Skip to main content

tv   KQED Newsroom  PBS  February 17, 2019 5:00pm-5:31pm PST

5:00 pm
president trump forges ahead with building a border wall by declaring a nationl emergency. as govern gavin newsom accuses him of manufacturing a legal crisissk vows legal action. the fight to protect americans with dipreexisting cons under the affordable care act. alto hear from pal congresswoman anna eshoo. an inside look at the company tells us why he thinks the platform presents a, quote, clear and presdet danger to cracy. hello and welcome t "kqed newsroom." i'm thuy vu. we begin wh potential constitutional crisis over the border wall. earlier today president trump ossued a national emergency to circumvent cngress to fund building a wall at the
5:01 pm
u.s./mexico border. >> so we're going to be signing today and registering national emergency. and it's a great thing to do on invasionhave re of drugs, invasion of gangs, invasion of people, and it's unacceptable. >> the declaration opens up roughly $8 billion tol w and divert $4 million. meanwhile in california, governor gavin newsom calls the emergency declaration a, quote,c national dis and vowed the state woulde. su also on otuesday governor newsom delivered his first state of the state speech. both legacy projects formed under governor jerry brown. joining me now to discuss all
5:02 pm
this are kqed politics and government reporter katie or, politica strategist will walsh. welcome to you all. paul, let's begin with you. how is california's congressional delegation responding to the national emergency declaration and what are they planning to do about it? >> well, perhaps predict bly at least when you talk out emocratic members which are most of the california congressional delegation, they're not responding well. you know, they said for days and weeks there's this ideaf a national emergency declaration was floating out there, thatul they w opposite it that they recommend the president not do it. we haven't gotten at le t from nancy pelosi and chuck schumer, we haven't gotten an explicit commitment to filesu lt but it's certainly something 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
5:03 pm
.has been set, of ide course on their republican side of the aisle you know kevin mccarthy in general has been supportive of the 'resident, getting a little bit less pushback, but interestingly among the broader republican congressio,l membe including in the senate, there are some that are also pushing back and saying that this sets a dangerous precedent. >> sean, when you were on our show last month when weaponry talking about the government shutdown, you actually said you were surprised that the nesident hadn't already declared aional emergency. well, here we are. he has. and do you think will happen now. there's a legalhallenge governor newsom wants to put inp ce, part of a series of legal
5:04 pm
challenges, a wave-mfiber 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 the democrats said 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 tsaid, with regar national emergency, the court have given presence wide latitude, nguyen with the abuses of thein nixon atration to let presidents take action from a nat nal emergency perspective. it's bad policy, but if it does go forward, this is going to clear the courts pretty easily, particularly with precedent and congress authorized money for this border fence now so legally it will pass >> this is unique because those argue this is the first time this type of national emergency declaration has hallened ing the inability to get congress to go along withs
5:05 pm
ething the president wanted. >> well, congress did go along with the president wanting, they just didn't go along with the e llar numbers that president and the federal government administration thinks are necessary. so i will say i've been critical of the president on many instances, but in this one i l think he r outplayed the democrats in congress. he got the money as part of the budget act, and he got his y,tional emerge and i think it will pass muster with the courts. >> katie, tet's talk about impact on california because as part of this ergency declaration, there will be about $4 billion diverted froer f funds that were budgeted for military projecof. somehose projects are in california. so what will be the impact on our state? >> newsom held a press conference today withge attorne eral javier beserra. california is going to be the most impacted state just because of the amount of money that we get from the federal government.
