at 9:00 a.m. john gizzi discusses impeachment and campaign 2020. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. it is thursday, december 26th, 2019. it was one week ago the house of representatives overwhelmingly approve the u.s.-mexico-canada agreement expected to be ratified by the senate and could replace the north american free trade agreement in the coming year. we want to spend some time on the washington journal talking about the legacy of nafta over 26 years. how does nafta impact you and do you think it was a good deal? call.s a eastern and central time zones, 202-748-8000.

in the mountain or pacific time zones, 202-748-8001. you can send us a text. that number, 202-748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you are from. otherwise, catch up with us on social media. on twitter, @cspanwj. on facebook, facebook.com/cspan. a very good thursday morning, you can start calling now on the legacy of nafta negotiated under president george h. w. bush, signed into law by president clinton, nafta went into effect january 1994. back totake you december 1993 at the signing ceremony. these are some of the remarks from bill clinton. [video clip] thehe only way we recover fortunes of the middle class of people work harder and smarter can prosper more. the only way we can pass on the

american dream of the last 40 years to our children and their children for the next 40 is to .dapt to the changes occurring in a fundamental sense, this debate about nafta is a debate about whether we will embrace these changes and create the jobs of tomorrow or try to resist these changes hoping we can preserve the economic structures of yesterday. i tell you, my fellow americans, that if we learned anything from the collapse of the berlin wall and the fall of the government in eastern europe, even a totally controlled society cannot resist the wind of changed that economics and technology and economics flow have imposed. that is not an option. our only realistic option is to embrace changes and create the jobs of tomorrow. host: former president bill clinton at the signing ceremony

for nafta. fast-forward a quarter-century and want to take you to october 2018, this is president trump in the rose garden announcing the agreement of the u.s.-mexico-canada agreement, the trade pact that would replace nafta. [video clip] have successfully completed negotiations on a brand-new deal to terminate and naftae nafta and the trade agreements with an u.s., mexico, canada agreement called u.s. mca. just works. ..s. mca that will be the name i guess that 99% of the time we will be hearing, usmca, it has a good ring to it. i have long contended nafta was perhaps the worst trade deal ever made.

the united states racked up trade deficits totaling more than $2 trillion and it is a much higher number than that with canada and mexico, it lost vast amounts of money and lost 4.1 million manufacturing jobs one in 4 auto jobs, 25% of our auto jobs. throughout the campaign, i promised to renegotiate nafta and today, we have kept that promise. for 25 years as a civilian, as a businessman, i used to say how could anybody sign a deal like nafta and i watched new england and so many other places where i was, just the factories were leaving, the jobs were leaving, people were being fired and we cannot have that. we have negotiated this agreement based on the principle of fairness and reciprocity. to me, it is the most important

word in trade because we have been treated unfairly by so many nations around the world and we are changing that. host: i was president trump from a year ago. agreementexico-canada could be implemented. we are talking about the legacy of nafta over the 26 years it has been in place, president trump talking about the economic impact. here is the council on foreign relations. a recent study they conducted looking at several studies on the economic impact of nafta. most estimates conclude the deal had a modest, but positive impact on u.s. gdp of less than .5% or a total addition of $80 billion to the u.s. economy upon full implementation or several billion dollars of added growth per year. the costs were concentrated, the benefits are distributed widely.

supporters estimate some 14 million jobs rely on trade with canada and mexico while nearly 200,000 export related jobs created annually by the pact pay 15 to 20% more on average than jobs lost. critics argue it is to blame for job losses and wage stagnation. $1.7 billion surplus in 1993 to a $54 billion deficit by 2014. the u.s. auto sector lost 350,000 jobs since 1994 while unemployment spiked from 120,000 to 550,000 workers. the council on foreign relations, the economic impact is the title of their report 2018, about the same time president trump was making statements in the rose garden. we are asking your thoughts on the legacy of nafta. jared out of brooklyn, new york,

good morning. caller: good morning. i am going to talk about trade and president trump. president trump says trade deals lose jobs. the real loss of jobs does not come from trade deals, it becomes from manufacturing becoming more electronic. trade deficits are neither good nor bad, they just happen. we get cheaper stuff and we can reduce more. because of this trade deal, i think things will get more expensive because 75% of the car instead of 60% has to be made in in 2025and 40% of jobs will have to be union jobs, which will make things more expensive for everybody. host: was nafta working? caller: i don't think this is a much different thing than nafta. i don't know what the big fuss is. whether or not it is good or bad remains to be seen, but to make much.fuss does not change

what herded america was not joining the tpp because that gave china a lot of power. host: this is bob, arlington, texas. good morning. caller: good morning, john. ross was right. sorry we lost him this year, but he was right about nafta. the reason he lost the debate ish vice president gore larry king did everything he could to confuse ross and keep him off his balance. magazinehat in a time article. what you really need to do is go back to this interview susan swain did in november 1999. she did it with roger stone and trumpnterview was when

was trying to evaluate his chances in the reform party for 2000. it is an interesting tie-in as to what the real political itiefs of trump are because goes back in history 20 years or so. clinton bribed all these congressmen to sign the bill, saidfor the bill and ross --right and he is officially he should be given credit for talking the truth about nafta. he talked the truth about the debt and they will come around to it one of these days, i guess. host: how did nafta impact arlington, texas. caller: i can't tell you because

the loss of jobs here -- i was not here at the time, 1993. i really don't know. you save ross was right, let's take viewers back to that second presidential debate, this was ross perot's description of what nafta would do. [video clip] >> we have got to stop sending jobs overseas. to those of you in the audience who are business people, pretty simple. you are paying $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory south of the border, that is assuming you have been in business a long time and have a mature workforce, have no health care, that is the most expensive single element, have no pollution controls and no retirement and you don't care about anything but making money,

there will be a giant sucking sound going south. if the people send me to watch, i will study that agreement and make sure it is a two-way street. 1990 twos perot in standing between the president who negotiated nafta and the future president who signed it into law. hearing from you about the legacy of nafta, this is freddy, indianapolis, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to go and speak about the history of nafta. the oneremember who was pushing for nafta. it was the american people, the american factory worker. they were the ones pushing for nafta. came up withh nafta.

clinton did not originally want nafta, but the american people were pushing him for nafta. the speaker of the house was pushing clinton for nafta. pushingople who are now for trump are the same group of people who was pushing for nafta. ross perot definitely was against nafta. i was against nafta and i was a young man during that time what would be coming down. from my opinion, clinton was forced into agreeing, getting on board with nafta. once he got on board, nafta was suddennted and all of a the jobs were lost quicker than what ross perot anticipated. the same people pushing for trump are the ones that lost

their job and they want to blame everybody except for themselves. you were the factory workers during that time who pushed the government for nafta. in andne of work are you did nafta affect your sector of the economy? caller: at that time i was working for the indianapolis public school system, so i was not affected. friends whoof my lost their job because the job left. understand american people today. silly right now about things going on in this country and they were acting silly then and now they want to change their ofd and accuse everyone else

why it is being caused. it is caused by your attitude. host: freddie talking about the history of nafta, the balance with a good wrap up of some of the history from the early 90's when it came to trade negotiations, negotiations starting in 1991. president george h. w. bush beginning negotiations with mexico and canada. the original agreement signed by the outgoing president, george h. w. bush and mexico's president and canada's prime minister. earlier that year, the european union had been created. economicabout regulations led to the adoption of two addendum's. nafta was ratified by congress and the legislatures of the two other countries. the house of representatives in .he united states approved it the u.s. senate approved it 61-38 just three days later.

