote for this agreement once it goes to the floor. she has got to made the decision -- to make the decision that the agreement is where she wanted to be. i know ambassador lighthizer and the white house are working to try to accommodate those concerns. host: a call from woodbridge, virginia. democrats line. jeffrey, hi. caller: good morning. as somebody born and raised in buffalo, new york, who has moved to virginia, i will say i did see the effects of nafta in the 80's and 90's and what it did to my community in western new york or in a couple thoughts i want to make. number one, pharmaceuticals -- the industry model of talking about if we control prices it will have research and -- it
will help research and develop -- at the hep c drug that costs on hundred $84,000 a pill, was founded by the institutes of health, so i am not sure about that as far as research and development. a lot of pharmaceutical drugs are that way. i am glad that lori did out the funding of trade works for america and getting democrats to vote for this bill. think as funding goes, i they are a great organization and point out the things that they do as far as these trade deals, which have decimated communities like mine back in western new york. so thank you. cox, you go. guest: what was the question? host: asking about the funding of your group, if you want to respond to that as well. guest: i am proud of what we have been able to accomplish. we have more than 300,000 people
weighing in in support of usmca. what we found when we started out in the spring is that there really was a lot of awareness. people did not view nafta favorably, which is not surprising after a quarter of a century. the caller makes a good point about the outsourcing that occurred over a couple decades. we believe this agreement will address some of those issues. so i am proud of the fact that we have been able to get the public engaged in this debate. the more folks learn about usmca, the more they like it, and that has been our job, to educate them in a positive way. we have talked about applying pressure to democratic members of congress. that is really not what we have done. have simply educated folks about what is in this agreement and encouraged them to contact their members of congress to support it. we have had more than 300,000 people do that in the last six months. first of all, thank you
for being a member of public citizen. there is not a majority to pass nafta in congress now, for the very reason you put out. which is democrats are not going to vote for a trade agreement that locks in high medicine prices. so there are three house democrats who said they are for the agreement, three. and the democrats have a majority that is much bigger than three, so for the agreement to get through the house, changes have to happen. so that this is in agreement that democrats would support. the one thing i think phil and i agree on is, there is a majority to be had. till there is a majority that could be a big eye partisan majority to pass the right agreement the question is whether or not there will be changes taking the pharma out and adding the labor and environmental standards in so that the original damage from nafta is countered and there is new new damage added. -- so there is no new damage
added. i think there will be a vote exactly when that happens because there will not be a majority until that happens. so the speaker is not going to put the bill on the floor to have it voted down, because that would basically end the procedure, and she certainly knows her caucus. so if and when the administration agrees to fix it, there will be a vote. as far as the point that you made about pressure -- the group on the ground that i think has the biggest squeeze has been members of congress who are getting tens of millions of dollars in paid ads, and in social media. those are the 300,000 people that phil keeps mentioning, which are the people who responded to the social media. but if you look at membership groups such as the farmers union and the environmental groups, the more they learn about the agreement, the more they want to try to get it fixed. guest: i think the opposition -- and i have been involved in fights like this for 20 years --
the opposition has been relatively muted. there is not a big effort on the other side that is organized and pushing back because when you look at the polling on this -- and yes debt and you ask the american people whether or not they support -- and you ask the american people whether or not they support the usmca, or than 70% of americans support usmca. when you go to the districts, districts that president trump won or competitive districts, those numbers go up to 80% in a lot of places. that is not me saying it or that his democratic posters saying it. tohink it is so difficult sort of cut through the in this town. this is one area where we can make improvements. is um's mca -- is usmca perfect? it is not perfect or it i will be the first want to say that.
we have seen leadership from the president, the white house, ambassador lighthizer, from speaker pelosi, and the chairman, coming together to try to find a middle ground to produce a balanced agreement that would benefit the american worker. that is what i think we have. maryland, buoy, republican line. hello. caller: thank you for taking the time. this is a good conversation to have outside the impeachment nonsense. by your admission, this is an improvement of the trade deficit orhink you said $1.3 million $1.8 million. why wouldn't you take that as a down payment on fixing nafta, because we know didn't that we know that nafta has been destructive. why don't we start there and then try to improve later on? clearly every agreement is going to have -- there are going to be points of this agreement because
you cannot get everything that you want. i am very astute with numbers. i understand there are things about this agreement that i don't particularly like, but there are other ways to fix it. why not take the $1.3 billion improvement now and fix it later guest: guest:? good question -- guest: good question. the answer is that that improvement is such a tiny drop in the bucket, that the higher prices for americans on medicines -- usmca had some parts that are better and some parts that are worse. partsonomic value of the that are worse and what is happening with high medicine prices, during a situation where basically you cannot have this agreement go forward, you get the potential gains economically until you get the pharma stuff out. hopefully the president will agree to that, and we will have
an agreement that can go forward and get the benefits. for a year there has been a stall because the pharmaceutical companies have been demanding they should have these extra goodies that got added to nafta. they were not in the original nafta. so that bad thing has to come out so that we can get the potential benefits of the actual nafta fixes. would say this agreement has the first ever provision that protects small business and almost in a way democratize his trade, allows small business and manufacturing throughout the supply chain to participate in a way that they were not really participating in nafta. you are protecting marine life, you are protecting forestry, improving air quality. you are dealing with tremendous problem, litter in the ocean, 5 trillion pieces of plastic there are enforcement mechanisms in this agreement that address
