tv Washington Journal 06262022 CSPAN June 26, 2022 7:00am-10:01am EDT
given your front row seat to democracy. -- she view a front-row seat to democracy -- giving you a front row seat to democracy. -- and at 9:00 a.m. eastern, we will talk about the 1956 federal-aid highway act which created the national interstate system. shawn wilson, president of the american association of state highway and transportation of missiles and peter norton, associate professor of engineering and society from the university of virginia join us. washington journal is next. ♪ host: for the next three hours here on the washington journal we are going to be talking about
public policy and most importantly we are going to be hearing your voices on some public policy issues. we will begin this morning with the roe v. wade decision now that it's overturned. what do you think is next? we want to hear your views. republicans (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. you can send a text message to (202) 748-8003 and you can see the social media sites as well. if you want to make a comment on social media we will begin taking those calls right away from politico this morning. it's now up to the states. republicans move to ban abortion after row falls -- roe falls.
50 governors began charting vastly different paths after the supreme court dismantled to federally protected right. attorneys moved swiftly to ban access to the procedure and announced special legislative sessions. blue state counterparts quickly announce new policies to protect abortion and prevent abortion-rights opponents from prosecuting providers and patients for pregnancies terminated legally in their state's borders. those steps are likely just the first as the fight for abortion-rights shifts back to the nation's state houses for the first time and have century. it may take months for the status of abortion-rights in many states to become clear as
lawmakers passed new business. proponents and opponents of abortion-rights file lawsuits and governors take executive action. a little bit more from politico. abortion policy will remain in the hands of the states for the foreseeable future. unless congress enacts federal abortion protections or restrictions. as of friday, abortion is illegal in seven states. alabama, arkansas, south dakota, arkansas, louisiana, missouri and oklahoma, kentucky. proponents and opponents of abortion-rights disagree about whether those laws are enforceable. bands in idaho and tennessee
will take effect 30 days after the supreme court issues its final judgment in its decision, which hasn't happened yet. that is an article from politico this morning. marvin in philadelphia on our democrats line. what do you think is next? caller: basically the take away contraceptive lives and stuff like that. i think this is a real bad thing for women. my thing is if they got rid of roe v. wade, why don't they make men more responsible, too? it takes two to make a baby. host: this is dj and washington, d.c., independent line. caller: good morning. listen, i don't think this is over by a long shot.
looking at three of the trump appointees. even scholars like glenn kershner speaking about even impeaching the three trump appointees. moving forward, you have at minimum -- half the country is female. i'm sure that a good majority are not going to vote republican because of what has happened as well. so there's a lot that's going to happen here. good trouble? [laughter] we are in america. we protest and i believe that we will. the supreme court to me, we do obviously respect the institution but i have no respect for the trump appointees. they lied and they should be impeached. host: this is michael in the
d.c. suburbs. what's next after roe v. wade got overturned? caller: good morning. what's next, i think it was actually a genius move by the democrats because i think they can't win with the current situation, with the economy. with the inflation. so i think this is what they wanted. they really want people to use these issues to get them out in november so that they don't get crushed in the november election. host: this is from the hill newspaper. the supreme court's decision to overturn roe v. wade catapulted the issue of abortion rights directly into the midterm campaigns on friday with democrats seeking to put this issue front and center. democratic candidates up and down the ballot issued their
reactions and a slew of statement following the decision while the parties national campaign apparatus ruled out a website designed to help voters channel anger into action and organize with local coordinated field camp dates. next call is mike in somerville massachusetts. independent line. what do you think is next? caller: i think what's next is to crush conservatives in every way. don't do business with them. push them out of society as much as possible. because these theocratic zealots are just not really in line with content very society -- with contemporary society. they have been doing this forever. it's nothing new. i would welcome some civil war. we'd take their -- kick their
asses. just push them out of society. they don't pull in. this stuff doesn't belong in a free country. host: that's mike in massachusetts. 202 is the area code. republicans (202) 748-8001. we want to hear what his next after the overturning of roe v. wade -- what is next after the overturning of roe v. wade. democrats (202) 748-8000. anthony on the independent line. caller: good morning. i am a moderate republican and i think at the end of the day that the republicans shot themselves in the foot. i think that the red wave that was expected in november will no longer be a red wave. the females that i have in my
life, none of them agree with what place the other day. the place you do not want to be is the space between a motivated female and the goal that they want to reach. i think that at the end of the day, the republicans really shot themselves in the foot. let's see in november. host: what do you think about this issue returning to the state capitals? caller: hypothetically it makes sense to put it into the states hands. except for that what you see now is that you've got all these republican run states where they are becoming extreme. they are making abortion impossible to get. i just think that at the end of the day, what will take place will be that you will have
countless children born to parents, to mothers that don't want them. in 12, 14, 18, 20 years from now when you've got this prolific influx of children in society, i don't even want to think about the effect that it's going to have on overall society. it's a shame. host: john in glen falls, new york. democrat. what's next? caller: this is just my opinion. it seems like it was my body my choice when came to the vaccination, but when they passed us all on pay seems to forget all the actual murders that are taking place because they refuse to acknowledge the second amendment. even buffalo and the schools and everywhere. democrats and republicans are in it together.
maybe it's a way to take heat off how bad the economy is. it makes no sense anymore to be even affiliated with either party because they are both as corrupt. host: another john in mechanicsville, new york. republican line. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. host: we are listening. caller: my commentary briefly, i don't think anything is going to really come from this. i think it's a lot of posturing. nobody's rights are going to be taken away. the supreme court following the most rigid interpretation of the constitution. it's federalism. it's democracy. abortion is not mentioned in the
constitution. it was poorly thought out 50 years ago. and i believe that basically the states should have the right and some people just have a hard time tolerating the fact that this country was based on a democracy and the separation of powers. if i may add something very quickly, we hear a lot about abortion and women's rights and the right to choose. i understand that. that's very important to these people. did anybody ever consider that father -- a father might want his child? did anybody ever consider that childless couples might also want a baby. the woman does not have to keep the child if she bears the child. and finally what about grandparents, ok? myself i'm a grandparent. it's the greatest gift ever given to me and i treasure my grandchildren. so i would just like people
possibly to consider that. this is not necessarily a binary choice and there's no need to overreact and create instruction throughout the country based on something that people have been conditioned to just accept and not fully understand. host: from the washington post this morning. the headline is abortion-rights groups grasp for a post roe strategy. in the article it says three of the largest abortion-rights groups have pledged to spend $150 million on the midterm elections up and down the ballot. the funding from planned parenthood action fund will go towards states including georgia, nevada, arizona, michigan, pennsylvania, new hampshire, kansas and wisconsin. emily's list has been investing in both federal and state races
including attorneys general candidates who say they won't prosecute over new abortion laws and gubernatorial candidates who can serve as backstops against antiabortion legislation. spokeswoman christina reynolds said emily's list is also seeking to defend and flip seats at the federal level, mindful of the desire among some republicans to pass a nationwide abortion ban. john in liverpool, new york. democrat. you are on the washington journal. caller: well i don't think it's going to hurt them in november because there's is so much other bad stuff going on with gas prices and inflations and whatnot but it's going to come back to hurt them because this is a minority viewpoint. 70% of the country has always supported it ever since 50 years ago. statistics haven't changed.
70% of the country favors it to be legal. so it's going to come back to bite the republicans and it should but i don't think it's going to happen in november because there's just too much chaos right now in the world. host: james in new jersey. republican line. good morning. caller: how are you doing. i don't like abortion at all. that's killing a baby. and shame on the democrats. they are nothing but baby killers. i don't believe in abortion at all. god says he will get these people that kill babies and that's not right. thank you. goodbye. " joseph. santa barbara, california. please go ahead and make your comment. caller: i'm not a republican or democrat. i'm a constitutionalist.
i've been listening since the very first one. the problem with this issue and many other social issues is we do not follow this wonderful document that we have that is the most unique in the world. it's different than any other and if we want abortion to be legal than we have an amendment process. the reason it takes so long to get an amendment passed is it gives the population a chance to catch up. and once it is, then it becomes the law of the land. at some point it really depends on viability. there isn't anyone out there once they believe that the fetus is viable, that's where they
draw the line. wherever that line is, no matter what they do, no matter what legislation they try to pass, once that line is established, there is no legal way to legalize murder. host: all that said, would you like to see a constitutional amendment on abortion? or would you like to see it returned to the states as it is now? caller: it belongs with the states. that was the correct decision. essentially that will be a referendum. all this stuff about women can't travel, we can take care of those women. but we shouldn't be paying for women who have used it for contraceptive purposes. so we can take care of people
who can't travel. i think that's totally within the realm. and i don't think that all these crazy things are going to happen. if they change the laws, it will just be like uncontrolled -- nothing says that abortions cannot be regulated. so i think all those things will disappear. we are making too much out of nothing. host: andrew mccarthy this morning opines in national review. here's the headline. roe was never law is his headline. within the body of his opinion piece, he writes, seven willful politicians and ropes to serve the power of the putatively sovereign states to regulate abortion. unless a constitutional right is at stake, the federal judiciary had no business intruding on the internal governance of the states, particularly over matters of health and safety through the traditional domain
of the states. but the constitution does not to abortion. it was never law at all, andrew mccarthy writes. the very able lawyers who have defended roe over the decades have issued arguments in the constitution. the decision commend a difference because it happened, not because it was compelling or coherent. it could never be justified on its own terms as linear, logical, legitimately rooted law. progressives have thus made a talisman of stare decisis. they would have you believe at least when it's precedent they like, that stare decisis is latin for don't you dare touch this settled law. that's laughable as a legal argument. we have all noticed that dred scott, plessy versus ferguson,
korematsu and other precedents in the courts lowlight real were reversed by the court. melissa is in kokomo, indiana. please go ahead and make your comment. what's next? caller: good morning. first of all i would like to know how the 14th amendment applies to a female and not a point of conception mass of cells. i don't think anybody's ever take into consideration the fact women have never had a rights. i think the 14th amendment was where we had that tiny bit of freeman -- tiny bit of freedom and now all these men are calling in and working their comments about how abortion affects them. women are not using it as contraception. as a matter of fact, i would say that any woman that has made that decision has made that decision as a last resort. i don't see all of these people lining up to adopt babies in
america that are allegedly saved by the pro-lifers. and it comes down to pro-choice. no woman wants to do it, but to have the ability to make it safe and available is important. next we are going to see the rest of our rates eroding. we have only been voting since 1921. the next thing they are going to do is take away that right to vote. how about the voting rights act? did that get reinstituted? i believe they ignored that. so right now the faith in our supreme court is more like a doctrine that the supreme court has had in place for a number of years since roe v. wade was established. and now i look at case precedent and the law. what are they going to do? are they going to overturn loving? it's going to go on with that? it's a slippery slope and i think this really stabbed the
republicans in the foot. host: we have taken 10 costs so far this morning and you are the first woman who has called in. it's been all men so far and it's all red and of course. what was your reaction, where did you hear about the decision and what was your immediate reaction? caller: i was at work. it was during the day. actually the leaked decision i felt was probably leaked by judge clarence thomas to be honest. i was devastated because -- it's a devastating situation. it's an erosion of our rights. host: bill is next in jacksonville florida. independent line. what's next with regard to roe v. wade? caller: good morning america. good morning c-span. my opinion on abortion is i'm not a fan of it. it's a very difficult personal
question. i can see the argument from both sides. surely would like to see fewer abortions than more of them. but i think it's a states right issue. i'm not an expert or constitutional lawyer. i have read up a little bit recently about roe v. wade. i'm 55 years old so i guess roe became law when i was a young kid. but there are also more pressing issues. people have called in saying this is a game changer in november. i would disagree with that. with everything going on, this is just another piece of food on the plate that this country is trying to digest right now. host: in your state of florida, governor desantis just signed a law that restricts abortion after 15 weeks. what's your viewpoint on that state law? caller: that's an excellent
question. i'm not a doctor. some people say that's when a fetus is viable. i'm certainly a concern abortion weeks before birth. -- against abortion weeks before birth. host: frank in texas on the republican line. what's next and what do you think about what texas has done recently on abortion? caller: i just say that the constitution was signed in 1787. and for 185 years, they had it right until that godless cohort in 1973, they wanted to turn against the bible.
