Skip to main content

tv   Washington Journal 08102021  CSPAN  August 10, 2021 6:59am-10:01am EDT

6:59 am
on the c-span radio app. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more including buckeye broadband. ♪ ♪ >> buckeye broadband support c-span is a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up this morning on "washington journal," the cato institute talks about the biden administration's push for electric vehicles, the bipartisan infrastructure bill, and budget reconciliation. then climate powers on the
7:00 am
latest u.s. climate change report and climate legislation in congress. be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweet. "washington journal" is next. host: this is "the washington journal," for august the 10th. the senate comes in at 9:30 this morning and is expected later today to take a final vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill. you can follow along on and listen along on our free c-span radio app. senate democrats revealed their budget plan this week with planned spending for fighting climate change, things like universal pre-care, other spending initiatives. most senate democrats support the effort, republicans are
7:01 am
expected to oppose it. for the next hour you can tell us whether you supported or not. if you say yes to the spending plan and use of or that, is the number --(202) 748-8000 is the number to call and tell us why. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . you can text us your thoughts, (202) 748-8002. post on our facebook page and post on twitter, @cspanwj, or follow washington journal on instagram, @cspanwj. the document that came out yesterday served as an overview of what to back from the spending plan. to give you an overall look on the bigger spending initiatives within the plan, it did include establishment of universal pre-k for three and four-year-olds and extend the childcare tax care credit and income tax credit and create federal aid family and
7:02 am
medical leave benefits. it would make community college free for two years. they want to reduce prescription drug costs and require electric utility sectors to generate 80% of power from clean energy sources by 2030 and provide green cards to millions of immigrant workers and families. those are some of the topline issues in the document, the spending plan released by the democrats yesterday. "the washington post" highlights some of the details of the revealed, saying another bucket of spending would address democratic concerns that the bipartisan infrastructure deal doesn't go far enough to address issues related to the warming planet and the resolution would allow democrats to see significant changes to medicare, including an expansion that covers dental and health benefits and democrats have offered -- are looking for permanent resident status as part of a reconciliation
7:03 am
process, embarking on a political journey that could find them tangling with the senate parliamentarian where they are narrowly restricted to rules that only affect spending and taxes. these are just some of the proposals. in this hour you can comment on the plan and whether you support it or not. if you support it, (202) 748-8000, if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001. one of the people on the floor of the senate yesterday supporting the plan was chuck schumer, who talked about the budget reconciliation plan and his support order. [video clip] >> divisions in the country in politics today have their roots in that a client of economic mobility. the american people do not expect one piece of legislation to solve all ills, no single law can do that, but we have to start in a bold, strong way, rebuilding the basic social contract for middle-class
7:04 am
american families and for everyone struggling to get there . a promise of equal opportunity and equality, helping middle-class americans stay in the middle class, building ladders to help others climb into the middle class. at the core, that's what this ajit is all about and we are going to take the first steps towards passing it very, very soon. host: when it comes to the efforts for paying for the proposal, democrats are planning to undo key parts of the republican tax law, aiming to raise the corporate tax rate from 21% to 25% and have discussed raising the tax rate on investment gains and clamping down on tax benefits that have enriched the private equity industry and executives by allowing lucrative fees to be taxed at low capital gains
7:05 am
rather than income. those are some of the proposals on how to pay for these efforts proposed by senate democrats. some of you commenting on facebook this morning, saying yes, there isn't much we need to do, we lost precious years. the water supply is drying up. we need to have a place left for our grandchildren and we are supposed to leave it better for them. this doesn't look promising. jason arnold says that he's at a point where he doesn't support a single thing that democratic already wants to push, they try to destroy our economy and sovereignty for the utopian oligarchy. nothing they do supports small business or the middle-class in any way. from helen, who highlights bernie sanders as a key driver of the proposal, saying go bernie.
7:06 am
frederick says no one in their right mind would support this reckless spending. the senate minority leader, mitch mcconnell, talking about the reconciliation plan and why democrats shouldn't expect republican support for it. here's a bit of what he had to say yesterday. [video clip] >> they call it $3.5 trillion in spending. experts say that that would most likely caused americans 5.5 trillion. trillions more in borrowing and spending when inflation is already sticking american families with higher costs. new permanent welfare with no work requirements when small businesses are already struggling to find workers. sweeping amnesty on the southern border when it is already in crisis. new deal regulations when american gas prices have already shot up, crushing tax hikes for
7:07 am
family businesses and farms as they fight to recover from the recession. so, apparently tragedy and comedy really are two sides of the same coin. the tragedy is that democrats want to inflict all this pain on middle-class families. here's the comedy, they won't let republicans have a say in this monstrosity, but they want our help raising their credit card to make this happen. democrats want republicans to help raise the debt limit so they can keep spending historic sums of money with zero republican input and zero republican votes. so, imagine a friend tells you he's flying off to las vegas to blow all his money. doesn't care that you think it's irresponsible.
7:08 am
you are invited to come along. but he wants you to cosign a loan for him before he leaves. host: that was from yesterday, more is the hour goes on. -- as the hour goes on. conway, troy says anyone who wants to see insanity, look no further than this boondoggle. venezuela and cuba, hold my beer. from stephanie in michigan, i definitely support the new budget plan including projects that have been long overdue. we need this new deal, let's get on with curing america. our future is at stake. let's start with mike in ohio, who says no to this plan. mike, you are first up. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro.
7:09 am
none of our suppose that representatives have even read this bill. 2700 pages, i mean this is ridiculous. how long are we going to put this on a credit card when my great grandkids are still paying. the only way we will take care of this is if we vote to every one of these people, democrat and republican. i'm independent and i voted for trump. the only reason i did is because he did what he said he would do. host: what's your main opposition to the proposal, if i may ask? caller: ok, well, look into it. $2.5 billion for a reception station for illegal immigrants? they complain it's racist for not letting them in? we have legal ways of bringing them in. it's called legal immigration. as far as the pickers for the field, they come in on visas. what's the problem.
7:10 am
as far as illegal immigration, i will tell you how to take care of it. we'd tie everything that comes out of social security on the government retirement fund. you see how fast they close them borders. host: that's mike from ohio, bringing up the topic of immigration. the story thereby stephen dinan, democrats proposing 107 billion dollars to grant amnesty and border security, writing that on immigration it instructs the judiciary committee to grant lawful permanent status for qualified immigrants to invest in smart and effective order security measures, nothing about interior enforcement to allow businesses to weed out immigrant workers, which had been an element of the previous immigration compromises and again, if you want to read more, you can look at the website of "the washington times" for that.
7:11 am
also not supporting the effort, todd joins us this morning from california. todd, go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm registered independent. last election i voted for trump. this bill as proposed is too expensive, it's too expensive. there's not enough money to pay for it now and they are going to have to continuously raise taxes on multiple generations just to be, just to be able to put a dent into this. plus it's not really bipartisan. they are not really taking into account any conservative concerns with this. host: is it the total price tag that bothers you or is it something specific within what's being proposed? caller: total price tag, lack of
7:12 am
bipartisanship, plus certain things having nothing to do with it, like on broadband. electric vehicle power stations everywhere. most of the cars on the road are still electric cars. not to mention in order to fuel electric cars, you have to burn fossil fuels to do that, so it is kind of self-defeating. host: to clarify, the infrastructure bill that includes those elements to be voted on today, with the senate coming in at 9:30 this morning, look for deliberations before the vote and you can watch it and follow along on c-span two and our website, it's expected to pass according to reporting and then democrats are expected to move on to this budget plan that was introduced this week. it's what a lot of people have been focusing on and if you go
7:13 am
to the website for a responsible federal budget, they put up a piece taking a look at the plan and under the headline budget resolution, it would allow $1.75 trillion of borrowing and say that the resolution contains instructions for 12 senate committees that allows them to increase deficits and more significantly the budget resolution would allow 726 billion dollars in borrowing for the labor pension committee and $332 billion for the urban development committee and in addition the finance committee is extracted to introduce benefits that would allow the committee to put forward one point true -- $1.8 trillion in spending along with increases in health savings that allows the committee to go further with the borrowing enacted from other committees by september the 15th, though the date is not winding. the state -- you can find the
7:14 am
breakdown on the budget website and if you want to read it, let's hear from georgia in louisiana, who supports the effort. georgia, you are next. caller: i support it because in the past four years, we did not hear nothing about the debt ceiling, nothing about no bills at all, but $6 trillion was placed on the debt. you need to look into that, how we got $6,000 put on the debt. host: this legislation doesn't include anything for debt ceiling on top of that. what do you think of that? caller: that's what my problem is. no one said nothing at all when trillions were put there. no one debated nothing at all. nothing at all. they just didn't talk about it. complain about the 3.5 trillion every time to fix and
7:15 am
infrastructure, not to mention all the bad behavior we got going on here. host: ray, good morning, north carolina. you are next up. caller: good morning. i am most evidently against this monstrosity, as mitch mcconnell said it is. the spending, the chickens are going to come home to roost. the word bankruptcy comes to mind here. host: as far as spending is concerned, what is it about spending besides the overall price tag, or is that the main concern for you? host: a lot of this -- caller: a lot of this spending is not necessary. it goes to a lot of democrat projects and pork.
7:16 am
the national debt, again, is there, and if we don't do something about that, it's going to, it's a crushing, crushing realization. host: when it comes to the budget, you set a lot of it wasn't necessary. what would you highlight when you say there is spending that isn't necessary? caller: well, the southern border, ok, they want to spend for amnesty. a lot of committees are getting money without doing anything. a lot of the talk of infrastructure, there's a lot of infrastructure talk, but the reality is that a lot of this money isn't going to infrastructure at all. host: infrastructure is a
7:17 am
separate piece today. go ahead and finish your thought. caller: that, too. mercy, if the democrats don't get what they want in the infrastructure bill, they are throwing temper tantrums. putting everything in this one little nest egg. if they don't get what they want. host: ok. let's hear from larry, maryland, fort smith, calling in on the yes line. larry, hi there. caller: i'm calling to comment on these trump loving insurrectionists. where were they when trump was in office and they passed that to trillion dollar bill for all the rich people in the world and all they did was introduce supreme court judges all day
7:18 am
long and didn't do anything for the people. where were these trump lover insurrectionists? host: when it comes to the bill being proposed in the senate, what do you support about it? caller: the whole bill. guest: specifically what -- host: specifically what? caller: infrastructure, i think it's a good thing. the country has decayed, the ridges and the roads, anybody can see that. philadelphia, there are potholes with a front-end being pulled off the car. bridges across the country that you show on television where the steel is breaking. where were these trump lovers, these insurrectionists, when they passed -- host: when it comes to the budget reconciliation package being proposed, what do you support about that? caller: that to trillion
7:19 am
dollars, going to rich people. it's about time they took care of the people on fixed income. time they got a slice of the pie. it don't have to be these billionaires and millionaires that get all the money. host: larry in maryland. to give you a highlight on some of the proposals in the package, separate from the infrastructure bill being voted on tightly today, establishing universal pre-k for three-year-olds and four-year-olds, extending the earned income tax credit and creating federal paid family and medical leave benefits and reduce prescription drug costs and when it comes to issues of climate change it would require the electric utility sector to generate 80% of power from clean energy sources by 2030 and when
7:20 am
it comes to those clean energy futures that some of you have commented on this morning it would provide green cards to millions of immigrant workers and their families. for the next 40 minutes we can comment on whether you support the efforts were not in it comes to the budget land. (202) 748-8000 if you support it and say yes. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. text us at (202) 748-8003. dexter is in washington, d.c. you are next. hello. caller: hello. i 100% agree with the plan. i think it's a good deal for the american people. rich people have been getting over on this country forever. i also want to say something to my fellow republicans crying those crocodile tears. why would we go out of our way to submit this to republicans
7:21 am
when we can clearly see all over the country that they are trying to create an apartheid system in america. host: back to the budget bill specifically, why do you report -- support it? caller: i support the tax credit for children, the earned income. all the things that would help to pass for the working poor and working middle class in this country who have basically been given a bad deal when the country just seems to only look out for people that has a lot of money. they don't take care of anybody else. food stamps, if you are on that you are basically living in the gutter. you can't afford anything out here at all. host: ok, let's hear from joe.
