Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal 11072019  CSPAN  November 7, 2019 6:59am-10:08am EST

6:59 am
cable satellite corp.2019] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] >> thursday on the c-span networks, the senate energy committee looks at energy development on federal lands at 10:00 a.m. on c-span. at 1:00, vice president mike pence will speak at the at st. ansum college. and on c-span 3 at 10:00 a.m., carla hayden, library of congress, testifies before the senate administration committee on efforts to modernize the library. k.c. up in an hour, discusses the impeachment inquiry and the first public hearing next week and the
7:00 am
heritage foundation nick lawrence and friends of the orte discuss the trump administration's plan to leave the plan to leave the paris climate agreement. ♪ the u.s.t wednesday, house of representatives will do something it has not done in 21 years, hold a public hearing on the impeachment of the president of the united states. good morning. this is "washington journal." we would like to know your expectations for that hearing. what do you hope to learn next week in the two hearing set and what do you hope or anticipate the outcome may be? democrats call 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. and for independents and others, that is 202-748-8002.
7:01 am
you can also text us, 202-748-8003. make sure you let us know where you are texting from and your name. @cspanwj is how you reach as on twitter and a headline this morning in roll call, open impeachment hearings to begin next week. katherine tully-mcmanus writing the house will move into the public hearing phase next week. bill taylor, acting ambassador to ukraine, and george kent are scheduled to be the first two witnesses to give public testimony. eurasian eurosd responsible for 6 countries including ukraine. they will also hear from marie yovanovitch next friday. your calls and comments. 202-748-8001 for democrats. republicans, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002.
7:02 am
checking twitter and what people are saying on facebook, jim tweets my expectation for next week's public hearings is to see each member engage in grandstanding while nothing new comes to light. kathy says no expectations, looking forward to hearing information from both sides. i think the house will provide solid evidence of house doing, the senate will acquit the president and they will all get voted out. stephen says looking forward to hearing the facts in public. joining us on the phone is julie grace from the hill. why are they taking the first couple of witnesses -- what does the intelligence committee hope to find out in a public hearing they did not find out behind closed doors? the closed-door hearing,
7:03 am
they wanted to get preliminary information before taking things public. i think it will be the blockbuster event. they are looking to have larger thee for people to watch hearing. movingeally kind of things forward and getting the ball rolling. host: in addition to a different space, the format will be different and in the council, the staff of the committee will be able to ask questions. how will that work? guest: the house passed resolution last week that laid out how the public hearings will work. democrat and republican staff questionwill get to witnesses. all the committees are directed
7:04 am
to provide their information to the judiciary committee at a later date which would handle articles of impeachment. host: in a story we reported on yesterday, republicans consider putting jordan and meadows on the intelligence committee for impeachment, where does that stand? guest: no official decisions have been made, i have reached out to get updates. we have heard kevin mccarthy say the intelligence committee will be handling impeachment hearings -- that he will settle things accordingly to give republicans what they feel the best voice and defense is. finish your answer. guest: -- go ahead. host: the intelligence committee has been releasing transcript of behind closed door meetings. bill taylor will be one of the first witnesses.
7:05 am
some of what we learned from the transcript released yesterday of bill taylor? isst: i think bill taylor trying to give a preview of what the questions will be next week where he had a lot of concerns about a backdoor channel and rudy giuliani when it comes to foreign policy being involved and he came out strongly accusing the president of a quid pro quo. i think we will see them point to the partial transcript that has been released. it will be interesting to see how this pans out. host: you can follow her reporting at thanks for being with us this morning. thank you for having me. host: tom in yuba city, california. thank you for taking my
7:06 am
call. is ally feel strongly this total waste of time. what is happening here is that they see our president is succeeding despite all the things they are throwing out of there. they have to make up something to go after his character to try to hurt him instead of bringing this country together. to be democrats. there is not a one of my members of family that are democrats any longer. we are all republicans simply because of what the democrat to tear up this country. i feel so strongly that we need and i will tell you, for everybody listening, we need to support our president. he has succeeded despite
7:07 am
everything they have thrown at him. host: john is next, independent line in virginia. caller: i just think it is a waste of time. he was actually doing his job, making sure they are not corrupt on the phone call before giving them millions of dollars. make you want your wife to a donation to the humane society before you find out if it was corrupt or not? wereu found out the ceos taking 90% of the money and only 10% is going to the shelters? towould you find somebody donate that is not corrupt? job, you need to find out if the place you are donating to is corrupt or not. host: thank you. ron. is next on our
7:08 am
democrats line. caller: i totally disagree with your last two callers. the patriot, mr. taylor, if american people would just sit back and listen to what mr. taylor is going to say, he has as aed something that we, country, cannot have. russia is not our friend and ukraine is fighting for the lives that needed those missiles in our president was holding them up. it got exposed thanks to mr. taylor and other people putting their country first. they need to put the country first, not the party, but the country. i am looking forward to the testimonies next week. i think it will be something historic, thank you so much. announcing theff first public hearings yesterday,
7:09 am
also talking about what he expects or what he hopes people will learn. [video clip] >> i think you will see you theughout the testimony most important facts are not contested. we are getting an appreciation of what took place and the degree to which the president and listed departments in the illicit aim of trying to get ukraine to dig up dirt on a political opponent as well as conspiracy theory about the 2016 election. the american people can evaluate for themselves and make their own determinations and also firsthand the facts.
7:10 am
host: here is how the public hearings lay out. their first one is wednesday and they will hear from william taylor and george kent. our coverage will be live on c-span 3 and on friday next week, they will be hearing from the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine until earlier next summer. the new york times reporting with the transcript released from william taylor, top ukraine diplomat testified giuliani spearheaded pressure for investigations. the top american diplomat, who is to be the first witness told investigators it was rudy giuliani who instigated the ukraine pressure campaign. city, maryland,
7:11 am
republican line. caller: i am just wondering how any american voter, immigrant, national born, any ethnicity, how anyone could possibly support an impeachment when the email came out last night that the whistleblower's attorney whenlly called it a coup trump came into office, that they were going to take him out and not let that vote stand. how could anybody possibly support this? indiana, whatin are your thoughts about the hearing? caller: thank you for taking my call. i just want to say one thing, it is very important that the american people understand the basics of civics. it is fascinating that we live in the information society where
7:12 am
they have so many people who are not informed or not in tune about how the government works. this impeachment situation, just let the process play itself out before passing judgment. then you can make an appropriate and responsible decision rather than being persuaded by a political party, the media, .eft, or right i feel if mr. trump committed a crime, let the process play itself out, but don't be persuaded based on party because you are trying to get reelected to tow therying party line. it is fascinating based on what two callers the gop, which stands for grand stop aty, is trying to
7:13 am
baseds and stop the rules upon rules they set in motion themselves back when they were making the rules based on the whistleblower. that is why i always say -- that is why i am independent. i believe in the truth and realism of the democratic party. i believe in the truth and realism of the republican party. if you lead in the middle, you can govern this country. it is fascinating here we are in a society where we are taught being informed -- how the manipulatedeing just to serve the ways of a certain few. host: the president was in louisiana last night. another rally, this one between john bel edwards and red -- eddie respond. -- ofs the 16th of a look
7:14 am
november. here is what trump had to say. [video clip] >> democrats must be accountable for their hoaxes and crimes. shifty adam and schiff and the crooked media ,ave launched the deranged delusional, destructive, and hyper-partisan impeachment witchhunt. now we go again. a lot of things have happened. i don't know if you saw getting off the plane they handmade -- look at this character, they hand me this story. all a hoax. aty say january 2017 a coup -- has started and the impeachment will follow.
7:15 am
it is all a hoax. and you know who helps them? these people back here, the media. -- light is going to go off the cnn light is going to go off. ball.he lawyer, a sleaze it said i predict cnn will play a key role in donald trump not finishing out his first term. this was done along time ago. as one falls, two more will take .heir place, it just came out, that is the
7:16 am
whistleblower, the one that came out with this trump said this and trump said that and when they heard my real phone call, the whistleblower disappeared. host: from trump's rally last night in louisiana. usa today, an opinion piece from the chairman of the intelligence committee, adam schiff, our hearings will layout trump trails -- betrayals. how they became aware u.s. foreign policy had been subverted for the president's personal political interest, how they responded, and how the scheme jeopardizes national security. extendedl be equal and periods of questioning to draw out key facts in a narrative format while temperatures might run high and the temptation to turn this process into a political circus could be
7:17 am
irresistible to some, i hope all members of congress on the public will focus on the facts and the substance of the testimony, not on politics or partisanship. comments on your expectations, what are your thoughts ahead of next week's hearings. lizzie says i am happy to say i am happy with this president. any man or woman who can withstand these attacks will get my vote. thank you, mr. president. randy in michigan. it is starting to look like rudy giuliani may be the next oliver north. i won't watch the public hearings. however, i will watch clips of jim jordan, his l downs will be priceless. i hope the public hearings will show the senate and america this is our chance to remove a corrupt criminal president. this is the republican only chance otherwise republicans will have them by the throat for another four years.
