you have a chance at winning the $5,000 grand prize. for how to get>> c-span is yourd view of government. funded by these television companies and more including charter communication. >> broadband is a force for empowerment. that is why charter has invested billions tilting infrastructure, upgrading technology, powering opportunity in communities they can small. charter is connecting us. >> charter communications supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> a roundtable discussion now on climate change and the climate provisions in the massive spending bill making its through congress. joining us is in sera from the

league of conservation voters and heather, the executive director of citizens for responsible energy direction. this being the first time we have had your group on "washington journal." explain who you are and the issue of climate change. >> we are delighted to be here. the organization is focused on engaging republican lawmakers on climate issues. we are not denying the science. we very much agree that it is happening. where we disagree and how the democrats had approached climate change and lowering emissions, we have to help create good policies that will last over administrations. they have been organized for about eight years.

host: remind viewers to the league is, your approach and how you worked here on the issue of climate change. >> it is a pleasure to be on here. thank you for the invitation. we influence policy, we win elections. we are fighting for clean air, clean water, we have safe climate. we also work in partnership with a powerful network with states across the country. we are all in for this historic moment to tackle climate change to scale the science and justice. host: we will talk about these issues for this hour of the washington journal. democrats, (202) 748-8000,

republicans, (202) 748-8001, independents (202) 748-8002. the president's build back better plan has a lot in it when it comes to climate change. give us the broad outline here of the major proposals that are moving through congress. >> we are all in to make sure the build back better act that congress is debating now really fulfills the agenda the president laid out. the investments have to put us firmly on the path. that is the goal the president has embraced that we must put out in this legislation. the proposal is in play, the build back better act will do just that.

it is just two of the main drivers in this package. the first is the robust package of tax incentives. it is deploying between energy like wind and solar. they are making electric vehicles and making those more affordable for consumers across the country. investing in energy storage technology and transmission buildout. we need to revitalize our domestic factor here with the clean energy economy. that package of tax incentives will be paired with a really important come -- provision which is a combination to make sure utilities are taking on clean energy at the scale to meet climate goals. it looks like 80% clean energy by 2030. those provisions include grants to help make that transition in a way that helps workers and

consumers. host: now that the ways and means committee has finished up their work, was there anything that didn't make it in that you were hoping would make it in, does this go far enough? >> we are excited about the package on the electric vehicle space. the package that passed out from a clean energy standard and climate standard is incredibly strong. for us, it is the climate outcomes that we get. we are very excited about that package. it is in line with what the mitt -- ways and means committee could do. host: what do you make of the build back better act? is it a climate solution that will work? >> unfortunately not. as an advocate who wants to see

climate change solve, the build back better act is specifically looking at the climate provisions while there are some excellent tax provisions that we have been longtime supporters of , it is really concerning. overall, the bill is in trouble. it is in trouble because of the spending. the number, $3.5 trillion. it is in trouble because of the politics and dealing with the president's party. we are talking about moderates in both. looking to spend as much as we are. it is alarming about the collaboration or lack thereof. we are talking about overhauling the grid. how we have elected -- we have transparency and oversight into how that will happen.

just not a lot of thinking through what this will be. it seems like more of a political element than policymaking. host: what would be your solution? what would work. what would have the political ability to work and be a climate solution? >> the process is tough in recognizing the political motive where we are right now. we have a moment, we have to capture that. being able to work together, some of the margins are slim. using the process of reconciliation, this is single party. the reconciliation to be able to to make policy that is a

concern. getting to the substance, it really says a lot about what is going on within our own borders. not looking beyond the u.s. borders. to pollute under the paris agreement for the next 10 years, not keeping all of the above. eliminating natural gas in the united states. we do see offshore manufacturing in the united states. manufacturing can't afford to stay in the united states. we only want to emissions. this proposal will make it happen. host: you have been involved in some of the big climate proposals of the past that did

not make it through congress. have democrats learn the lesson here of trying to have the political will on capitol hill to move a very big climate bill? >> i have been at the league of conservation voters in 2009. we had a window of opportunity and they moment in time to pass comprehensive climate legislation. they have learned from the failure 12 years ago. we are all in to win. 12 years ago, climate change was a different -- different threat. the clean i mistreat -- energy industry was a promise. it is here and thriving. we also have a more robust and