they made law. they wrote in -- they are not a body that's supposed to make law. they are supposed to interpret the law. and also, it was right for 185 years before they misted up in 1973. and now the lord god our savior is coming to fourth. he does not like this and if you read your bible, it's in matthew, ezekiel, job, all in the bible. if you want to go up against the lord god on this, that is up to you and you will pay the price of it later. you go ahead and stand against the lord god. he created all life. and do you actually think that
he wants you to take a probe and pull the mind and tissue apart on one of his babies that he has created? host: that was frank in texas. this is jay and washington, d.c., democrat line. caller: good morning. thanks for making michael. outlawing abortion is clearly about still -- a violation of a woman's rights. secondly, wasn't that the argument of give it to the states for slavery that led to the civil war? so what's happening is we're seeing a retrograde into a past time for people's rights were just, we talk about involuntary servitude here. host: what do you think about congress taking it up?
caller: it has to be done. we need legislation to make certain that women's rights are protected and it actually goes to health care. it's going to lead to chaos. host: next call is tom in bennington, vermont. you are on the washington journal. good morning. caller: good morning. from the green state. i think that males should stay out of this discussion. abortion rights should remain. the world is overpopulated. it would save money not to have children. vasectomies for males are free for whoever wants to. thank you.
host: tom called in from vermont. here's this article in the washington post. gop governors in four blue states pledged to uphold right to seek abortion. very quickly, larry hogan. republican and marilyn. -- in maryland. he sent out an email, i swore an oath to uphold the constitution and the laws of maryland. the 1992 law prohibits a state of interfering with a woman's decision to terminate a pregnancy while also providing immunity for physicians for providing the services. charlie baker, massachusetts. i am deeply disappointed in today's decision by the supreme court which will have major consequences for women across the country and here's chris sununu in new hampshire. he said that he is a pro-choice governor and that he would keep
new hampshire a pro-choice state and finally phil scott of vermont. supports abortion rights and on friday said in a statement that he was deeply disappointed by the supreme court's decision and that a woman's right to choose is a principal we will uphold in vermont. lynn in north reading massachusetts. republican line. caller: good morning. i was deeply disturbed by yesterday's decision. i never really liked abortion as a choice. i respect that is a choice. i offered twice to adopt children that were unwanted.
something that people who believe in god have not necessarily done. i think unwanted children are everyone's problem. and unless you are willing to take over raising an unwanted child, you really have no right to say anything. it's a woman's choice and i'm just really hard broken. -- heartbroken. going back 60 years, i feel for everyone and the loss of rights. what else is next. only god knows. host: this is justin in amarillo texas. democrats line. caller: hello. i just wanted to say i'm deeply disappointed in the roe v. wade decision. it's a violation of women's right and knows what's next. probably they will come after gay marriage rights.
this country is going to hell with all these decisions. i'm just worried for the country. host: jimmy in virginia, republican line. it's your turn. caller: yes. i just have a question about this law. in the state of virginia, if you would kill a woman that is pregnant, you were charged with two murders. but the woman -- woman's right to choose says i can have the baby killed anyway. what is the difference -- they can have the baby killed anyway. what is the difference?
host: i take it you are asking that hypothetically. reminder to viewers, turn down the volume on your tv when you get on. you will be able to hear everything through your phone. debbie in flint michigan. caller: good morning. i'm pretty upset because i think this goes way farther than abortion. it goes to a woman's autonomy on her own body. you ain't putting this genie back in the bottle. the fact that we got here because of so much lying. those senators should have impeached him so he didn't have the right to pick all these supreme court justices. did not give merrick garland his hearing and then push through amy coney barrett in the last 30 days. neither one of those people should be on the court. so that's how this happened. i work for the child support agency for 15 years before i
retired. i know a lot of men and women are saying men need to stay out of it. if they make these women have these babies, you can bet your baby they are going to make these guys pay for them. if you have a sister, mother, a brother, an aunt, a niece, can be on the streets merging with you women. host: this is keith in madison wisconsin. independent line. the issue is heating up up there in medicine. i think is the best decision because it needs to go to the state. i had a friend who had to go to ukraine, we didn't have -- i
mean, what i was born in 1949, and god they didn't have any and i've lead a productive life. yes i'm limited in some things, but i've lead a productive life. it's not right. unfortunately, i live in georgia , but i think it was the right decision, thank you. host: this is george in chicago who send in a text. pro-choice vs. illegal surgery. women and girls are not going to birth accidental pregnancy or unwanted pregnancy. those decisions allowed medical doctors to safely terminate pregnancy.
now it is a back room procedure by untrained. this is a column this morning in the new york times. he writes a couple times a week, a regular columnist in the new york times. this is how he concludes his column, all of which is to say that any confident prediction about this ruling's consequences is probably a foolish one. for almost 50 years, all policy debates have been overshadowed by judicial controversy and only now are we about to find out what the context really looks like. it is merely the end of the beginning. missouri, independent line. caller: hello? host: we are listening.
caller: hello? host: we are listening. caller: ok. i wish the women would stop talking about rights to abortion. i don't think anybody has a right to abortion. what they should stick on and what they should be focusing on his rights over their own bodies. to do whatever they please with their own bodies because that is something that as this guy was saying earlier, talking about god, todd made us all and there ain't no court, no law or legislatures or whatever that have any control over your body, what you do with your body. if that means abortions, that
means control over your body. control over your own body. host: the abortion law in missouri makes it illegal, doesn't it? caller: yes, sir, i understand that to be the case and that is something that i am not real happy about and i hope that most missourians also want to do something about it. host: janet, democrat, good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? you want to know what is next? what is next is there's not going to be no birth control for women and we are all going to be wearing burkas, and these
men are calling in and blaming god for these babies being born, it makes me sick. i'm a mother and a grandmother and a great-grandmother and i just dread knowing that these girls are going to grow up not knowing any rights. host: so you are probably old enough to remember when the decision was made in january of 1973. do you remember your reaction at that time? caller: i do, i was absolutely pleased, absolutely. what happened the other day makes me sick. i don't know what this world is coming too, but women need to have rights. that is about all i've got to say. i would hate to wear a burka in this heat. host: this is peggy, a
republican woman in sandusky, ohio. peggy? caller: good morning. pleasure to be on the show. i'm the same as the lady before, a mother, grandmother, and great-grandmother and i remember the law coming down in 1973 and i was part of the right to life movement. i'm ecstatic. it is a woman's right, but it is also a man's right. a man any woman both have to decide whether they want to or not. if they don't want children, they shouldn't have them. if you don't want children, you just abstain.
abortion shouldn't be a form of birth control and that is what seems to be. it is not so much that they are getting pregnant, but by a husband and a wife deciding to have fun and then all of a sudden they have a child. that is not using their heads, that is not using their free will to say i don't want a child. it is not a recreational activity, it should be used to have a child. i have a family that has adopted children and if you don't want a child, give them up for adoption. host: peggy, thank you for calling. diana in pennsylvania, our
rights begin with being born. the choice to be or not to be a mother in 2022 is about contraception, not to kill babies. mobile, alabama, independent line, roe v. wade was overturned , what is next? caller: what is next is a massive education effort for the american people. i want to correct an earlier collar, your first female caller, you highlighted her, and she was factually incorrect about something extraordinarily important. she said i don't see people lining up to adopt. i want to correct this. it is an extraordinarily important point that she stumbled across and got incorrect. this can easily be checked. 2 million, i repeat, 2 million americans line-up to adopt navies. only 20,000 american babies are
given up for adoption. ironically, one million surgical babies are murdered in the womb. that is an additional one million hormonal babies. so we've got 2 million americans lining up to adopt navies. i personally know two couples who have tried and tried to adopt on a waiting list and had to go to asia, russia to get babies because american babies are being plowed under. i was both deeply depressed in 1973 when my parents explained to me and i've been absolutely elated when the supreme court had the wisdom the other day to overturn a barbaric and unconstitutional ruling. when i taught in asia for four years, i had the pleasure of meeting a pro-life group that
seeks out adopted babies all over asia. there's more than you can imagine. buddhism, islam, and christianity, all of the great religions for millennia have regarded prenatal life as extraordinarily sacred as of course, the bible. saint mother teresa was invited to give a commencement address at harvard university years ago, pretty memorable. mother teresa said the united states of america, you are the wealthiest nation in the world, yet you are the poorest because you are plowing under your most valuable resource every single year. one last thought, slavery. as far as the education effort, what is most important is building a culture of love, and let's all remember the emancipation of black africans,
it has taken hundreds of years to educate america and it is ongoing. but no one would dispute for a moment that blacks are not fully human. they are not 3/5 of a person. this is the same for prenatal human beings. host: new york times this morning, the article is entitled "laws considered relics may now be enforced." according to the institute which supports abortion rights, several states to lap abortion bans that predate roe v. wade, but some have more reason that would likely take precedence. states like new mexico, vermont and massachusetts could remove all bans. the battle is playing out in the courts. governor whitmer, a democrat, filed a lawsuit in april asking
the michigan supreme court to resolve with the state constitution protects the right to abortion. that stops the ban from being enforced, at least temporarily, until a separate lawsuit is resolved. there is also a band in west virginia but experts say it was unclear what put fewer restrictions to take effect. the state attorney general said in a statement on friday that he would soon be providing a legal opinion to the legislature about how to proceed to save as many babies' lives as legally possible. arizona, north carolina also have older abortion laws on the oaks, but more recent restrictions past and more states could take precedence such as a total ban on abortion in alabama and 2019 that was
superseded by ro until now. -- roe until now. tom, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. look, i'm 69 years old and i think 63 million babies being murdered in this country is enough. it is enough. no one is talking about the industry of baby parts in this country. when they first started talking about it years ago after actually selling baby parts, they said no, that is not happening. now they admit it freely. so they cut up these babies and it is just horrible. no one wants to talk about the industry of baby parts in this trust route. -- in this country.