president bill clinton signed it into law december 8 1993 and it became active january 1. we are asking your thoughts on the legacy of nafta. how has it impacted you? how has it impacted your job sector? how has it impacted your community? 202-748-8000 in the eastern or central time zones. in the mountain or pacific time zones, 202-748-8001. we will also look for your text messages and tweets. if you send us a text, it is 202-748-8003. include your name and where you are from if you do that. martin out of new mexico, good morning. what kind of work are you in? .aller: thank you, c-span i am retired, thank you very much. host: what did you do before you were retired? caller: many occupations including teaching. what i wanted to say is the question concerning legacy one of nafta was prized by the

marked by the uprising in southern mexico. the legacy of that, the rise of the cartels, the famous sides -- femicides in warez -- juarez, we have seen it rise because of u.s. corporations. and ae them in las cruces return to u.s. imperial policy where the u.s. business goes overseas for its benefit and uses the labor of farmworkers for its profits. the legacy of nafta is that we have cartels now that are bigger than multinational corporations. we have violence and mass

murders throughout mexico. we even have the government collaborating with the cartels in the kidnapping of 43 student teachers. legacy depends on who you talk to, i used to work in the rust belt in the 1990's. when they were shutting down, going down south, they just decided to keep going and working people -- instead of working in factories have been working in call centers getting $10 an hour. the impact has driven wages down here. labor was always against nafta because it was not strong enough with protection of labor unions and environmental issues. host: what do you think about the pursuit -- participation of labor and the support they have

given to usmca? caller: we will see what happens. it is hard to make the call as far as how they are looking at it except in the sense of they are looking for basic industry, steel production, aluminum production, auto production to be stored in the united states. whether that will happen because of a trade agreement or because of national security concerns, remains to be seen. thatundamental issues are the younger people need better jobs. they need better education, trust me, and they need improvements in their standard of living. a lot of people on retirement, even when they own homes are running out of rooms. a lot of people are couch surfing. what we see is a new structure

and economicility deprivation. and: you talk about labor its impact on labor, usmca getting a key endorsement from asl cio. the washington post talks about the effort to bring the to thent on board negotiations, this is what they had to say. his support is not assured until the final days of the talks. so they could show constituents they could deliver despite partisanship gripping washington. they are under pressure from ads paid for by the chamber of commerce and visits from vice president pence. trumka urged democrats to hold out for more. on the eve of the vote, he released a letter to lawmakers urging them to back the new

agreement declaring while imperfect, it does provide a new standard from which to improve upon. that is richard trumka talking about usmca. a lot of discussion about impact,economic discussion about trade negotiations in general and the impact on the economy. want to show senator pat toomey, he came out against usmca. he was at an event in washington, d.c. earlier this month and talked about the freeenges of promoting a trade agenda and here is what he had to say. host: --[video clip] >> trade of one of those -- is one of those things where then if it's our dispersed. if we have a free trade agreement with another country and they have a competitive advantage in an industry and an american factory closes, that is a problem for everybody who works at that factory. it is on the front page of the

paper in that community, everybody is aware of this at -- outcome. maybe every american gets to save $100 or $1000 a year from lower cost and more choices and on a net basis, that has a much bigger positive economic impact, but how do you point to it? how do you prove it? it is one of the challenges we have. buteople may not be aware, with all the discussion of how nafta caused factories to close, employment raised five straight years after nafta. i am saying manufacturing employment rose for five straight years after nafta and yet we have a lot of people around the country who will say this factory closed in our neighborhood. ist tariffsection resulted in job loss and manufacturing. it is supposed to be the

opposite. protectionism does not work well. host: senator pat toomey from earlier this month. the lead editorial in today's washington post, the question they pose, the end of free-trade. as momentous as it was, president trump's impeachment might not go down as the most significant happening in the last month of the 20th century's second decade. mr. trump's phase one trade agreement with china and the collapse of the wto agency that adjudicates trade disputes, the short run impact might be limited and then the case of the chanted i, -- in the canada, mexico, deals -- the big picture is the united states is abandoning the postwar commitment to free, open, law based trade in favor of a new

approach. if you want to read more, lead editorial in the washington post . getting your thoughts on the legacy of nafta, this is david out of new york. good morning. david, are you with us? caller: i am here with you. host: go ahead, sir. caller: a lot of thought-provoking observations come through this program, so i am sitting here. i am thinking, i have to go back to 1971 for a second as i had a political science teacher who said when you have one of the poorest countries on the world on the border of one of the richest countries in the world, there will be repercussions. let me jump to present. this is all based on capitalism, on free market. it is not beautiful sometimes, but it works and we have created infrastructure down, not just

mexico, but probably other countries that will support that and they say capital goes where it is welcome and stays where it is well treated. in the give and take of a free newet economy, i think this deal probably is going to be good. --it shares the burdens more i don't know, fairness is a hard thing to determine, those are my thoughts, anyway. auburn, new york near the finger lakes up near syracuse, what kind of work are you in and what has been the impact of nafta over the past quarter-century in auburn? caller: we used to be a big factory town with a good, thriving population in the 70's -- 1970's. may be in the 1980's, it started to leave. right now, this is new york state, still part of the state of new york and we have our

issues. i don't know how to answer that question. homeownership has gone away. we are becoming a nation of renters. a city of renters. we are way behind the curve on that. jobs -- although it looks like some things are coming back. host: what things are coming back, david? caller: we have small factories, small manufacturing things. it depends how you want to define manufacturing. host: what are they making? caller: electrical components much. but we have lost so i don't follow it that closely, i wish i could find out more -- i am a retired person right now, so i have a lot more time on my hands, that is why i get to watch you guys, which is great. i was watching book reviews and

the speaker from college was great. biased --u are whether you are biased in your own soul is one thing, but your programs are not. host: appreciate you continuing to watch c-span. we will go from upstate, new york to macon, georgia. this is willy, good morning. what do you think the legacy of nafta is? back in the 1990's going nafta, i think the american people were let down because all the manufacturing and all the local powder mills and stuff -- they went

away and they closed up, which was a great thing for the youth at the time when i was coming up in the 1970's. all the people in the neighborhood worked at these factories. when the factories left america and went other places, they dried up. torn down.gs some are still standing. there were a lot of laws at that .ime i think the business people of america, they went to the money walmart, wee china, spend 99% of our money at walmart going to china. everything at walmart is made in china. people have to look at what has been going on. i am retired now. i came up working for allied chemical.

lasted 10 years and went back north. you had to look at the very serious american people about the job situation. host: a few comments from facebook, twitter, and text messages. mike in orlando, ross perot had it right, we lost good jobs, better. deal is no -- iore tweet from madison always get nafta and nato confused, i hope we can help you on that this morning, give us a call, give us your thoughts on nafta, the legacy of that deal and what you think the usmca will do, the u.s.-mexico-canada agreement. want to hear your thoughts in michigan, mary, thanks for the call. good morning.

