Continuing efforts to speak with the congressional delegation while they are home on recess, Susan Davis joins us. Congresswoman Davis represents the 53rd District. She is a member of the armed service committee and the top Democrat on this subcommittee. Welcome. It is good to be with you. There have been news reports that say President Trump is close to deciding on the fate of DACA. Some say he is planning to end DACA. What are you hearing about the plans ? It has been next. As we would recall during the campaign, he promised to protect DACA students. I am perplexed by that. I certainly hope he will look at some of the data. We know that DACA students contribute over the next -- they will contribute over the next decade 500 billion to the economy. We know that in California alone, it is $11 billion that they will contribute. It is significant here. It is very significant to our economy and I think we need to focus on the economy. Those numbers make sense. When you think of the disruption of families and the fact that the families have been living here for many years, very well integrated into the community, I think his desire to do this makes no sense and we have to write it every inch of the way. Some say he may use DACA extension as a bargaining chip in budget negotiations with Congress to get funding for the border wall. Is that a deal that you would take to help preserve the program for young people in the country illegally ? I would certainly hope that not enough numbers of Congress take that deal no matter what party they are in. It does not make sense. Again, if you look at the numbers and what we should be focused on right now, that is not a deal. And in fact, what we say is that we should not put these kind of poison pills and bills anyway. We need to to have a clean debt ceiling bill and what would be a continuing ominous bill. The idea of shutting down the government for funding for a border wall, that comes from President Trump. Is it your sense that it has a lot of support among Republicans in Congress ? The people that I talk to about this, I think they are not big supporters of that. Unfortunately, some of the colleagues 10 to be enablers right now. Whether they actually see this as a common sense approach are not, they may feel that constituents like the idea and that perhaps somewhere in the past have suggested support for it. I think it really is not good policy. Congresswoman Davis, on Friday, President Trump ordered the department of defense to reverse the order to allow transgender to serve openly in the military. What is the chain of command in making decisions on military personnel? Does Congress have any say in a matter I am sure that they have a say. I think that we can add some budget recommendations and amendments that would say that he cannot spend any money not to do that. I think there are ways of dealing with that through an amendment. You know, the basic question is, what kind of a military service do we want to have? We want people who are willing and able and patriotic, as 1% of the population is an art country who do voluntarily serve. We want them to be able to raise their right hand and pledge allegiance to the country and to say ask me. Send me. We have transgender people who are doing that today in a military. They have been there. They serve ably and courageously. I think it is wrong. I think it is discriminatory. I think that we do not need to have a policy like that. This summer, there have been two major accidents involving ships in the Pacific Fleet. 17 sailors have been lost. The commander has been dismissed. Do we know if there is a larger issue here? Any congressional hearings planned or should be planned on this ? There are congressional investigations that are going to be going on. We have hearings that have already been scheduled. And I think we are looking for some kind of systemic problem perhaps. We know that the Navy has had a high operational pace as have all of the military. There are issues that perhaps are there that would suggest that maybe the focus has not been as sharp as it could be. We also know where the ships come they are highly technological ships and are negotiating in dark waters and they are in a congested space. But that does not suggest that that is okay. My heart goes out to the families of the sailors. There is not a family in this country that should feel that when loved ones, you know, they raise their hand and agrees to serve this country, that there is an inherent danger. Of course, there is a danger in serving in the military but not because you are on a ship in congested waters. This is very, very concerning, I think. Obviously come to our commanders, I think they did the right thing. They pushed out the commander and that may or may not have had direct influence but should have actually and so I think we need to work very hard to discover what is going on. Part of it is actually, I mean, Congress. I think there has been a desire to have the military do everything and be everything all over everywhere. Wow that is important in this world today, with our allies and our partners at the same time, I think we have to be careful that we are not stretching our services in such a way that is not okay. I have been speaking with Susan Davis. Thank you so much. Thank you, Maureen.
Rep. Susan Davis is in San Diego while Congress is on recess this month. She joined Midday Edition Monday to talk about her priorities.
Here is that interview:
Q: There have been several news reports that say President Trump is close to deciding on the fate of DACA. Some reports say that President Trump is planning to end DACA. What have you been hearing about the president's plans?
