Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20161125 : comparem

loyalties. meanwhile, it's black friday, one of the biggest shopping days of the year. shoppers are expected to spend a $27 billion today alone. some groups are calling for boycotts based on political reasons. both supporters and opponents of president-elect donald trump are urging consumers to continue to vote with their dollars and sean retailers who spoke out in favor or against them during the campaign. which leads us to today's question for our viewers. would you boycott a company for political reasons? if you support political-based boycotts, you can call call (202) 748-8000. if you oppose them, you can call (202) 748-8001. you can also reach us on social anda, on twitter, @cspanwj, on facebook at facebook.com/c-span. at a little bit more about some as we'veboycotts already started the black friday shopping day, according to business insiders. the antitrust movement is calling to boycott 32 retailers. it's hard to separate donald trump's businesses from his politics. as a result, some are calling for a boycott for companies that sell trump run next. the hashtag grab your wallet, after the leaked tape of trump taking lewd comments about women. they encourage people to boycott companies doing business with the family. includes 32 companies including major retailers like amazon.com. there are also people who are supporters of donald trump you are also urging a boycott of some businesses, it according to the international business times , in the campaign to drain the ofmp and shrink the wallets government elites, supporters of president-elect donald trump urged one another monday to boycott a number of corporate behemoths in support of hillary clinton in general liberal ideals. macy's, included pepsi, dell, dreamworks, and netflix. companies toured support, which has several mass-market breweries and fast , the nationalts rifle association, nascar, world wrestling entertainment, and cars made in america. boycotts are underway both in favor and in protest to the incoming president. we are asking you what your thoughts are on that today. nick is calling in from fairview, tennessee. you support clinical boycotts. tell us why. -- political boycotts. tell us why. caller: you have to think god now that us deplorables are now ruling, you have your money -- you have the right to spend her money where you want. i'm going out with my grandson today, in the first thing i'm going to do is buy some more ammunition. i might look at the firearms. avoid -- well, i love robert de niro's talents, but i think i will boycott his next movie. it's fine, spend your money where you want, but also don't spend it where you want. theseing to avoid sanctuary cities. when others quite a few of them, but i don't travel that much anyhow. host: have you always voted with your pocketbook? have you always taken politics in mind when you make a choice of where you shop? caller: not always, but i have many times. it's so rages like these sanctuary cities. ,ortunately, where i live nashville is a century city. i can avoid nashville as much as possible. there's other towns around here where i can spend my money. they are going to sit there and give sanctuary to criminals -- i get so tired of hearing undocumented worker. is tols favorite pastime bastardize the language. they are illegal immigrants, not undocumented workers. cashspent $55 billion in to their home countries. meanwhile, a lot of them getting benefits here free from us. usee's a lot of reasons to your pocketbooks, martin luther king use it effectively with his people, and i was with him, believe it or not. i know i'm a racist now according to the liberals. but i was with him one is uncool be with people like that. host: to talk more about these boycotts that are underway, we're joined by kate taylor, she is a retail reporter and -- at "business insider." guest: thanks for talking with me. host: tell us more about the origin of this grab your wallet boycott. guest: shannon coulter basically started this hashtag before the election was over in october. and since the election is finished, it picked up a lot more steam that i thought i had prior tohashtag used the election completing. it really picked up steam with a lot of people discussing it and discussing different brands they are going to boycott. nordstrom's, the ceo sent out a companywide email earlier this week discussing the boycott and why nordstrom was not making the decision to stop selling the market trumps line. line.nka trump's after the election, people who do not support donald trump continue to discuss boycotting not just donald trump's businesses, but businesses that do any business at all with the trump family. -- how big docted we expect this boycott to be? it's amazon, nordstrom, belk, how big of an impact do you think this will have? to say.t's really hard at this point, it seems that for every person who has said they're going to boycott a business that sells trump family items, i've seen another person saying i support donald trump and i support the trump family. i'm going to buy from the business. i think a bigger thing is people making their voices heard on this issue. if it starts to hurt the perception of a company, i think that's going to be a more likely than actual loss of sales to hurt their sales. or people say will keep shopping a nordstrom to refuse to buy any of our contract items -- ivanka has saidms, nordstrom if a certain item is unpopular, they will be fortunate drop that line for financial reasons. host: tell us about the counter protest for people who support donald trump and are protesting companies who supported hillary clinton or were critical of the as pepsi,aign, such macy's, and dell. guest: that is something i find especially interesting. a couple of retailers on both of the lists. amazon.com, both people who support trump and people who are protesting trump are saying they should boycott amazon.com trump's items,ll but leadership has been critical of donald trump in the past. in a lot of ways, through actual sales, these things cancel each other out. but as the caller before he said, people have the right to kind of vote with their wallets, even once the election is over. host: talk a little about the starbucks protest. it's not a boycott, but people are voicing their support for the president-elect on their coffee cups. that one is especially interesting. i have seen a lot of people say they are protesting starbucks. the ceo has kind of repeatedly supported hillary clinton and thatery progressive values he discusses very openly. -- it's not quite a protest it's the idea of both normalizing the presidency of donald trump, normalizing the right -- alt-ld right movements, and seeing how bartow's -- reese does -- istas will react. it's silly to protest starbucks by giving starbucks your money, but it's showing support of trump and trying to make the barista uncomfortable, not to withdraw economic support of starbucks. kate taylor from "business " thanks for joining us. "washington post," says trump supporters have seized on a tradition of starbucks as they asserted telling starbucks employees at their name is tomp, promoting barista's shut out trump. host: we're talking a politically motivated boycotts and asking if you are going to do it. samuel is calling in from fort worth, texas. you oppose these boycotts. tell us why. caller: hello. i'm mostly opposed to boycotts -- not in the sense that i think that the blue boycott or wrong, but more in the sense of is it really a good way to spend your time? something i personally wouldn't do. i think our entire lifestyle in theseays depends on companies and these economic forces that rely on taking advantage of people in very poor economic situations. if you own apple products, you indirectly are relying upon workers who live in conditions that historically are so bad that some of them have decided to commit suicide. not that i'm immune to it, like several products have that somewhere down the chain. i'm not trying to be too nihilistic here, i'm just saying , itself,ering doesn't cause change. i'd rather do something that matters. or that has a higher efficacy. something like contacting or trying to change regulations. host: loretta is calling in from pennsylvania. you support politically-based boycotts. are there any retailers you will be avoiding the shopping season? caller: yes, all of them. host: tell us why. caller: well, i do like to shop. so i'm not going to shop area i just give money. the first thing i want to say is , i want to thank donald trump for bringing his beautiful wife and family to the white house. and bringing christmas back to us. thank you, donald trump. and i think that president obama should keep quiet. he's had his turn. then now, it's time for a new president. and if anybody doesn't like it, they can leave the country. they are free to go. i think hillary should move down to one of molly -- to guatemala in that mansion she built in state on there and keep her big mouth shut. host: in keeping with our discussion of economic boycotts, a little bit more about some of the companies that are being targeted by those who oppose donald trump. it says thenews, campaign is targeting brands that align themselves with trump , such as new balance, which ended up in the crosshairs when one of its company executives made comments supportive of 's comments and the all right website the daily stormer called the brand the official shoes of white people. new balance, one of the retailers in the crosshairs of ongoing boycotts of retailers for political reasons. dawn is calling in from cooksville, tennessee and he supports political boycotts. caller: i believe it's a privately legitimate way to have your voice heard. streets marching in the and burning buildings and smashing car bill -- car wilting's. -- windows. companiesparticular eye out to boycott right now, but i think it would be nice to boycotts and the entertainment outlets, such as broadway and wayma, and records, for the they mistreated mr. pence at the broadway showing. i think it will be marvelous to put a boycott on the entertainment like that. host: have you changed, this year, or in the past -- are there particular retailers that you are considering avoiding because of the election? caller: not because of the election, i just feel the being able to boycott like that is a perfectly legitimate, acceptable way to have your voice heard. host: ok. some other headlines today -- president-elect donald trump continues to shape up his cabinet. top of theat the list is retired marine corps general james mattis, who is a front runner for the spot of defense secretary. "washington times," reports that had beenattis, who forced out of the pentagon over his outspoken opposition to the obama administration's nuclear deal with iran, has emerged as a leading candidate to head the defense department as president-elect donald trump moves to fill at his cabinet. host: we continue our discussion about economic boycotts for political reasons. marianne is calling from albany, georgia. you oppose political boycotts. marianne, tell us why. caller: you know, if the tables were turned and this was clinton got in, we wouldn't be having this. mrs. clinton: i just cannot i just cannotler: believe that the people of united states voted for him. and he got in. and why don't they just let it go? boycotting these different that going to is accomplish? host: marianne, what about the supporters of donald trump who are boycotting some companies that voiced their support for secretary clinton during the campaign, including pepsi, macy's, dell, and dreamworks? doesn't work both ways? isn't that a way for people to express their views about the campaign beyond election day? caller: why? why do you need to do that? even his supporters that's doing that, i think it's ridiculous. i mean, pepsi is going to go on. people are not going to boycott pepsi. i'm not going to boycott my starbucks. you know, he has been elected. she has not. in my opinion, he is going to do -- for the people, ok? i don't understand -- i have never in my 60 years of life's riotsots -- life saw after the president being put in there. i will tell you up front, i did not want mr. clinton back in office because of what he did in -- my ex-husband got kicked out of the navy for. host: up next we have esther calling in from california. you support politically-based boycotts. why is that? i think politically-based boycotts is sometimes the only recourse that ordinary people have to try to make change. that is what helps to bring about the end of apartheid in south africa, and it was used during the civil rights movement. we have a long tradition of political boycotts. companies that are profiting from these israeli occupations of palestinian land. one of these companies is hewlett-packard. theh is very involved in surveillance system in the west bank. host: esther, have you always taken into consideration political views or world events when you choose which retailers you shop? caller: no, i haven't. i am pretty much focused right now on israel palestine situation. but i guess i'm somewhat aware -- i do sometimes apply to other situations. i can't come at the moment, think of what i have done that. host: a little bit more about the president-elect's cabinet picks. "washington post," reports that wilbur ross, the king of bankruptcy, for buying beaten-down companies with the potential to deliver profits is expected to be president-elect donald trump's choice for commerce secretary. host: we will continue our discussion about economic boycotts for political reasons. gerald calling in from clarksville, indiana. you oppose it, gerald. why you think that's a bad idea? caller: in my opinion, here is a man who is coming into this country. he is trying to turn around what our current sitting president -- the trauma he created. now you have these people now coming in -- because the man is a businessman, ok. as you've seen in recent news, he was going to put his family basically in charge of his affairs anyways. what the conflict here is. i mean, he's willing to basically -- the man was willing not to even accept a salary for what he was doing. i think we should give the man a chance. --hink this is all political a political thing to try to get people to turn against him. host: people that voted with their pocketbooks since the beginning of commerce. what makes this different than other people who choose not to support a particular company based on their hiring practices or based on other reasons besides politics? caller: i could use an example -- back when jesse ventura ran for governor of minnesota, back in the day. jesse ventura used his own money. he didn't take any outside profits or anything else. he didn't want any part of making any campaign promises or anything. but he was still basically he wouldn'tbecause work with the public. to answer your question, yes, people have opened up their pocketbooks in the past. i guess for political reasons. but i would like the idea of at least giving the man, donald trump, a chance. host: sean is calling in from sunnyvale, california. very early morning to you, sean. you oppose economic boycotts for political reasons. why is that? caller: i just wanted to say one thing about what that guy was talking about