5:06 pm
he was looking -- he said specifics were sll being assessed because the order had just been issued, but things like military installations, as you mentioned, whether or not the nroional guards that he said are going to remain at the border to do drug sear and seizure, he said they would remain there if the federal government paid for them. so if they don't, those troops might be pulled back and redeployed. in general he said there are a lot of partnships between local and federal law enforcementt agencies tally could be affected in terms of money but also in terms of momentum in that, you know, these projects get goi i and you take their funding away, that's it and they'll cease. >> zbaichb wrong because we have so few military bases in the state of california anymore. we'll be a pittance share of what is distruted around the rest of the country. >> they also are raising the issue of some of the counterdrug defense department money that's andt going to be diverted certainly a lot of the work
5:07 pm
that's done along the san diego border, there's a fair amount that happens in california, but an administration official told me they haven't even made a list of military construction projects t ty intend toake money from at this point. o you can't really with any certainty what is going to be affected because at this point the white house itself hasn't gone down the list and said what will be affected. i also wanted to go back to the issue of the court challenge for a minute. you know, there are certainly thlegal experts who thin it's credible that the court may uphold this authority, but there are some ises, and one of the things that the court often decides on is not a substance issue, but a procedural issue. and in his press conference today the president explicittid hat he didn't need to issue this order but did it because he wanted things to move faster.d that k conversation, the fact that this was threatened for weeks, cgress wasiven an
5:08 pm
opportunity act only after they sort of sety what tre willing to do, did this emergency get declared, really you understa undercut the presence of urgent action. so that procedural argument not necessarhether the border needs securing, those are the types of arguments that can sometimes doof this type procedure in court. >> all right. also a lot going onn e national front, obviously. but let's talk about state politics. this week governor gavin newsom delivered state of the state address and in it he created a lot of confusion when he talks about the current high speed rail project and said it would cost too much and take too long. what does that mean? is ther project dead will there be high speed rail but not going from san francisco to l.a., whicotis what thes had approved in 2008? >> well, you know, he's limiting the segment for now. we're hearing it's a bakersfield merced segment.
5:09 pm
that's created a field day for republicans up here in washington. kevin mccarthy is almost gleeful. he's been handed a political gift saying he all along said thst believed it was a of money and it wasn't feble. and this news from gavin newsom drops at the same time that demo trats areking up their green new deal proposal, which called for vastly expanded high speed rail. so you have california, which theoretically could be a shining example of high speed rail adds green initiati, you have the governor, the democratic governor scaling it back, and kevin mccarthy isery ready to tell that to anyone whoks. >> sean, president trump is jumping in. his interpretation ithat high speed veil dead and he's saying, hey, california, give us back the $3.5 billion we gave you fo. this projec what are the chances of that happening? >> probably slim, actually. i think the state's going to take all the money they can from
5:10 pm
that and try and has actually deployed it. when the initiative goes forward, we know the flights from bakersfield to merced will be the first ones that will be canceled for the high speed rail project. it's just silly. i will tell you, when i was director of the office of rcplanning and resh we study high speed rail and the alviability both inornia and across the country and even europe is scaling back on that issue. he needed to get out of it but unfortunately he handled it very poorly. he confused the press and public aut what it is and what he said originally he wanted to do iisn't legal regards to the initiative. now he's feeling around and >>rying to -- ll very nebulous. katie, the governor also said in his speec that president trump's depiction of america is, quote, at odds with california values. what kind of proposal is newsom offering to counter what isf coming out the trump administration? >> i think gavin newsom talks a lot about a california for all and the california dream.
5:11 pm
he's proposing things like eventually starting a single payer health care system here, inich, of course, is something that the trump astration actually would require a waiver for them to even start going down. that pa who knows if they're even likely to get that. but initiativesike that, he's talking about free commun ay college fecond year, fadesing in universal preschool eventually. >> extending medi-cal including undocumented immig until they're 26. >> exactly. 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 cheapern the long run if everyone has medical insurance and ime't going to begency room for everything. so that's sort of the push and
5:12 pm
pull of the argument there >> we have about 20 seconds. there's a saying as california goes, so r goes thest of the nation. how are our lawmakers reacting ngs thatof the t newsom is putting out there? will they follow suit? >> i think you're going to watch a lot of eyes on california from both sides of the aisle who a going to be ready to pounce if things loolike they can be replicated, other states are going to move to do that. if anything looks like an aample as a failure, republicans going to point to it immediately and use it against democratsationwide as well. >> washington correspondent with the "san francisco chronicle," thankhou so much for being w us. >> thank you. >> and thanks to katie or with kqed and sean walsh. always nice to have you guys here. >> thank you. palo alto congresswoman anna eshoo is the new cha of the energy and commerce health subcommittee. this week she held a hearing on four bills, including one she