universities, all these people doing it. ronald reagan said they were doing it and everybody mocked him for saying it. it is happening now in your face. host: go ahead and finish up, tom. caller: i just think it is time. let the states decide. host: thank you, sir. democrat, you are on the air. caller: yes. these people complaining about people having abortions, why don't they make them sign an agreement that when they get this woman pregnant they are going to pay all the medical bills, take care of her, and once the baby is in there, she take the baby and takes the bill? since they want to take our rights, put all of the little
blue pills in the bags and all that other stuff and you won't have to worry about orson because half of them can even get -- they don't say anything about the men putting in their rights. all of this complaining about the baby in the womb, you can even get health care. how can you even take care of a baby to give it prenatal care? find religious people, they stand up to protect the baby's life in the womb. all the little black babies and stuff, they don't have anything like that. they are not concerned about the other children, they aren't lined up to adopt a whole lot of black babies.
this crazy stuff about harvesting baby parts in all this other stuff, like i said, if you don't want an abortion, don't have an abortion. but don't take away my rights because you have a problem saying we are not going to get the vaccine because that is going to hurt somebody, but you don't care about anything else. i would just like to say thank you for listening to me and tell these men to stay in their place. host: this is john in pennsylvania, republican line, go ahead. caller: good morning, i will keep it short. i have eight brothers and sisters. isn't it ironic that the pro-choice people like to scream about it? host: new hampshire, democrat, good morning. caller: independent, undeclared
in new hampshire, thank you for taking my call. just to address some of the previous callers, when we talk about these adoptions, it is important to remember that there is a foster care crisis in this country. the assumption that what we are talking about is children that are going to be born and then adopted as navies, and that is a pretty big assumption. that we are going to see an increase in the foster care crisis. that said, as undeclared, i voted republican until trump ran and i had always felt publican -- confident voting republican knowing that roe was precedent and i think that what you are going to find now is you're going to find a lot of republican women who are going to have to take a second look because they know that their rights are not being protected. while i do agree with many collars that the constitution is a beautiful document, i think
that we all have to remember that no women were involved in crafting that document and that document was not crafted at a time when women have rights. to assume that we have to go back to that document to look at the rights of people today is really forgetting that that is excluding the right of women and minorities who were not able to be considered people. we really need to question whether that can truly be our guiding light when we were never as women in anyone's mind when that was being crafted. host: so this issue moves your political needle? caller: trump moved my political needle initially, but i would really, to go back to the republican party, if the right candidate was there, that will not happen. that said, i would also like to say that the boat that the republicans put up for the floor allowing abortion to the legal up until the term of birth was
ridiculous. we need to move to the middle. until we all move to the middle and make some compromises, we are in a lot of trouble. host: this is rhonda in new jersey, democrat line, go ahead. caller: hi, good morning america, excuse me. you know, this is the most devastating thing that has ever happened to american women in this country. this is so sad. i want to tell you about a true story for just one minute. my mother was born in 1934. her mother died when she was 13 years old.
born in north carolina, it is not even on the map, in the deep south, she was a sharecropper's daughter, ok? so she was even biracial, and so was my grandfather. they starved growing up. they had found out she was pregnant when my mom was 13 years old and she had a back alley abortion and she bled out. my mother was orphaned, her and her two sisters, and then they were split up because the older one, her plantation master or whoever we he was, my mother and her younger sister were dark. so they took a light-skinned one and moved to washington, d.c., where she was raised with her
on, my aunt, and my mother was raised by her on who had eight children of her own. they had three rooms in the house. my mother lived on sugarcane, and she valid before her god that her children would never grow up and starve. now we are going to go to 1972. my mother used to be in washington marching for roe v. wade, or civil rights for african-americans, and when this vote passed, where you can have a right to choose with your body, we all celebrated. now we've got old white men making decisions for us.
what happened to separation from church and state? why does the church represent us as women when they are raping babies? you've got step daddy's out here that are raping little girls. host: thank you, thank you for sharing a little bit of your history with us. meg, new bedford, massachusetts, republican line, good morning. caller: good morning. this isn't a race thing, we aren't taking their rights away. we can go to another state, don't tell me they can't get to boston, get to another state if they are. i mean, come on. this is like saying because in massachusetts i can't get a non- my second amendments have been taken away. they haven't. i can go and moved to georgia, i can move to texas, i can move
where the gun laws are last and i can get a run. this thing that it is taking women's rights away, no we are. tell me something. if a mother can kill a child in her body, when that child comes out, if they have that child and that child comes out and is a real snake in the grass, does a woman have a right to take that child out because it is not what she wanted to be? host: massachusetts, this is alicia in virginia, independent line. what is your thought about what is next? caller: i have two questions for the audience to think about, especially lawyers and attorneys. the first one is if women are forced to go through with unwanted pregnancies, should pro-life people be required to adopt and take in foster
children, which will alleviate an already overburdened system that is sure to get worse? if women are forced to go through an unwanted pregnancy, the government should pay all costs from conception through 18 years old no matter who raises the child. no matter who raises the child, foster care or adoption. host: that is alicia in virginia. questions for the audience to think about, and in louisiana, independent line, it is your turn. what is next after the overturning of roe v. wade? caller: the next law will be young women are forced to take care of the babies or they are
going to be forced to have -- thank you. host: finally, let's hear from matthew in michigan. matthew, democrat. caller: hi. in 1973, abortion was made illegal. in 1993, the crime rate in this country drop because women didn't have children they didn't want or couldn't raise. yugoslavia had a dictator take over who legalized abortion and then 20 years later, all i'm saying is women, if they have a lot of children, it is very difficult for them to raise them. there is an old roman saying that no god stops a hungry man. thank you. host: we've got two hours more.
we are going to turn our attention to the car industry. we are going to be talking about the car industry in general, electric vehicles. we will be right back. >> elizabethtown college history professor david s brown is the author of a new book about former andrew jackson. he is the first president to be born to live beyond the appalachians and to rule, so he swore, in the name of the people. the title of the book is the first populace, the defiant life of andrew jackson. he was president for two terms, eight years from 1829 to 1837.
jackson, in his lifetime, was a jurist, a general, a congressman, a senator, and america's seventh president. >> david s brown and his book "the first populace: the defiant life of andrew jackson" on this episode of footnotes plus -- booknotes pluz. booknotes is available on the c-span mobile app or wherever your podcasts. live on c-span, every university -- emory university professor talks about race in america, voting rights, and gun legislation. he is the author of several books including "white rage" and most recently a history and impact of the second amendment. join in the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, text, and tweets.
>> c-span's online door, for products, apparel, books, holiday cards and accessories. there is something for every c-span fan. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. announcer: washington journal continues. host: tuning us from detroit is jeff gilbert with wwj radio up there, and we are going to be talking about the car industry. in 2021, about 15 million vehicles were sold, 11.6 million of those were white trucks, 3.3 million were passenger cars.
mr. gilbert, do you know how many of those vehicles were electric nichols? guest: roughly 2%, and that has grown to about 4% in the first quarter of 2022, and probably when we get the first half numbers next week. host: tesla is really dominating electric vehicle market. guest: at this particular point, it is, because tesla was early. they also have a certain cache particularly about the bread on the west coast, so it will be interesting to see. there are going to be about 30 new ev plates name of this year, so tesla is going to get a lot of competition, but a lot of those vehicles can't be made in big numbers. it is going to take a couple years to see how this is going to shake out, whether tesla will continue to be in the lead role or whether somebody else will take its place. host: what kind of investments are gm and ford and chrysler
fiat going to make? i apologize about the new name, what kind of investment are they making? guest: each of those companies is making tens of billions of dollars and before i went on, i looked up a number that was released this week by an independent consulting firm. they added all the investments together and it totals over $500 billion. that is more than half $1 trillion being invested by the auto industry and by the suppliers to develop electric nichols. host: do you think is a smart bet? guest: it is not my job to think it is smart or is dumb, that is one of the cool things about my position. i have kind of a front row seat. i don't have a stake in any of this but it is interesting to watch it happen. the carmakers certainly believe it is a safe bet. some of them like volkswagen and general motors are making a dingbat. they are pretty much saying they want to be all ev.
others like ford are hedging their bets and toyota, of all people, is a little less bullish and more bullish on hybrids. host: so let's look at gm and ford specifically. first of all, what is the state of the economy in detroit and the auto industry itself? guest: we will go backwards, because it is very odd. you've got sales. you mention 15 million is what we have less year, probably a little left and that this year. prior to the pandemic, it was more in the 17 millions. because car companies can't make vehicles because of the check shortage. while sales are down because of a lack of supply, not a lack of demand, but there are economic concerns like inflation, high gas prices, things of that nature that could be masked by
this lack of supply in vehicles. car companies are selling everything they can, they are selling them without incentives at very high prices, but they are limited in the amount of vehicles. it is hard to tell if the demand has fallen because again, they are selling everything they can make. host: when we talk about these chips, where are these chips coming from? guest: they are put in at just about every part of a car. car companies thought chips would be plentiful, so they've added new features. if you take a look at the mustang with the taillights that are sequential when they blinked, that needs a chip. when you add evs, that brings in even more chips. chips are made around the world, a law in asia, some in the u.s. the problem is the carmakers scale back the orders into the pandemic thinking that sales
would fall. sales didn't fall. they sold the chips to consumer electric kind of company. that started the shortage that was exacerbated by covid, by a number of natural disasters, and that is where we are today. host: lithium. where does it come from and what is the importance when it comes to electric is? guest: the importance is because the batteries use our lithium-ion, so they need lithium. a lot of it is from china and other parts of the world. carmakers are trying to shore up supplies in the u.s., there is a surge for more lithium supplies in the u.s., and carmakers are also trying to make batteries with fewer rare metals like lithium, cobalt and other things because long-term, they know they are going to need them. right now the batteries are high, but there is a lot of research being done for
batteries that possibly, in the next few years, if this research pays off, will use a lot less of these rare metals and maybe not any. it depends on how well the research goes. i can't tell you how that is going. host: mr. gilbert, you said about 4% of sales so far this year our evs. guest: yes. host: in detroit, the motor city, are they selling at a 4% rate? are they selling higher, lower? guest: i don't have direct access to sales figures in the detroit area but it probably would be a little bit higher because people get discounts who work in the auto industry, so they tend to buy the latest and greatest. it would be comparable. there is not a huge pushback in this area, if that is what you are looking at. host: that is what i was kind of going for, exactly.