since i am a senior citizen, i have the opportunity to watch our basic american population suffer in regards to employment. has never made a deal as good as he has made. he is definitely not a businessman. anyone that has any knowledge of his business background knows the things he has done were done by bullying and threatening people with lawsuits and things of that nature. michigan and the detroit area, things have improved a great deal. it is by the ingenuity of some very wealthy people that have begun to resurrect the detroit area. as i said, because of my age, i

have seen our country deteriorate in terms of good jobs and i blame that basically on big business because the worker really is not able to exert a lot of power, particularly since they have diminished the power of the unions. the poor man has to take whatever is offered to him. host: what is a good job? define the requirements of a good job. , my definition, although 14 at the i was never in that position, was a man that the wife stayed home, he made enough money to take care of a family, got a new car every two years, take a nice vacation every year. the kids had all the things they needed. now these people are working two

and three jobs to just keep up and it is really a shame because big business does not really care. business goes where they can get cheap labor and mexico is the closest country, canada is still a good place to work, but china -- all you have to do is look at the bottom of anything, made in china. it was a sellout as far as i am concerned. my business was never in a position where i had to worry about that. america definitely suffered through these years and whenever i see the president say this we will is fabulous -- know about it -- just a lot of doubletalk and i am sorry he is

leading our country and some any people are swayed by showman talk. host: a few more of those comments from twitter and text and facebook. nafta helped send jobs out of this country and the jobs went to china. hope this deal is better for workers. nafta did what it was set up to do, thank you, president trump, for getting rid of it and bringing jobs back to america. nafta is a textbook example of why governments should not get involved in trade or anything else. garrett saying it worked to grow the economy, but not how people thought. i think it worked out well despite my job losing a job when his production line moved south. we manufacture now more than ever, robots have taken most of their jobs. a few comments from social media. we want to hear from you, especially on our phone lines. 202-748-8000 in the eastern or central time loans. 202-748-8001 if you are in the

mountain or pacific time zones. dave in florida, you are next. retired and originally from toledo, ohio. i worked my way in engineering and they first sold out to a company and moved the whole company to mexico and now china has it. host: what kind of company was it? caller: automotive. the real danger with this thing is china and japan were always trying to copy us because that is what made us great, our manufacturing and i worked in engineering, so i understood how many years it took to develop those processes and machinery, that is our true trade secrets. we gave our arch enemies, the communists, our manufacturing machinery, they don't need us anymore.

without those machines, all china could do was sell us rice. those machines are not coming back. i don't care what kind of deal mr. trump thanks it is going to do, they will not send it back. they don't need us anymore. i worked for two fortune 500 companies and this was another problem, those jobs, by the way, are no longer paying social security, that is why there is a deficit. let me go back to another situation i ran into. host: business insider, another one of those articles taking a look at the costs and benefits of nafta. i want to see if you agree. they say one of the experts in their article saying nafta is a very visible political symbol people take as a stand-in for all the pressure globalization has put on american workers. another one of the political

scientists saying nasa is a whipping boy for globalization. you know who caused the job loss for workers? we find the boogie man and that bogeyman has been nafta. jobs, gavejobs, cut people a name for their frustration, deserved or not. what do you think about that? caller: i stood in line in daytona beach, florida, when ross perot was running and the republicans shut down the voting booth. i stood in the rain for three hours. they said all the voting machines were broken, but my threend i stood there hours. toledo, there were more jobs than people. i liked engineering because it takes a lot of ingenuity. i love engineering. i should be working right now as

a consultant engineer in this country. where? is the bigpe we have automotive, they have shut down, general motors went down because of financial deals on houses with quicken loans. hyundai, kia,e mercedes-benz, subaru, toyota. thank god they are moving into the country, they know the american people can build quality products. host: this is tom, missouri, good morning. i am a strong believer bestcompetition is the builder of business and if you cannot take from different borders, trucking will shudder and fall away. explain that a little bit

more for me, tom. caller: i believe transportation is part of a larger nation. i believe that without trucks and without a demand, there is no need -- there is always a need for product, but without having competition, there is no value in human or jobs. host: what about the ability to freely move trucks across borders? is that a good thing? caller: yes. it ends up in stores. when something ends up in a store, people can buy it. host: michigan, this is randy, good morning. start by would like to thanking you and all the great to bringomen it takes

us this program. happy holidays to all of you. host: you always do that when you call in. i appreciate that. caller: you are welcome. 1, itgacy of nafta is showed i was glad i was only a high school graduate because there is no way a college person making $.50 an hour is going to help a guy making $26 an hour on the assembly line. that has got to be about the dumbest argument for spending $50,000 on a college education i think you could come up with. the other legacy is donald trump. when everybody gave up and thought we don't need you autoworkers, you make too much, okay, you ruined my life. and now i am going to make sure donald trump gets voted into make sure everybody else gets a little taste and that is what i think my legacy is about nafta,

it was the stupidest thing put on this earth and anybody with a high school education can see that because they were the ones working it and i appreciate you and appreciate the show. host: if donald trump doesn't run talking about replacing nafta and all his criticism of nafta in the 2016 campaign trail, do you think he wins? caller: i am afraid so. that is the problem right now. democrats have got to put somebody up. they have to get off of this -- i am not the genius. you are going to have to do something because you have to have somebody. he did lost -- talk to the ones who lost their jobs.

so-and-so has this, i don't want them to have it. now we are on the race to the bottom. are we happy? it is a good race and we are running it. so-and-so had more than me, so i will make sure nobody has nothing. we will all be down in the mud. never mind. i am sorry, john. i have to hang up now, buddy. host: we want to take you to 26 years ago, the signing ceremony and this is bill clinton talking about the jobs he thinks nafta is going to create. [video clip] >> i believe nafta will create 200,000 american jobs in the first two years. ,f you look at the trends starting about the time

president bush was elected, over one third of our economic growth and in some years, over half of our net new jobs came from exports and on average, those exports, job-related jobs paid higher wages than jobs that had -- than jobs that had no connections to exports. i believe nafta will create one million jobs in the first five years of impact and i believe that his many more jobs then will be lost as inevitably will be as always happens when you open the mix to a new range of competition. host: president bill clinton from 26 years ago. we talked about the various estimates, the economic impact of nafta, here is another one focused on jobs from the fact checking website, politico. this fact check.

estimates of jobs lost from nafta range wildly -- range widely. the biggest number comes from a report from the liberal economic policy institute which receives support from labor unions in 2014, that report found from 1993 to 2013, u.s. trade deficit increased from 17 billion to 177 billion, displacing 851 7000 u.s. jobs all due to growing trade deficits with mexico. the numbers vary widely. business groups argue the trade deals boost employment, pointing to a 2010 report. the chamber of commerce found 14 trade deals in place supported 5.4 million jobs with the lions share of those stemming from nafta. assessments not in line with any business or labor suggested the

trade deal had a modest overall impact on jobs with certain industries suffering more than others. pull a fact with that story if you want to go back and see it from september of 2018. john from north carolina, you are next, good morning. caller: hello? host: go ahead. caller: ever since i graduated from high school in 1973, i basically had four careers and the second one was working in a factory that made oil type transformers. i got that job during the recession of the early 80's and was unemployed for a while and that job saved me really from homelessness. i worked for a few years and left during 1987. the point is that factory is no longer there anymore. it closed after i left.

they took the production down to mexico. if somebody younger today would -- was in a similar situation, they could not go there anymore and get a job like i was able to in the 80's -- 1980's. host: a 1987, what did you end up going to? caller: high did civil engineering and i am in i.t. right now. the biggest threat today we have amazon, not mexico. host: why is that? explain a little bit more? caller: pardon me? host: explain that a little bit more. caller: about amazon? we compete with them and aws and they are overwhelming. host: what is aws? caller: it is there cloud whereing business companies can no longer have to placement premises

where they have to locate their equipment, they can use the amazon service and they can ramp up production in i.t. without having to own any equipment. host: can you do your job from home? where do you work? what is it like in durham, north carolina, for you? .aller: right now, i am ok i continue to have my job and i have to commute, i cannot work from home. the original discussion was the great sucking sound ross perot mentioned during those debates with bill clinton and george bush, it became the path -- in the place i used to work, the business went down south. host: out of west palm beach florida, good morning. caller: good morning.