7:22 am
arnold, maryland. he says no to the package. caller: i totally disagree with this type of massive spending bill. i also disagree with the suppose it infrastructure bill. all of these expenditures should be voted on and weighed on their own merits. what are we buying here? no one knows what's in this bill and what we are getting and they are spending money on things that nobody knows about. it's absurd that we are doing this to our children and grandchildren. host: when you say spending money on things that no one knows about, what do you mean? caller: i guarantee there stuff here that no one has any information on. these senators don't read these bills, it's absurd. you've got to be kidding me that we are going to vote for this.
7:23 am
host: some of the specifics like universal pre-care and child tax credits, what's wrong with that approach? caller: let's look at the individual merits of each individual program and discuss the causes and who's going to benefit and then vote on it. why are we plopping it all together? you pick and choose little items like this that everybody is warm and fuzzy about. the problem with that is they are shoving in the 80% of the guard did -- garbage we don't need to see money spent on. this country is about free enterprise, not government spending. host: illinois, good morning. caller: i disagree with it pedro for the simple thing.
7:24 am
what these people said, it's all in the bill. the child tax credit, we all get child tax credit. this is just not, it's the democrats doing what democrats always do. they throw us a bone and then after they throw us a bone, we find out there's not much meat on the bone. but there are tons of things in this bill, just like the man said, they will have to vote for it. host: you focused on the child tax credit. why is that? caller: we already get a child tax credit. host: you still get a child tax credit for children? caller: heck no, i'm 77.
7:25 am
host: it was only temporarily extended to the end of the year. there is an effort to extend it further. that's a part of this package. go ahead. host: my grandkids receive child tax credits -- caller: my grandkids received child tax credits and have received them every year for the past 15 years . why is it all of a sudden going to go away? host: this is an effort to extend it from under covid. there is probably reporting out there when it comes to the details of the bill. we are just showing you the topline figures we have been doing all morning and you can see that for yourself, the people on the senate floor, some of the chief architects of this effort. senator bernie sanders from vermont, this is a part of his presentation yesterday about the budget plan. [video clip]
7:26 am
>> i will tell you what is even more important, that is to address the long neglected needs of the working families of our country and the children of the elderly, of the sick, of the poor, whether they are black, white, latino, these are needs that congress has ignored. for much too long. i understand that senator mcconnell, the republican leaders and others are really shocked. they can't believe it. imagine, just imagine that the united states senate is addressing the needs of working families and is going to stand up for ordinary americans rather than just the wealthy and
7:27 am
powerful. what is this world coming to? don't we understand that here in the senate we are supposed to take campaign contributions from the drug companies and the insurance companies and the fossil fuel industry and from the 1% and do their bidding? is that not the way it's always been done here in the u.s. senate? well, senator mcconnell. things are changing. for once in a very long time, the united states congress is going to stand with working families and not just the rich and the powerful. host: again, that's senator sanders from yesterday. you can see more on when it comes to the senate they highlighted the fact that the moat -- more centrist wing in
7:28 am
recent weeks have had their own trepidation around the hefty price tag. senator sinema of arizona signaled in late july that she would vote to adopt the budget and begin the work of rafting legislation to carry it out even as she remains concerned about the overall cross, saying -- host: so, that's just some of what to expect when it comes to the back playing out on this piece of what's being debated. again, the infrastructure bill being finished up and voted on today. we have been showing you highlights throughout the course of the morning and you can tell
7:29 am
us whether you supported or not for the next 30 minutes or so. (202) 748-8000 if you say yes, (202) 748-8001 if you say no. some of you texting us this morning. this from dave in illinois saying that this helps to overcome 30 years of trickle-down economics. m a in texas saying that republicans will not agree with anything democrats do because they don't want infrastructure, they want to take the money and give it to rich people. they don't intend to help the democrats at all. peter in charleston, south carolina says that it doesn't build a ladder from the ground but a rope from the top. the people relying on it will really suffer. america was built on work and not handouts. ron cleveland, tennessee, saying that he supports a bill that helps the middle-class republicans take care of the rich, democrats take care of the middle-class class and the poor.
7:30 am
(202) 748-8003 is how you make those thoughts known to us if you want to text us this morning. arkansas, linda, on the no line. caller: i don't agree with this bill. what do they do with pre-existing foundations? headstart, does that exist or is it a new bureaucracy? i just, they spend their money but these bills are already there. they passed money, the departments don't go away, loaded with people that make good salaries. are they eliminating those to make room for something new or are they just going to hire more people? host: from ronnie in morrisville, pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have heard the arguments of
7:31 am
people about this bill. i would like to reach out to these people that don't want to. i would like them to remember that wealthy people out there have the best lawyers and they can get around every tax that is put out there against the poor and the working class. they have a direct line to your representatives and they tell them what they want. remember that. the poor don't have that. they cannot afford top lawyers to defend them. host: how does that apply to the budget plan specifically? caller: specifically? they are offering the poor people in the middle last the handout to support, to support their life and what they are doing. they can't go to their lawyers
7:32 am
and get cuts in taxes. the rich all the time. they control their representatives. -- look happening. i approve of this law. this is the best thing happening to this country. god bless our president. he is working so hard. -- so hard, right now. he has seen it all, being in congress 40 years. he knows it all and knows what's going on in this country. host: all right, that's ronnie in pennsylvania. let's hear from sean in new york. go ahead. caller: morning. i feel as if a lot of people are in agreement with social programs that the united states has to offer to the majority of
7:33 am
those who are disenfranchised. but we see that this bill is 2700 pages. number one, how many people in congress have read through it? how many people actually know what to do with this thing and where all this money is going? we passed three stimulus bills. $5 trillion spent amongst other nations in this country, where you know, we get $1200, $600 or what have you and we don't know what them at -- where the majority of the money is going. host: the highlights have been out there when it comes to pre-k and child tax credits and things like that. with those proposals specifically, what do you think of them? caller: it's minutia.
7:34 am
department of education is something we already have here. it's likely to be educated -- allocated to the department of ed that receives aliens and funding and they are trying to allocate even more money when the country has $28 trillion in debt. the value of the money in terms of just, you know, inflation and, you know, the cost-of-living and everything going on here, it just seems like we are really going in the wrong direction. from covid to literally everything. people have to understand that we are really headed into dangerous care tori -- dangerous territory here. host: that is sean in new york. giving us his thoughts on the package released by senate democrats. $3.5 trillion price tag has been in many of the headlines.
7:35 am
the details of some of the major spending programs we have been showing you throughout the course of the morning about what's being proposed, there are bigger aspects in those pages that have been highlighted as well. when it comes to the issues of the debt ceiling this morning, business insider reports on it was yesterday that the treasury secretary, janet yellen, warned that a fairly year to raise the federal debt ceiling will cause irreparable harm to the economy. "in recent years congress --
7:36 am
host: is where you can see that story. dorothy, north carolina, supporter of the effort. go ahead. caller: good morning. this is a psychological thing. we don't owe anyone anything. could be a trillion, but that's it. we don't owe anybody anything. but i like this bill because it is for the people. like you said, the elderly get their prescriptions. childcare for the middle class. college for the young people so they can get the training they need to get a job.
7:37 am
middle-class got the family leave. if there fan -- parents get sick or something, they can at least have time to take care of the child or anything when they leave. first of all, we all pay taxes. we are not getting money from out of the sky. i don't know where they think it's coming from. we all pay taxes and sometimes the working people need to get something back for the taxes they pay. host: do you think it justifies the total price of the bill? caller: if we don't do it now, it's going to be $6 trillion in some years. things going bad, they cause more. if people in the call breakdown, everything starts breaking down. house go bad, everything goes bad. if we don't do something now, the reason it's so big as we don't do anything. we don't do anything necessary to keep this country in the place it was a long time ago.
7:38 am
it was great a long time ago. my friends used to buy a new car every year at bethlehem steel. they had great jobs, sending their children to college. host: what do you think of the moderate democrats not on board because of the price tag? caller: all of our politicians, and this is true, all of our politicians have been bought other people with money and they only do things for people with money. they never talk about bailing out the people. they didn't fight too hard about the money. they got it quick and didn't even really need it. they was already billionaires, they didn't lose their money. when it comes to us, seniors like myself who made the prescription plan, they fight. why? i've worked since i was 16.
7:39 am
when i stopped working, my husband was a vietnam vet. we paid to the federal government only. $11,000 per year and we never got anything for it. host: that's dorothy. donald, go ahead. caller: you know there's a lot of elderly in this country and the things i said about this ill are medicare, adding dental, glasses, hearing aids, home care that will help you stay in your own home. i advise all these elderly people in the country to, to support this bill.
7:40 am
don't vote against something that's going to hurt you. that's the way i feel about it. host: to donald's point, it allows democrats to pursue changes to medicare, including an expansion to health benefits, story adding that democrats are attempting to seek lawful permanent resident status or millions of immigrants as part of the reconciliation process on a political journey there. that is some of what donald brings up when it comes to the medicare expansion and things that run along that. you can bring others into the mix as well and we have been showing you throughout the morning some of the reaction from the actual text itself and the big price tag. you can direct either of those things on our lines, tweet us and post on facebook as well, as well as text us. let's hear from lance in naples,
7:41 am
florida on the no line. hello there. you are on, go ahead. would you mind turning on your television real quick? caller: yeah. i'm trying to find out where, yeah. i'm trying to find out how we got to $3.5 trillion plan, budget plan and then infrastructure plan that's going to be voted on after the trillion dollars when the original plan as proposed was $2.6 trillion. he added to it actually. host: ok. that's lance in naples. anthony grady saying on twitter that nothing the government does is a simple yes or no answer. does it still have the mileage
7:42 am
tax? linda from indiana saying that we need to improve our country, don't let it fall apart, got to spend to keep up. patrick in maryland saying that he supports it, childcare is outrageous here, double what it was in virginia. clear out the pork and do a smart budget. jack in michigan texting us this morning saying all this destruction -- discussion about reconciliation, why isn't there consideration for the huge tax breaks for industry? it's been highlighted by many democrats in the weeks since the plan was revealed. details are on our website, you can find the debate there as well. when it comes to the $3.5 trillion reconciliation budget, that's what we are getting your thoughts on this morning. let's hear from rich in ohio.
7:43 am
marion. he also said no to the plan. good morning. caller: it looks like sometimes we get extra money and we get in big trouble. sometimes students get into drugs because of extra money. we don't know where the extra money is going. we sent some to china to research by accident that thing. we should make sure every dollar doesn't go to bad things. host: we have been highlighting specifics on the reconciliation as far as the blueprint is concerned. what's wrong with those programs? caller: because we aren't tracking the loose money. college students are good kids but every once in a while the extra money gets them in big trouble. the other thing, spending money we don't have. obama spent all the money we
7:44 am
didn't have end biden is getting ready to do it again, spending more than all the presidents combined. these trillions of dollars. the other thing, we have a budget where at the top of it we said by the way, we can't buy a fire truck. if they set up budgets, we can pass anything for a fire truck, but we are supposed to budget the money for right rings and separate the issues. host: that is rich in ohio. go ahead. caller: i love cable satellite public affairs network, you guys are the best and i do support this plan, excuse me. i am very happy to see it going not for some war in the middle east and not for foreign aid,
7:45 am
but going for the united states. as many have pointed out, we need our infrastructure updated. that's all i really have to say area host: when it comes to the budget plan, what do you like most about it? caller: roads and bridges. host: this budget plan includes other things, any thoughts on that? caller: medicare, expansion of medicare. host: ok. one of the other issues coming out yesterday or at least news that comes out when it comes to the topic of climate change, when it came to a new report, this is the highlight from the washington post saying that three decades ago it was warned that humans were fueling a dangerous greenhouse effect. that there would be profound consequences for people and nature alike --
7:46 am
"the only real uncertainty that remains is whether they can stave off a darker future than the one it already carved in stone." the other news yesterday, aside from the reveal of this budget land. tony, connecticut on the no line. go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. i've been watching since the beginning of the year as a timeline and we have been shown
7:47 am
these shiny objects where people are like yes, we need this and that. but yesterday we were talking about the infrastructure. all of those good things, roads and bridges, that's only $550 billion. we don't talk about the remaining $700 billion. we have launched these different covid relief packages. we didn't even spend them. i watch you guys daily, you show the shiny stuff and add up the money and it says look, we are giving this and that and it only comes to a fraction of what the total bill is. they are looking to spend money they can't even spend. host: as far as the budget bill itself? you have seen the price tag, it looks like you keep an eye on these things. what's wrong with it specifically?
