talks about federal proposals that would change hunting regulations in alaska and other parts of the u.s. and later, a look at the effect of climate change in alaska with ♪ good morning everyone and welcome to the washington journal. the economyn with and how washington is impacting your bottom line, whether it is the tax cuts or the president's tariff policy. we want to know what it is like for you. are you better off, worse or the same. if things are good for you. 202-748-8000. if things are worse, 202-748-8001. if they are the same you can dial in at 202-748-8002. you can go to twitter as well at http://twitter.com/cspanwj or facebook got --.com to join the

conversation there. we will get thought's in -- thoughts in a minute. but let us begin with average -- with polls. let us go to this. 50% of the average approve of the president's direction on the economy. 43% disapprove. poll, aook at cnbc's majority of americans approve of the handling of the economy for the first time. the ratings surged six points to 51% according to the latest economic survey. 54% say the economy is good or excellent. on recent headlines immigration have not hurt his ratings. this is from june 25. here is the president marking

the six-month anniversary of that tax cuts. here's what he had to say on the economy. [video clip] >> unemployment claims are at a 44 year low. that is a good one. [applause] something i am so proud of. i love it. unemployment forever can americans is at the lowest level in the history of our country. [applause] i'm looking at kevin. that was a good job, you were right about that. we are all right. i have to say, unemployment for hispanic americans is at the lowest point in the history of our country. host: there was the president marking the sixth month anniversary of the tax cut and

signed into law. is it helping you. what about other economic decisions. we want to know what it is like where it is. are you better worse or the same? he will get to your calls in a minute. this is what the president has said this week on twitter about the economy. "china, the european union and others have been manipulating their interest rates lower while the dollar get stronger which each -- with each passing day, taking away our competitive edge." the united states should not be penalized before -- for doing so well. the u.s. should be allowed to capture what was loss -- lost. of thecritical their critical -- of the federal reserve. the chair of the federal reserve was on capitol hill testifying

two times before the senate ranking committee and house financial services committee. the president had this to say about the tariff policy. "farmers have been on a downward trend for 15 years. the price of soybeans have fallen 50%, a big reason is terrible trade deals with other trip -- other countries. 200da card it test charges 75% on dairy. farmers will win." we want to know what all of you think. let us go to mark in philadelphia. things are the same for you. caller: the reason that things are the same is the tax cut gave us x amount of money. earlier this year, my wife was hospitalized for three days and, unbeknownst to us, her health

care plan had been cut. because of the cuts in her health care, what ever that tax cut gave us was used up in additional medical bills. x amount,ax cut of and because of health care cuts that amount was gone in january. even though we are grateful for the tax cut, i would like our help benefits to be restored. host: what happened with health care? be, when mysed to wife would go into the hospital, everything was paid 100% for inpatient. 85% -- 50%is an co-pay on certain things done in the hospital. you can imagine what it is like. the doctor walks into your room

and charges of thousand dollars. and then you have to pay 15% of that. three days in the hospital, you the costs were. fortunately we have a $3000 catastrophic limit. without the limit, who knows what the bill would have been. host: this she her insurance through an employer? caller: yes. the employer, why trying to keep her premiums down, is cutting benefits -- when trying to keep her premiums down, is cutting benefits. every year she gets a benefit package, and every year it is huge. the cuts were in the fine print. kind can you tell us, what

of tax cut did you see personally? caller: do you want a dollar amount? host: if you do not mind. caller: three grand, a year. that has been eaten up by health care costs. host: -- caller: warren buffett has says that health care costs are the tape warm for the american middle class. you give with one hand and it goes away with the other. we have to get a handle on health care. another thing, i use a medication that i have been using for years. myent to get it refilled and pharmacist said that i need preapproval on it. it is a generic medicine. that iot that expensive, see it what my insurance company is doing now. mine, not hers. every procedure needs to be pre-certified. to bescript needs

pre-certified. they are throwing more obstacles in front of the doctors. host: does that mean more money out of your park it? , because itourse gets the point where -- let us say my magic it -- my education, if my doctor does not approve it i have to pay it out of pocket. host: thank you for the call. i am wondering if other people are saying -- seeing the same situation. in north to mike carolina. you say you are better off. caller: good morning. i am. i have enjoyed it. old, i have moved ,t least five times in my life which many people refuse to do anymore. opportunity moves, r e economy ourit and miss -- are --

economy is hit and miss depending on where you live. that is another conversation. half,e last year and a going back to around the election. i would not say it is a associated by the -- to the election. i was contacted by recruiters and i was recruited away from my job that i had, which was a good job with a better paid package and the compensation plan was better. but it comes with more responsibility and it is a move up, more travel and a little bit more work. for what i do, it is the next in line for earning potential. very exciting area,

the research triangle park. it is academic taste with research at duke university and chapel hill and north carolina state. the company is within that. the southeastern united states ,s generally doing well generally low tax states and low regulation states. with the new administration coming in with the tax cuts and the dialing back, not getting rid of, but dialing rack of regulations. also the psychology of the situation. love him or hate him, and it depends on the day for me. he is a enthusiastic supporter of his narrative -- business of the american -- and of the american dream. he has no qualms about it here at that ripples --. that ripples through the

economy. i am not here to slam president obama, but that does not emanate from the democrats. anti-profit, are and bernie with his millionaires and ilya and air stuff. i am excited. host: are you at all concerned about the tariffs -- the tariff moves by the president and what ripple effect could that have? the financial times out of london, full stare -- scale trade at war -- trade war looms larger. are you concerned about that? caller: somewhat, yes. i do not know. i am not smart enough, i will admit that, to know whether or not the world we have it to it was the same as it was a when tariffs were evil.

let us get one thing straight. president trump did not start a trade war, and i do not think we are in one. we are in ongoing negotiations with our allies and friends me's frenemies. that china is a current same and if you later. it has cost american companies and cost this country hundreds of aliens of dollars. we did not start this -- dollars.of billions of we did not start this. i get really tired of hearing president trump that he fired the first shot. host: however, some are saying a trade midterm threats war smacking voters.

they warned that the economic fallout could peek around election time. you are talking about control of the senate where the democrats that are up for reelection are in farm country. they are in north the coda, montana, etc. -- north dakota, montana and etc.. caller: you are getting into the political ramifications. host: aren't they sometimes tied? 9 -- the stock market, employment numbers, for the first time in a long time we have more open -- job openings in this country then we have people to fill them. the number is going to come out for second-quarter gdp and will crest at 4%. we have not seen that since the reagan administration. all of this background stuff is

maybe's. look at the hard data. unemployment, incredible gdp growth and art economy is on fire. if there is any time to respond to the trade war that has been waged on us, now is the time. we have a tail wind like no one could wish for. we are strong right now. host: i'm going to leave it there. on your point, i want to show a headlined -- headline. .arkets shrug off war stocks remain steady. the trumpis that , it is late ine summer dates and people are fatigued on a long week of headlines.

further reason for the market's column has to do with corporate performance. 10% of snp companies have &pported earnings and 95 --s companies have reported earnings. the dow was led by microsoft who closed at 2% after reporting quarterly profits. the company reported annual sales of above 100 bills -- 100 billion. george, you are in florida and you say you are worse off. caller: no, i said i was that are off. i got the tax cut it helps me because the.com boom is over and we are back to real profits. the one year under clinton i paid 34.9 to the irs. isch was in my situation

quitted to $124,000, and i do not even know if i held 10 in title ease. es.entitle wars, we better get into a trade war because things are global capitalism. there is no more economies and no more spoils of the war. we have the -- we had that are get in there and figure out where we will be. china it needs us more than we need them. -- when it comes down to a, president trump is finally man strong enough to stand up and speak in real terms that i can understand. the man before me was brilliant. i have to say that he can speak

in terms that i can understand instead of mumbo jumbo legalese. host: caroline in baltimore. you are about the same. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. this conversation is awesome. particularly the first caller. situation, my salary, i am bringing home more salary because left -- taxes are taken out. i live in maryland which is a high state tax. the income tax with this new tax bill, my home interest -- both the income tax and home interest , that is a limit of 10,000 and i almost hate 10,000 it -- i almost pay 10,000 in state taxes. i do not know how this tax bill sinceash out, especially

separate, so id get the highest tax racket. even getting more biweekly, ian -- in the end i'm scared of what my bill will be. host: because of the state of maryland? caller: living in the state that has high income tax and how we will not be able to the duct that as we used to. host: ok. caroline in baltimore. mark in pennsylvania. you are better off. caller: president trump -- i have been better off since president trump has been president. i believe that the country is better off. socialist andave him a kratz trying to tear him down and they are abstract -- democrats tearing him down and

there obstructing. you are -- now they are attacking supporters. they are beating people up for supporting trump. it is ridiculous what the left is doing. they are communists and trying to take over and they want a communist government and want everything for free. we have to pay and these people do not want to pay. we have a young socialist running for office and she cannot even answer simple questions. she does not have it. host: are you talking about the 28-year-old alexandria who won in new york? is that the one? caller: yes. askedoung girl gets questions about the economy and she cannot answer them.

what is this does she have running for anything. they want everything for free. they want a welfare state. host: she joined bernie sanders in kansas this week, to bring a joint progressive push to that state. the senator from vermont and the nominee from new york city helped campaign for brent welder . let us go to peggy and tennessee. you are better off as well. i am better off and everybody else is if they would admit it. the last two callers, i admire them for what they're saying. they are telling the truth. host: how are you better off economically? old, i i am 74 years have seen a lot of presidents come through. let me tell you one thing, some

of them have been doozies. reagan and president trump are the best we have ever had. i admire trump to step -- for standing up to people. i do not know why the democrats are so upset. -- the -- most of them are supposed to get along, the democrats and the republicans. just want to go in restaurants and run them out. they even go to their homes. i have never seen anything like that in my life. and somebody is going to get hurt if they do not stop all of this mess. i have never seen nothing like it in my life. all the lies -- laws -- lies they tell you. it is awful.

i just lovest -- him and his family. i know what is going on. i could tell you a lot. here, i you come over worked with two girls. they came over here and they had to work here for 10 or 11 years them.l their tip went to in the 10 or 11 years they had to go take a test, and a lot of them are this way. they did not come over here and say you are a citizen. i do not know who started that, but you are's -- but that was stupid. host: i will leave it there. let us talk about a concern that some have over the president's tariff policy. the federal reserve chair was on capitol hill testifying.

jerome powell was before the senate banking committee. tim scott asked him this question about tears. [video clip] >> south carolina's economy is built on trade. you name it, we make it, grow it and ship it. the list goes on. att has happened in the past and him it growth -- economic growth when we have raised tariffs? >> i am firmly committed to staying in our lane and arlene is the economy. -- our lane is the economy. trade is delegated to congress. it will have significant -- significant effects on the economy and i would say, in general, countries that have remained open to trade and have not erected barriers have grown faster. they have had higher productivity. countries that have gone in a

protectionist direction have got -- have done worse. host: democrats are criticizing the president over the moon -- the move. dianne feinstein is tweeting out that the reckless trade war is hitting the agricultural communities hard. china is a major market and the president does not have a plan to get us out of the mess he has created. it is not just california, farmers across the country, them a kratz are worried that they can be hit by this. farm -- democrats are worried that they can be hit by this and farmers are worried. senator jon tester has been hearing from folks across the state and they are concerned. new tariffs are putting ranchers at risk. i am telling everyone that this