gm has pushed out the electric hummer. ford is pushing the electric 150. what has been the/around those? we saw president biden driving a hummer. guest: he actually drove the 150 before he drove the hummer. i got a chance to drive both, they are very different kinds of vehicles. if you take a look at the hummer, it brings back that name from 20 years ago or 10, 15 years ago that was kind of a gasoline muscle. gm decided to make hummer a part so they put out a pickup with the name, and that is a vehicle to show what you can do. they put 1000 horsepower, new technology. you can take it on the road if you go just about anywhere. but the reality is it is a six-figure price tag right now, a little under that if they get some other models out. not a lot of people are going to buy it, but it is what the
industry calls a halo vehicle. people can look at that and go, wow. people who once thought evs were glorified golf carts will think this thinking climate mountain. the f-150 is the exact opposite. it is the heart of the market, pickup trucks. forgot to market first with the f-150. gm is following with the shelby silverado. after that there will be the cyber truck in the mix. other startups. electric pickups. why? because markets are going to pick up, because a lot of pickups are sold to businesses. people, especially businesses don't take the time -- tend to take long trips in them. you are able to power a worksite. this is where the heart of the battle is in the pickup truck market, and that is why you are seeing a lot of pickup trucks and carmakers because they think businesses are going to be very
interested in these vehicles. host: what about electric vehicles sold today without the federal tax credit? guest: the tax credits start to phase out at 200,000. at this particular point, tesla vehicles are selling without a federal tax credit. tesla has a special cachet. people will pay a lot of money for a tesla. will they pay that kind of money for a mass-market ev? for example, later next month, chevy is going to show an electric version of the blazer, a chevy equinox is coming after that. those are going to sell for a little bit more than their gasoline counterparts. those are the kinds of vehicles that would be really helped by a federal tax credit. and gm has sold enough, it doesn't have a tax credit, either. the toilet, probably run out of tax credit sometime this year. host: we have divided the lines
regionally if you want to call in and talk about the car industry. he knows everything about it, he is up in detroit. (202) 748-8000, (202) 748-8001 or (202) 748-8002 are the numbers you can call in on. how long have you been covering the car industry? guest: off and on for over 20 years and exclusively for the last 17. host: and is it hard to overstate the importance of the influence of gm and ford especially? guest: in our region, let's not forget about auto suppliers, because the car companies assemble the vehicles, they make the powertrains, they make the outside, but everything else is purchased from the supplier. of course, he suppliers want to be in this area as well. the auto industry has a huge
impact on the entire country. you take a look at transplants with the foreign companies, almost all of the south, you go through alabama and towards her, you see kia, for sadie's, hyundai. -- mercedes. also some plants in ohio, and even kansas city has a couple of plants. it is really spread out around the country. texas, there is a huge impact and of course, california, silicon valley. host: let's hear from our callers. maryland, danny, you are on with jeff gilbert. caller: hi, good morning. my main thing is i don't like the government thinking electric to be the winner because it kind of takes out from --.
i want to see natural gas vehicles. i want to see all of these other kinds of vehicles, not just electric or gas. they are going to build up all these electric charging stations, they can't just build them. who is going to take care of them? another thing is how long do these batteries last? if you buy a used electric car, how good is that? host: there is a lot there, we are going to get some answers for you from jeff gilbert. guest: and you are taxing my memory to remember all of this. ok, let's start with the tax credits first. again, he is framing the argument on one side. i am a reporter, i cover this. his argument is on the one side.
the argument on the other is that this is new technology that has added disadvantage. we have to promote the new technology and this level the playing field by adding this $500 tax credit again, that continues to play out in congress. the regional extension of the tax credits that we have right now, supporters of the tax credits pretty much admit that that is dead, so they are trying to resuscitate it. there was a part of it that had extra credits for union-made an american-made, that has been taken out. pretty much what they are arguing about now is whether the tax credit we had should be extended. but again, that kind of frames the argument. as for charging stations, the infrastructure is very young right now. there is not a lot of it and we
don't really know what the demand is going to be because most people will charge them at home and another big question that isn't talked about a lot is if we have improvements, if we have abilities to charge easys faster -- evs faster, will that necessitate replacing some of these? that infrastructure is still a very important question. what were the other questions? host: the battery life. guest: carmakers say for the most part, they believe the batteries should last a life of the vehicle. we will have to see what happens in real life, we've had some real-life situations where, for example, batteries were defective and gm had a very expensive recall where they had to replace all the batteries. but the carmakers say it should last the life of the vehicle but my answer is we will see. host: gm and ford have both recently announced new battery factories as well, correct? guest: there are battery
factories going up all over the country. toyota has one going up, as well as some of the others. host: doug is in springfield, missouri. caller: i've got a question for you. like everything that is happening that this administration has done, it has backfired and ended up being the worst thing they could do. i think the same thing will happen in summer when we start having all these blackouts and we are seeing all these electric vehicles in the states that have a lot electric charging stations. what do you think of that? guest: i'm going to stay out of the politics part of it, but the grid is an issue. right now we are talking about 4% of the market. that is 4% of vehicle being sold.
if you include that with all the vehicles on the road already, it is still less than 1% of all the vehicles on the road or electric vehicles. right now, the impact on the grid is minimal. that is an issue that is being discussed, an issue that has to be handled. can i tell you it is going to be handled perfectly? no, but it is definitely an issue, and you bring up correctly. there is one other interesting thing in terms of blackouts. if you've seen any of the ads for the ford f1 lightning, it does have a reverse power capability. if you have a good charge on this vehicle, if you have a home charging station and your power goes out, it will actually reverse things and let the battery of the vehicle power the house. it can be used to, i believe a full battery can power a house for three days, powering everything. if you turn up the air-conditioning on some of the heavy users of electricity. that is more positive than negative. host: jeff gilbert, your senator
from michigan got a lot of airplay because she talked about driving an electric vehicle from michigan to d.c. and passing all the gas stations. what is the range on some of these vehicles? that is a 500 mile drive. guest: right now, i can't think of any vehicle -- one vehicle claims to have 700 miles range, but the vast majority don't have that kind of range and you will have to recharge once, maybe twice in a trip like that. the recharging infrastructure is a big issue. there aren't a lot of ev charging stations but unlike a gasoline station where there is an attendant, there's people all the time and they keep the palms in good repair, there is a big problem with ev charging stations that you go, you think it is going to be there, and it doesn't work. that is a significant issue.
also the time of recharging and depending on your vehicle, you can move faster to get about 80% charge and a half hour, that is good, a lot better than it used to be, but it is certainly not like a total fill up in 10 minutes like you have it gasoline. these are issues that have to be handled, they are being worked on and if you take a look at the first mass-market ev that i wrote about a decade ago, it had about 70 miles of range. i was actually told it was a cold day if you get stuck in a traffic jam, turn the heat off because it will drain the battery. now, 250 miles is basically the price of entry for electric vehicle. most go over 300 miles, 400 miles. we are seeing a lot of improvements but in those particular situations, not where a gasoline vehicle is right now.
host: what is the status of a hybrid? guest: hybrids are out there in pretty big numbers. car companies are divided on those. i mentioned earlier toyota was well-known for the priya's and is very high on hybrids -- prius. general motors says they are a temporary solution, we're jumping in the deep end of the pool. the reality is with future fuel economy regulations, virtually every gasoline-powered vehicle in the coming years is going to end up with some kind of hardware is asian -- hybridization. the pickup has a higher voltage to assist it to get better fuel economy. there are a lot of different hybrid choices. you may be driving a hybrid right now and not even know it. host: washington state, darlene, good morning.
caller: good morning. for anybody who doesn't know about this, anyway, with the government, $7,500 rebate for electrical. we will never be able to afford a $30,000, $60,000 electric vehicle. however, people love their cars, and why aren't they talking about the next 10 years in order to convert our internal combustion engine automobiles over to electric? what they need to do is remove the engine, order more electric
motors, high-voltage cables and instrumentation. it is $6,000 in parts, batteries, and more expensive rollout, about $20,000. a $7,500 credit, this is something americans will do. host: darlene got the point, thank you. guest: i know there are companies that do this, and the carmakers in some cases are actually selling, you know, enthusiasts have bought into great engines for years, powerful engines. so the car companies do have some kids that will allow people to electrify an existing vehicle. i would say probably long-term, it is not practical, there probably isn't a huge audience that wants to convert their current vehicle into an electric vehicle. in terms of car companies, it
costs a lot of money to develop a new vehicle. they want and return on that investment so the incentive is to sell as many new vehicles as possible, not to sell kits that would electrify existing vehicles. it can be done, there are companies that do it, but for carmakers in terms of return on investment, is probably not smart business. host: just to follow-up, texting in all that is ever discussed is the expensive find electric vehicles. please talk about the fact that few people want electric vehicles. many can afford them but find them undesirable. guest: first, i can't say if you people are many people want them, we will see what happens with the market in the next couple of years. that is going to be the big question, because honestly, if consumers were to push back and
there was a huge round against electric vehicles, it would affect the political climate and we might see changes in regulation. i can't tell you with the future is going to hold. at this point we are talking about incentives to buy electric vehicles, and in the short-term, nobody is talking about forcing people to buy electric vehicles. of course, californian certain states are talking about prohibiting the sale of new internal combustion vehicles after 2035. that is still more than a decade out. we will see what happens and if the political ground falls against it. we do live in a country where people elect representatives and the representatives vote for things. if very -- if there is a huge ground swarm against electric vehicles, you will see what happens. i think most people are neutral. you got a quarter of people who say you will take my internal
combustion engine for my cold, dead hands and a quarter of people think everybody is going to be driving them. the reality is a lot of people are in the middle who car companies have to show that there is an advantage to buying electric vehicle. they are not going to be forced on people, but they have to see what the advantage is. host: jeff gilbert, is there an environmental advantage to buying an ec that power has to come from somewherev? guest: environmental groups with so yes, certain groups will tell you no. i've seen a couple of studies that show that if you take a look at everything from the manufacturing process the recycling to how they are powered, that evs are marginally more environmentally friendly than gasoline-powered engines today. hopefully in the future, the electric grid will get a light cleaner, they will make these vehicles with fewer precious metals, and in the long term, it
could be significant and more environmentally friendly. right now, they are slightly more environmentally friendly. host: jason, honolulu, good morning. caller: aloha, gentlemen. how are you doing? host: aloha. caller: we make good use of solar here, but you know, you are still going to need oil. everyone is talking but electric cars, you're still going to need oil. has the industry managed to figure out just how much? is it going to be the same? and a second question, living in single family homes, what about people living in apartments? have they figured that out yet? guest: i will take your second question, thank you for getting up early.