7:18 am
caller: thank you very much. it is an honor to be able to share my thoughts with you and the public. that clip you just showed of donald trump ranting and raving, calling people names and saying untrue things about people in general, specifically the democrats is underscoring and confirming what he has done from day 1, to label people, call them dirty names, say horrible isngs and haze credibility minus triple zero. with regard to the public hearings next week, i am so glad they are going to be held. i await them with a high level of eagerness. also, it is going to be interesting and i find it rather puzzling that they are
7:19 am
considering putting jim jordan on the republican side of the committee because all he is going to do is scream, jump up and down, be disruptive and of no value to anyone, especially the republicans. someonet questionable of his character would be on that committee. .ost: this is bob in texas caller: i wish the democrats thed tell me one thing democrat representatives have done for this country in the last year. i cannot tell you what they have done in this last year because i haven't seen nothing. i can tell you what they have done in the past. they have made laws to protect
7:20 am
the illegal aliens coming into this country and as of yesterday, the money clock is costing the american taxpayer $232 billion since january 1 of this year, 232, that was yesterday. they cannot do anything because everything they say is the opposite of what they do. this is a coup. up.le better wake we have people in college being brainwashed and this and that and the other. the democratic party has always been a mushroom grower. they keep people in the dark and feed them bs. it is about time people start waking up because these illegal
7:21 am
aliens are voters now in california and the east coast -- west coast and chicago caller: good morning. how is america doing today? interested iny the impeachment hearings next week because i feel it is going to be just partisan. there are more democrats in the intelligence committee then there are republicans. i don't believe congressman nunez is going to be able to ask hiff is going sc to. excuse himself. he has been yelling impeachment since day 1. host: you think congas men
7:22 am
schiff should excuse himself -- congressman schiff should excuse himself? caller: yes. he said he had evidence of trump campaign intrump's russia, but he never turned that over to euler. -- mueller. in otherislatures states, about numeral states holding elections. the one key focus is the one still uncertain and that is kentucky. kentucky governor will not concede. andy bashir declared victory in the kentucky's governor's race and pressed ahead with plans despite matt bevin's refusal to concede his request for formal review of vote totals with 100% -- theties reporting
7:23 am
race was too close to call. "i feel confidence declaring andy bashir governor-elect bashir said a democrat in an interview, but she also said she would follow established procedures in response to petitions by wister bevan. the campaign formally requested a re-canvas or review of the vote totals in each county citing "an election too close to call. at a news conference wednesday, esther bevin said his campaign was seeking to corroborate incidents such as voting machines that did not work pop -- properly. irene in baltimore, your thoughts on the upcoming impeachment hearings. .aller: good morning my comments are so many people
7:24 am
coming in negatively about the hearings and what donald trump supposedly has done. instead of complaining and taking sides, read your constitution and then listen to the hearings. so many of those people who are backing donald trump are the same people like donald trump who were totally upset because we had a black president. what came after our black president? it was republicans. they were planning on backing this person regardless. people backing him up no he is not the correct person to be there because of his behavior and they really need to get it together. host: this is laurel, maryland,
7:25 am
sam. good morning. good morning. thank you for taking my call. a couple of callers earlier, a lady mentioned donald trump had and sheling names these -- iome of guess the high-ranking officers coming forward and testifying beenemocratic party has praising them as being someone who was loyal and patriotic. just remember the hypocrisy here when tulsi gabbard, the presidential candidate, she was being written off as a russian agent by the new york times and
7:26 am
some of the other democrats. they called her all kinds of names. where is her patriotism being thrown into? let's remember when we talk about donald trump and all that he is calling names, i guess both sides do that. week'se is for the next hearing, the republicans should be able to subpoena who they want to. according to what we hear, if schiff the client, it had to go through a committee and remember the committee are majority democrats and obviously, they are going to turn it down. a fair hearing would be if the republicans are allowed, if they are allowed to call their witnesses, just like the way they have already called a
7:27 am
couple witnesses and having them recorded and now they will have them come back and do the same thing. i wish the republicans will have the same opportunity. just one more point on the whistleblower. said his attorney made a statement in 2017 to somebody saying we can get this president out. host: the president was talking about that in the clip we just played. caller: i don't know if it is true. theay be a situation where histleblower, we don't know identity, but if there is some presidents can be
7:28 am
safe at the white house talking knowgnitaries and if they there are operators in opposition to the president could also pose a national security and that is my comment. it is important at some point the inclinations of this whistleblower, and iflly his biases there was any kind of previous to meetent with schiff him, meet the officers or his staff to bring up this particular impeachment process. host: sam wondering who republicans might ask to testify. this is a story in the washington post about the
7:29 am
potential for more likely, senate trial that would, if the articles impeachment are passed in the u.s. house. senate republicans consider including bidens in trump impeachment trial. they are privately debating whether they should use an impeachment trial of president trump to scrutinize joe biden and his son, hunter has some trump allies push to call them as witnesses while others dismiss the distraction as a risky ploy. the ongoing discussions are a glimpse in the faultlines of the gop ahead of a possible trial of trump in the senate where there are varying appetites for the type of political combat relished by the president and his most ardent defenders. a couple of comments on twitter and facebook. charlene posts this thought. republicans do what they have been doing, trying to destroy
7:30 am
the character of the person testifying. it is a sad day when you can impeach a president on public opinion instead of a crime. from betty who tweets this, aren't the american people tired of this day after day paraded with ways to get rid of president trump because you don't like he won? ?t is shameful every day i hope trump shuts down the government and then no impeachment process. bill independent line, delaware. caller: thanks for taking my call. it nancy pelosi and all these people, john kerry, their sons can work and collect all this money overseas? i think it is crooked. is soople think joe biden
7:31 am
good, his own son was attorney general in delaware and he was corrupt. he let a man off on rape of a three-year-old kid. joe biden owes people money and he won't pay, he has been sued. a73, his first wife died in car accident. she pulled out in front of a car and they covered it up. why did she do that>? ? host: good morning on our democrats line. caller: good morning, c-span, thanks for taking my call. off, -- his adult life as a businessman, he was a high .uality realtor dealer he deals in millions rather than
7:32 am
thousands. he walked into the white house to aectedly by playing race lines and he won. from the time he walked into the white house, he applied the same tricks he used as a businessman to con his way through the administration. unfortunately for donald trump, the constitution of the united states stood in his way and that is where we are today. the checks and balances of the constitution to check past each other -- to check each other's performances is something we need to protect.
7:33 am
what we need to defend and protect is the constitution that created this beautiful land .alled america it doesn't matter who the whistleblower is. what matters is what he brought front. comment, sir. if trump hasn't done anything wrong, why are republicans so upset? why are they lining up all the of speakers, defenders trump? why are they trying to hide? let the house do its job. host: our caller from gainesville, virginia, the washington post broke this story
7:34 am
last night and others reporting it. we will show you the president's reaction. trump wanted barr to hold a news conference saying the president broke no laws in call with ukrainian leader. the request traveled from the president to other white house officials and eventually the justice department. the president mentioned our bank's to mural -- barr's demural. barr did not decline my request to talk about ukraine, the story was a fake washington post con job with you not amiss that doesn'tsource exist. we don't have freedom of the press. john, manchester, connecticut, your thoughts 6 days before the person -- first public hearing on impeachment.
7:35 am
before i comment on the impeachment, i must address the black lady who called a few trumpago implying all supporters are racist because they could not stand a black man in the white house, that is a by covering all the same many white people voted for obama in 2008 and if it hadn't been for white people -- obama would not have been elected. as far as the impeachment, impeachment is a farce. attempt by the democrats to get rid -- it is a coup to get rid of a
7:36 am
president -- it is a coup to get rid of a president who was elected. they already decided long ago from day 1 they were going to impeach him. the representative i think from minnesota, you know what she said about her intentions as soon she got elected. fascismthe same type of in the so-called hearings on kavanaugh. they have already decided they were not going to accept kavanaugh. however, they insisted on getting more and more information, it was all a farce. the president has not committed any high crime or misdemeanor. he suggested to a foreign leader
7:37 am
that they should investigate trump -- excuse me, biden and good for him, someone must investigate that crook and his son. newhall, california, independent line. caller: good morning. the caller from connecticut, i don't necessarily agree with his comment, but his comment of the kavanaugh hearing highlights the problem of grandstanding and i think that is probably what is going to happen in terms of these public impeachment hearings. i would like to see both parties have a respect for the truth processhan scoff at the and try to look too hard like they are trying to get something done. impeachment is a really serious political process and i would at
7:38 am
least like to see our leaders, including donald trump, have respect for that. i have a lot of respect for the high office of the presidency, i really do, but if president trump continues to call names and look down on the legitimacy very least, at the even if you privately don't believe in the process, you still act like a professional and represent your office with dignity and grace and he has not done that thus far. host: there is a new poll from the morning consult and politico about how americans are feeling about the impeachment process. support falls as inquiry moves phase. as house democrats release transcripts of closed-door testimonies and prepare for public hearings, public support for impeaching the president has
7:39 am
fallen. the latest poll found 47% of voters favor the house voting to impeach trump, down four percentage points. 43% of voters oppose the house impeaching trump statistically in line with figures from four other polls conducted on the issue since how speaker pelosi announced her support in late september, that is from morning consult and politico. just a reminder, we will be covering those hearings next week on the c-span networks. the first one is wednesday, live coverage at 10:00 a.m. eastern. william taylor and george kent already testified behind closed doors. c-span radio and friday, the former ukrainian ambassador will testify 10:00 a.m. eastern next friday on
7:40 am
c-span. delaware, margie on the democrats line. morning, c-span. the whole point is we have a constitution. if there is a question of something was done wrongly concerning ukraine and the money held up by president trump, that is the issue. i think people should know was true?e or wasn't it that is the question and politics should be put aside because this depends on the future of how our future act.dents will remember that, americans. host: this is george, republican line. caller: i would like to know
7:41 am
something about the whistleblower. mainly, why was he chosen. who went to him of all people and decide to make him the whistleblower? he wasn't on the phone call. him the make whistleblower because he had no knowledge of the phone call? ort is it about this fellow girl they decided he was the one who started all of this and now his lawyer he has -- january 2017 his lawyer who represents him and i would like to know who -- why this individual? why did they go to him? host: we spent some time yesterday talking about the importance of the whistleblower and whether it was important to
7:42 am
.now his identity network hosts and personalities do not identify the whistleblower. they write fox news hosts and personalities have been instructed not to identify the whistleblower, whose complaint sparked an impeachment probe against president trump. several hosts and commentators on the network who have been supportive seem to want the name -- to name the person they believe to be the whistleblower, but fox's guidelines have said not to do so. this is sarah, good morning. caller: good morning. this is sarah. america should be ashamed of their self, not america, the white house. democrats and republicans, i don't understand why they are doing this.
7:43 am
i remember when nixon stepped down. people need to stop and think what they are doing to our country. line.democrats caller: these people who call up and say trump is not a racist, he had a place in new york city refusing to rent to black people . the way they picked on bill clinton when he was being impeached to the extent that he had a heart attack, all over a couple women? -- becoming the soviet union again, giving them help every way he can. maybe it is about building a couple more trump towers. of line, wake up
7:44 am
and see that this man is not good for the united states. host: stephen arizona on the republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call, i want to say good morning to all the great americans out there. remember when trump was running, he said people would crawl out of the woodwork to bring him down if he becomes president because he understood the way the political process works. it just keeps getting worse and worse on the democratic side. they can't stand the fact he became the president, they are stirring up trouble just to make him look bad. i am sure not every president gets 100% of people behind him. there are things he does i don't agree with, but there are a lot of things i am glad to see happen in america. some of the callers are going on
7:45 am
emotion only, they don't look at the big picture of how things are being done in washington. not that i am sticking up for this president, but he has done some good things. the impeachment process is going to be good for trump. the impeachment process is going to be good for trump because when they go through the whole thing, he is not going to be , he will bef office our president and show the american people how vicious democrats can be when they don't get their way. i have turned my back on the democratic party and went republican. host: the end of this process, let's say he is impeached by the house, if it goes to the senate and the republican majority, he
7:46 am
is not found guilty and acquitted, do you think the president is a stronger presidential candidate coming out of this? caller: what will determine him being a stronger presidential candidate is how he responds to the people's request for improving foreign policy. if he becomes impeached, i think it will become stronger for him because it will show the people how the democrats play politics nowadays and like he said, they haven't done a thing in three years to help us. i am still waiting for my social security to go up. he told us this would happen. he said watch all the people are going to come after me and those are the ones to watch. host: the president's former attorney general, jeff sessions
7:47 am
looks like he is getting into the race in alabama. the ap said the former attorney general will announce he is entering the race for his old alabama.te seat in sessions will make a return to the political stage a year after stepping down as donald trump's .irst attorney general the two republicans confirmed sessions is expected to announce his candidacy thursday and other news outlets reporting that will be on the fox news channel. bobby in louisiana on the independent line. go ahead. caller: thank you and thank jesus for allowing me to get through to you this morning. there seems to be something --
7:48 am
there has to be something more than what we see to this impeachment process because it seems so crazy. there must be something behind the scenes. what is the nation trying to do? are they trying to provoke a civil war in america with the impeachment of donald trump or are they trying to provoke unrest? a revolution. be a democrat, but i am not going to vote democrat ever again because of the policies. when people are voting, they need to look at what the party represents. number one, when you are voting , it seemsmocrat party they don't mind abortion,
7:49 am
killing millions of babies every year so when you are voting for a party, you need to look at what that party represents. you are putting your stamp of approval on stuff like abortion, your stamp of approval on andthing like homosexuality you are putting your policy on taking jobs out of america. i see donald trump trying to bring jobs back to america and theng to make reform in jail system and trying to fix things we know are wrong in america. backing donald trump, but i am looking at him, this is the first president i have dared to say he is not trying to be the president of the world, but the president of the united states speaking out against war and all the money being taken
7:50 am
out of america. there are so many things wrong our this country like infrastructure, the jail system, all of this stuff. plus, he speaks up for christianity. host: ohio next, democrats line, jim. caller: i am a little confused about this hearing they are having. i heard a republican on tv make a statement and i have never heard a democrat deny it. they said they are allowed to ask any questions in a hearing and republicans say they asked a schiffn and shift -- told them not to answer. why would they tell a man not to answer a question? host: jim calling from ohio.
7:51 am
jim jordan is congressman from ohio and the ranking member on the house oversight committee and there has been reports he would be moved temporarily to the intelligence committee for these public hearings. no word on that yet, but yesterday, congressman jordan was asked about the witnesses that had already testified behind closed doors on the issue of whether there was a quid pro quo in the phone call with ukrainian president. [video clip] >> the definitive account is the .ne from ambassador volcker he was the special envoy to ukraine, the guy in this each and every day working on the issues and that is the one transcript you don't want to talk about, but the guy who was our first witness and his account is consistent with the fundamental facts i have said
7:52 am
several times and never changed. we have the most important fact, aid did nothing to get the released. promise to know investigations -- in the aid was released. are consistent with what the special envoy said. the one who has the definitive account. host: usa today put together highlights from the closed door testimony that has been released so far, looking at some of the closed door testimony and the witnesses that appear next week in the open hearings.