-- that we will listen. and then you have the senator from iowa tweeting out that read my full statement in regards to the white house traded pfizer telling the cnbc that the economic impact is a rounding error in the administration is playing a broader chessboard. if you scroll down into her statement, she said america's farmers are caught in the crosshairs. offhand comments like the one that was made disregard the people whose livelihoods depend on global trade. 456 thousandthan job 40's thousands of jobs are affected by trade. that is nor rounding -- that is -- error.g error at they are waiting for new deals and we need to lessen the pressure on the farmers and let them sell their goods.

q research is out with a new poll on tariffs. -- pew research is out with a new poll. more tariffs seem to have a negative impact. republicans view the tariffs more positively than democrats. ronald in boston, you say you are worst off. was in the vietnam war and 78 years old. when i got drafted i was making 78 dollars a month. -- $78 a month. i know from time to time the pay is going to improve, but it is like we are living in the 60's again. can time the united states make cars and grow food in the united states, and then let the other countries by and make sure that you charge them a lot of money. every state should have a car plant.

why are you making the cars in china and mexico? and wherever else they are making them. own -- fendon her on our own in the united states. what is going on? this is going to continue to be messed up under the republicans with the way they are going. we may as well go back and let the democrats take over again. --t: clinton in connecticut lou in connecticut. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to address the woman in maryland about the high tax. connecticut is an the tax. she should do what i am going to do. go someplace where there is no tax, that is a big improvement. connecticut is one of the worst states in the union for taxes.

everyone should get the had -- the heck out of the state. thend of all, i think democrats are just obstructionists and all they want to do -- what ever the president wants to do, he is already done a lot already. he did 10 times more than obama did in eight years to make things better for all of us. if the democrats would start being helpful instead of trying to hinder him about everything, this country would be a lot better. everything that every president has ever done, donald trump including -- included. he is 10 times better than obama was. ken ine will go to virginia. you say you are worse off.

caller: in reference to that last caller, if he is going to put his faith in a failed businessman then so be it. it does not mean it will be better for everyone. where i live, and i am not going to move. i have a job and i made a police officer and a disabled veteran. i live where i live and i will not to be -- i will not be forced to leave. and the lady from maryland was clear about it. she was correct about that. atdeductions are limited $10,000 and i will be without money on the upside. when heds me of bush sent home the tax relief and reductions years ago. everyone checked and everyone realized it does not talent the debt, it makes it worse. people are looking for a short-term fix for something that will have long-term

consequences. it is unfortunate that people politicize it. if they want to believe somebody multiple bank rescues, multiple marriages, whatever the case may be pure on obstructionist when mcconnell says he will not work with the office of the presidency before he even got started. they are entitled to believe what they want. host: ok. to matt in south carolina. say you are worse off. why is that? caller: first of all, i want to make it clear before obama became president, we were in a financial catastrophe. he pulled us out of that isastrophe, and trumpettrump just waiting on what obama did years ago. disasterut of a

because of the obama administration. what he is trying to outdo is going to really put this country in another financial disaster, and the whole world is looking at us. the world looked at us when obama was there, and you say we made america worse? well, look at us now. host: antoinette, the first page of the "financial times," weekend session, "full scale trade war looms large." they ask about the u.s. terrorariffs. angela merkel said the eu is working on counter measures to , but thatial tariffs

was by far the worst solution. host: and the "wall street journal, their conservative newspaper, or editorial board this morning, they write commerce secretary wilbur ross wrote tariffs in the name of helping american metal manufacturers. host: meanwhile, white house

trade officer peter navarro told cnbc damage from the trade war was "no big deal." host: farm income was already off by half compared to four years ago, with debt levels rising, hardly a strong position for agriculture going into this trade war. this situation will only worsen as combines role between now and the fall election season. the nation's farmers and ranchers support the broader goal of strengthening our overall economy and trade balance, but not at the risk of long-term, irreparable harm to our ag exports and jobs they create hee.

host: manny in new york, you say you are worse off. thank you for taking my call. first of all, we have to believe our economy every day, minute by minute, is hitting worse. findu go to the city, you most of of no money to feed their gas tank. rising the price of unfortunately, to solve this problem, to solve the price of the gas, donald trump every

he has -- andeen unfortunately, we have to pay for him. i do not know why. fayetteville,in north carolina. lee. things are the same for you, lee? caller: yes. first of all, i apologize for calling in on the wrong line. i came in late on the show. it has not approved for me. matter of fact, it might get worse, because i am not going to be able to play my house taxes and interest and also my child rate is going to be changing. as far as mr. trump making things 10 times better than what obama did, that is wrong, because he did not have to come from where obama came from. he came on an equal playing .ield

if he had come in the same way obama had come, i would like to see what he had done. he probably could not have handled it. that is where he came in, so he is not a great this or that, the is just an average man. host: ok, lee. this piece was written on july "trumpashington post" -- keeps hyping economic numbers that show only mediocre change." this is over the prior 18 months. the light blue is 2012 the 2014, number 2016 to july 18 is the dark blue. sounds impressive. ..4 million jobs added

again, president trump is taking while he wasmbers he did not not president. go back to the last presidential election, here is what job growth has looked like. the trumpcare is a dark blue, worse than it was many months in the obama era. if nothing else, it was not exceptionally large. someone making the prediction that the economy would add 3.4 million jobs by 2018 would have been considered conservative in his estimates, not widely optimistic or mr. trump and its allies talk about 4% quarterly growth, often pointing to predictions of the economy would get there. trump promised 4% annual growth during his campaign. dobbsweeted lou

predicting 4%. gdp growth in the fourth quarter was 2.9%. you can read the piece if you want to get more into the data, the first year of the presidency, the first term of the presidency compared with the previous years. you can go to washingtonpost.com. the federal reserve chairman, when he was on capitol hill, was asked about tax cuts. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> when you say that the tax bill would not affect the downward trend in wages positively? in fact, that it has done nothing to abolish what you've seen as a decade or more of these decreases? chair powell: i think it will be

early to be looking for a bill that was signed into law less than a year ago to be visibly affecting much of anything at this point, really. big changes in fiscal policy take quite a while. sen. reed: so none of the good news we are talking about today is a result of this tax bill? chair powell: it is very hard to isolate. up, meaningsmoved have been quite gradual, and cap certainly been trying for them to move up more. host: if you missed the testimony by the federal reserve chair, you can go to our website, c-span.org, and watch it there. he was on capitol hill twice this past week. andre in maryland, you are better off. caller: yes, good morning. thank you for taking my call. yes, i am better off, but not because of donald trump. this actually started under president obama, who took over from george bush during the downturn in 2008. president obama did a very good in the stimulus that

george bush started. so donald trump took over, he took over on a good note. he did not take over when it was a total mess like obama did. when republicans talk about how bad obama was, go back and remember that the stock market has gotten down to as low as 6000, and when obama left, it was approximately 16,000, so donald trump took over on a pretty high note, so he did not take over when there was a mess. obama gotpresident very little support -- zero support from the republicans. they were the real obstructionist. s. so when republicans talk about obstructionists go back to the, eight years when obama was in office, from when you took over to when george bush took office. no problems with george bush,

the bush family. thank you for taking my call. host: andre, before you go, did you benefit from the tax cut? caller: no, i did not. no. let me tell you why we don't benefit. the deficit is far greater than when donald trump took over. at some point, someone is going to have to pay for that down the road, just like when reagan did the military buildup back in the 1980's. yeah, he destroyed the soviet union in the peacetime buildup, but at some point, the taxpayers are going to have to pay for it. host: ok. will go to chris in california. good morning. your economic situation? caller: my economic situation is about the same as it was back in 1990. it has been stagnant. it really has not had much growth, and i do not blame that on a president or presidents so

much as i do the general policy. the general policy has been 1990,nt, i think, since and i do not think there will be any real growth from this trump tax cut your i think tariffs are on the economy and drag it down. americans have to remember for the first time in our history we are seeing a $1 trillion deficit in one year. $1 trillion in a year. to put that in perspective, two presidents ago, under george w. bush, that would have been about three times the deficit under george w. bush the year that he left office. for donald trump to run around banging his chest saying that the economy is booming -- it is booming for the time being, like they caller before said. cut, $1.5 trillion tax

to be paidg to have for, and it will have to be paid for sooner than later because of the large deficit. host: ok. chris in san francisco. on the front page of the "new trump's -- lawyers secret tape reveals trump's talk of payments to model. cohen is now seen as increasingly willing to consider cooperating with prosecutors. and in the "washington post, their" story on the front page inthis case, they say

the 90-second conversation, trump can be heard discussing mcdougal'srights to claims to better control the story, according to people familiar with the exchange. those stories on the front pages of the "new york times" and the "washington post." below the fold of the "washington post" is the story -- a russian company is accused by special investigator robert mueller, leaning in part on a decision by a spring court nominee brett kavanaugh to argue that the charge against it should be thrown out. cavanaugh,cision by written by a three-judge panel, concerns the role that foreign in u.s.s may play

elections. it upheld a federal law that said foreigners temporarily in the country may not donate money to candidates, contribute to political parties, and groups, or spend money advocating for or against the campaigns. apparently went out of his way to limit the decision. a motion filed by the russian company this week repeatedly cites the decision, bringing new attention to his rulings on campaign finance laws and regulations during his tenure on the u.s. court of appeals for the d.c. circuit judge legal experts who have analyzed his works that he appears to fit comfortably within the high majority,nservative campaign conflicting with the free speech, that argument under pins the 2010 citizens united case. worse, better off,

or the same? ethan is in south dakota. good morning. what do you do for a living? audit businesses overnight, and i am interested in my own entrepreneurship position. host: why are you worse off? caller: i would say slightly worse off pure it i want to make it clear really quickly i do not blame any of our public officials or one side of the aisle versus the other. --as more than economic take economicore of an take. if you do today versus the late 1920's, 1930's, we are going into a form of isolationism that i think threatens the country. our economy depends on investments in the greenback.

as globalism increases with technolog and what have you come up we need to think about where we are in our own rules, that we are not and thatonce here, kind of endangers us to be pulling out of trade. the couple of minutes here on your show this morning about stock markets and taxes and government spending. those are all kind of the same thing. if you look at the stock market, we see the stock buybacks that all of these companies are doing. tesla, for instance, has had years of loss, yet they still grew the company due to capital gains, which we know now that our stock market does not produce dividends to people who invest in companies. some people argue that our current stock market is innocent of a ponzi scheme just because it is investors investing in each other's interests and hoping to make a quick dollar, so that is one form of growth we can look at where americans

start to get money to look at with help of the businesses. and everyone for me, the tax cut do not help my family, only because we fall in the low to middle class range, and we see at top tax bracket ends about $200,000 a year, however these people who invest in the multibillion-dollar markets on the start markets, for instance, cannot pay anything back on evidence, are not giving investors the money coming in we the people who are investing, we do not have an input, for one, on our taxes or those companies, which in some form is taxation without representation, which is on. our country was founded and then 50% of americans cannot survive a $500 emergency. to me, that is where we are putting our spending as a nation. we are so focused on hurting other people on this planet.