and you had asked him why boycott these companies. the way i look at it is, why are we boycotting companies when it doesn't matter who won, hillary or trump, it wasn't a win win for everybody on either side. so why don't we just boycott the election? what's the point of letting someone stupid or even evil, like some people say that hillary, run our lives? taken intoyou ever account things outside of an actual product when you chose which retailer you -- where you shop? caller: that's why i'm not into the whole iwatch or the whole be our stuff. stuff all just nonsense to trick our minds and blindness. -- blind us. just to make us all like cattle. host: a little more information about today's black friday. according to the "wall street journal," black is often early start in the battle for shoppers. in an effort to hold off advances from online rivals, such as amazon.com, traditional retailers have been moving discounts earlier in the month, linking their stores and websites more closely and finding ways to capitalize on the rise in mobile shopping. brick-and-mortar stores are pulling out all the stops. host: a little more on how brick-and-mortar stores are competing with online stores this online shopping season. vernon, you support political burn -- boycotts. are you supporting any particular retailers this year? caller: not really. i support it because they are biased. they've shown that they are biased on their advertising. what i really dislike is all the -- cbs,ce news media nbc, all of these different ones that just -- every day they just spoke all negative towards donald trump. that's what people really hate most of all. that's why they are boycotting any company, any news media -- if i could get a different news media, i would go to that. at least they weren't biased. host: do you think that economic boycotts are effective? a major retailer like amazon.com is expected to do very well during the holiday shopping season. do you think that it's worth it for people to do it? caller: if that's the only way they can get them to shut up and to be nonbiased, yes, i do. change they will whenever their agenda is, what they speak. i think they will hear what the people are saying. people are not against the companies, they are against what the companies are saying. that's it. david is calling in from denison, texas. you oppose politically-based economic boycotts. why is that? caller: generally, i would oppose it. it specifically has to do with the political part. the gentleman before me was talking about tv stations -- i don't see that so much in political. individuales to companies, like what growth of did with the ceos letter which was pretty stark when he was talking about it to his employees about what attitudes he expects or they need to resign, with a treatment the new balance got, i think that conservatives such as myself, i don't consider myself a republican, but a conservative. boycotts,involved in it's more of a retaliation against what the left has done. like the chick-fil-a people. they boycotted because of their desire to adjust what obamacare was doing with just two out of 26 birth control options. they were boycotted by the left. the result was they got tons more business because people didn't want them to be bullied. not necessarily because they supported what they were doing, but because they didn't want by the leftullied economically. i consider it a circular firing squad from a commercial standpoint. who is actually hurting? whenever the people who work there. it'll share the same opinions. when it comes to political free speech, we have to be careful about this boycott stuff. is not why trump one. but that's why his win was a surprise. the secret from vote with people who were afraid to speak out because they knew they would be ,ullied by friends, coworkers people taking the view that most an espoused,took especially after trump won the nomination. host: what do you think about other kinds of protests like the starbucks protest? it's not a boycott, its people going to starbucks and putting trumps name on their cup and tweeting him out. do you think that things like that are effective? caller: no, i think that's just fun. i don't see where that's going to change anything. i like starbucks coffee myself. we buy in bulk, we like it so much. but that is tongue-in-cheek. the circular firing squad -- is not that i'm against a boycott, that not political ones. i certainly think it's appropriate for nations and organizations to boycott countries like south africa, because of apartheid in such as that. iwatch all the stations. i want to know what they are saying. it's not the bias but it's that they don't report half the stories out there that might be favorable to the other side. that's my objection. oilink a different type of cup but not taking it out on individual companies unless they do something really agree just like the grub hub guy. talk about shoes -- the chick filet thing. new balance was at target and i got on their facebook page and that changed everything. i am going to support them. they are being bullied and i am going to support them so i hope we can get away from somebody calling new balance the white people's shoes. i feel like being -- like they are being politically bullied. retailers thathe may be boycotted this shopping season. some of the boycotts are ongoing such as the one facing target. inclusivity is one but ancore beliefs association reminded its supporters last month that it believes target has a dangerous and controversial restroom and sitting room policy. jerry is calling in from smith dale, mississippi, you support boycotts? are you boycotting any companies this year question mark --? caller: yes, it's one of the most important things that poor people have. reason why we the are who we are. there is the voter rights bill, civil rights bill, all of this comes from marching. they are cousins to boycotting. we need to get the attention of the people. we still have not reached our compassion to where we need to be. it's to let people know that we must [indiscernible] is one of the best ideas we can have to get the attention of the nation. we will go on to john calling in from texas, you oppose politically-based boycotts? caller: i have not watched fox to use -- fox news in 4.5 news. we just elected a draft dodging tax cheat. i called nbc in houston and i told them directly that i would never watch another program on their television station because they created this turd. i told them flat out and they will not answer my phone calls now. host: do you ever target advertisers of a television show and avoid them based on the programming you are seeing on television question mark caller: yes, i will not watch anything on nbc. the fox news reporters make $23 million per year. they are in bed with government. as far as chick filet, i like to go through the drive through and i ask get to the speaker, for a vanilla malt and they don't make them so i just drive through. i am fed up with this right-wing extremism. this guy is a terrorist -- host: and then a tweet -- in other news, former massachusetts governor mitt romney's potential selection as secretary of state in the incoming trump administration is causing a rift within the transition team. cnn reports about kellyanne conway tweeting about governor romney yesterday. this article says -- karen is calling in from auburndale, florida and use support economic boycotts for political reasons? any retailers you were avoiding this year? caller: yes, definitely macy's. that's because they chose to withdraw the sales products of donald trump a while ago. they made a political statement right up front. theirt see that that is marketing strategy. thatnt out a message to me they were trying to make a political statement and i wanted to make one back. also starbucks, they are making a political statement. took off ivanka trumps shoe line. they are making a political statement and they say they cannot sell their product because they think a certain way. poor, its of who i am is a mighty strong -- who i am for, it's a mighty strong statement. i am glad that we've got donald trump so i can make the statement back. it's not so much a boycott that a decision to go elsewhere. and a macy's and i will choose belk. they stayed out of the political arena. i feel like it's a voice on my part but i can truly make a decision with competition and that's what the market is all about is competition. they chose to make a choice and i have a choice. from wisconsin, you oppose politically-based boycotts? why do you think is a bad idea? and happyod morning belated thanksgiving and i hope everyone across america had a nice thanksgiving day. wisconsin has had quite a going backboycotts to the recall of our governor scott walker. people on the left called for boycotts from the teachers union and others from different companies that supported the governor. people across the state who elected them three times organized buy-cotts. they bought more of their products who supported him. there was a state senator from milwaukee who called for a boycott of certain companies owned by the koch brothers in wisconsin. it was pointed out that thousands of people were employed in wisconsin by these companies and it would hurt wisconsinites, this genius decided to back down from her boycott. they have not worked. that's why i am against them. people are called out to do that and people go out and support these companies and buy more of their products. i am against boycotts for political reasons. calling inve belvin from melvin and you support political boycotts? i will boycott all the ones that carry trump products. i'm an 84-year-old voter. i feel all people have a right to vote where they choose, shop where they choose even if it is for political reasons. from the caller who said that obama should shut up, there is only one president at a time. until january 20, 2017, is barack hussein obama. anywherell not shop where we have a first lady who poses nude. i don't think that's right. host: in other headlines today -- bob you are opposed to politically-based boycotts? tell us why. caller: in my 80 years, i have watched a lot of elections. i have never seen such hatred, such cries for vengeance, vitriolic. i have seen lifelong friendships destroyed over this. the idea that some corporate head says i will punish you for voting the way i do not approve of. to me, it's an outrage. no but i will tell me where i can shop -- nobody will tell me where i can shop or what i can buy. are talking about obama hanging around afterwards to create trouble. you have george soros meeting with nancy pelosi and other democrats to plot further. trump is accused of criminal act not yet committed or intended. it's the most ridiculous thing i have seen a my life and i cannot get over the vitriolic garbage going on. host: what about the idea that americans have the ability to speak out against what they disagree with but also with their money and choose to support companies that align with their political views? caller: who are these executives who place themselves above the public? onuy was on the other night the new show on fox. he totally refuses to deal with anybody who was in favor of trump. my god, the man one, let it go. calling in from georgia and you support economic boycotts? will you vote with your pocketbook this year? support roy cuts and i have been boycotting the holiday shopping season for my third year. ago, after michael brown smarter -- murder where he was sewed disrespected and left laying in the streets for four hours with his body uncovered, .eople decided to stop shopping what they did in stead is make charitable donations. they spent more time with family. they left name cards at their dinner table for people who had been killed at the hands of police. of 1965 is the boycott -- as you had a previous caller say -- that is the one way that people not considered whether it's native american, african-americans, limbaugh and his controversy, those are ways that people who do not have political power actually can demonstrate their power with their pocketbooks. one thing that everybody on the left and the right were upset about is the power that corporations have over our government officials. voice yourdo you disdain for that but with the corporations? and with those people making decisions based on their own pocketbook and unnecessarily for the best of the country. host: coming up, we will be joined by former new york lieutenant governor and trump supporter betsy mccoy to talk about how health care can change under president elect donald trump. changes are likely to be in store for environmental policy under president trump. benjamin schreiber of the good friends of the earth will join us with a preview. first, this week's c-span newsmakers interviewed the u.s. surgeon general. about is no report on addiction in the u.s.. here he talks about the role of --g companies in developing in addressing the opioid crisis. [video clip] role and there were a number of hoax to played a role. we did not have enough investment in treatment. we had pharmaceutical companies that were marketing these medications heavily to clinicians without enough emphasis on the downside and the harmful effects especially the addictive potential. if we can go back in history, that's something we can change but looking forward, we have to be very careful about the marketing of medications in general as well as for clinicians. annie medicine-- has a benefit and the risk and that's true even of tylenol over-the-counter. that consumers and clinicians know that risk. i would love to see pharmaceutical companies step up and play more of a role in the training -- not the training, but an extension of treatment. we have a problem on our hands and have to extend treatment and i would like to see pharmaceutical companies in general pay more attention to their marketing practices. we know those messages can be very powerful when people see them on advertisements. has careor myself who for patients, some have come to me and asked about medications they have seen on tv which they are led to believe are harmless and will cure many of their problems. it's often not the case. this presents an added burden to doctors and nurses. when you have advertising that is not entirely accurate or doesn't tell the full picture and is not in balance, you create additional risk and more work for doctors and patients. host: you can see the entire interview with the surgeon at 10:00 a.m. and at 6:00 p.m. on c-span. you can also hear it on c-span radio and it's available online at www.c-span.org. joining us now is betsy mccoy, the former lupin -- the former lieutenant governor of new york and is the author of the book about the obama health law and is here to talk about health care policy in a trump administration. thank you for joining us today. guest: i am delighted to join you. there are so many questions in everyone's mind about what's coming next. host: you recently wrote a column outlining the myths about repealing obamacare. can you give us the highlights? right, you hear a lot of fear mongering going on. that worries me because people who have pre-existing conditions or our newly insured should not be worried about what's coming next. everyone in the trump administration and in congress as well is determined to make a change that will help the 200 million people being clobbered or experiencing the negative effects of obamacare or the affordable care act without abandoning the few million people who are actually being helped by this law. hear again 1 -- you and again from the president and advocates for the law that more than 20 million people will lose their coverage if obamacare is repealed. that is definitely not true. let's look at the numbers -- of the 20 million people who have newly gained insurance coverage because of obamacare, 16 million of them are enrolled in medicaid, the public program for low income residents of the nation. medicaid is not going anywhere. we have had medicaid since 1965. the obama health law allows states to decide whether to expand it and a half the states in the nation have expanded their enrollment. those states will not do a 180 and shrink enrollment. that congress and the trump administration will probably turn the funding for medicaid into block grants which will give the states more flexibility to administer the program well. but that does not mean it's going away. it's needed because over the last three years, spend -- federal spending on medicaid has gone up 43% and we have not seen a big improvement in the health of people in medicaid. that is the goal. we need to make some changes. i am quite confident that those 16 million people will still have their coverage after whatever congress does this spring. we will talk more about medicaid in particular in just a moment. i want to make sure our callers know where to call to be a part of this discussion. we continue our discussion with former lieutenant governor betsy mccaughey about health care. you noted in your piece that president-elect trump -- iest: let me just explain, want to explain what happens to the 20 million. 