7:53 am
bill taylor, whose testimony released yesterday, usa today about he voiced concerns conditioning military aid in a white house hearing on investigation of a trump political rival. taylor tried -- tied trump and his poodle allies in a quid pro political allies in a quid pro quo. bit friday,a little marie yovanovitch, the former ambassador to ukraine will testify in an open hearing live on c-span 10:00 a.m. eastern. he was confused -- she was confused by her ouster and the comments made by conservatives and trump who called her "bad news." she said she raised concerns about the shadow campaign pushed by giuliani. you can find all the hearings,
7:54 am
the statements so far, we put them in one convenient spot on our website. you will find links to the testimony that has been released so far and all the video from statements -- of statements from members in the news conferences and response from the administration. mechanicsburg, pennsylvania, james on the independent line. for taking my phone call. i would like to know how much these hearings are costing the american public. we could be spending a lot more money on infrastructure and health care. it must be in the millions. if you know or somebody else knows how much money that is adding up to over the last year,
7:55 am
year and a half, i would like to find that out because i think it is ridiculous. host: politico reports on some of the other things -- the one bipartisan thing in washington that seems to be moving, this is there playbook and their lead saying republicans involved in the process that is the usmca, the trade agreement layout this timetable, a deal announcement before thanksgiving and a vote before the end of the year. democrats caution it could change. substance will determine timeframe. democrats say they are down to figuring out a handful of issues. reaching neil said earlier -- richie neil said both sides are working well together and despite the din of impeachment fueled madness, the process is moving along in a very
7:56 am
non-trump-like normal fashion. goodr: thanks for the comments. ,rom a different perspective what do you think china is on this impeachment hearing? are they delighted? are they taking full advantage in our negotiations? how much might it cost us on north korea? in mexicove the gangs we have to try to do the right thing and not have these stupid sanctuary cities. it is costing us a lot of things that don't get done. democrats don't get anything done while this was going on. war --s ready to rip and around. we are screwing
7:57 am
today will take full advantage and run over us. host: rose is next in florida on the independent line. on the impeachment, i don't believe the republicans will impeach donald trump. it seems to me they are not listening to all the evidence .hown against him the election, in a way, i hope he gets elected inause he left this country such a mess any democrat who comes in will have to clean it up and like obama had to clean up after president bush. that is all i have to say. wisconsin, on our
7:58 am
republican line. caller: yes. i have listen to the last two callers. a gentleman who called and asked what is happening in the world while this fake news story is going on. all i can say is that i do believe the democrats' attempt is have the united states be part of the push for globalization where the power, distributed equally through all the countries at the expense of the people in the united states. this was, if people really go back, i spent years on this looking at your program and seeking other sources, reading books that obama and the people who support this globalization
7:59 am
and entered into the trade talks, their attempt was to take the power and the wealth and redistribute it without any input from united states citizens because they were voted into office doesn't mean we cared for their behavior or the policies they established, the health care especially. many people were affected by it. this is the united states, we have freedom of speech, freedom to vote and tell people what we think. this impeachment was covered up from the beginning and when it is like that, i question anything they would do. teddy from california says this, i am excited to see republicans
8:00 am
complain about open hearings because they complained about secret ones. pence would be worse than trump in many ways. huff post reporting this about a new book out, exclusive book claims senior officials believe pence would support the use of the 25th amendment. anonymous author of mobile warning currently a former white house official said talk of removing trump escalated after comey was fired. that story at huff post -- lily is in st. louis. caller: all of these people talking about this president. he's been doing all kinds of things. [indiscernible]
8:01 am
he has come right back and tried to use joe biden son. he is doing everything against poor people. he hasn't helped nobody but himself. host: we will continue our conversation on impeachment as washington journal continues in the next hour, we will take a look at the public phase of the impeachment hearings. we will be joined next by casey burgat with the r street institute. we will talk impeachment and what may be ahead. week the trump administration told -- told the
8:02 am
we. we will were tall -- will withdraw from the paris climate accord. we will talk with nick loris of the heritage foundation when washington -- when washington journal continues. ♪ >> watch the c-span networks live next week as the house intelligence committee holds the first public impeachment hearings. the committee led by chairman adam schiff will hear from three state department officials starting wednesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. acting u.s. ambassador to ukraine william tendler and
8:03 am
george kent will testify. friday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span two, former u.s. ambassador to ukraine marie yovanovitch. ort listen live on the free c-span radio app. >> the house will be in order. >> for 40 years, c-span has been providing america unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, the supreme court and public policy events from washington, d.c. and around the country so you can make up your own mind. created by cable in 1979, c-span is brought to you by your local cable or satellite provider. c-span, your unfiltered view of government. "> "washington journal continues. host: we are joined next by casey burgat, senior fellow at
8:04 am
the government's project at the r street institute in washington here to look at next week's public hearings on the impeachment inquiry. when you heard the news yesterday that the phase would switch to a public phase, what were your thoughts about your expectations for those hearings? guest: first and foremost i was surprised how quickly they are coming. this timeline is moving so fast and is surprising a lot of us who follow this on a day-to-day basis. how fast this is proceeding and how fast emigrants want to make their case publicly. host: people they were interview next week have all testified behind closed doors. what do you suppose the committee hopes to draw out to public that they did not enclosed door hearings? guest: democrats want to hear what they have heard behind closed doors. they are willing to move on this quickly because they are confident in the case they have, the testimony they have received
8:05 am
in those depositions. republicans are hopeful that they can use the public opportunity to show confusion or armor between the corroborating witnesses about what they remember to try and get some confusion and chunks that case. host: based on the resolution that passed last week in the full house, what is your understanding of the process of how those hearings will take place? guest: intelligence committee is going to take the lead which is different from investigations four impeachment inquiries of the past which is typically of thehe jurisdiction hub -- of the house judiciary committee. adam schiff was tapped to lead these inquiries. he is mostly able to bring this intelligence perspective to the proceedings.
8:06 am
it is going to transition into a public setting where there is going to be more of a back and forth and the cameras are going to be on it. it is going to look more like a courtroom than what the behind-the-scenes deposition looked like, or atypical committee hearing, but it is going to be public and for all eyes to see. host: there have been reports of republicans wanting jim jordan from oversight to sent temporarily on intelligence and mark meadows as well. what is behind their thinking? guest: they want public defenders of the president and mr. meadows and jordan are exactly that. they are forceful and smart as a whip they are not shy to get combative with witnesses and republicans by think they. host: -- casey burgat is our guest. for democrats, (202)-748-8000.
8:07 am
.or republicans, (202)-748-8001 for independents and everyone else, (202)-748-8002. this is in the new york post, the headline says pelosi's impeachment rules guarantee partisan circus but i wanted to democrats she says are boasting about the impeachment inquiry protections offered to trump, claiming they are the same rules for president nixon and clinton but that is a boldfaced lie. section f quietly divides by judiciary committee siblings that unless the president surrenders his executive privilege, a power even the supreme court has ruled vital to his office, he and his lawyers will be denied any ability to call or answer or -- call or question witnesses. what is this section? guest: two things come to mind. this was guaranteed to be a partisan circus no matter what happened.
8:08 am
of're going to get a lot partisan warfare undercutting the process. democrats saying one thing, republicans saying another. this section is important to talk about. it was passed by the judiciary committee independent of that house resolution we saw last week which set the broad procedures of the impeachment inquiry. it gives the power to the judiciary committee to basically have the president forfeit his impeachment rights if he does not comply with the investigations of any committee referenced in that impeachment resolution last week. it is basically a sign that democrats are ready to play hardball, that if the president does not comply with their congressional subpoenas and provide witnesses and documents as he has not done, they will take away some of his rights within those impeachment proceedings. host: this was language that just the judiciary discussed and approved of, this was not voted
8:09 am
on by the full house. here is what that language says. should the president unlawfully refused to make witnesses available for testimony or produce documents requested by the investigating committees , ined in the first section furtherance of the investigations described in this section, the chair shall have the discretion to impose appropriate remedies including denying sims -- denying specific requests by the president or his counsel, or to call or question witnesses. it seems like they are just setting it up because the president and the administration have withheld witnesses, they have withheld testimony so far. guest: exactly. it is a preemptive measure to warn the administration that as we transition into a more public phase, as we are still requesting information and documents, if you continue to stonewall, then you are setting yourself up for some denial of
8:10 am
rights you are going to want when these proceedings begin. host: let's get to the calls. our guest is casey burgat. public hearings beginning next week. bill is in hazelwood, missouri on our republican line. caller: i am calling from the first congressional district which is very democratically gerrymandered and i would like -- i am wondering is a member of the public, what are the procedures and what access what i have two attending the hearing as a member of the public? guest: sr as i understand right now, like most other committee hearings, these will be public hearings both in person and on television. i would recommend you show up early. these are going to be well attended by the public and everyone within the bubble. this is not a common thing so people are going to get in line early. host: i think our earlier guest from the hill reported that they are having these in the ways and
8:11 am
means, a bigger room to accommodate a larger audience. michael is in florida on our democrats line. caller: thank you. i am a democrat. the american people need to study and evaluate the situation of the impeachment proceedings to check either the right or the left and tried to find the happy medium ground in the middle but my main concern is why if these proceedings continue on, will trump have the advantage of refusal or obstructing the process, and the representatives , jordan and collins from georgia and several others, i
8:12 am
thehed very seriously and committee meetings they have had when representative cummings was of -- theand head point i am making, those particular congressmen have done nothing but obstruct and break up the meeting as much as they can in reference to supporting president trump. i think the democrats were able to end a lot of these -- in these meetings were able to proceed with the meeting and make a conclusion and a proper evaluation. what we are having to deal with is that jordan was in one of the closed meetings. he came out and was leaking information on what was going on. we don't need this trash talking back and forth which has been ongoing. the democrats have had the opportunity to do a lot of
8:13 am
things. they passed a lot of legislation in the house that has been forwarded to the senate. i think there are 400 pieces of legislation that has not been acted upon. i hear these comments from callers coming in on the do-nothing democrats from republicans, that the democrats are not doing anything. host: we will let you go there. guest: there was a lot but i think that it is important to recognize that as we transition to this more public side that we should be conscious of what we are about to see. their case very forcefully, they are going to say the president did wrong and that anyone who is defending him is breaking their oat to the constitution. on the republican side, they are going to attack with just a moment -- with just the opposite. we should look to this is going to be a contentious process. easy thing to
8:14 am
pass and it won't be, so we should go into that with eyes wide open and try to make the best judgment we can. by the lot has been said president and his supporters by the lack of due process in the impeachment inquiry so far. do you think these public hearings will help clarify what is due process in an impeachment hearing? guest: this is one of the biggest pieces of confusion right now and that is relating what we know about the courtroom, a familiar process. we know a jury and trial and what rights we are supposed to have, but we have not reached the court stage of this yet. the investigation so far is in the fact gathering stage. it is happening behind closed doors. in previous proceedings, it was done by special counsel behind closed doors. begin todent will receive his rights because we are transitioning into that relative court stage where he will be able to call witnesses
8:15 am
and be represented by counsel and be able to cross-examine witnesses once they take the stage. it's important to know that we have not reached that court stage a matter what you have been hearing about due process, we are not there yet and next week's hearing is the first start of that where you will see the defendant be able to be represented and able to cross-examine and present evidence. host: always helpful to go back to the constitution. so little is said about impeachment. it is article one, section two, clause five. the house of representatives sell choose their speaker and other offices and have -- and will have the sole power of impeachment. we go to florida. joanne on the republican line. the republican line. caller: hi. my feelings are that there is not set -- not any such thing as a whistleblower. i think the whole thing is made up. the first thing that convinced me was when adam schiff was
8:16 am
lying about what trump had said on the call. i heard it with my own ears. he talked about the phone call that he had with the you can't -- the ukraine prime minister and it was totally false. it was totally different than the actual call and people need to read the transcript of the call. i believe that everything has been set up just like the russian collusion and just like the mueller report and i have heard no facts yet. all i have heard is interpretations. i think, i believe. i want to welcome president trump to florida. have a wonderful morning. host: casey burgat, tell us about what the democrats are focusing on and what they hope to establish. guest: the constitution says so precious little about what impeachment is and how it is supposed to be carried out.