our government got a $54 billion increase, but yet children are still starting on our streets. we do not have new entrepreneur investment programs. we have all sorts of tax brackets for people who make less than half $1 million a year, but then it stopped there. party offers a comprehensive plan for protecting or promoting unions. our inflation is going up due to spending almost $1 trillion a year on programs that are not help anybody or are broken, and we just point fingers at each other, arguing about. not thereases is solution to me, because investing in the american people -- but yet i think the system and the way we set up is the issue. host: ok, even come i have to leave it there so we can get other voices in. california. al in you are on the air. caller: since 2013 -- this is not trump's fault -- my health

care started out at $4000 a year. now if they over $22,000 a year. host: why? caller: because obamacare. they're giving people free insurance and subsidies, and i ise about $8,000 -- it the cutoff for subsidies, so if you make over that, you have to pay the full amount, which in california, the silver plan for two people is $1 8,032 a month. we just cannot afford it no more -- $1832 a month. we just cannot afford it anymore. the democrats to store california vitreous sanctuary city some of the homeless. destroyedats

california. ost: do you hold republicans responsible for not fixing obamacare, since they have controlled congress for the last year and a half? s, i do.ye mccain went sans down. that was our chance to try to fix it. but i do not know what the fix this. it is like immigration. i am 64 years old now. they do not want to fix nothing. you see it on tv. it is a joke. deborah is in illinois. good morning to you. what do you do for a living? caller: my status is the same. retiree,ears old, a but i still work five time just -- part-time just so i can

improve my value. we are a christian nation, little we talk about is my, money, money. and if we are just going to base our value on an economic situation, but our integrity, honesty, our honor is going down the tubes, we have a president who does not value those kinds of things, and people vote with with pocketbooks and not the honor that makes them a human being. we are going to pay for that eventually, because money should never be at the top of the list, the value of a country of human beings, and that is where we are. it is all about money, and that is going to play out for all of us eventually. ok, deborah. we continue with our conversation about the economy and your personal situation. one is in the "new york times"

about the former press secretary of the white house, sean spicer. "got $250? you can go to sean spicer's book party." host: in the lobby of trump international hotel, where he is expecting cabinet officials, members of congress, white house staff members, and talking heads of the d.c. in new york press corps.

spicerharging mr. $10,000 for use of the space. lawmakers now dropping their bed to undo the zte deal that mr. trump is pursuing. a growing part of president'swith the policies on a range of trade and national security issues. we have got mitch in delaware. caller: it is the southern part right along the edge. i wanted to say that i am better off because i was able to fire

h&r block i, and i will be doing my own taxes, because isf of my income off the top not taxable. that saved me about $300 for the top. i think probably when more and more people sit down to do their taxes coming up, they will have a change of opinion like mine. but i did want to do a quick programming note thank heavens but i noticeram, when you introduce the article of the "ströer news publishing "wall street journal," you said "the conservative "wall street journal,"" within when you said the "washington post," you did not say the -- host: i was noting it because it

was the opinion page, and the opinion pages typically conservative. the opinion differs from the trunk administration on tariffs. caller: fair enough. economy itself and the trade war discussion that you are having previously, a lot of the markets are not changing, because they basically had this already considered before hand. mr. trump made it very clear that he would be doing this sort of thing when he was running for president. so that is why you're not seeing the fluctuations in the stock market as a result of his announcements. i know that a lot of the press concentrates on the impact on farming, but unfortunately, they should also concentrate on a lot discussion of how our exports are impacted by foreign tariffs, and that is an indirect tax on the united states.

of course we have been in a trade war for decades. probably most of my life. but we are just now bringing our own troops to the front of that war. again,prehensive, but now is the best time in order to engage in this sort of practice. host: ok, mitch. johnson in iowa. you're the same. caller: first of all, thank you, c-span. hi, greta. i am an editor professor at the university of iowa. where it isct usually a one-year to three-year , and my income is usually between 18000 and $36,000 year, so i think largely my economic situation will be unchanged. is in thewant to say spirit of bipartisan discourses

that i do think, especially people on the left, they were not recognizing that some of the regulations and tax cuts have provided an economic stimulus. i do think there is something to be said that trump's administration has been working to create these sort of -- to jumpstart economic growth and confidence. bassett said, we are out here in the middle of soy and corn country in iowa. not to mention john deere in other farming equipment. what we are sort of hearing on the ground, which you have already touched on, if there is a deep anxiety for soybean farmers, especially, but also for manufacturers of combine equipment look, like john deere. mentioned, the supply complex thesemely

days i wasn't even if there is a manufacturing path for machines and assemblage here in iowa, many of the parts of course are manufactured elsewhere, and especially with the aluminum - and steel tariffss, there is a lot of anxiety on the ground here. aside from the economic consequences, i do think maybe they are not separate anyway, but that i think there have been a lot of detrimental effects culturally, thinking about how even if the economic situation has stayed the same or improved for some populations, specifically for immigrant populations, for people of color and queer populations, i think this administration in many ways has created sort of threats to the well-being of those populations, which i do think should be considered alongside the economic consequences.

host: got it, jonathan. jonathan in iowa. we will leave it there for the conversation. we will turn our attention to citizensdog group against government waste. we will seek with the group's president, thomas schatz. .t is alaska weekend we will post conversations from our visit to the frontier state, our first visit in 22 years. we will take a look at changes to hunting regulations in alaska with michael doyle of e&e news. first, we speak with dan sullivan as part of alaska weekend. you can watch the full interview sunday night at 9:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. in this portion, the junior senator from alaska and former marine talks about alaska's military ordnance to the country. [video clip] know kumbaya was like to

talk about alaska's constituting three pillars of america's military might, and i'm sure you have seen some of this on your road trip. is america'sne missile defense command that is the cornerstone with rogue regimes like north korea or iran, the major radar sites, the , missile-based interceptors, that is all based we even haved significant testing of missile defense systems and kodiak most of the rail systems, the radar systems, and we are building that up, very strong bipartisan build that up. ofwe are a cornerstone missile. third, we are a hub. we will have over 105th-generation fighters, the supersonic stealth generation fighters.

we will have over 100 when we s coming to eielson in the next 30 years. probably a place planet earth that has as many fifth-gen fighters. and we have a lot of army units, active duty, reserve units that can employ on a moments notice, anywhere in the world. fairbanks, the 25th infantry division. they just got back from afghanistan, did a great job. lost a couple of soldiers, though, so the sacrifice of our men and women, whether alaskan-based or the country, is still ongoing. so those are the three pillars. we also have a great and growing coast guard presence down in southeast alaska. i just had the opportunity to

bring secretary mattis up to alaska recently. we were at the eielson air force base, for greeley. press conference we did, the secretary of defense gets how important alaska is. we say it is three pillars, but there is a fourth pillar, and we have the strongest or for the military from our community. the average alaskan supports our military in ways that i'm convinced no other state, no other communities do throughout the united states. we have more guns per capita in alaska than any other state in the country. package,s the whole and missile defense is certainly a part of it and a growing part of it, but it is exciting, and y supports it.s o we have had a buildup of all three of those pillars, and it is going to continue.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome back, schatz the president of citizens against government waste, here talk about the 26th annual pay book summary, the book washington does not want you to read. what is the take away? spending was year supposed to produce, congress approved an increase in total discretionary spending. they increase by more than 116 percent, in other words, more than double between 2017, when they spent $6.8 billion. this of course under the moratorium. host: how do you find an earmark? guest: we define it differently

than congress, which is why we still find them. there are seven criteria. one is whether the project is competitively awarded, whether whether wasrized, added only by the house or by the senate, whether it served a local or special interest. host: when you say it with hundred 60% increase in the cost of earmarks, these provisions written into these bills fit into one of those categories or all of the? em? guest: at least one. most are more than one, but at least one. elvis was in 1991 during this used to be the battle spending, now it is all the same thing. they are nots says doing earmarks anymore, they were banned. remind us why they were banned and how they define them now that they are not being used? guest: in 2006, there was a record number of trade in prior year, the highway bill had $25

billion in earmarks -- earmarks, including a bridge to nowhere in alaska. people were upset your republicans were the majority -- people were upset. republicans were not the majority in 2006. in 2010.it back since then, they have decided to held congress, and they decided let's not extend the moratorium. it is slightly different than ours. it does not include, for example, if it is the president's budget, which we include, and whether it is authorized, which we also include. host: how do you included if it is in the president's budget? that is not necessarily become law, it is a request. guest: it is when it exceeds the president's budget.

in hawaii, it has been around since 1960, the state did not want it, the president said no for the first time in 20 years, and it was added back in by brian schatz, no relation, and they kept funding this program and agency which duplicates everything the state department does. it is supposed to focus on improving nations. that is the state department's job. more than half of the money comes from the taxpayers. there is no competition. host: there are other examples found in this 2018 congressional paper. $2.7 billion for 20 additional f-35 joint strike fighter aircraft, 859 million dollars for 14 euros for the army corps of engineers. $210 million for mitigation forms. pacificion for

coastal salmon recovery. 54 point $7 million for entrepreneurial development programs within the administration. almost $50 million for rural hospital grants, $30 million for mayor i maritime loan programs, and 10 million dollars for high energy costs grants within the rural utility service. are these all bad? guest: it is how they are in the budget. it is not that they are all bad. it is not about the merits of the program, although in some cases they are wasteful and are labeled as wasteful by the government accountability office. the ca the process that .a.w. looked at. , if you lookmple at the save america treasures plan, $13 million, they had not earmarks that between 2010 and 2017. last year $5 million, this year