7:48 am
caller: specifically it's what we don't know. you didn't show other than the $3.5 trillion how much the shiny objects costs and what the rest of the money costs. like yesterday you showed that we need bridges, we need this and that. host: sure, we show the highlights. caller: it's only a partial part of the bill. host: but ultimately you don't support it based on what we don't know, so what is it we don't know yet? caller: where the rest of the money is spent. for example, yesterday you told about the bill and only talked about $550 billion of it. where's the $700 billion? host:
7:49 am
we have shown highlights online. you can go back and look at that if you wish. terry, hello. caller: i believe that the democrats [inaudible] [indiscernible] children and older people, old people in general, blah blah. this is just camouflage for the true agenda. they have things in there that we don't know about. host: such as what? caller: to destroy this country. host: if you say that there are things that we don't know about, such as what? caller: hello? host: if there are things we don't know about, such as what? caller: such as this government [inaudible] [indiscernible] there to protect us, not be big daddy. they want to make people
7:50 am
dependent on the government, not themselves. americans get things by working hard. host: one of the people giving her thoughts yesterday on the senate floor, marsha blackburn on the budget plan. [video clip] >> democratic colleagues are not paving the way to prosperity. they are building the gateway to socialism. this bill can be seen as a down payment. later this week, if all goes according to plan for my colleagues from new york, we will take a vote on the budget that is going to make the american people think they got a discount on the infrastructure package. it's another day and another fight over a multitrillion dollar spending spree that defies common sense and rejects all notions of accountability.
7:51 am
if the infrastructure bill was the down payment for the gateway to socialism, this budget rips the gates off the hinges and invites the big spenders and central planners to roll right on through. for $3.5 billion they will have it all, a laundry list of incentives for government dependency. a foot in the door for homes and families and a skew's to seize power and centralize it right here in washington. my democratic colleagues really enjoy using the words free and universal to describe their government handouts. universal pre-k, tuition free community college, universal health care, and even a free path to citizenship for illegal immigrants. host: again, more of that is available on our website, it's another one of the ways you can watch the vote from the
7:52 am
senate today. you can follow along at and if you want to listen along, you can download the free radio app and listen there. on the no line, maureen. go ahead. are you in california? caller: florida. host: thank you, caller, go ahead. caller: yes, my concern is the electric cars and the equipment they will be putting in the cars to track mileage and what the costs is going to be for that, along with the added tax for gas. the infrastructure bill, only 40% is going for infrastructure. what you talk about in terms of medicare as far as perks, i already get that from united health care and don't pay anything for it. i don't understand what's so great about this. host: from a cliff in maryland. hello.
7:53 am
caller: i'm 82. people in this country say nothing about the money that we spend in iraq and afghanistan. the money that we spent in korea. we don't have anything to show for it. but they don't complain about that. how many trillions did we spend? do we have any idea? host: what do you think we get from the spending there? caller: well, some more kids are going to be offered more education. you are going to be able to help people to raise kids through some financial help. it's a lot that goes on in this country that people don't even think about. host: that is cliff in maryland. tony in florida saying that it's hard to oppose the spending without knowing the details, it's clearly by design, a plan
7:54 am
so large that no one knows what can be in it. from ed in new york, saying that when the bill is passed it will be the straw that breaks the camels back and interest rates will rise, the housing department will collapse, it's economics 101. texting us is a way to reach out to us if you wish. one more piece of news to show you out of the pentagon. the announcement that vaccines will be required for military under this new plan. one of the people talking about it yesterday was the press secretary. here's what he has to say. [video clip] >> requesting an approval waiver to make it mandatory by mid-september. i have seen some reporting out there that it means all the troops have to be vaccinated and that's not accurate.
7:55 am
he will make the request by mid-september unless or until fda licensure occurs before that time, at which point the secretary has the authority that he needs upon licensure to make whatever vaccine has been given the license mandatory. i want to clear that up. in the meantime, two things are going to happen. services will be tasked to come back with implementation plans for how they will get this moving. there is not probably a lot of time between now and mid-september. if fda licensure comes sooner than that, there's pressure to suggest the pfizer vaccine will perhaps be even completely approved by the end of this month. services have a fair but limited amount of time to come back with implementation plans for how they would go about and a tory vaccines for all of their
7:56 am
personnel. we understand -- go about mandatory vaccines for all their personnel. we understand that and will be respectful of that. in the meantime we will be developing policies to comply with the president's direction that the unvaccinated will have to be subject to restrictions and other policies. i don't have the details for that and we are working hard on what will be the policy directive to come in the coming days that will make it clear what those restrictions are and how they apply to everybody in the workforce, including uniformed personnel. the last thing i would say about this memo, and i hope you caught towards the end of it where the secretary said that we would watch the trends closely. it's an uptick in cases and hospitalizations where the delta variant is a factor.
7:57 am
as the secretary told the force today, if he needs to act sooner than this timeline, he will do that. host: ron in west chesterfield, go ahead. caller: before i make my comment i would like to ask that at some point in time you should have a segment to just ask the folks out there, what does a more perfect union look like to you? have the folks call in and tell them for our politics and for our country. as far as the $5 trillion bill hillyer -- bill here, to me that's a bargain. if that's what it takes to save the planet, that's a bargain. in 10 years from now if we don't spend it, we will all wish that
7:58 am
we had. host: what convinces you it's going to save the planet? caller: well, it's going to help. help clean up some of what we have been pumping into the atmosphere. you can't pump tons and tons of stuff into the atmosphere every single year and expect it to not have an effect on the atmosphere . we have got to start somewhere and 3.5 trillion, that's a pretty decent start towards capping emissions and getting us into some electric vehicles and things like that and it is certainly a lot better than giving a couple of trillion dollars to the wealthy again for tax breaks and stuff. we need something for the general masses in the country. unless you are wealthy, the republicans don't give a darn about you. they don't care about the general masses or the health care were seemingly our planet, economy, or democracy.
7:59 am
host: barbara, california, you are next up. caller: you keep saying about the unknown. this infrastructure bill, i was watching and they say that in the bill the government is going to be notified when us normal people take $600 out of our bank accounts. why is all that going to happen? why do they need to know when we take out $600? also they are saying we are going to tax everything. medicare, any time we take out money from savings, they are going to tax everything. tax any money that we have her savings to retire. you are asking people, what are the unknowns. that's the question. host: i was talking about
8:00 am
reconciliation, you are bringing up infrastructure. finish your thought. caller: it's everything. you tell people, what are the unknowns. that's the question. no one is talking about the unknown things in the bill. that is the problem because we do not know. host: that is barbara from california finishing us off as our. -- this hour. thank you to all of you who participated, also talking about the reconciliation package is chris edwards from the cato institute, their tax policy studies director. that are on we will look at issues in climate change with lori lodes, executive director of climate power. those coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> today, the senate foreign
8:01 am
relations subcommittee examines u.s. security assistance in the middle east. watch the hearing live at 10:00 a.m. eastern following a brief pro forma session. online on, or on the free radio app. >> the senate is back to finish work on a $1.2 trillion structure bill that provides funding for roads, bridges, rails, public transport, broadband internet, and water projects. a final though will occur at 11 :00 a.m. eastern with a simple majority needed to pass. after that senators are expected to begin debate on a $3.5 trillion budget resolution with republican and democratic amendments to be considered. you can follow the senate live when they return at 9:30 p.m. eastern -- a.m. eastern on c-span2. ♪
8:02 am
>> "washington journal" continues. host: chris edwards, their tax studies policy director for the cato institute, talking about the information when it comes to the infrastructure bill and reconciliation bill, morning. remind people about the cato institute and the point of view you take and how you are supported. guest: it is a nonprofit, nonpartisan think tank. we study all kinds of different
8:03 am
public policy issues from a libertarian point of view, generally meaning we are for free enterprise and limited government in civil liberties. economically conservative and socially moderate. we want smaller government and a smaller federal government. we think american society would be better and a lot of different ways if that was a case. host: from the way you look at things on the tax side, what do you think about the three point $5 trillion reconciliation? guest: i think it is misguided, the federal government cannot afford it, we are massively in debt, i think the tax increases along with the 3.5 trillion dollar package would be damaging to u.s. competitiveness. and, just about everything in the infrastructure and reconciliation packages can be done by state governments themselves, if they want. for example, states can raise
8:04 am
their own funding for highways and transit systems whenever they want, and they do raise a lot of their own money. the reconciliation package contains funding for paid leave and that sort of thing. states can implement their own plate -- paid leave program whenever they want and there are eight states that habit. there is no reason for a top-down central plan for washington from a lot -- for a lot of these things, state and local governments are entirely capable of intimate touch of implement in the programs. host: the federal government has long provided these uppers for transportation issues, what is wrong with this approach? guest: the package would increase federal spending by $550 billion, above 400 billion would be financed. we have massive debts and i do not think we should be adding onto federal debt. especially with this package.
8:05 am
also the infrastructure package, there is about one quarter of the spending is for corporate welfare or subsidies, which i think is misguided for the electric grid and vehicles, for broadband companies and that sort of thing, i think it is a dangerous path for the federal government to get on to get more involved in corporate subsidies. the last point i would make is that in one big way it is not very green. part of the purpose is to mitigate climate change, and the way to do infrastructure, the greenway is to use user charges that way consumers' demand is limited so funding water systems by raising water fees is efficient and green. funding highways by gas tax is efficient and green. this tax is not green at all because it all depends on deficit financing and not user charges. ironically, this package is frankly not green.
8:06 am
host: let me play a little bit from senator susan collins from maine, one of the senators at the forefront. she was making the case for what she sees as its passage and the need of it. we will play what she says and you will respond to it. [video clip] >> ultimately, madam president, this bill is about reinforcing the connections that make our country more united. the investments in our roads and bridges will better commute -- connect communities. the investments in our airports will better connect rural and urban regions. the investments in our highways and seaports will better connect manufacturers and their customers. and, their workers. and, the investment in high-speed internet will better connect families, friends,
8:07 am
coworkers, employers, health care providers, students, and educators. madam president, this investment package is good for america, it represents a far too rare example of the two parties working together to produce real results for the american people. [end video clip] host: that is the argument presented by the senator, what do you think of that? guest: everyone is for investment and investment is great. the question is what is the most efficient and environmentally sound way to fund it. she mentioned airports and seaports. in many countries around the world, airports and seaports are in the private sector and not subsidized. margaret thatcher privatized british imports. half of european airports are
8:08 am
private and unsubsidized and funded by passenger charges. we do not need subsidies for a lot of this infrastructure. if maine wants investments in their highways, maine can raise its own gas and income taxes and get the private sector involvement in highway expansion which some states like virginia have done. there is no reason for additional federal subsidies and all of those things. host: chris edwards is here until 8:45, and if you want him to -- and if you want to ask him about the structure bill, or other bits of the reconciliation bill. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8002, for independents. or text us at 202-748-8003. senator schumer put out the statement, "the resolution only includes topline and every senator wants to shape and
8:09 am
influence the final reconciliation bill after adoption of the budget revolution -- resolution." if that is the case what do you think it will produce? guest: this is what the senate is considering passing right now, called the budget resolution which fits the overall parameters for a possible reconciliation bill that congress will be tackling in the fall. so, we just said the idea is to set some topline numbers to suggest the priorities, but then the individual committees and final negotiators will decide the details of the package. host: when it comes to as far as the details are concerned, a lot in there, what troubles you most aside from the spending and the ideas that state should fend for themselves? guest: micromanagement. the infrastructure bill, it did not just increase federal spending, it is 2700 pages long meaning that it includes a huge
8:10 am
amounts of micromanagement. i expect the ultimate reconciliation bill will be thousands of pages long, meaning that the federal government is taking control of everything in society, it is usurping the power of state and local governments to decide democratically themselves what their priorities should be. i mention for the democrats pushing for national prekindergarten program for three-year-olds and four-year-olds unpaid leave programs and that sort of thing. the federal government is not just going to give the states money for these programs it will micromanage how the states provide these programs, and in my view probably in a very bureaucratic and inefficient way that will raise cost. i think it is not just that the federal government does a lot of deficit spending. the spending itself comes along with a lot of regulation that micromanages what the rest of society does. host: in essence, isn't that
8:11 am
just oversight? guest: sure, the federal politicians like to control how -- like to control the purse strings, but there is nothing wrong with diversity, if some states one paid leave programs and others don't that is fine. if states want to run their paid leave programs differently, that is great. that is healthy diversity. the problem with the federal government is that it uses the one-size-fits-all solutions on the country, america is very diverse. 330 million people living different lives and the idea that you can control it all is married to misguided. it leads to more divisiveness and political battling. it does not get up to the unified union that we want. having diversity is ok if the states go in different directions of policy. but, this new federal pen --
8:12 am
spending goes the opposite direction, to one-size-fits-all solutions. host: chris edwards from the cato institute. he is there tax studies expert. mark from tampa, florida on the republican line. go ahead. caller: yes, sir. the pentagon has never -- the snl bailout, how much money have the federal government given to the rich and the stock market, and then my other question is as a libertarian, when reagan passed the north american free tried, that has been part of the law and that has never been enforced. we had 100 or more of essential nonregistered people working here in meatpacking plants, and
8:13 am
they were kept there. anyway, my money, is my money. guest: on the second part of the question, i did not know of the program. in the first part of the question, the caller is right that there is a huge amount of inefficiency at the pentagon. there is excessive layer's of bureaucracy, masses of bureaucracy. it is the only major federal department that has never gotten a clean audit from the government accountability office. there is a huge problem. the pentagon has dozens and dozens of different accounting systems that do not talk to each other. it is very mismanaged and you could save a lot of money from a top to bottom review and overhaul of the pentagon. host: bill from new mexico, emme kratz line. hello. -- democrats line.