i think the legacy of nafta is really one that bigger is better in thes has resulted devastation of the american economy and as a matter of fact, i am thinking the world economy. people may not be aware of this, but round about the time nafta came into being, what started happening -- happening in countries also like i am from jamaica, i remember living in a community where you had local farmers involved in sugar or planting fruits and vegetables. because we started dealing with globalization and bigger is better, nafta, we started getting cheap imports coming from the country and it devastated the economy. in jamaica, they are dealing with -- why i no longer live there, they are dealing with unemployment and the scale of

the devastation is horrible because we are being asked to compete with sugar plantations in the united states that have 50, 60,000, 100,000 acres while a small farm in jamaica was like 300 acres. when those businesses go, it devastates the community. the other legacy of nafta is things like walmart, amazon. i don't think americans realize what is happening, we are no longer having capitalism in america. there are one or two companies that control the industries and what they do is they kill local businesses that have been existing in the communities for sometimes hundreds of years, paying taxes. they send their kids to the communities. walmart is not doing that. they kill these businesses that use to pay taxes.

kill the competition and then they hire people, pay them very .ittle on top of that, then they are setting up business in your community to pay low-wage jobs. give us a deal where we are not going to be paying taxes for 10, 15 years and that is one of the reasons why our deficit and the debt continues to rise. host: with your experience about what happened in jamaica, what is your view on tariffs? caller: i think for small countries, those countries can be strengthened if there is some amount of leverage given to them so they can get some kind of subsidy so they can support their economies and they continue to employ people and those people stay in their countries. if we are telling small countries they are supposed to

compete with places like the states, that is never going to be something that is going to be fruitful for them. host: did you come to the united up? caller: -- to the united states for a job? caller: absolutely. i love jamaica, but i saw the devastation taking place, crime going up. wants toge jamaican stay in jamaica. we leave because there are opportunities in the states. i think we should also have laws in place where people can come to the states, work legally, and go back home. there are people who come here because they have jobs and they years.spending 10-15-20 they can own a home, send their theseo college and families after 20 years of being here illegally, supporting

businesses, that you are going to deport them. i hate illegal immigration, but that are noties turning people after they have been here. we need strong policies in place, but we also need to be reasonable. some of these people are going to end up being terrorists because of how their families view this country. america is a great country, but we have to be judicious and fair in how we treat people. host: in arizona, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: how can anybody have a kind word for nafta? husband had a business in the 1990's. and sented a prototype it to the company and they would have it manufactured and we did not -- if we did not get any

orders, they would send it overseas or to mexico. it was a betrayal and that is how i feel about it. host: how do you feel about usmca? some of theorrects problems, but we need to get business back here so we can get some jobs and get the economy i grew up in where the american worker has a fair shake, not spend weeks and months preparing goething and then have it someplace else. that is how i feel about it. host: thanks for calling from arizona. this is maurice out of georgia. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: doing well. caller: i have a direct anecdote as it relates to nafta.

i have a pretty certain degree of confidence making this assessment. there used to be a carpet manufacturer, a factory in middle georgia, mohawk industries. my uncle worked there for 33 years and the factory itself -- they still have other facilities in georgia, but this particular factory closed about 10 years ago just as he retired five years -- three years prior or so. the question on the front page of the newspaper you linked to was did nafta cause job loss? that is not necessarily the question that should be asked. assessment andmy my study, i have seen the job

impact is relatively net neutral, did not create or lose jobs. there is a much larger picture going on. it was bill clinton allowing china to come into the to be too or the precursor to come into the wto. that had more to do with job losses, jobs being offshore than nasa itself. keep in mind, and this is for all the individuals who sit at the end of the bar in the so-called battleground states, these white guys who make these simplistic assessments about the world and the political equations. complex problems by definition need intricate solutions. these problems we are seeing as it relates to job loss are not simple problems that have simple solutions to them. most of these trade deals were

written by republicans. yes, bill clinton signed, as you know, he signed nafta, but it was written by republicans as most of these unfair trade deals have been. in addition to attacking the unions, which these people whom i just mentioned vote for politicians who have done so over the course of the years, yourself aseveraged workers because of how you acted and how you voted. usmca a week ago today passes the democratic control -- democratically controlled house on a vote of 385 to 41, gaining in the lead up to that vote key support from the afl-cio. caller: from everything i have read, it is not going to create many jobs and it has much mechanismslidation

as relates to labor standards and environmental standards validated than nafta did. that was why bill clinton said he signed nafta because he added he was able to get labor and environmental standards added, but there was no enforcement mechanism. he admitted there were no enforcement can isms he could pursue and -- do you think democrats are going to do any better on usmca? caller: time will tell as to whether they follow through. i don't necessarily think it is going to be any better than nafta win it is all said and done, but it is not going to be worse. we need a much larger conversation going on and in particular, we need to bring back unions. this time with inclusion and i

mean racial inclusion in unions being at the forefront of that effort. host: that is maurice in georgia. from the u.s. trade representative website, their list of the various provisions in usmca. this on some of the labor provisions in that trade deal. legislative commit actions to provide for the recognition of the right to collective bargaining, parties would maintain and adopt labor rights as recognized by the international labor organization . it requires higher rages -- then the caller also mentioning environmental newections, usmca has prohibitions on most harmful subsidies, new protections for marine species, the first ever articles to improve air quality, reduce arena litter and support

of forest management, all of that included in usmca. time for a few more of your calls as we look back on nafta and the legacy of the trade agreement, this is gilbert in alabama, good morning. good morning at happy new year to everybody. i worked in the steel and automotive industry and what we have in america today with this labor shortage i think was directly related to nafta, which i thought was one of the worst pieces of legislation that ever came out of washington. said, rural communities across america cost many jobs in textile, furniture, and garment industry. if you close down all of these

youngies that teach workers the skills and ofrenticeship and journeymen generations before them, we have broken the cycle. that is why we have a problem .ith steel labor in the country bushaw bill clinton and standing up together. these republicans and democrats can get together when it comes to thing -- things that decimate the american worker. the blame should be put somewhat on the american president. i saw a decal on a car from detroit a year back that says i buy what i deal. if it is knit -- if it is not made in america, i don't need it. we have to buy what you build, that is how we keep our jobs. host: this is john in ohio, good morning. caller: good morning.

that gentleman made a lot of sense. the one before would not even say the president's name. make labor cost competitive. how these guys rewrite history, that is what they do. they go to college or something and rewrite history. i lost three jobs to nafta with the same company, even the plants closed. host: what kind of jobs where they? caller: you don't like the president, so what. if he does a good job for me, i keep paying him. why do they hate this guy so much? how ridiculous. host: what kind of jobs where they that you lost and what did you end up doing? caller: automotive industry. they kept shipping them out and there was some kind of payoff. they blame republican management. they are part of the problem, but the unions, too.

