tv KQED Newsroom PBS February 16, 2019 1:00am-1:30am PST
president trump forges ahead with building a border wall by declaring a national emgency. as govern gavin newsom accuses him of manufacturing a legal crisis ask vows legal action. the fight to protect americans with preexisting conditions undert.he affordable care we'll hear from palo alto congresswoman anna eshoo. an inside look at the s company tellus why he thinks the platform presents a, quote, clear and present danger to democracy. hello and welcome toom "kqed news i'm thuy vu. we begin with a pottuntial consonal crisis over the border wall. earlier today president trump issued a national emeency to circumvent congress to fd building a wall at the b
u.s./mexider. >> so we're going to be signing today and registering national emergency. and it's a great thing to do because we have reason invasion of drugs, invasion of ggs, invasion of people, and it's unacceptable. >> the declaration opens up roughly $8 billion to wall and divert $4 million. meanwhi in california, governor gavin newsom calls the emergency declaration a, quote, national disgrace and vowed the state would sue. also on on tuesday governor newsom delivered his first state of the state speech. both legacy projects formed under governor jerry brown. joining me now to discuss all
this are kqed politicsntnd governeporter katie or, politic strategist will walsh. welcome to you all. paul, let's begin with you. how is california's congressional delegation esponding to theational emergency declaration and what are they planning to do about it? >> well,erhaps predict bly at least when you talk about democratic members which are most of the california congressional delegation, they're not responding well t you knoy said for days and weeks there's this idea of a nationa emergency declarati was floating out there, that they would opposite it that they recommend the president not do it. we haven't gotten at least from nancy pelosi and chuck schume we haven't gotten an explicit commitment to file a lawsuit but it's certainly someth on the table and something you hear other members of the delegation pushing for. it's definitely an option.
you also hear them saying that now that this preside.has been course on their repuican side of the aisle you know kevin mccarthy in general has been supportive of the president, we're getting a little bit lesu pushback,nterestingly among the broader republican congressional members, including ,n the senathere are some that are also pushing back and enying that this sets a dangerous prec. >> sean, when you were on our show last month when weaponry talking about the government shutdown, you actually said you were surprised that the president hadn't already declared a national emgency. well, here we are. he has. d do you think will happen now. there's a legal challenge governor newsom wants to put in place, part of a series of legal
challenges, a wave five-member conservative majority in the supreme court. president trump predicts it will get to the supreme court. how do you think it will play out? >> i think it's rich. back when it was going through the courts, all th democrats aid it's the federal government's responsibility. the states have no rights or should be acting, now the shoe is on the other foot. that said, with regards to national emergency, the courts have given presence wide latitude, nguyen with the abuses of the nixon administration to letresidents take action from a national emergency peradective. it's policy, but if it does go forward, this is going to clea the courts pretty easily, particularly with precedent and congress authorized money this border fence now so legally it will pass muster. >> this is unique because those argue this is the first time this type of national emergency declaration has happened following the liinay to get congress to go along with
something the president wanted. >> well, congress did go along with the president wanting, they just didn't go along with the dollar numbers that the president and the fentral governdministration thinks are necessary. so i will say i've been critical of then presidentany instances, but in this one i the he really outplayed democrats in congress. he got the money as part of the budget act, and he got his national emergency, and i think it will muster with the courts. >> katie, let's talk about the impact california because as part of this emergency declaration, there will be about $4 billion diverted from federaa fundswere budgeted for military projects. some of those projects are in california. so what will be the impact on our stat >> newsom held a press conference today with attorney general javier beserra. california isoi to be the most impacted state just because of the amount of monha we get from the federal government.
