>> this is "eyewitness news upclose with diana williams." >> one year ago this month and a half century of division started to melt away. president obama and cuban president ra`l castro stunning the world, announcing the normalization of relations. two countries resuming diplomatic relations. a year later, we're gonna take a close-up look at what's really changed and what really hasn't. and -- psst! -- want a vacation in cuba? you will soon be able to. >> as president and commander-in-chief, my highest priority is the security of the american people. >> but first, president obama trying to reassure the country after the terror attacks in san bernardino, but calls growing louder now to put american ground troops, more of them, in syria.

we're gonna ask long-time new york congressman charlie rangel, and he's now halfway through his last term in the house. good morning, everyone. i'm bill ritter in for diana williams. he still has a year to go before he retires. we're talking about the dean of new york's congressional delegation, founding member of the congressional black caucus, first african-american chair of the house ways and means committee. he has had his share of victories. yes, had some setbacks and mistakes, as well. this is not an exit interview by any stretch of the imagination. but, charlie rangel, it's a "what's happening in the country right now" interview. we welcome the democratic congressman from new york. welcome. >> thank you, bill. thank you. >> maybe here more times than anybody else, i'd say, over the years. >> it's been fun. >> it has been. first of all, you look incredible. i mean, how much weight have you lost? >> well, the weight i lost i don't even like talking about. the idea is keeping it off, and i feel good. >> okay. but you look great. >> thank you. >> you're turning 86 in june. >> that's right. >> so you have some perch by which to look back and still a

look forward, and we're gonna talk about both right now. >> my only complaint is that god really should have given us the grandchildren first and then you could be more tolerant with the kids, but that's what i'm living for -- grandkids. >> it doesn't really work like that. >> it doesn't. >> no, it doesn't work like that. >> i'm doing strange things with grandchildren i never did with my kids, and it's fun. >> it's keeping you young. you look healthy. let's talk about president obama calls for a lot of people to put more troops on the ground in syria. good idea? bad idea? not gonna happen? will happen? >> well, you said more troops. most people say put boots on the ground. and i wonder, why don't they say whose feet got to be in those boots? you know, i'm a combat veteran, and i can't, for the life of me, see what troops are doing there if we haven't declared war. i think it's obscene that we can talk about let's put more troops on the ground and not have the congress realize that the president has not declared war against any country. and the question has to be, if

security, is the american people, through the house of representatives and the senate, supposed to say, "let's go. let's go beat them and let's save america"? but right now, we have no idea who the enemy is, what country they're from, and it is just wrong to have a select number of volunteer people to risk their lives and the congress just say, "more troops, more boots on the ground." it is morally and constitutionally wrong. >> once upon a time, when we invaded iraq in 2003, you suggested, you know, "if we're gonna do this with all these ground troops, let's bring back the draft and make everybody pay for this and make everybody eligible and we will not have a war that way." >> exactly. i hope we never need a draft, but i know one thing -- if you and i had to decide that we were gonna put some people in harm's way -- >> our children. >> if we were thinking about our kids or kids from our neighborhood or kids that go to our churches or our synagogues, we will think twice before we do it.

to it -- because i know i go to more funerals for our lost heroes than most members of congress because of the makeup of my constituents. >> we lost two new yorkers this last week -- a taliban suicide attack in afghanistan. a young father -- the guy a young father. >> it is so sad. >> 5-year-old. you know, that war -- that country is a mess, and we are pulling out. we'll keep troops there for a while. >> why would not political scientists and church leaders scream out and say, "what the hell is this all about?" the reason i ask is that, we got to have a heroes funeral. we got to have the purple heart. we got to have all of the things that the military would give to someone who put his life on the line for our great country. why don't we ask the congress, and why don't we declare him as one of our heroes? it's a stretch to talk about boots on the ground, because the

up to the fact that they're talking about putting american troops in combat. >> so why doesn't -- the president has asked for that. it's your congress, too. why don't you push for that? >> because my congress haven't had the -- i wish trump could give me the word... >> [ laughs ] >> ...to stand up since harry truman. we haven't had a war declared since franklin roosevelt. and we don't want to do it. all we do is send the troops into panama, send the troops into barbados, send the troops wherever we want, because we know with a volunteer army, there's somebody economically that's going to do it. now it's getting much larger. questions. and we could ask the questions if we had time. you know, who is the enemy? what do they want? give up? who represents them? what flag it is? and is this our war to fight?