when you get power, you get corrupted. these people get corrupted and all i was a millwright. used to work on nuclear submarines a long time ago. i was pretty high tech. they didn't care. the jobs were gone. somebody got paid off. americans get corrupt because they get so money hungry. they know where these people are and trump nails them. boy, he gets nailed because he tells the truth. wake up, people. . i don't like him so much either but he does a damn good job. get wise. get smart. host: our last caller in this first segment of the "washington journal." plenty more to come including up

next our authors week series continues with former senator byron dorgan to talk about his book "the girl in the photograph." lady will be joined by john gizzi white house correspondent for newsmax. we'll be right back. ♪ >> saturday night on american 8story tv on c-span 3, at p.m. on lectures in history, clemson university professor bradley thompson examines the preamble to the declaration of independence. >> it does not say the purpose of government is to make all men equal or the same. it says that the purpose is to protect life. and what rights does it mean? the rights contained in the

second self-evident truths. life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. "the panama deception." >> panama as another example of destroying the country to say that. it's another case upon the united states has exercised a might makes whiright doctrine ag the smaller countries of the third world. it has been u.s. practice to invade these countries, get what we want and leave the people to -- >> sunday at 6 p.m. eastern, on american artifacts. reenactors reenact george washington's crossing of the delaware river. experts talk about impeachment. >> one of the thing that strengthened the case against nexen and legitimize it was the fact it was bipartisan. there were many republicans who

studied the evidence. they looked at the reports. they listened to the tapes when they finally were released. looked at the transcripts that were released in advance. and they came to the conclusion that nixon has done something wrong. >> explore our nation's past on american history tv, on c-span 3. >> "washington journal" continues. host: it's day five of our authors week series where we feature authors from both sides of the political, the political public policyy issues. it continues today with senator byron dorgan. the former north dakota center. the book is "the girl in the photograph." good morning to you. i will show viewers the photograph of the girl. tell us who she is. senator dorgan: the book is

entitled "the girl in the photograph." a, lived ond tamar an indian reservation. she suffered great tragedy early in her life at age two. she was in a foster home. very severely party.unknen her arm, leg were broken and she no medicaloom with attention. a horrific story. to tell you a little bit about how i came to write a book about it, she was feature and a news story about abuse of children at foster homes with a very large photograph in a newspaper about two years after this happened. and i went to the indian reservation when i read this story and raise a lot of hell with everybody. and i met with this girl and her

grandfather. and we, you know, we visited. then i center a couple of christmas gifts. then her grandfather died and i lost track of her. ask at the indian reservation, does anybody know what happened? the answer was no. no one knew. and 27 years later i got an email from her. it turns out she is been homeless in minneapolis. went to a library to use a computer to try to find out what might have happened to her, because she had ptsd, significant health issues, didn't have much memory. she was trying to figure out what might have happened to her. she found a speech i gave about her in the senate. i used her name in the speech and the speech was about native american children and abuse of children in foster homes. that is how she find me. she reached out with an email. that began the opportunity to begin telling a bit of her

life's story. host: tamara is the pebble. the ripple in the pond. where do you see that ripple spreading? senator dorgan: she's now in her mid 30's. she's doing better. i use her story to tell not only what happened to her but what happened over the last couple of centuries to those who are here first, the native americans. if you are not on main american, you came from someplace else. -- if you are not native american. there are a couple of great stains. one is slavery and one is the treatment of native americans. and i talk about that in this book. i use the book for that purpose but this book is mostly about this remarkable young woman. resilient, a survivor, been through a very difficult time. told not only her

story but the story of an entire people over centuries in the united states. senator dorgan: i iwas not. because this story has not been told nearly enough. it is a great tragedy what has happened to native americans and those who were here first. who welcomed the pogroms from the mayflower, by the way. they welcomed immigrants at that point. when you take a look at what happened, the year after the mayflower arrived, john, the native americans that met them, taught them how to plant crops and how to harvest. they had a difficult winter. there were 24 married women on the mayflower. only four of them survived the first winter. at any rate, they had a feast after the first planting the first harvest. a year later, they had a feast, and the native americans and the pilgrims and others dined together on lots of interesting

meals. and but think of now, that a long timeay 1621, ago. go centuries beyond that and evaluate what happened to the native american population. it's unbelievable. didn'tne hfact that id realize. native americans not granted full u.s. citizenship until 1924. senator dorgan: they were the last americans to get the right to vote and it was 1924 but in some states they were prohibited to theting until close 1950's. there was an indian historian who spoke at a college in colorado. and someone stood up in the audience and said to this historian, they said, well, isn't this dispute about your ancestors and my ancestors? why am i responsible? he said, because you know the

story. the story of an injustice, you have and we all have responsibilities. that was joseph marshall iii. that is a profound concept. once you know the story of injustice you have a responsibility. host: former senator byron dorgan telling the story of tamara in his book "the girl in the photograph," the true story of a native american child. our top for this hour of "washington journal." if you want to join the conversations. phone lines. as folks are calling in, who faile d tamara?

senator dorgan: we all have failed. there is a corporate responsibility. i have told a lot of stories in the book about what could've happened that would've been much better for native americans. for example, the issue of reservations comes from a term reserved. the word reserve. certain amounts of property were reserved for native americans, but what happened in the 1800s especially. the indians to not have any of the leverage. the federal government had the leverage. the reserved on land, the reservations, what was left of it after they took most of it that they previously promised they would give them, the reserve lands were far away from population centers. rocky, hilly did not grow very much. ,there has been a lot of energy on these lands. but the federal government has been an impediment allowing tribes to produce the energy. by the way, when they did

produce it in many cases the benefit did not go to the tribes or the people who live on the reservations. eloise is a remarkable woman from the blackfeet nation. she sued the federal government. the case lasted 15 years. she described a circumstance where an impoverished woman living in a tar paper shack looks out her window and sees three oil wells on her hand pumping -- on her land pumping oil and gets no benefit. why? because the reference of where to go,ney is going that was done by the interior department. there has been massive criminal behavior over a century and how these accounts have been handles. d. there has been so much wrong. the dishonest treaties that the government signed. then ignored. they have lied to the native

americans. it just goes on and on. i've talked about a lot of it in this book. i could tell you about the trail of tears. the indian removal act. the massacre at wounded knee. we can talk about a lot of bring that will at least up memories that something awful happened that affected native americans. as ast as a population, country, we need to try to understand this number one. and number two, to take actions to deal with what we know has been an injustice for far too long. host: we do have a special line set aside for native americans. 8-8002, if you want to join the discussion. we're talking with senator byron dorgan. the book "the girl in the photograph." a couple statistics i want to show viewers. the first one on suicide rates in the united states. u.s. suicide rate has been up

33% for native americans, women and men. suicide rates are up 139% and 71% respectively. indian youth have the highest rate of suicide. the second leading cause of death for native americans aged 15 to 24 is suicide. when it comes to poverty rates in this country, according to poverty census, the rate for native americans 25.4%. that compares with 20.8% for african-americans and 17% for hispanic americans. for white americans 10%. asian americans 10%. omment about the reservation system in this country. is the reservation system failing? is it time to do away with it? senator dorgan: i don't believe so it all. that would be the last unbelievable injustice. that that shall be reserved was

taken away as well. the fort laramie treaties reserved a substantial amount of property that was ignored and taken away by the federal government's. sometimes promises do not mean much. you read those statistics. they are devastating. lot on nativea american issues among many other issues, but when i left the senate i created the center for native american youth. i wanted to work on native american issues and try to think where would i start? it seems you should start with the children. put on the spot light on native american youth. we do a lot of work on teen suicide prevention and education and opportunity and so on. thatir the board of organization that i created. we are working on this a lot. to be an happens outgrowth of a relationship that i had with this one younger of, met her when she was very young. -- one young girl.

she contacted me and her mid 30's she was homeless. with her consent, the first thing she did in her email was my storyf telling helps other native american pleasedn, i'm you did it. host: where is she now? senator dorgan: she is in a much better position, much more stability. she has a place to live and some income stability. and special friends. talking with senator byron dorgan, the former senator from north dakota, joining us this morning as part of our authors week series. plenty of callers. puaul out of indianapolis, indiana. caller: good morning. happy day after christmas. the senator,o ask thet you think if you told whole story about these issues it might have more effect on the american people? rather than just the one-sided

picture. host: what is the whole story? what do you think we should be talking about? caller: for example, we talk about the native americans' interaction with the pilgrims. the first - the native americans who welcomed the pilgrims did was ask the pilgrims to bring their muskets and help them attack another group of native americans. war thats as allies in they had the first thanksgiving. jacksonval act, when removes the indians, he was removing people who had been al lied with the british or had negotiated with the british during the war of 1812. time considerat themselves separate nations from the united states and were willing to negotiate with the nation's enemies. these are historical facts. they are not convenient historical facts but they are facts.