8:17 am
ofdoes give some threshold what high crimes and misdemeanors, treason and bribery, qualified to meet the threshold but even that is broad. there have been 60 impeachment efforts in the house of representatives, 16 have been voted for but 11 of those 16 have no criminal act within their articles of impeachment, meaning they were impeached without committing a criminal act. we think of this as a criminal act, something had -- something has to be done that broke a law but it doesn't necessarily have to be true. impeachment is what the political actors in the house of representatives say is impeachable right now and democrats are trying to say that it is going to likely revolve around abuse of power, a deep commitment from the oath of office -- from the oval office and probably an obstruction of congress, obstruction of the proceedings. i am anxious to see what
8:18 am
articles they will come out and say but they are trying to make this case fast and publicly. host: a reminder for some historical perspective, on, not only current video from the current impeachment inquiry we have links to all of our coverage from the bill clinton impeachment inquiry, all of our coverage from the impeachment of a number of judges over the course of 40 years plus of c-span's history. you'll find all of that at we go to pennsylvania, rosemary on the independent line. caller: when adam schiff interviewed the people, i think it was their opinion. they disagree with the president's policy. there are three branches of government and the president is entitled to determine his foreign policy. what is happening with the ig report and durham's report. we have not heard anything about
8:19 am
that. that should tell us the ,eginnings of what happened before 2016 and 2015. host: just to let you know, we wrote a story yesterday that that ig report will likely come out in the next week or so. you can find that from the hill. senators push for deal on impeachment trial rules to avoid a political brawl. senate majority leader mitch mcconnell was asked yesterday how long a senate trial would take and whether president trump would be convicted and removed from office. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> how long it goes on depends on how long the senate wants to spend on it. i will say i'm pretty sure how it is likely to end if it were today. i don't think there is any question it would not lead to a removal. the question is, how long does the senate want to take? how long do the presidential
8:20 am
candidates want to be here on the floor of the senate instead of in iowa or new hampshire and all of these related issues that may be going on at the same time. hows difficult to ascertain long this takes. i would be surprised if it two't end the way the previous ones did with the president not being removed from office. host: how difficult is it for republican leadership in the senate not to give away or say things that may prejudice and -- and eventual trial of president trump? guest: that applies to democratic senators who may be potential jurors. i am so pathetic to the argument that they like all of us should wait for the evidence to become public. even members of the senate are not privy to the emperor -- information that has been deposed -- behind closed doors. we are all using a lot of speculation, we are using leaks,
8:21 am
public testimonies that are starting to drip out. we do not have the full picture. i don't think the committees investigating this have the full picture by evidence of them still asking witnesses and asking for documents. this is the consequence of moving so fast. if you look back at nixon, the watergate break-ins were done in july of 72 and it was not until july 74, two full years later that the public hearings started to happen. january 94n it was that the special prosecutor started his operation and it was not until december 98 and clinton was actually impeached. right now we are three months out. a very compressed timeline. host: back to calls. from minnesota on our democrats line. caller: good morning. is, is it really legal for the president to
8:22 am
andhold all his documents other things that should be available in any investigation? question we are about to see a ton of lawsuits in the supreme court likely get involved to excite -- to itemize exactly what the prerogatives of congress are relative to the executive branch, particularly when he has an ability to invoke executive privilege. right now there was a famous court case going on were someone within the executive branch was subpoenaed by congress but he was directed by the executive branch not to testify. he is literally asking do i listen to congress or to the president and surprisingly, that has not been decided, so clearly we are waiting for court cases, waiting for a back and forth of negotiations between the two branches and it signals that a lot of this and previous efforts were done sometimes by the court
8:23 am
and sometimes when it got to the final stages but a lot of this is done by norms of what is expected between the two branches but nothing is set in stone so a lot of us are looking for clarity. host: you pointed out the pace of this impeachment inquiry could outpace results from the court. the impeachment inquiry could certainly wrap up before any decision by the court, that alone even a hearing in court on the issues of executive privilege. guest: even the courts right now are moving fast relative to other court cases and house democrats have decided they might not necessarily need that to be decided for them to make a strong case. they are moving on with or without that. i think they would like to get the hearing as soon as possible assuming it is one that provides information but they are moving on under the assumption that they won't. host: our next caller on the independent line in texas. caller: i am calling to say let the facts flow. what isfacts show us
8:24 am
there that is what -- that is from the testimony of the witnesses have given. i have independent and friends from all walks of life and they don't wait for the many of these diehard trumpeters are saying i won't listen to the facts, but you have to listen. this is trying to preserve our constitution. unlawful acts, corrupt conduct, abuse of power. this could go on. independents have to realize that we have to be open and listen to those facts. republican saying that they are not going to listen to anything, that is already a sign that the
8:25 am
republic is in jeopardy. a president can be impeached and removed for his or her -- for his or her actions even if they are consistent with presidential duties. the oath of office for a while with the emoluments clause. americans and do what is right. for our country, not ourselves but for our children. host: casey burgat. guest: you are obviously well informed. i agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment that the facts should reign supreme and we are about ready to transition into a phase where those facts are going to become available to all
8:26 am
americans. i am not going to be naive enough to say that everyone from both extinct -- both extremes are going to accept them equally but at least they will be presented before us and they will have to make their case and members of congress face the unfortunate duty of deciding whether that warrants impeachment and ultimately removal. that is the path we are on right now. pittsburgh texts this to us. why doesn't trump testify himself in an open hearing? guest: i think his lawyers would not love that. everything i understand says he has that prerogative if his lawyers allow it and the house wants to hear from him. that is the right of someone facing a charge like this but i cannot imagine the president taking the stand within the house or senate. host: where would that come? but that come in a house hearing or an eventual senate trial? guest: it could come at any
8:27 am
point. i can't even get my head around him showing up and taking the oath to respond personally to these questions. host: let's hear from joel in maryland on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for this forum. i just want to remind everybody .hat as americans we voted the process of the elections doesn't seem fair sometimes but it is what it is. republicans have to be aware that being right about what is literally correct sometimes is not morally right. if you look at the behavior of trump and his party, weigh the evidence and look at it from the perspective of how do i want my children, how do i want my grandchildren, their morals to
8:28 am
be judged, about that at night when you go home. you can read about what you like and don't like but to tell the truth, we will have to give an it is more than what we think is -- as just citizens. i hope the truth comes out in the end. host: another question for you on text, why are the hearings being held in the intelligence committee instead of judiciary committee? going to be such a circus. guest: we don't know yet. we can only speculate because they have not outright said why this is happening. a few things come to mind. the intelligence committee is more used to operating behind closed doors with sensitive information and security clearances. it is an easier transition to conducting these depositions. the speaker has been very complementary of adam schiff within that house intelligence committee for how he has
8:29 am
conducted himself in the mueller investigation and how he is able to focus the efforts of the intelligence community. this does have some foreign thatligence, information may involve security clearances that are not available to judiciary members and staff. it may have been an easier transition with the benefit that adam schiff is a former prosecutor and a huge supporter of speaker pelosi. host: any report out of the intelligence committee, their report does not preclude the house judiciary committee from holding their own hearings. guest: right. even the resolution that was passed last week formalizing the inquiry has other committees involved. they all have their delineations of what they are investigating and they are all able to do so, just so far that the intelligence committee has been granted the right to do this publicly. host: john is in new york, democrats line. caller: good morning.
8:30 am
i am calling because i am upset at the way congress is handling this impeachment. not supposed to have his family in our government. only the president should be there, not his family. got $90in-law who ran -- from a rack -- a from iran. is above the law the way the congress is handling this. host: another caller brought up the potential emoluments violation. are you expecting that to come up in these hearings? guest: this is going to be an interesting part from my perspective, how much to the include in the ultimate articles of impeachment and i guarantee
8:31 am
that summer arguing we should make it as wide as possible and have a vote on each and put republicans on the record for what they defend and what they don't. others will say we found traction with ukraine, it is an easy case to make with testimony. i don't know but it is up to them. host: one more call. thomas is in ohio. caller: hi there. is, i really appreciate your levelheadedness and your answers today, but i am struggling to understand on the question of anonymity versus protection of a whistleblower. i believe that anonymity in this that it seems logical somebody should be able to question the original source of these charges, but i do believe in protection of whistleblowers. can you help clarify those distinctions? guest: i am chasing this answer
8:32 am
because it is going to become an important one. both sides are going to have to answer and speak to it. i am not an expert on this and there are experts so we should look and find them. from my understanding, the purpose of anonymity is to give protection, to give someone the legal bearing to come forward with information that does not threaten their current position or job. it is important to keep anonymity in this process in place so that a future whistleblower, future potential whistleblowers feel that same protection and don't feel that they will be outed and face recourse. i don't know where that line between anonymity and protection is. i suspect we will talk about it endlessly in the coming months. i don't have it yet. you better believe i am going to chase it down. host: you can follow that chase. he is on twitter with the r street institute. thank you so much. that we are going to focus on
8:33 am
the paris climate accord. we are talking about why the u.s. has given its formal notice of withdrawal from the paris climate agreement. we will talk with the heritage foundation deputy director nick loris and friends of the earth president erich pica. ♪ >> sunday night be at 9:00 eastern, former speaker of the house newt gingrich with his latest book, trump versus china.
8:34 am
>> i don't think the chinese has any great planning, certainly in the next 25 years to try and take us on militarily in the traditional sense but i do think they are trying to build the kind of cyber capabilities and this is part of where huawei is an extraordinary national asset for them and i think they are trying to build capability in space, both of which have global implications. a newn at 10:00 eastern, york journalism professor talks about her new book, university inc. not excited about white america's ability to pat -- see past the fiction of african-americans, of latin centuries-old demeaning images of people and how that has as much to do with
8:35 am
a lack of diversity. host: watch book tv every weekend on c-span two. -- on c-span2. saturday march the 30th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall, a symbol of the divide of east and west in the cold war. we are live from the museum and washington, d.c. beginning at 7:00 eastern with our guest, the head of georgetown university's center for eurasian, russian and -- studies. steve vogel who covered the fall of the wall for washington post and author of betrayal in berlin and -- talks about the cold war berlin exhibit. we will be taking phone calls, emails and tweets throughout the program. once the 30th anniversary of the fall of the berlin wall on american history tv on c-span3. "> "washington journal
8:36 am
continues. host: joining us this morning loris with the heritage foundation and friends of the earth president erich pica to talk about the trump administration decision to withdraw from the paris climate accord. the process will take one year, potentially wrapping up just one day before they 2020 election. remind us again what is the paris climate agreement. nick: the paris climate agreement as part of the united nations's convention on climate change agreement to reduce greenhouse gases. this paris accord was different than a lot of its predecessors in that each country submitted its own nationally determine contribution to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. the obama administration set
8:37 am
forth a plan largely predicated on its domestic regulation that we need to reduce greenhouse gas below 2015 levels by 2025 and then follow up throughout the years, continuing to ratchet down emissions through additional regulation. host: erich pica, president trump came into office and 1 -- and he campaigned on withdrawing from the paris climate agreement. it is not news that we are doing this but this is a whole process. erich: it does. the process for withdrawal has been a three year process from the point where the paris agreement came into effect, each decide to be a part of it and president obama did that. once it occurs, there is a three year waiting period to get out of the agreement should a country choose to do so. this is something trump has been saying over and over again since the election.