$13 million. andhe years between 2008 2010, 200 members of congress, 177 of these earmarks worth $34 million 20% of them were for local opera houses, theaters, and museums. those caused the demise of corpsman alan mollohan of west virginia. the $150,000 to an opera house run by a former aide. there was corruption involved. legislators went to jail over earmarks, lobbyists went to jail over earmarks. it is a corrupt, unfair process. congress, they got 51% of the earmarks and 51% of the money. costly, andt, inequitable. flake tweeted out "what am i doing, this pig

cannot even read." senator flake backing what you all do. does any of this, the waste, ultimately get stripped out because use china a light on it? guest: it was not just the issue, leaders on this like senator flake, senator mccain, senator toomey, senator ernest, senator mccaskill habitat, they should be banned. it was in the house, they are trying to push it back in. we have the moratorium. it is still come at this point, half of thes than a record 29 million dollars. we are not suggesting they have their names back in and bring it all back, but i think a lot of numbers understand, especially those that were there in 2006,

that this was a really bad idea. i wonder what our viewers have to say and what your questions are about government spending. here are our numbers. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . thomas schatz, as you said, you have been doing this for a while. uncovering the waste in government spending. hattie in houston. go ahead. caller: i am coming on him. i think it is too much spending, too much waste spending on this lately. the rich are getting richer because they are over a lot of stuff here, and the poor people, they have all of this, we do not need this. we do not need these private planes, we do not need all of this. so their kids to go to school in

the properly, they cannot offer poor people, they are just letting the rich go crazy. for instance, trump and his family, they are all sitting there, all of his children and everything. host: ok, hattie, let me ask it this way of thomas schatz -- do earmarks only benefit the rich? guest: no. is that they adversely affect programs that need the money. when this money is moving away from a higher priority, then the people that truly need the money are not getting it. that is through of all wasteful spending. the government accountability office issues a support on overlap, one of them is the science and math program, the s.t.e.m. programs, more than 150 of them, which means we are not getting what we should get because they are not doing what they should do. i was the issue. if you have 45 people doing the same thing, you're not going to get a good result. host: johnny and south carolina, a republican. you were talking about

an oversight. charleston needs oversight like you would not believe. i am a veteran. i go to the va hospital. they are building a hospital here -- i mean, no, they are building a garage here. it has been three years -- actually four years -- since they are building a garage. you don't take no for years to build a garage! is having a kickback for something, because it is ridiculous. as they are living in a flooding area, there is a flood down you couldhe v.a., not get down there because it is flooding. host: ok, johnny. i think he is talking about government contracts. how does that factor into what you are doing. guest: we issue prompt cuts, 2.2 trillionfies $

that could be saved over five years, more than enough to balance the budget, all from sources here in washington, d.c. the inefficiency is unfortunately built into government at many levels. i think most people believe state and local governments are generally more efficient. they need to balance the budget and get closer to the people. i think people feel they have a little more control over the local spending as well. host: how have republicans done in the last year and a half of being in control in congress compared to previous years? guest: we were not happy with the bipartisan budget act, 30% increase overall in discretionary spending. that is not something i thought republicans would do. a 13% increase in overall discretionary spending. you have a 160% increase in earmarks. look and say -- what is the difference between democrats and republicans? republicans like spending money on defense.

republicans like spending it on other things. host: they tend to follow? guest: in this case, they did, they said we need more earmarks to get things done, but people know that it led to corruption in the 2006, 2008 period, and eventually republican said "let's not do it anymore." but enough of them are holding back the effort to try to get them started again, specifically mark walker, head of the republican study committee. others are saying it is still not a good idea. missouri,o to conway, independent. caller: thank you so much, c-span. this is my favorite subject for here, waste, fraud, and abuse. in the swamp, both parties are up to it in their necks. we cannot have the swamp auditing the swamp. we are going to have to come up with an independent, totally out

of this world, independent audit and start doing these military -- well, ronald reagan, when he got grace to do the audit, he was shot six weeks into this presidency. it is a dangerous situation, and i want to know thomas schatz, i cannot pronounce your name, do you have a book out? that is what i am interested in. guest: yes, we have a book, it book,""congressional pig and they are following up on the grace commission under president reagan. the grace commission was a study byposed and funded privately companies all over the country. recommendations to

billions of dollars over three years. it was the last comprehensive study of the federal era.nment in that we have helped save more than $1 trillion since then. host: how can you trust who is behind these earmarks? can you? guest: we used to be able to do that when they have the names on the back of the appropriations bills. subsequently, we look for comments by members, which is okw we know senator schatz to credit for the one. another took credit for the pacific salmon recovery fund. it is a love more difficult now to find out exactly who is behind these projects. host: what are some other notable earmarks? guest: $17 million for the asia foundation, another foundation that the case what the -- that duplicates with the state department does.

another good example is the operation to be funded totally by the private sector. host: steve in california, a republican. caller: hello. i used to live in a very rural town. was 230 milest away from the trauma center. most people will be flown to las vegas on helicopters if they were in a life or death situation being rescued in an accident. the rural hospital that was in the town, the company, they built a new hospital. over in arizona where you talk about john mccain and jeff flake , those senators, well, that company took the equipment, they abandoned the hospital, the city had purchased the hospital. part of the hospital was on dlm land, so you have a transition with the federal government there. they finally found a buyer.

people were going miles and miles just to get health care. then you have the insurance problem, like there was one dentist in the county that would not take people's insurance, so you have to go miles and miles just to see a dentist. i do not think taking away money from small, little hospitals is a good idea. think that is totally un-american to say that people who live in small, little towns do not have the right to health care. that is crazy to me. and senator mccain and flake theng money from people in saying well, we are going to close down your hospitals, because we do not want to fund rural health care. host: ok, steve and i will leave it there. do you have any thoughts on that, on what you are hearing? guest: a lot of what they're trying to do, tele-health is one thing they are doing. the federal communications commission is working on that. they are announcing plans for

that this week. i think that is the way to help them get access at less cost but give them what they need. host: we go to war again, darling, a democrat. i want to talk about the parade, and to have putin attends the parade, does that come out of the military budget? second question, what is it costing for security for that event if it were to happen? host: have you been looking at that? about we are not excited the military parade them i will tell you that. i do not think it is such a great use of our tax dollars. host: kathy is next. caller: i want to expand upon what the caller said from california about needing emergency care from a dentist or hospital. i worked at a dentist's office. i have also had my share of bad

experiences that are somewhat a product of modern society, violent crime, that sort of thing. i care very much for the environment. i am very curious about how thomas orders the importance of things, because, to me, on the most basic level, you take care of people, you take care of the planet. you order things they someone needs to be done first, and i get very disturbed when people don't think it is important to care for the environment and don't think it is important to care for people who need emergencies. i really think it is important that we elevate the state of the environment to emergency level. host: kathy, i understand. let's have mr. schatz talk about priorities. guest: we look at everything that the federal government is involved with, and in some cases, we think issues should be done with closer to home. i think education is incredibly important in my entire generation grow up without a department of

education. we seem to be doing pretty well. that should be moved back to the state and local levels. every state wants to educate the kids now. host: have you taken a look at the white house budget director, mick mulvaney's, plan to budget?ze the first explain the highlights of that, and what kind of impact that have on government spending? guest: we were involved in that theater we met with director mulvaney several times to talk about what should be done. we gave him recommendations from our prime cuts from the pig book and others as well. i mentioned education for one idea is to merge the education intoabor department essentially a workforce department, because if you do not put those two things together, we are not educating our kids to match the jobs that are in the economy today, then you're going to have kids that are educated but cannot work in

the areas that we need people to work in. right now, you have as many people looking for work as there are jobs, maybe more jobs than people at this point, which is great for the economy and great for the country, but you are going to have wasted expenditures in the education field. host: what other ideas you think from his reorganization plan could work? guest: the department of the interior is working on reorganizing its regions along watersheds a natural boundaries, which makes a lot more sense. moving employees out to the state. the government owes more than half of the land in the west. people should be out there working more closely with the departments and agencies at the state levels so that they can coordinate what they are doing. it is common sense. norwood, carolina, a democrat. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to ask mr. schatz, with his book, the trump

administration has undone a lot of the environmental action protections and stuff that obama had put in place, then what, if cuts that it happened under the trump administration? guest: the epa has a staff. they have tried to move a lot of the operations out to the states. in a a lot of cases, there was a lot of overregulation. and that does not happen just in one administration. it happens over time. interiored, again, the department has not been reorganize in over 150 years. clearly something needs to be done. a lot of things that can be done administratively, it does not mean they are going to do what they're going to do, and it does not mean they are going to take things away. what are the interesting argument you get on capitol hill is making a point to people that like to spend our money, if you spend it more efficiently, it can help more people. the answer in washington is always "let's create a program to fix problems."

we have a problem, we think about how to fix it. then what you need in order to get to do that? resources?ur if you don't have the resources, you just do not do what you're supposed to do. in washington, money is spendin sitting here, and they tend to spend it. host: on twitter, what is the cost for a government contract? fairness,et -- in some of the things that increase the costs of government projects at all levels are the laws enacted to protect against corruption in government spending, the bidding and contracting process. guest: that goes back to secretary rumsfeld. he tried to fix the procurement process. been around for many years in order to address the issues with procurement, particularly with defense. milliond about the 2.7

dollars. seven years on essential. it is more than doubled in cost. and it does not work very well. the secretary of the air force said we should never build a plane at the same time you're designing it. you should design at first and then build it. so they tried it. host: they are giving more money to it. who is behind the increase in the f-35's? guest: it is the members of congress in the regions where the f-35 is being built. everybody has a little piece of this. host: kelly in ohio, independent. caller: hi. thank you for taking my call. i want to understand if there is any tracking completed or done on the executive branch and especially across the administration. i have very disturbed about the costly expense of trump going to his golf resorts every weekend, and i want to understand the impact and the expense of that. do you track it?

guest: it is really hard to track. this has always been true. executive expenditures are not always as clear as congressional expenditures. with scott right and scott pruitt, it was of use, and they are both gone. these are all usually approved by career agents at the agency. you need to have transparency, you need to have consistent rules across the agencies, when is it really necessary not to fly commercial, and then you need to let people know why you are doing it. host: what about scott pruitt at the epa in his spending? guest: well, he left, and that is sor certainly one of the things that caused his demise. same with tom price. hill, you're going to spend a lot of money. in a agencies, it appears to mean you're going to help go home and watch your kid play baseball. it is unfortunate.