all of that all o ought to be told. senator dorgan: some of it has been told because you know it. yourot aware of description of the musket gathering and so on with respect to the first thanksgiving. which was not a thanksgiving in 1621. it is a fact that the indians welcomed the pilgrims. and it's also a fact that they helped them through the winter, helped them, taught them how to plant, how to harvest on someone and they did have a feast. we knew very little about that feast until 220 years later when a letter was discovered by researchers in the 1800's who was doing some research on that, and he discovered a letter that had been in someone's information basket, had never been seen before. but the fellow that was in

charge of the mayflower described the food they ate and so on. that had been stuck away in a box of information someplace for 220 years. i'm not familiar with your discussion about the musket. as interested in telling much of the story as i can about what has happened to the native americans. but the bulk of that story i would say to you is pretty shameful treatment. and deceitful and a sonnet dishonest-- and treatment by the federal government over many decades. host: do you think that story gets told enough? senator dorgan: no. there is nothing about the story of how native americans have been treated that has been told enough. is not with us any longer but i have deep admiration for her. she fought for 15, 16 years in

the federal courts to take on the federal government with what they did to the indian trust accounts. and what they did was in many cases criminal. host: you served in the senate. did you serve on the senate committee on indian affairs? senator dorgan: at 1.i was chairman. host: wanted to focus on. is that body doing enough to bring these issues to light? senator dorgan: the origin of that committee was going back to robert f. kennedy who was a senator who visited some indian reservations and called for the creation of a special committee, select committee on indian affairs. oforked a lot on a range issues including the issue of solving the trust account issues with eloise. and her testimony. especially worked on teen suicide prevention and education opportunity. i'm convinced that education is such an important stepping stone to most everything else. we worked on indian health care.

the native americans were told that we were going to provide them the health care they need. we have not. the indian health service is, just in a terrible mess. in some places corrupt. in other places a terrible mess that does not deliver the service that most americans have expected. host: what kind of funding goes to the indian health service and other of these trust funds? where does that money come from? senator dorgan: half as much as is necessary. we spend more money for health care for federal prisoners, substantially more money for health care for federal prisoners because they are in our charge. we have responsibility for their health care. but we have responsibility for the health care of native americans and we spend much more per person for federal prisoners than we do for native americans. host: about how much? senator dorgan: i don't recall

the exact number. it has been a while. host: sacramento of, california. good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question for your gue st. speaking to the native americans -- in people of this country, how is this book supposed to create compassion for people who have been, or cultures that have been oppressed by the community that has been in control of this country? do you think it's just fodder for conversation, and there will never ever be any intentional beent to redeem what has stolen and taken from these people? senator dorgan: i hope is fodder for much further conversation and compassion and most importantly an understanding of what has happened before. as i quoted joseph marshall, the lakota historian, what he said

is so important. at his event, let me repeat it again because someone stood up at an event he was at in colorado and said, an audience amber said isn't this dispute between your answers and mine -- your ancestors and mine? his response was because you know the story. the we know the story of treatment of native americans and the mistreatment of native americans for so long, we h do withsponsibility to it because it represents a profound injustice in this country. host: virginia out of waldorf, maryland. good morning. caller: i have a couple of questions. jackson's incident. didn't the supreme court say the united states did not have the right to do that? lookecond one is, if you at the independent nations and they are independent nations by various tribes, segregated by

did, there ish we no jurisdiction between the united states and these tribes to negotiate any of the injustices, even though they go to the supreme court or to congress who only has the right. the presidency does not have the right to do what our presidents have done to these people. so, how is that being addressed in the government, or is even being addressed in the government? answer dorgan: the short is it is not being addressed very effectively. the fact is the tribes are sovereign. they are recognized and represented in the u.s. constitution. it is a very different circumstances. can makefact, while it it cumbersome and difficult to have dealings between the tribal governments and the government of the united states, it does not justify what has happened for so many years. for example, john mentioned that

they were the last population in america to be given the right to vote. pretty unbelievable. think about this. they, more than perhaps any other americans as a percentage of the population, have gone to war for this country. boy, they enlist. as soldiers they go fight for this country. and yet, they were among the last to get the right to vote. it's just, it is unfathomable to me the way all of this has happened over so many decades. in fact, over two centuries, because i think that two great stains in this country are the stain or slavery and stain of how native americans have been treated. host: two comments from twitter. the first one is from park storm. what happened to native

americans and those enslaved in this country stands among the greatest crimes against humanity in history. then there is this. saying the former senator brings a 21st century insight into the term great white father. are any of the proceeds from the book going to native americans? senator dorgan: all of the proceeds. i will have no benefit from this boo. k. tamara will benefit and the center for native american youth, which is a nonprofit organization dedicated solely to helping native american youth. all proceeds will be donated. host: it is a different kind of book. your last book, "take this job and ship it." how did you feel about turning to a topic like this? senator dorgan: this was a hard book to write. i've been involved in five books. my first book was "take this j ob and ship it." it was some while ago.

we were hollowing out the working class and opportunities for the working class in our country. the next book was "reckless, how debt and dark money nearly bankrupted america." two novels.te this is very different. when i left the united states senate, leaving his hard, but i decided i wanted to do other things. i had been in the congress for a long time. 12 years in the house. 18 years in the senate. i've been a visiting professor at georgetown, been teaching. i have written a number of books. tryingd in a nonprofit to benefit the lives of native american youth. doing some consulting. i have been doing a lot of i feelnt things, wchhichi

good about what being a member of the congress or the united states senate is something that is a rare opportunity. i'm gratified my constituents of all me to do that for a long time. but i also wanted to do some other things and this was the opportunity to do that. host: do you wish you were there now? senator dorgan: i miss having a microphone sometimes on the floor of the senate to go at it and talk about how strongly i feel about some things that are happening in this country. but i should say, it is a vastly different place than when i showed up a long time ago. there is much more rancid anger and partisanship in this country. you can trace it to a lot of things, but i have my it own views about where it comes from. the elimination of the fairness who broadcasthose

radio and television signals which used to be required to provide both sides of political issues. the abolishing of the fairness doctrine and the growth of talk radio and cable television and a whole range of things has changed the way we talk about and with and to each other. less respect these days, respect for those who might disagree with you. civil discourse is so important. the lubrication of democracy has always been the opportunity to compromise. you feel one way. i feel another. can we move it in the right direction? let's both compromise. e people whowe hav say, listen, you sent me to the congress i guarantee you i will never compromise. if the choice is stand by your principles or caving in, i will never compromise. that is a false choice.