he was looking -- he saidic spec were still being assessed because the order had just been issued, but thingsil likeary installations, as you mentioned, whether or not the national guard troops that he said are going to remain at the border to do drug search and seizure, he said they would remain there if theederal government paid for them. so if they don't, thosetroops mie pulled back and redeployed. in general he said there are a lot of partnerships between local a federal law enforcement agencies that really coulde affecte in terms of money but also in terms of momentum in that, you know, these projec get going and if you take their funding away, i that and they'll cease. >> zbaichb wrong because we have so fe military bases in the state of california anymore. we'll be are pittance s of what is distributed around the rest of the country. >> they also are raising the issue of some of the cofeterdrug se department money that's agent going to be diverted and
certainly a lo that's done along the san diego border, there's fr amount that happens in california, but an administration official told me they haven't even made a list of militaryu consion projects they intend to take money from at this point. so c you't really with any certainty what is going to be affected because at this point the white house itself hasn't gone down theist and said what will be affected. o also wanted to go back to the issue of thet challenge for a minute. you know, there are certainly legal experts who think that it's credible that the court may uphold this authority, butre t are some issues, and one of the things that the cou often decides on is not a substance issue, but a procedural issue. and in hiss pconference today the president explicitty said that he didn't needo sue this order but did it because he wanted things to move faster. that kind of conversation, the fact that this was threatened for weeks, congress was given an
theytunity act only after sort of set what they were willing to do, did this emergency get declared, really you understa fdercut the presence urgent action. so that procedural argument not necessarily whether theor br needs securing, those are the types of arguments that can sometimes doom this type of procedure in court. >> a a right. alot going on in the national front, obviously. but let talk about state politics. this week governor gavin newsom livered a state of the state address and in it he created a lot of confusion when he talks speedthe current high rail project and said it would cost too much and take too loha. what does mean? is the project dead or will there be high speed rail but not going from san francis to l.a., which is what the voters had approved in 2008? >> well, you know, he's limiting the segment for we're hearing it's a bakersfield
merced segment. that'sfo created a field da republicans up here in n ashington. keccarthy is almost gleeful. he's been handed a political gift saying hell along said they believed it was a waste of money and it wasn't feesble. and this news from gavin newsom drops at the same timet democrats are talking up their green new deal proposal, whiche calor vastly expanded high speed rail. so you have california, which theoretically could be shining example of high speed rail adds a green initiative, you have the governor, the democratic overnor scaling it back, and kevin mccarthy is very ready to tell that to anyone who asks. >> psean,sident trump is jumping in. his interpretation is that high speed veil dead and he's saying, hey, california, b give uk the $3.5 billion we gave you for this project. what are the chaes of that happening? >> probably slim, actually. i think the state's going to take all the money they can from
that and try and has actually deployed it.he the initiative goes forward, we know the flights from bakersfieldrc to will be the first ones that will be canceled for the high speed rail proj ct. it's jully. i will tell you, when i was director of the office of planning and research we study high speed rail and the viability both in california and across the country and even europe is scaling back on that issue. he needed to get out of it but leunfortunately he han it very poorly. he confused the press and public about what it is said originally he wanted to do isn't legal with regards to the initiative. now he's feeling around and trying to -- >> all veryo nebs. katie, the governor also said in his speech that preumdent 's depiction of america is, quote, at odds with california values. what kind of proposal is newsom offering to counter what is coming out of the trump administration? >> i think gavin newsomloalks a about a california for all
and the californiaea . he's proposing things like eventuallyi stag a single payer health care system here, which, of course, is something that the trump administration acally would require a waiver for them to even start going down that path. who knows if they're even likely to get that. but initiatives like that, he's talking about free community college for a second year, fadesing in universal prchool eventually. >> extending medi-cal including undocumented immigrants until >ey're 26. exactly. so i think if you want to be throwing around a term people don't like, you could hear critics saying socialism, socialists, who's going to pay for this, taxes in california are already high. are you going to raise them even more to cover all these programs? they would argue on the other hand that, you know, it's cheaper in the long run if everyone has medical insurance and isn't going to be emergency
or everything. so that's sort of the push and pull of thergument there >> we have about 20 seconds. there's a sayingr as calia goes, so goes the rest of the nation. how are our lawmakers reting some of the things that newsom is putting out there? suit?they follow >> i think you're going to watch a lot of eyes on californiaborom sides of the aisle who are going to be ready to pounce if things look like they can be replicated, othertes are going to move to do that. if anything looks like an example as a failure, republicans are going to point ao it immediately and use it against demo nationwide as well. >> washington correspondent with the "san francisronicle," thank you so much for being with us. >> thank you. >> and thanks to katie or withq and sean walsh. always nice to have you guys here. >> thank you. palo alto congresswoman anna eshoo is the new chair of the energy and commerce health subcommittee. this week she held a hearing on four bills, including one she
authored. it would also educate consumers about the risk of short-term medical plans on the market. some are pushing for a so-called medical for all plan. joining us now by phone from menlo park is coresswomannna eshoo. we understand there are service problems where you live right now so we couldn't get aideo link. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. >> i would like to ask u ability the president's national guard emergency declaration. what is your reaction to that >> i think that the president hasn't read the constitution. this will certainly be challenged in the courtsnd it should be because it is a violation of the constitution. the frame is placed in our constitution that it is the congress that appropriates dollars.