you've got a committed viewer. anyhow, the first question about the impact on how much oil we are going to be using, i don't think anybody knows that at this point. that might be more a gasoline industry question. in terms of charging any elect -- in the electric vehicle, if you don't have a house with a charger, that is something that is a concern being discussed. there are a lot of people in inner city that don't have a garage, have to park on the streets. that is one of the things about the charging infrastructure. anecdotally, i have a friend who has a son who lives in the los angeles area who was able to get a tesla, and he lives in an apartment and he spends a lot of time at a coffee shop which has a charger nearby, so people are finding ways around this, but it is an issue to find a way for people to get charging. the general thought is it would be almost like a gasoline
station where you go to a charger once a week to top off your car and then you do it again or you charge it more. again, issues to be worked out. it will be interesting to see how it plays out because i have a feeling that there are so smart entrepreneurs right now trying to think of a way to do that, and we will see something pop up in the next couple of years that we all think wow, smart idea, wish i had thought of it. host:host: from massachusetts, i love electric cars, they are so quiet but i will never have one. if my husband was still alive, he probably would, but i do agree they need to get rid of the self-driving car's. i think they are the cause of a lot of accidents. guest: first, and anybody who is a safety expert in the auto industry will tell you, right now there is no self-driving car that an individual can buy.
there are a lot of driver- assisted systems and certainly there has been a lot of controversy with the system that is full self driving. and a lot of safety advocates say that things like that should never be tested by the general public. there have been issues with that. there are other, more limited systems that gm, for example, has an excellent system which is on the highway right now, which will only activate on the highway because it is tied into your navigation system. it will only activate in areas where it feels safe and it hasie engaged on the road and that it can handle the driving duties back to you. there are a number of different things out there. you are also seeing carmakers working to develop automated vehicle right hailing services.
they got the approval it has been working on for years. systems that are complete are expensive. no reasonable individual, unless they were very wealthy, could afford one. they need to make sure that something like this can be operated more hours in a day. you see the google subsidiary working on a similar system in arizona and they are being deployed fairly quickly. there is controversy over how much they should drive. there are some who say that a computer can drive better than a human being. some say that the human being should be responsible and should always be in control.
host: do you remember riding in a electric vehicle? it was a little bit surreal. guest: it is a little bit surreal. carnegie mellon is the birthplace of automated vehicles. they have done a ton of research and a lot of people from their have moved into the self-driving car companies subsidiaries at the major car companies. i have ridden in a number of them. they have all done well. i have had one incident. this was very interesting. michigan state university was employing an automated shuttlebus and they gave a media demonstration and in the middle, somebody cut off the bus.
a lot of people went flying. there are some issues there, but it does make you wonder about the people using these vehicles, that maybe they should not necessarily be everywhere like college campuses and places like that. maybe they should still be in the experimental phase. we will see. host: what about connected cars? is that still a thing? guest: the technology has moved a lot faster than governmental action. early on, maybe 10 to 15 years ago, there was a lot of talk about dedicated short range communication, where you can put a sensor and a vehicle and it will read information from the roadway and other vehicles, while the cellular network has deployed so fast that the system
is becoming fairly obsolete. a lot of the connectivity is happening in modules and vehicles that have 4g. that does allow getting information from the infrastructure about roadway conditions, getting information from other vehicles that are out there about what the conditions are like head of you. all of this data is being gathered and it is still in the early phase of how it is disseminated to people. we are seeing more conductivity, but it is not ruling out the way that they thought it would. it is through the infrastructure of what is now a 5g network. host: good morning, justin. >> good morning and thank you for taking my call. i got up early just to hear
about the subject, so thank you. i had two questions. the first is about the overall health of the automobile industry. during the great recession, they were in a lot of trouble. he did not know is out, so assuming we do go into a recession and just rates go up a lot, how well-positioned is the automobile industry to whether that challenge now? my other question is completely different. do you have any information about cars, automobiles powered by natural gas? from the little bit i have read, that is actually very co2 efficient, but you do not really hear about that in the media. guest: i will save the second question until i answer the
first. the first question is, carmakers say after they went through the great recession that they got leaner, so they can afford to withstand a downturn. sales coming out of a recession for about 17 million year -- they said they can continue to make money down to about 12 million per year. we have not tested that hypothesis yet. we have a very strange situation now. it has really impacted the ply and demand. what they are making is usually more high demand. they do not have to put a lot of incentives on vehicles. it is by far the highest it has ever been, so even in a lower sales environment, they are making more money, but it is a
strange environment. it seems that the financial health of the industry is very strong, but we have not had a significant downturn, likely had in 2008 and 2000 nine that has gone on for more than a few months. the other question about natural gas is that there are a lot of cool alternatives out there. natural gas is one. in terms of engines at work on it and fuel cells that work with hydrogen. that is another interesting thing. the auto industry seems to coalesce and it is more than environmental. ev's are similar -- easier to make. right now they are spending a lot of money to invest in them. the batteries are more expensive, but all of these solutions -- we would have to
include the internal combustion engine as well. ev's are the simplest. you have a battery underneath and motors attached to the wheels. the system is simple. it does not require a lot of new product development as you go forward. yes, you have to tweak the motors and do investment on the battery, but you do not have to develop new engine programs. you do not have to develop new transmissions, which are expensive. ev's are the most cost-effective solution. the technology was expensive. you need the simplicity is also something that is attractive to the carmakers, maybe even more
attractive than environmental benefits. >> justin -- host: justin, and california, i.e. still with us? are you a car guy? is that why you asked those questions? caller: not at all. california, i have a lot of friends with electric vehicles, but i wonder if people really do the math, is the electrical car that much better for the environment than the combustion engine? from what i have read, it seems that natural gas is a much more co2 efficient way to power vehicles and i really appreciate his insight. host: thank you for asking that question. massachusetts. you are on the radio.
caller: i have a comment and a question. i worry about the electric grid. it seems that we are trying to solve a carbon emission issue. if we created a filter that would snap into the muffler system that would be replaced periodically? perhaps it could reduce emissions by 50% or so. wouldn't this be something that we should be investing research dollars into? we could capitalize on technology that already exists. host: a lot there, mr. gilbert. guest: i am not an engineer, so i'm not familiar with the system she mentioned, but carmakers are interested in ev.
again that every extra step that they are taking with an internal combustion engine to get them cleaned up is more and more expensive. they liked the idea of starting from scratch. another thing to think about is, this transition sounds like everything is happening quickly, but if you look at the entire fleet of vehicles, it is going to take a long time. if you believe that we are going to go electric, it will take a long time for every vehicle on the road to be electric. the earliest anybody is talking about phasing out internal combustion vehicles would be california in 2035. to say that happens. it phases out the sales. most vehicles down the road for about 20 years, so we would be
talking 2035 at the earliest when we talk about the entire fleet on the road being practically all electric. even at the fastest pace, it will take a long time. host: what has been the change in the internal combustion engine when it comes to environmental impact? guest: carmakers have gotten a lot more out of the engine than they ever thought they could with turbocharging, with things of that nature. the start and stop technology has really helped. computerization is added to what they have been able to do, but it only goes so far. the low hanging fruit was picked a long time ago.
caller: years ago, toyota said it would go with hydrogen cause. are they thinking more electric or are they still concentrating on the hydrogen? guest: there are two tracks here. what has developed -- different carmakers have different feelings about things, and toyota is more bullish on the technology. the technology are fueled spacecraft for a long time. obviously, it makes water, which is the only byproduct, but it also generates electricity. they have been working on getting this to generate electricity for a while. what many people have come to the conclusion is that for an average passenger car, it is still more expensive to produce,
to develop. you need the hydrogen infrastructure. that is why many of them, probably most of them feel that dvds are in more practical solution, but that is for passenger cars. when you start getting bigger, like semi trucks and things of that nature, something that would require a huge battery that has to be hauled around and would cut down on the cargo space, that is where the expense of a fuel-cell would be far more practical. they are working on fuel cells, but they see them more as powering bigger vehicles like trucks and buses. you have the advantage of an 18 wheeler. just the places where you would need an 18 wheeler. that is the type of thing that they are looking at and i was at a general motors drive event last week and they were showing
off an electric vehicle charger and it is a v charger that can be put anywhere and it is a fuel-cell powered by hydrogen. it is still being worked on, but not power passenger vehicles. host: just is what the news media in detroit. he talks about all things auto. we really appreciate your time this morning. mr. gilbert. coming up and about 15 minutes, we are going to start a new series on big legislation, landmark legislation over the years that have affected the lives of all of us. today, we will be focusing on the 1956 federal highway act that created the interstate system. that is coming up in about 15
minutes, but first we have an open forum. you can talk about any public policy issue you would like to talk about. you can see the numbers they are divided by political affiliation. independent -- we will be right back to take your calls. ♪ >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the house january 6 committee hearing, investigating the attack on the capital. our web resource page to watch the latest videos of the hearing , briefings and all of our coverage on the attack and investigation since january 6, 2021. we will have reaction from members of congress and those
talking about the investigation. a fast and easy way to watch, when you cannot see it live. >> if you are enjoying book tv, sign-up for our newsletter. to receive a schedule of upcoming programs, book festivals and more. tv every sunday on c-span two or online. >> in 1814 francis scott key vote a song that would go on to become the national anthem of the u.s. musicology and american discusses his book about the history and cultural impact of the star-spangled banner. >> one of my big insights or
beliefs about the song is that it is actually a living document. it is not a frozen icon, not something that is static, but it is constantly changing and brought to life by people like jimi hendrix, but every time we sing the song, we elevate the questions, the tension, the crisis and hope that is in that song, i knew tonight at 8:00 eastern on q&a. you can listen to all of our podcasts on our c-span now at. >> washington journal continues. host: we have about 15 minutes of open forum. any public issue that you want to talk about, we want to hear from you about it.