8:14 am
hello. caller: hello. sir, it is the bond it -- the budget, let me give you a little bit of history. under bill clinton we had a balance budget. between bill clinton and obama that was tripled -- trickle-down economics. in obama we almost had a balanced budget. under trump, no such thing. that is the budget. we have a record of balanced budgets in the democratic party. let me tell you about the green that you say dude -- does not exist. oil and gasoline cars leak oil. you can show the fact in every parking lot in the country. also, pipelines, oil and gasoline pipelines leak. they also produce super funds,
8:15 am
xl mobile, down in -- exxon mobile down in the amazon, let me compare a gas card to an electric car. an electric car does not leak oil. an electric car can be a generator for your house during blackouts. an electric car can receive power from the sun, the wind, anything that is designed. host: thank you. mr. edwards. guest: on the first part of his comment, he is right. bill clinton was the last president to balance the federal government. the last four years the federal budget was balanced so good for federal clinton and the republican congress at the time. the the budget -- the government has balanced the budget only 15 times in a century. there has been a huge amount of
8:16 am
the responsibility. i think the federal government should balance its budget about every year. or else we put that on future generations. on his second part on electric vehicles. there are a lot of advantages and they might be the future, but something i would suggest that he think about, electric vehicles you need electricity. you need to think about the generating source. currently, 60% of electric power is generated at stations fueled by natural gas and coal, which are emitting co2 and may contribute to the climate change problem. and, there are lots of problems. environmentalists want to move to solar and wind power with electric generation, that might be a good idea but there are problems. electric and wind power create instability for utilities, you need to invest a lot in
8:17 am
transmission lines and there is going to be a lot of fighting and right away problems with new transmission lines. a lot of the input through solar pv panel come from dubious areas of the world that are -- which is really problematic, for interest -- increasing solar pv production. there are problems with renewable energy so rushing headlong into renewables with all of these subsidies for washington, it will be a problem. host: mark stone from twitter makes this comment on it comes to tax cuts, talking about the tax cuts of the previous administration he cites the fact that "federal revenue increased." and we have several people comparing to the spending proposed by this administration with the spending and the result from the last administration, what do you think about the comparisons?
8:18 am
guest: president trump matt -- ran massive deficits because of the big increases in spending passed under trump or the pentagon and other agencies. president bush and obama before him, they ran deficits both of them for eight years for their whole tenure in office. there are -- there is lots of deficit spending under both parties. i think it is a problem, the federal government that is reaching its historical peak at over 100% of gdp. the last time it was this high was in world war ii. the difference now is that the debt keeps going up and up, and after world war ii, congress pay down debt substantially. we are not at war, and yet that keeps going up, and this is a problem. i think it will lead to a financial and economic crisis down the road unless this is fixed. host: what about the statements made by senator manchin and si
8:19 am
nema about the spending and the influence that they have in shaping what's goes forward? guest: the reconciliation bill the democrats are promising new spending of three point 5 trillion will be matched by three point 5 trillion of tax increases and other accounting gimmicks. i think the tax increases will be a huge problem. america competes in a global economy, and the democrats want to overrate -- wants to raise court -- corporate taxes. the average level of all our trading partners, and one of the problems is that the biden administration wants new investments in electric vehicles and all kinds of new technologies in the electric grid and that sort of stuff, but by raising corporate taxes you are reducing the incentive for car companies to invest and for
8:20 am
electric utilities to invest. with higher corporate taxes you get less investment and that is the opposite of what the biden administration wants. i hope that senators like them take a real deep look at the tax increases in the proposed reconciliation bill, and realize that there is a problem. host: let us hear from sam, and alabama. independent line. caller: yes, my question is all of these packages that are being passed through the senate, house, and everything, are there going to be more stimulus money coming out of that for each individual? guest: not with the infrastructure bill. most of the infrastructure bill money will go to state and local governments. some of it will go to the corporations, and some of that will be spent by the federal government like amtrak, for
8:21 am
example. we do not know the details of the follow-up bill, but it would create a bunch of new entitlement programs like a national paid leave program and a pre-k program. it would expand medicare for example. i think that is the wrong direction, but i think it will be adding new entitlement programs and expanding current entitlement programs rather than just mailing checks like the federal government did during the pandemic last year. host: from ted in indianapolis who asked about the source of the bills that encroach on freedom and privacy. guest: the discussion about the amount of spending, 3.5 trillion dollars under this reconciliation bill is a huge amount of spending. that will come with massive new regulations. the federal government will not provide tens of billions of dollars to state and local
8:22 am
government for paid leave programs, for universal pre-k without imposing massive regulations for how pre-k agencies hire workers and train workers and that sort of stuff, paid leave programs will get micromanaged from washington. you know, what tends to happen is -- and i hope this doesn't pass, but what happens is there will be years of federal agencies that oversee these new programs that would impose new and increasing amounts, probably hundreds of thousands of pages of new regulation on state and local governments and the providers of all of these new government services, and i think that undermines american freedom. and the freedom of local governments to operate freely themselves as independent democracies. host: joining us is chris
8:23 am
edwards. this is dale from riverdale, maryland. good morning. caller: hello, thank you for having me. i was listening to a little bit of your chat this morning, mr. edwards and my biggest question is, you suggest that the states should have the freedom to make their own decisions, personally, i think you are giving the states too much credit. the idea of fairness across the board with teachers and preschool and etc., i am certain that if you let it -- left it up to the states you would have a collage of different things going on. my question is that if you are suggesting that they should take care of it, why haven't they up to this point? guest: that is something, if you think that these schools are not up to good standards in your state, then you should advocate for change at your state legislature or with your local
8:24 am
school board, for example. what you call collage i call diversity and i think it is a good thing. for example, with teachers if -- one-size-fits-all policies do not make sense if you think about the different cost of living in new york city and some lower income states like mississippi, the pay and benefits and the like for teachers can and should be quite different in those two states because of the different economic situation that the states are in. i mean, cultures and out of towards -- attitudes toward schooling vary between the states. there is no -- it does not make sense to me that federal politicians can decide for the whole country how to educate our children. i do not see any advantage in federal involvement in education. i grew up in canada, i'm an immigrant, i came down a few decades ago but i am an american
8:25 am
citizen now. canada is an interesting place that that -- it is a high income countries and has higher test scores and canada does not have a federal department of education. it is decentralized in canada and they seem to do better because there is more diversity. i think diversity is a strength for america, and that is one reason i feel -- fear that these encroachments -- i fear these encroachments for washington. host: when it comes to the infrastructure side, where does the federal gas tax, and as far as paying for these efforts or is it separate? guest: curiously, both recent democrat and republican administrations have not attempted to raise the gas tax. the federal gas tax is $.18 a gallon, and i think actually, if states want to increase their highway investment they should look at their state gas taxes, and just in the last five years,
8:26 am
half of the states have raised their own taxes. i think that is the better way to go than the federal government, but that goes to the inch -- the issue, the funding for this infrastructure bill and all of this funding for highways and the like does not use user charges like gas taxes, it uses deficit financing and that is the wrong way to go, i think user financing is more efficient and more green. host: from david in los angeles, independent line. hello. caller: good morning. you know the cato institution and a variety of these oh -- so-called think tanks that are primarily funded by corporate america and wall street, and it is like they are in favor of some general things like low taxes, and they do have their principles by which they function from that serves big business. they have been quite successful
8:27 am
in that their policies have been carrying the day since reagan, if you will. and what they have successfully done is captured our government, and in essence, defunded our government with the strange notions of how to run a government. hence we are in a place right now with these deregulating and no regulating type of recommendations that they put forward. we are in a red flag situation right now where the environment is concerned because big oil does not want to be regulated. host: sorry to interrupt, but as far as a specific question, what would you like to ask your guests? caller: it is not necessarily a question for the guest but and enlightenment of the audience listening in on these sort of think tanks that you bring on on your program, and we appreciate that, because we get to see what
8:28 am
kind of influence that these special interest groups have over our government. host: david, thank you. guest: respectively, that caller was absolutely, totally wrong about the funding of the cato institute, it gets very little money from corporations, particularly big corporations. it is mainly funded by tens of thousands of individual donors and also some funding from foundations. we do not get much funding at all from corporations because corporations often do not like what we say. on the show i was criticizing the corporate welfare and subsidies in the infrastructure bill. the cato institute believes in free trade and open markets and many corporations lobby in favor of tariffs. on many things the cato institute is against the
8:29 am
position of big corporations that often lobby against free market. cato is for free market, and competition, and again most of our funding comes from individual donors who believe what we believe, in limited government. host: new york, this is lee on the republican line. guest: good morning, i have a quick -- caller: good morning, i have a question on infrastructure. i remember when trump was president he wanted infrastructure to be from one to two years, and it seems that infrastructure is like the preplanning can take eight to 10 years to come about and companies get tired of bidding on a job that is not going to be forthcoming, and i remember in the past there have been army corps of engineers who have actually decimated areas and then change their minds and a school was taken down and houses
8:30 am
were taken down. i wanted you to answer that, but i do have a comment about spending. they want social security to 60-year-old's basic income and double the child tax credit for 21 years old because they said this is now a child in college. you do not have to comment on that, but the preplanning of infrastructure, i am very concerned with. host: thank you. guest: she raises a very instructive point. i have written a lot about the army corps of engineers. the funding and project and the carrying out of projects by the army corps is inefficient and often lasts many years and decades when the private sector would build similar projects very quickly. to give you examples, a lot of seaports in the united states wants expansion, so the congressman will go and lobby congress to get funding for
8:31 am
their projects through the army corps of engineers. in my view a more efficient way would be to privatize the seaports and have them raise their own money through charges on ships, and do its own investment. so, the infrastructure bill would authorize spending, and then it would be up to the agencies to spend the money over a number of years, but that process is often inefficient and there is often porkbarrel politics in the projects carried out are the ones in the states with the most powerful senators and the like. there is a lot of misallocation of funding for projects, just to give you one example, there is a lot of amtrak spending, $70 billion of new amtrak spending. amtrak spending is misallocated because of politics. passenger rail makes sense in the northeast core door but not in many other parts of the
8:32 am
country, and yet every senator wants and amtrak line, but a lot of those lines make no economic sense. that is the type of inefficiency you get with this federal funding of infrastructure. host: the cbo on the interest on the infrastructure side saying that "if it would pass it would add 250 6 billion to the deficit over decades, what do you think of the figure do you think it will be the actual figure? guest: the committee for responsible federal budget which is a nonpartisan interest group indices that -- in d.c. that examines deficits looked at the numbers and they figured the real number was higher, $400 billion. i think they are right because the cbo scoring only covered certain aspects of the infrastructure bill. we cannot afford another $400 billion in federal deficit. you know, during the pandemic, it would not be surprising that the federal deficit went up and
8:33 am