that. auto jobs, you have rules of manufacturing right here in the usa for automobile manufacturers and test provisions. model for the future, the first of its kind. ip protections and source code protections that will apply to future trade agreements. there is a lot to like in this agreement. we have just got to put the partisanship aside and put the interests of the american worker first. divisionthe labor side, it says it would require 40% of auto content to be made by workers making $16 an hour. what does that mean for the u.s.? guest: it will mean more manufacturing here in the u.s., so at the end of the day we are trying to -- and lori is right about this -- we are trying to address the outsourcing issue
that we saw through nafta. in the wage provisions in mexico, the labor provisions in mexico will help keep more of their jobs in the u.s.. guest: the complication with that provision is it is $16 on average, not $16. and then what is calculated in includes higher wage salary workers, engineers, etc. so the big car companies do not have to change their supply chains. they think they already meet the standard peer to put that in perspective, we have seen literally millions of jobs in the auto sector, parts and manufacturing, sibling of cars, move to mexico during nafta. what we areabout talking about, in mexico right in, wages are 40% lower manufacturing than in china. so the new chevy blazer being mexico, one dollar 58 cents an hour. so workers in mexico are making
less in an entire day than the workers who made that blazer 10 years ago in wisconsin, where i am from, in janesville, where they are paid per hour. aodyear tire, with multimillions dollars plant, but pay $1.88 an hour. u.s. workers in alabama who are being paid $25 an hour are being laid off. verizon and at&t are opening big call centers in mexico, recruiting workers, people in the airport who are being -- they are paying them two dollars an hour. so this race to the bottom is not going to be fixed unless the actual labor standards in the agreement get strengthened so that they clear and are enforceable. by enforceable, what that means it cannot comely
in and lesser -- with the violations of those rules. you knock off a piece of software and custom says that is not actually compliant with copyright, you are seizing it, you have some time, otherwise they will roll a truck over it and they are done. that sort of incentive hangs a sort of damocles over the producer. he want them to follow the rules. chairman what the he is getting out of mexico recently, mexicans are operating in good faith. they are investing more money than they had originally, trying to work on the enforcement mechanisms. so i think we are close. ustr comewe will see back to chairman neil, speaker pelosi. in the next week or so we will have an agreement. this is from missouri,
democrats line. patrick, hi there. caller: thank you very much. sorry there is so much to unpack. i have a few points if i have the time. fleeced byica got nafta the first time. we are getting sold the second kettle of rotten fish. no matter the provisions mexico agrees to, you are protecting mexican workers now. you are trying to make their jobs better that used to be american jobs. so how is that better? i don't understand. what about all of the unionbusting that has been going on here in america, where those unions used to be able to be strong and fight for their workers? and one more thing about the agreement -- to be better at labor and make sure that all the mexican workers get covered and protected, you know, how do we
know this is not just an agreement to get a deal? just say there is an investigation. just say that we have got an agreement. thank you very much. i appreciate you, c-span. aboutlori wallach, what the idea of protecting the mexican worker versus the american worker? guest: we are all in it together. so the north american workers are going to have their fortunes rise and fall together. so the main way we can stop the draw of outsourcing, of american jobs to mexico, is to help make sure the new nafta has strong and enforceable labor standards so that workers in america cinco have rights to organize and raise their wages. that is what the whole kettle of fish is. mexico, how wages are lower than in real terms
working for nafta? there is awhy is system in mexico, labor suppression, that holds down wages. there are protection unions, which are fake unions that a company comes in and meets with the boss, has a union contract where the first worker is hired, then workers come and they are told you have a contract, you cannot strike, you're going to jail. what contract? they get rid of the protection contracts and let workers fight for better wages. that is the only way to stop the race to the bottom. the problem is, the funding right now for a new labor law that would help contracts is a teeny fraction. it is a teeny fraction of what needs to be done. the mexicanugh president seems to strongly
favorite, if we do not get that portion of the agreement right, even the big companies, he is no longer president and whoever is next, they have to follow the rules. that is why the speaker has been in, thent about getting changes into the agreement. so that what you said does not have which is a lot of blah blah .lah if we do not get the rules right, mexican workers will get screwed. host: mr. guest: cox? guest:i think we are -- host: mr. cox? guest: i think we are saying the same thing. we need an enforcement agreement on labor standards, and i think that is what ambassador lighthizer, white house chairman neil and speaker pelosi are working on peer and hopefully we will see that in the next few weeks. we would remind folks that there are 14 million american jobs on trade. canada is the number one market
for 30 states in the country appeared mexico is the number one market for several states. the number one trading market for seven states. you look at the greater san diego area, its economy is larger than that of vietnam, and that is because of trade with mexico. this is an important deal, and it is important that we get it done. host: from orange port, louisiana, independent line. daniel, hi there. caller: how are you doing? rest somethingo i heard about this trading, this so-called trading. host: you mean the trade deal or trading overall? caller: the trade deal. the treaty. it is basically a treaty. nobody is talking about this so-called treaty, which it is. the lgbtq rights. i want to know if this is included in this deal. host: mr. cox?
guest: i don't believe so. i don't believe there are any provisions. guest: there are provisions in the agreement that have to do with what kind of labor discrimination is or isn't considered a violation. ,here was a big fight conclusions whether discrimination was based on sexual preference or gender identification with all the other kinds of discrimination that are not allowed as a violation of workers rights would be included. there was strong language in the agreement, and then right before it got signed, it got watered down. to some degree, and people can google this if you basically discrimination and usmca. you will get the story by gay rights organizations and for publications.