host: so the ethics office does not have a say over how money is spent? look: they usually have a at it after the fact. they do not approve the travel. host: our next call, a democrat. caller: mr. schatz, you are wrong on three things, and i will point them out to you. i know because i have lived them, and i am a product of the. first of all, the education, you havet tell students who natural abilities, and they all have some natural ability, so we are attracted to a particular field of study, to the work of the electric company when they do not have aptitude for it, so that when a storm comes, they actually blow a breaker. you are wrong about education, sir. you are right about it being local, but it should never be designed solely for the companies in that area. we are a big country, and you do not necessarily have to spend

your life living in one place, growing up, getting your education, and then living there forever. so you are wrong about that. the second thing you are wrong about, yes, there are costs for emergency visits, dentists and doctors. however, unfortunately, i am disabled, and i had to sue to get medicaid. the doctors, especially the dentists, i was stunned when i was asked in the first time aeing that person to fill out loan agreement as part of my incoming paperwork because the insurance companies were not covering what they were supposed to do. and i said no, i am not filling out. so then the doctor receives with the examination, tells me all that needs to be done, and then puts in a claim for drugs only, fails to clean the teeth when a filling had fallen out. and it is not that i do not take care of my teeth --

host: ok, cindy, we are falling short on time. what is your point? caller: the government spending with the military, these militat umbrellas are sometimes used for in case you need to do something else later, and sometimes they are just for wasteful spending. host: i will have our guest jump in. guest: i certainly never said that people should stay in one place their whole life, i was talking more about vocational education is something that people should take a look at. of course you should do what you like to do and take that opportunity. education has national standards in that election one of the big problems we have. host: people can find the pig book if you go to your website. always appreciate the conversation with you, thank you very much for being here. alaska weekend,

the bus was up in the frontier state, it was our first visit in 22 years. after the break will take a closer look at potential changes to hunting regulations in alaska --e&e chael doyle of end news, then we will turn to the topic of climate change were amy carter will join us. our cities tour explores the american story at booktv, they travel to alaska. coming up at 12 p.m. eastern our on booktv, all of programs from juneau, fairbanks, and anchorage will air in one-time blocks, including a story about how a group of eskimos stop a scientist from testing bombs on their land. 1958, edward keller, the so-called father of the h-bomb, came up to alaska, unannounced and unveiled his plan to create

an instant harbor on the coast of alaska, by burying and detonating multiple thermonuclear bombs. they would blow up this gigantic ofter, a mile-long, and all this dirt would be ejected as high as the stratosphere. the ocean would rush in and you would have an instant harbor. it might glow-in-the-dark, but it would be a harbor. the atomic energy commission was part of the federal government, they were in agency of almost unlimited power, unlimited funding. that we hadonsider to answer to anyone but the president, not the congress, not anybody. thwarted inver been anything they wanted to do. little village of eskimo people who gave them their first peak.

it's like these atomic scientists came up to alaska with nuclear bombs in their back pocket, and they were faced down by guys with harpoons. >> washington journal continues. of our alaska weekend here on c-span network, we are talking about hunting regulations in alaska and the cost -- across the country. joining us is michael doyle. let me just speaking with this from nbc news. a years old conflict has pitted andstate against the feds, conservationists against preservationists and people who feed their families by stocking him in theking wilderness against those who see certain types of hunting as inhumane. this is part of the proposal to undo obama era rules restricting controversial hunting methods on federal land in alaska. what is the history of the site?

what happened in 25th -- of the fight? what happened in 2015 and now? entangleds a long history. in may, the national park service and trump administration proposed rescinding obama administration rules that had been imposed in 2015. those roles restricted or prohibited certain hunting practices on preserve land, which are managed by the national park service is three practices include using eight to kill black and brown bears, killing black bears in been -- in dan's using dogs, killing caribou in motorboats and other things. those were banned by the obama administration and the trump administration proposed reinstating those tactics. the open comments or was originally scheduled to file -- was really scheduled to and on monday, but has been extended to

september. there is clearly a lot of public interest. host: we have divided the lines regionally, if you live in the eastern or central part of the , on the (202) 748-8000 ,ountainside, (202) 748-8001 and if you're from alaska for independents -- and if you're from alaska (202) 748-8002. we spoke with jim adams at the national parks conservation association and here is what he had to say about these hunting restrictions. >> the state of alaska has been engaged in an escalating twenty-year effort to restore populations across much of the state, these extreme sports hunting methods are just the most extreme version of it. the problem is that the state is aiming to turn 20 million acres of our national parkland, to essentially a glorified game farm. host: what are these hunting methods? guest: there are four or five

tactics that are prohibited under the obama administration. the use of bait for black and brown bears, the use of dogs, the use of artificial light to kill animals, using motorboats to kill swimming caribou, and a few other provisions. the national parks and conservation association has rallied against this. public comments have been aired in many of those come from , who isse of the npca taking this on full force. the department of fish and game -- alaska maintains very few occasionally bears will be hunted using these tactics, but the impact is relatively small. host: uses these tactics? and why? used by thert it's

native people of alaska who is taking the game is considered to be subsistence hunting. why? it is effective. if you can use baits to draw the that's angunsight, effective way of hunting. but the position among the alaska department of fish and game is that relatively few cases will be affected by this. host: why is that? how often are these tactics used? they are not seen often, but how often is hard to tell. i urge viewers to look at the department of fish and game website. it shows a number of hunting licenses and their tags --bear tags. as i recall, on the order of 5200 bear tags registered in the year. of those, how many would be a spec -- affected by these tactics?

i don't know. host: i want to show our viewers this map of alaska. at this take a look map, the colored areas indicate , bureau ofernment indian affairs, bureau of land management, fish and wildlife services, national park service, for services, and the response -- forest services, and the responsibilities for these areas have been shared. right, a point often made by alaska residents is that 61%, give or take of alaska's land, is owned and administered by the federal government. 224 million acres. that's a huge percentage. the apparatus some resentment among state officials and residents that people in washington, d.c. -- that builds some resentment among residents that people in washington, d.c. make the law.

there is an important mom called the national interest -- alaska national interest in land confirmation act that set aside tens of millions of acres for refuges and parks, but also directed authority to the state. one of the legal and political there is athat conflict between the states authority and federal responsibility. host: i'm curious from viewers outside of alaska, what it is like where you live? it's not just alaska, the federal government owns land across the country. guest: one of the arguments made by the congressional delegation, who are among the big opponents of the obama era rule, is that this goes beyond alaska. if you allow the federal government based in washington, -- staterestrict they

authority in alaska, neck they will be coming for california, next they will be coming for california or nevada. once youent goes that allow the federal government to restrict hunting, they will be more restrictive on mining, grazing, or public use. and generalpecific fight, the specific fight is over hunting regulations and the general fight is over who controls public land. host: we have a call from wyoming, let's go to tracy. i will begin with you this usning, good morning, tell your thoughts as we discuss hunting restrictions in alaska. i think this is a states rights issue, all states are supposed to be equal, they entered into the union with the

same rights. the states maintain the rights of their pop -- wildlife population and water, and the reason the federal government is trying to control this is because water moves and animal moves off of federal lands on to state lands and those regulations that come with those animals and that water. the reason i started to regulate and you straight right is trying to control individuals on their private land. they should not have any rights to do anything that was reserved by the states when they entered into the union. they should be able to control those resources, and not pick and choose which is states they want to usurp their loss. caller is right this is a states right issue. that is why people out of alaska would do well to pay attention. the caller is right, there are

common areas in state and states -- authorities over managing fish and wildlife. alaska is unique. i look forward to hearing from the guests on c-span to explain laws arels of how the uniquely tailored for alaska. latecame a state in the 1950's, in the course of that there were tens of millions of acres of federal land to carve up and allocate administrative responsibilities for. to a degree are not entirely cognizant of, alaska is a unique state. the caller has put his finger on it, this is a states rights issue, for good or ill. host: what has a relationship in like between the federal government and alaska? and that shared responsibility? guest: a blend of dependence and resentment. alaska depends upon federal

policy, and largess to some degree. and there is a commensurate resentment over the federal hold. for instance, last year in the tax bill, senator murkowski, and senator sullivan got a provision that would mandate the bureau of land management to open up oil and gas leasing on the arctic national wildlife refuge. that is something that had been opposed in washington, d.c. for years, and it had been sought by the state. there has been for years, resentment by state officials that the efforts to develop state resources have been stymied. anytime you have more than half of your state owned by the federal government you are going to have a complicated relationship which speaks to the significance of the alaskan delegation because of the role the government plays. host: how has it changed under

the trump administration? guest: the president will sign the bills that the congress passes. the obama administration, consistent with democratic environmental positions, the arctic national wildlife refuge drilling had been opposed. and the president would have the don't provisions. president trump was not particularly aware of the details, but it was something important to senator murkowski and others and he signed this is part of the tax bill. which is the centerpiece of his legislative agenda. has, you mightka say, a friend in the white house. and it is seen in these hunting regulations. made a policy of expanding those opportunities which laid the groundwork. host: what is the interior secretary doing in other states on hunting? guest: expanding it.

year, thehe last interior secretary, and outdoorsman and hunter himself, and he's very proud of that fact, signed orders intended to expand or pursue expansion of hunting opportunities. the issue rules earlier this year and fish and wildlife refuges that expanded the number of refuges where it could occur. establishednke does canoe bodies, one concerns international wildlife conservation, and so what is happened in alaska is part and parcel of a larger picture. the administration would like to expand hunting opportunities. we want to hear from our guests about changing hunting research across the country, nancy is in north carolina.

good morning. caller: good morning. sir, it is nice to speak with you. yesterday when i was watching the news it brought up the fact that the epa has removed the protections on endangered species act -- the endangered species act. which sent me into tears. that would also include bald eagles, the california condor, bighorn sheep in colorado. would be able to go hunting you 70, yellowstone, and , andld -- in yosemite yellowstone. i'm very upset about this. the caller's omission of being upset reflects that there is widespread -- admission of being upset and flex at widespread impact of rules. second, no one is proposing

hunting in national parks, that's not under consideration. the caller makes a point, the protect -- the fish and wildlife services did propose some pretty significant regulatory changes to the endangered species act. , butuld remain in effect it has excited controversy, even more so than hunting regulation. the trump administration maintains that the esa needs to be updated. the regulations have been out of date for years. andhey are streamlining, changing how critical habitat is designated. those will also be open to a public comment. -- comment period and it will get a lot of high-profile commentary. host: a member of congress who was still in congress and was in congress in 1973 when the endangered species act is don

young, from alaska. we sat down with him and here's what he had to say about it. >> it affects alaska more so, because we are a smaller number a people and we have such massive amount of federal lands and special interest groups establishing species i do not think our endangered. i will be the last congressman to ever vote for the endangered species act. people do not remember when it was proposed and passed overwhelmingly. it has its tigers and lions and exotic species. e did not expect snails, bugs, and grasses and these other things. misused by then environmental group that tries to stop any man development. i disrespect them for that because that was not the intent of the act and i have always said show me one species that has been reclaimed by the endangered species act, and they

say the eagle, it's not true. the eagle was reclaimed because of stopping the use of ddt. it serves a purpose if followed as written. by regulations passed, i say subverted because it makes me very upset. i know the intent of the law. young, ofgressman local and some would say a cantankerous defender of alaska been aand issues, he is longtime critic of the way the esa has been implemented and its affect on private property in particular. i think there have been defenders of the current act with -- who would say there have been a number of species that have been restored and recovered. right now there is a proposal to take off be kurtins warbler,

and the california condor has been recovered. the congressman makes a great point, the esa did not remove the ddt from the ecosystem that caused eagle report -- eagle recovery. a tripping cause-and-effect to the regulation as -- attributing con -- cause to regulation as opposed to other rules is tricky. host: let's go to william, in connecticut. the morning. -- good morning. the waygandhi once said a society is first judged by how they treat their animals, who are lesser than us. i was in montana, and i had never seen such cowardice from hunters. they are flying around in airplanes, spotting elk, treeing a tv's and dogs to

lions, or or mountain they are having a dog follow a , and with radios, to come and shoot them. why don't they grow up and be men. if they want to shoot something, why don't they become navy seals or real men, not ambush people. michael doyle, about how hunting is changed. guest: the caller made a point about the ethical concerns that play into hunting. if you look at the comments to the park service's rules, you can find those on regulations.gov, a dominant theme is that the proposed practices and the use of bait or dogs are immoral, unethical, or unfair. if you talk to certain members of congress, like don buyer of