we added to federal debt. now that the economy is growing, congress should be turning its attention to paying down the debt and heading toward a balanced budget in your future year rather than increasing deficits. i think it is irresponsible what is going on and both parties are responsible. host: one of the arguments and senator manchin making these as well. when you start these projects, the economy will grow from that. guest: if adding highways or transit systems in west virginia made sense, then the legislature of west virginia can and should be doing it. to say that we need the federal government to do all of this stuff does not make sense to me. people say we need to support this because these are high productivity projects, if that was true the states would be doing it. a lot of people say this includes funding for lead pipes, a lot of cities have lead pipes and i saw senator portman, a supporter mentioned this on the
8:34 am
floor of the senate. a lot of cities in ohio have lead pipe problems. if that is true, what the heck have the cities been doing? they should have been replacing the pipes, why haven't senator portman asked the city council to deal with the lead pipe problem? i really do not understand the mindset that all of the solutions have to come out of washington. they do not. state legislature has norm's fiscal resources and can confront these problems. host: independent line from franklin, north carolina. this is dennis. hello. caller: good morning. concerning the corporate tax, and how all of the intellectual properties and the prop -- and the copyrights have all been transferred to all of the companies and offshore tax havens, can you comment on that and tell us how much money is
8:35 am
lost each year, approximately? guest: i generally agree with the caller that this is a problem with the corporate income tax, an increasing amount of corporate profits are generated by intellectual property. intellectual property is mobile, and we are talking royalty, trademarks and copyrights. so, that is one of the problems with keeping corporate tax rates high is that you create a big incentive for corporations to move intellectual property into lower tax havens around the world. i think the solution here is to have a low competitive corporate tax rate in the united states so that companies bring back these profits to the united states. i do not think the solution is what president biden and democrats want to do, which is raising corporate taxes. the corporate tax is a complicated issue, but it ultimately lands on individuals in the form of consumers,
8:36 am
workers, shareholders, 401(k) holders and in raising corporate taxes and inducing them to avoid and evade taxes does not make sense to me, because ultimately, if we have a low rate we get more jobs and investments which are good for workers. i think it is a win-win to lower the count -- the corporate tax rate and it is a win for the government because i will be less cheating. host: if the administration succeeds in raising the taxes, does that necessarily mean that corporations will pay the taxes or will they find ways around it? guest: they always find ways around it. i started in tax policy during the clinton administration and the clinton administration pursued all kinds of avenues to lawyers and lawyers of new regulations to stop corporations from avoiding taxes. this is nothing new, this has been going on for decades. interestingly, if you look
8:37 am
around the world, governments are not starving for corporate tax revenues. they have generally gone up over the years amongst the major industrial countries. part of that is because as corporate tax rates have fallen, as rates have fallen corporations reported more income to the government and that is why it has ended up being a bit of a win-win. you lower rates in the government when -- wins. and corporations win because there is more investment. host: and then the idea of giving more enforcement power to the irs for people to pay their taxes, what do you think of that effort? guest: i think it is a bad idea. people do not realize that the irs makes a huge amount of mistakes and it is difficult for taxpayers to adjudicate the mistakes once they are made. with corporations, the irs and corporations often battle over the minutia of tax provisions
8:38 am
and tax laws. this is for years and years and the only winners are the lawyers and the accountants who work for the irs and the big corporations. again, if you have high rates you will get more attempts to avoid and evade, and more battles with the irs. i think that is a lose-lose situation. i think the irs already has too much power. more power you give it the more oppression to our civil liberties. i favor lower rates and better administration of the tax system. host: dan johnson. "the actual solution is a global minimum corporate tax." guest: i think that is unfair to small countries, countries like ireland, it used to be a very poor country in europe. it went to a 12% corporate tax, the economy has boomed over the last couple of decades because they attracted investments.
8:39 am
i think that is been great. it has been a good development strategy for ireland. by having a global minimum tax you preclude the ability of small and poor countries from developing and cashing out to some of the big countries. host: james in south carolina on the democrats line. good morning. caller: i have been listening to your guest speaker about local state should maintain their own highways. that is almost impossible. i would like to remind him that one of our great presidents and also an army general was in germany during world war ii and he recognized how beautiful the highways were helpful to get to the point a and b. and his vision was to build interstate highways from 95 north to south and then from east to west. and the government did that, and he seemed to take the government out of the infrastructure to
8:40 am
increase and improve this -- the interstate highways. thank you. guest: a few quick historical notes, the caller was referring to the interstate highway system originally funded in 1956 under president ohio -- eisenhower. it was built out and completed by the early 1990's, and one thing that viewers might not understand is that the entire interstate highway system is owned by state governments. the federal government does not own any of it. the federal government subsidizes it but my argument is that i do -- they do not needed to. it is built so that if states want to expand, maintain or improve the interstates within their state, they can raise their own gas taxes or other taxes anytime they want to do it. they do not need funding from washington. host: jeremy in madison, wisconsin. independent line. hello. caller: yes.
8:41 am
thank you very much for helping us. you touched on my question. a little bit, as i was on hold. but, you just brought up -- it is hard to understand what you are dealing with when you discuss an open market. with -- if you just have two people within a locality, the two people in the open market with inner locality, so how does the market open? and that is a problem a lot of people are having. i am hoping that you can answer. thank you. guest: i am not exactly sure what the color refers to. if he is talking about the interstate highway system, i would ask them to think about this. in the private sector there are many national networks. pipelines run coast-to-coast. the internet runs
8:42 am
coast-to-coast. it is mainly privately owned and there are many private telephone systems that were built privately, and it goes coast-to-coast and is universal. we have many networks that cross over state lines that are national and global these days that were built by the private sector based on market incentives, so that is what i would ask the caller to think about. host: california, independent line. go ahead. caller: yes. so, can you please tell me what the difference between a corporate tax rate and a flat tax rate is? guest: well, under the income tax system, the federal government taxes income to find -- defined very broadly including small business income, personal wages and dividends as well as corporate income. the original idea of the flat tax as advocated by steve forbes
8:43 am
during the 1990's is that you should have the same tax rate on individuals and corporations, 20% i think the plan was. and you should have the most simplified possible tax base that would make it harder to cheat you and make it fair between industries. one of the problems with income tax is industries are taxed at different rates and have different loopholes. flat taxes have a simple, uniform base so all industries pay the same and have the same rates so individuals and corporations pay the same. host: i guess when it comes to the infrastructure bill, what do you think about many republicans coming on board. you heard from senator collins, but what do you think republicans are on board with. there are many in the senate. guest: i think about 18 or so are very misguided. i am very disappointed in people like senator portman who'd complained about deficits and high spending and is supporting
8:44 am
this big deficit budget bill. i actually did a post at cato when i went back and looked at one doesn't republican senators supporting the infrastructure bill. if you look at the website they all rail against deficits and overspending, and here they are overspending and running up the deficit and debt. so, what the senators are supporting the bill have set in the past about wanting to balance the budget was fraudulent for them to say, because they are supporting a big deficit increasing bill. and, as i've argued i do not think there is any good justification for it. states can do this for themselves. host: chris edwards the tax policy studies director and the cato institute. thank you for your time today. coming up, we talk about issues of climate change with lori lodes, the executive director of
8:45 am
climate power to talk about the u.n. report on climate change and issues of climate legislation and we will have that when washington journal continues. ♪ >> sunday the series "january 6: views from the house" continues with three more members of congress sharing what they experienced including dean phillips of minnesota. rep. phillips: at the very moment the capitol police officer announced we should take cover and i stood up and at the back of the gallery and the second level and the representative from arizona was objecting to the state of 11 -- of electors and i shouted out at the top of my lungs this is because of you. i screamed at. >> this is because of you. and, i think i was representing four years of angst, anxiety,
8:46 am
and anger, many of us saw this from a mile away and i think it represented millions of americans who felt the same way, and at that very moment the entire country recognized the fragility of our democracy. i have great appreciations for the traditions of congress and decorum and i do not like to violate it, but i do not regret it because it was what what i was feeling and it was four years of pent-up anxiety about what was transpiring in front of our eyes. >> you will also hear from democrat date -- jamie raskin and republican brian fitzpatrick. "january 6: views from the house" sunday at 10:00 p.m. eastern. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us as lowy -- lori
8:47 am
lodes who serves as executive director who are is here to talk about issues of climate change and congress is taking a look with bills. thanks you for giving us your time. guest: thank you for having me. host: the group clot -- the group climate power tell us about us -- about it and who financially back to you. guest: it was launched in 2020 and our focus is how do we elevate climate in the political conversation during the 2020 elections. the idea was that we knew we were at this critical no -- critical moment and we needed leaders who were willing not only to talk about climate change but willing to act on it. and what we saw was that president biden ran on it. he really laid down this build back better plan that has climate action at the heart of it. and we saw him continue that ambition during his transition. and, into his administration.
8:48 am
this year climate power is focused on how we deliver big, bold climate action that really meets the moment we are at, that listens to the science and what we know that we need to do. and, we are focused very much on how we secure big, bold action on climate congressionally, and we are at a big moment here very soon. host: how is your organization back? guest: sure, sorry. we are funded by nonpartisan foundations, individuals who clear about that care about climate action. host: you said looking at science and issues, in light of which it is said your reaction to the stories this morning from the u.n. report taking a look at climate change, the -- the word unprecedented used. guest: absolutely. i think the u.n. chief said it
8:49 am
best when he talked about the report, which was that it is a code red for humanity. and, that is really what the report lays out. the itcc, i think you need to -- it is important to realize what it is. it is 235 scientists looking at peer-reviewed research from over 60 countries coming together on a unified, this is what is happening. what we saw from the report is that the climate crisis is not something that we need to be worried about happening in 20 to 30 years, it is something that is happening right now, and we are seeing the consequences of the failure of governments for acting for decades. we need to have action now if we have any chance of really staving off the worst of the climate consequences. already this year we have seen the ice storm in texas knocking
8:50 am
out power for weeks. we have seen heat waves in oregon, and washington kill hundreds of people, and now happening today is the second largest wildfire in california history, the dixie fire. it has already destroyed nearly 1000 structures. what the report laid out was that this is not unprecedented. this is not is what is only going to be happening, but it will be getting worse unless we take transformational action and change what we are doing. host: one of the line says it is "unequivocal that human interference has warmed the land and ocean. the scale of recent changes across the climate system as a whole and the present state are unprecedented. human-induced climate change is affecting many weather and climate extremes in every region across the globe."
8:51 am
if that is happening, what is the resolve? guest: we can do something. we have not missed our moment, that i will say the window is closing in the report makes very clear that we have a narrow window of opportunity if we are going to stave off the worst of the consequences. what that means is that we need, here in the united states, congress to take action. for too long it has been a political football. we have not had the ambition, we have not had the will to do what is necessary, and that is to take steps to really create this clean energy future, this clean energy economy that we know will not only keep our economy growing, but will set us up to be sustainable and to have -- to be resilient in the face of what is now mounting challenges. host: lori lodes with group climate power.