they explain in detail what happened in those provisions. pennsylvania, independent line. mike in harrisburg, hello. caller: hello. the first thing that trump mentioned specifically was how this was going to -- signing this would help the farmers. but isn't it true that the single biggest detriment to farmers in this country right now, and the reason for the increased bankruptcies of farms and their lack of goods are the stupid tariffs that trump has on , and the retaliation by china? i would like phil to address that, please. that is a 10 times worse problem than this nafta, no nafta, whatever it is deal with -- i will get off the phone. guest: it is a very good point. usmcaeve we need to get
done because it will also -- one of the ancillary things is that it would give the president of the united states more negotiating power with the chinese. the chinese avenue been taking advantage from a trade relationship standpoint for decades. the president has been right to lean in and try to reset that negotiation to make sure that we have reciprocal trade. there is no question our farmers have been hurting. andhave seen the president the secretary working incredibly hard to support our farmers and support our agricultural communities. usmca will be a good first step in getting those communities to thrive again. and i think we are making progress. we have seen a phase one deal announced with the chinese, which hopefully will allow for wee agricultural -- i think are making progress on the overall trade relationship, with
obviously both canada, mexico, and the chinese. host: lori wallach? guest: mike, your spot on. -- since the president put up tariffs. i actually agree with phil that we need to reset our china trade policy. it is a catastrophe, and there was going to be some damage along the way. that bad?d to be maybe not. we probably should not have pissed off all our allies with trade sanctions and others fighting with us against china. be that as it may, you are right that the real damage is probably lack of market-- access. $15 billion. the total potential gain from thea for farmers, all
terrace with mexico r0. most of them -- most of the canada r0.h nafta ag trade, but that obviously that will not make up for $15 billion. i brought the data with me. i mentioned to callers how many $15,000 -- 15,000 jobs lost in pennsylvania. host: the current version of usmca -- do they deal with more with mexico or with canada, or with them equally? i don't know what the issues might still be with candidate as far as provisions in the agreement. issue withbiggest canada is the canadian government is not very willing to strengthen the environment of standards. the big fight is the
environmental standards in the usmca are weaker then even in the transpacific partnership, which as you know, had more opposition. reasons they are, the canadians talk very green, but they are not willing to give precedence to multilateral environmental agreements. some of that i understand is being fixed because that is part of what needs to get fixed before we can go forward. but that has been the big issue. with respect to trade with canada compared to these standards related, the deficit that we have with canada is really relatively small relative to the deficit with mexico, which is why there is so much focus on labor standards in mexico. the environmental provisions are at the core of this agreement. i believe that lori -- i believe lori's statement about the
canadians, but i think there are good things in here. the marine life provisions, forestry provisions, air quality provisions p those are all good things and they are at the core of this agreement. it makes this agreement in addition to some of the other things we talked about, the i.t. provisions, manufacturing provisions, a model for future traders. is 13talk about gdp, that countries involved, we are talking about three in north america. the bounced trade impact about getting this done, we have a proveine to continue to -- to improve on these trader agreement going forward. guest: i want to jump in on that. a bunch of the things you mentioned that you set are about the environment are not enforceable. it is good the provisions are there, but they need strengthening. there are two things in the usmca that are much better than nafta or with respect to the environment, and i do want to talk about those. that is the reason you have not
seen a big fight that you have seen in the trade agreement. cookie-cuttert a agreement, there is something that was better that made folks on the warpath want to fight to try and fix it. because of nafta's existing and doing damage, it is not like if you have no agreement you are doing zero. if you have no agreement, you still have nafta. the usmca actually does not have disputee investor state settlement with corbett -- with corporate tribunals and so this system where multinational challengens can go domestic law and get unlimited conversation -- compensation from unelected non-judges outside the court system for any domestic law they do not like, that calls for the u.s. and canada and for mexico is still way back. that is really important. i know it is something that does
not make companies happy, but from a consumer and environment a perspective, that is a reason to actually engage and fix the agreement. the second thing is, there is a provision that requires mandatory exports of natural sources. that is called a proportionality clause. that also got taken out. there are actually some useful provisions. they just unfortunately are not the ones you were mentioning. guest: i think it remains to be seen. we are still working this out, so you scr is doing its work. non-house and democratic leaders are doing their work we will see what usdr comes back with. some of these issues will get worked out in the last minute. host: one more call, from indiana, republican line. robert, go ahead. caller: yes, sir. the way i see it, it all centers
around money and impeachment. you know, mr. trump does this, does that, he doesn't do this, he lies, and he is trying to get the job done. if the democrats would do what 2016,ere elected to do in then help the president. they have done nothing p they have done nothing at all for the people. host: robert, we will leave it there because we want to get back to the topic of trade. that usmcaosi said could be a good role of the bottle for a future trade agreement. lori wallach, how do you respond? >> i think what he is saying is if the pharmaceuticals lock in high medical prices and get the labor standards fixed, and their enforcement greatly strengthened, counter -- to counter job outsourcing, that certainly is a federal model
going forward. also given this agreement limits those corporate tribunals, and the mandatory natural resource -- that would be a better model. if inis a big hulking there. deficit went up another 14%. but nafta and the first three quarters of 2019, more jobs have been lost. if the president stops stalling and agrees to get the big pharma out and the labor environmental standards fixed, then it would be a step in the right direction. we will see what happens. host: mr. cox? guest: i think that is the reason we have to get it done. the protections in here are modeled for future agreements. the small business provisions, a first of its kind in any trade agreement, from future provisions. there is a lot that i think informed future trade agreement in the usmca, we have to put the
partisanship aside and come together as a country and get this agreement done. cox with trade works for america, cox serves as the r of that organization. lori wallach is director for the global trade watch citizen.org. thank you for joining us. happy thanksgiving. we are going to be joined by guy chiefass, former speechwriter and medications director for the former defense secretary jim mattis to talk about his new book holding the line inside trumps pentagon with secretary mattis. that's coming up on washington journal. ♪
>> for 40 years c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979. c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. studentcam 2020 competition is underway. middle and high schools students are creating short documentaries on the issues like -- they would most like the candidates to address.
share your photos using #studentcam 2020. still working on an idea? we've got resources to help out. our getting started page has information to guide you through the process of making a documentary. award 100,000 dollars in cash prizes including a $5,000 cash grand prize. yourn't be afraid to take issue seriously. you are never too young to have an opinion. >> for more information go to studentcam.org. >> c-span's campaign 2020 is with president trump live today as he holds a campaign rally in sunrise, florida.