5 million people are left who are newly insured because of obamacare. they are in the private health plan sold on the exchanges. some of those people have pre-existing conditions and they will definitely be taken care of. others are young people or people who have not bought insurance before. they are technically covered but they are having a hard time. even with subsidies, a lot of subsidies, a lot of people are finding it difficult to go see a doctor under those plans because the dockable's are so big. for thee and dollars bronze plan which is less expensive -- $6,000 for the bronze plan. they will lower the deductible and give people a broader range of choices in the trump administration. couples without children are paying for pediatric dental care for example or women over 50 who are still paying for maternity coverage. if you ask me, i will explain what happens to the people with pre-existing conditions. host: we will get there, i promise you. as you noted in your piece, there are some aspects of the affordable care act that resident electron has said he might keep including coverage for pre-existing conditions and things of that sort. as lawmakers on the white house looks into health care, do you think there will be more compromises that may be made on president-elect trumps previous vows to repeal obamacare entirely? guest: i am quite confident it will be repealed. when you say replaced, let's use the word duplicate. there are certain things in the affordable care act that needs to be duplicated in new legislation. wise keeping children on their plans to age 26. as donald trump pointed out, it adds to the cost of plans but it has become so popular that even without a law come insurance companies would be doing it. it's a big seller. another important one is devising a way to protect people with p existing conditions. -- with pre-existing positions -- conditions. the trump plan will guarantee that people with pre-existing conditions are able to buy insurance and they can afford it. here's the difference -- under they rammedre plan, together to groups of people in the insurance market. healthy people who had not previously bought insurance in many cases and chronically ill people, people with very serious conditions like diabetes, heart disease, parkinson's disease. when you put these two groups together in one insurance pool and tell the healthy people that they have to pay the same price as the very sick people, the very sick people need about 10 times as much health care. suddenly, the healthy people in the individual market are facing premiums under dockable's like they have never seen before. the deductibles are so big because they are designed to prevent these healthy people from ever getting anything back on their insurance plan. the money they pay in premiums has to go to care for the very sick people. the trump proposal is quite different. he would take the chronically ill people and design a special insurance pool for them where they would be able to buy coverage. insurance companies would put a higher price and that coverage but taxpayers would subsidize it so the actual consumer buying in that high risk pool would not face on affordable premiums. instead of forcing the limited number of people in the individual market to soldier the whole burden of caring for the sick, it would be spread across the nation. everybody would be helping take care of the cost of chronically ill people and that's a fair way to do it. you will see premiums and deductibles in the individual market go way down because of that change. host: we have callers eager to jump in. delia iscalling -- calling in from tacoma park, maryland who has employer provided insurance. caller: good morning. guest: happy thanksgiving. caller: thank you, happy thanksgiving to you. host: go ahead. caller: my name is celia. what you are describing is very much like what i would call a public option. is this administration considering that? would you also consider removing the part d of the pharmaceutical restrictions where we can use the u.s. government to lobby drug costs and cheapen it that way? are twohank you, these very different questions. which public option pertains to people under age 65, that was discussed extensively when the affordable care act was passed in congress rejected it. they created something similar, co-op. ,6 of them around the country they were publicly funded. in many of the states, these codes were designed to do with the public option would have done, compete with the commercial insurers providing competition and choice on the fear that that would hold down the cost. havetunately, the co-ops been almost uniformly a disaster. almost all of them are bankrupt or going out of business soon. in the process, they have wasted billions of dollars of our taxpayer money. i don't think the public option becauseconsidered again it was not successful in the form of co-ops. moving to the second question which pertains to medicare, there are three parts to a,dicare, the hospital party going to the doctor which is is yournd part c pharmaceutical coverage. i believe she is asking whether under a trump administration, there would be consideration of the federal government negotiating lower prices with drug companies so are part d drug benefit would be cheaper. that is a possibility. i heard donald trump say that on the campaign trail many times. ast: let me ask you about "washington post piece." it said president-elect donald trump is waffling on health care. part of the piece says -- care out-of-pocket. such a deduction is worth more to people with higher tax rates. by a without coverage repeal are lower income individuals with tax rates that are already well. the benefit they receive from the deduction does not come close to the financial hit they would experience from the repeal. it would cause 20 million people to lose coverage. is he wrong? are people who are lower income at risk? guest: he is. the figure 20 million people will not lose their coverage. millionon of those 20 are the low income people to whom david cutler refers and they will not lose coverage. they receive medicaid. medicaid is not going anywhere. in terms of the other 5 million, some will receive subsidies if they are in the high risk pool. the federal government will step up to make sure they can afford , despite pre-existing conditions. that leaves a couple of million other people. for them, congress and the trump administration will negotiate if there will be a refundable tax credit, or a taxed adduction for people who choose to deduct the cost of their health insurance. what many lawmakers are trying to do is to create an even playing field. if you get health insurance with your job, the way 155 million most popular, the way of getting coverage under 55, if you get insurance on the job it is not taxable to you. it is taxing them. lawmakers are looking to even the playing field so people who buy their own health insurance, a small market, but they want the same advantage. they want to buy health insurance with pretax dollars. host: you have private insurance and are on with lieutenant governor betsy mccaughey. c-span, are you totally serious? do you even venture your guess? this lady, i've been watching on cnn make a complete fool out of herself. guest: i don't think that is the appropriate conversation. we want to talk about health care. host: they want to be respectful of our guest. i am only being truthful. everything she said from the beginning is untrue. donald trump has not voiced any health policy. she says -- guest: excuse me. let me correct you. donald trump has talked extensively about health policy. he had health policy proposals on his website. to go there.you i want you to see everything that president-elect trump is putting out there, and i thank you for your call. host: let's look at the policies president-elect trump has proposed. points that says with the assistance of congress and working with the states, the administration will protect individual conscience in health care, protect innocent human life from natural death, including the most defenseless and americans with disabilities. advanced research, reform the fda to focus on the needs of patients, and for new innovative medical products, modernize medicare, and maximize flexibility for state. a lot of these may prove costly. talk a little about how the proposals -- guest: right. let me start individually. the fda. donald trump has been clear that themuld like to see approved more quickly if they are safe. the mission of the food and drug administration was to make sure nothing got on the market that could harm a patient. everyone agrees with that. over the years, hurdles have been erected, cost-effectiveness, comparative effectiveness, different ways of looking at drugs. they all have merits, but if you are facing a terminal illness, or have a child or anyone you care about facing a terminal make sureou want to if there's a possible cure it gets through the fdi in an expedited way so you benefit. trump,president-elect and other people, there are patient advocacy groups that want to make sure that happens, so things are not bogging down in the bureaucracy. i support that effort. ensuring the fda expedites approvals would be important. another example of a high priority, i think. hospital infections. 75,000 people die every year of infections they contract after they get into the hospital. this is something we can work to prevent. years ago i launched a national campaign to do this called the committee to reduce infection deaths. we advocate for more effective disinfection, better cleaning, helping patients to understand what they can do to reduce their risk when they go into a hospital. here is an area where taking action will not raise costs. it will reduce costs. we are spending over $35 billion a year treating infections we should never happen to begin with, not to mention the lives we are losing. host: we are talking to former new york lieutenant governor betsy mccaughey. columnist for the new york post and author of "beating obamacare" and beating obamacare 2014." withcarrollton, virginia employer-supplied health insurance. good morning. guest: good morning. caller: good morning, lieutenant governor. feel.is a simple, i i'm a retired civil service worker. i am insured under the federal employees program. do, thiseed to insurance i am under covers 500 insurance companies, goes across state lines, is the best insurance you can have. guest: i agree with you. is underhe premium $200 a month, my deductible is low. under obamacare i would not be able to afford anything. pay the penalty and forget about it and pray i don't get sick. if thet is president-elect is serious about fixing obamacare, he needs to repeal it to start. guest: he will repeal it. expanding thell federal employee's health insurance program to everyone. have the state insurance serves as and opm consultant to answer questions on how they may do this. as far as individuals, treat it as a group insurance to start. then, you don't have to worry about pre-existing conditions. it would be affordable. nt on the obama with care site, obamacare site -- guest: i agree. what a waste. this is an important call and i want to address it. terrific model and was discussed in congress by republicans before obamacare was passed. i believe what president-elect trump would like to do is duplicate that type of thing. consumers need choice. right now everyone is being told they have to have the one size fits all, washington-designed benefits package. that is passing a law that everyone has to buy a four-door sedan. what it does is presumes the consumer is stupid. consumers are not stupid. they know what they want, and not everyone wants the same insurance plan. one benefit is choice, a broad range of choices. as donald trump has said, we have to allow insurance companies to sell across state lines. unwiseates have very insurance regulations in place that push up the cost of plants. new york state, massachusetts, new jersey, you pay premiums far higher than california, for example. lieutenant governor, on my first day in office, i saw a long line of lobbyists outside. number one in line was the chiropractor lobbyist. 