a text number, in case you want to send a text in. your first name and your city. in about 15 minutes, we will turn our attention to the interstate highway act, which at that point cost about -- cost about $25 billion. those about 42,000 miles worth of railroad. we will impact with a couple of experts. joel is in marianne, isla. good morning. what is on your mind? caller: just a couple of brief points. obviously on overturning roe v. wade. i want to say what is next are the women's voting rights. are they going to be taken away? i do not know. the other point i wanted to make
that i have not heard much of. everybody is into what type of energy source will be used. here is my concern for americans who are either poor or just above that. registration costs. $300 to $500 a year for a new car. on top of that, insurance, full coverage, especially if you have a loan. so one vehicle? people have to be thinking about these things. if you want people to have these vehicles, something needs to be done. i really liked that one suggestion about the current vehicle. that is an awesome idea. thank you so much. host: alan is calling in on our republican line. good morning. caller: is the only winter port
in the world. host: it comes up as winter park. that is the official name. it comes up on the phone that way. caller: interesting. it was the only ice free port at the time. now with climate change, they can go anywhere they want because there is no ice building up in the winter. a common the last thing. i bought a hybrid in 2014. i could go anywhere it switches to gas, but it is very efficient
on the gas. it is engaging and generating electricity, semi actual mileage on the highway is around 35 to 40 miles per gallon. my question was that i wish that they discussed the operational cost more, not just the acquisition cost. with the $7,500 rebate a year, it will still cost so much less. that is why fedex, ups, local auto parts -- why -- how can we push them? they are far better in terms of
maintenance. all i do is rotate tires and check the brakes. since it is a plug-in hybrid, there is a gas engine. host: we are going to leave your comments therefrom winter port, maine. let's head to florida. caller: the question i have that nobody brought up was how are the states and the federal government going to replace the vote taxes to support? they do not even have a universal charge employed. are my rates going to go up to support the upgrade of the electrical grid, to support these electric vehicles? you might bring up in the next segment since you are talking about infrastructure on the federal highway system. i wrote --
host: i wrote down exactly what you said. nancy, good morning tia. you are on washington journal. -- tu -- to you. you are on washington journal. caller: i grew up as a catholic in massachusetts. whole family was so proud of john kennedy, who was campaigning to be the first catholic president. i remember the concern of those days that people did not want a catholic being elected to the presidency because they were concerned that he would impose his catholic views, which is exactly what the supreme court has recently done on women. also growing up in massachusetts, i was a teenager. in 1970, three years before roe v. wade, i was a sophomore in high school, when a friend got pregnant.
she could not turn to her parents because they had basically promised to banish her , if she shamed the family. we did not have the internet, cell phones or anything. from massachusetts, we figured out how to get to new york city for an illegal come the back alley abortion. at this young girl got on a bus all by herself. we could only come up with the money for one bus ticket, aside the cost for the abortion. she went 250 miles to get a back alley abortion. it was not even at a clean facility. fortunately, she survived and came home. she went on to marry her boyfriend went -- when they graduated high school two years later. but when i was married, roe v. wade was not the law. it came the day after i was married, at 19 years old. when it became law, that is when men were granted the right to have their own credit cards.
before that, they had to have their husband or father's signature to have access to credit. women have had come in my life, i have seen the suppression. i've seen as coming-of-age. but also, the constitution was only 13 states at the time. it was only written by, for and about christian white men who were landowners. women are not mentioned in it, jesus our -- is not mentioned in the constitution -- so to try to employ the logic of those days -- there is a lot of good basis, but it does not apply to modern society in 2022, unless you want to turn us back into a bunch of -- they are going to turn us back to that time period. get rid of the guns and go back to the muskets because this mass murder of our children is probably the most deplorable
thing i have seen happening in a society, and men of your generation are not speaking up, and it is abominable because the greatest generation, my father's generation, who went to war in submarines did not want mass -- weapons of mass destruction on our streets. if i had grandchildren today, they would be running from guns. i would be venting down to d.c. earlier, you said governor sununu is from a blue state. we are from a red state. he signed the first abortion ban into law. he said he is not a pro-choice governor anymore. he is antichoice. he said he has done the most for the movement in generations. i appreciate you listening to me. i am actually retired these days.
i was an insurance agent in massachusetts, my entire career. my world was based on facts. there is no ambiguity. you would get right down to the bare bones and the facts. when i hear some much misinformation -- it is so damaging to our society. i went to school in the 60's, when our teachers made us learn. we were taught civics and taught about our history. people come here and they expect to be asked really important questions. we do try to pay attention to what is going on because it is a smaller area and we get affected. host: why did you leave massachusetts? caller: i fell in love with
somebody in new hampshire. i was living in a little dutch flat apartment on the third floor, and he lived in a house in new hampshire. he had a big sheepdog. it was more conducive for me to relocate than for the sheepdog to track it up to the third floor. host: nancy has called to task. here is the article that she referenced a little earlier. they pledged to uphold the right to seek abortion, and when it comes to chris sununu of new hampshire -- i only about a portion of this. i just read the small paragraphs here. new hampshire's legislature is controlled by republicans, and it does not have a law that explicitly protects abortion. sununu said in a statement that abortion will remain legal in the state, after a draft of the supreme court ruling elite, he
said he is a pro-choice governor that would keep new hampshire a pro-choice state. he has been criticized by reproductive health groups like planned parenthood, citing a measure that bans most abortions beyond 24 weeks of pregnancy. after it became law in 2021, more on the issue of -- that is from the washington post this morning. next up is kathleen in colorado. i cannot tell which line you are on. caller: hello. my point is, i would like to go back to the issue of cars. we live out in the country. yesterday, i've had about an electric vehicle blowing up. the fire department had to try
to get it out. i am not in favor of electric cars until they get them a little more stable, plus the fact that farmers cannot use them for their tractors. the electric -- they are out there for 12 to 14 hours, so that is a problem. if you have a ford f1 50, 350, ram or another big car trailing cars or mobile homes? they get seven miles per gallon. how much electricity will they need to pool in our -- pull an rv over the mountain? they are still in their infancy.
i do not see any real plan for the implementation of electric. a lot of it is still just a wish list. they need to get it down to the nitty-gritty and tell the people what the plan is. please do not get rid of oil and gas. it is not just for cars. i do not see any real plan, just verbiage. that is my point. host: thank you for calling. bill in north carolina on the republican line. your turn. caller: i just wanted to throw something out there, as an idea about ev's. the elon musk could pick up this idea. how come they do not make car
bodies and have solar panels? it would probably be a good idea for somebody to pick up on, but thank you so much for your program. host: that would have been a good question for mr. gilbert. caller: they keep talking about this abortion deal. what about the men? if there is a child at conception, shouldn't the man start paying child support at the moment of conception? just a thought. host: catherine is next. calling from maryland on the independent line. where is that? caller: it is basically a suburb
of tomorrow. -- baltimore. i just wanted to bring up a point regarding the overturn of roe v. wade. a lot of people have been talking about it. my concern is -- i am an independent, but thinking from both the republican and democrat side, for republicans, i do not understand how this is seen as a win, in terms of each state gets to decide to what degree abortions get to take place. it could be passed 20 weeks. it could go all the way to 39 week, if each state decided that, so i see that as less of a protection, in terms of in each state and what each person believes in, but i also think
that it is interesting -- i support the constitution and i think it is important to follow the constitution, but in terms of protecting rights, i just wonder why this is not an important enough issue to be its own amendment. if we are going to or if we have repealed roe v. wade or overturned it, i think we need to come up with our own constitutional amendment to protect these rights across the country. that is all i have to say. thank you. host: i want to show this map. if you get access to the new york times you can see this. this top map that we are looking at is -- maybe i can do the moving. there we go. this is what roe v. wade in
effect. some areas have no clinic nearby. many women of childbearing age within 200 miles of a clinic all of the black dots are abortion clinics, abortion providing clinics there. and then, if all possible states ban abortion after the overturn, these states are considered the most likely to fully prohibit abortion. you can see a lessening in the northeast, still quite a few. on the west coast, still quite a few, but in the middle of the country, a lot fewer of the clinics. if florida and virginia also banned, florida just came up with a law for 15 we, so maybe
not so much, but again, it goes to the west coast. from 99% within 200 miles, potentially many fewer abortion clinics. mark from fairfax, democrat. mark, are you with us? please go with -- please go ahead. caller: america is very independent when it comes to electricity. an easy's naked mandated for manufacturers to have every vehicle at the minimum 40 miles per gallon. i drive a prius that gives me 56 miles per gallon. gasoline engines can get over 100 miles per gallon -- the second thing about abortion.
there is a study that 18 years after roe v. wade, the violence dropped in those states, where it became legal. look at all the red states banning abortion in 18 years time. there will be huge amounts of violence because there are 70 children who had -- so many children who have nobody to take care of them. they grow up with no parents to take care of them. it is a tough situation. no easy answers. host: we will turn our attention now to the 1956 interstate act that was signed into law by eisenhower. it created the interstate system that we all know, love, hate, etc.
joining us will be two guests. sean most of it -- sean wilson is that trance for secretary for louisiana. and peter is at the university of virginia and the author of fighting traffic, the dawn of the motor age. they will be with us in just a minute. first, we want to show you a film that general motors put out , promoting the need for investment and infrastructure. ♪ >> this is the american dream of freedom on wheels. traveling on time-saving superhighways, featuring roadways of concrete and steel. but these wide veins of reality
actually measure out to just a few miles, scattered far apart across the friendly face of our land. we have become the nation on wheels, with more motorized mobility than ever dreamed of before. it cannot carry the mounting traffic of our growing greatness. we are running out of roads. we did not dream big enough. host: thank you for joining us. this is the last segment of washington journal today and we
are looking at legislation this week. it is the creation of the federal interstate system and joining as part sean wilson -- as is sean wilson and peter. sean wilson what the 19 mean to the country? how -- 1956 act mean to the country? guest: a created the interstate system across the country, not just the infrastructure, but it is a testament of what engineering skills and accomplishment we can have when we worked together for a common vision. what president eisenhower signed was a piece of legislation that became a part of our culture.