live coverage on c-span. c-span.org. at >> washington journal continues. host: guy snodgrass is the author of holding the line. the about your role at pentagon specifically under jim mattis. guest: i was the chief speechwriter for secretary mattis. speechn charge of operations, writing memos and letters to world leaders. i was also his director of communications. that started to elevate that role to the communications and messaging coordination with the white house, state department and international organizations. host: did you know secretary mattis before you got the job? guest: i had met him once very , i had beenically
interviewing for my first speechwriter job. for 20 years i was in f-18 fighter pilot. maybe a year to two years of a break. i was interviewing for my first speechwriter role. here comes secretary mattis. had a chance to meet him very briefly. get the job? you host: i was contacted. forere stationed overseas two and a half years. when we moved back to the united states we had just taken a job in norfolk, virginia. i got a call saying my services were needed in d.c. host: what was the goal in writing the book? sometimes when you look at it
through a narrow lens, you went secretary mattis so you could write a book. you realize that the pathway forward for me in the navy was going to close. take a role that would be incompatible with my family. the commandingbe officer of an entire carrier air wing or you can be the commanding officer of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. we were asked to do the latter. honored by that selection. unable to accept. and thinkxit uniform about the lessons you were exposed to being able to see how those kinds of significant decisions are made and to be able to share with the american theic the context for
importance they have domestically and abroad. be a runnings to theme in the book. secretary mattis said this. when it comes to his management of the pentagon versus the white house saying there can be no daylight between us. people are getting tired of hearing one thing out of this administration. does that reflect the attitude of general mattis during his time in the pentagon? guest: 100%. he understood that he served at the pleasure of the president. he saw uncoordinated messages. say onee house might thing, the state department, the department of defense. that's one of the reasons to write the book was even just recently with the news that broke over the weekend about
secretary esper having a breakdown with secretary spencer and firing him. at all happened because there was a misalignment in the messaging. host: give us an example of having to be in line with the white house. when we would go to the nato minister in brussels. you have 28 other nations need to make sure that you are sticking to the president's talking points. a very vivid example. he needed to be aligned because everyone is parsing what he says. if there's a sliver of daylight that's not a good thing. the second one that really stands out to me is when you start thinking about the issues that did catch us by surprise. that's the danger is if you find yourself in a circumstance where
you are inadvertently not aligned. that could be blown out of proportion in a way that was not intended. snodgrass will be with us until 10:00. democrats.000 (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8002 independents. if you are003 retired military. did secretary mattis agree with president trump over issues in running the pentagon? will let him answer for himself. thrilled. be very secretary mattis understood the importance of being aligned with
the president of the united states. he needs to be backing the president's play. that worked well where you had a multi-month president would say this is my position. you had plenty of lead in time to be able to coordinate that across the agency and enact that decision. you see the breakdown where a decision is made in haste. banlk about the transgender tweet that caught everyone by surprise. that can cause a lot more issues and concern. --t: the president shortly certainly had thoughts about organizing on efforts. did that go against secretary mattis and what he had to do at the pentagon?
guest: i don't think it did. the number one thing he had to say is increase burden sharing. tot may donations need increase their gross to mystic product to so they can take their own side in a fight. that's the message that every single time we went to brussels that secretary mattis would amplify. from peter in rhode island. you're on with amanda guy snodgrass. go ahead. -- commander guy snodgrass. go ahead. jr. officer in vietnam in the marine corps. is the united states always have to be involved somewhere, somehow in these wars? particularly in the middle east where they never end? i will give you the example of iraq. saddam hussein was an sop. there is no doubt about it.
he stabilized the region there. now that he's gone, iraq is a complete powder keg and we created that vacuum. guest: thanks for your question. you have to break it down into different zones. that's a vigorous debate right now within military circles. this concept of forever wars. the united states might become embroiled in conflicts in the middle east and find it incredibly difficult to pull out because our absence in the region might cause increased instability. that's one part of the equation. the other part is just the incredible return that america around military forces the world and overseas. it is something we have long
enjoyed in the indo pacific. i myself served two tours of duty in japan and on board an aircraft carrier that patrolled the indo pacific. return ist in magnified and amplified for our own security here. domestically it helps prevent terrorism. security and stability around the world. host: we will hear from valerie. guest: i'm so glad you are on this morning. i saw you on cnn this morning. you to speak to the fact that he pardoned -- i saw the documentary stephen seidenberg did. it's very fair. i'm not talking about whether he's guilty or not.
the fact that he pardoned him. he was guilty of murder. i would also like to mention something about the eu. around.not law -- the europeans do not trust us anymore and they have said this in the eu. thanks. have a good day. love c-span. host: i'm going to dial in on the concern about trust of america. that is something that has been amplified over the last two to three years. we wereback to what talking about at the top of the hour. we become very accustomed here in the united states, it's a very vigorous political debate going on right now. when you put yourself in the perspective of a nato ally or
someone from south korea or japan this is not the way that their domestic politics normally play out so it appears to be more alarming to them. certainly from my tours of duty in japan and my time in the middle east and europe that is a concern. it's not just can we trust america to be there for us. it also becomes a question of what does this mean for other nations in the region. america has long been the defender for democracy around the world. we have been there for our allies and partners and now it has the appearance that america is walking away from that and with that really means is that other nations like china and russia are seeking to take advantage of that perceived american weakness. host: you right this is a book about allies. receptive they seemed to the reassuring message. trump might be sowing uncertainty due to rapid changes
in policy and spur of the moment but those were largely to appeal to his base. matus and tillerson are working in concert to keep this thing on track. expand on that. could use the esperanza spencer from over the weekend. strong statements about eddie gallagher and others who have been accused of crimes to pardon them or to intercede directly to re-elevate eddie gallagher to the rank of chief petty officer and ensuring he can keep his trident pin during retirement. that's a microcosm of what i expressed in the book. communicating to voters and
americans who support him. that gets conflated sometimes. it's very difficult to tell and that's where that prior coordination becomes incredibly important. if the state department receives a heads up that this is largely for political consumption that's one thing. if it was to be acted on that needs to be corneille did as well. host: how frustrated did secretary mattis get? guest: one of the things i love the most about working for him is that he is a consummate professional. he is someone who does not believe -- the saying i have always used is the emotion is enemy of good judgment. kate -- came out it was, let's do the best we possibly can. from sylvester in
baltimore, maryland. democrat line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i just heard basically monitoring the impeachment hearing and i hear a lot of people saying that obama did not give lethal weapons to ukraine. -- point out something to the effect that the ukrainian for suchnot prepared advanced weapons. could you elaborate on what you found out? now i have a clear understanding of why obama did not send those lethal weapons. guest: during the time when president obama was considering whether or not to provide defensive lethal aid, i was in japan.