a lot has happened in the last two decades. host: what was your compromise when you were on capitol hill? where was a place where you came to that compromise and got criticism for it? senator dorgan: oh. so many areas. i can't even describe it. i represented a traditionally red state, north dakota. i was a democrat. or 30resented a red state f years but i felt strongly about a lot of issues. i would speak out and i -- i'll give you an example. i did not feel that we should write in the u.s. constitution a prohibition against desecrating the flag. i love the flag. love this country but i did not think that belonged in the constitution. the supreme court had ruled the desecration was a matter of speech. and so, i voted against that

provision. and my constituents were upset about that. i went home and i spoke to the american legion and i said, here's. that was the big issue. here is how i voted in here is why. because i believe the constitution is a document that should not include that. and, even though i love the flag, the next up would be somebody burns a bible. should we not protect the bible? so it goes with respect to the first amendment. that putting something in the constitution that prohibits gay marriage. i didn't believe that belonged to the constitution. there's lots of things that were troublesome to my constituents, but they were willing to listen. we began a dialogue. so, i felt very blessed to represent the people of north dakota. they are terrific people. host: about a half an hour left

with former senator byron dorgan. our guest in this thursday edition of authors week special series. "the girl in the photograph" is e truetle of the book, th story of a native american child. the phone lines split up regionally -- caller: in southern utah like san juan county, at one time it had been gerrymandered to where native americans did not have any representation. judgea year or two ago, a decided that, yes, there has been gerrymandered everything was of put back into how it

should be. now native americans do have representation. but, at the same time, the people down there did not like that. so, they had a referendum to change their style of government just because they got voted out. native americans are now in charge. there is hope in the future. that some of the services that deniedied them but not anybody else, denied them, will now happen. services, human services. water. to makest wanted that comment. even in the state of utah today, we're kind of discriminating

against the native american. host: thanks for the call. senator dorgan: thanks for your thoughts. it is a story i have not heard. appreciate your passing along. host: this is albert from rapid city. good morning. [beeping] host: go ahead. you are going in and out a little bit but go ahead. caller: yes. i wanted to agree with what senator dorgan was saying about supporting the youth. i was part of a, we just completed a movie. it ootook us three years. filmed largely on pine ridge, the indian reservation. road."lled "knowledge it was amazing to think we did it ourselves. we got our own script. that we didn't need hollywood to tell our story. that we were able to tell it on

our own. and i'm so proud that, after three years, again that we got it done. we finished it. host: what is the story of? caller: mallard as in the duck. a love story. and it was largely, it was a youth initiative largely, but what's great about the entire movie is the entire community was behind us. so, supporting the youth has reverberating effects throughout the community. and most of the time, from what i've been told, whenever native youth, i grew up on the reservation, whenever most of the time we see the movies it is depressing because it is always the bad news, always the worst news. to tell a love story is so authentic. it's part of the human condition

that everyone can understand. to hear that the high schoolers were happy to see the movie, that made me feel good. and it's just part of the ripple effect that i hope continues. host: thanks for -- senator dorgan: thanks for telling us about the movie and the story. verye it is, hope it's successful and, as you say, the ability to bond with youth and create interest in native american youth, we are try to do that at the center as well in the nonprofit that we have. let me just tell you that there's an old proverb, i think it's a native american proverb fact, ilsays tell me a 'll believe it.

tell me a story and i would hold it in my heart forever. the ability to tell a story is so important and doing so especially with respect to the trajectory of native americans in this country where they've be en, what has happened to them, and where there are going -- they are going is so important. let me mention one other thing. this book, this is a tough book and describes some tough things but this book also includes a chapter of a description of some extraordinary native american youth. i won't name them all here. i've told their story as well. these are stories of native american youth on their indian reservations are doing unbelievable things. beis so inspiring to me to able to tell their story as well, because it is not all gloom and doom. beinggot new seeds planted and new opportunities for growth coming from these native american youth as people that will inspire others as

well. host: joe out of eastpointe, michigan. good morning. caller: first, one question and then i would like to make a couple of quick statement. affairsureau of indian still in existence and to what extent does interact with native americans today? senator dorgan: it is still in existence. it does interact. not very successfully in my judgment. it's an agency that has long been plagued with difficulties. host: joe, what were your comments? caller: oh. one comment. here is a typical treaty. this treatyins, will last until these mountains turn to dust. or friday next whichever comes first. the fine print was really fine. and most americans know absolutely nothing about native americans. the name jim thorpe. you mentioned that name. the carlisle indian school. and how native americans were

taken off reservations and sent to white schools to forget their native-language. and so on. jim thorpe was a -- people do not know who that was. people are pretty uneducated people in many instances. thank you. haveor dorgan: callerr, i mention jim thorpe in this book. jim thorpe was a remarkable athlete. a remarkable human being. but i've described at least some in this book what happened that carlisle and a little bit about jim thorpe. thank you for mentioning that. host: a few more comments from twitter and our text message service. 202-748-8003, if you want to send a text. the, "it would be nice if whole country had the native americans respect for the earth and animals. it might be hopeful to adopt now to survive the climate crisis." she wants to thank you for

bringing some light to all the violation of treaties to indigenous peoples. then this question -- indian tribes take in millions from casinos. does that money help all native americans or just certain tribes? senator dorgan: certain tribes. the indians went to the supreme court and got a decision which allowed them to do gaming. some tribes do well. but the fact is a lot of tribes, even if they have a bingo parlor or something like that, they are far from population centers. it's safe to say there is not a lot of, not a huge rushing stream of income going to the tribes to help native americans from indian gaming. it has been helpful in some areas, but there are many areas where it has provided very little. host: are there ways to improve that system? senator dorgan: gaming is

generally successful when your are near population centers. there are many tribes located far from population centers. that may have a bingo parlor or may have a gaming facility but really do not have the income that comes from that that would be very helpful. host: you make the point in your book, that the location of these reservations to begin with set tribes when these it came to resources or population centers access to health care. senator dorgan: listen. it is not an accident that these reservations are where they are. they are land reserved for native americans but the federal government had all the leverage. they pushed those reservations out some fairly lare distance from population centers. host: taking your calls. this is richard out of texas. good morning. . caller: yes, good morning. career in medical -

northern québec in 1970. i knew nothing about native american or first nations. and with all those years, i mean, we have to go by sea plane to do medical clinics up there. it reverberates to what you just said about where these people were isolated and they do remain isolated. my question here is the problems i'm seeing -- with them. i live in south texas. but, nevertheless, the problem dawned on it just me, listening to senator byron, i'm sorry, dorgan. why don't you combine? how can we get together the people in canada and the united states? these native people are north

american. the frontier is an unofficial o -- an artificial one. now are- of maine who the agency for child protection. in their state governments. none of that exists in canada or very little. the provincebout of québec than the rest of canada but nevertheless, good things that have been done in canada, which are very few because they are further behind in my judgment in canada. host: thanks for bringing up the topic. senator dorgan: he's right. it is an artificial boundaries. of in indigenous people canada, native americans and the u.s. have suffered in many cases the same fate. we could work together. i talked to the canadians about some of the programs in canada.

they are not nearly significant enough. as is the case in the u.s. i want to go back and mention there is a chapter in the book called "defenders of the earth." referenceds caller the reference native americans have for this planet of ours. so, i think readers might find that interesting. the second thing is, while indian reservations in many places are located in remote areas, these days with the book that was written " distance is dead." withstance is dead technology ne you canw do business anywhere and i would like to see opportunities come developingions by new colleges and new universities and new education opportunities to train native american populations. then locate some of these very large technology data farms very large enterprises that are very

significant in job creating as well to areas in the country where you have the highest unemployment. by the way, that is native reservations. so, i think there are ways for us to, if we decide to do it, to begin to pump some new life and new opportunity into these indian reservations with jobs and education. point, we have not been successful in raising the consciousness of the american people. we have circumstances we have got kids living in third world conditions in the united states on indian reservations. that ought not be tolerable to any of us. i understand there are pockets of significant property in the u.s. buteed to deal with those the significant, substantial unemployment rates that exists in our country in most cases come from native american reservations, upwards of 80% unemployment. host: you mentioned the chapter