8:52 am
202-748-8001 group -- for republicans. 202-748-8000, democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. you can text us at 202-748-8003. the editors of "the wall street journal" took a look at the report and said "the report said the earth was warmed by 1.1 degree celsius since the last half of the cell theory -- century. this is not a pop lactic. especially co2, continue to increase. guest: i am not sure why "the wall street journal" editorial board thinks they know more than leading scientists. this is a political issue for them and it should not be. we cannot afford to continue to ignore the science. ignore the warnings, and not take action. there is no other choice, but to
8:53 am
act and to act immediately. i think "the wall street journal" has their political orders that they are making sure of, which means doing everything they can to make the problem seem like it does not need to be dealt with when the reality is that we know we have no other choice. host: turning to the reconciliation package being debated, because there are several elements that deal with climate issues directly, just to share them, the requirements of the electric utility sector to generate 80% of power from clean energy sources, clean energy tax incentive, polluter fees, electrify the federal vehicle fleet and create a civilian climate core. if these were put into place, what difference does it make and where do you go from here? guest: it will make a huge difference if we are able to
8:54 am
scale up clean energy at the speed of science. if he -- if we are able to make the critical clean energy tax credits that we need to invent energy innovation come to bring about the scale we need to cut pollution and emissions that are warming our climate, then we will take the action necessary to cut emissions, which will mean that we are one step closer to really doing what is necessary to meet the science. one of the other important things that is part of the reconciliation package is the 100% clean electricity payment plan. that is setting up this future so by 2035 the nation will be running on 100% clean electricity. that is a monumental step to really lowering the emissions and meeting the standards host:
8:55 am
host: that are necessary. what makes that achievable as far as science and technology is concerned? guest: the government, but i should say congress actually taking action. and setting up the foundation on what we need to do to make sure that we are able to scale up, and that we are able to really create new industries. we need battery power that lasts longer and allows cars to go even longer and faster, and cleaner. and so, a lot of this is about investing in the innovation we need to really make these changes sustainable and lasting. host: this is lori lodes of climate power who serves as their executive director. the first call is david from charleston, west virginia. democrats' line. go ahead.
8:56 am
caller: it is kind of simple. if the united states goes electric like you all are wanting it to, what about the rest of the world? how is just this country going all electric and emissions free and all of that stuff going to impact the rest of the world because you are not going to force china or russia to switch if they do not want to. so it seems like you are a little bit off on your planning. guest: thank you for the question. i think the reality is that other countries are taking action already. honestly, right now america is not leading the way, that is what president biden has set out to do is to show the world leadership once again. and, we need to take the action that others are not taking. you are correct that china and russia have a lot that they need
8:57 am
to do that we need to start -- but we need to start here and what can we do. it is important to know that china is developing a lot of clean energy that we need. they know that it is the way of the future, so they are making the investments the manufacturer more electric vehicles, to build the solar arrays that we need. and so what we need to do is invest in the american economy and invest in american manufacturing so we not only catch up to where the others are, but we once again are leading and showing what that leadership could look like and setting a standard. host: which country has far is china is concerned, specifically what are they doing, what other countries are leading the way when it comes to this issue? guest: that is a really good question. what you have seen in european countries is setting a standard for what is possible.
8:58 am
so, including germany and france really setting out standards that are ambitious. china, as i said, they are not necessarily doing what they need to do because they are burning a lot of coal, but what they are also doing is investing in clean manufacturing, electric vehicles, or developing solar panels, so what we really need to do, as i said is what can we do to jumpstart the american economy and bring manufacturing back to the united states and really investing in that clean energy technology that will not only create jobs in the future but right now. host: it should be noted that " the wall street journal" takes a look at the u.k. and highlight the fact that in the u.k. about 25% of their power is produced by wind power. guest: right. and i am not sure -- i trust that that is correct, so i think
8:59 am
there is a lot that we need to do to be investing in wind power and solar power so that we are moving to that 100% electricity standard. host: is it achievable to replace whatever runs on petroleum with alternative sources of energy? guest: absolutely, but i do not think this is an immediate sort of step. this is something that we will be working towards over years and decades to really get it right so that there is not about turning off a light and then all of a sudden we have switched over. this is a process that has to be equitable and taken into consideration of the existing industries and what we need for the transition. host: randy from michigan. caller: goodi would like to stay thanking you and all the men and women that it takes to bring us
9:00 am
this program and your guest for being here on this subject. my question is, i agree that something has to be done, but how do we stop volcanoes? they put out more co2 than anything. let's not forget some of the smaller countries like india. they are not doing nothing. the third world countries. what about our oil-producing nations, the uae in saudi arabia? i lived out in the country. i have eight miles to get to a gas station. i will not do electric and i am not going to do wind on a car. so that there's still going to be gas, because i have to haul sugar beans and corn, i have to get cattle to the market. thank you. but good luck with your project? guest: thank you, sir. you bring up a very important points, which is that emissions are happening, some of the
9:01 am
things are beyond our control. but there is a lot that is within our control. and so what can we do to help -- to make sure that we are not leaving future generations without real choices for when that future -- for what that future could look like. that is where we are fighting every single day to make sure that congress passes a bill that takes the climate action that we know is necessary to control what we know we can't control. you mentioned electric vehicles, gas powered vehicles are the number one driver of emissions. that is something that we can do something about. we can get electrical vehicle prices lower by investing in making sure the technology is more durable and longer lasting, so that that eight miles is not so far away. completely understand how things
9:02 am
work on the farm, but i do believe that there are innovations every single day to make it easier and more likely that you will be able to farm in a way that is, that takes into account the emissions, as well as setting on that path toward electricity. host: the new york times takes a look at the topic and makes this point saying, a high-end tesla model s x is more than $80,000. on the low-end, as chevrolet volt starts at less than $30,000. they also make the fact that the federal tax credit can lower the sticker price by as much as $3500 but it no longer applies to tesla and general motors metals. are electrical vehicles going to be cost prohibitive for most people?
9:03 am
guest: that is what we have to make sure they are not. if we make the investments necessary to really build up technology -- one of the most expensive parts of an electric vehicle is the battery. there are huge advances being made here in this country as well as around the world to make the batteries lighter, cheaper, to make them run longer what we absolutely need -- we need to get the price went down so it is an affordable option for folks. we also need to make sure the charging infrastructure is there , so that they know they don't have to worry about how far they are driving, and that there is a available wherever they are going. there are steps that we can take that are very common sense, to make electric vehicles more cost-effective for consumers. the other thing that i think is important to point out is, you
9:04 am
don't have the gasoline bills, or the gas prices for electric vehicles. there are benefits to electric vehicles outside of even -- where people over the lifespan of a car are paying less than an electric car. host: next caller, daniel, good morning. caller: lori, i have a question for you this morning. in your presentation, you mentioned that we have to act, with congressional action, to take care of this problem with the narrow window that we have. i am assuming you are telling the average american citizen that this congress we have now
9:05 am
and the current administration, and past congresses that have handled items such as the border, afghanistan, the pandemic, in essence, congressional action that has mishandled practically every issue in the last two decades. you are depending upon them to take action that is going to have any kind of effect upon the worldwide climate? how stupid do you think the average american citizen phase. host: ok, we will let her respond to that. guest: i think the average american citizen is very smart. it is why three quarters the american voters believe there needs to be climate action as part of this reconciliation package. the bipartisan infrastructure
9:06 am
deal which will be voted on in a couple of hours today has foundational pieces that modernize the grid, that replace lead pipes. this is concrete action that congress is taking that is going to make a difference now, and that has 72% support, including republican support. when you are talking about the reconciliation package and going further on climate, doing more to actually take climate action that will lower emissions, that has 75% support, including 51% support from republicans. bipartisan, common-sense solutions. so i ask you, the republicans are very smart and they know that we have no choice.
9:07 am
host: when you hear democrats like senator manchin in the senate expressed concerns or ask questions about climate change provisions within the legislation, what would you say to him and others who might share those same concerns? guest: i completely understand where senator manchin is coming from. west virginia has a long history of coal, and he is rooting for his constituents. how does he grow the west virginia economy? but what we know and what he knows, because i know he's aware of it, is that clean energy is driving the industry in west virginia. you have a lot of solar and wind projects being stood up. so i do think senator manchin and other senators are very aware of the challenges we face. so it is really about, what can we do to take the action that is
9:08 am
necessary, and what does that look like right now. senator manchin has been very clear, he does not have any doubts that climate change exists. he is looking for solutions that make sense for his state. host: a twitter viewer asks the question do you and your group support rapid development of nuclear fusion energy? guest: so, what we are focused on is how do we create the space for bold action to happen? so it is not for us about one specific policy, but, how are we setting up the possibility for renewable energy, for that clean electricity by 2035, for there to be cleaner electric vehicles and to modernize the grid. what are we doing to lower emissions? that is what we're focused on
9:09 am
everyday, making sure we are talking about what is possible and how we can get there. host: from tennessee on our independent line, can't. hello --kent, hello. caller: i would like to ask lori, i have been listening to her presentation and earlier she mentioned about 235 scientists behind them on all that. i think she needs to be a little more honest with the people. i think for every scientist who believes in all of this climate change, you can find another one who does not. i just think it is being very dishonest not bringing that up. i would also like to make a comment that several times during the presentation that she has been doing, she keeps bringing up the term investment. what that is is tax on the american citizens. that is you getting into somebody's pocket, and i don't appreciate that.
9:10 am
thank you for your time. host: thank you for calling. guest: 96% of scientists agree that climate change is real, that it is human caused. there is not a scientist for every scientist. . the science is real, it cannot be denied. i don't think i am being dishonest, because i am actually telling it exactly like it is. the other point -- can't remember what he said at the end. host: he was saying that these efforts eventually are a tax on the people and the people have to pay for it. guest: thank you. the reconciliation package that we are talking about -- thank you for that, pedro -- is that it is paid for. paid for by making sure that the wealthiest americans are paying their fair share, and that the big corporations who helped get
9:11 am
us into this mess are also paying their fair share. so this is not about taxing people like you, kent, unless you make over $400,000, which you might. this is about making sure that the wealthiest in the country are paying their fair share for taking this action. host: from california, this is wanda democrats line for lori lewis of -- lori lodes of climate power. caller: lori is the perfect example of why free college -- this has been predicted since 1970, and nothing has come. -- none of it has come true yet. maybe you should consult other places besides your professors, like climate depot.
9:12 am
and did you know that some of those people are just dentists and psychologists who agree in general with your climate predictions? host: that is wanda in california. guest: there is a historic drought happening in california and across the west. one of the biggest reservoirs in northern california is drying up, and it will have to go off-line for a while. as i said at the beginning, the dixie fire has destroyed nearly 1000 structures. it has burned a couple hundred thousand acres at this point, i think i am way off on that, and it is only 22% contained. california, more than most, you can see the impact of climate change by looking out your
9:13 am
windows. if you go to montana, the drought there is destroying an industry for montana. it is hurting the crops. the drought levels are extreme. they have had to pooling their national guard to fight the fires. -- to pool in their national guard to fight the fires. . this is what is happening every single day because we have failed to act at this point. host: what argument would you make that to the degree of things that have to be done in order to reverse the gradual warming of the climate what has to be done to cause that reversal and is the reversal even possible at this point? guest: i think one of the things that was clear from the ipcc report yesterday is that it is possible, but we have to do it now and we have to get it right
9:14 am
and that means taking transformational action. we need to lower emissions. there are folks out there who think, were climate advocates, who talk about pollution sort of creating this blanket that is warming the earth. the report yesterday noted it has gone up almost two degrees fahrenheit since 1900 and the preindustrial age and that it will keep on increasing unless we are able to lower the emissions. so that means investing in a clean energy economy. it means getting people back to work right now who have the skills and who are ready to get back to work, to help lower those emissions by building they -- by building a clean energy future. i know there are skeptics out there who think that everyday we are presented with new, extreme events that are making it very clear that we can only do one
9:15 am
thing and that is to act, and we cannot wait another two months or six months or two years, because it will be too late. we have to take action now. host: jason is in falls church, virginia on the democrats line. good morning. caller: this is my first time coming on to talk to a cult leader but i am thankful for this opportunity. i want to say that your argument is un falsifiable. nothing you say can be falsified. you are saying that droughts are proof, snowstorms are proof, wildfires are proof. basically everything proves your point. also when you said that 96% of scientists agree -- that is a lie, a talking point that came from a paper in 2013. actually, if you look at that
9:16 am
paper, only two thirds of the scientists in the paper actually took a position on climate change. what it was was speculating about climate change and just predicting whether or not they thought that humans might have some influence. only two thirds of the scientists in that paper actually took a position on it. when you keep making these claims that are hyperbolic, you are extremely vague. and you are saying the only thing that will fix the climate is taking more power. you are not doing anything to provide any real solutions to these problems. you are just scaring people and saying, well, if you give us more power, we will fix things. we have been hearing this same stuff for decades and decades and decades of, we have a small window, if we don't fix this, the icecaps are going to melt and we will be flooded. we only have 10 years, we only have five years. it is just a lie. host: that is jason in falls church. ms. lodes, go ahead.