during my time with secretary mattis in the fall of 2017 we traveled to kiev. that was something that was brought up continually by .mbassador volker ukraine is on the front lines in a hot war with russia. there is the region where the active ongoing conflict exists. they've had 14,000 ukrainians killed in the years they have been fighting against the russians. when you think about the importance of that defensive lethal aid that was something that certainly president trump did feel incredibly was important to get to the ukrainians and that is something that did occur under secretary mattis. host: jeff from indiana. independent line. caller: you have touched on a couple points i want to bring
up. my son is a seal and i am from a part of indiana where eddie gallagher is from and it is covered somewhat on the local news. i don't think he was ever a very well-liked person on the teams. pardon reallyial has not that much to do with eddie. it is just a sort of convenient prop for the president because immediately i'm seeing reporting that the president expects to see him out on the campaign at the convention so basically it's what the president is getting out of this because actually he's hurting the special operations community by going in and making these willy-nilly decisions just for his purpose and i'm sorry to see this thing come down this way. i wish eddie gallagher could just fade off into the sunset but i think trump being who he is will not let that happen and that's my comment.
it's basically all for the president as usual. thank you. guest: one thing that i would noteworthyote, it is to those men and women who wear the cloth of our nation that you have an active duty member of the naval services who appealed directly to the president of the united states for clemency. noteworthy itself is . you are circumventing the military code of justice. professional organization, for the military it's all about discipline and that is something that the military normally can self regulate and take care of itself internally and hold itself to a very high standard. anytime you have a senior leader who selectively picks cases you
start raising the issue of if you can catch a senior leader's maybe you have a different outcome. so that's the concern moving forward. impressionsere your of the firing of richard spencer? sure what still not went on behind closed doors. spencer whoretary has said in his letter that it appears more like he resigned out of principal so i think it's going to be a while before we know exactly what happens. the danger of operating in an ad hoc environment where you are in serving america's interest abroad and you don't make sure decisions have been vetted wrote the system these kind of breakdowns occur. host: how would you characterize the president's level of
interest when it comes to describing him and telling them about issues important to defense? guest: i recount the meetings he had with president trump when he came over to the pentagon. the first was on july 20 of 2017 and it was to walk him through the importance of our global array of forces. anretary tillerson uses opportunity to talk about the disposition of the embassies in conflicts around the world and there was not much interest. he was more into the bumper sticker approach and i think both matus and gary cohen wanted to give him the in depth and he was not too keen to hear it. men: you write that both matus and tillerson were respondent. remainder of the meeting president trump veered from topic to topic like a squirrel caught in traffic. guest: i bring out the most
important lesson learned especially for someone like myself who was in charge of the message and that is the next time president trump came over it was all pictures, no words. show him photos. engages interest. capture his excitement about the topic at hand. don't try to give him a lecture. we learned the president didn't respond well to people who were going to lecture him. host: did that frustrate the secretary? guest: when you are an expert in your field and a senior leader does not have the depth of knowledge you would like to believe they are going to give credence to what you're saying and they are going to show an interest in getting into the nuts and bolts. host: the book is called holding the line by commander guy snodgrass. , retiredn-salem military.
caller: hello. i served in japan. in the navy. i loved it there. i used to be a democrat but i because of howan i believe the democrats just use. i am a black american in the way and they do nothing for that community and president trump has in my opinion been good for the community. was i was calling about what do you think about how some arele in the military now testifying and they seem like they have opinions. but when i was in the military, we were supposed to be neutral in our thoughts.
we had no opinion. we just served the commander-in-chief. and there was a chain of command. i just looked at it as betrayal for anyone to set up and testify against the commander-in-chief when we should be neutral and we should respect the chain of command. guest: that's actually how i both start the book and close out the book is the importance of the men and women who serve in the military to retain that a political identity. factyou think about the that the united states military has long been one of the most trusted institutions in america for decades and i believe a large part of that is it is widely seen as being apolitical. sure theto make elected leaders or the appointed leaders running the military have the best information to make the best decisions. that's where you're starting to
see some of this breakdown. fbi, the cia and other apolitical institutions have had their loyalty called into question and now you're seeing the military whether it is sending troops to the border where the military is being increasingly drawn into this highly politicized environment. that's dangerous because you want the military to be widely praised for its apolitical role to stay above the fry. host: how often did secretary mattis and the president meet? guest: it varied over time. secretary mattis would go over numerous times for a week in the beginning of the administration. he would be routinely called upon to give his advice. that started to taper off as the president became more confident in his own abilities and understanding of the military. mattis had a lot of issues at play especially at the
beginning of the administration you had the creation of the space force. a lot of these issues that required his attention. it's very easy to lose sight of especially in domestic allah takes. when you have one of these jobs you have not only a national but an international portfolio and you don't catch a break just because it's a saturday or sunday. host: thomas in texas. republican line. caller: you think the kurds still respect us? i digress. we have 40,000 people dying a year on the streets of america with guns that are made for war. do you think they should have it? did you guys do anything about the contractors stealing billions of our taxpayer dollars? thank you.