A: Well, it's always been mixed, actually, what we're hearing. Yes, as we would recall during the campaign, he promised to protect DACA students. And so I think I'm perplexed by that. And I certainly hope that he will look at some of the data. Across the country, we know that DACA students will contribute over the next decade $500 billion to the economy. And we also know that in California alone it's about $11 billion that they will be contributing. So it's significant here. It's very significant to our economy and quite frankly I think we need to be focusing on the economy. Those numbers make sense. And when you think of the disruption of families, the fact that these families have been living here for many many years, very well integrated into the community, I think his desire to do this makes absolutely no sense and we have to fight it every inch of the way.
Q: Some reports say the president may use a DACA extension as sort of a bargaining chip in budget negotiations with Congress, to try to get funding for the border wall. Is that a deal that you would take to help preserve the program for young people in the country illegally?
A: Well, I would certainly hope that not enough members of Congress take that deal, no matter what party they're in and what region of the country they're in. Because it doesn't make any sense. Again, if you look at the numbers, if you look at the economy and what we should be focused on in the country right now, that's not a deal. And in fact, what we say is that we should not put these kind of poison pills in bills anyway. We need to have a clean debt ceiling bill and we need to have what probably will be a continuing omnibus bill.
RELATED: Rep. Scott Peters Comments On ACA, Transgender Ban, North Korea
Q: Now the idea of shutting down the government for funding for a border wall, that comes from President Trump. Is it your sense that it has a lot of support among Republicans in Congress?
A: The people that I speak with and talk to about this, I think are not big supporters of that. Unfortunately, we know that some of our colleagues tend to be enablers right now. And so whether they actually see this as a common sense approach or not, they may feel that their constituents like the idea and that they perhaps somewhere in the past have suggested their support for it. So I think it really is not good policy.
Q: You’re on the House Armed Services Committee. On Friday, President Trump formally ordered the Department of Defense to reverse the order allowing transgender individuals to serve openly in the military. What does the chain of command in making decisions on transgender military personnel? Does Congress have any say in the matter?
What I'm going to be sure (of) is that Congress does have a say, because I think that we can add some budgetary, hopefully, recommendations and amendments that would say that he can't spend any money (to enforce a ban). I think that there are ways of dealing with that through an amendment. But you know the basic question is, what kind of a military service do we want to have? We want people who are willing and able and very patriotic. Yes, that 1 percent of the population is in our country who actually do voluntarily serve. We want them to be able to raise their right hand and pledge their allegiance to the country and to say, ask me. Send me. We have transgender people who are doing that today in the military. They have been there and they serve very ably, very courageously. I think it's wrong. I think it's discriminatory. I think that we don't need to have a policy like that.
Q: This summer there have been two major accidents involving ships in the Pacific Fleet? 17 sailors have been lost. The commander of the 7th Fleet has been dismissed. But do we know if there is a larger issue here? Any Congressional hearings planned or should be planned on this?
A: There are absolutely Congressional investigations that are going to be going on. We have some hearings that have already been scheduled as soon as we get back and I think we are looking for some kind of systemic problem, perhaps. We know that the Navy had a very high operational pace, as have all of our military, and that there are issues that perhaps are there that would suggest that maybe the focus hasn't been as sharp as it could be. We also know that where our ships, very highly technological ships, are negotiating in dark waters and they're certainly in very congested spaces. But that doesn't suggest that that is okay.
My heart goes out to the families of these sailors. There is not a family in this country that should feel that when their loved one you know raises their hand and agrees to serve this country that there is an inherent danger. Of course there's a danger in serving in the military, but not because you're on a ship in congested waters. And so this is very, very concerning, I think, obviously to all of our commanders. I think they did the right thing by pushing out the commander, may or may not have had any direct influence but should have, actually. And so I think that we need to work very, very hard to discover what is going on. Part of it actually, I mean, rests with the Congress because I think that there has been a desire to have our military do everything, be everything, all over everywhere. And while that is important in this world today, with our allies, with our partners, at the same time I think we have to be very careful that we're not stretching our services in such a way that is is not okay.