powerful climate movement. we are working with environmental justice communities. the toxins released by that economy. they are demanding action. we are all in. we think members of congress are leaders in really unifying the agenda. it is good for the economy and jobs. it is very popular. the build back better act is made more popular. we tell voters about the critical investments. host: there is a very big bipartisan bill. could you talk about the climate

front that is in that bill? >> the energy solutions have been very supportive of the infrastructure built particularly because of the climate provision. one of the key factors we are very excited about is fully funding the energy act of 2020. creating an help to refocus the department of energy on all kinds of breakthrough technologies like energy storage and carbon capture. making demonstrations full-scale that would be used within the next 5-7 years. this is really exciting stuff. we think about the innovation of the united states. the entrepreneurs we have here, the innovators. this is where america is best. the infrastructure peace and funding that is still a long way. that is where you have -- it is interesting.

you have significant bipartisan support from republicans, democrats, supporting a bill. on the reconciliation bill you have solely democrats. that one-sided policymaking is super concerning to me. you see the lessons of 12 years ago. one of the reasons my organization was created is one-sided policymaking is not durable. well happen in two years, four years? the funding isn't necessarily there. we are talking about full-scale changes. these utilities plan 20-30 years out.

not for the electricity before the politics. it is super concerning. we don't want to be in the dark. we want it reliable, affordable. by all accounts, he looks like it will increase costs for american consumers, which is also very concerning. i can't emphasize enough the bipartisan nature and need for working with republicans. unfortunately the reconciliation package for build back better does not do that. host: put some numbers to the climate provisions there. $73 billion to modernize the electric rig, making communities more resilient, $21 billion on cleaning up toxic pollution. 7.5 billion dollars to build electric vehicle charging section -- stations.

>> we appreciate the hard work that went into the bipartisan infrastructure built. there are some important and good investments in that proposal. it is not the climate bill that we need. it does not meet the climate test. it fails to include major policies and investments. we support fully the investments that help enable this transition but when it comes to actually driving emission reductions, it just does not match up. host: callers year to join our session. st. petersburg florida, democrat, good morning. caller: climate change has been going on since the end of the last ice age. during the last ice age, ice was a half-mile thick. the great lakes were called out -- carved out by glacier

activities. host: bring us to 2021 and what you think it needs today. caller: i think it is all just a bunch of nonsense. host: you wouldn't support any new spending on climate solutions? caller: absolutely not. at the end of the last ice age, not one fossil fuel industry existed. host: we will stay on 2021. do you want to respond? >> i think it is important that we look at climate change and trust the scientists. the international scientific experts put out an assessment of the climate science. scientists are pretty conservative. they put out a call that climate

is here and now. we have to act. they called it a code red for humanity. it is important we roll up our sleeves and tackle this crisis. we are already seeing, harmful forest fires, try to do that in a way that helps. caller: good morning. i have several points i would like to ask. is there any type of mandate in this green new deal that ensures the products and what is needed to facilitate this is manufactured domestically? i could drive over the bridge every day and see wind turbine parts being imported from china. is there any type of mandates that will prevent these materials from being irresponsibly sourced from countries that exploit not only the people but the environments

to obtain the products for lithium batteries? finally, is there any push to realize that nuclear energy is probably the cleanest and safest warm of domestic energy and will this be implemented? host: a lot of questions, let's take them before we lose track of how many we've got. >> very important questions. thank you for your call. texas and all of the states generated a lot not just from the wind industry but also gas and oil. one of the problems with this proposal is it actually phases out natural gas. it will not be used. this is a major fuel used to reduce emissions over coal not just in the united states but is at fuel around the world for the next 30-40 years. that is number one. that means we will be importing other kinds of fuel if needed.

in terms of importing from china, the solar panels, that is what is happening right now. in addition to the energy storage people. also sourced from china. now talking about minerals from afghanistan. the problem a lot is they are not looking holistically about global emissions. they are looking at domestic emissions. domestic emissions are important. if the united states is emitting say 12% of all emissions worldwide, what about the other 88%? what do we do about that? what we do about exporting technology overseas? someone will choose having electricity in a developing basin. are we going to tell them, do they really take -- care where it comes from? they don't.