of the ones you brought up was afghanistan and this issue of contractors. i know the u.s. government is always looking at ways to ensure that the companies that do business with us and operate overseas are doing so in a legal and ethical fashion. one of the biggest concerns we had with providing forces to afghanistan as we also provide monetary forces to afghanistan and you had the issue of ghost soldiers where the armed forces in afghanistan had created basically fake people so they could bring in more money to assist their government. that is something we certainly cracked down on. whether it's the pay or benefits we areo our own forces always making sure that done as ethically as possible. host: diana in gaithersburg. just wanted to say thank you to c-span for having
intelligent human beings who actually use their brains and who see something and say .omething it sounds like the gentleman who wrote this book saw something and said something. it's the people in germany had done the same thing hitler's might not have ever taken over. i'm not saying that trump is hitler's or has that kind of violent tendency, but he is really a scary human being. he's taking where our country but everything he , it's like he brought his reality show to the united states of america house of the people and i thank god for andle who are standing up
questioning what he does, what he says. he does not say -- anything he says is not off-the-cuff. i have known people like him. and i think we need to be aware and not give him any purchase. question everything that man says and thank you for writing your book. i hope more people will stand up to him. for raising you those points. that's one of the best parts of living in a democracy as you can have positions that don't necessarily go in direct alignment. in chances for me to come and speak about these issues is incredibly important. certainly there are millions of men and women who serve not only but asarmed forces public servants. i think their efforts are to be commended.
i wanted to be able to share with the american public was like to make decisions at this level of our tomorrow c. i wanted to do so from an apolitical standpoint so i didn't choose sides. host: the book is called holding the line: inside trump's pentagon with secretary mattis written by guy snodgrass. (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans. .202) 748-8002 independents there a viewer off twitter asking if you have written another book. there are rumors you are the author of a book a warning by anonymous. this author that had correctly identified that joe klein had written the and he looked into
analysis and set the writing from the newly released anonymous book had amazing similarity. host: the arguments for why alliances strengthen national security. in particular both books stressed that when briefed about international alliances the president derails discussions by griping about how allies are stiffing the u.s. and a sensibly one-sided trade policies. guest: he identified that i use the term lodestar and a lot of my writing. host: do you know who wrote the anonymous book?
>> i don't. they had about three or four people they thought it might be. everyone has their guests of who it's going to be. for me i thought it was very important to write about the material to make it available for the american public and to put my name to it so the readers could assess themselves. we have a bias, do i have an agenda. am i an expert in this field. i think that's important for accountability. host: you are no associated with the book a warning. guest: no. host: talk about secretary mattis's style. guest: a demanding style. he is relentlessly laser focused not only as a marine coming up through the ranks but as a service secretary on what's best for the military and our armed forces and that is his guiding star. but he wants to ensure that the american forces are prepared and ready to go.
that was why during his tenure he had three lines of effort. that meant that we operated at a furious pace and of course the standards were incredibly high. host: you write that mattis believes there are only two types of organizations. where the staff informs the leader of what to go or where to do. matus was clearly in the first camp. a four times a year course where you have newly rising or newly promoted one star generals and admirals. that's a constant refrain that matus would bring up during that discussion. you can walk in and immediately tell whether the
person is actually in charge and running the show or the organization. he felt he knew what he wanted to accomplish as defense secretary and he needed the organization to align itself to him. now everything from restoring the budget for the military, producing the national defense strategy, defeating isis which we defeated the physical caliphate. there were a number of large ticket items he wanted to accomplish. times you refer to the phrase adult in the room. >> largely it was secretary .attis you had secretary of state tillerson. gary conan others. this gets back to what president himself both as the nominee and as president-elect, he wanted to bring the best individuals with a depth of knowledge into his
administration. those were the individuals who wanted to help bring the president the best information so he could make good decisions. missouris is bob from on the independent line. start by would like to giving a shout out to the moose herders and keep up the good work. secondly i want to make a comment about donald trump's very first cabinet meeting. table calling the on each individual and general mattis was the only one that didn't kiss his butt. thank you general mattis. and then i want to get to donald trump pardoning more criminals. -- war criminals.
i would say models are at an all-time low when posing with a dead human corpse is acceptable. president called the patriots are testifying against human scum. partythe republican booing john mccain, one of the greatest americans who ever lived. donald trump tells cops to people up. -- ralph people up. rough people up. guest: you let off with asking about the cabinet meeting and i
agree with you. i recount that seen in the book and we were also pleased because it was about retaining the apolitical nature of the military. mattis of course served at the pleasure of the president. seen the fact that secretary mattis, it wasn't whether or not he was kissing up to the president, it was the fact that he wanted to put the men and women in the department of defense out front of the issue. that was very laudable. you talk about the ukrainian , it's interesting. people have right into his testimony in uniform as a personal choice and it's not. dictateulations will that you go and testify in your uniform.
is operating in accordance with the oath he's taken to defend the constitution of the united states. it's not a choice. we sell reporting what happened about the president's desire to have a parade. could you tell us about that and have secretary mattis responded? guest: that was during the first visit to the pentagon in july 2017. they had to provide the president with an in-depth briefing on the benefits that america reaps from an economic and national security standpoint by having small numbers of diplomats and military members parade around the world. it rapidly became derails as the president wanted to talk more about his visit to bastille day and how impressive that parade does and he wanted to have an accompanying parade in washington, d.c. and that was
something everyone in the room was unified against because of the optics and the cost. this is when america's military had had years of reduced funding because of sequestration. we are now just getting the funding restored. to take millions of dollars out of those coffers and put it was seen as not the right prioritization of funding p host: the president was insistent during the meeting. guest: he was. a lot of times if you have an idea like that, it was sprung on the members of the meeting. it becomes, let's take a look at that and get back to you. int: washington state toledo. caller: good morning. master chief petty officer who served over 30 and
sort of had an unusual career. i had no idea what a yeoman was when i joined the navy. my commander was getting ready to go fleet reserve and he said demand to be a yeomen when you do the interview. so i did. tour and went to work for a vice admiral when i was just 19. she called me into his office one day and he had me read john paul jones's letter. he said you will never be able to be an officer because of your vision but wherever you go in this world you are going to be an ambassador of the united wills and i think you operate under these precepts. flight writers a school in 1957 and in 1957 later started working on
logistics capability support plans. a year later i was helping prepare flights. years at sea in tin cans p i love tin cans. small boys. vietnam. in so i have a little bit more knowledge than most. one thing i was taught, when you join the military you keep your responsibilities. that's a big obligation. you cmj backs up other federal law which violates geneva. we violated geneva in the case of gallagher. we have not handled it internally. it may well be that if the man sets foot on nato territory, he could be taken to the hague and tried there.
host: let's let the commander respond. guest: your point that you made when you had your commanding officer redo the john paul jones letter and the reminder that you are always an ambassador. i agree wholeheartedly. that was a message to the men and women i lead in japan. whether you are on duty, off-duty, on-base or off-base you are always an ambassador and certainly when you wear the uniform of our nation eyes are drawn to you. how you conduct yourself is incredibly important and never more so than when you serve overseas. the way you conduct yourself and the way you treat others is amplified. host: you mentioned the uniform code of military justice. that's the importance of the discussion we are having with cases the president has personally intervened on and the beingf secretary spencer
fired by the president. ensuring that you go where the facts lead you. you self regulate. start intervening belowally into issues far your station, it's a distraction. it means you are not putting your time elsewhere. it also means you are picking and choosing winners and losers and that becomes very dangerous in an organization. is next.sissippi carl on the retired military line. caller: i sent a letter before he left on a dvd about ambassador peace and goodwill missions. i've seen a lot that's taken place now. russian incident, north korea, the middle east and what we are dealing with our nation. from 81 and 82.
before reagan made his first year in office. i was standing there looking in north korea. kim senior. kim died in 1994 but what i'm after the 1946 statement was made, that is what put us in the police of the world. both of america doesn't understand that. that's why we have a large deficit today. host: what would you like the guest to address, sir? caller: the situation with the president and we have to respect general mattis. i did send him it's -- a tape. i sent all of them a copy of it. but i'm going to let them know that we still can have peace but we've got to hold the line like the gentleman was saying. host: thank.
guest: you always have to balance the current fight versus the future fight. we have forces around the world and the obligations seem to have crept up to since the time of ronald reagan and i would agree. stated u.s. policy for a number of years that we need to rebalance our force structure but wethe indo pacific keep getting pulled back to the middle east. to the gets back difference between the current fight which we find ourselves in against terrorism not only in the middle east but around the world but also trying to position the u.s. military for that future fight and that can be high in conflict against nationstates. that's what a lot of our leaders find difficult is how do you balance today and tomorrow. host: you write about a falling
out with secretary mattis. what happened? guest: he was disappointed that i chose not to take the promotion to caption -- captain. i was selected for the pathway to be the commanding officer of a nuclear powered aircraft carrier. incredibly humbled and honored. the way the navy pipeline works if you have decided you can no longer proceed further you are going to be shunted into a side job as a navy captain. going the decision i was to retire and i think secretary mattis didn't appreciate that decision. it changed his perspective of who i was as a leader and public service. it affects a lot of military members. typically you are on the way up and people make investments in you and if you are looking to do --ething this friend
different suddenly that investment stop. -- stops. onward,om that instance did it become difficult? ultimately you left. at one point mattis fired you. guest: that didn't happen. in the book what i recount is it did change the perspective. not only do you have secretary of defense, you have military members recently retired and in actively serving two star general at the time who believed very deeply that i should follow the path they had walked. that's understandable. it's the choices they made to become senior leaders in the navy. i'm honored. i have utmost respect for those who chose that path. when my family and i were not compatible with the pathway to
nuclear powered aircraft carriers that changed the perspective and the way i was treated. that also has implications for the pipeline. as i looked for a better path and by that i mean if i know it's challenging here in the office, secretary mattis in a year and half in office had never had a civilian successfully work for him and actually stay in government service. everyone had either been fired or shunted aside left out of frustration. i thought here is an opportunity to have a win for team mattis. here's an opportunity for me to continue to serve as a public servant. go tod an opportunity to a different job in the department and one of the individuals subsequently blocked that and said lied about it i said, i've had enough. it's time to do something else. host: you left on your own volition. what did secretary mattis think about the book?
yes, i don't think he's a fan. -- guest: i don't think he's a fan. he came out with a public statement saying i had surrendered my honor and demonstrated my true character by choosing to write this book. i was disappointed in that. i have already made statements about the fact that jim mattis knows he cannot define my honor or my character. and that through my actions the way i handle myself. i found that to be fairly hypocritical. he wrote a book. he recounts conversations he had with president obama, president bush and joe biden. host: candace career called you a jr. staffer who took meetings at some notes. response was ic took the defense superior service medal that secretary mattis awarded me and has a long
lengthy write up about all of the issues of national and international significance that i actually made decisions on and posted it online. host: holding the line written by commander guy snodgrass. next up, democrats line. caller: hello. this is the first-time call for me. i watched you guys forever. -- your proper attitude in this world of men. i applaud your attitude in every direction. the obvious fissures from the isssure this administration putting on our international relationships and the pressure
those relationships put on us and the other direction. do you see from your new persona as an author any possibilities that give you the chance for a fiction book from this where thetion military would act and i will throw this word out because mainstream media has used it, a propery coup to put the control on any of these situations that may crop up between now and the next election cycle? guest: the number one thing to address is absolutely not. never in a million years would i ever foresee a military coup. of maintaining the apolitical nature of the military. the men and women who serve stand those front lines in america's defense not only at home but abroad and just like you mentioned at the beginning militaryall, these
members serve as investors overseas just like every bit as much is our public servants in the department of state do. foruld never see a need military members to intercede domestically. host: keith is in florida. caller: good morning and i want to thank you and all the military service members and the sacrifices that them and their family members go through. this country wouldn't be here without you. i have a quick comment before my question. thend it a little about secretary of the navy and president trump. by the reporting, the secretary of the navy wanted to go to show end of it wasthe guaranteeing the president that he wouldn't lose his trident or his rank or anything and was going to be allowed to retire which he wanted to do in the
back behind peoples backs. president trump did in the open. i find it a little odd. i would rather have it in the open like president trump did. could you give the history of the way commissioned officers, the history of why they made it college -- i served 1980 to 1982 and a mobile missile unit and there was already a rift beginning in vietnam with commissioned officers and the rank-and-file. to me it seems with even the military colleges just getting non-apoliticalc, in the military and especially in the pentagon and stuff with social experiments and stuff. is there a bigger program for enlisted men to become officers, not just one officer?