so i think it's an act of ti cotion vandalism and it's deeply he is targeting california because it's beend repor that emergency funding would be that pot of money would be robbedw a l as others. but i don't believe that it will withstand the scrutiny of the courts because i believe it's constitutional. >> what do you plan to do about it? are you planning legislation to try to block >>it? here's already been a bill that's been introduced, and i'm a co-sponsor of it.e there will several challenges and there certainly will be one that comes from members of congress. ar let's turn to health care. because you the chair of the health subcommittee of the energy and commercecommittee. you held hearings this week on legislation to reverse the trump
administration's changes to the affordable care act. which provisions are you hoping to restore? >> first of all, our top two priorities are the promises that we made to the americapeople. and that was to strengthen ther afle care act,o protect preexisting conditions, and to lower drug prices. so the legislative hearing that we had that i conducted this week had four pieces of legislation that were reviewed. one of them was mine, and it relates these short-term junk plans that the adminisation is putting forward. >> these are short-term plans thatlyon't necessa provide any protections for people with preexisting conditions, correct? >> correct. these essential benefits and the
reform of the health insurance industry that we're part of the affordable care act spread across all health insurance policies in our country, not just those that are enrolled in the affordable cact. the administrationti cones to sabotage the affordable care act. >> let me ask you also about medicare for all. some progressits democr who support medicare for all are upset that youre not holding hearings on their proposals and they say that you have backed away from your claim earlier last month that you will hold a hearing. why did you decide not to hold a hearing? >> it's not that i decided not to hold a hearing. we only had two and we've onlyo ha legislative hearing. >> do you support medicare for dl in concept, though? i know there aferent variations of bills out there, but do you support the concept? >> i've aways been for
universal coverage, always, always, going back to my d serving on the san mateo county boarde board of supervisors. my goal has always been we have universal coverage. it's how are we going to get there. the number one examination the is torotect the affordable care act because that's what we have in place. >> fair enough. also last month gavin newsom signed an executive order tol er prescription drug costs by requiring that the state buyon medica for people who are on government-run programs like medi-cal.ld w you support democratic proposals to target drug pricing at the federal level by, for example, including allowingca me to negotiate prices? >> well, that'sne of the chief proposals of the democrats. it would be medicare part d because that's where most of the
prescriptn did you go dollars are spent. but i think it's importa to have hearings -- >> as you know, some groups say no more hearings are necessary because there's plenty of researchut there showing that big pharma drives up g prescription d prices andou they think y're too close to theinharmaceutical stry. how do you address their concerns? >> i think it's silly. i have such a long record,y 36 rs of produ fng consumers. i have thousands ofn constit that are employed in the biotech industry here, not only in northern california, ront and center in my district. i've always been for the consumer. i willontinue to be. as biotechnology industrye supportedn the congress, yes, i'm proud of it.
i'm proud of it. >> you also said you don't want to punish the pharmaceutical industry. that's what you told reporters. >> this is not about punishing anyone. this is about rerming how drugs are priced in our country so that people can afford them and that there is safety, that there is affordability and innovation. >> congresswoman anna eshoo, we appreciate your time despite the service problems you're having at your home. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. thanye you. bye-b >> bye-bye. more than 2 billion people around the world log on to facebook to share v cation photos, scroll through news a feedsnd stream live events but has growth come at a price. data breaches affecting tens of millions of users and misinformation campaigns tonc infl national elections have prompted hearings from capitol hill and a public
backlash against the tech giant and e ceo, mark zuckerberg. now, a new book by a facebook investor suggests regulation may be the only way to protect personal data that is key to the company's growth and profit. joining me is the author, roger mcin a mee >> thou, it's a pleasure. >> you were anse early ad to zuckerberg and later an investor. you write about how in 2006 you advise him not toell the company because you thought the company could achieve its mission much bettered by staying independent. what did you feel facebook was back then? t i thought mark had fou holy grail for creating a large network ofeople who wanted to interact with each other. he was the first social network toome along that required authenticated identity, my space and the predecessors hadn't done that. but withti authenticated idey i was convinced he would build a company as large as google was at that time, and it would be -
>> you thoughtuld be a forc for good? >> totally. >> what about now? >> what h basicalppened is they discovered it was possible to build a network that connected the whole world. that was his goal at the beginning as well. if they got rid of authenticated identity as a enrequir relaxed the privacy settings, they would grow a lot faster. in each a stepng the way they compromised the safety of the peopleng u the product in order to get to bigger and bigger growth and more and more profit. in the end, the real miracle is that they got to 2 billion npeople on thework before we started to see the problems. it's a real tribute to h smart and clever they were. >> with the problems they're facing now with data privacy, thexample of facebook as the technology has evolved, the
people don't use facebook the way he does. how can heolve theroblems if he doesn't change his thinking? >> this is exactly the issue. it's not just mark. it's not just facebook. the thing i discovered, i because i was so close to facebook and i saw the issues first there, i thought originally it was just an issue being done to. facebo what it really is something that affects all internet platforms that are based on advertising and attention. so google and instagram and youtube and twitter and snapchat are all affected. but the challenge here is that success is a reinforcing thing, d after a while you think you know all the answers and other people don't. the mistakes that were made hnie in my on are forgivable. what i'm having trouble with is the resistance to change in the face of incontrovertible evidence. we know for certain that there are issuesith public health, democracy, priva competition and innovation.