they just want electricity. we need to be clearheaded about what india will do. the same policies we have an indiana have to work in india. a sure bet is to export technology. host: how would you respond? caller: there are a lot -- >> there are a lot of provisions in the bill back better act. making sure that in the space, the country who is leading in clean energy will lead in the 21st century. the provisions make sure that we are supporting domestic clean energy manufacturing in communities that have suffered fromde-industrialization. making sure create high-quality new jobs and the sourcing responsibly when it comes to

minerals we have to have recycling to get this done right. we think this is a huge win for communities across the country and making sure we are putting people back to work in good manufacturing jobs. host: where is the lead on nuclear power? >> thanks for that question. nuclear power as a source of energy that if you look at it just from a climate perspective it looks pretty good. if you look at the whole lifecycle, there are real impacts from the sourcing uranium, to its waste and disposal. we are looking at transitioning to renewable sources that do not pose those threats. clean energy storage technology to make sure that we could support the reliable energy that we need to power our grid. we can't afford to have existing nuclear going off-line.

that is not a win for climate. host: quickly on nuclear energy. >> we support advanced nuclear and also the energy act of 2020. we want to see those investments for additional resourcing and research and development. i think it is interesting, we point to europe a lot of times and said what is europe doing? comparing and contrasting. this is where nuclear is actually strong. it could fuel high-tech industries. key production industries like steel and cement. they are using the energy to do so. it is zero carbon emissions. the idea that we need to take nuclear off-line completely is crazy. we need to be increasing our energy options. not decreasing them.

by decreasing them, we are also increasing costs. the battery technology, we support the research and development in the demonstration of energy storage. the technology is just not there to rely exclusively on renewable energy. host: florida, republican, good morning. caller: good morning, guys. don't hang up on me please. you hang up on people real quick. host: i'm sorry you feel that way. caller: sometimes i get in an interesting conversation and then you on to somebody else. i have a couple of comments i wanted to make. the carbon dioxide -- my point is i am for natural. this country has a habit of

cutting the trees down and cementing the whole country out. you couldn't find a blade of grass if you played -- paid somebody a million dollars with the malls, cities, highways. if you really notice, every time a weather person talks about a flood because it is raining so hard, they stand out in the middle of the cement road with cars floating away. you cut the trees down and put cement there. host: take me to the question. caller: how come they don't get to the wire we cementing the country out? once you get rid of all of the trees, you can't make air out of nothing. we are done world, actually.

the cement, carbon dioxide entries. -- and trees. >> thank you for your passion on this issue. you're raising a very important point. it is how important natural climate solutions are to protect communities and be a part of the climate solution. you'll also point out that overuse of cement in cities also lead to heat islands that pose threats to communities of color concentrated in urban areas. we appreciate your passion in placing more trees as an equity issue as well as a really smart solution when it comes to being part of the toolkit that could help solve climate change and build healthy communities. host: just about halfway through our conversation on climate change and climate solutions in what is being called the build back better act.

join the conversation this morning for democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents (202) 748-8002. our guest sarah from the league of conservation voters. jeff is in maryland, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning, i appreciate the opportunity to address and alert them to the treacherous nature of astroturf of the citizens for responsible energy solutions. energy, they are not focused. heather is representing individuals or organizations that are responsible for giving way back in the 2000 campaign

for w bush, one million dollars towards their campaign contributions. w bush was campaigning, he included carbon dioxide as going to be a regulated emission from our electrical production. host: i will let heather jump in and speak a little bit more about the group. >> thanks for the question. i am not clear about the george w. bush. the organization was not organize them. it's only been about eight years. i am really unclear about where your findings come from. we are supported by a number of private investors, individuals all across the country. unapologetically.

we were trying to be a validator on the climate is important issue. we need republicans to come to the table and be a part of the solution. they are by a large becoming a part of the solution. the reconciliation bill is being exclusively negotiated by democrats. we believe they have good ideas. just like anything else we see in creating and solving complex issues. whether that is health care, education, and yes, climate change. they want to get the table. they are asking to be at the table. my organization has facilitated that they are. the best answer i could give you to your question. host: how is the league funded? caller: we have -- >> we have a wide variety of

sources from private foundations to supporters. we are proud to be able to bring our whole campaign and scale to this for jobs and justice. host: in vermont, this is tom, an independent. caller: good morning. i wanted to tell you dr. steven kunin, he is a climate scientist. i followed him closely. the global warming, climate change is all a bunch of nonsense. they are using it to divide us. they are using to take money from the taxpayer. it will not do anything to change climate no matter how much money we spend. >> whether or not you are a believer in climate science, we get caught up in that sandbox of

whether or not the climate is changing. we could have our cake and eat it too. we could talk about lowering energy prices. increasing energy choices. reducing global emission but not our economy and exploring american innovation on our jobs. we shouldn't have to sacrifice our economy because we are fighting climate change. we could do both. if you are going to fight climate change, we will then have to deal with reduced quality of life. one of the reasons we are concerned about the reconciliation package, the costs are astronomical. the spending and the ability to get to the goals set in this process are impossible to get to. the approach tends to be more stick and less caret.