there's a lot of pathways including the state 21 program and otherwise enlisted members can parlay the skill sets they've developed and the experience they've had into not only a degree at a civilian institution but to come back and as an officer in their chosen service. i had several sailors from my command in japan who applied were or were excepted to the u.s. naval academy. they were able to not only go .hrough a premier institution one thing i definitely want to family is the nature of sacrifice. it's very easy when you've written a book. it suddenly becomes very personalized to you. basically agree wholeheartedly with you. when you look at my wife, my
children. the sacrifices they've made. us who serve in uniform in many cases get to live our dream. it's easy to do when someone else has to pay the bill. certainly a shout out for all the families out there who support the men and women in uniform. host: how did you find out that secretary mattis was going to resign and when did you figure instances inare the book that kind of clarify that. opens with him getting into the motorcade as he leaves the white house. as you get further into the book you will see in the summer of 2018 that general john kelly came over to the pentagon. it was a completely off the books meeting. we didn't want anybody to know about it. i only stumbled upon it by happenstance because i went towards his office and stumbled into that meeting.
months before he actually announced his resignation he knew he was headed towards the exit and they were just trying to figure out how to coordinate that and make sure it was done so the department and the administration was taken care of. host: the military times reported the president said he fired secretary mattis because of afghanistan. guest: i watched that real time. i think we have seen a pattern where it's very rare to leave this administration with your honor and your dignity intact. there's no elements of if you've left you have signaled you don't want to work with president trump and therefore he needs to come after you in a public fashion. momentugh because in the it may feel good. when you think about the larger ourrcussions, the theme of discussion is the fact that when we are not well coordinated it as a deterrent for others to want to join your administration and you start to siphon off a lot of talent that may have been brought in.
host: anthony from newport, tennessee. independent line. caller: good morning. i just have a couple questions. 65 and 66.etnam in when trump took over, he told everybody that he is smarter than the generals. you are a commander so i came up walking to you telling you how to fly your plane. i never heard a president turnaround and have his people. never heard that. i never heard a president turnaround and say one thing one day, another thing another day. lie about it the third day. how can a person in the military follow a man like that but never touched a gun in his life? guest: i would tell you that whether an elected official has or has not served in uniform
really has no bearing. they are elected by the american public to serve the role they have been elected to and those of us who have worn the cloth of our nation, that's again. civilian control of the military. one thing i will touch on is the element of this chaotic nature within the administration. i have recounted in the past president trump pulling his pistol out of the holster and shooting himself in his own foot. you can coordinate these actions. you can let your cabinet secretaries, international leaders know where you are ultimately going to wind up. but if you reverse your decisions on a daily basis, if you haven't coordinated a rollout, if you haven't actually let your leaders know, you catch them flat-footed and the greater optic here at home and internationally is that it's an administration that keeps tripping over its own feet. that's unfortunate because it actually diminishes the president's ability to accomplish his own agenda.
mattis, what is the one valuable thing you have learned from him walking away from it? guest: from secretary mattis? no matter whatwha comes your way, you stay focused. there is a bit of a surprise. when i walked out of the pentagon out of the department of defense and suddenly a year later i have a book about my experience, it has disappearance that it was planned from the beginning. no, not at all. you are always thinking ahead. you are always taking about if i am where i am now, how do i make the most positive impact? what can you offer? the way i wrapped the book up is with lessons learned. the most important aspect of any flight was not the briefing but what occurred afterwards. this book serves as my debrief to what i witnessed. host: the book is called "holding the line: inside trump's pentagon with secretary mattis," written by guy snodgrass. thank you for your time.
happy thanksgiving. that is it for our program today. another edition of this show comes 7:00 tomorrow. president trump hold a rally tonight. you can see that on c-span. see you tomorrow. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> looking at some of our live programming today across the c-span networks come in about half an hour, the wilson center hosts a conversation on european relations with the northeast region of africa. the europeans representative to the region is expected to take part.
watch that live at 10:30 a.m. eastern. later, a look at policies and relations with iran and iraq. that begins live at noon eastern also here on c-span. we have more from the hudson institute with a discussion on china's global influence and a growing competition between the u.s. and china in the indo pacific region. watch that live at noon eastern on c-span two, online at c-span.org, or listen live with the free c-span radio app. today, we will have the 30th addition of the annual turkey pardoning started in 1989 by george w bush. first president trump and lady melania trump will hold the ceremony for two turkeys named bread and butter. that will be right around 2:00 p.m. eastern. c-span's campaign 2020 is with president trump live today at
7:00 p.m. eastern as he holds a campaign rally in sunrise, florida. his first their sons changing his residency from new york to florida in late october. live coverage on c-span. what it online at c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app. >> we are going to talk about the u.s. and mexico canada trade agreement for the next hour. two guests joining us. one is a global trade watch director. also, phil cox of the group trade works for america. he serves as the cochair. thank you for joining us today. give us a snapshot of what usmca is and the perspective you take on it as far as the validity or if it is good or bad or whatever you want to bring to the conversation. >> the good news is that nafta definitely needs to be replaced. almost a million jobs have been lost to n.