"defenders of the earth." begin thecy you chapter with your it when all the trees have been cut down and the waters are polluted and when the air is unsafe to breathe, only then will you discover you cannot eat money." senator dorgan: quite a prophecy. host: larry out of gallup, new mexico. good morning. are you with us? caller: yes. bad connection a but i am calling forom a border town in new mexico. this is where the new challenges are coming up. mission.ssion -- the the relatives. there are two parts. there is the mission person. sex trafficking is part of that problem. training fork of

the tribal officials to develop a coordination among the tribal government and the law enforcement and the medical facilities. so, right now, i think there's, there was one case, there was a sexing young 13-year-old trafficking individual that the tribal police -- there were nine tribal police interviews. four tribal officials interviews. and two clinicians interviewed. a lack of communication. and the violence continues. right now think there is a lack of accountability from the fbi to pursue some of this on indian land. and then, right now i think it would be a good recommendation to have u.s. senators call for accountability and possibly have

an indian affairs committee in the field. that's my, my call here. host: thanks for that. senator dorgan: i've traveled to new mexico. to visit some indian reservations. i've done a lot of travel over the years to reservations. the issue of missing women and children on reservations is very significant. sex trafficking. i've written about that. this is the time for us to take a look at what really is happening here, and how can we do something that response to it in an effective way? the fbi, the u.s. attorneys offices, are the areas where you expect there to be justice. u.s. attorneys are the ones in most cases would investigate a crime on an indian reservation. thoset, because

reservations are far from population centers, far from the fbi headquarters or the u.s. attorney, the fact is they don't get the kind of attention. they do not get the attention on reservations for violent crimes. in the book, the crime that occurred against this girl named tamara. broken arm, broken leg in a dru nken party. a two year old child? was anybody ever charged? hell no. why? i've tried to find the records from the u.s. attorney's office and from the fbi. they say the investigation was done. no evidence of it. does it make me angry? this should not happen in america. there are too many children on indian reservations living i world conditions. host: president trump signed a

bill to -- address violence against native american women and children. statisticsrump: the are sobering and heartbreaking. recently 5000 native american women and girls were reported missing in a single year while the majority return home or are found too many are still missing and their whereabouts are unknown. they usually do not find them. study showed that native american women in certain tribal communities are 10 times more likely to be murdered than the average american. the victims and their families deserve action and this should have happened many years ago. launchingarter we are operation lady justice a task force led by attorney general barr and secretary bernhard to develop a governmentwide strategy to end this terrible

situation. the department of justice will be issuing grants to improve safety in native american communities. we will leverage every resource we have to bring safety to our tribal communities, and we will not waver in this mission. we're taking this very seriously. this has never been done before. i've seen it just by reading and watching the news. it is a very serious problem. it is a horrible problem. host: your thoughts on that new task force? senator dorgan: i commend the president for that. it is the right idea. it is important to do. i would say there's the old saying when all is said and done, usually more is said than done. will this be real? will they put resources behind it. i hope they will. 10 minutes left with senator byron dorgan, the former u.s. senator from north dakota, joining us as part of our authors we did talk about "the girl in the photograph."

the true story of a native american child lost and found in america. so our viewrers know, in 10 minutes will we be going to a brief pro forma in the house. we will be back on the backside of that, but senator dorgan, the last we saw the house, the last action they took was impeachment of president trump. you sat in on the trial of bill clinton when he was impeached. what would your advice be to those senators? senator dorgan: there's no joy in being in the united states senate and having to sit as a juror. the house, obviously the house of representatives develops articles of impeachment when they think they are necessary. they send them to a jury called the united states senate. the senate is a political body as well. it is not as if you have got a jury of people who have not been the politicall

questions leading up to when the senate gets the impeachment resolutions. the senatee is that will do this in a responsible way. i did notice senator mcconnell, he has already set i am not impartial but the fact is -- the oath you take requires you to be impartial. you take an oath. i don't know where all this goes, when the senate leader says we will see it but i am not impartial. promising total coordination with the white house on the impeachment proceedings. senator dorgan: right. that's unfortunate. it is not the right thing to do. i know there is a lot of intramural stuff that goes on here, but go back to the basics of the question. and while i personally think there has been a lot of bad behavior by the president in a number of areas, you don't

impeach someone for bad behavior but this is different than that. this is a circumstance where the president called the president of another country and said, i want you to announce an investigation into my principal or my primary opponent, one of my primary opponents, in the united states. if you do, i'll reward you and if you don't, we will penalize you. essentially that is what he was saying. the way to understand this it seems to me is get everybody on the record. get mr. giuliani and pompeo and mick mulvaney and others. get the email traffic and find out what happened. is that exactly the way it happened? we'll see. host: a minute ago you talked about the need for impartiality. do you think democratic senators can be impartial, including senators currently running to challenge the president in 2020? senator dorgan: i think all senators have expressed -- i should not say all -- i a lot o

f the senators have expressed their own views about this president in very different ways over a lengthy period of time. when this impeachment resolution way, to the senate, by the it has been delayed by the speaker, when it comes finally, i'll expect there to be a very robust discussion in the senate to use a light term. be we my hope would would discover everything about what happened and from that understand it all. who knows what rudy giuliani was doing? i think i have a sense of what he must've been doing and concert with several other key people and the trump administration but we will see. little sunlight and let everybody decide and let the administration decide. we will provide all the information the senate needs and we will decide what the senate thinks. host: a couple minutes. try to get a couple more calls. denise in. , california.

caller: good morning, how are you? i would like to say that historically i was introduced to a folk singer. 1960's.at she wrote a song called " universal soldier." song.he also wrote a it is a passionate summary of what this country has done to the american people, sorry, to the indian people. in the 1700's. trying to kill the culture and taking their children to other schools. and, you know, chasing them screens, isovie one of her lines, which is so

heartbreaking to imagine that their culture was just -- by us. an article and i honestly do not recall when it was written but it was old. it summarized an ambition of the american government, treating the indians as enemies. and what they did was they decided to eliminate the buffalo herds, which were very much at the root of their culture and their sustenance. host: a lot there. senator dorgan: denise, thanks for waiting on the line. i guess you were there for some while. yeah, i think there is a lot to understand and unpack from your discussion. there was a time when the government said, ok, we're going to change the way we handle things. we're going to prevent indians from providing evidence of their

culture. they cannot provide any evidence of their culture at all. that would be something we will not allow. in soi government hass many ways been at fault in terms of how it has dealt with the issues of native americans. this is not some mysterious disease for which we do not know the cure. you know, we understand that people have to be treated fairly. you can't sign treaties and then be dishonest about the treaty provisions. to nativesay americans, ok, here is property that is yours. you get the black hills which you consider sacred and then some years later saying we are taking the black hills, so that is ours because there is gold there. these things have gone on forever. i have written about a number of them in the book. as i said earlier, the book is a book that carries the story of a remarkable young woman named

tamara, who is a reside for whose a survivor and resilience reminds me of the resilience of native americans as they suffered through mistreatment for so many years. host: beverly is an washington, d.c. can you make it quick? caller: yes. @gmail.com. i'm also a musician. my grandmother was an engine. -- was an indian. i am one that has been denied from the government the judges, 15 judges. anyway, they failed to order me a writ. for some rent. owes for five years of rent. host: we're running out of time. do you have a question for the senator? caller: my question is. moreed more farmers,

agriculture. thek people as well as indians and everybody. so that we will not have such expensive food. host: got your point, beverly. the last 60 seconds. senator dorgan: thank you for your thoughts. john, thank you for describing this book, showing the book to your audience. allowing us to have along with your audience a pretty good discussion about what it means to have been a native american in the united states. they were here first. they welcomed the pilgrims along time ago. yet, they have been the victims of mistreatment for some very much of this country's history. we can change that. host: the book. "the girl in the photograph" the author former senator byron dorgan. you can find his book at amazon. senator dorgan: