tv Sen. Amy Klobuchar Former Labor Secretary Robert Reich on U.S.... CSPAN March 6, 2019 1:06pm-1:52pm EST
into the lives of the 44 american presidents through stories gathered with interviews with noted presidential historians. explore the life events that shaped our leaders, challenges they faced and the legacies they have left behind. c-span's "the presidents" will be on shelves april 23rd, but you can preorder your copy as a hard cover or e-book today at c-span.org slash the presidents or wherever e-books are sold. >> amy klobuchar who's running for the democratic presidential nomination joined norm lab secretary to discuss anti-trust law. they talked about the impact of breaking up tech and pharmaceutical monopolies. this is about 45 minutes.
>> it's a loud anti-trust crowd. >> good morning, everyone. can we do better? good morning, everyone. >> good morning. >> excellent. i am president of the center for american progress action fund. and i am thrilled to welcome you to this incredibly important discussion how our economy is working and not working for people. we are currently living through what some experts have called a new guilded age, a time of rising market concentration across many different sectors of our economy. our two very distinguished guests for today will discuss how this problem may be stifling competition for business. we are thrilled to welcome senator amy klobuchar who is
established herself as a progressive champion across a wide range of issues and as ranking member of the committee of anti-trust, she's championing efforts to protect consumers, promote greater competition. our second guess was secretary of labor in the clinton administration and is now chancellor's professor of public policy at the goldman school at cal berkeley. he's focused public attention on growing inequality and we are thrilled to have him. i'm going to get right into today. to today's discussion. we'll have a discussion up here and then we'll have questions from the audience a little later in the program. so let me just start off with you, senator klobuchar. later this afternoon, there will
be a hearing. what are you hoping the american people will learn from the hearing and what is your focus on anti-trust. >> thank you for having me, first of all, and i've been here before talking about anti-trust but not with the secretary and i want to thank him for the coming out here for our hearing today and also for his very cool video about anti-trust. because i think one of our goals here, if you ask what the goal is for the hearing, it is to make anti-trust cool again, to make people realize that we are in fact in not just heading into another guilded age, when you look at the consolidation, several trillion dollar companies now in this country, a markets like online travel where 93% of those websites you look at to get good deals are owned by only two companies. we're down to four companies for
rail, class one rail and we are in a situation in pharmaceuticals where you see these huge increases like with insulin and other drugs, where in fact, it isn't just because it's one industry, it's because we're seeing consolidation across the board. so that's why it's really important for americans to focus on this and there are solutions out there. the solutions probably are not going to be at the supreme court. alert. given what's been happening. so i think there are legislative solutions that we'll be talking about later today. so thank you. >> great. and you'll be testifying, and what is the gist of your focus today? >> first of all, let me thank you for hosting this and for your leadership with regard to all sorts of progressive issues and senator klobuchar, i want to thank you for your leadership also on anti-trust. you've got a couple of bills in
there that i find enormously important, one that would prohibit drug companies from essentially making deals with generic companies, drug companies, for delaying, pay for delay, the generic pharmaceuticals which just is a piece of this larger problem of abuse of market power. and let me just say that in the early part of the 20th century, in that first sort of guilded age, when we saw monopolization, as a result of huge changes, in fact monopolization and technological change go together. the big debate in washington was between regulation and anti-trust. teddy roosevelt and herbert youly said regulation, regulate,
although obviously roosevelt was a trust buster. but the other view, woodrow wilson and his adviser who eventually went to the supreme court was anti-trust. the best way of guaranteeing that the market worked was to make sure that there was competition, obviously. and so that's the debate we're having today. and we've got to face that those are the two choices. >> just -- and following up on that point, i wonder, senator klobuchar, if you could talk a little bit about the impact of the monopolization. a lot of people focus on consumer prices. as we're seeing monopolization can also drive down wages for people, it can have a range of affects. so essentially why should americans care about anti-trust policy. how is it affecting them, the fact that we have so many mergers happening. >> let's look at a positive. the breakup of at&t. that was a major anti-trust
case. it took a lot of work. and what happened there is you saw more innovation, you saw lower prices for consumers in the long distance market. i know a little bit about it because i was in the private sector back then and i represented mci which was the wild west trying to get into the market at the time. so now you fast forward to today where you're not seeing that kind of vigorous enforcement and mostly a lot of the case that is are brought, including the recent at&t time warner case, a little bit in the news yesterday, which we can maybe get to in a moment, but you see courts striking things down. not just that, but more and more conservative justices who are not upholding in my mind the tradition of the anti-trust laws. what you see then for consumers is you don't see the kind of lower prices you'd see if you had competition. you also don't see innovation and that is something that people don't always think about.
but in fact it was adam smith when you go back to the founding of this country, when he talked about american capitalism, the father of capitalism, he always talked about monopolies and how dangerous monopolies were and why you needed a counter balance to monopolies. when you go back through history, as the secretary was talking about, you see that this was something that was literally at the core of the founding of our country because the colonists, they didn't like the monopoly that they were getting on tea from the east indian tea company. they wanted to sell their tea to anybody they wanted. there are all these anti-trust roots in the history of your country where people stood up, farmers in the midwest, the granger movement, i'm doing a book on this myself, i've been researching the last year and you just see these parallels
with where we are today. and that's why when you look at why people should care about it today, you do look a little back in history because you realize people stood up and did something. but you look at the prices when you have lack of choices in certain area, that's not good. when you have no innovation. what does that mean in the seed area as we look at climate change. if there's not innovation, then you're going to have companies just relying on their own products. why would they develop new products if they can just rely on the old one and is make a ton of money because they have a monopoly on the market. >> building off on that point, that senator klobuchar made, in referencing -- this references something you said earlier which is we seem to have -- when you go back to history, you have a similar moment where you had the industrial age which was a lot of kind of innovation and then monopoly power. i think a lot of people raise the same question about today.
we are facing an information age where technology has changed the economy and we have a whole series of new companies, tech companies which in many people's eyes are the front and center picture with all the debates we've had in washington and i wonder what is the connection between technological innovation and monopoly and are there special tools we need in this new moment. >> there are slight differences obviously between the 1890s and now. but the high-tech company display a different kind of monopolization than we see now. it had to do with railroads and steel. you don't want to have two railroads parallel to each other. what we see now are network affects, that is, you have giant -- big four or big five, high-tech companies all moving
toward capitalization of a trillion dollars each. they have network affects in the sense that if you want to use facebook, you've got to join facebook, there's not another substitute for facebook, the barriers to entries are huge. there are big data issues. once you get a certain amount of big data, and they're all racing to be the lead of big data, it's hard for people to get in. you've got big companies in high-tech -- amazon would be the best example, that are keeping suppliers and contractors, they have so much market power they're pushing down with suppliers and also providers can get. but you see monopolistic practices with regard to ages. and this is somebody that anybody who's concerned about --
i used to be secretary of labor. obviously many people in this room are concerned about wages. you can't separate what's going on in the economy in terms of consolidation from the stagnation of wages. >> that is a very good point. you look in the past, a lot of this was unions coming up, workers, way back over a hundred years ago. that's how this movement started. now you have a whole different model. instead of saying the typical anti-trust problem is when coke and pepsi would merge, but what this is companies that control things under them. and so that is -- and then that allows them to better control the wages. you don't have competition and i would add one more problem to this. this isn't always in mergers, these are things that could be investigated. you could figure out what's going on. the other problem, then these companies have so much power, that they can come to washington
so when problems arise in their area, one, privacy areas with data, and then secondly, just their own product and how it's being used, it's very hard to get things done because you don't have the kind of competition or people scared, if this company gets in trouble and washington gets mad at this company, then there's another one out there. there's nothing out there. then they come armed to washington. have we had any privacy legislation start? no. kennedy and i introduced a bill. it's gone nowhere so far. we have a patch work of bills and they're complaining about that. but i'm talking about things like breaches, things like how do you as a consumer find out, how do you opt out of your data. all of that i believe has not moved forward because of this situation where you have so much consolidation. and then the last thing i'd add is the political advertisement which is another subject for
another day. but the fact that we've been so slow in trying to regulate that paid advertisement compared to tv, radio and newspaper, doesn't make any sense to me and it is related to the consolidated power that they have. >> i'd love to follow up on that. because obviously the example everyone has in their mind these days in the tech space is -- there are many examples, but you could use the one that's been in the headlines, facebook. you've been an outspoken person, senator, political leader on facebook when a lot of people were pretty scared of talking about facebook for the conditions you've talked about. you reference privacy and other issues. but just if you can walk through a little bit in the specifics of how a company like facebook is able to both continue its practice. i think one of the challenges in the anti-trust space is it's not charging a price to consumer,
it's charging a price to advertisers and it's having a force not just in the market but obviously in your democracy and our privacy. and so is that an example of how we have to rethink anti-trust or bring in new issues into anti-trust, or is it just a traditional market that traditional markers of cost to consumers are sufficient to think through these anti-trust problems? >> the bills that we have -- that i have right now are focused on mergers. if a merger happens, one of the things it says in this legislation, which i think is important, is to start looking at monopoly sis at one of the factors. if this happens, you should shift the burden. so the companies actually have to show that it doesn't materially hurt competition. that would help in a merger situation. when you just look at the companies themselves and what's happening, i think that calls out for as you're seeing across the world, investigations into
whether or not there should be some consumer rules put in place. the merger legislation would help going forward. but the ftc has been looking at some of these things and going at it with the privacy rules. not leaving anymore we just have your backs. there's the factor of money and lobbying, which is present in a lot of these industries, of course, there's a big factor here of members not understanding it. okay. maybe you noticed some of the questions. okay. you have that. and it is very -- it's very complicated, right, so there's that. there's the inertia in washington when you don't have a big crisis going on. they didn't do anything about wall street rules until we actually had that last crash. and so all of those factors are combining. but what i'm trying to say is we
need to get ahead of this. it's so obvious when you look at people's data being stolen and what happened with cambridge analytica that we need to get ahead and work on these things. there's starting to be more movement, companies are now voluntarily doing some things, they've been smashed over the rocks for some of these things. so hopefully we can get some bipartisan agreement. >> let me say one other thing and that is much of the job that the senator is doing, other leaders are doing in this space has to do with connecting the dots. amazon gets $3 billion offer from new york city, why? how does that affect competition? when big companies hold especially competition sales around the country, you give me more or you give me more, that has a negative affect on smaller companies that can't enter into
those kind of competition agreements. the same thing with lobbying. there's also a big issue with freedom of speech. you've got these four or five huge information centers, information providers, information they say platforms. they're not just platforms. they're much more than platforms. and information has been weaponized and we all know that. connect the dots here about what are the potential abuses of power and the actual abuses of market power and you see that something has to be done. >> for so long, every time we propose things like this, it was you're trying to regular a web. oh. as opposed to saying these are actually big media companies and your information is a commodity. that's what this is. okay? >> senator klobuchar, i wanted to move to a different area. you've done a lot of work on the
issue of prescription drugs. how do you see the overlaps between competition policy and issues like high drug prices. >> there's a big overlap there. again, some of these same factors with washington not acting, inertia and finally if you look at that election in 2018, farmer prices were front and center. and i'm hoping that is going to finally move some of this legislation. some of it is broad anti-trust, things we were talking about before about how we need to change the rules of the road so we're as sophisticated as the titans that run these companies when it comes to our ftc and the justice department. but some of it is industry-specific. for too long, pharma has thought that they own washington and i think we all know they do. but they don't own me and they don't own a number of other people who have been starting to
push for change. we were just talking about it as we walked in, pay for delay, where big far ma is paying off generics to keep their products off the market. this is a bill that i have that i'm leading with senator chuck grassley who now is in charge of the finance committee. so should be in a place where we can finally put this because it saves money if we stop that practice, about $2.9 billion over a number of years. so we want to put that in some bill. it's a great pay for, as we call them in washington, d.c. because it's a lot of money. that's one. secondly, get less expensive drugs from places like canada. you can do it like the bill i have again with grassley that was a bill with mccain. we had about a dozen republican votes for something like that. and then the third one is to allow for medicare negotiation
which could really help everyone if you unleash the power of 43 million seniors. there's a lot of other ideas by my colleagues. those are the ones i've been working on for a while. when the administration put out their plan, their plan, the far ma prices, the stocks actually went up. >> following recently mergers, a handful of companies control 78% of the corn market and 70% of the international pesticide market. what does it say -- secretary, what does it say about the current markets when even straight forward markets like agricultural, which are not technological innovation monsters have real challenges around competition? >> it tells you that not only is
this issue across the economy but also the intellectual property is a big part of it. one of the reasons that you've got so much concentration in the seed corn area is monsanto and its basically intellectual property which means that many small farmers are being squeezed because you've got farm processors who are consolidating like mad, pushing down the prices that farmers can sell their goods -- their products for at the same time you've got seed corner a that are consolidating, using predatory practices, using their intellectual property and charging more and more. so, this is why -- this whole issue area ought to be bipartisan. this -- the farm belt with a lot of republican senators and
representatives ought to be on top of this, anti-trust is not and should not be viewed as a democratic or progressive issue. this gets to the heart of our free market system. >> you guys heard of the sherman act? do you think sherman was a democrat or a republican? he was a republican from ohio. >> but i think -- >> and teddy roosevelt was a republican. >> i think this actually gets to what some of the fault lines on thinking these days. so anti-trust is a means by which you make a market work better. it's a theory of -- it's a procapitalist tool, to make markets work better for people. and yet we have so much opposition to or -- people not doing anything, et cetera, because of the voice of business lobbying. how do we break through the theory that any time government
does anything, it's hurting the economy, particularly in this arena, you have an example where anti-trust is actually just about using rules to make the economy work better. republicans should be supporting these proposals. they should be bipartisan. in fact, their procapitalist arguments for regulation. but we haven't seen republicans or too many championing anti-trust particularly in this moment where we have such a large increase in monopolies that are affecting consumers and affecting wages. so how wo d.do we breakthrough ? can we get congress to act differently? maybe i'll start with you, secretary, and then senator klobuchar and we'll get to some solutions and go straight to the audience. >> i think partly it is a public awareness issue. anti-trust, you talk to people and their eyes glaze over. they don't know it.
there's got to be an understanding that anti-trust is not only vital to the maintenance of capitalism and our markets, but also it's cool. and that it is the sole alternative we have to regulation that if we are not going to use anti-trust creatively and i'm not saying bust up everything. there are a lot of other things you can do. you could have mandatory licensing, sharing of data, a lot of things, if we're not going to use anti-trust, then you do have to depend on regulation and those are the only alternatives because we can't sustain the direction we're going in. >> it has to become part of the political dialogue. i'm hoping it will in this 2020 election. it seeped in through the fpharm issue in 2018. it was a defining part of the
campaigns. wilson had a song about anti-trust. >> it wasn't very good. >> he had that and you look at the video that the secretary has put out there. and there are a number of books coming out, actually, in the next year by a number of people on this topic. i just think we have to start talking about it again, making it simpler. i remember being in a cafe in minnesota and this woman turned around, she was with her husband and her husband's brother and they were older farmers and she turned around and said i saw you on tv, it was a year and a half ago, and i go, oh, was it about russia? because i've been doing all this stuff on russia. she goes, no. it was about big. i go what? she said big, about how things are too big and that's bad for us because it's bad because of the trains and she started using examples of them with input costs for farms, basically, and
why big was bad. and i thought, okay, that actually is something she heard and listened to so it's not crazy to start talking about anti-trust. we have to do it in a way that's understandable and get the media to be entered in it outside of one story about donald trump which is important trying to meddle and influence a legal decision. that's important. but what's really important is what all of this over a span of decades now is doing to consumers if we just sit back and do nothing. >> i hope people get ready for questions. we talked a lot about challenges and some of the solutions. if you want to discuss your proposals in this space and why you think they'll be helpful. >> i mentioned the drug proposals. i would add one more that's a
leahy-grassley-klobuchar bill. that's about trying to make pharmaceutical companies give samples of their drugs to generics so we can get more generic competition out there. but the bigger anti-trust solutions to me are two bills that we've worked on over a period of time. right now they only have democratic cosponsors, but one is to increase the fee on mega mergers for a transaction and it would allow us toffees that could be used to finance more reviews from these mergers from the ftc and the justice department. that has some possibility of bipartisan support depending on how we do it because it's not coming out of the taxpayer's money. it's coming out of the mega mergers. and we need resources in these
areas. the second one is as i mentioned is to change some of the standards to match our changing times. to switch the burden of proof so that a company for these big, big financial transactions has to actually show it doesn't materially reduce competition to start looking at this as a factor to switch the standard from substantially reduce competition to materially reduce competition. those are all contained in one of the bills we have with a number of cosponsors. i'm not out there alone. but talking about this and getting this out there would be very helpful. >> do you have additional thoughts? >> let me just say that there's no issue i can think of that combines populism and conservative free market principles better than anti-trust. and let's hope that republicans begin to understand the power of
anti-trust. we cannot take the free market for granted. there are sectors of this economy that are hurling toward a degree of concentration of economic and political power that we have not seen in this country since the 1890s, it's dangers for our markets, politics and anti-trust is one of the most important weapons we could have. >> thank you. all right. we have time for questions. wait for the mike and if you want to identify you're, that would be really helpful. and just try to make the questions as quick as possible. >> one of the things you haven't addressed there's a lot of laws in this country which limit the ability of workers to act collectively, to have secondary boycotts, things which would give workers more leverage in dealing with some of these issues. i'd like you to address that a little bit.
>> maybe we'll let the secretary of labor start, huh? >> worker organizing is the flip side to anti-trust because what we've seen since certainly over the last 50 years is that as anti-trust has receded, labor laws have not protected worker organizing and workers have less and less bargaining power. if you want a cartoon version of an answer to why profits as a percentage of the national economy have continued to rise and wages as a percentage of the national economy have continued to fall, the simple version would be bargaining power on the side of very large corporations has increased, bargaining power on the side of labor has decreased. so that's just a long-winded way of saying you're right. >> i don't know what i can add to that. you're right. but that it is that power.
as i was listening to the secretary and you, i was thinking this is a very interesting way to go at this in terms of explaining this. the major power at the top, then squeess out the workers because it means they don't have as much to bargain with. they don't have other companies they can go work at if you only have one or two of them and you add to that, the pushback from states like my neighboring wisconsin in the past on labor laws and you have a situation where workers are basically getting screwed because of the consolidation at the front. and you look at it historically as the secretary knows, that is actually -- it came up together. the hay market riots, what happened in chicago, as the farmers were protesting with the granger movement about what was happening with their prices and they had no way to get things to
market, the workers were protesting a lot in the april midwest about what was happening with their wages when you had these companies like pullman that were controlling everything about their lives and they were not able to work anywhere, the wages were down and that's what led to some better labor laws, but also anti-trust. a lot of the focus of the workers was on anti-trust. >> one in the back. right there. >> hello. >> hello, senator. i was curious -- >> did you say yelp or yale? >> yelp. >> got it. two different things. >> i was curious. >> i'm the svp of public policy. i've been keeping loose track about how often we talk about google, amazon and facebook and
just out of curiosity kept tally. we mentioned facebook five times, amazon once and google zero times. my question is about google. we have a google representative appearing along side the secretary today who's triple dipping on their payroll. while we're in the house that john podesta built, mark zuckerberg were not spending campaign memos to the clinton campaign before the election, eric schmidt was. my question is, do you think -- in your opinion, has the 2013 decision to close the investigation to google's unilateral conduct aged well and should the ftc reopen that investigation? >> well, you know, i would like to see an investigation. we have talked about this. certainly you don't want to stop
things back in the year 2013 when you've seen changes and you've seen changes across the world in how they are looking at the activities of the google and the other social media platforms. i don't think that was our witness? is that right? how do did that work? they're going, no, no says mark. but in any case, there will be a ripe for asking questions about this this afternoon and i thank you for your work as you know yelp is been out there on the cutting-edge trying to getting into the market and understands the issue of what it's like every day and this is one example. we have so many companies, i think people think this is anti-trust in consumer groups are the only ones that are coming to washington about it as they should, but there's a lot of companies that feel that nonenforcement, allows things to
go as they are, hurts new companies from getting in the market or expanding and yep hlps a lot of examples of that. >> i think the barriers to entry that we're talking about here with regard to these big companies, particularly big tech companies like google, i'll mention google, have created -- made it difficult for the yelps of the world to get in. when you say it's soft capture, that was the verb that you used with regard to google, it's an interesting way of talking about a kind of predatory bhooifr. when google subsidizes the new america foundation and takes money away or threatens to take money way if the new american foundation investigates anti-trust and researches
anti-trust or google has a huge number of professors and researchers on its payroll who testify about anti-trust and basically protect and defend its market power. that is an incursion on the marketplace of ideas. it's not just the marketplace. it's one of the most important marketplaces we have in this country and i think that that is an abuse of power, quite frankly. >> questions up here? somewhere on the aisle. great. say who you are and where you work. >> my name is madison. i'm a student at nyu's washington, d.c. campus around the corner and one of the things i've been struggling with as a young person getting started in washington is this idea of spending a life as a dissenting voice. what's your advice of young people who want to get started
in political to combat the outage fatigue to actually make the country better? >> go into anti-trust. we really need -- we need dissenting voices. but i think you know the excitement going on right now of people that want to see change. you just don't have to go very far if you're here when you saw what happened the day after the inauguration with millions of people marching and you go through the last two years where people have been activated like never before. so i always tell people to get involved in campaigns. it doesn't have to be the national campaign. sometimes it's fun to get involved in a local issue where you can have more of a voice in a campaign and then advocating for an issue that you care about. and i'm kind of kidding about anti-trust but i'm kind of not. figuring out something you care
about and getting involved in that. it can be part of the your whole job or something you're doing as a volunteer. but it's really a way to -- you can -- i always -- when i got out of school, i had some student loans and i didn't go right into government, but i started doing contains and getting involved on the side. and then that led somehow to this. there you go. >> if i could just add to that, madison, if you're a dissenting voice and you dissent long enough and hard enough and you convince enough people, you're no long a dissenting voice. i can speak from experience. [ laughter ] >> i'll say one quick thing about this which is that i know that we live in an incredibly cynical time and things that happen every day make us much more cynical. but i have worked on legislation that was opposed by industry and opposed by an entire political party and 25 million americans
have health care even though they fought against it. and that was not perfection. it was part of a political process. the millions of people have health care because of that political process. and that is the way we make change in our country and people who feed cynicism want you to stay home and people who fight cynicism want you to get involved. over there. go ahead. >> larry, senior adviser to serve usa. i think we really know what's wrong with this down. it's been bought, top to bottom. and you're mentioning health care. i really think that the obama administration would have had a lot better chance of selling the aca instead of calling it the american health care, they should called it the american health insurance reform because nobody is really update about
their health care, it's the gate keepers, the insurance companies. i think had they branded it as health insurance reform rather than health care reform, but i think the reason that didn't happen was because there's so much health insurance money up on the hill. i think that's the problem. would anybody care to speak to that? >> well, it has been the time-worn problem in washington and it's been getting worse and worse and there's things that we could do to fix this outside of anti-trust today the first is to overturn citizens united with a constitutional amendment. that is -- it sounds like a stretch, but not if we make democracy repair a page part of what's happening in 2020. and i think that would help immensely because you would get the dark money out of politics and be able to hold people accountable for their own campaigns. you should make it easier for people to vote and that is
everything from -- i have a bill to allow kids to automatically register if they're eligible when they turn 18, pretty simple, to fixing the voting rights, to do the reauthorization that we've been held back on. i think actually these -- i was one of the campaigns in minnesota this last in 2018, a new member of congress who beat a republican, she actually ran ads showing people trying to speak in front of a bail of hay, her district is a combined suburb, rural district, but you couldn't hear their voices because they has been squelched by big district. these issues transcend parties and we need people -- and i know i'm going to do this, making it a center piece of what we do going forward to win in 2020 and the way you then get these changes made that we're talking about here is by getting people
that are willing to make those changes into office. >> if i could just add that hr-1 is a very important beginning with regard to some of these democracy issues. >> i was thinking hr-1 is the key. >> and the democracy movement that has to do with getting big money out of politics is intimately tied to this issue of anti-trust. you can't separate them. >> outstanding. i think that is a fantastic end to this discussion. i want to thank you you both for being here but also thank you for championing issues that help families and our economy together. so thank you both, senator klobuchar. >> thank you, everybody. >> professor. >> we ask that everyone please remain in their seats while the senator and secretary and it. thank you. please remain in your seats.
>> thank you. thank you. >> if you have any questions, these guys. mark is at the c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service, by america's cable television companies. and today, we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress. the white house. the supreme court. and public policy events in washington, d.c. and around the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or satellite provider.
i know we were talking a lot about the southern border. let's remember that we have significant border locations to our north and they shouldn't be ignored. i'm also a former cia officer and d.o.d. official, so i'm a big believer in border security and have spent my life preventing homeland attacks. but i also believe we have to be a country of morals and values. and the separation of children, it didn't matter who you were, where you got your news, the vision of a small child in a cage separated