--don byer of virginia, you will hear that hunting is one thing but hunting using certain practices is not real. the gandhi observation is one we will hear more of. host: you're talking about the public comments were hunting restriction in alaska? guest: that's right. periodill be a comment that is members of the public to weigh in and cast a nonbinding vote. they can get their impressions of the park service on whether it's a good thing or a bad thing to change the hunting rules. host: and remind our viewers who missed it at the top, what rules are we talking about? reversal of the obama administration plan, the obama administration imposed limits on certain hunting tactics, on national parks and

alaska. lands in not parks, but preserves, the tactics include the use of bait, motorboats in dens, and other provisions. host: the reversal of the rolling back those restrictions and allowing those methods? guest: that's right. as we have been discussing, there is something dispute over how much of an impact it would have. host: while our bus was in alaska we spoke to bruce dale, with the alaska department of fish and dale -- fish and game, this is what he had to say about the common period. >> the ngos that support the national park service are in enormous machines that churns up gathering public input. and promoting input from certain groups and interest groups. and compared to the small number of people who live in alaska,

especially the small number of rural users that are relying on these, the numbers of comments and the types of comments are only useful to a point. host: so they are hearing from people outside of alaska? .uest: by the scads and the official is right. the nongovernmental organizations like national and conservation association and the humane society are expert masters at churning up public comments, and flooding the channels with commentary. regulations.gov, and review the 77,000 comments, of that, the majority are identical, and are opposed to the change in the rules. fromis just an observation the perspective of the federal officials who will be weighing these comments. simply counting the number of

worded form letters does not provide a lot of useful information or data. host: then do these carry any weight? weight,hey carry some but as we saw, with the vast public comment period with regards to the administration's desire to scale back certain national monuments, i believe 2 million plus were opposed. the shrinking went ahead regardless. i'm not in a position to give advice but if i were, to people commenting on any public rule, it would be to provide --stantive data dared to data driven statistically valid and useful evidence as opposed to simply opining on the basis of the motion. host: we will go to steve, in charlotte, north carolina. comment, ande a

i'm sure you heard this. these canned hunts, where i saw sarah palin shooting wolves from a helicopter. i hope those roles can be changed to not allow those. is there a lot of national forest in alaska that is usually open to hunting, as far as i can tell? guest: great question, of the 224 million acres, i don't know the percentage of that that is for service land. -- forest service land. michael, in illinois. i'd like a moment to make my point, because i would like to talk about ownership of that land. i live in illinois and i was born and raised the here -- race

here. my state has spent more federal dollars then these parasites states out west, including alaska. because i am paying for this i don't care if i live in alaska, i should be heard. and my opinion should carry more weight than these people who were sitting there and have contributed nothing to this. every water project out west was funded by eastern money. york, and a few others. i am tired of hearing this and i want those animals protected. i want people to be taught to be humane. they can hunt, i know you have to control the population. but you do it like a human being , not some kind of idiot. and i'm tired of these congressmen, who i am actually subsidizing their payroll because their people get more money from the federal

government and it comes out of my pocket. go to the koch brothers, where they are ever living, and ask them. because you might live next door to one of their properties, and tell them you should have control over it. it's a specious argument and it needs to be put on track. it's a majority rule, and eastern money funded it, we should be heard. and that is one side of the debate, and it's a lively debate. i would love to have congressman young talk to the caller. the perspective of congressman young, is that we know best. terrain, geography, distance from the federal government -- congressman young is famous for his very strongly articulated excoriation's about the rise of alaskans to

decide for themselves what is what. so there are more than two sides to this debate, but local of the sides in this case, or one of that the caller says, the rest of the united states, the lower 48, they subsidize states like alaska. but then there is the perspective of a alaska itself and other western states that wants to administer its public lands and public wealth as it sees fit. ?> tina, from cascade, maryland caller: hello. my family has hunted for generations, i believe in hunting and am very much concerned about the environment. everyone is talking about that. i heard someone say about grouse. we have none of them left in maryland, no quail as well.

they have disappeared. i am in my late 40's, and i have watched this in my generation. lands are being cleared, we keep buying last stakes, and putting out chemicals, killing things -- these animals feed on these things. i think it is up to the states. my children want to go hunting, left.ere was no land that you're in pennsylvania has died out, there is out, but you cannot get license for elk hunting. >> the heartfelt feeling about the degradation of the environment is exactly what led to the passage of the indigenous species act of 1973. to some degree, it was behind the obama administration is decision to oppose the hunting rules on park service land as it

did in 2015, and some of the rose on fish and wildlife in alaska in 2016. so this is a debate that we talked earlier with the caller about. the changes proposed by the fish and wildlife service. concerns will be at the heart of that debate, which is going to unfold over the next couple of months. susan: let us go to a pad in hunting tton, pennsylvania? take on this is that i know why people hunt. i don't hand myself, but i am a libertarian and i don't want to take anybody's guns or any buzz buddies rights. -- anybody's rights. but if you want to have game on

your wall, something like that, i believe in hunting for food, but if you want to go out and hunt big game, kill elephants, moose, stuff like that, i think we should also be allowed to her hunt to the humans who are hunting. if you really want to get a rush, they should be out there hunting each other as well. host: we will leave it there, and go to brian. hello, brian? morning.ood i am a hunter and have hunted on for private and federal land. it seems to me that there is great collaboration with the focus being on management of wildlife. if you take out most of the top-tier predators here in wild tailsuch as the deer, the my crops in my yard

and my neighbor's yard. so i support that. the focus should be on properly managing the heard, not necessarily on the politics involved. i find that here in maryland, the cooperation between the state, federal and private lands, is pretty good. so why don't we focus the discussion on herd management and economic relationship between that? host: let us take that point, brian? michael: that is a great point. one of the things talked about in the debate is whether allowing a certain techniques amounted to a way to manage the predator-pray populations. as i understand, the argument is that by allowing the more liberal use of tactics in killing predators such as bears, it has a way of boosting the prey population such as a

moose and caribou, which is intended to serve the hunting them.tion to go after the state of alaska, i believe, denies that these tactics are part of a predator control population. i would be interested to see the debate as it proceeds, because as a color indicates, there is a complex relationship between hunting some species on the rise, and others, and that is one of the elements that plays in this hunting debate on alaska . host: our next caller, john. caller: thank you. i would like to give an example of how this is necessary, particularly in duck hunting. i lived in colorado on a flyway in the mountains and i did a lot of duck hunting, where the mallards coming through, would gather and eat grain out of the fields that was readily available. it would be there thousands of

mallards, for about three weeks to one month. i would hunt these ducks, and it was obvious that they should not be gathered in such large groups . i talked to a local forest ranger, rangers who were in state of the local refuges, and they said that they could do nothing about this, because all of the rules relating to these ducks were federal rules, and only so many ducks could be taken by the at any one time. in any event, the result was that over 10,000 ducks in less than one week died of avian cholera from the simple fact ,hat there were just too many

and the hunters who wanted to hunt them couldn't do it because of federal laws. and i had never seen a federal and that mounted in colorado. and i had hunted there for about 10 years. . host: ok, michael doyle, what are you hearing their? michael: several points. the trump administration and effort to rescind obama rules contends that decisions on fish and wildlife management are best handled the state who has immediate access to the data, has immediate feedback, is closer and on the ground, and that is were hunting rules should be set. that is part of the larger issue as well. under the trump administration and certainly, interior secretary ryan zinke you, there is a big move to push state decisions. as an example, secretary zinke

you reorganizing the interior department, he has talked about moving the bureau of land management headquarters to the west, possibly colorado, predicated on the possibility that it is best to make decisions on land and resources closer, rather than further away. host: david in michigan, you are on the air? michael: i just have a question. host: david, we cannot hear you. apologies, perhaps you can call back in. ellens go on to alan i in colorado? michael: good morning. ander: i live in colorado, in the last five years, i have witnessed a significant increase in tourism, the gateway to the rocking on national park. five short years ago, our tourism was in excess of about

one million tourists per year, and today, about 5 million tourists per year. we have tripled the amount of wildlife deaths in both the parks and in rocking on national park. , species like birds, there all being hit by vehicles, by tourists who simply do not observe any of the laws that exist in the state, and simply do not care. in addition to that, to think not there is absolutely hunting allowed and rocky mountains mountain national park, you are insane. i have personally witnessed people in the middle of the huntingourism season animals in rocky mountain national park, but i have also downtown.it dow

i have seen tourists and locals hunting in downtown estes park. i have called 911, which is a joke. they don't respond. i called 911 when i saw -- host: allen, who in your forw is responsible stopping hunting in restricted areas? caller: it is nobody's obligation. ask about police department, ask rangers.t ask anybody up for her that is supposed to be in any way shape or form responsible for it. host: ok. michael doyle? michael: i will be in estes park this summer, and i am tempted to ask the caller for a restaurant

recommendation. but she makes a good point. one of the claims by opponents to hunting rules is that wildlife observation, wildlife tourism, is much more of a economic and if it to a state or local entity than hunting itself. that bygument is keeping animals alive, it will draw people, or draw too many tourism dollars, from those people who went to see wild animals, and not shoot them dead. host: carol in rural maryland, you are next. caller: i live in maryland, you cannot have grouse and and hunting animals like that, when you develop all the farms. food.s rather get the people who harvest crops and stuff, they go out and pick up the seats that are left. host: ok, we cannot hear you

very well, remember to turn that the tv. michael cohen all of these are michael: all of these have the significant to impact development has a role in hunting. i would say that in the species debate and the rules that govern species,ction of, both development issues are absolutely crucial, because energy firms, construction firms and others, want to streamline the regulations that require them to protect habitat. host: michael, from grand rapids michigan. caller: very interesting point on returning to the safety issues. ways, there are two things. passengeraws of the

visit. when things are allowed to be directed by the state. the south whofrom just spoke, everything goes back to state controls, then states can destroy whatever animal populations left, to allow the contractors, the developers to come in and destroy the land, if you will. so this idea that republicans -- war, back to the civil states rights, to have slavery, states rights will in fact destroy this country. host: ok, we will take that point, mr. doyle? michael: the fact that this conflict between state and federal authority, state prerogatives and federal responsibilities, is decades and old.several centuries

it is baked into our federalist system where there are state governments and federal governments, and within states, lands.re federal it is not a debate that will ever end, it is just part of our constitutional structure. host: there is a piece in the ofhington post of a picture caribou moving through the wildlife refuge in june, 2017. the interior department has been conducted to conduct two oil and gas lease sales, each covering 400,000 acres in the refuge's coastal plain. a move decried by environmentalists. the interior department has commissioned an experimenter review of the impact of leasing the area for portland gas drilling, according to a freedom of information act. : as we were discussing, the tax cut bill includes a provision mandating anwar on the

coastal plain. it is about 19 million acres, the leasing covers less than one million acres. proponents of the development say that it is just a small footprint. -- one thing i would like to make an observation on the mother role of the freedom of information act in uncovering not wrong doing, but simply behind-the-scenes doing. expeditedse, the process being pursued. evidently, it was not fully about --the public until an advocacy group filed a request and obtained the documents. they were able to reveal the timing. so, this is a pitch which has been invaluable as a tool in reporting on every administration. host: eve stephen in a north carolina. caller: good morning.