our daily lives is impacted by the interstate system. it is an integral part of who we are as a country. it is a part of this network for our country, not just for defense for -- it has shaped communities and in some cases it has scarred communities as a result of how it has been operated in the long-haul. it was really a significant piece of legislation. it is landmark legislation, very similar to what we see with the bipartisan infrastructure and the investment they have made. host: how many miles of federal interstate are there? who has the control? what does it cost the state of
louisiana? >> we have louisiana. about 12,000 miles are federal aid eligible. it is a very small part of our network as a country, a small percentage because we have local government and local roads, things that will actually be the door of a business or a home not be federally eligible, said the most important thing i can tell you is that it costs a great deal of money because that system will carry the vast majority of traffic across the country. it needs to be maintained a little different and originally intended, but you have to go back and maintain it. in my state, we will have a budget close to $3 billion, funding that will be spent on
supported highways and other mode of transportation. a significant portion will be on the interstate. host: peter, that is a couple trillion dollars today, but who is behind this 1956 interstate act? guest: it was a coalition of groups and varied with time, that probably the reader was the national highway users conference, which represented shippers, automakers and any country roads. other interest groups were involved like the road builders association, the automobile manufacturers association -- a fairly predictable list of groups that did not always agree with each other about what the
highways should be, a major dividing point was whether they should have told or not. the road users wanted the roads to be toll-free, so what we have is a compromise, which is mostly a toll-free system but let me squeeze parent this is a timely conversation because on wednesday, it is the 66th anniversary of the day when president eisenhower signed this legislation. host: when it was started, they were putting asphalt and concrete down pretty quickly. didn't they already have miles of highway decided ahead of time? guest: there was already a highly system. 1956 did not create it.
there was an act in the late stages of world war ii that designated a highway system that it did not provide the funding necessary. for that reason, it was not what we would consider interstate highway standard. it was a lot of two lane road. it was waiting for a funding mechanism. shoulders and rest. host: very quickly to both of you gentlemen, professor norton, we will start with you. what are the benefit of this highway system? what are the downsides? guest: if you are a driver, a trucker, or any kind of road user, the benefits and secretary
wilson alluded to are substantial. they reduce shipping costs, travel time, they get you through urban areas without traffic lights, which is an extraordinary thing. those are notable benefit. host: downside? guest: downsides are enormous as well. this is a very energy intensive system. it moves a lot of people that i going from the suburbs to the city, in their own individual vehicle, which is 95% of the mass. it tends to make trucking costs more competitive than rails, due to the fact that the roads are there, which can deflect free transport to -- a devastated
communities -- it devastated communities, and those effects are still with us. the roads tend to serve the people who use them, yet the people who do not use them pay for them as well in the form that they harm that they do to the communities and public expenses required to maintain them. host: same question. benefits and downside. guest: the benefits are experienced no matter where you drive. drivers have an expectation of what they will get no matter what state they are in. ideally, safety. what i think this legislation did exceptionally well, they have always supported highways
and roads -- the level of investment was exponential. i think that is still a critical factor today. what it also helped us to do was galvanize the issue of safety and management across the country. for the entire infrastructure network. in allowed states the flexibility to be aligned with local priorities, whether they be gubernatorial, legislative, or in a local community. we still have the flexibility. it might be something different in oklahoma or kansas. those are the things that i think it did right. where it may have fallen short -- that has to do with the consistent investment. this system that we have has
exceeded its useful life in some cases. the federal government is not investing in that specific area of our system to the same degree when we created the system. there is a perpetual infrastructure that will always need improvements, not only takes the end, but to sustain and maintain a. because of the process by which we fund the system, it relies on political agreement that may not always be there. just look at the way that we funded it, and system for the time it has taken to increase the level of investment in a sustainable way. prior to this, we saw an increase in investment. that is no longer the case and probably because of the politics of change. i'm not sure that the bill itself -- i'm not sure that it kept up with some of the
innovations that are out there. when you look at what you talked about in the segment, or the types of vehicles we are using, we need to be more nimble and quick, in terms of delivering improved and reliable services, in a way that allows us to be a better neighbor to our citizens and can and the users in that system. host: if you want to talk about this then mike legislation on the federal interstate system in 19 d6, our two guests can talk about current issues as well, when it comes to road transportation. (202) 748-8000, (202) 748-8001, and (202) 748-8002 are the numbers you can use to dial in. please go ahead. caller: first off, my own father
was the head of the department of transportation construction for the state of connecticut and talked about these road and bridge issues quite a bit in our home. my biggest question to the gentleman on the panel is, what is the quality of the road required and the quality of the asphalt for building our system in each state? it seems like in connecticut, we have lower quality roads been out west. my father always complained about this in terms of using 100 year concrete. can you speak? a lot of corruption gets involved, where the road developers want to use lower quality, so the roads fall apart and they make more money repairing them than building them. please talk about the quality and what is required across the
country, so we can understand. thank you. thank -- guest: many will spend money to build a particular road and expect it to last a certain amount of time. all of those are factors that are there. they create standards that every state uses, not only from a design standpoint but material as well. a great deal of effort is spent, identifying consistent material that will provide certainty. it is a tense conversation when you know the gravel is not going to be sustainable over time. you have to look at all of the
conditions. we do not have a bedrock in louisiana. not in terms of sustainability on that road. all of those things are going to change, so they have an emphasis area in terms of research and testing. we want a consistent performance. i think we have come a long way, in terms of guaranteeing the integrity of our processes. i would suggest that you pay close attention to how the local government or state is investing and maintaining road. i know that i may not get every road, every year. it might take 10 years to make it around the entire system.
depending on its use, it can change drastically, in a community. host: you teach engineering. what are your thoughts? guest: we have different regional needs. maybe it is not as solid as it would. this has major implications for maintenance and the engineering of the road. i do want to point out that how you do this. the portland association that represented the contractors wanted fifty-year road beds, made of reinforced concrete.
the institute promoted asphalt. it was a political struggle as it was in engineering struggle. for the problem of maintaining roads, the truckers need to be the ones who pay for that maintenance. but we have a mechanism that tends not to generate the revenues necessary to cover those maintenance expenses. if you want maintenance, it is expensive and it has to come from somewhere. host: how do they get charged? guest: the primary mechanism for funding interstate highways was the trust fund.
of course, they buy a lot more fuel. for all those things, truckers must pay more because of the fuel demands of their vehicles are greater. it is greater than the revenues generated. that is actually -- the first bill that reached congress text truckers proportionately. we had to recognize that we are dealing with economics, but also politics, always. host: the president has proposed
a gas tax holiday. how would that affect your state? guest: it would be very beneficial for us. [indiscernible] it will undermine the amount of money coming from the highway trust fund, going back out of state. [indiscernible] it has been nearly 30 years. same thing for louisiana. we have not adjusted our gas taxes since the early 1990's.
not only are we seeing more cars, but we are seeing cars with much more fuel efficiency. you are looking at 18 to 20, 30 miles per gallon. i understand the need or the one for relief, but in the louisiana, we would be saving about $12 per month. we are seeing upwards of $40 to $50 an increase that is going to that while producers. i do not know that in the long term, it allows us to the the best for infrastructure -- do the best for infrastructure. [indiscernible]
host: we apologize to the audience for the bad connection that we have with both peter and shawn. really terrific guests and terrific information. we will take some calls and see if we can improve the connection. let's hear what dennis has to say. caller: thank you for taking my call. i made my living on the interstate and roads. i had a commercial license for over 20 years. i have been through the tunnel thousands of times. sometimes it is closed because of the weather. it is a high elevation. you have to go over highway six, which is even higher. that is almost 12,000 feet. i retired.
if it were not for eisenhower, my career would not have existed. i want to thank him for everything he has done. ok. i did not need to get emotional. thank you for taking my call. host: you mentioned you have you been driving a truck. do you -- caller: 44 years. host: do you remember when the highway system is being built in the 60's? >> i started driving in about 68. interstate 70 wasn't done. interstate 10 to phoenix wasn't done. i helped build -- there's not interstate but it's like an interstate, 50 seven in california. i went through a lot of construction over the years and
to build an interstate through colorado, interstate 70 is a nightmare because of the mountains. host: as a trucker what did it cost you to use the federal highway systems. caller: owner operator back then, i don't know what it was now, 1200 dollars hwy use fund every year. i had two trucks for about a year. $1200 and that doesn't count your license or your field taxis or your field taxes are trucker's pay a lot of money to use the interstate. that's why you can drive the amount of miles. now they've made it harder because you get paid by the mile and not by the hour. they had satellite computers when i was with interstate. it's a whole lot different in all the years i drove.
i enjoyed my job but you can imagine the amount of traffic there is nowadays the interstate can even handle it anymore. i delivered in all 48 states and some big cities. all kinds of commodities. all kinds of hardware stuff. host: thank you for calling in and sharing a little bit of your experience and if you're that trucker i followed through the eisenhower tunnel through that snowstorm with cap me on the road, thank you very much. ricky is in strasburg, virginia. caller: -- host: helps if i push the button. start again. caller: a couple of comments. good morning.
in 63 her family moved to woodbridge, virginia and we were actually able to play on interstate 95 because it hadn't opened yet. they are still working on it today. it's got to be a guinness book of records for that. in 73 it moved to chantilly and we had interstate 66 over the last couple of years there expanding it from four lanes to six lanes and they are putting in an easy pass lane and this and that. my question is virginia might get most of the money any state gets from the government for roads and of course us as taxpayers are paying for these roads, but now they want us to pay to use these fast lanes and in one stretch it's going to be six lanes and then it's good to
go down to two lanes and to me that seems like it's can it create more gridlock. strasburg is a mile from interstate 81 which seems like a truckers route. and it's only two lanes and it seems like every time there's an accident, truck is involved. that doesn't mean it was a truckers fault. it's probably a car's fault. but there's gridlock and there's only two lanes. it just seems like they start building these roads after it's too late, especially in northern virginia. host: got the point, ricky. we will listen to one more call and have a final comment from guests. please go ahead. caller: good morning. i father was a truck driver from california to new york and i used to go with him from when i
was eight years old to graduating high school. around 1960 or 1970's on changing the freeway system going through small towns to going around towns to keep the flow of traffic moving. host: the kind of beltway or bypasses? caller: yeah. it seemed to me that small towns. i father told me small towns were losing money because they wouldn't go through the town and spend money at restaurants and shops. host: we appreciate that. let's start with peter norton. i hope you heard those three callers. one was a cdl trucker. one was talking about the fact we are still working on these highways 60 some years later and
then the bypasses around small towns prayed anything there you would like to address? guest: i'll comment on the second caller from virginia talking about driving around northern virginia and the gridlock that she often faces. i just want to point out that if you let people drive on roads in ways that don't incur a toll, yes they are paying taxes, gas taxes and other kinds. but the actual access to the road is charge free and you are in a densely populated area you will have traffic congestion and you will not be able to build your way out of it fast enough. if you expand the road capacity, this is an invitation for people to live farther from work or for workplaces to open up farther from town with the effect that the more road you build the more
people will drive. it's a bit like if you hand out free pizza you can expect that your pizza supplies will always be short simply because people will always want more of it. so we cannot feed traffic congestion simply by expanding road capacity and the managed lanes she's referred to are a way to try and reckon with that fact. tolls are another way paid -- are another way. host: we had a trucker, someone worried about toll roads and the fact that the highways are still being worked on today and then the bypasses around some of the smaller towns. anything you would like to address? guest: in addition to the concept of demand that was mentioned, the reality is it takes time.