haven't been involved until president bush got us involved. >> but we are involved now. how do you think president obama is doing fighting the war on terrorism? he has a lot of critics. >> well, i'm one of the critics because it just seems to me that not enough people know exactly what the president knows. and he should be able to bring people from that part of the world to come to the united states from saudi arabia, from egypt, and from the people that know what this struggle's about for years, and explain what they are doing in order to have rest in this area. it's absolutely ridiculous for america to be putting up ground troops without these countries who have a vested interest in what the outcome of this war. >> we now have saudi arabia saying it has almost three -- nearly three dozen muslim countries, muslim-dominated countries, that are joining with it to fight isis. >> saudi arabia -- they talk,

talk, but they don't put up anything. >> let me move to congress first, and then let's go into presidential politics. a quick thing about your new congress under the new house speaker, paul ryan. is there a new d\tente there for this next term coming up, or is it just status quo? >> it is so sad that we don't have leadership in the house of representatives. recently we passed the $1.1 trillion omnibus bill. 1/3 of the republicans, who have the majority, voted for it. and 2/3 of the votes were put up by the democrats. there's something wrong with that political picture. >> to keep the country going, is what we're talking about. >> to keep the country going. but it wasn't as though it went through the committees. oh, no, it was an omnibus bill, and everyone hoped that they got their piece of it. the new york delegation, we were able to get support for the 9/11 victims, the puerto rican bailout. that never got the bill. it was all done in the backroom by leaders and not members of congress.

of sunshine on there. let's talk about politics for a second. hillary clinton -- some conundrum. does she run hoisting the obama banner? does she have to be different than he was? what kind of conundrum is she in? >> i think -- obama's not running in this election. but my god, you're talking about a first lady, a united states senator, a secretary of state, and someone that's outspoken, and a woman. and you and i being married knows that she can run in her own right. no, no, she can't run away from president obama, who appointed her, but i cannot think of a more independent candidate than she. >> her opponent -- it looks like, if you judge by the polls -- we haven't started any primaries or caucuses yet -- but certainly donald trump has changed the whole tenor of the presidential race. what do you make of him? you've known him for a long time. what do you make of him?

any human being really needs to survive. anybody who knows donald trump will know that two seconds into any conversation, he has to convince you how smart he is. and the truth of the matter is, it wouldn't surprise me somewhere at a cocktail party or a meeting, he says, "you know, i could be president of the united states." and someone says, "no, you can't." he has broken every rule that there is to the founders of the constitution to every day. >> he is going -- i'm sorry. >> and one of the reasons why his remarks undercut the democrat principles we have against muslims, against women, against blacks, is because this party that he wants to be in charge of is not the party of lincoln.

friends in congress are saying, the leadership is saying. if trump goes there, if he's gonna try to run, that they don't believe he's gonna win and that he's gonna hurt the republican majorities in the election in the senate and the house. >> let's talk about that republican majority. you know, earlier you were talking about the civil rights movement, and that was the party of johnson. when johnson proclaimed the voter rights act and the civil rights act, something wonderful happened, and that is african-americans in the south had the right to vote. it was the end of the democratic party as we know it. and every ku klux klanner, white, birchite, every racist and bigot left the democratic party, and they joined the republican party. >> nixon had the southern strategy, and it worked. >> and abe lincoln could never get on the ballot today. and that is where this guy trump is making an appeal to all of the people who feel that they

>> so you're saying when lyndon johnson got up there to congress and said, "we shall overcome," that drove other southerners away and that's what led to trump's candidacy today. >> and lyndon johnson said that what he was doing was good for the country and the worst thing in the world for the democratic party, and there is no republican party today as we know it. >> i want to ask you briefly about cuba, because our next segment deals with a critic of what's happening there. you have been there about half a dozen times. you were there last december when the new deal was announced. how positive is this for cuba, for the united states, for people here? >> i was with president obama at the organization of american meeting last fall in panama. i saw 50 countries represented by 49 democracies, cuba being the first ones to enter. bill, every complexion that you would want to see, every flag in this hemisphere, and i couldn't

thanking god that i live in this hemisphere. all democracies, no one fighting each other, no heads being chopped off, and cuba acting cute, wanting to be a democracy, too, and soon -- and very soon -- she shall be. >> we will see if that happens. your last year, i hope you come back on this show again. we've had some fun times and great times. >> thank you, bill. i enjoy being with you. >> all right, congressman charlie rangel. >> merry christmas. >> and same to you. happy new year, too. when we come back, we're gonna switch topics and talk about cuba more than a year after diplomatic relations were restored. we talk to one critic of the