3, the acupuncture lobbyist. they lobby state government to say we want you to require every health care plan includes unlimited services of what we sell, acupuncture, chiropractors, wigs whatever it is. out except for the consumer that is stuck witht bill for the mandates. it is important to sell across state lines so people trapped in states with unreasonable insurancelaws can buy plans in other states. you can buy a car in any state, a bottle of wine in any state, a dress in any state, why can't you buy insurance that way? host: and uninsured viewer. you are on with former lieutenant governor mccaughey. affordablearding the care act, before the affordable company the insurance had us at $700 with no pay existing. with my four i pay children if i buy insurance on my own? if i can afford 700, i don't need any help. hitn the numbers, do not around the bush, give us the numbers. guest: are you asking what he will be paying currently under the affordable care act or when it is repealed and replaced? host: in a trust administration, what will the cost be? guest: it will be lower. in the individual market two reasons it will be lower. number one, you will have a choice of plans. number two, you will not be unfairly burdened with the cost of caring for the chronically ill. that will be spread over the nation instead of the small number of people in the individual market. that is a major change. that is the most important change. we want to make sure chronically ill people are cared for and their existing conditions do not keep them from insurance, but the burden should be shared with the nation, not those buying insurance in the individual market. that is being done now. you will find lower premiums and lower deductibles. that is the goal, affordable health insurance. medicaid.s talk about in today's "new york times" it says president-elect trump proposed converting the program states to grants for give them latitude over how the program is run, jiving with many leading republicans who wanted a medicaid overhaul that hands control to the states. a move is likely to expose divisions among republicans over how significantly to repeal for 12e protections million people who gained medicaid in 31 states and washington, d.c. that has expanded the program. "right now republican governors expanded medicaid and will fight to keep it. says you haveon to assume there will be some need for a solution for the 20 million people that are off are under and most medicaid." talk about the risk on the issue of medicaid. guest: 16 million newly enrolled in medicaid. know well.ubject i when i was lieutenant governor i was responsible for proposing a redesign of medicaid to do exactly what president-elect trump would like to do, give the states more flexibility. so much of this is being run from washington dc. want to do in new york state with our medicaid dollars is different from what you would find in a more rural state where you would need to reach into the countryside, providing community health clinics. giving states more flexibility will mean dollars are spent more wisely and make it to the spent onn set of being bureaucratic fighting between the federal and state government. host: according to the kaiser family foundation, 32 states and washington town have adopted the expansions. we can see them on the screen. carol from illinois, you have affordable care act insurance. you are on with lieutenant governor betsy mccaughey. guest: good morning. happy thanksgiving. caller: thanks. a i was nothe ac able to buy my own policy. as far as choice with my medical hmop, i was forced into one because blue cross blue shield did not offer any tpo's. it was blue cross' decision on what to offer. programis a republican out of the heritage foundation. it is basically what is going on in massachusetts. 28 ceos from various health care insurance and pharmaceutical companies. i am looking at the salaries of the ceo. the low is $6 million. the high is $36.6 million. you could say spread out over the insured people does not cost that much, but it is insane to have that salary when that money that is paying them is supposed to pay for health procedures for people. what we need is a single-payer like medicare with additional insurance and supplemental policies. path that the republicans chose not to make certain fixes when the law passed, which is common, congress fixes things, at every turn they refused to do anything. host: let's give the lieutenant governor a chance to tackle this. guest: let's address the bigger issue. i think one of the most important is the issue of single payer. for those watching who have not heard that term recently, single-payer means government provided health care, the government owns the hospitals and all of the facilities, pays , hospitalrectly administrators, and health care providers directly. the british national health service or canadian health service are two examples of single-payer. why don't i think that is a good way to go? i look at the cancer survival rate. they are lower in single-payer countries. the united states has the most kinds of cancer, highest or second-highest cancer survival second-highest cancer survival rates in the world. great britain has the lowest cancer survival rate is weern europe. why does that happen? in a single-payer health system, medicine has to compete for the , schools,s with roads and social services, capital infrastructure expenditures, it is a political battle. sometimes the patients lose out. the british national health service, many cancer patients wait longer for diagnosis and longer for treatment. it is not as aggressive. in the united states it is different. give youics to examples. in the united states, a woman diagnosed with breast cancer has over a 90% chance of surviving. it is not a death sentence. in europe, her chances of surviving are lower, especially in england. a man diagnosed with prostate cancer in the united states is not a death sentence. in england nearly one out of every four men diagnosed with prostate cancer die from it. from -- for me, that is a measure of which estimates better. i agree that medicare is an excellent system and is single-payer for the elderly. the reason medicare does so well onbecause it is piggybacked the commercial system. the government pays $.94 for every $1 of care for a medicare patient. the reason doctors can accept $.94 for each $1 is because they push it to the younger people in the commercial insurance market. we help keep medicare afloat. i hope that answers your question. times," "the new york they report the house gop is expected to seek changes in the way medicare works. donald j. trump once declared campaigning for substantial changes to medicare would be a death wish. with election day behind them, house republicans will move forward on an effort to shift medicare from the open ended commitment to pay for medical services to a fixed government contribution to each beneficiary. the idea rarely came up during the march to the white house, the future ofver medicare could roll washington during his first year in office, whether he wants it or not. in "the have a piece new york post" tomorrow on this issue. it is understandable that house republicans, like speaker paul ryan, and budget chairman tom price, and would want to piggyback on donald trump's popularity and political clout coming into office to push through their agenda. my advice to congress is support donald trump's agenda. his agenda is repealing and replacing obamacare, cutting taxes and regulations to make sure job growth gets jumpstarted . he is working very hard on that. of course, improving national security, protecting us from terrorism. those are top lines of priorities. building infrastructure programs, roads and bridges, which needs to be done. i would urge the trump administration not to be dissuaded from their agenda to support other efforts. i know speaker ryan and budget director tom price have proposed exempt nature of employer-provided health insurance. i would not do that. i can see union workers have swapped cash raises for health plans. they do not want to be slapped with a tax on those plans now. there you have it. host: like from houston, texas healthployer-provided insurance. you are on with lieutenant governor betsy mccaughey. caller: good morning. guest: happy thanksgiving. caller: happy thanksgiving. i heard callers voice support for the single-payer system. i am puzzled by that. it differs power and control to the government. imagine what it tells doctors in practice, how many patients they have to see per day, how fast, and the costs associated we don't see as a patient would impact us dramatically. what i like about the free market system is when i go to the grocery store i have 20 options in orange juice and toothpaste. all around us the shelves are full of options, selections, and price. it is amazing. we are so lucky. guest: that is what we should have in health care. -- host: i want to add one thing. would president elect trump continue a public option looking into how the replacement plans for obamacare? guest: let me explain, as i did a moment ago, the public option was part of the affordable care act in the form of 26 co-ops. 17 have gone bankrupt. it did not prove to be a viable option and we spent billions of dollars that could have gone to patient care on these experiments. i would not recommend a public option. medicare for the elderly and medicaid for low income people. i do not believe there is a reason for a public option for middle health care consumers. the caller raised an important point. bytors have been beleaguered the affordable care act. if he went to a doctor, instead of having a conversation, your doctor is forced to have his or her eyes on the computer filling inboxes and making reports. it has gotten out of control. uncle sam is in the examining room telling the doctor what to do to get paid here in, the patient, are an afterthought. i talk with doctors that are struggling with this. they could not do a better job preparing for patients then the doctor standing next to the patient in the examining room. host: good morning, karen. caller: good morning. you are wonderful. i don't have insurance. i tried to be legal. i'm 63. they wanted $300 a month for catastrophic, a $5,000 deductible. i only make it hundred dollars a month. i had to tell them i couldn't do that. me, i have tended to myself. i would go to the low-cost health clinics, my co-pay was $10. as in is the affordable care act with income it was $35. that is quite a bit to me. what gets me is i know the government is mostly what they are catering to to charge what they want to. what gets me is i've lived in norman for 7 years. the lady across the street from me is a legal. she had 2 kids. now she has 6. doesn't pay a penny, doesn't go to work, gets over $1000 a month in food stamps. my son is a wounded warrior and he cannot get decent mental health care. how she can have six or seven kids and not pay a penny, yet my son who served and worked 16 hour days in the air force cannot get mental health care. host: let's let the mental health -- let's let the lieutenant governor say -- guest: this caller is saying at all. that is what happens when the government gets too big and takes the power. a tope son should be priority. he served the country and should get mental health care. donald trump will make sure the veterans administration looks out for every vet. we have had enough of the dysfunctional veterans administration. one other issue that is important, the newspapers, cable television networks, focus on the few million people who have been helped write the affordable care act. it is important, we will look out for them. what about the 200 million people clobbered by the affordable care act. who getion people employer-provided health insurance have seen their deductible skyrocket 49% because of the affordable care act. 11 million people paying the penalty for not having the affordable care act. they did not sign up because they did not think it was affordable. they are being slapped with penalties. 55 million seniors hurt in the pocketbook and when they go to the hospital because cuts to medicare pay over half of the law. you have first time workers who downseen hours pushed because employers are trying to stay under the affordable care act. a used to work 30 hours, now they have 20 hours. you cannot support yourself with so few hours and try to cobble together two or three jobs to make ends meet. lots of people will be happy when it is repealed and replaced. host: betsy mccaughey former lieutenant governor of new york and author of "obama health law: what it says and how to overturn it." thank you for joining us today from lovely new york city. guest: a pleasure. host: coming up, we have benjamin schreiber to talk about how environmental policy may change under president trump . then brian bennett will talk about how president-elect trump may approach immigration. >> views weekend on american history tv on c-span three, saturday at 7:00 eastern, from president lincoln's cottage, we have a conversation about " lincoln's general lives." a you can see women have had means of reinforcing the best in their husbands, or the worst. reel america, 1953 film "american frontier." >> from there to the central office in oklahoma. day and night our telephone board lit up like a christmas tree. calls from new york, california, houston. bit by bit we realized how big of a thing this was. >> they promoted financial benefit for farmers releasing exploration and was funded by the american petroleum institute. discussing the life and legacy of jack london and how his novel "the call of the wild" influenced generations of novelists and writers. >> he looked to the ranch, the scenery in california and the south pacific to center himself and find release and relief from the rigors and degradations of the cities. >> 6:00 eastern on american artifacts the aviation museum in virginia beach. >> this airplane, among other types, taught military aviators how to fly. many guys never even saw an airplane coming from the farms and anywhere you could think of here the first airplane they say was the bowling st --boeing s teerman. >> for a complete schedule go to c-span.org. in-depth, the 1941 attack on pearl harbor on the eve of the anniversary. of "countdown to pearl harbor: the 12 days to the attack." the author of countdown to infamy, and pearl harbor from infamy to greatness. followed by an interview with april harbor survivor. an american sailor's firsthand account of pearl harbor. the take questions from noon to 3:00 p.m. eastern. go to c-span.org for a complete weekend schedule. "washington journal" continues. host: benjamin schreiber is here to discuss how environmental groups are reacting to donald trump's election and what his environmental policy might be. thank you for joining me. friends of the earth called mr. trump's election a gut punch to the planet. why? guest: donald trump is a climate denier. he does not believe climate change is man-made. he has attacked renewable energy. he wants to increase fracking and return to the drill, baby, drill days of the bush administration. it will make us international pariahs. he has indicated in interviews that he may we willing to soften the heart line stance he had during the campaign. do you think there will be room for compromise? guest: i hope so, but in "the new york times" interview it is taking a play out of the climate denial playbook. he is trying to say he is open to the science, that there is debate, that he needs to find out more. the climate science debate has been settled for a decade. we need action. we don't need to talk about studying it more or figure out more. we need a plan to reduce emmisions production. we are running out of time. host: you talked about comments that he made about climate and his "new york times" article. president trump's suggestion that he has "an open mind" about the paris agreement is that he is adapting to leading a world power rather than a campaign. his comments struck a softer tone than the one in may that he promised to "cancel the international packs of the paris accord." you can make cases for different vies, donald trump says. i have a totally open mind. will you reach out to the trump administration to make your views clear about the impact his policies could have? guest: we will try to work with the trump administration. the signal we are getting is who he has put in charge of the epa transition team, a lobbyist for the competitive enterprise institute and is a climate denier. he does not believe we should regulate greenhouse gases. donald trump said the epa would real emissions. host: remind us what the paris accord is and what the u.s. pledged to do. guest: the paris accord is the international agreement reached a year ago in paris where the world decided how they would deal with climate change. as part of the agreement, the united states made commitments, emissions reduction commitments, by 2050.