that is where we need to be thinking about a new economy, a clean energy economy that sarah talked about. it is very much in hand to be there. it is not sacrificing the quality of life. if we have clean water, isn't that a good thing? host: going back to the build back better act, some of the specific climate provisions in the bill, $150 billion for a clean payment program. clean energy tax incentives, research money, polluter imparts in the idea of a renewed civilian conservation corps. jay sanders asks what share of global greenhouse emissions with these proposals expect to reduce when they are fully implemented? >> thanks for the question.

these really popular investments you just mentioned are at hand in the build back better act. they are what we need to be doing to meet the goals of science. the united states cutting our carbon pollution in half by 2030. this is a huge opportunity for us to leave the globe in the transition to the clean energy economy. to be creating jobs here and dominate the future of the auto industry is just one example. i would wait -- way rather have us be at the head of the pack and be at the head of that flight. host: this is elaine, good morning. caller: i have been waiting so long to talk to somebody. caller: i have been -- there has

been a japanese that runs about three miles per our and it does not kill birds. i don't know what happened to that window. we have not seen it. the other thing is when they talk about globally, termites could use 20 times what cows do. are they going to address that on the global market? the next thing has to do with solar galactic particles. there has been three studies done on that. they know the particles because of the earth's magnetic poles changing, that is having an effect on whether. solar particles, methane from termites, and windmill

technology, do any of you want to take those up? >> on the technology for wind turbines, wind power is incredibly effective when wind blows. we have to story better. we care very much about birds. it has been working closely to protect as many birds as possible. host: you have fred in texas, good morning. caller: good morning. we have oceans full of things that could be extracted from wind and solar power, use the bridge to power fuel cells. low carbon, what could be better? i haven't heard you mention fuel cells in your talk this morning,

thank you. i will listen off-line. >> we think it is important to look at all renewable energy sources. they are making an important role for green hydrogen to play. as heather said, there are significant investments in this legislation that would put money towards those cutting edge solutions here today. host: another question from twitter. linda asking china is the number one producer of batteries for electric vehicles. what is the plan to make those batteries here? >> sure, i am happy to take that one. president biden and his team across the government has been looking at domestic supply chains and making sure we were

revitalizing domestic manufacturing. we are bullish about the proposals from the executive branch side across multiple agencies and in this proposal in the build back better act to help support that domestic building. host: heather, do you want to talk? >> batteries in general, renewable energy is very important in what we are doing. expensive parts. resource from foundations like china, congo, and others. the supply chains are not secure. the memos are primarily sourced from overseas. we need to bring them back to the united states. however, to be able to get mining is decade-long.

we are nowhere near close to be able to meet what the goals are from the biden administration. it is at odds with one another. one of the proposals we have been in favor of is streamlining. it brings it from the rillettes clean energy sector. instead of 10 years, you're talking less than two years. there has been significant environmental reluctance in washington to get common sense regulation to do that. i know of many organizations, many companies waiting on the sidelines dealing with lawsuits and others. by the way, the united states mines more cleanly than

anywhere in the world. we should be miming here. host: new orleans always a focus of climate change. kevin is in new orleans, good morning. caller: both make good points about the situations. the question would be down here to the south of new orleans as everyone knows, a lot of people including myself and my son have financed gas generators that is going on everywhere. it is very expensive. my comment is on the infrastructure plan, the thing i was concerned about, i don't understand why the government is responsible for that. just like a gas station, i don't

know how it worked out. i would think it also would be an economic boost, too. they were built up with restaurants and things of that nature. no technology will change that. people will most likely want to go to rest areas and maybe get a bite to eat. you're both very intelligent and make great points. thanks for answering my question. host: got your question. >> i hope you and your family are safe in the wake of these hurricanes ravaging the gulf coast. we think the havoc being wreaked all made more intense by climate change make all the more clear that we have to modernize our grid infrastructure and invest