9:17 am
guest: i think the facts do not lie. the science does not lie. the science has never been as clear as it is that climate change is here and it is a crisis. i am not trying to scaremongering. i am -- i am not trying to scaremonger. i am talking about what i see when a look at the window. climate change is disrupting people's lives. it is disrupting my life because my son has not been able to go to daycare because of the rainfall from hurricane elsa. it is affecting my colleagues' life in california, who cannot go outside because the air is so smoky. it is affecting my other friends' life in montana, who cannot leave the house. this is something that people are dealing with. i am trying to get us to do
9:18 am
something. this is a huge opportunity. we can invest right now, create millions of good-paying jobs in small towns and big cities across the country, and guess what, we do that, we can also tackle climate change. and that is amazing. we have this huge moment and i just don't want us to miss it. i have a little son who in 20 years will be 23 years old. what is his future going to look like if we don't take action right now? based on what we are seeing, we know how extreme it is going to get. host: assuming the infrastructure bill passes and the reconciliation package does pass when it comes to efforts on climate change what is next for the administration on this if there are no steps when it comes to the topic? guest: there will always be next steps. this is never going to be one,
9:19 am
it will need not only the government to act, but the corporations to continue to step up and do more. we need to catch up and recognize the danger climate change poses to our economic stability and economic future. there is always going to be more that we need to do and things that we can do to reach our goals, but also take the action that is necessary to make the transition easier for everyone in our country. host: from manchester, ron. go ahead. caller: good morning to you all. ok, i wanted to put in a word for sources of energy. first of all, my house is mostly built on concrete and steel. the northside is built into the
9:20 am
backside of a hill and the backside is about 80% glass. even here in michigan, during the winter, a little bit of sun goes along, long way. i don't burn any combustibles in this house at all, not at all. plus, the geothermal path of energy, because it is built into the hill and because of the concrete, it is like -- they did not use this kind of stuff in the -- they have been using this kind of stuff in the northwest of africa for years. during the day it warms. the masonry soaks up the heat and gives it back off at night. . it works really great. and then, even my sewer system. i have to have electricity to run the pump, but i don't have to pump nec which, i use gravity for that.
9:21 am
there is a lot to be said for passive energy sources. can't be done everywhere, but i think there could be a significant amount of savings by doing this. so i went to sq, please comment on that -- i want to ask you, please comment on that. guest: thank you, ron. you are right, there is a lot of stuff that people can take individually to, like you are saying, through other energy sources or passive. you are making a real difference in doing your part. i think one of the things that is important is individuals to do what they can do, but, at the end of the day, for this type of structural reform that we are going to need, it is going to require the government to step in and to really make the investments we need in our country and in our future generation.
9:22 am
i commend you and appreciate the work that you're doing. host: as far as individuals who are willing to go as far as he describes how much of this reversal that you want to see when it comes to climate change and temperatures rising depends on each individual doing something? guest: honestly, there is a lot people can do. you can electrify your house and it will save you thousands of dollars. but, at the end of the day, i really do think this is not about one person. this is about the government taking action, the corporations taking action to really set us on the right path, because everybody can do their part. this will take monumental action and transformational change to be able to do what we need to do. host: james in lancaster, virginia on the republican line.
9:23 am
caller: good morning, pedro. i disagree. this country is split 50-50. there is just a percentage of people who believe what she is saying. if they go out and get an electric vehicle, there will be a change. you have china and islands of the china sea. if they thought it would be flooding in 15 years, do you think they would be making billions of dollars in investment, or building full firing plants ellipticity? -- four electricity? this is what we did for the soviet union. we simply outspent them. we are encouraging china to do the same thing. the roads are made up of 80% of fossil material. what about bridges? >> what about steel? no bridges? everything electric?
9:24 am
this is totally ridiculous. host: ok, james in virginia. guest: so, the cool thing is that there are a lot of really smart people working hard every single day to figure that out, how do we make carbon-free steel, how do we make concrete, long-range aviation fuel that saves and has no emissions? i am really excited. you know, we put a man on the moon -- the united states has really led, american ingenuity is a core part of that. you are right. there are a lot of things right now that our fossil-fuel dependent, but there is also a huge amount of people putting, working every day to figure out how to change that? what is possible? that is what gets me excited, is
9:25 am
there is there much that we need to do but that future is exciting if we are able to make the right investments in it happening. host: from washington democrats line, this is jean. caller: thanks for having me on. i just think that so much of the conversation would in effect from a really strong factual basis. i just completed reading the book by a scientist. she writes about how we got climate change and where we go from here. it is critical to consider that the u.s. has made most of the energy in the last 50 years by burning fossil fuels. just taking the dependency of the u.s. on fossil fuels and sitting with that is critical. we are in need of transformation. the revolution in values has to come along with it.
9:26 am
this is not a technical fix situation. we have to consider how rv living in our that is undermining -- we have to consider, how are we living in a way that is undermining our ideals? we have to take that in. the science is very clear on this. the most recent warming trend of just a degree fahrenheit over the last 30 years is not something scientists are fighting about. the author says, trust me, scientists will fight about anything. so, for the audience out there who is questioning whether the science is in agreement that climate change is real, put that to rest. scientists completely agree on this. host: jean, thank you. lori lodes, go ahead. guest: i completely agree, the science is there. we have already increased 2 degrees fahrenheit over the past 100 or so years, and that is
9:27 am
going to keep on getting worse. and i do agree with the caller that we need to have effect-based conversation. fossil fuels are the reason why climate change is happening, and it is why we have to do more to move to a electricity, clean energy space as soon as possible, and that if we don't take that action, we will be left with the consequences. i think the caller brings up a really important point. it is not an extreme weather event. the increased pollution causes asthma. that is where we have increased rates of asthma across the country, particularly in front-line communities who are dealing with decades of legacy
9:28 am
pollution that has destroyed their communities not only day today. i think we need to be having effect with good decision about what is happening and how we deal with it. host: lori lodes serves as executive director of climate power. we thank you for your time today. guest: thank you so much, pedro. host: for the remainder of the program until 10:00, we will participate in an open forum. you can comment on what you have seen so far this morning you can comment on the infrastructure bill, or other issues that are important to you. democrats, 202-748-8000, republicans, 202-748-8001, and independents 202-748-8002.
9:29 am
we will start right after this. ♪ >> he is could credited with creating some of the world's best fictional characters, over 2000, for that matter, scattered throughout his 14 and have published novels. american authors, journalists, and politicians often refer to situations as dickensian. kenny hartley, emeritus professor, has published three books on charles dickens, the most recent one titled "a very short introduction" by hartford press. we asked professor hartley to thomas about christopher dickens' life and accomplishments including his trips to the united states in 1842 and in 1867. >> author jenny hartley, on this episode of booknotes+.
9:30 am
listen on, or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪ weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. explore events and our nation's past. american history tv. on sunday, book tv gives you the latest of nonfiction authors. television for serious readers. learn, discover, explore, this weekend on c-span2. "washington journal continues. host: again, it is open forum until the 10:00 hour. the house is set to come in on a pro forma session. you can go to her website at
9:31 am and you can also follow along if you download and listen to c-span radio app. what other people at the forefront of the is -- the infrastructure debates with senator kyrsten sinema. she was on the floor yesterday talking about the infrastructure bill to be voted on. [video clip] rarely does legislation so directly address issues that matter to all of our constituents, and rarer still visit our broad support in both parties. how many times have we heard in recent months that bipartisanship is not possible anymore? we have been asked to accept a new standard by which important policy can only come together on a party line, and while americans are more united than our politics would have you believe, we certainly face divisions. unfortunately, it is now commonplace, and by some, even expected for elected leaders to feed those divisions on a daily basis with extreme and
9:32 am
hyperbolic rhetoric, all or nothing policy demands, and toxic partisan attacks. palace intrigue and insider drama often steal the spotlight from important policy issues. but i promised arizonans something different. . i chose instead to for the example of the late senator john mccain, who refused to demonize the opposition party and worked to reach bipartisan agreement to try to bring the country together. host: you can hear those comments and more from yesterday he will probably hear a lot more leading up to the vote today. again c-span2 is where you can watch that. the cnbc website highlights the fact that house speaker nancy pelosi has said she will not take up the infrastructure bill or democrats'proposal to expand the safety net until both of them pass.
9:33 am
congress supports a plan to refresh american roads, railways, public transit, and broadband. . congress for years. to agree on an infrastructure plan, which supporters in both parties said will boost the economy and create jobs. we should be some of the highlights from the reconciliation bill, which included establishing universal pre-k for three and four-year-olds, expanding the child tax credit and earned income tax credit, a federal medical and family leave benefit. it would require the utility sector to generate 80% of power from clean energy sources by 2030, also providing green cards to millions of immigrant workers and families. those were just a few of the pages released. you can read them for yourself online. jim starts us off in missouri, democrats line.
9:34 am
go ahead. caller: good morning. as revolting as the voter suppression legislation passing in republican states is, having the vote actually count is the key. we need majority rule. hillary clinton one, in 2016 bay 3 million votes. what is wrong with majority rule ? our state has become a dictatorship. the governor was replaced without any vote of the people. the legislature did it. we passed medical marijuana with a choice of three amendments. all three legalized medical marijuana. it was a done deal before voters ever got the vote.
9:35 am
just recently, the citizens voted for medicaid expansion. we voted for legislation, but the governor says, no, we will not do what you say. we have to have majority rule or we are lost. host: that is jim in missouri. we will hear next from paul in west virginia, republican line. caller: hi, pedro. host: hi. caller:. caller: the lady that was on just recently on the climate change thing, a lot of people don't understand that all of these charging stations across the country are backed up with coal. the people on the other side don't want us to mine coal. they want to put all of this in the infrastructure bill, but
9:36 am
what it comes down to is it is just a tax. it is just a tax. it is our money being spent. and on the climate thing, if you look at history, in the revolutionary war, it is in paper, ok, that it was over 100 degrees for a week in new jersey, in the middle of summer. a mini ice age -- you can read a book that is called "the summer that ever was." this is not stuff that we can do. it is god's will. we can't change india, we can't change china. people don't realize, this is an idea. a dream. they can't get rid of the wind power blades. they can't get rid of them now. host: ok, that is all in west virginia. when it comes to the debate over infrastructure, senator chuck grassley of iowa puts out a tweet saying, there is no
9:37 am
mileage tax or amnesty in the bipartisan senate infrastructure bill and it does not raise taxes. he kept those things out. my focus is investing in infrastructure which includes roads, bridges, locks and dams, airports, rural broadband, et cetera. this bill does that. we will see how it plays out with the vote expected today. james in maryland on the democrats line, hello. caller: the guy before actually made a good point talking about the year without the summer. a lot of people, when they talk about global warming, whatever you want to call it now, a lot of people don't talk about geo-engineering, stratospheric aerosol injections, solar radiation management. none of these things are brought into the conversation. host: ok. why do you think it needs to be? caller: because all of those are
9:38 am
factors -- i mean, you have clouds -- in front of hurricanes, you will have harder rain. it will dump down on a small area. just that alone should be brought into the conversation. host: james in maryland commenting. one of the pieces of news coming out this morning takes a look at information from the 2020 census, this is from the washington post, saying that for the first time in the history of census-taking, the number of white people in the dale: is expected to show a decline. for five years now, the census bureau has estimated that the nation's's white population is shrinking. but all population growth has been from people of color. the new census data planned for release on august 12 will show definitively how the ethnic racial and voting age makeup of neighborhoods shifted in the past decade. it is the data most state and local governments use to redraw
9:39 am
political districts for the next 10 years. if the data is confirmed, the benchmark will have, much earlier than predicted. more on that available at the washington post. from new jersey, democrats line, i think first name is captain? go-ahead. caller: yes, it is captain. i wanted to just comment on the use of hydropower or hydroelectricity. ocean currents, the movement of rivers, and have this nonpolluting source of energy is growing around the world. it is a force of nature that we have at our fingertips which we probably need to make more use of and probably invest more of our money into, looking at the future of hydropower. thank you. host: bob in atlanta, georgia, democrats line. hi. caller: thanks for
9:40 am
answering. i was calling earlier, i meant to call when you were talking about the infrastructure bill. the thing is, in world war ii, at one point, we put out a note every 10 days at there in the east coast -- a boat. so many boats that hitler could not sink them enough. that is what did it all, you know? host: bob in atlanta. when it comes to immigration, in the politics sector of the washington times this morning, talking about migrant populations falling within the first years of the trump administration, saying "the number of illegal immigrants found by 400 40,000 over the
9:41 am
first few years of the trump administration, from 2016-2019, according to numbers released last week. the tally for 3.5 million according to the center for immigration studies, the lowest rate in 50 years. that dropped driven by a major change in the migration patterns, with mexicans normally the largest nationality in unauthorized population returning to their home country. there is more on that report if you go to the washington times. we will hear next from dennis in rapid city, south dakota, democrats line. hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. when it comes to infrastructure, i have had several close calls with bridges, one in minnesota and one in arkansas, because of a barge knocking down two bridges. the earthquake in california during the '89 world series.