>> these 50 years have shown that isolation has not worked. >> what a historic year in u.s./cuba relations. diplomatic ties broken more than a half century ago, restored a year ago. now americans can travel to cuba relatively easily. while the u.s. embargo continues, trade is slowly beginning, but what's really been accomplished? joining us this morning to talk about this -- remberto perez is vice president of the cuban american national foundation. mr. perez, thank you for joining us. you're a critic of all this. tell me why you wouldn't want diplomatic relations to start up again. >> well, we thought that the president didn't get enough in return. >> what should he have gotten? >> he could have gotten more of a recognition of the violations of human rights in cuba, more recognition of the openings in cuba.

is perfect. after a year, what happened? it was a big propaganda, a tool, by the castro regime, but then what has really happened? we're really not concerned about traveling into cuba, but we are really concerned for our brothers and sisters in the island. >> so there are human rights violations. there are still thousands of political prisoners in cuba. but now that we have diplomatic relations, doesn't that give the united states, through secretary kerry and others, a chance, an opening of a door, to start putting pressure on cuba to make it more democratic, perhaps even have elections, to certainly do something about the human rights violations and all the political prisoners? >> that was our hope. but the -- castro, the president of the united states said to him -- and we appreciated that -- that he was not going to cuba -- this is only a couple of weeks ago -- unless he could meet with the dissidents.

very clear. "do not come into cuba to talk to any dissidents. these are our internal issues." >> but you know this, mr. perez, that the way it works is that you start a little bit and you make progress. we have cellphone companies now there. you have airlines in america that are trying to get permission to fly there, that are getting there. you have tourists coming. that's going to give the united states some say over this, right, some pressure, political pressure? >> the biggest thing was the hope that it broke through the cuban people. you know, these people -- they saw a ray of hope on this change. there was nobody more hopeful than the cuban people. >> mm-hmm. >> but, unfortunately, they have been lied for all these years, and it goes into the empty-promises bag and the loss of opportunities. >> the communists are still in charge there. the communist party still does not have open elections. >> i don't know if they're -- i don't know if they can be called communists. this is a brutal regime, a

they use communism, but they could be of anything. >> there was a time, of course, when the opposition would have been much louder. if you talk 20 years ago, the opposition to a deal like this would have been huge. i traveled for "good morning america" down to south florida in the everglades and watched a group of men, older men, from alpha 66, who had come over, and just dreamed about going back and invading the country and taking over, and they were training. they were training as military paratroopers trying to get back in there. >> well, the evolution has created more opportunities for us to participate in a political solution. we are not for a violent resolution to the issues in cuba. >> that wasn't true necessarily 25 or 30 years ago, right? there were a lot of people who wanted that. >> well, that's really the only option left for us. now you see our community has grown, our community have participated. you have cuban-americans running

united states. that's an assimilation of our community. >> you came here in 1967 as a younger man, a young kid, and would you go back? are you gonna go back? >> i would go back in a second the moment that cuba is free. i'd love to help my people. i live very well here. i have my life here, my children here, my business here. but i would love to help -- to be able to help the people in cuba. >> you would not go back once the -- >> i would definitely go back. >> to visit, yes. >> to visit and help, yes. >> okay, so you're not gonna take a line that some people would take and say, "i'm not going back until all the dissidents are free and there's a democratic election." >> no, no, no, i cannot go back. i personally cannot go back under this regime. they would not allow me, and they banned -- i'm not welcome in cuba. >> when we have you back here a year from now, two years after this agreement -- very quickly, in about 20 seconds -- what do you think i'm gonna be talking to you about?

>> hopefully yes. praying yes. there's a lot of evidence to the contrary. >> we will see. in the meantime, happy holidays. >> thank you. >> remberto perez, thank you very much. coming up next, the retiring judge of the state of new york, and he has some amazing things to say about the criminal justice system, things that might shock you. an exit interview with

up. >> welcome back to "upclose." upwards of $80 billion a year -- that's what it costs american taxpayers to run the jail and prison systems in this country. here in new york state, it costs more $60,000 a year to house and feed a prisoner. that $60,000 -- four years at a suny school, including room and board. but what do we get for that

many think we have a broken criminal justice system, not just the prisons, but the whole kit and kaboodle. this morning, a man at the center of the system, retiring chief judge jonathan lippman. and the judge joins us now. you're retiring. why are you retiring? >> because we have an archaic constitutional provision that says -- that was put in in 1846 when age expectancy was 40 and that says when you're age 70, you've reached the constitutional age of senility and you must retire, so... >> there's no constitutional age of senility. you just made that up, didn't you? >> yes. we think it's ridiculous and silly and outdated, but, you know, our constitution needs some updating. >> you look physically fit. you seem compos mentis. >> [ laughing ] for the time being. i feel great. and, you know, we did have a referendum a couple of years ago that changed that, but it was defeated. but i think it will come up any sense. today we're putting me aside,