8:38 am
they filed the initial paperwork in 2017. the clock has now started. it will occur almost the day before the election. host: the official withdrawal. erich: there are 197 countries that are signed onto the paris agreement. the united states will be the only country to have withdrawn from the paris agreement, essentially turning us into a rogue state and a rogue actor and it global climate conversations. host: what are the biggest emitters of admissions? erich: china but you have to look at historical connotations where united states has been historically the largest emitter of greenhouse gas globally. we have an enormous amount of leadership to show both domestically and globally. what trump is done by withdrawing us is he is turning our back on the world and it should be said that there are
8:39 am
over three quarters of americans agreeing that we should stay in the paris agreement and 60% of those are republicans. host: why did president trump as candidate and why has the administration said we need to be out of the climate agreement? of cost and because lack of climate benefit. if you look at the regulations that would have been imposed by the obama administration as well as subsequent regulations, they would have direct impact on families and businesses, and you are not just paying more when you're electric -- when your lecture city bill comes in or at gas stations because energy is such a critical component of everything we make and do. we pay for all the goods and services. that has a huge negative ripple effect throughout the economy, disproportionally hurting low income americans who pay a higher percentage of their budget on energy bills. from a climate benefit standpoint, this protocol is effectually meaningless.
8:40 am
there are no real reasons that north korea, iran, venezuela and those countries are part of the climate accord because they want to do something about climate change. they are there because it is toothless and meaningless. even secretary of state john kerry said that even if the developing countries do what they do now, what the united states does and the rest of the developed world does isn't going to make a difference in terms of averting global warming or sea level rise. no matter what your position on the climate science is or climate change, this is all cost and no meaning. host: nick loris is with the heritage foundation. erich pica, president of friends of the earth. your calls and tweets welcome. (202)-748-8000 for democrats. republicans, it is (202)-748-8001. for independents and all others, it is (202)-748-8002. ifch pica, what does it mean
8:41 am
we are out of that agreement? does that reduce its effectiveness? erich: it does. we are looking at the paris climate agreement which could create $26 trillion in new investment in renewable energy technology across the globe. by the u.s. withdrawing from that agreement, we are withdrawing from the global conversation about what those investments look like for the united states and for the rest of the world. we already know that germany and china are leaders. they have a market that is now going to grow because of our lack of leadership and our withdrawal. agreement is not just about the economics. it's about what is happening globally when it comes to climate change. we are seeing in the united states and california, texas, puerto rico, eastern north carolina, buyers, hurricanes, floods that are the direct fingerprint of climate change and this is a global problem.
8:42 am
the paris agreement was not perfect. friends of the earth was critical of it but it was the first global structure that was created to bring all countries together. host: as that news was announced on monday, and environmentalist we did this about global temperatures, experiencing the hottest october ever on this planet against a backdrop of fire and flood, a ruling class set out to sabotage the paris climate accords. nick loris, in the -- in our absence from the climate agreement, what is the administration's plan on climate? nick: there are a number of things on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. there should be a number of policies we can both agree on that will drive the economy and the environment in the right direction. i agree that i think it is great that the cost of renewables are coming down. i don't think we need paris to allow companies to envelop -- to
8:43 am
develop and invest in these other countries. if we have more free-trade in energy and technology, whether that is exporting hydroelectric technology or getting some countries like china and india off of coal and more onto natural gas, developing these modular technologies that can provide low-cost emissions free sources of energy as well and combine that with renewables, you have a robust energy market driving economic growth, providing energy for people who don't have access to affordable reliable power in this world and doing so in a cleaner fashion. what are yourca, responses to how the administration has approached climate and the environment in general? erich: they have not only been ignoring climate that they have been proactively trying to create -- eliminate regulations that protect clean air and clean water. their solution to climate change is to figure out how to
8:44 am
subsidize coal producers and the oil and gas industry and just let more carbon dioxide flow through the system. they have no plan other than to ramp up as much pollution as possible. host: 1200 scientists announced on monday that they declared what is happening worldwide with the climate and emergency. would you agree? erich: it is not 1200, it is 12,000. it was a global set of scientists who said we are reaching and surpassing the tipping point of what climate change will do. we are in a climate emergency. emergencyin a climate , to say that government doesn't have a role in finding the solutions and setting the policies that not only guide the noted states to reduce our own global greenhouse gas emissions but the world, that is just failing to understand the crisis we are in. host: how should the trump administration respond to this climate emergency? nick: part of it is
8:45 am
understanding what we know and don't know about climate change. i read that study and there was not much compelling and it. a lot of what it indicated was because of human flourishing and increases in economic growth and airplane travel and more people having access to energy, you were going to get increased emissions. out of all the negative things that those studies projected, it said in a footnote this is in part driven by climate change, which is true. there are things that are in part driven by climate change and man-made activities that will have benefit and cost. we should be focusing on areas where we know there was going to be cost and invest in more robust and resilient infrastructure to help people adapt to a changing climate, to make targeted investments that actually make an impact whether climate change is driven by man-made emissions are not. host: nick loris and erich pica with us talking about the u.s. withdrawal from the paris climate agreement. we first go to boston,
8:46 am
massachusetts with joe on our republican line. caller: my question directed to erich, i have lived here all my life. we are trying to bring in renewable energy and lower cost for us. each time they try to bring hydroelectric power from canada, it seems to be stopped. the transmission line trying to go through vermont is always blocked. we paid some of the highest rates in this side of the country because we can't get clean energy from canada. we also have no nuclear which is carbon free and we can't even build these new power plants. they ran nuclear submarines on that power. why can't we do the same? the other thing about this global warming and all that. i live in boston and they are telling us how the sea level is always rising but if you lived
8:47 am
here as long as i have, you can see the expressways has been sinking because we are built on phil. like it is an inaccurate measurement of what is going on here. i don't believe a lot of the stuff. you're telling me 12,000 scientists but i don't believe it and they are saying down in antarctica, the ice is growing. i'm not sure if that is true or not but i heard it on the news. the preponderance of science on climate change, these are scientists around the world that signed onto the climate emergency document. the intergovernmental panel on climate change as part of the united nations, it is documented that we are in the midst of climate change. you can look at studies that go back 20 years and you see the
8:48 am
fingerprints, the impacts of climate change currently in the united states and globally. if you look across the u.s.. look at mozambique. they had two cyclones hit it in one season. you had 40 million people in south east asia that may be displaced because of sea level rise. you have the capital of one country being lifted up and moved to someplace on higher ground. we are not disputing the facts of this really happening because it is. what we are now talking about is how should the government, the united states government intervene and help the united states and help set the standards of the globe to reduce these omissions. -- these emissions. host: next on our democrats line, donald. you are on the air. fuels: i worked in fossil for 35 years and without the
8:49 am
regulations, they cheated. if you worked there at nighttime, you would see them blasting it out the stacks. maryland, people got together and forced these powerhouses to do the right we have a powerhouse that we completely made it clean and the emissions are clean. it could be done but it has to be forced. if they are not forced to do it, they won't. let is all i have to say. we can make them do it right but if you take the regulations off they won't. they will just shoot it right out the stack. , do power loris companies have to be forced to change? nick: it is a combination.
8:50 am
i would agree with the caller in saying that regulation is important because we don't want adverse impact on human health and the environment and pollutant -- and pollutants spewing into our atmosphere. that is a violation of property rights and imposes societal harm. it is trickier when you are talking about carbon dioxide which is colorless and odorless and non-toxic. the cost of renewables are coming down. wife started working on energy policy, cold -- when i sorted working on energy policy, coal provided about 50% of our energy. if we had a revelatory system that allowed for new transmission lines and allow these projects to come online, places like the northeast would not have to rely on more expensive dirty home heating oil. they could have hydropower and natural gas and instead they are importing from russia. agreeon coal, would you
8:51 am
that the decline of the coal industry as we are seeing is largely due to natural gas or is it because of government regulation? nick: i would argue it's a combination of both. largely cheap natural gas and declining renewable costs and subsidies like the wind tax credit and the solar tax credit and also because of regulations. byre were some propagated the obama administration that exacerbated some of the economic problems that the coal industry was facing because of market priority. erich: i agree with nick's assessment. the thing we have to remember about the coal industry itself is there are a lot of workers there that are losing their jobs. this is where government can help out. we have to make sure that as the coal industry and other fossil fuel industries are eventually phased out because that is where we have to go to address climate
8:52 am
change, at those communities and workers who have been a great service to our country, we can't leave them behind and just let them -- we need to figure out how to help communities transition and the workers themselves transition into either new jobs or early retirement, but we have to be forward-looking in these policies. that can only be done with the federal government in mind. we have seen coal company bankruptcy after bankruptcy which has cut and run out of these communities trying to cut health care and pensions for the coal miners, trying to cut retirement, leaving these communities decimated. we need government and for it -- these communities to help ensure there is a managed and just transition as we shutdown these coal plants and other fossil fuel facilities. host: the headline on heritage
8:53 am
.org would -- what does that figure include and is there a cost to families for not being in the paris accord? is there an environmental or economic cost for not being part of that agreement? nick: at heritage we use the same models that the department of energy uses, the national energy modeling system as part of the energy information administration. essentially what we did was enact taxes and regulations on the energy industry to achieve what the obama administration aimed to achieve for its nationally determined contribution and that is how we got those cost figures. $20,000 in it -- in higher energy prices and higher prices for all goods and services we pay for. it really shrinks the economic pie on the production and consumption side where he projected about 400,000 jobs lost and half of those being in energy intensive manufacturing. with regard to the environmental
8:54 am
cost, i don't think paris was the right mechanism that would change anything because there were no repercussions of countries failed to meet their targets which most countries are not on target, and then you have countries like china who doesn't their emissions between -- before 2030. a country like india estimate today target that was less than their business as usual standpoint. they could continue down their path of business as usual and pretend like they are making progress. that is why in terms of climate benefit, from temperature mitigation to averted sea level rise, paris is toothless and meaningless. host: a picture from the new york times from yesterday on new delhi as seasons change, the air in india's capital turns to poison. georgia,o to regional wayne is on our republican line. caller: good morning.
8:55 am
you basically answered my question. former president obama obligated the united states to the $3 trillion debt for the paris no accountability as to where the money would have been spent. as a taxpayer, i find that highly objectionable. as a taxpayer i want to know where my money goes and what it pays for. pica, his concerns over the cost of the paris agreement that the obama administration had committed to. erich: what the caller is referring to is something called the green climate fund and the paris agreement and with some of the international negotiations, there was an understanding that there are a lot of countries in the world that are responsible for climate change.
8:56 am
these are some of the poorest countries in the world yet they are being hit the hardest by admissions from the unit states and other countries and that more was a fund, it was like $100 billion, that was put together, that helped these countries mitigate the disasters that were occurring to them even though it was none of their faults and the fund was also put together till help them leapfrog technology. there is no reason why countries around the world should be investing in fossil fuel development when we know alternatives are better. the overall cost of climate change, and we are already seeing hundreds of billions of dollars of cost in the united states alone for climate impact. 2014, that is at, cities burning down like we saw with paradise, cities flooding in houston, puerto rico being
8:57 am
partially destroyed, we are seeing the impact and the costs are coming onto the taxpayers and what we are also seeing is a form of ultra capitalism which is going into those communities and they are trying to take over land, prevent rebuilding, pushing these folks out. we need government intervention both on the side of how do we reduce greenhouse gas emissions but then how do we deal with, how do we help communities rebuild after a disaster, and these are all costs occurring to the federal government and the taxpayer. host: let's hear from jim on the democrats line. we lost jim. we will go to steve in north carolina on the independent line. caller: good morning. i live near the coast and i am 72 years old and to deny climate change is just reckless. what can be done about it, i don't know.
8:58 am
is it just nature or are we really contributing to it? but a gentleman called about fill. and putay for paradise up a parking lot, the water is going to go next-door. there is a documentary out there and it is change dealing with what is happening on the coast of south carolina, georgia, north carolina. you have to turn a blind eye to it, not to see it. we have something down here we deal with, we called it the moon tide or the king tied. harborivers dump to the and as the high tide pushes income of the water goes up into the streets. it used to happened about eight times a year but now it is up to about 40 times a year. you can't deny that or get away from it.