% reductions world's last hope to solve climate change together. we are talking to benjamin schreiber from friends of the earth about the incoming trump environmental's and climate policy. what is your expectation of the new chair of the epa? guest: that the new chair of the epa will be someone trying to gut the agency and their ability to regulate. we are here is anti-regulatory rhetoric out of the trump campaign. the entire framework going forward has been hamstringing the ability of government to do meaningful regulation. we expect we will fight the new epa chair to make sure they are doing their job. host: democrats can call (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. .ndependents, (202) 748-8002 as we continue our discussion on energy and climate under the incoming administration. president obama's clean power plan is. could donald trump reverse that, what would the impact be? guest: the first time the united states regulated greenhouse gas emissions from power plants in the united states. he used the existing law, the it could and, that should be applied to greenhouse gas emissions. president obama put forward a plan to do that. it is challenged in the courts and has been tied up. it is going to go to the supreme court. likely to happen and could happen is donald trump decides not to defend president obama's clean power plan. ofs, what has been 8 years work for developing the plan to regulate greenhouse gases could be completely undone. host: in "the washington times," they report the current epa chief says donald trump cannot revive the fossil fuel industry. the epa administrator jenna mccarthy said president-elect donald trump will fail in his efforts to revitalize america's sagging coal industry and put fossil fuels at the center of the energy portfolio, prompting thatcoming administration will roll back some of her agency's initiatives. , who provided over phase out fossil fuels said "the train has left the station in regard to american's move to clean energy." she says there's more going on in the energy sector than the clean power plan can account for. this is about energy transmission. that is already happening, she said in washington. what is your reaction? guest: i think that is right. the best thing we have seen on clean energy is changing economics. renewable energy is competitive with natural gas and anything in the electricity sector. coal is not. about trump made hay bringing back the coal industry. the reason it is dying is not because of regulation or the clean power plan. it is because the coal industry is not cost-effective. ofre is nothing short massive subsidies that donald trump can do to change that reality on coal. the question is will be changed renewable energy fast enough? we will have to make the transition fast if we will make the reductions to fight climate change. host: a lot of the appeal about the coal industry had to do with the economy and jobs. is there a way to convert jobs that are a part of the coal industry into renewable energy industries? guest: the reality is there are more jobs in renewable energy than coal. more jobs now in renewable energy than fossil fuels. it is a small part of the economy. the mechanization of the coal industry means there are less coal mining jobs even when we are mining coal. those are different jobs. he will need to train a different workforce and have programs to make the transition just and fair. republicans in congress tied all legislation, they flashed government funding, and have trustd us from making the transition. they are harming workers trying to make the transition back home, and not allowing it to provide the training and skills necessary for the new economy. host: rob from texas on the independent line. you are on with benjamin schreiber of friends of the earth. caller: hello. there is a lag. there's something like renewables, turning 40% of grain into food . guest: you are talking about while feels. -- bio fuels. the fact we are turning massive amount of corn into corn ethanol. something that i, and friends of the earth, have been imposed to -- opposed to. not all renewable energy is clean or good for the environment. corn ethanol is one of those examples of a renewable energy that is not a good solution. corn ethanol has more greenhouse gas emissions than gasoline and is causing food price increases and instability in prices. it is grating hunger and poverty around the globe. it is something we need to move off of. it is something donald trump has wavered on. corn ethanol support has been on and off of his platform at times during the campaign. host: chuck from las cruces, new mexico. caller: good morning. i had a question or comment that is more of a question. percentexico, 70 plus of electrical energy comes from coal energy. they want to shut coal down, and wind and solar. new mexico is a poor state. what are you going to do, or what do you expect us to do to epaive this onslaught the is trying to put -- i don't know. will they take all of our money away? it is crazy. i -- what do we do about poor people that cannot afford electricity? guest: i think there's no question we need to be concerned about low-income communities and ability to pay for electricity. energy access should be a human right. it is something important to all americans. the reality is renewable energy is cheaper than new coal, and on par with natural gas and other electricity systems. we have the potential to put online renewable energy in a cost competitive and clean manner. we are talking about transitioning away from fossil fuels, not stopping them immediately. we clean power plan is not a are going to shut down your power plants tomorrow. downs a transition phase that we will have to make to deal with climate change. the other thing that is important to know is that there are a lot of jobs that will be built from a renewable energy economy. we are potentially changing who benefits from the energy system. and solare grids profitsn roofs change from utilities and corporations and allow people like you and me renewableour own energy systems and benefit from the production ourselves. host: we are talking with benjamin schreiber, the climate and energy director for friends of the earth and previously worked as a climate and energy tax analysts and staff attorney for environment america. back to the paris accord. some suggested donald trump may use that as a potential bargaining chip for other matters. said threatening to leave the paris deal is a pretty good bargaining chip. he said "he is the author of "art of the deal.' what are your thoughts about the climate deal being used as leverage for other things? guest: there is no question. he has not removed from the paris deal. he has walked back a little from the pledge. with donald trump, you never know what you will get. every walked back statement he made, even eccentric pieces like the wall. you never know what is truth, what is fiction, and what is a talking point he decided to throw out at this moment and walk back later. host: barbara from massachusetts on the democratic line. good morning. caller: i'm calling to propose a big idea, an alternative to the trump wall along the border, which i am calling the nafta energy corridor. i am proposing we build an energy generation and research corridor along the tex-mex border in conjunction with the texans and the mexicans. that the energy generated would go south to mexico and north to the united states. takesr, along the border there is the rio grande river so we may have solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal. i am proposing something along the scale of the fdr ccc and the tennessee valley authority. it would be government underwritten, but private companies that would do the building and a deal to work out money.e with the it would go well with trump wanting to have a dramatic construction project, given his background people he could tie it to the immigration debate and have illegals who are willing to join for a year or two to build this to be part of the entity and earn legalization. host: that is a lot to unpack. let's let benjamin schreiber reacts. you.: thank first, working with mexico rather than demonizing them and putting up a wall would be a better approach here is the reality is climate change is a global problem and we will need solutions global in nature. ast means working together an international community. that is what is so important about paris. i want to see a facility across the mexican border, there are concerns with wildlife and making sure we do not have a massive border wall. aside from the human cost of a massive order wall -- massive is that wildlife does not see international borders and you're cutting off habitats. there are lots of problems with anorder wall, but we need fdr-like or manhattan project-like massive government investment in renewable energy. this needs to be government-led, because that is investment in renewable energy. the only segment of the country that can marshal the resources we need to effectively fight climate change . we will need a huge renewable energy investment. any idea on how to get the investment in place is something to consider. host: the friends of the earth opposes the transpacific partnership, so does president-elect trump. he does not cite environmental reasons for his opposition. can you talk about how the transpacific partnership could harm the climate? guest: the transpacific partnership is one of the few silver linings of the election. the death of that deal. the reason we have been so strongly against the transpacific partnership is investor-state dispute provisions. they have a brand-new corporate bill of rights so corporations can demand payment if we decide not to build projects. the keystone xl project is a perfect example. the canadian oil company transcanada brought a $15 billion suit in an international trade tribunal against the united states to claim damages because we rejected the keystone xl pipeline because it would damage our climate and risk our water. the transpacific partnership would have allowed different companies to have access to similar tribunals if we decide to not let them build in the united states. for us, we see that as giving huge, super a judicial right to build projects in our country. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i have a couple of statements to make. first, the guy, then -- jamin, he said climate science was settled. no science is ever settled. no one can say it is settled. the earth is millions of years old. we have had four or five ice ages, but the earth has come out of it through natural global warming before we were industrialized. how can he take a 200 year snippet of our history and say it is indicative of anything? the climate science is based on computer modeling, which is theoretical. how can he say definitively that anything is as it is? consensus that a climate change is real and humans are causing. there have been reviews that show 97% to 99% of peer-reviewed articles find climate change is real. it is human caused. the modeling constantly shows worsepacts are getting and we are underestimating how temperatures are changing, how quickly those impacts are, the tipping points. we are seeing faster melting of ice sheets in the arctic than was modeled. fundamentally, i hope i am wrong and the scientists are wrong. it would be great if there was a cooling period and we did not end up with a planet that was uninhabitable. i know we can make the transition to a clean economy and it will be beneficial. we won't have stripmining and fracking, earthquakes in places like oklahoma. transitiont make the to a six degree warmer planet. i think we should do everything we can now to listen to our scientists and be precautionary so we don't end up with the world that is uninhabitable. by the review posted director of federal affairs and fortegic initiatives americans for prosperity combinations largest conservative grassroots organization. withdrawing from the agreement, with be in the best interest of the u.s. because it would require extreme policy changes that would harm overall economic growth in the manufacturing section, like institutions from barack obama. the paris agreement will have little effect on the environment. one point she makes is repealing the renewable fuel standard is an opportunity on the horizon, though it did not get attention on the campaign trail. the mandate requires refiners to gasoline asl into welfare for the corn and ethanol industry and resulted in little innovation in renewable fuels. guest: i agree with half. the paris agreement is a precautionary agreement. it is not do anywhere near what we need to get the impacts of climate change. it is not even that ambitious. it locks in business as usual that we were already saying cousin of the market and renewable energy coming online. if we got rid of the massive subsidies for fossil fuels, which are $10 billion a year or more in tax breaks, we would see the transition faster. we do not have a level playing field. so, removing us from the paris agreement will not do that much for our businesses and economy. if anything, we should double down and go faster on renewable energy. this is an emerging market with , industrial and manufacturing jobs as well as intellectual property and value. in terms of the renewable fuel center, that is where i think she is right. corn ethanol was always flawed. that program was a gift to the corn industry that shows the power of the ag industry in washington dc. it is something we think should be repealed or ended. the fact we are using 40% of our food stock of corn and putting it into our gas tanks is not good for the environment, food prices, or the poor. that is where we think there is the potential to make change. host: a lot of callers waiting to talk to you. you are on with benjamin schreiber of friends of the earth. caller: hi. earlier, he made a comment that competitiveonger for monetary reasons, and that is not true. coal is competitive today and will be competitive tomorrow, because we will not enforce you havens that show to sequester that will cost billions of dollars. that is part of the regulations we will do away with. haveast majority of plants converted to clean burning technology. there is no problem there. that is already taken care of. you can take carbon sequestration as taking care of nuclear waste. that is how much cost would incur. he will do away with that part. thank you. guest: so, unpacking that. there's no question ccs, carbon , isioning sequestration expensive. we are seeing the plant in mississippi, which is not open yet, but years behind schedule and billions of dollars over budget. we have real doubts over whether carbon capture and sequestration will work. carbon capture and sequestration and environmental regulations are not why we are not building new coal plants. it is not cost effective with natural gas, wind, solar, and renewable