their stride, and they're saying you have to retire when you lose all that wisdom and experience that we think judges have. >> 70 is the new 55, right? >> yes, absolutely. 45, as far as i'm concerned. >> and what do we lose when we have a life expectancy of 85 to 90? what do we lose if we say to a person 15 or 20 years before, you know, their life expectancy is, "you can't work anymore. sorry"? >> what you lose is the vibrancy and the intelligence, the wisdom, the experience that a judge has from all those years on the bench. and there's nothing for society to lose in changing the law and letting people who have talents continue on as long as they're able to do it. nonetheless. you can't change the law. >> i'm here and i'm ready to go. >> and so if we could take this opportunity to sort of do an exit interview and ask you, because i know you're critical of the system you're leaving behind.

>> i think we need fundamental criminal justice reform, in new york certainly, and around the country. you raised the issue before. first of all, we over-criminalize everything. our answer to anything is, "oh, put them in jail at the taxpayer expense," and to what end? and then our specific laws are backwards. our bail system is unsafe and unfair. we have a juvenile justice system where we treat 16-year-olds as adult criminals, ruining their lives. we have a grand-jury system that people do not have confidence in. look at all the recent incidents in new york and around the country. and you have people who are wrongfully convicted of crimes that they didn't commit because we don't have reasonable laws in terms of how you identify people, whether a confession is real or false. so we need fundamental reform, and we're not getting it. >> those are the critiques. what are the solutions? there is, by the way, a movement to do away with bail. you know that.

concerned, i'd do away with cash bail. i don't think it makes any sense. in new york, on one end of the spectrum, we don't let judges consider whether a person is a threat to public safety. and on the other side of it, we put people in jail if they can't make $500 in bail who are no threat to society, who are not gonna flee the jurisdiction, and your liberty is determined by how much money you have in your pocket. it doesn't make any sense. >> and that becomes the sentence, right? >> "that becomes the sentence" is right, because you're dealing, in most cases, with minor and nonviolent crime, and you take them away from their families, away from their jobs, and sometimes they take a plea to something that is really not favorable on a crime that they didn't commit. >> this whole concept, judge, of not having rehabilitation but having just punishment started under the nixon administration. we had 350,000 prisoners in the country back then. we now have more than 2 million. that's, by far, the largest in

>> we should be ashamed that we have the dubious distinction of putting in prison more of our citizens than any other place in the world. why would that be? what sense does this make? >> and yet it seems to me that trying to reform prison, have real prison reform and have rehabilitation and education in prison, deals with every social ill that we have, because who are the people -- mostly men, mostly minority -- who go into prison. well, in new york city, there's rate. >> right. >> that means 38% don't graduate. kids. >> right. >> males. you got to deal with that. >> the answer is, if they're in because they've done something terrible and they deserve to be answer. but we believe -- i believe, certainly -- that if it's not a violent crime and you're not hurting somebody, get them into alternative programs. get them help in the communities. and don't waste the taxpayers'

end result is, bill. they become hardened criminals when they're incarcerated. so what are we possibly accomplishing? >> we take them out of the system that produces taxes, that pays for your social security, which you're not gonna collect now that you're retiring. all that, right? they cost money, and they don't produce money. >> exactly right. and you contribute. you really contribute to, i think, taking apart the fiber of society. we need people who can be -- just need a little helping hand. back in the community, spending money, having a job, having meaningful lives, and putting everyone in jail when they're not a threat to -- they have a violent crime, we put them in jail, we turn the lock, and we throw away the key. that's different. >> we're out of time, but i have a quick question. what are you gonna do now that you're retiring? >> i'm gonna go into the real world and still speak out on the issues that i care about. i'll have just a little different platform, and i can't wait to get out, because i feel

>> that was retiring chief judge jonathan lippman. i interviewed him recently. before we go this morning, a final word about our great friend and colleague, diana williams. this is her show, and we think of her and her family and the year they have had. she has chronicled it all on facebook. her husband doug's stem-cell transplant and her son nat's horrific accident that left him with a traumatic brain injury. this is nat and doug hugging each other recently. she has been a rock here at "eyewitness news" and especially for her family. we salute her. we salute her love and her true grit, and we wish her and her family this coming year nothing but the best. and that'll do it for this edition of "upclose." if you missed any of today's programs, you can catch it again on our website, abc7ny. thank you all for watching. i'm bill ritter.