and pretending otherwise is harmful not just to facebook and google and i nstagram and the rest, it's harmful to society and it's harmful to zblerch if these companies continue to be resistant, what is the solution. do you think they should begu ated, and what should that regulation look like? >> there are several areas they need to think about. one of the questions off the top is there are business practices that take place in our society that we have accepted without thought. is that companies that collect our data are allowed to sell it to anybody they want or trade others as facebook would do. for example, why is it reasonable for people to collect our credit card transaction data and sell it to somebody else? i thi we need to have a debate on that. same thing for geolocation data from cell phones. why hould it b legitimate to gather data on minors, people under 18. ?" this is a debate we need to have.
we also need to have anti-trust regulation. they're behaving like month o the part of i want to seela reions that are not as complex as european global protection but going after the specific problem such as the selling and sharing of the data that is so private that it shouldn't happen. right now all these guys hide behind this notion of consent, but it's like me too it's people in power against people without power. so it's not what i would characterize as a fair trade >> you were an investor early on and you made millions. how much sponltd do you bear for what has happened and what should have been your rolen demanding for social responsibility? is a completely legitimate question, i continue to own my shares of facebook stock. i've sold some along the way, but i still own it i. i was
involved from 200 to 2009. the business model that created the problems b didn'tgin until many years after i left. i'm telling you angry it took me all the way to 2016 to see the problems. and so it is from that self-criticism that i haveaken up thi mantle. i'm no longer an investor. i'm a full time activist trying to essentially take my og aphy, my experience, and the platform i have to try to rai he awareness andlp direct us to a good solution. for somepeople, i'm not the right messenger but hopefully i will help to get this issue in front of people and help them >> really a lot of people, a lot of criticism has been levele at mark zuckerberg because of the sheer power and reach of o face. but what about the role of sheryl sandberg. you were alsotr imental in her hiring at facebook. she had been offered a executive position at "the
washington post." you said, no, why don't you consider facebook instead. t shek the facebook position. and when it comes to the company's oprations, you say mark leads the business side toh . how much responsibility does she bear for what has happened? >> to be clear, they're the t leaders company, so they bear a lot of responsibility. but the thing i want to makea is that the management of all these companiesegan with an idealistic version, in google's case, collect all the information. in facebook's case, to connect everybody. the issue was the m businessdel creates all kinds of side effects that currently these companies don't fpay the cost eor. it's l a digital chemical spill and they're not paying the cosha which the to. i don't think changing management, whether you get rid of mark and sherylor at faceboo larry and sergei at google, i don't think that's the answer. you have to changthe business del and it would be better if the existing founders didec tha
use they're the ones with the moral authority to make those changes. >> ll right. much more to come on this, i'm sure. >> thank you for havineame. >> re to talk to you. thanks forng bhere. >> my pleasure. >> that will do it for us. you can find more of our coverage on kqed.org/newsroom. thm thuy vu. nk you for joining us.
robert: off the rails. the president declares a national emergency. i'm robert costa. welcome to "washington week." president trump reluctantly accepts a bipartisan spending deal theneclares a national emergency to build at the border. president trump: we're talking about an invasion of our country with drugs, with human traffickers, with all the times of criminals and gangs. robert: democrats and some republicans accuse the president of sidestepping congrs. >> it's not an emergency what's happening at the border. it's an humanitarian challenge for us. >> i'm disappointed that the president that is chose on the do be the this resume. >> nomination is confirmed. robert: is a new attorney general is