5:13 pm
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.s joiningow by phone from menlo park is congresswoman anna eshoo. we understand there are service problems where you live right now so we couldn't get a video link. thusk you for joining >> thank you. >> i would like to ask you ability the president's national guard emergency declarat on. wh your reaction to that? >> i think that the president hasn't read the constitution. this will certainly be challenged in the courts and it should because it is a th violation o constitution. the frame is paced in our constitution that it is the congress that appropriates dollars. so i think it's an act of
5:14 pm
constitution vandalism and it's deeply he is targeting california because it's bee reported that emergencyld funding we that pot of money would be robbed as well as others. bu i don't believe that it will withstad the scrutin 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? >> there's already been a bill that's been introduced, and i'm a co-sponsoit of there will be several challenges and there certainly will be one that comes fm membe of congress. >> let's turn to health care. because you are t chair of the health subcommittee of the energy and commerce committee. yo held hearings this week on legislation to reverse the tmp administration's changes to the
5:15 pm
affordable care act. which provisions are yo hoping to restore? >> first of all, our top two priorities are the promises that we made to the american people. and that was t strengthen the affordable care act, to protect preexistingconditions, and to lower drug s.pri so the legislative hearing that we had that i conducted t week had four pieces of legislation that wereew red. one of them was mine, and it relates tose t short-term junk plans that the administration is forward. >> these are short-term plans that don't necessarily provide any protections for people with preexisting conditions, correct? >> correct. these essential benefits and the
5:16 pm
lth insurance h industry that we're part of the fordable care act spread across all health insurance policies in our country, not just those that are enrolled in the affordable care ac the administration continues to sabotage the affordable care act. >> let me ask you also about medicare for all. some progressive democrats who support medicare for all arese that you are not holding hearings on their proposals and they sayhat you have backed aery from your claim ear last month that you will hold a hearing. why did you decide not to hold a hearing? >> it's not that i decided nott hold a hearing. we only had two and we've only hearing. egislative >> do you support medicare for all in concept, though? i know there are different variations of bills out there, but do you support t ncept? ,> i've always been for universal coveraalways,
5:17 pm
always, going back to my days serving on the san mateo county boarde board of supervisors. myoal has always been we have universal coverage. it's how are we going to get there. the number one examination the is to protect the affordable care act because that's what we have in place. >> fair .enou also last month gavin newsom signed an executive order to lower prescriptionorugs by requiring that the state buy medications for peopleonho are government-run programs like medi-cal. would you support democratic proposals to target drug pricing at the federal level amby, for le, including allowing medicare to negotiate prices? >> well, that's one of the chief proposals of the democrats. it would be medicare part d because that's where most of the prescription did you go dollars
5:18 pm
are spent. but i think it's important to have >> as you know, some consumer groups say no more hearings are necessary because there's plenty of research out there showing that big pharma drives up prescription drugce p and they think you're too close to the pharmaceutical industry. how do you address their concerns? >> i think it's silly. i have such a long record, 36 years of producing for consumers. i have thousands of constituents that are employed in the biotech industry here, not only in terthern california, but front and c in my district. i've always been for the consume i will continue t be. as biotechnology industry supported me in the congress, yes, i'm proud of it. i'm proud of it.
5:19 pm
>> you also said you don't want to punish the pharmaceutical industry. that's what youold reporters. >> this is not about punishing anyone. this is about reforming how drs are priced in our country so that people can afford them and that there is safety,t t there is affordability and innovation. >> congressnnomaneshoo, we appreciate your time despite the having problems you're at your home. thank you for joining us. >> thank you. thank you. bye-bye. >> bye-bye. more than 2 billion people around the world log on to cebook to share vacation photos, scroll through news feeds and stream live events but has growth com at aprice. data breaches affecting tens of millions of users and misinformatioo campaigns influence national elections have prompted hearings from capitol hill and a public backlash agains the tech giant
5:20 pm
and the ceo, mark zuckerberg. now, a new book by a facebook vestor suggests regulation may be the only way to protect personal data that is key to th company's growth and profit. joining me is the author, roger mcin a mee >> thou, it's a >> you were an early adviser to zuckerberg and later an investor. you writew about h in 2006 you advise him not to sell the company because y thought the company could achieve its mission much bettered by staying independent. what did you feel fbook was back then? >> i thought mark had found the holy f grail creating a large network of people who wanted to interact with each other. he was the firsttwocial nk to come along that required authenticed identity, my space and the predecessors hadn't done that. but with authenticated identity e i was convincedould build a company as large as google was at that time, and it would be --