energy. that is not going to change. that is the economic reality. the existing coal plants that have already been built and have capital invested may continue running, host: next, we have a color from -- caller from north new hampshire. you are on with benjamin schreiber from friends of the earth. caller: thank you. i'm telling, because when i listen to the conversation, i see higher-level issues that are at odds with each other. we are putting knowledge against belief. our belief systems are needed side of the aisle keep going back and forth, and we go one step forward, two steps back, when we have a looming problem. the economics, many people in the fossil fuel industry are arguing for short-term profits, and arguing against our national security advisers, and everyone else in the world in the scientific community that says we will have much more economic devastation in the long-term, if we don't make decisions towards clean energy.the way i look at it, clean should be the marker. we shouldn't be picking winners and losers based on what the left likes or the right likes. we should say, if it is a clean energy source that is viable, that is where we should invest our dollars, because long-term, it will bring the best results. we can understand that you we can debate back and forth collects renewables, -- who likes renewables, who likes coal. nuclear, it has come a long way. we are starting to close those plans down to the detriment of the missions. i'm looking at the situation and saying, if we actually used clean as the thing we used for our moderator, then we would be making the right choices, investing in the right thing, spending money in the right places, and lowering emissions. host: let's let then respond. -- ben respond. benjamin: thank you to the color. i think it would be great if we could agree on what is clean, and then this. -- false debate about global warming ends. globalxon mobil admits warming is happening. we still have this pushback in the twitterverse and among the segment of our society. not only do we not have a shared definition of clean, but president-elect trump has actually promised to undermine that even further, by doing away with something called the social cost of carbon. right now, when we make government decisions, we actually put in place a cost of how much those decisions are going to make in terms of carbon emissions. one of the things that donald trump has promised to do is to get rid of that cultivation. we are only seeing the benefit of fossil fuel projects, and not any of the damages. i think this is one of the things that is really striking. talked about how he hates windfarms because they obstructed views from his golf courses, but has he ever been to west virginia and actually seen a mountaintop removal mining? he wants to talk about destroying beautiful places in our countries with windmills, while he certainly hasn't seen a mine, or heremoval doesn't think west virginia is beautiful. but we are having massive, destructive fossil fuel projects, and he's complaining about the view from wind farms. it's completely and totally contradictory. to touch really quickly on the reality is nuclear power is incredibly expensive and dangerous. we have no good solution for having to deal with the waste, and we don't have a solution coming on the horizon. the hidden cost of how to deal with securing and storing waste for thousands of years that is highly toxic and radioactive, and incredibly dangerous, is something that is not factored in. nuclear the new reactors we have been building in this country, there are four of them, has been wildly overbudget and incredibly expensive. nuclear power is a false solution that is going to take billions of dollars of important money, and put it into projects that we shouldn't be investing in. host: i want to ask for a moment about the dakota axis pipeline. in today's new york times, there 2s a graphic that shows 117 miles of pipeline that has lead to conflicts. it says the construction of a crude oil pipeline before states has spurred months of clashes near the standing rock reservation in north dakota. protesters are concerned about the environmental impact , and have been trying to stop the construction of the missouri river crossing through legal disputes about water safety, native american lands, and eminent domain, have delayed the project. a pipeline is nearly complete. what is your groups position? benjamin: we think the access pipeline should absolutely not be built. first and foremost, we need to acknowledge that the pipeline is about indigenous rights, first and foremost. and about the fact that we have a long history of trampling over the rights of indigenous peoples. this is a pipeline that was going to be built further north in bismarck, and which was moved rer border of the si oux nation. if there was a still, it is not going to be the rich farmers dealing with the follow, it would be the poor indigenous people. this is about their sovereign nation, the rights of the nation to determine their land. that is first. there is a consultation issue here.the second issue is how we are dealing with protesters. the militarization and the attacks on the peaceful water protectors, who are fighting the pipeline, has been incredible. it has been a huge juxtaposition to what we did, for instance with the bundy's, who literally used weapons and took over a national park, a wilderness reserve. they were armed, and took it over. they were not shot with concussion grenades. they were not actually doused with water cannons. you did not see militarized police vehicles in the same way. i think there's a huge difference in how we are asating native peoples compared to how we did with the bundy's. is coming in from clarksville, tennessee on the republican line. you are on with benjamin schreiber from friends of the earth. would like to say first, i don't think the bundy's attacked the police. when i called about is, what caused the ice ages and how did it end? benjamin: the ice agesbenjamin:, to get into the climate science, and i am not a climate scientist, and i'm not going to claim to be one, but there are all kinds of theories, including , and changes in the atmosphere. just because we have had ice ages now doesn't mean we shouldn't be afraid of changes that we arete looking at now, and that scientists are modeling. even if now you think climate change is natural and not man that ahe reality is warming climate will change where we are able to grow food. it is already changing the storms that we are seeing. we are seeing different weather patterns. these changes have real impacts on people, on things like superstorm sandy, or hurricane katrina, that is actually hurting people right now. we are seeing those impacts. host: mary calling in from tampa, on our independent line. caller: mr. schreiber, i have just read a book called "dog winter." this theory is climate change has been a perplexing controversy for years. sun'ssearch into the activity resulted in the discovery of a solar cycle, that is now reversing from its global warming phase, to that of dangerous global cooling. and for the next 30 years or look at the insider earth's future. he predicts a worldwide crop destroying cold, that will cause significant loss of life, and social, political, and economic upheaval. host: what is your reaction to that? benjamin: i'm not familiar with that book, but i think that what is important is 97% of the scientific, peer-reviewed articles on this topic all come to the same conclusion, that climate change is real and then and isnd will have -- man-made, and will have catastrophic impacts for human life and our ability to inhabit the earth. wrong,re incorrect and that would be an amazing thing, but the reality is that we have the ability to deal with this now, if we plan and mobilize. of ouregard the opinion scientific experts, the people who have studied this the closest, and to hope against hope that that is wrong, to take against physics, is not a very prudent course. i hope we can listen to our experts and start making plans, so that we can avoid the worst impacts of climate change. host: i want to get your reactions to coming changes on the senate environment public works committee. senator john barrasso from wyoming will take over as the chairman from senator jim in half. tom carper will be the new ranking member, replacing outgoing senator barbara boxer. what is your reaction to that leadership change? benjamin: obviously, senator in has been a huge climate denier. he is the one who infamously brought the melting snow ball to the floor of the senate. foe. has been no bigger it is the status quo with a different face on the republican side. barbara boxer is a huge climate champion, and her departure from the senate, will be sorely missed. we have to thank barbara boxer from -- for her years of service. we have had very few champions who have been as passionate and effective on this issue as her. at the same time, this is a moment for the democratic caucus to come together. i'm hoping and we are hoping that tom carper will unify the democratic caucus to stop the trump agenda. it isk this is more than, not about one person. it is about the democratic caucus realizing that donald trump did not win the popular election paradis majority of elections do not support a -- ofe denying attack americans do not support a climate denying attack. it has to start with tom carper. host: nancy is calling in from george on the republican line. good morning. good morning, and happy thanksgiving. wyoming is the smallest state in the union, speaking of the electoral college. if he knowsto ask about fossil water in the ogallala aquifer, and the fact that a thermonuclear exchange makes global warning -- warming moot. money a son who is a engineer. he just got back from australia where they tried cap and trade, and they lost a lot of seats in the government. i don't think it is democratic. i'm studying constitutional disability. thank you. benjamin: first, i don't know -- i'm not sure what the word is. i don't know about it, i'm sorry, i'm going to have to plead ignorance. -- capsay carbon trade and trade was a flawed system doomed to failure. that is what happens when you put the protection of the environment in market hands, in the hands of bankers. a reallyop complicated, artificial new market and expect it to be the solution for the planet. friends of the earth has been saying this for a long time. i think there are better solutions, and there are solutions for how we get to the renewable energy future that we are talking about. ony shouldn't be based creating a new, artificial market for carbon. host: ronald calling in from philadelphia on the independent line. good morning. caller: since this is not supposed to be so true, why do i have to get this emissions thing on my car, and pay $50 or $60, if no climate change is real? a bunch ofe terrorists in texas standing off, but the police did not rush in and throw them out. they just go through my minority groups. thank you. benjamin: there's no question about how we need to look at how the police deal with protesters, and the disparate treatment. the examples with black lives matter, with the dakota access pipeline, are great examples of dissident treatment. in terms of the emissions climate on your car, change and greenhouse gas emissions are only some of the emissions we are concerned about. we also have other pollutants, like particulate matter, like no2, like mercury from power plants, which are poisoning americans every day. we have made incredible progress with these so-called traditional pollutants, and reducing them. the emissions controls on your vehicles are part of that, but we have a long way to go. people living near facilities, are the onesnts, that are hurt the most if we don't make this transition to renewable energy. host: benjamin schreiber, climate and energy program director at friends of the earth. thank you so much for joining us this morning. benjamin: thank you for having me. host: coming up, we will have "los angeles times" reporter brian bennett here to talk about how president-elect donald trump might approach the hot button topic of immigration. we will be right back. every weekend, book tv brings you 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors. here's what's coming up this weekend. saturday at 6:45 p.m. eastern, david therein, circuit judge for the u.s. court of appeals for the first circuit, provides a history of the debates between the executive and legislative branch over the constitutional right to declare war, in his book "waging war," the clash between presidents and congress. joining him at the national constitution center in philadelphia is theodore ruger, dean of the university of pennsylvania law school. >> the two branches are really in a dance with each other at all times. checking the president, backing down from the president, the president pushing congress, the president worried about taking it too far. >> sunday at 9 p.m. eastern, guardian journalist gary young looks at gun deaths in america over a 24-hour period, in his book, another day in the death of america: a chronicle of 10 short lives. he is with a staff writer for the atlantic. >> it is not possible to only talk about guns. it is a kind of broader, thing, which counts people out, dehumanizes them, and that means when their life it has already been accounted for.i think there is a real problem once you start saying, while he was an a student. there's a suggestion that there is a grade you can get where it would be worthy of them to be killed. >> go to book tv.org for the incomplete we can schedule. -- the complete weekend schedule. >> james madison is the architect of the constitution, or he might be, then george washington is the general contractor. if you ever build a house or put in in addition, it has a lot more to look like the contractor then the architect. --edward larson talks about president george washington's role in unifying the country and ratifying the document in his new book. >> what they wanted to do was recruit. hamilton had already talked to washington before about this democracy stuff, never going to work. washington was a true republican. he believed in republican government. >> sunday night at>> eight p.m. eastern on c-span's "q and a." >> "washington journal," continues. joining us from new york city is brian bennett, the national security correspondent for the "los angeles times" where he writes about immigration, among other things. he's here to talk about how president-elect donald trump's plans to remove illegal immigrants from the u.s., as one of his key campaign promises and how it will shape up. thank you for joining us. brian: happy to be on the show. host: let's start with a piece you wrote. it says when trump says he wants to deport criminals, he means something starkly different than obama. you write president-elect donald are looking tos ramp up pressure on local police and jails to identify immigrants in the country illegally, in an effort to meet trump's gold to deport 2,000,000,000-3,000,000 migrants who he says are criminals. we have seen record numbers of deportations in the ad, -- in the obama administration. differ?d trump's plan brian: president-elect donald campaigned on trying to get all 11 million people illegally in the country out of the country. in a recent interview on 60 minutes, he said he would focus his energies on deporting 2,000,000-3,000,000 criminals from the country first. basically his definition of hisinal and the definition advisors uses different from what makes someone a criminal in the obama administration. there's a number of policies that the trump administration thathange immediately, could greatly expand the aperture of who would qualify for deportations. -- acan rescind serious series of policy memos that the obama administration puts in place, that focuses on deportation of people with criminal convictions, recent border crossers, and people who have multiple immigration violations. trump and his advisers have talked about deporting people crimes, notsed of necessarily convicted of crimes, increasing the ability of local to identifytments people, and bring them to immigration agents, and people who might be here in the country illegally. there's a whole menu of items 's advisers are currently drawing up in order to expand that definition of who would qualify as a criminal, and become a priority for removal. host: and you mentioned the interview donald trump did recently. ate -- let's take a look some of the interview and what he said about his plan to deport illegal immigrants. donald trump: what we are going to do is get the people who are criminals, and criminal records, gang members, drug dealers, a lot of these people, we are getting them out of our country, incarcerate.ng to we are getting them out of our country. they are here illegally. after the border is secured, and after everything gets normalized, we will make a determination on the people you are talking about, who are terrific people. they are terrific people. but we will make a determination. but before we make that determination, it is very important, we want to secure the border. host: part of his plan, as in today's paper, could include empowering local police to roundup immigrants. there are reports of deputizing local police officers around the country to enforce immigration laws, that is one plan being proposed by president-elect donald trump to facilities placed a crackdown on undocumented immigrants. andng the campaign, trump his surrogates said securing the border will be first, and dealing with the immigrants that were already here would be a secondary matter. does it sound now as if both deportation and border security will be happening concurrently? brian: it does. i think talking to the people who were drafting policy documents for the trump transition team, they want to come in very early on and change some of the obama administration policies on immigration that would lead to things like high workers who don't have legal status, were working in factories. also basically allow immigration agents to have much more leeway when deciding who to deport when they come in contact with people. there's also this question of this program of deputizing local police. there's a federal program, which is a training program for local police and state police, that how topolice officers on enforce immigration laws. it is something the obama administration has stepped away the program was very controversial with some sheriffs and police chiefs. he felt like it was spreading fear in a community of immigrants, and they wanted to feel comfortable coming to the police to report crimes. the obama administration has pulled that back, and the trump administration has talked about stepping that up and encouraging local police to play a more active role in immigration enforcement. host: we are talking to brian bennett of the "los angeles times" about the upcoming trump administration costs immigration -- administration's immigration policies. republicans call (202) 737-0002, democrats call (202) 737-0001, and independents can call (202) 628-0205 we also have a lien for. those who are not -- we also have a line for those who are not legal. can you talk about the daca and dapa programs are? the deferred action for child arrivals was put in place in 2012. this program a lot of people in the country, who are brought to the country as children by their visas,, some came in on some were smuggled into the country, and allowed them to come forward, have a background fee,, and pay a processing and basically have their deportation deferred and be given a work permit so they can work. than 700,000 people have gone through that program and have been approved. there are more than 700,000 work progress -- work permits through the program. trailon the campaign promised he would roll that back and end it. there's a number of ways he can do that. dapa, a few years ago, the obama administration allowed more people to apply to daca, and then dapa was designed for the parents of those people who qualified for parents of u.s. citizens, and the older generation of immigrants here, for them to come forward and get right with the law. and dapasion of daca were a challenge in court, and were stopped. there is currently a legal challenge. it is very unlikely it will continue under donald trump. when he comes into the white house in january on the daca program, he has a couple of options. he can almost immediately rescind the program, because it was created by obama under his executive powers, so using those same powers, trump can end it. he could allow the work permits to expire. they are all going to expire in the next two years. another thing people fear he might do would be to actively go after and get work permits back, or use the application list of people who applied to the program to try and find people to deport. when people applied to this program, originally the federal that theirtold them information they provided would not be used for immigration enforcement. that promise has been made by the federal government. if donald trump did try to use that information, and use those files to force them, it could be grounds for a lawsuit to block that. we will have to see exactly the fine print, and the small decisions. you, i hate to interrupt the house is gathering for a pro forma session. we will carry that life. when that is done, we will come back and continue the conversation about immigration. >> house will be in order. the chair lazing communication for the house with this eager. >> the speaker's rooms, november 25, 2016. i hereby appoint the honorable , signed, paul the ryan, speaker of the house of representatives. >> the prayer will be offered by the guest chaplain from st. joseph's catholic church in washington dc. >> god of all creation, in whom we live and move and have our being, with gratitude for your countless gifts, we pray for continued peace and prosperity. grand our people's representatives the gifts they need to govern wisely, giving voice to all, especially to the poor and the suffering. give them senses open to perceiving your treatment, intellects ready to understand it, and hearts fortified to love it and administer that truth with mercy and compassion. give this house resolve to clean faithfully to the principles of our founding and future. forgive us our failings, humbly admitted before you, and admit all of us one day to virtues reword. -- reward. amen. >> pursuant section three afs resolution 921. the journal of the last days proceedings is approved. the chair will lead the house in the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> pursuant to section three b of house resolution 921, the house stands adjourned until on tuesday, november 20 9, 2016 for the morning our debate, and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. houseand that is the gaveling out of the pro forma session this morning. house is currently on thanksgiving break and will return tuesday, november 29. we continue our discussion now with brian bennett of the "los angeles times", joining us from new york, about president-elect donald trump's immigration plant. -- plan. we have julian coming from the democratic line. caller: good morning. if we do seeng, sort of a draconian immigration policy coming from the trump administration and this congress, whether or not we will see some sort of retaliation or backlash from the rest of the international community, whether that is for u.s. citizens trying to emigrate abroad, or seeking tourist visas or work visas. thank you. brian: that's a really interesting question. trump has also promised he would crack down on illegal legalation, reduce the -- immigration, reduce the number of immigrants coming here, put in tougher vetting for people wanting to visit the united states, and refugees. depending on how that plays out, if he decides to put in much tougher questions that are being asked at the border, and shut urist visas from certain countries, then the governments of those countries could decide to reciprocate and make it more difficult for americans to travel to those countries. we will have to see how that diplomacy plays out, and when we see the details of what donald trump is wanting to do. in general, he's been saying that he wants to restrict the --vel of people from initially in the campaign, he said muslims, then revised it to say from countries with a history of terrorism. that can include countries currently in conflict, but also countries like france, that has had a number of terrorist attacks. can decideto trump that is a country that needs to be looked at, and can have big impact of the travel of people from europe to the united states, and as well as americans who want to go to the countries. host: getting back to the discussion we were having about daca, several lawmakers wrote a letter to president obama last week expressing concerns about these so-called dreamers, who has been deferred for deportation action. the letter states in part, "the department of homeland security now has fingerprints, addresses, other information to identify these dreamers, and has vowedelect trump to reverse this on his first day in office, in which case a daca would be subject to deportation." it also says, -- that was signed by several members of congress. can you talk a little bit about that letter? brian: this request came to the white house from members of pardoningo consider all 750,000 people who applied program.ca the white house official i spoke they havehis says looked at it, and the white house doesn't feel they have it in their legal authority to issue pardons on that scale, 750,000 pardons, that would protect information. i know people in the obama administration i looking to see if there are other ways they can protect those files, but the fact is, those are now government files. they are held by the government. you can't destroy government records in that way. they will probably be available to the trump administration. that said, there are assurances made to these applicants that no way that this .nformation would be used it can be subject to lawsuits and legal reviews. 's advisers,rump their current thought is that they want to and the daca program, but not necessarily go out and find the people who applied for it and deport them. they want to expand other ways of deporting people at this point. i can understand why people would be nervous. host: karen is coming -- calling from san antonio. you are on with brian bennett of the "los angeles times". taking myank you for call. i have a question regarding the difference, or distinction you make of immigrants and illegal aliens. alien, by definition, is a criminal. furthermore, that costs american annually,r $30,000 paying tax paying citizens. the estimate $113 billion annually it costs for these people to be here. you can imagine, i'm very close to the problem living in san antonio. in our company, we will have workers who present a social security card, yet a year down it line, you get your w-2, comes back as not their social security card. they claim 8-10 dependence, so they don't pay taxes, and they are gone by the time you get the notice. can you address this difference between a legal and immigrant -- illegal and immigrant? that is a lot of the frustration i think a lot of people feel. brian: sure. there are 11 million people living here, who don't have authorization to work here, leader came here legally and overstayed their visas, or smuggled into the country and entered illegally. those people are here. aboutk there's a debate whether this makes that person a criminal. in the eyes of the law, you need to have a criminal conviction for entering improperly, or reentry after deportation before you are considered a criminal, that would make you priority for deportation. i think when average americans think about, when donald trump 3id he wants to depart million criminals first, he's not talking about the 11 million people here. he in his mind, he's talking about people who have committed other crimes, who made some sort of threat to public safety. that number uses is definitely up for debate. a lot of population experts that have looked closely at the migrant population say that the pose aof immigrants who threat to public safety as much lower. that is part of what is happening in the country and the discussion we need to have, which is what do you do with , huge number of people who are here living among us, working? there have been studies done by the congressional budget office that shows when they did analysis of the senate proposal to create legal status for a lot of those people, that you could , once theyh a regime were allowed to work and start paying taxes, that you could add quite a bit of money to the annual budget. it is something obviously that donald trump talked about a lot in the campaign, that his message of trying to increase deportations and get people out of the country really resonated with a lot of people. it is a debate that we are going to have to have going forward, on what it means to have people here who are not legally authorized to work. host: we have a lot of callers callingto talk to you, from reno, nevada on the democratic line. caller: good morning. thank you for everything you do, c-span.it's great. i'm a retired political science teacher here. i have two questions. the first question is, are we incrementally moving towards federalizing the local police by continually talking about ways administration or any other administration might use the local police to achieve their objectives? the second part of the question is, what does the research tell reno, nevada, the local police are undermanned. they can hardly enforce the traffic laws. why would we want to ask local police to do more and more related to the feds? host: let's let brian address those. brian: police chief's los angeles, in chicago, in san francisco, felt like they don't want to be asked to enforce immigration laws, because they feel like that will discourage they are assigned to protect from coming forward to report crimes. they believe it is a public safety issue. they should be -- there should betweenar distinction the enforcement of local laws and enforcement of federal laws. there has been dramatic push back against us, especially after some high-profile deaths, for example, the death of in sanne styling francisco, who was killed by someone who had been deported before. the officials felt like they were not notified and given enough notice to take that person out and deport them again. debate, how do you handle the jurisdictions that refuse to notify and cooperate with immigration officials? is there a balance that can be made, were people who have a long record and record of violent crimes, can be set aside and held for immigration , and local police can make sure they can contact immigration when they come in contact with people like that? whereas maybe someone who was swept up in a wide number of arrests, or someone arrested after an argument, that may have not have other problems on the record, maybe those people don't need as much cooperation between the locals and the feds. this is something we will have to see play out, because trump has come in and said he wants to put pressure on cities to cooperate more with immigration officials. a look at whate new york city mayor bill de blasio said about meeting with , about hislect trump immigration and deportation policy. mayor deblasio: i gave him the perspective of the nypd, that any initiative that would create a rift between police all over the country and communities they serve, it would make it impossible for the police and community to communicate. it would make distrust between law enforcement and neighborhoods, and would be counterproductive. that proposal countered and flew in the face of all that was great about new york city, the ultimate city of immigrants. a place that had succeeded because it was open for everyone. a place built of generation after generation of immigrants. that thise to him city, and so many cities around the country, will do all we can to protect our residents and to make sure that families are not 20 part. -- not torn apart. host: new york city is one of several sanctuary cities in the united states. can you talk about them mayors were pushing back against the president-elect? have: some of the mayors said that they don't want immigration officials to pressure their local police ofartments to have to report encounters, or push local police immigrationederal laws, to push back on advisers donald trump. people on the transition team say they will look closely at the federal funding these cities get and see if there's a way to cut or threaten to cut the funding off, if local jails and cities don't do more to identify people who were in the country illegally, and hold them and hand them over to immigration officials. civil liberties advocates have one ofr a long time that the problems with having local police walking the beat try to enforce immigration laws is that it leads quickly to racial whatling, on the idea that basis someone has to stop someone and ask for immigration status, other than how they look. that forms a troubling formula for racial profiling, and stopping people unnecessarily, and targeting a community based on how they look. on. debate is going to go a lot of these mayors, including mayor deblasio in new york city, is pushing back against that. host: cindy is calling from new jersey on the independent line. you are on with brian bennett of the "los angeles times". caller: hi. i would like to make three points, two of which i really haven't heard brought up on tv. i watched c-span and all the political issues on tv. one of my main concerns as a citizen is when you have borders that people can enter illegally, they can sneak in somehow, i see a very serious threat of someone coming into the country, whether intentionally or accidentally, with a disease. i listened to the cdc people speak. they are constantly saying they are concerned about pandemics. everybody saw what happened when those people came into the country with ebola, or the zika virus. if you talk to the people in customs they are constantly coming intole,, the country legally. i am all for making sure the borders are sealed uptight.and understand we need wildlife corridor doors. i think that is very important, but we need to stop illegal immigrants from coming into the country, whether it is the southern border or northern border, and of course, there's also the possibility of terrorism. people coming in through that avenue. that is the one point, the threat of somebody intentionally bringing something into the country, or accidentally bringing something. my second point is that as an american, americans have always been extremely kindhearted and generous with people in other countries. the one thing that infuriates me is when you say that you are anti-illegal immigration, they label you as a race. -- racist. i like maximin people -- mexican people. here in new jersey, we are flooded. people so many illegal in new jersey. they are hard-working and decent. yes, i feel bad for them. but i feel that for people all over the world that don't have what we have. host: ok, we want to let brian address those points. brian: donald trump campaigned heavily on building a wall and trying to secure the border. we know that his transition team is working on a plan to find ofey to extend the length the physical barriers that exist on the southern border right now. there are almost over 400 miles , and 200al barriers miles of physical border. he vowed to build the whole thing, which may not be wise, given some of these areas are remote and a physical barrier can easily be cut or dismantled, when it takes a day to get to a remote place. see a definitely going to lot of investment in that southern border, and building out more physical fencing and walls, but also put in more flights,nd more drone and more control to stop the across.oming i have not looked very closely at the degree of a threat of disease coming across illegally, certainly at the ports of entry. that is something that customs officials are trained to look out for. people who look sick, or come from certain countries that are of concern. i don't know of a case off the top of my head were someone has brought a dangerous communicable disease into the country. the threat of terrorism, especially since september 11, that is something that the border patrol and customs and border protection have been very focused on, trying to make sure that terrorists are not using the human smuggling pipeline to go between ports of interest -- entry to get terrorists into the country. so far, we have not seen an example of terrorists using that core door -- corridor, so it is something we are looking at. host: eric calling from the republican line in florida. morning, and happy thanksgiving. , would like to first observe and i will be brief. almostit quite ironic, orwellian, that your title is national security correspondent, when all the while you are speaking as advocate for illegal immigration and concern over the fears of those illegal immigrants who may be here long-term. that's just an observation. i have two questions. question number one is, why do you continually refer to the fear in the illegal immigrant theunity, while you mention fear of legal americans with specific regard to the crimes, crime gangs, and long-term revolving door at the border for those illegal immigrants who indeed have been convicted of walking theeep on path? toy the point of sanctuary cities, i trust i would not be the only one who saw the phenomenal irony of rahm emanuel sitting on the front steps of the chicago city hall, and said, come here, come to the safe city, you are welcome here. did anyone else see the irony of him declaring his a safe city? you talk about the police department being overburdened, and that should not have to affect the law. offabout we simply back them and applied the sanctuary , in terms of all they have to do is alert ice that they have an illegal immigrant in their jail? that is the crux.of the issue that is how that lovely young lady was killed in san diego. that illegal immigrant was criminal, and had a criminal record. but the local police because of the social justice in inclination,-- -- please go ahead. brian: that is something that donald trump was able to tap into, this concern. we have seen it time and again of people in the country illegally, who have been deported before, and have come back into the country, and either are involved in a dui crash that killed someone, or francisco,ed in san where an illegal immigrant actually took a gun and shot her. that public safety element is something that the department of homeland security and the trump administration are thinking a lot about. how do you come to an agreement with the cities that won't notify immigration agents when someone is going to be released you jail, and how do streamline the process of getting people who have a long criminal record and multiple deportations out of the country? -- the obama administration has try to streamline the situation, and get people with gang affiliations and make them a a priority. that is something the trump transition team is looking closely at. we do have transnational gangs from el salvador and honduras, who are operating in the country. some of those people have been deported before, and when they come to the attention of law and immigration want to find a way to be notified and put them into deportation proceedings quickly to get out of the country. host: sandy is coming -- calling from st. petersburg, florida on the democratic line. caller: i think it is so ironic whene talk about disease, the europeans where the ones that wiped out the natives here. how ridiculous. the other thing is, what would happen to our agriculture and service communities, if all immigrants were deported? brian: that's a great question. we may see some of that play out in the first months of the trump administration. a trump advisors talking about going back to workplace raids. we saw that at the end of the george w. bush administration. when you have high-profile raids on chicken factories and rubber factories, and other places like farms, thearge immigrant community goes underground. they stopped showing up for work. right now, we have a lot of large farms that rely on migrant labor, and not all those people have work authorization. you will have situations, and you will be reading about farmers saying they can't find people to help with crops they painted. this is part of the dizzying -- design that trump talked about on the campaign trail. they wanted a structural shift in the workforce. they wanted to discourage and players from hiring people illegally, including farmers. they want to try to make life really uncomfortable for people here who don't have papers, so that they go back home. if they do follow through with these policies, and going on workplace raids and increased deportation, we will see ,isruption in those industries we will see factories having to scramble to find workers, and probably having to raise wages to hire workers. and then we are going to see farmers having to scramble to find people to pick their crops, and probably going to see crops npicked while-- u the industries adjust. mary is calling from california on the independent line. if you have a quick question in the few seconds left. brian: yes. i'm perplexed by how they perk -- caller: yes. i'm perplexed by how they paint everyone here, from the southern borders. year,e, the total chinese it's like 1.5 billion illegals. you don't see them in lines to vote, because they are here illegally. from the philippines, other asian countries, around the world. -- why is itnt this hate for our neighbors? host: let's let brian address that. brian: i think that has been the concerned with trump's rhetoric on the pain -- campaign trail, that it would embolden people who want to launch it racist attacks against people because of how they look. is awhat is really needed rational look at our immigration system and how we single out and it honestoval look at how that is going to impact communities and police and industries. host: that will be our last word today. brian bennett, national security correspondent for the "los angeles times." think you for joining us. guest: happy to be here. host: tomorrow we will be joined by a guest to talk about president-elect trump's infrastructure proposal. also talk about u.s. hate crime laws. that is all for today's "washington journal." we will be back tomorrow at 7:00 a.m.. have a good friday. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] ♪ >> tonight, former secretary of state henry kissinger on foreign policy challenges that have changed since the presidency of richard nixon. there are some of his comments on comparing national security policy challenges that have threats. >> the. in which i was influencing sense that-- in the if something went wrong, it would be really catastrophic. is more complex, and therefore, in the long becausere dangerous there are means at the disposal of more people that do not have then, andthat existed that could lead to complications. >> henry kissinger was the guest on a bbc parliamentary program called "briefings." it airs tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> here are some of our featured programs coming up this weekend. tonight at 8:00 eastern, the state of the black world conference, assessing the impact of the 2016 election. panelists include the author of the book "are we there yet: race, obama, and public policy." and the moderator is mark thompson, host of make it plain on radio. >> when we get together as black folks in this country and have an agenda, we have to understand that we also have to unite with other people to win. the object is to win. we don't just want to struggle for struggle's sake. there are hundreds of people that have been in jail and are dead, all kinds of things going on, we are not activists and revolutionaries because it is fun. my mother and father did not participate in the movement for medals and awards and praise, they did it because it was necessary. the benwed at 10:00 of sasse on american values, the founding fathers, and american government. >> the meaning of america is persuasion. the meaning of america is love.

Related Keywords

Honduras , West Bank , Nevada , United States , Australia , Paris , France General , France , China , Minnesota , Carrollton , Texas , California , Manhattan , New York , San Diego , New Mexico , West Virginia , San Francisco , Mexico , Tennessee Valley , Fairview , Tennessee , Wyoming , Massachusetts , Las Cruces , El Salvador , Chicago City Hall , Illinois , Chicago , South Africa , New Market , Pennsylvania , Canada , Georgia , Philippines , New Hampshire , Iran , Washington , Philadelphia , Florida , Indiana , Clarksville , Virginia , Wisconsin , Reno , San Antonio , Guatemala , Mississippi , United Kingdom , Oklahoma , Virginia Beach , New Jersey , Israel , Petersburg , Sankt Peterburg , Russia , Maryland , Houston , Nashville , North Dakota , Palestine , Americans , Mexicans , America , Mexican , British , Israeli , American , Texans , Canadian , Chinese , Britain , Palestinian , Scott Walker , Henry Kissinger , Benjamin Schreiber , Michael Brown , Nancy Pelosi , Tom Carper , Shannon Coulter , George Washington , Kate Taylor , Mitt Romney , Betsy Mccoy , Bristow Reese , Edward Larson , Barack Hussein Obama , James Madison , Jenna Mccarthy , Jesse Ventura , Wilbur Ross , Paul Ryan , Jack London , Brian Bennett , George Soros , Betsy Mccaughey , Martin Luther King , Los Angeles , John Barrasso , Theodore Ruger , Robert De Niro , Rahm Emanuel , David Cutler , Barack Obama , George W Bush , Fred Upton , Richard Nixon , Caroline Pearson , Hillary Clinton , James Mattis ,