in microgrids that are more resilient in the solar generators, generators that don't pollute. we are really excited about some of the innovation when it comes to resiliency made all the more clear unfortunately by the harm these disasters are reeking upon your communities and so much else. i wanted to go back to cost for a second. we talk about the cost of transmission. we don't talk about the cost of inaction. climate change cost taxpayers nearly $100 billion. they simply cannot afford not to act on climate change. host: heather, do you want to talk about the cost of inaction? >> i wanted to talk about the issue of reliability. most cities unfortunately in that area about losing electricity and how long, just

the quality of life, the health issues but they are getting is a complete disruptor. we need to have reliable energy. unfortunately we cannot do that. not today, not now. the idea of keeping it in the ground means that we are cutting off important sources that could keep reliability. we should continue to invest in carbon capture. all of the above is what we are suggesting. that is the difference of what we see in the build back better act.

there's not a place for natural gas in this proposal. the natural gas industry and oil industry are important to the economy. continuing to find a way for natural gas. also thinking about the power that you need. concerned about the devils and the details in some of this. host: harrisburg, pennsylvania, dave is a democrat, good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i would like to start off by saying i agree with you on the things that they want to pass. i think in society today, if we had to build the hoover dam, we

would find ourselves in a place. those are gone. ge had about six electric cars on display then, that was in 2000. this has been going on and prolonged by a few people who were controlled by media and politicians. once you try to allude to the black and brown communities, they are the ones who get stuck on land. the one woman said the land is barren of trees and grass.

i'm also agreeing about carbon capture. i'm agreeing that mining has to be less regulated. i understand what it takes to get this with the amount ground. if we could do a better, let us be the one who does it. i had a church member told me one time, our electric bill was $15,000 a year. i sent turn around and look at the charts. how much square footage is on that roof? how many solar panels that you put on that roof? this seems to be an all hands on deck solution. host: you had both of our guests nodding at various comments. >> i think this is the evolution of the republican and the interesting parts of the politics here.

used to be a point where he felt like republicans were simply deniers of the science. the democrats had to be those who are fighting for climate change and addressing it. that is no longer the case. republicans are engaging on climate change. i am looking at the energy act of 2020 has the programs from the department of energy. streamlining permitting was bipartisan and how it was passed. we look at the infrastructure package we just passed out of the senate. lots of good things for clean energy. bipartisan support. even the smaller package from the climate solutions at. 92-eight. there were more republicans that voted -- voted for that build and democrats. when you are negotiating that

type of the aisle, the way we get strong verbal policy, this is about working together. with this reconciliation package , it is taking advantage of a political moment. by doing that, we are leaving a lot of good stuff that republicans could bring to the table that would be more durable. rather than something we are going to be dealing with four transitions every 2-4 years. >> you made a number of important points. voters, the majority of the democrats want the bipartisan infrastructure past. we need both.

couldn't agree more with you that we can't wait too long to tackle climate change and that we have a huge economic opportunity. 8 million jobs created over the next decade. this make sense from an economic perspective. we can't afford not to act and we cannot afford to wait for another moment. we cannot wait another 12 years to open up. this is our moment, this is our time. wildly popular. host: two tony's question on twitter asking why is there such a push for comprehensive legislation? could we get more done if we pass things that both sides agree on and then bring the problem into more manageable bills? why does it have to be so big? >> that's a great point.

is a great point in talking about the build back better plan. looking at that, it is a relatively novel bill. it has not gone through any kind of hearing. going back years ago looking at cap and trades, it did not pass ultimately but we are trying to reduce emissions. stakeholder engagement and understanding the inside of the urban areas to rural communities how the changes are going to impact these stakeholders. yes, i agree jobs could be a big economic growth and driver for america. it feels like more of a

political moment taking advantage of it. it doesn't mean we need to make mistakes. this policy has been embedded. we are changing how our lights turn on. don't you think that deserves some transparency? >> i just want to point out that reconciliation is used by both parties to cast several different goals over the last decade. i think i would take issue with there has not been transparency. we had a comprehensive climate report put out by the house on the climate crisis that had 18 months of hearings and input and experts. we had dozens of hearings across

all of the communities on climate. it was simply not true. we have been debating these solutions for a long time. it is time to act. a lot of the solutions in the build back better act are based on proving policies passed in red states and blue states. i think we have a really winning combination of good policy, good politics, and we are all in to get it done in the coming weeks. >> how does the policy interact with fuel standards and other states? does the department of energy do not? it put them in a quandary. these have not been embedded in these hearings. looking at a very good report that came from a majority on the house select committee.