5:21 pm
>> you thought it could be a force for good? >> totally. >> what about now? >> what basically happened is they oiscovered it wasible 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 requirement, relaxed th priva settings, faster.uld grow a lot in each step along the way they compromised the safety of the people using the producto in er 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 people on the network before we starte to see the problems. it's a real tribute to how smart and clever they were. >> with the problems they're facing now with data thprivacy, example of facebook as the technology has olved, the
5:22 pm
people don't use facebook the way he does. how can he solve the problems 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 oniginally it was just an issue being to facebook. what it really is something that affects all internet platforms that are based on advertising and attention. sooogle and instagram and youtube and twitter and snapchat are all affected. but the challenge here is that success isr a reinng thing, and after a while you think you know all the answers and other people don't. the mistakes that were mad here in my opinion are forgivable. what i'm having trouble with is the resistance to changen the face of incontrovertible evidence. we know for cerreain that the are issues with public health, democracy, privacy, competition and innovation. and pretendin otherwise is
5:23 pm
harmful not just to facebook and google and instagram and the rest, it's harmful to society and it' harmful to zblerch if these companies continue to be resistant, what the solution. you think they should be regulated, 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. one is that companies that collect our data are allowed to sell it to anybody they want or trade it to others as facebook would do.e fomple, why is it reasonable for people to collect our credit card transaction data and sell it to? somebody el i think we need to have a debate on that. same thg for geolocation data from cell phones. why should it be legitimate to gather data on minors, people undr 18. ?" this is a debate we need to have. we also need to have anti-trust
5:24 pm
regulation. they're behaving like month on the part of i want to see regulations that are not as complex as european global protection but going after the specific problem such as the selling andharing of the data that is so private that it shouldn't happen.ow right all these guys hide behind this notion of consent, but it's like me too consent. it's people inga powerst people without power. so it's not what i wouldz characte as a fair trade >> you were an investor early on and you me millions. how much sponltd do you bear for what has happened and what eould have been your r in demanding for social ns resility? >> that 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 2006 to
5:25 pm
business model that created the problems didn't begin 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-criticm that i have taken up this mantle. i'm no longer an investor. i'm a full time activist trng to essentially take my biography, my exrience, and the platform i have to try to raise awareness and help direct o a good solution. for some people, i'm n the right messenger but hopefully i will help to get this issue in front of people and help them understand it. >> really a lot of people, a lot of criticism has been leveled at mark zuckerberg because of the sheer power and reach of facebook. but what about the role of sheryl sandberg. you were also instrumental in her hiringt facebook. she had been offered a top executive position at "the washington post." you said, no, why don't you
5:26 pm
consider facebookinstead. she took the facebook position. and when it comes to the mpany's operations, you say mark leads the business side to her. how muchhesponsibility does bear for what has happened? >> to be clear, they're the leaders of the company, so they ar a lot of responsibility. but the thing i want to make clear is that the manageme of all these companies began with an idealistic version, in google's case, collect all the in facebook's case, to connect everybody. ae issue was the business model creates kinds of side effects that currently thesedo companiet fpay the cost for. it's like a digital chemical spill and they're not paying the cost which they have i don'tk changing management, whether you get rid of mark and sheryl at facebook, or larry and sergei at google, i don't think that's the answer. you have to change the business model and it would be better if the existing founders did that
5:27 pm
because they're the ones witl the mouthority to make those changes. >> all right. much more to come on this, i'm sure. >> thank you for having me. >> pleasure to ta to you. thanks for being here. pleasure. >> that will do it for us. you can find more of our coverage ong/ kqed.owsroom. i'm thuy vu. thank you for joining us.
5:28 pm
5:29 pm
5:30 pm
captioning sponsored by wnet >> sreenivasan: on this edition for sunday, february 17: isis spreads its footprint to west africa. venezuela's humadetarian crisis ens as aid sits across the border in colombia. and an oscar-nominated film with an up close look at end-of-life choices. xt on pbs newshour weekend. >> pbs newshour weekend is made possible by: hbernard and irene tz. sue and edgar wachenheim iii. seton melvin. the cheryl and philip milstein family. dr. p. roy vagelos and diana t. vagelos. the j.p.b. foundation. rosalind p. walter. ebarbara hope zucke corporate funding is mrovided ual of america-- designing customized individual and group retirement products.


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on