8:59 am
the fish migrate with temperature and they are going up north now. arctic regionse are having to relocate closer to the water. the ice is melting. i don't see why people can't accept it. it is hard to deny. there is a fort down in georgia -- ahe ranger there causeway goes in and they pick up schoolchildren and he said the road is closed off several times a year now, they just can't get there. it basically turns into an island. host: we appreciate your input. nick: there is no denying that sea levels are increasing and have been for about 160 years now. i don't think they are catastrophically rising but we do need to do something about it. there are two pragmatic approaches.
9:00 am
infrastructure so we can adapt to it, whether that is building better infrastructure on the coast to protect against against the sea levels. it's a much more cost-effective approach than something that wouldn't do anything like paris to mitigate global temperatures or sea level rise even if you aren't concerned. the second is we need to stop subsidizing people from living in these areas are the national flood insurance program allows people to rebuild in these areas and it doesn't really truly show the price point. risk, want to bear that it should be the market the determines what that risk so we aren'ts like artificially incentivizing people to live in the areas. >> we are from a caller the personal impact of climate change and outs impacting communities across the country in the world. we need a global solution.
9:01 am
co2 is being emitted by every country in the world, it's not a probably u.s. itself can solve. but it's something we can demonstrate leadership with. the paris agreement was the first framework that actually tried to unite the world together and put us on a pathway to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. so i agree with nick that we have to build better infrastructure and mitigate. the problem is there are some states in this country that actually have bar to the use of climate change when it comes to describing planning processes that would help build better infrastructure in coastal states. this problem of climate change, yes we have to -- i thing the science is clear that it is occurring, it is a global reduce and unless we fossil fuel emissions that is led by strong government -- this is where we fundamentally disagree, i don't believe
9:02 am
capitalism, i don't believe the same greed that got us into this problem in the last hundred years is going to be the solution that gets us out of it. so we need strong government regulations, safeguards in place, to make sure that the market may work, but that the reductions are occurring to keep us below the threshold we need to to make sure we don't just spiral out of control and that is the pathway we are on right now. is that we are, the business as usual globally is we are on a pathway were we will have uncontrolled climate change and climate emergency and it requires a government intervention to do that. both in the united states at a global. nick, here with us and till about 9:30 eastern talking about the withdrawal of the u.s. from the paris climate accord. 202-748-8000 the line for democrats, 202-748-8001 for republicans and 202-748-8002 for
9:03 am
independents. president trump celebrate the news of a rally earlier this week when the announcement was made. here is president trump from the rally. trump: we ended the war on american energy, we are now the largest producer of energy anywhere in the world by far. on we ended the war beautiful clean coal. i announced the withdrawal of the united states from the one-sidedcostly, --is climate accord [applause] >> ask them how they are doing in paris with it. not too good. i canceled the so-called clean power plan and repealed obama's
9:04 am
federal coal moratorium. [applause] we are putting our great miners back to work. president trump at monday's rally in kentucky. we mention the paris climate accord but also there is the clean power plan and the deregulation of -- the withdrawing of some coal regulations from the ministrations. what impact if they had? caller: it's been some -- guest: it's been somewhat of an economic lifeline to coal which is facing economic hardships from pressure -- facing economic pressures. the green plat -- power plan was constitutionally objectionable, it would've essentially forced states to reengineer their energy mixes which is not authorized under the clean air act and so both from an economic standpoint, but also a constitutional standpoint, the clean power plan was problematic and so if you replace it with
9:05 am
the affordable clean energy role that still places emissions reductions on power plants, it is something that is more sensible and aligns with what the environmental protection agency is legally authorized to do. >> one of the fallouts in the coal industry is the pensions of coal miners, news from cq that a trio of soul -- coal country senators have introduced draft legislation that will rescue the pension plan of some 92,000 coal miners and protect the health care benefits of some 13,000 minors similar to a measure introduced by joe mansion. to pasadena, this is -- on a democrats line. isler: what i want to say the guy from back east talking abut the tides rising, we have the same problem in california. i've been surfing since 1958 and i haven't seen more extreme tides in -- and coastal erosion.
9:06 am
i also teach a serf class for caltech. my students and 2004 had me listen to a lecture at beckman auditorium by the top chemical engineer in the united states who had chemical engineering at caltech. he gave the planet till 2052, that is when bush had a gag order on all climatologists and in 2008, obama got in, they did a reevaluation of nate lewis's timeframe and deducted 20 to 25 to 30 years off the 2052 that when that means alexandria ocasio-cortez says we have 10 years to do something, she is correct. we shouldn't be messing around anymore. bybody that is being funded the coke brothers to diss inform the public is criminal, thank you guys.
9:07 am
we are seeing the tipping points that scientists had predicted, we are hitting them earlier than what we thought. so the caller is absolute right. the scientific report that came out recently says we have 12 years, globally to reverse course and set policies in place to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. mentioned, the caller represent of a cause you cortez. they've been campaigning on the climate crisis and emergency, we believe we have to have massive government programs that help shift and reduce our fossil fuel emissions. and we've seen the green new deal, as being a realistic way of moving off of fossil fuels will keeping the economy whole. >> how do you pay for? >> i think in some context there is a carbon tax involved and i
9:08 am
think senator sanders presidential plan, he is doing some thing interesting which is he is creating community power that recycles revenue back into governments and the local state and federal government so there interesting ways. getting rid of fossil fuel subsidies which are tens of billions of dollars a year. that site you start paying for the green new deal and those other types of investments. >> any of those measures ring a bell with you? there's been some bipartisan support in terms of a carbon tax. regulate fossil fuel subsidies, i agree we should be getting rid of those subsidies. for oil, for call. i would like to get rid of energy subsidies for a lot of sources and technologies and determine what provides her energy of the future. with regard to the carbon tax, it falls to the same problem paris. all the economic cost and no meaningful climate benefit because it's not compelling other countries to act even if
9:09 am
you do have a border adjustment as part of that plan because were essentially going to shift a lot of the manufacturing and energy production away from the united states and to countries who have far less environmental standards than the united states , compromising the environment and the safety of the workers. host: let's hear from paul in indianapolis, independent line. caller: good morning. i think where i sort of took a pascal's wager on climate change and started doing some research and i think maybe we are panicking a little too early. we have a bit more of a timeline. it's an archaeological fact that scandinavian settlers were growing row crops on the south edge of greenland in 1100. so it's obvious the world has been warmer than it is now. nobody grows barley and wheat on the south edge of greenland right now. so i think what we need and
9:10 am
after all, 12,000 years ago with now the great barrier reef was dry land. the oceans have been rising since the last glacier, so what to concentrates on getting rid of emissions from fossil fuels, not just -- not carbon emissions because after all me briefly of carbon emissions. what we do is concentrate on a long-term solution to not using fossil fuels. so real solutions like hydrogen power cells andso real solutionh more likely to do some good and also we need to point out that per the united nations, there's 10 times more people suffer from effects from coal than they do from -- cold and they do from heat. >> i agree. we have to start setting policies in place right now that begin the long transformation of
9:11 am
our infrastructure. this is not something you can just turn a light switch on and we can be producing renewable energies tomorrow. investmentes massive by private companies, by the federal government to switch our economy from a fossil fuel driven economy to one that is based on renewable energy and clean energies. we have to start now and that's why the timeline and why there the time frames if the act is in the next decade is because by the time you start acting in the market incentives, the rules and regulations and safeguard could put in place, it will take a decade to actually begin shifting how we produce energy away from fossil fuels. i will point out one thing that nick has been saying. nick has been saying a carbon tax won't work because we don't have a global agreement. then he says we don't of a global agreement because countries couldn't agree, so
9:12 am
therefore we can't do a carbon tax from regulation. this is been the kind of roundabout that many folks have been saying from the conservative movement is that we can't act because nobody is acting. we have a climate crisis right now, it is showing up across the united states come up across the world. into me, leadership means that the united states has to, the federal government and state government, we have 25 governors that of pledge to stay in the paris agreement or abide by the emission targets, you've got companies lining up that have trillions of dollars of assets like walmart saying they will stay in the paris agreement and abide by the targets. things are happening, people are committing to this. but we get stuck with this president trump doubletalk run around which is we can't do anything because nobody else is doing it and it's like that is a recipe for disaster. u.s. behind the
9:13 am
leadership curve than a parent -- are going to eric. if governors are taking the lead in private industry and walmart is taking the lead on this. guest: if the private sector wants to take the lead, that's great but even with the u.s. leads with stringent federal policy, the rest of the world isn't going to follow suit. if you look at any survey for the united nations, action on climate change ranks dead last or near dead last on what of the policy priority for those citizens, access to affordable and reliable power is much higher on that list. lieee countries like china about their co2 emissions in the past. you've that other countries like pakistan who in their nationally determined contributions in the paris cord essentially said we need economic growth and we need more human flourishing it will increase our greenhouse gas emissions exponentially and then maybe we will do something about that. that's what paris is right now. so whatever the united states does, it won't change the minds of places like china and india
9:14 am
and the rest of the developing world. we will represent about 90% of future -- who are going to rep is a 90% of greenhouse gases. host: under paris, who would be in charge of monitoring? could've been the environmental protection agency. host: so his not the united nations. >> each country monitors their own. is been a long conversation about measurable and verifiable greenhouse gas reductions and that would be both domestically, it will be international standards that were created. so comparing apples to apples. there has been a robust conversation about who and how the emissions would be monitored. host: but that is not stated in the document. , that those documents agreement is a part of the paris agreement. >> that is something the obama ministration started focusing on way back in the copenhagen climate accords. , a do you set a process up
9:15 am
global process that allows you to monitor and verify the reductions that each country is pledging to make. ist: massachusetts, doreen on our pub -- republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. first of all that would like to know who all the scientists are, these 12,000 scientists from -- are they from countries that are mostly like russia, china, india that two have a lot more -- produce more pollution than the u.s., also the green new deal, i don't believe in the green new deal. to me it's more about green money, not anything to do with the environment. for both ofstion your guests. if we eliminate all of the fossil fuel, gas, oil, etc., callie power up this country of over 330 million people with turbines?it
9:16 am
wind and solar? i believe it's only going to weaken us and other countries like iran, russia and china will gain more power because they will have -- i don't believe they will go with complete wind and solar power in their countries. that's not gonna happen. they have a lot of oil and they will use it and they will gain more power and we will be weekend. we don't really know who the 11,000 scientists are because they weren't disclosed in the paper, they could be researchers who don't even work in the field of climate science for all we know but they did come from i believe over 150 different countries. with regard to wind and solar power in all of america, it would not only be immensely costly and huge packs -- taxpayer expense but you have to back wind and solar with battery technology because you are getting all the way off conventional fuels so their huge
9:17 am
cost because the wind doesn't blow all the time and the sun doesn't shine all the time. that's not to say those things can't happen and we can see growth, but to shift so massively away from fossil fuels, would provide 80% of our energy needs because they are affordable and reliable would be hugely expensive to the taxpayer and the consumer, not to mention they have their own environmental costs. it's not that these he magically just appear, there is a cost to battery storage, cost to crushing and storing and transporting wind turbines, which landfills are having a lot of problems with. there is also a massive land use change that will be necessary to switch us to 100% renewables to wind and solar and so you are talking about that land-use requirement, talking about 115 million acres which is 15% greater than the size of california to do this. so there are huge costs, not to mention reliability factors, if
9:18 am
the market takes us in the direction of more wind and solar, that's great. but if you've to force through the government you will get a lot of cronyism and corporate welfare that a lot of cost of the economy. host: eric, can you respond to that? guest: we have defined mentally change the sector. and we have a few decades to do it so it won't be as costly as nick says. nick creates these studies that create scare in the little system. we are seeing that across the country california is a great example. we both agree california is one of the more heavily regulated and they the country are making the transition to renewable energy. they are making investments in battery storage and we are seeing that what's going on in california is its disrupting the traditional power model. you have companies like pg&e that are now becoming these big monolithic companies that are
9:19 am