there's a lot there my organization supports. not saying -- i don't want to say that. radical change in how we do not electricity, it should not be crammed into a political opportunity for reconciliation. host: still plenty of callers. robert has been waiting a while in waldorf. caller: talking about renewable energy. if you remember last winter, the windmills froze up and the people of texas froze to death. now we have hydroelectric dams in california that don't have the water. they don't have water so they cannot generate megawatts. the lady here in the red communist chinese flag dress --

host: we will just move on. unless either of you wanted to talk to the renewable energy aspect? >> i'm happy to. renewable energy we need to be able to produce reliable power, affordable power every day of the week, 24/7. renewable power is not able to do that at this time. now that this is a reason to throw out turbines, they weren't winterized. it is a vulnerability of renewable energy. as a result and making sure we could store that energy when the sun isn't shining in the wind isn't blowing. >> i think we definitely support

those investments to make sure we have the right solutions so we could pair that with renewable energy sources. i want to debunk the claim that the texas disaster in freezing and harm that was caused was at all caused by the renewable energy on the grid in texas. it is just not true. study after study has debunk that. the fossil fuel-based really failed communities. host: time for one or two more calls. this is dave, good morning. caller: i'd like to point my comment to heather. a couple of years ago that i designed a sketch with an innovative system related to our measuring system. that is in -- that is gravity.

i don't know if i remitted to westinghouse. i thought i would like to have heather look at it and see if i could get a response. host: we are running short on time, what is your question about the climate issue? caller: it is a completely green system. i would like to know if i mail something to hurt if there is way could get back without having a computer. host: do you review inventions with your group? >> i don't review them myself but this is what i am so excited about. american entrepreneur and innovator. we should be helping to unleash that creativity. use public-private partnerships.

tremendous opportunities we have here in the united states. i applaud you for being such a positive force in trying to reduce state -- emissions. i am not an expert on the technology. host: last call is pam in florida, good morning. caller: i haven't heard you talk about the damage of farming. how the earth could solve all of this problem just by regenerative farming. host: do you want to start? >> i'm happy to jump in. thank you so much for bringing this up. it is critically important that our farmers, ranchers, foresters , and natural solutions are put to work to help solve the climate crisis.

farming could really help be part of the solution. the build back better act is being debated. we also have huge opportunities in coastal resiliency in -- and helping our oceans also. host: the final minute here. >> i think farming is overlooked. who knows our land better than the farmers and ranchers and orators? we should be part of the climate solution. our agriculture, precision farming at some of the most accurate in the world. we should be exporting our goods and exporting that technology to other nation so they could use it. this is the same idea of any kind of technology.

all of the above and empower every sector, not by government mandates but by removing barriers. host: cresenergy.com is where you could go to learn about the center for energy solutions. heather is the director there. lcv.org is where you could see >> today, virginia gubernatorial candidates terry mcculloch, a democrat and a republican participate in a debate hosted by the appellation school of low. live coverage begins at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app.

>> he was pater familias to a political dynasty. these are the words of a journalist and former reporter at the wall street journal. words from a book review written about joseph p kennedy senior, father of jack, bobby and teddy kennedy. it is a new book by susan ronald titled the ambassador. her book is about his time as ambassador to great britain, 1938 to 1940. >> historian susan ronald on this episode of book notes plus. lesson at c-span.org/podcast or wherever you get your podcasts. ♪

>> president biden talks about his economic proposals, highlighting several aspects of the administration's budget plan including infrastructure spending and increasing taxes for the wealthy. this is just over 20 minutes.

pres. biden: good afternoon. i want to start by thinking the house committees are working hard this week to advance prickle components of the economic plan. that i put before congress. i know we have a long way to go but i'm confident congress will deliver to my just both the bipartisan physical infrastructure plan and the build back better plan that i have proposed. as i've said many times before, i believe we are at an inflection point in this country. one of those moments where the decisions we are about to make can change, literally change the trajectory of our nation for years, possibly decades to come. each inflection point in this nation's history represents a fundamental choice. i believe that america at this moment is facing such a choice. and the choice is this, are we going to continue with an economy where the overwhelming share of the benefit t