the commercial oil industry has controlled the legislature for years. i became an avid surf fisherman in the 1970's, and i have watched since then, the spot phishing, the fishing, the sea trout, the flounder, every coastal fish stocks are decimated. people do not understand that for every bit of fish that comes out of that water, every pound, five pounds are killed i watched last year, there wasn't a single fishing spot down the coast. in the 1970's and 80's, you could fill up your bucket in one hour. they control the legislature and they are killing the species of fish on the coast? michael: the caller makes an interesting point about what

people in the government speak of as regulatory capture. regulateda industry, for instance, the fishing industry, has such control over the regulators, government entities are politicians, that the regulated industry is able to shape the regulations. either to losing them or favor them. i don't know what happen in north carolina, but it is not uncommon for the regulated industries to have significant and some might say, undue influence o over the way regulations are shape. host: for those interested in continuing to follow the story and alaska about hunting restrictions or any other environmental interior department issues, you can follow michael doyle at eenew @eet, and on twitter newsupdates.

thank you very much for joining us. michael: my pleasure. host: and we come back, ask reporterporter --axios amy harder will join us. ♪ the c-span bus is traveling across the country on our 50 capitals to her. it stopped in anchorage alaska, asking folks, what is the most important issue and alaska. >> i work with the alaska native science and engineering program here in the university of alaska anchorage. we feel that the most important issue has to do with education and workforce development. we see a lot of students coming to the university here who are underprepared for college, and then we are also not doing a very good job providing for the environment, to support them through the undergraduate degree program. so we engage students as young as six grade all the way through middle school, high school and

university to provide a string of longitudinal opportunities, providing information and guidance opportunities for them. >> i am with the rotary cares for kids. one of the issues i see that is important is a nationwide as well as in alaska, and that is giving children garbage bags when they are being removed from their homes by ocs. we try to remove that issue in alaska by giving backpacks and duffel bags whenever being removed from their home, transitioned from their home to another, or transitioning from foster care. >> another issue that is important to me this year seems to be coming to fruition, is fisheries management. fisheries are extremely important to alaska from a commercial standpoint, from a sportfishing standpoint, and from a tourism standpoint. i think we have some problems

that need to be dealt with on all fronts, they need to be dealt with sooner, or we may suffer some severe financial consequences. basedthoughts on the psd, on my understanding of it, i understand it was a way that all alaskans can get some of the profits from the oil revenue, since we are a very oil rich state. the way that it has been handled, lately, i think it has been a bit unfortunate, the way it has been a vetoed. i think that effectively, it is , regressive tax because alaska people that i know, we have no sales or income tax, so we are a very low tax state. ,owever, the way that the psd it took away -- basically, people had to pay $1000 in

taxes. that is inequitable, if you ask me. ♪ announcer: voices from the state, on c-span. announcer: washington journal continues. host: amy harder is at our table this morning. energy and climate change xi here inor a washington, to talk about climate change. i would like to begin with our visit to alaska. we had a chief scientist from that research center, and here is what had to say about them and its impact on alaska. >> of the state would be one where there is a essentially no ice on the arctic ocean during the warm season. that season of no ice, would actually lengthen and accelerate into the shoulder seasons, like spring and autumn. we would end up with a climate where there is maybe 2 months

less of snow cover in the winter . a month or two later, it would come a month or two earlier. we would see more hot days in the summer. one of the projections is that if climate trends continue at the present rate, we will have a number of hot days. the state is not equipped for air conditioning and there could be called for. we may well see some opportunities in terms of a season.rowing right now, the growing season in fairbanks is about three or four months. that could lengthen to six months. that is new responsibilities for agriculture. host: so the impact of climate change in alaska and the art it could be, and we're seeing it a arctic, couldthe be pretty bad. what is that. >> people like to say that what happens in vegas, stays in vegas, but what happens in the

art take doesn't stay in the arctic. i'm a change warms the oceans, it is causing an impact in rise.ies, sea level we are seeing the impact greatest and alaska, because temperatures are rising twice as fast there than around the world , three degrees fahrenheit over the last 60 years. from theer is pulled u.s. government report issued by .he trump administration s host: so what does that mean for the rest of the united states? amy: for one, the impact in the example, 90% of the wild salmon comes from alaska. many people like to eat salmon, so that is an impact that people are experiencing today. is experiencing climate change today in a way that a lot of the country will eventually -- some parts of the country and other parts of the world, will experience more over

the coming decade. it is like a canary in the coal mine. host: in what way? amy: because the warming is happening twice as fast there, so it is like a preview of sorts. scientists say that what is happening there is likely to happen around other parts of the world. of course, alaska is not the only part of the u.s. experiencing climate change. florida is another example where particularly, sea level rises are happening. host: we are taking a look at a map on the nasa website, nasa.gov. as you scroll across, what happens with the level of c rise , that red area is where the sea comes up. map, it look at the looks like miami is covered, new orleans is covered in water? amy: rights, and that is why i have spent the good part of the last weeks covering the coming introduction of the first carbon tax legislation by a republican lawmaker. a republican who represents that

very part of florida, and the florida keys. he is up for reelection this year, one of the top targets for democrats, to take. and he sees climate change as a political win for him, because his constituents care about that. mostis not the case for republicans, but it is definitely starting to be an issue. congressman carballo was saying that it is because his district is experiencing it. host: so, what other evidence are we seeing of climate change and other places. not on the in the u.s., but internationally as well. extreme weather, what are we seeing? amy: the way that i and a lot of other scientists i talked to describe it as, they say that it is like diabetes for the planet. by that, i mean that it doesn't necessarily create new problems, it exacerbates already existing problems. such as the way diabetes makes other health conditions worse, is. is how climate change

it makes heat waves, droughts, hurricanes and storms more powerful, because there is more moisture in the air, because of higher temperatures. harveykes -- hurricane for example, would have happened regardless of climate change and human activity, burning foster scientists found that the rainfall is about 11% worse because of climate change and then it would have been without it. that is an example of how we are seeing it today. walsh,e talked with john the chief scientist for international arctic research center in ou alaska. he talked about what is already happened because of climate change, and you were just saying, it exacerbates what is already happening. let us listen to what he had to say about how climate change is already impacting alaska. >> climate is changing, that is pretty clear. fairbanks, our winters have become warmer by about eight

degrees since 1950. we are seeing that showing up in the oceans around alaska. we know have a much shorter sea ice season. we have another couple months of additional water which has affected come and it is, how they hunt for wales, walrus, that type of thing. it has affected navigation the tourist. . industry now has a couple of months for navigating the arctic. we are also seeing changes in the landscape. snow coming later in the fall and melting earlier in the spring. that is a shorter snow season. wettergetting bette snows than we had in the past. we have different cycles, that type of thing. host: so, let us take a look at what nasa put together on their

website, when it comes to what john walsh was just talking about, and that is the sea ice, and how it changes when you scroll across, we interact with this graphic, how it changes over the years due to climate change. your thoughts. amy: nobody definitely disputes that climate change is real and is having an impact in alaska, and that human activity is playing a big role. the summer for example, we saw at record low sea ice, which is having a lot of negative impacts, erosion of places where native americans live, 40% of native americans live in alaska. ey are really ground zero for this. a lot of the sea ice melting is creating waterways for more offshore energy development. that has been discussed as well,

so it is having a lot of different impacts. host: let us hear from viewers. julian in pennsylvania. caller: thank you for taking my call, i love watching your show. i want to talk about the irony party. the republican when we look back at history, looking at teddy roosevelt, all he did for the environment, theard nixon, how the -- republican party established the epa, and i think it is ironic how they seem to sell out to the oil industry and the koch brothers, behavior biggest contributors. i think now that it is a form of tribalism, where we are all going to buy into the idea that climate change isn't real because that is what the head of our party, donald trump, said. we live in a time where facts are not even fax, we just choose what facts are true to us

because they do not align with .ur party agenda amy: the color makes some good points about how republicans have ignored this issue -- the caller makes some good points. i think republicans, privately to me and others, acknowledge that climate change is real, that the burning of fossil fuels is causing temperatures to go up. the question is, what is the solution? most solutions to require some big government role. that idea is inherently the antithesis of what republicans traditionally stand for. the part about president trump dismissing private change, he certainly has. the epa and other government agencies have wiped climate change off their websites, but in fact, the republican pollsters i have talked to, they there are notthat

voting for him because he doesn't support climate change, they are voting for him due to trade issues and immigration. when republicans acknowledge climate change, it doesn't affect them politically. so it is not a straight line, but in part because trump is in office and highlighting his comments about how climate change is a hoax, when most people know that it is not. host: chris in tennessee. caller: yes, ma'am. climate change has been happening geologically speaking, throughout the world's history, since the last ice age. the oceans have risen 10 inches on average every hundred years. i saw an article in the national geographic that said that the three biggest co2 polluters have were china, india and the amazon rainforest. had the you fix that, cut the

rainforest down? another point is, all the information gathered on climate change being released to the public, we should let some of these independent universities go through the data. i was listening to a gentleman about a month ago, climate change -- all of these predictions are produced from computer modeling. and he said, the further away you get from -- it is hard to predict the weather next week, so how can he predict something about computer modeling 50 years away? host: let us take that point? amy: thank you for your call. i am not a scientist, but i spend a lot of time talking to them and reading the signs about climate change. the united nations, the u.s.

military, the u.s. government, even trump, through the big annual report that he released earlier this year, they all acknowledged the scientific consensus that says, fossil fuels are the main activity causing temperatures to go up. fossil fuels account for about 70% of the greenhouse gas emissions humans are admitting, that is causing temperatures to go up. the caller used the term "climate change, call which i use as well. for the terms people use, climate change that the claimant has always been changing, and it implieslimate change that climate has always been changing. global warming is a more politically charged term, but it is accurate. our temperature is going up. so i think that as reporters, i

tried to be careful about what words i use, and i tried to say carefully that climate change influenced by human activity, is causing temperatures to go up. host: we go now to massachusetts. caller: good morning. i am pretty sure that america being 2% of the world's population, and we signed on to those accords in france, right? about climate change, we are 2 percent of the worlds population, and we are going to be the ones who pay for everything. everything. all the other countries, china, all of them, they will be able to increase their pollution for so many years, like decades down the road. so there will be 110%, even worse than they are right now, before they have to start doing anything. host: ok, amy harder will answer your question. caller brings up

one of the big points about the paris accords. president obama agree to it back in 2015 and virtually all countries in the world have agreed to it except for now of coarse, president trump has vowed to withdraw the u.s. from the deal. that is a good point, the has been a long-standing frustration and tension between more developing countries like china and india, versus the united states. the united states has historically been more responsible for the global warming and, change that we are seeing today, because it have this huge industrial revolution fuels.pon fossil fossil fuels have had a humongous, positive impact on the world and the u.s. economy, i think we should emphasize that in this larger discussion. i think the reason why the paris accords were agreed to, number one, because they weren't legally binding. it was easier for countries to agree to.