9:42 am
and after hurricanes, i drove on temporary bridges. i had thousands of miles when i retired at the age of 67. i went in 48 cities and 68 provinces, so i know a little bit about infrastructure. host: when you were driving to specifically change your route to avoid a bridge? caller: oh, yes. the cb radio saved my life and number of times. host: how so? caller: people told me about it before i got there. you never know when something is happening ahead of you. if you don't have a cb radio, nowadays people use it for gossip. when you are running in fog, you need to know what is going on ahead of you, because of big pileups. host: dennis in rapid city south dakota. let's hear from joe in illinois. go-ahead.
9:43 am
caller: we heard the person from the cato institute. . he was talking about infrastructure. 25% of the budget. the rest of it is in there. everybody wants to save the child -- the child. if they had not killed them in abortions, we would have enough to take care of everything, but that is not my point. the schools today are dumbing down the students. for instance, in oregon, you have an idea that they don't have to have masks or they don't have to have reading to graduate. that is where the pool of our politicians comes from, from our schools. if they don't know how to read and they don't know anything about masks, they should before to go to the cato institute
9:44 am
running a political forum,'s seminar on politics for the politicians. . if they don't pass it, those politicians should then resign. host: ok. joe in illinois. let's go to conrad in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i just wanted to talk about the two major weather modification programs the government currently has. one i participated with back in the days of vietnam. it is called chemtrails. we used that in ho chi minh trail, johnson couldn't stop the chinese from supplying the troops in south vietnam, so we wound up trying to slow them down by making it rain 24 hours a day, seven days a week. it was called operation popeye. you can look it up. host: john in new york.
9:45 am
democrats line. hello. john in new york? caller: yes. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: i need to make a request to our supreme court, that donald trump is not above the law. every time he comes up, he stops it for some reason or another. he is not above the law. he should be prosecuted for all the things he has done. thank you. host: john in new york, calling on this open forum. the house and senate are set to go into a pro forma session at 10:00. we will take you to the house when they do that. the senate, as we have been telling you all morning, is set
9:46 am
to vote on that infrastructure bill. you can watch it on c-span2. majority leader chuck schumer also taking time to talk about that $3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. here is some of what he had to say yesterday. [video clip] >> divisions in our country and politics today have their roots in the decline of economic mobility. american people don't expect one piece of legislation to solve all our nation's ills, no single law can do that, but we have to start in a bold and strong way, rebuilding the basic social contract for middle-class american families and for everyone struggling to get there. a promise of equal opportunity and equality. help americans stay in the middle class. building letters to help others climb into that middle-class, and, at its core, that is what this is all about. and we are going to take the first steps towards passing it, very, very soon. host: again, senator chuck
9:47 am
schumer from yesterday. let's hear from mike, republican line from philadelphia. hello. caller: sir, i just want to -- with ballots being stolen from trump, it has everybody fighting for it. i am a registered republican, you can check that out. he is a disgrace to our country. he has not taken a question on it or defendant himself yet, spoke up about it. nobody asks him a question about it and he goes on with the same old rhetoric about how great he was for our country. host: what would you ask him, then? caller: i would love to know where he was at when it happened. what did he do? he sat there silent and watched it. if he did not, speak out and see what he was doing. where is the proof? there is a lot of reports.
9:48 am
he was watching, enjoying it. god forbid it was a black lives matter, that would've never went that far. you get the vice president and he doesn't say nothing question work it's a disgrace. host: mike from philadelphia. we will hear next from nina in new jersey, republican line. caller: we did that already. you put me on hold. host: nina from new jersey, you are on now. yes, you are. caller: ok. . host: you are on television, nina question or comment? caller: i am calling about senior citizens -- oh. host: nina, you are listening to the television and it is a bit of a delay. ignore the television and go ahead.
9:49 am
caller: ok, thank you. . pedro, good morning. i am a senior citizen. i worked all my life. i raised -- ok -- i can't hear you. host: we are hearing you. just go ahead and continue your thoughts, please. caller: ok. i thought i would hear pedro. hello? host: nina, i will put you on hold, and then can we come back to her so that you can turn down your television, that we we can come back and let you finish your thought? nina, if you would do that for us, we would appreciate it. gets here from james -- let's listen to james, pennsylvania. go ahead. caller: good morning. i think illegal immigration problem is a republican and democrat problem, that they don't care. they are bringing people in for cheap labor.
9:50 am
we have covid on the rise because of it, and the independents are going to step up and kick these people out. we need to do our research to find out who is for illegal immigration and who is against it and we need to vote them out, because they are breaking the law. host: ok. that is james in west virginia giving us a call. another james joins us, from florida, independent line. hello. caller:. host: good morning. host: hi. caller: good morning. i have been listening to both sides. i would like to know why this administration gets a pass on everything. they will not answer any questions unless it is from a certain side of the media. they are not held accountable for anything. i just had to say that. please, the media needs to hold this administration accountable. look what happened in china.
9:51 am
they get a pass. this is not fair to the people of this country. the immigrants, coming across this border, just flowing across the border. i feel bad for all these people, that they need to come across it and we need to know who they are, not let them go into all of these cities with covid and just spread this disease everywhere. thank you for your time. host: that is james on our independent line. let's go back to nina, from new jersey. are you there? caller:? caller: i am here. host: go ahead. caller: ok, i am calling about the senior citizens in this country. i feel that they have been totally neglected. nobody is helping us. we are on fixed incomes. i retired when i was 73. i am 77 years old now. i still pay rent. i still have to put gas in the
9:52 am
car, still have to go grocery shopping. i am sure my rent will go up soon too. i don't know why president biden has not brought about the senior citizens in this country. i raised a couple of kids. host: what exactly are you looking for him to do? caller: to consider us! he has got all this money for the illegals that are coming in, but what about us? what about senior citizens? i worked all my life and i don't see anything going up in our social security income. you know? we are still getting hit with all the bills. i still have to pay my gas and electric, still have to pay rent, still have to go grocery shopping, put gas in my car, you know, pay car insurance, and there is nothing.
9:53 am
he is just not thinking about us. i don't know why this president is ignoring us. host: that is nina in new jersey giving us a call on this open forum. thank you, nina for fixing your television issues. again, if you're on hold, if you don't mind muting your television, that way you can keep the conversation going. when it comes to the issue of jobs, the wall street journal this morning is taking a look at unfulfilled job openings. a journalist writing, saying that those openings rose by 590,000, to a seasonally adjusted 10.1 in june, the highest level since recordkeeping began in 2000 according to the labor department. driven by industries such as professional and business services, retail and accommodation, and food services. as pandemic restrictions continued to ease and consumers were more willing to dine out and travel. they say the number of job openings in june exceeded the 9.5 million people who were
9:54 am
employed that month -- were unemployed that month. to be counted as unemployed, a person must be available and looking for work. on wall street journal website is where you can find that. in texas, the republican line, hi. caller: hello. host: you are on, go ahead. caller: my opinion on trump is he has done more for america than the rest of these politicians have done in the last 50 years, because all they wanted to do is line their pockets. trump brought america back. all the countries that owed us money for the last 50 years, he made them pay their bills, cough up. they owed us for the last 50 years. and, he is the only one that has done anything actually for america. host: ok. caller: to help our country. host: that is daniel.
9:55 am
where is stanford located in texas? caller: north of abilene. host: ok. thank you for the call. joe from laredo on the democrats line, hello. caller: yes, sir. i voted for mr. donald trump. with all due respect, god bless america and god bless donald trump. let me tell you what is going on on the border here, 60% of the people crossing are positive. nobody is saying nothing. they are releasing them all over the country. if my parents had to wait in line, what happened to this country? we had to wait in line to come into the country. i had to learn english. i speak spanish better. i think in spanish. ok? i don't think what they are doing right now, i don't think it is illegal, but it is not right. how can you spread? what we have is a problem on the
9:56 am
border. we need to have these people come down here. we need to have some kind of respect. you can't have people running around wild. that's ridiculous. i appreciate mr. donald trump. god bless him and his family for everything they did for us. host: ok. let's hear from larry, on the democrats line, a floridian. hello. you are on. caller: i am sorry. i have a solution for climate change. when they were talking about with joe manchin and west virginia, a lot of the people talk about that they lost their jobs as far as coal wise close. if they would retrain them to work with wind power, that would help them a lot, in my opinion. based on what they have as far as generations. it would give them another avenue to earn money and keeps them going on that end. in my opinion, with the filibuster, they should do away with the filibuster, with anything that violates the constitution i.e. with the
9:57 am
voting rights act, the 14th and 15th of moment guards the voting rights act. anything that goes against the constitution, there should be no filibuster. it should be just a simple majority. thank you for taking my call. host: larry in florida. the new york times highlights that a lawsuit brought against the biden administration due to my grandchildren, it describes shocking deplorable conditions at two emergency shelters in texas to help out the record number of children caught crossing the border. it is based on reports from whistleblowers who have worked at the shelter. one is based at a military base in el paso, as well as legal advocates. a 1977 court directive decreed that my grandchildren are to be transferred to a state licensed shelter with specific standards and requirements for care, including education and recreational activities within three days of being taken into government custody. many of the conditions described
9:58 am
-- plaintiffs say they found the motion at the beginning of the pandemic. " the president of the children's advocacy organization kids in need of defense, saying that these allegations do not reflect the direction that this administration has aspired to." you will find that reporting this morning in the new york times. a gang of 20 republicans coming out against the bipartisan infrastructure bill. senator mike braun saying, ", "i cannot in good conscience support this administration in its final form." he is up for reelection in south dakota next year. . those are the names as far as coming out against it. . you will see that play out in the senate side today as the vote is set to take place. just about time for the house to come in for its pro forma session. this is lorna from virginia. we are about to go to the house session. go ahead, please. caller: hi. how are you.
9:59 am
host: fine, thank you. caller: good. i am a combat veteran, and i had several diagnoses. it landed me in homelessness and in shelters. one of the things -- there are two major things in the list of advocacy work that i do, but one conversation that is the hardest for me to hear is anything other than why we have housing first on the table and we continue to make it something that is not bipartisan. and because we don't like who is running it, we don't pass it. as somebody who was homeless, i did not need food, counseling or drug rehabilitation, i needed housing first. the shelters that i landed in were terrible. the military solution for that is not adequate. to me, as long as we continue to say make america great again, if we don't include housing, women, and children and our veterans as
10:00 am
a top priority -- second thing is a work suicide prevention. the power of words. one of the superspreader's ac is bullying -- one of the superspreaders ic -- host: survey to interrupt the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. august 10, 2021. i hereby appoint the honorable jennifer wexton to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by chaplain kibben. chaplain kibben: would you pray with me. holy god, grant us


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on