you have to repair them and there's hundreds of thousands of people driving on them. the other piece that super important is that zoning is not a responsibility typically of the state public transportation charge of the ability and responsibility to maintain roads. when you look at bypasses you redefine the community and create strong that actually adds to the cost. but the quality of life is in that community. there is a challenge with what happens and we see it in rural america and urban america where you build that bypass you are rerouting the business quarters associated with highways and interstates. you need to be thoughtful about where you create and build additional loops because you are redefining an entire community. the other thing the first caller
mentioned. thinking about everything you own, it's actually been on the back of the highway system, on a barge, in a plane or on a train and those are important factors. they're the only ones will get you -- get it to your door. the area critical part of our system and we have to coexist with them not just with the capacity but the safety as well as associated with that community and industry. i value them as users. i value every citizen the travels on the roads. the interesting comments today. host: secretary of transportation state of louisiana and also president of the american association of
state highway and transportation officials. -- teaches at the university of virginia in the engineering department and is the author of the dawn of the motor rage in the american city. i'm so sorry we had bad connections it was really interesting to talk with you. i hope we can get you back. guest: thank you very much. host: 20 minutes left in the washington journal. we will have open forum. any public policy discussion, anything you heard you would like to bring up or other public policy issues. republicans, 202-748-8000 -- 202-748-8001. democrats 202-748-8000. independents 202-748-8002. we will be right back to take your call. ♪
>> elizabethtown college history professor david s brown is the author of a new book about former president andrew jackson prayed he writes he is the first president to be born in a log cabin, to live beyond the appalachians and to rule in the name of the people. the title of the book is the first populist, of the defiant life of andrew jackson prayed he was president for two terms, eight years, from 1829 to 1837. jackson in his lifetime was a jurist, general, congressman, senator and america's seventh president. >> david s brown and his book the first populist, the defiant life of andrew jackson on this episode of book notes plus.
it's available on the c-span now free mobile app or were get -- where you get your podcasts. live sunday, july 3 on in-depth prayed emory university professor carol anderson will be our guest to talk about voting rights and gun regulation. she is the author of several books including white rage, one person, a no vote, and most recently race and guns in a fatefully unequal america. joining the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments, texts and tweets. in depth with carol anderson live at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. browse our latest collection of c-span products, apparel, books,
home decor and accessories rated their something for every c-span fan and every purchase help support our nonprofit operation. shop now or anytime at c-spanshop.org. >> washington journal continues. host: 202 is the area code for all of our numbers. 202-748-8001 if you are a republican. 202-748-8000 if you are a democrat. 202-748-8002 if you are an independent. we want to hear your opinions on public policy issues. any thing we've discovered this -- discussed this morning or anything public policy related. we will start with john in ohio on a democrats line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say how much i enjoy the show from detroit this morning. how informative it was.
i would like to see more of that. i think there is a whole lot more to do. host: he was a great cast. knows all things cars. i was trying to think of questions. he just kept answering them all. thank you for the input on that. we agree with you. kim and maclean -- 10 in mclean, virginia. caller: i was quite astonished to hear that professor at the university of virginia say that -- talk about induced demand. what really goes on here with traffic congestion is the population grows and every year we have an increase in motor vehicle registrations and people are driving more and prosperity. we can afford cars and so therefore you need more
capacity. the problem is there's a lot of -- a lack of political will by politicians put the money where it needs to be paid or people are in need and that's in the highways. they can be used for interstate bus rapid transit. the amount of money spent on amtrak is a waste. people are knocking to use trains when a car is so convenient. you are always going to need highways and we have too many burdensome regulations that make it difficult to do improvements. we are the most -- we take longer to build infrastructure than any country in the world including in europe where they have very strict environmental rules. as long as we start thinking we give away highways like giveaway pizza and we will be having this mindset that we need to get people out of their cars and it's knocking to happen. host: you live in mclean which
contains part of the washington beltway. would you support adding lanes to the beltway? what about dolley madison parkway? is this a not in my back yard type of issue? caller: that's been the problem in the washington area. i was involved in transportation. the problem is the washington area was predicted to have huge population back in the 60's and we were supposed to have three beltway's. they were never built in the growth still occurred. montgomery county in fairfax county's are now over one million people. and they said montgomery counties had very strong growth restrictions. so the people came in the highways never came. the washington area is terrible for that. it's also bad in new york city. if you separated new york and long island from new jersey it would probably be number one in
the country with congestion. they haven't kept their freeway network up either. you have people who move in with cars. on one hand the administration's spending money on amtrak and then they want to spend money to encourage electric vehicles. if electric vehicles, down in price more people will drive and you won't have to gas -- have the gas tax. you will always need freeway capacity unless you get flying cars which apparently they are looking at but i do know how you're going to do fda rules on that. >> what's on your mind today, pat. caller: everything is fine or i'm living. i'm a member of my city council and the town of huntington. one of the projects i ran on his city councilman was the
beginning of replacing the ancient sewage system that we have in my little town which was built back in the late 1800s, early 1900s. it takes courage to do these big projects. they cannot be done by private industry. in order to address the problem we have to have the courage as a country to get a new program of high-speed rail throughout this nation, one that parallels somewhat our major interstate highways so that we have access to real and to highway. i'm telling you right now the technology of electric cars is in its infancy and it's very
sketchy. we are going to have to have gas vehicles and gasoline for the next 20, 30, 40 years and there's no way around it. we have got to figure a way to make electric car pods so that we can go down -- get on high-speed trains and get planes out of the year and go from town to town and 150 miles per hour but they do in japan and china and europe somewhat and get to somewhere where we can get off the train at an interchange like the interstates have and go to a charging station where you can rent a vehicle cheaply, a small one and get to your destination. i'm not saying that would solve all the problems or take all the cars off the highway because many people would still like to travel by car.
but we get a lot of the planes out of the year and have a lot more safe travel. it can be done if we have courage. literally make the trains fuel efficient putting solar panels on top of the trains. host: thank you for that transportation information. you mentioned you were on the city council of huntington. i'm asking this because i recently talked with sam about the fentanyl crisis in huntington, west virginia that was one of the cities mentioned by him. what's the situation in huntington when it comes to fentanyl on the opioid crisis? caller: it is deplorable as it is in many areas of appalachia. we have been used and abused by basically the people that prey
upon our citizenry. we have lost a lot of jobs with manufacturing. at one time we were a major steel producer as a lot of the towns along the ohio river were in both ohio and west virginia. we have been preyed upon by outside forces. i'm not to go in to that. we are fighting tooth and nail to try and overcome this problem. it's being addressed by administration and i'm just can he give them a shout out. his name is steve williams, he's our mayor. i've come to know him after getting involved in the city politics. he really cares about her city but there's only so much you can do in a city that's lost most half the population since i was a young man. and lost most of its
infrastructure of industrial plants and things like that. but he has made great improvements and if you ever come to huntington you'll find out we are one of the most friendly cities and a beautiful town if you get downtown and look around. i invite everybody to come to huntington, west virginia. we are the home of the thundering herd marshall university. >> this is edward in silver spring maryland. you are on washington journal. >> good morning. back to the interstate, surprised they didn't mention this is just for information that all the even number interstates run generally east and west and the odd number interstates run generally north and south and the three digit ones are ones that will at the beltway around d.c. are the ones that go through around the city.
i just wanted to share that information. host: thank you, edward. sarah is in texas. please go ahead with your question or comment. caller: good morning. i'm also agreeing with the general and development of highways and transportations. with transportation, land development architecture with the troopers of identification and it should really be looked at. with traffic control and land development. if you're on the highways you need that. thank you. host: russell in florida, what is on your mind? russell is gone.
let's try stanley in south deerfield, massachusetts. caller: hello. either we use the oil or mother nature will use the oil in a volcano. so which way you want to use it? you want to use it so we get something out of it or let the local -- the volcanoes blast it out. host: i assume you're talking about transportation issues. have you thought about getting an electric vehicle? caller: yes and no and it comes down to i'm in an area where i could have electric vehicles, but if i'm good to be using current off the line for my car and having oil being used for something else to generate power
, it's six to one. so if i use the oil directly through the engine it's one to one. most people don't know these cold plants, oil plants, they have to generate the steam to throw through the turbines. and that means over 700 degrees. my drops below 650 it becomes wet steam and will tear up the turbines. i don't know what else to say. host: just want to hear from you and appreciate you answering the question. john is in marianna, florida. good morning. caller: i thought about with all the interstate highways we have in america engineers have never come up with anything to
generate electricity under the highways. every time a vehicle drives over it it would generate some type of electricity. why haven't engineers come up with something like that. host: thank you for the input. jared. caller: i think what is happening is the best thing that i think it happened to america. i'm really happy that -- host: kevin in california. caller: first time caller year. great show.
just wanted to make a mention on ev vehicles. they do emit just as much co2 emissions over long range. if you're comparing a vehicle that uses -- over 400 miles, and ev vehicle if it is the range of 400 miles as well is going to emit more co2. so a couple things here. having looked at the admissions ev vehicles will produce, it's going to be an issue. we will still have the same pollution, it doesn't help. host: are you talking about the fact overall once you get from their energy source out from the vehicle itself? caller: that's correct. host: where do you get that
information and why do you have an interest in this? caller: i get that information on ted talks. i research ev vehicles and look at people who are experts in the industry to get that information. you cannot have -- it's not co2 free when it comes to batteries. we still have to produce petroleum even to build these vehicles. so waging war on the fuel industry in the oil industry is a huge mistake and that's another reason for our fuel prices, not just inflation but the fuel prices going up because if you're exxon or chevron, why would you invest more in fossil
fuel production if all we are going to do is try to put them out of business when we still need petroleum. one of the caller last hour said we create over more than 500 products using petroleum. we still are going to have to use fossil fuel years on out. also if you take that away and all we have is the ev vehicles. i'm in california. we have blackouts here when people are running other air-conditioning systems. how are we going to have all these vehicles on charges. our infrastructure can even support it. in california we have 10 years left and working to prohibit gas vehicles as far as sales go. i don't see it where it's going to help the environment.
replacing one vehicle to produce a with another vehicle that can produce co2. it doesn't make sense. host: kevin in california, thank you. thank you to all the callers who participated. we appreciate our guests as well. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. with more public policy. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2022] >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are funded by these television companies and more. >> homework can be