uncompetitive in the market. so what we are seeing about we will see as we will see technology evolve, nobody thought 20 years ago that cell phone and mobile phone would be cost competitive cheap substitute. i think what nick is arguing is we should've kept the telephone system there and not have the innovation of the bauble company which was backed by government regulation and backed by investment. we shouldn't be afraid of this transformation the needs to occur. there are trillions of dollars of new growth and new investments that will happen in this country. sure, we will be transferring off of and moving off of fossil fuels, but there is plenty of opportunity. host: our other listeners and viewers interested in reporting on the view of scientists sprayed the washington post quote 11,000 scientists around the world declaring climate
9:20 am
emergency. the new reporting 153 from a broad range of disciplines warns the planet "clearly and unequivocally faces a climate emergency. that must be met to address it calls, ando mississippi, democrats line, hello there. caller: good morning. before the ice age was hot on wheat they were growing and stuff in green -- greenland. as the sun gets closer and closer to the earth, all the other energy sources again to be gone. so what we will have to do is prepare and in fact what caused our planet -- degreeld is turning to a
9:21 am
where it's been a we are now could be able to recognize the season. it will be hot all the time. we have to get ready for it. scientists can have all the productions they want. host: we will go to tony on the independent line. caller: i've got to say, it's really frustrating. it's 2019 and all the evidence is stacked up and we are debating whether climate change is real and if man is contributing and this is leaving us way behind the curve. anma put in place kind of all of the above energy policy to try and increase investment into alternative energy and this administration with the president with the great wisdom of the unmapped wisdom decides with a role the clock back on all of it and we really can't
9:22 am
afford to keep doing this every four years were we roll it back and i guess i'm really specifically speaking about one issue with china. , they look year plan by 2050, they are investing so much money in alternative energy, that they intend on being the world's supplier of battery technology, solar panels, all kinds of alternative energy. they are predicting they will employ more people in that industry then the auto industry and the steel industry worldwide , so for the 21st century, like we had the auto industry in the 20th century, they will have the alternative energy technology of the 21st. so even if you don't believe in climate change, it seems like we don't want to hand that entire industry over to china and be importing from them when we
9:23 am
should be making investments in this country to make sure that we are the leader in those technologies. maybe you can speak to that. host: nick, do you want to take that? guest: i hear people talking of the both sides of the mouth saying we need government investment in taxpayer subsidies to move this forward and big government programs and then on the other side i hear it's already cost competitive to conventional fuels. i don't think we need big government programs to move these technologies forward and to move innovation forward. when we do that, we either end up with a lot of corporate welfare or subsidizing economic and trapping resources and trapping resources in unproductive places. i've no problem if we import cheaper wind turbines and solar panels from china, if we want to point to a state like california and think it's the model for energy policy when they are dealing with the issues it is right now and can't even keep the lights on in homes and businesses, that is not the model for success in this is a regulated monopoly model that is
9:24 am
not faced with any market pressures or competition. if you look at a state like texas where you have more wholesale retail choice, that is where you are seeing more energy innovation because people are responding to consumer pressures and consumer demands where texas, if it were a country would be the fifth largest producer of wind in the world. >> to the caller's point about china, most of that investment i would assume comes from their government, not private sector investment. >> and that's fine, but we can be the beneficiaries of that as we receive low-cost attack. that's not a problem to me. with regards to spending our taxpayer resources, we don't need to be doing that. if you look at the global energy for markets, it's a multitrillion dollar marketplace out there. to light and heat our homes had to get vehicles from point a to point b, we don't need taxpayer resources to devote specific technologies. the political rates
9:25 am
of return are higher than the economic ones and you end up wasting a lot of taxpayer. >> it's a solar company we wasted half $1 billion that went bankrupt. host: eric. guest: there will be $26 trillion of economic benefit -- caller: where does that -- >> where does that come from? >> if you were to start moving countries off of fossil fuels there would be about 26 billion dollars investment -- twice $6 trillion in investment. we are at a crossroads. plusu follow trump withdrawal of paris we are isolate in the united states from this multitrillion dollar marketplace that is being created and you are cutting off the united states from these markets then the leadership this transformation is going to create. transfernk we need to -- we have to get off of fossil
9:26 am
fuels. and we can choose to do that either, and we have to do it rapidly. so we do talk about the fact that renewable energies are no cost competitive with coal and natural gas. but the problem is will it ramp up fast enough to get us to the point where we are removing fossil fuels from the economy to avoid the tipping points. that is where you need government intervention. that's where you need regulations and safeguards. and goals to make sure that we -- the only reason why renewable energies are as cost-effective as they are now is because you had 30 states across the country pass renewable energy standards over a decade ago which were saying we have to produce renewable energy to meet our climate goals. is becausereason why we've had smart regulation, smart government investment that has created this industry. including the american recovery act. we talk about solyndra, but
9:27 am
there is hundreds of millions of dollars of investment made in renewable energy sector that have actually paid off and of the reason why renewable energies of the fastest growing jobs market in the country. that's because we made investments. host: the paris climate agreement adopted in 2015 -- 2015, nations agreed to limit temperature increase to loopnet -- no more than two degrees celsius above the levels from 1850 to 1900 in the preindustrial era. the agreement also states that a goal of limiting temperature increases to only 1.5 degrees celsius. let's hear from peter in new caller: on the republican line. thank you for taking my call. i have one question is how can the president withdraw from an agreement that the senate never agreed to? we have a constitution with one of the country --
9:28 am
in the paris agreement was probably -- never went to the senate and got voted on so we are not in the paris agreement by the constitution, second, this is a comment. one of the caller said we can't change things are before years. people of the united states have a chance every four years to elect the president and what they decide on where the federal policy is, so it's up to the other to decide, not some government bureaucrat and by other comment is i will never believe in global warming or climate change when the advocates do everything they can , they fly their jets and their private jets and they go to live in their mansions and they tell other people that you've got to, but not me, cut the energy. we see al gore one time was
9:29 am
reported to have the highest private house use of energy in his state. question, nick, saying about india and the scenario put forth, but would we be better off trying to persuade and direct them instead of closing the door? guest: i think we can do that without paris. they are going to need a lot more energy well into the future, not just india, but around the world. if we have the technology to reduce pollution so the pictures in the newspaper of india and smog in china don't have to look like that. i think through free-trade and working with these countries, we can continue to meet their energy needs while protecting the environment. that's of the united states should be focused. paris is really a distraction
9:30 am
from that, it doesn't achieve anything. host: one quick question to you. have and india together eight more times the population of the u.s., yet the u.s. with 4% of the world's population is expected to lead the way. guest: the united states has the highest per capita energy use globally. india is still a highly impoverished country and so is china. way and has to lead the that means part of leading the way is helping countries lead over the fossil fuel develop it in employment. we should be working with india to try and get them to help the country avoid coal as a power source or other fossil fuels. but i would say to me what's laughable in this conversation trump isare assuming the presidential diplomat that will lead this global discussion and we have seen what he's done
9:31 am
with foreign policy across the united states and across the globe. again we can't have an argument that we are withdrawing from paris and will do something different whereas trump has done nothing different except try to ramp up fossil fuels as fast as possible. that is the global leadership this president is demonstrating. it's not that we want to reduce greenhouse gas emissions or help other countries do so, it's we are going to put the pedal to the metal and exploit as many fossil fuels as possible both domestically as well as exporting to other countries so we get countries addicted to fossil fuels. host: clearly we could spend more than our talking about this. eric from friends of the earth and nick from the heritage foundation, thanks for being with us. coming up, you can continue to comment on the withdrawal from paris and other top public policy issues you are looking at and reading in the news today, including the latest on the impeachment inquiry.
9:32 am
democrats, 202-748-8000, republicans 202-748-8001, and independent 202-748-8002. ♪ >> this week on c-span three at 8:00 p.m. eastern, watch samples of our history coverage featured every weekend on american history tv. tonight, we look at past impeachment proceedings for presence andrew johnson, richard nixon and bill clinton. friday, the american revolution, american history tv features all week at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span three.
9:33 am
washington journal mugs are available at c-span's new online store. go to check out the mugs and all the c-span products. washington journal continues. of thetheir manner program we will take your calls and comments on the topology -- public policy issue. we began the program talking about the impeachment inquiry moving to a public setting with two hearing set next week and we will remind you of that momentarily. also other issues, the u.s. withdrawing on the paris climate agreement and more. 202-748-8000 free democrats, 202-748-8001 for republicans, and 202-748-8002 for independents. breaking, a new
9:34 am
hiv strain could offer clues on how the virus evolves and spread. let's hear from you -- this from mike, according to sources, attorney general jeff sessions will announce for the alabama senate. announcedected to be somewhere on fox news today. from dodge city, kansas we hear from les on the republican line. caller: how host: do you do? host:host: fine, thank you. is,er: my top policy issue along with climate change, i think there is the solution that they haven't even discovered and it's a moneymaking solution. this water is needed in certain parts of western states, they need water desperately, california has some dry spots,
9:35 am
new mexico, and texas, there are dry riverbeds, desalinization plants could be installed along the coast and water pumped out of the ocean, pipelines across ,he state which would create ,hese plants would create jobs were not only drinking water, but to grow new crops, soybeans, corn, wheat, you name it. host: what is the status of that large -- what is the name of the aquifer out there in dodge city? what is the status of that? caller: it is currently drying up, they have had to put restrictions on irrigation from the farmers on how much water
9:36 am
they can take out because it had dried up. we live next to the arkansas river and it is completely dry. you can walk across it and garden city. >> what was that like say 15 or 20 years ago. stream, aas a small 65,le and further back in we had a flood there. from i think it's the john martin dam in colorado. on iners an issue focused the new york times front page this morning. a legacy of poisoned water. damaged kids fill flint schools. they cannot understand how the toothy grin six-year-old had gone from hyperactive one school year to what teachers describe as hysterical the next.
9:37 am
the state of michigan delivered a diagnosis of sorts. the neighborhood water which her son had been bathing and drinking and had been with lead in some of the highest in the city. they received 30 suspensions and racked up 70 unexcused absences in one of his clashes with flint -- or clashes with flint community schools, she delivered a warning, you can't keep suspending them because soon you will have to suspend the whole school system. the new york times rates five years after michigan switched, the city'ster supply neurologicalere hoffman,real or feared north carolina, ben is next, good morning. caller: good morning.
9:38 am
i'm calling about the presidential powers as far as treaties. as far as i'm concerned, any treaty that involves as many countriesas as the climate contl thing does, first of all it needs approval of the senate. not one guy should be able to say we want to do this or go over there and make an agreement and call it an executive agreement. you've got to differentiate between what is in agreement and what is a treaty. that involves every country in the world, to me, that is a treaty, it should go through the senate. is executive agreement deal blown out of proportion over the years. fact we get back to the the trees other than the supreme
9:39 am
court nomination nothings want to change. but what's going on right now is and how the president gets in there he makes an executive decision. he did with iran. paris peace with the climate things. the saying it involves that kind agreement gonal through treaty process in the knew at thes he time that it would never pay us -- pass the united states senate so they called it an executive agreement and decided to give away billions of dollars of our country's money to bolster this whole thing up and to me, it was totally illegal and still is and trump should've just said the
9:40 am
day he got in there, sorry, we are done. and no timetable, he should've just gone out. as far as the global warming issue goes and the 12,000 scientists, that's a totally different issue. the sun regulate what we get on earth. the: an update on impeachment inquiry, this from msnbc saint jennifer williams, longtime aide to vice president pence, is testifying behind closed doors in the house impeachment inquiry. it reminded the two public hearing set for next week, the first one coming up wednesday, you will hear from william taylor, whose testimony was just released yesterday. george kent as well, the house intelligence committee at 10:00 eastern on c-span three. also online at friday of next week, the former u.s. ambassador to ukraine and that is here on c-span beginning
9:41 am
at 10 a clock a.m. eastern and also directed to the website for special impeachment website, , plus a historical perspective, all the video from the impeachment -- pointed impeachment inquiries and federal judges up for impeachment. massachusetts, we say good morning to scott on the democrats line. caller: thank you. i would like to say a few things about capitalism and the trickle-down effect. , hate capitalism and all forms the trickle-down effect has never worked. the tapas is gotten richer in the middle class are shrunk. the middle class are shrunk and the masses are hurting everywhere. it seems to be the one thing that is trickled down is a very sick society so it's located take advantage of people.
9:42 am
now it's time for true change. fallen forempires of the same type of tyranny. next, sherwood, illinois, republican line. caller: i want to say selling about this global warming. if people can't open their doors or walk outside, you can feel the heat, it's not like it used , i'm 67 or 30 years ago years old, you walk outside and it is hot. if you, people, wake up don't think it's out there. another thing about this whistleblower. i was reading somewhere that he was paid $3000, i don't know, i'm just saying. thank you. host: an update on the impeachment inquiry saying the john bolton not showing for his invited appearance today before the house intelligence committee , his lawyer has said a subpoena would be required, democrats
9:43 am
purported giuliani is purported giuliani is a handwritten comment but are worried bolton is a loose cannon. president trump tweeting about the whistleblower saying this, based on the information released about the fake whistleblowers attorney, the impeachment host should be ended immediately. there is no case except against the other side. carolina,eg in south go ahead, independent line. caller: thank you. this is probably the greatest opportunity i have to get my idea out for reversing the ismate, what incorporates and i offered this idea many years ago. develop a geo-solar
9:44 am
stationary platform in space that will actually in the right position re-freeze the arctic region of the northern pole to a level that will actually reverse climate. green technology is beautiful, we need to clean up the environment but if you want to oferse the actual effects the earth, the arctic region has to be frozen back to a certain level to where it will actually allow the jet streams, the magnetic field, all the things , if we havegether this all back, and this can be done for less money probably than what it costs to build the space station and if we had vehicles like we did with the
9:45 am
do the to implement and final installations of it, we can reverse the climate completely. host: top public policy issues. murray is with us, tennessee. -- marie is with us. caller: i would like to start by saying my prayers for everyone in california. earlier this morning there was a gentleman on and there was something said about the president testifying in front of the house. he said he couldn't even imagine that. i don't understand why. that would settle so much of the disputed argument that we have to listen to as a country on the daily basis. if you don't have anything to hide, if you are not guilty, then step up, speak out, be done with it. have we ever had a president do that? we've never been in a situation
9:46 am
like this before. just get it over with and then he can go out and say there you go, there is nothing to hide, there was nothing there. just move on. guilty i screwed up, i'm and then take the actions from their and still move on. we listen to this every day and it is just ridiculous. our government has gotten to the point where it seems like they have no morals anymore, they talk down against each other, they talk down and belittle people who have served our country with no reasoning other than their desire to do so for decades and we have lowered our standards to treating these people the way we have and each other. it is just unbelievable how we have turned to society. the whistleblower. a whistleblowers what it is.
9:47 am
if you see somebody doing something wrong, you're supposed to tell. we have transcript out there everywhere that we as a nation can sit down and read, take the time and read. it's a lot, but read it. people have testified over and over again that it is true. do i want to see in impeachment? no, because i think it will be ugly in the end regardless of which way it goes. host: richard, next up in minneapolis, good morning. caller: good morning. is china main issues has been ripping us off for say they years and to are so green is false. they are still heating their houses with coal and in minnesota they laid off 700 where they build frigidaire freezers facing competition mother countries.
9:48 am
we are the greenest country in the world, let me repeat that again, we are the greenest country in the world. another thing about the lead in the water, they had a deal in tribune, in the star there's a lot of lead in canadian cities water, you can look it up. a story back to the impeachment inquiry. a story back to the impeachment inquiry. rubble cans subpoena whistleblower testified public hearing, they intend to subpoena the government whistleblower testified in the impeachment investigation. president trump's dealings with ukraine according to jim jordan of ohio. again the hearings next week, next wednesday. over on c-span3, 10:00 eastern and they will hear from william taylor and assistant -- deputy assistant secretary of state george kent, that senokot eastern next wednesday.
9:49 am
next friday it will be marie yovanovitch, the former youth pastor to ukraine. that will be on c-span two. and also streaming at chris is next are democrats line, good morning. good morning, thanks for taking my call. jim jordan thejim jordan the ree going to subpoena the --stleblower, it's like i think it is every american's to watch theizen
9:50 am
impeachment hearings on television or dvr them, it is important, it's part of history. and no matter which side you are engaged asld be republicans, if you is on yourd trump favor indoing you a this trade war as he calls it, just remember how many trade deals he is getting for his family from china during this trade war, all of the little things that ivanka is getting,
9:51 am
the trademarks she is getting and things like that. back to tuesday's elections, the result still uncertain in kentucky in the governor's race were andy bashir , the democrat as claimed victory with 5200 vote advantage. the republican incumbent asking for a re-canvassing of the vote in the kentucky governors race. this opinion from the wall street journal on the 2019 elections, the anti-republican trend, they write democrats walked to their dismay the political reaction to barack obama's prose all caps polarizing governance cost of the house. governorships and state legislatures and finally the white house. republicans are expanding the reverse under president trump as they learned again tuesday amid more democratic victories in off year elections. this turnout trend has now continued for three novembers. public and try to explain it our full of themselves, the gop
9:52 am
under mr. trump is losing more college-educated suburban voters , especially women that it is gaining rural voters or working-class former democrats. the wall street journal saying these forecast nothing definitive about 2020, though the anti-gop trend of three years should worry the white house. mr. trump wanted 2016 on inside straight with electoral college and has never had a job approval rating above 50%. despite a good economy. his divisive rhetoric on immigration and so much more may thrill his base and it alienates others. his approval rating with white college -- white collar educated women in particular is dreadful. 34% in the latest wall street journal nbc poll. edward is in portsmouth, new hampshire on the independent line, go ahead. caller: hello? listening to the climate
9:53 am
andge part of your program my concept of part of the problem is electromagnetic radar, tv, cell they are think responsible for more tornadoes and storms and nobody seems to address that. host: pat in rio rancho, new mexico, your top public policy issue. think the president should have been impeached a long time ago. iseplace along the line he set aside scientist or talk about climate change, he has taken money from the military to build his wall and he says the military is very important to him when he makes decisions. he bounces from side to side, he is taking people, the next thing
9:54 am
you know, they are in arabia, the next thing you know they are back in syria again. he has his whole regime seems to be put somebody down and it never gets quite to the point, he is so busy attacking that that's what he does. he says he is an american but he doesn't want to give out his tax information, he thinks he can override subpoenas with somebody -- when somebody else would be put in prison. on twitter, thomas at his public policy issue is the keystone pipeline leak is my concern not making news. c-span, will you, and yes we looked at that story reporting from vice news. the keystone oil spill nobody is talking about will be nearly impossible to clean up. an pipeline spilled an 11 -- olympic size swimming pool worth a particularly dirty oil into
9:55 am
north dakota possible wetlands. read more -- at woodbridge, virginia, democrats line. also, i justmment wanted to respond to the man who said we are the greenest country on earth. i just wanted to say no matter how many times you tell yourself, we are not the greenest country on earth. you can repeat that until tomorrow and it still doesn't make it true. co2ave the second highest emissions per capita in the it doesn'tonsidering have that many people is it's insane how much we do emit. emissions have been going up here, the trend was they were going down but thanks to trumpet the fact he is rolling back over
9:56 am
80 environmental protections, now the emissions art -- are going back up. we are not the greenest country in the world. are going down even a little bit lives because we are transitioning from coal to natural gas. worldst scientist in the tell us we have 10 years and probably less at this point to avoid the worst effects of the climate crisis. but we need to start right now. otherwise it will be too late. presidentope the next will take this seriously. host: beverly in texas, republican line. caller: i've been studying climate change for about 10 years since al gore scared me to death and i was going to try and figure out how to keep my family from burning to death. the more i researched, the more angry i get.
9:57 am
climategate 1, 2 and three should've stopped the thing but it just ramped up. we know the sun is what controls the heat. we know co2 is not a pollutant, it is not to be confused with co, which is, the sunspots are fewer and fewer, which means some of the scientist to studying the climate for years and years that say we are more likely to go into -- i think might be right. what if we need the co2? co2 is not a pollutant and they are coming up with more and more innovations to take the pollutants out of the air, that's what we need to concentrate on. as far the pairs accords go, that was just a very bad deal. we were going to send thousands, if not trillions of dollars to other countries who are not trying to do away with their a thirds, china is not
9:58 am
world country anymore. it's got the second-highest economy in the world. we need to take care of our own and if they want to try and do what they think they should do with the alternative energy, that's great, coal-fired plants their building as we speak in india and china. so why do we spend -- send them a bunch of money? is it to finance their coal-fired plant? i don't think that's a good idea. in quincy,up illinois, democrats line. go ahead. why hasn't mcconnell brought any of it to the floor? me, itn't make sense to sounds at the same thing they did with obama when he was in office. they just refused to do anything
9:59 am
to advance his call desk policies. host: usa today reporting on the election results in kentucky, their headline the trunk kentucky results good for mcconnell and -- at serta protections. mitch mcconnell could be the next kentucky republican to fall. folks miller with the politics a the defeat does not forecast the senator's doom. peter is calling from west springfield, massachusetts, independent line. go ahead. caller: people just don't want to accept the fact that from the , until 70r till now years afterwards, we are , 1967ly in the generation was the beginning of the tick-tock of the return of the messiah.
10:00 am
people do not want to believe that it is actually going to happen. host: dennis is with us in georgia, republican line. caller: good morning. i think the climate we are in is we are the door to our own destination and if you run is demonic,ody that i cast you out the names our lord. dolores, colorado, chuck is with us on the democrats line. caller: thank you for accepting my call and thank you so much for c-span. thank you for accepting my call. thank you so much for c-span. i believe that donald trump is beholden to glad gluten -- by puttingtin
10:01 am
sanctions on venezuela, forgetting u.s. -- forbidding u.s. transactions in the dollar for oil. he's putting the u.s. dollar into a reserve currency status. until 2018, most international oil transactions were settled in u.s. dollars. it's been the willingness of others in other countries to .urchase u.s. debt it is contingent on the international reserve currency status. the dollar was decoupled from gold in 1971 and oil has underpinned the dollar's international position. since it was paid for predominantly in u.s. dollars, for u.s.hat demand dollars. the oil demand is, you know, it's essential to the economic power of the u.s. trump is hurting that by
10:02 am
imposing these sanctions. the power of the dollar in all trading is being challenged now by china. they have opened a thing called the shanghai oil futures exchange. russia is helping them out. they are helping these countries get around the sanctions that we have imposed in the trump has imposed. russia is benefiting with their facility to change the one that -- yuan into gold. host: all right, stopping there for a senate issue -- senate policy meeting. the iran nuclear deal, they are saying that iran has resumed its enrichment at the underground plant south of tehran on thursday, today, stepping back from its commitment under a landmark 2015 nuclear deal, raising alarm from western powers. that is from afp. john, virginia, independent line, good morning.
10:03 am
caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i want to say how much i love c-span. i'm trying to collect my thoughts and gather as much as i can from what everyone says. my comment would be that if you are a wealthy american, you have more wealth than virtually any civilization in human history. it doesn't seem like it has increased personal happiness at all. we spend all of our time dickering and fighting. i just feel like this may be the planets way of telling us of that this may be it. we cannot keep consuming to try to find happiness. it doesn't seem to be working. thank you for taking my call. ok, john. james is next. woodstock, alabama. republican line. brief. let me be really i just wanted to say to all the people out there, especially
10:04 am
republicans and democrats, that whenever people talk about gun ar-15's,especially the which kill less people than anything, gun control is not about guns. it's about control. the freest nation on the planet. as long as we continue to support our second amendment rights, we will continue to be the freest nation on the planet. appreciate all of your calls and comments this morning. we are here every day at 7 a.m. eastern and hope you will join morning, friday, on "washington journal." a senate hearing is about to get underway, looking into a 2006 law that creates a revenue-sharing arrangement for oil and gas leases on federal lands with gulf coast states.
10:05 am
should get started shortly. we'll take you there live. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2019]
10:06 am
10:07 am


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on