but also, countries were able to put on the table what they thought was possible. china has billions of people, that they want to get electricity to, and even more so, india. so they put their agreements a little further out, which is why president trump thinks that it is a bad deal for the united states. host: we are discussing climate change on this saturday morning as part of our alaska weekend on networks. the c-span bus visited the last frontier state as part of our capital cities tour. the last time that we were in the state of alaska was 22 years ago with our. us. take a look at this imagery captured then the mendenhall glacier, 22 years ago. one hour bus returned this year, we took more video of the glacier, and as you can see it on your screen now, the alaska.ll glacier in stay tuned to the c-span networks this weekend for all of our alaska coverage.

you can go to c-span.org for more details. in harder is here to talk about the impact of climate change on alaska, but across the country as well. john in joe buck, maryland, good morning. . caller: good morning. a couple of points. i am not disputing that there is such a thing as climate change and global warming, whatever you want to call it. what i do take issue with, is that it is primarily caused by man-made activity. there are charts that you can the change inw global temperatures that follow the change in the sun's radiation activity, and also the sunspot activity. they correlate very closely.

another point, when temperatures warm, and causes more co2 to evaporate from the oceans so. three, the main greenhouse gases actually water vapor. so i think the focus is misplaced, as we are hearing today. host: let us take those points, john. of ahis comments remind me column i didn't ask he also a few weeks ago with the headline, white climate change is the easiest news to fakes. -- to fake. in this era of fake news exasperated by donald trump, we saw one for example where the president bragged about his inauguration. it was easy to show viewers that it was actually not accurate, we saw a crowd size from another inauguration with a larger

cloud. climate change is so much more difficult than that. there are charts out there that can show a conclusion that is not scientifically based, but for more people, they will not spend time learning about climate science. it is complicated, and not very sexy. that it is easy to manipulate data and come to your own conclusion. to the caller's point about human activity not being a primary cause, i constantly go back to the idea that the u.s. military, the u.s. government, the united nations, every country in the world all agree, that human activity is the primary cause of the art temperature going up over the last century -- the earth temperature going up over the last century. i tend to think that they are not wrong, and it is a fact that that consensus exists. so that is what i go back to, as a reporter. host: matt in texas, good morning[hear! hear!] goo

axios: there is an reporter, she is at texas tech university in the panhandle. one of the things that really impresses me is that she doesn't just use the numbers that nasa she -- her husband owns our church. she makes argument -- she just came out with a book that talks know, this is our planet, whether you believe in god or not, or especially those evangelicals who deny that climate change is real, that this is our planet, and we have no other place to go. we checked mars, we can't go to the moon, so if we do not take care of our planet the way it is and we continue to ignore the data and warnings, the stronger hurricanes, stronger tornadoes,

longer wildfire seasons, the melting glacier, that it will be too late. so i wanted to know if amy harder was familiar with the doctor. amy: thank you for your call. i am a little bit familiar with her work. thank you for bringing her up. bringints i would like to up, the religious side of this debate is pretty compelling. nobody believes in climate change, i don't like to use the word "believe, come, they acknowledge -- the word, e," come other use the word "acknowledge your core oile was a discussion with companies to talk about a shared path forward on climate change, and the pope is continuing that discussion forward. i think the religious community

will play a big role in this debate. another point is risk. in the last decade, as an earlier caller pointed out, republicans did originally acknowledge climate change and purported to have solutions to address the issue. mitt romney, the 2012 republican candidates for presidency, he likes to talk about how he had a no regrets policy on climate change. so even if he wasn't completely on board with a lot of the predictions the scientists were saying, there was still a pretty good chance that something could be bad. so it was all about risk management. that is what a lot of republicans will acknowledge climate change such as senator lisa murkowski, the senator from alaska, they talk about how there was a lot of risk. and any person would want to protect against those risks. host: we go to louisiana, zachary. good morning. caller: good morning to you as well.

as far as climate change goes, there is a political effect. you hear a lot of talk from the gop about how they want to this about climate change or just do not acknowledge it, due to the fact that they believe that if they just reduce coal mining, a lot of people will lose their jobs. theif you took some of profits that those coal mining found a mored energy efficient way, to use more green energy, a lot of them could keep their jobs. i think they just use job loss as an excuse to avoid discussions on climate change. host: amy harder, so what about the energy sector, and the , where is then it majority on climate change? what are they doing? amy: my very first column for axios last year, the headline

was -- corporate america is not backing trump on climate change. there was a sea change happening in corporate america -- you had everybody from apple, facebook, they have supported it since it existed, but now, you are getting big companies. even whole companies, piedmont energy acknowledging that climate change is real. trying to provide some lip service to try to be part of the solution. and i think that is because they see the writing on the wall. the paris agreement, whether or not you think kermit change is real or not, or whether or not trump rolls out, they are moving ahead. -- whether you think climate change israel or not, whether or not trump pulls out, they are moving ahead. they are trying to be at the table. , privately held companies, it is a different story. murray energy, its ceo is a close outset advisor of

donald trump. he is an avid denier of have a the coale thinks that there that retire, but will be massive blackouts coming from that. and he is coming from the perspective of one intent protect his company. so he is seeing a lot of support from companies, but even putting and toughere change environmental regulations, natural gas, which has seen a boom in the u.s. over the last decade, that is actually what is killing most coal jobs and power plants. just last week, the trump administration issued a report on helping -- retraining workers. to try tontrol f, search for how much coal was part of their plant, i think the only mentioned it a couple of times -- part of their plans.

whatever you think about climate change, coal jobs are going away. those people should talk to the government about trying to find new jobs. host: andrew in illinois. caller: hello. my question was, what is the climate change on the permafrost and alaska? i know that a lot of structures are built on it. how is this affected the structures? amy: that is a great question. the softening of the permafrost is one of the top ways, change is an impact in alaska. one of the examples of how, just like diabetes exacerbates other things, the permafrost melting is having an impact on example.r it melts, the trees sway back and forth, having an impact on the committees we use the area as. their livelihood that is one of the top concerns for people who live in alaska.

host: richard in austin texas. richard, good morning to you. caller: good morning. in 1966, i was drafted into the air force. i understood on the planes that we were recording daily, all the weather temperatures around us. we have the data from the 1960's. we have all the other scientific data. problem, is that in 1987, 1 ronald reagan said you can lie on television and get paid for it, he vetoed the telecommunications act twice. in georgia, they -- they allowed this news media to allow the koch brothers and other companies to pay people to come on national television and lied to the public. that is what is the problem. but i have to sit here and listen, as i am watching the

data show that three times more likely that hurricane harvey has the coast. i am watching data that i am --ing that barack obama because he wanted to take the cars that caused pollution taken off the streets, we did not see a tropical storm hit the southern coast until donald trump took over, and we allowed him to start polluting again. they were so criminally minded that they had to protect themselves from the public. host: ok. amy harder. amy: i think the caller is bringing a lot of different issues that are coming to a head on the trump administration. this idea of what type of news to trust is a really big one.

i was just reading a new study about how people trust news sources more, if they don't know where it comes from. as a reporter, it is very demoralizing. you would not eat salad if you just saw it on the street, but certainly, that is what people do with their news information. i think that is a really important question, and something that as a reporter, i am mindful of when a report on issue.ry polarizing on the part about storms and where they land, whether it is under obama or trump, it is just sort of a luck of the draw. the natural gas boom happened under obama's watch, but he it.'t exactly cheerleading just as the economy has been improving under trump, even though a lot of why it has been improving, is the cause of the actions that obama took. that is just politics as usual. host: we have john from north

thatina asking, two things americans do not obsess over, russian interference and climate change. amy: i think he makes a great point. i acknowledge myself, i cover most peopleat cove do not think about, so how can i reported in a way that most to?le can relate most of the times, i write stories about climate change, like when there is extreme weather happening such as hurricanes harvey and the others that occurred, trying to seize moments like about. media need we in the to be humble about what readers and viewers care about. i think we get into a little bubble in washington dc, we end up talking to ourselves, so i am constantly reminding myself that that is not to our audience is. our audiences everybody out in the world. i go to a cattle ranch in

eastern washington, and we are focusing on a lot of things with russia and climate change, so i think he makes a good point. host: about on twitter says, please point out that other countries are tilde up alternative fuels faster than we are, including china. alternativethink fuels, that is another word i try to avoid. it is better to just state what the fuel is, because "alternative" implies that it will always be different to be issue. but one of the cases you are seeing softening on climate change from republicans, is that alternative gases are becoming really cheap, solar and wind. in the midwest, conservative states like iowa, there are wind farms all over there. it is true as the viewer points out, china is leading the clean energy front. i remember covering the china clean energy debate a decade ago , and lawmakers were worried that the u.s. would lose the clean energy race to china.

i think it is safe to say that we have lost it. we are definitely behind, and i think that president trump's policies are not helping us get closer. on the other point about the forest, i think that is a big concern as well. i focus most of my time on fossil fuels, because as i said, there are about 75% of human caused greenhouse gas emissions. by the other 25% largely, is land-use. brazil in particular, forests are being cut down forever agriculture, which is a big concern. in order to meet the goals of cutting down greenhouse gas omissions as scientists say that we need to, land-use will be a huge part of the solution. land-use is confusing, it is not sexy. we think that climate change and fossil fuels do not get attention, well, land-use is even worse. so if is a lot of challenge there as well. host: dave from new york. caller: good morning.

to continue on your land-use, -- we createdtes a sink that pulls energy and radiates it back at night, which helps in keeping your temperatures high. another thing, we have over 300 million cars in america. the average car puts out at for tons of exhaust. i live in syracuse, new york. we have sulfur dioxide coming out of that and when it rains, it doesn't our water. our lakes are full of acid and lately, it, has not been a problem, because we have been trying to stop that. but these are the things that need to be addressed. one more point is, the u.s. needs to lead the way in alternative energies. those are the jobs of the future. we need to make an investment in this country, that is something

that we haven't done. amy: your comment about the cars, the trump administration will come a i am assuming next week, actually, knows that it is planning to roll back to her for fuel economy standards that the obama administration issued. that is controversial, in part, because the auto companies themselves are now i on board with the wholesale rollback. i did a column saying that trump was right to reduce those standards, but not will them back altogether, and the reason why, is because, it sounds like the viewer is concerned about cars and their environmental footprint; but actually, most americans are increasingly . buying new cars the breakdown is about 60% to 40% between suvs and passenger cars. it has been a drastic shift to bigger cars as gasoline

prices dropped. so there is a dissonance with a lot of americans who say they are concerned about climate environment, but when they go to a dealership and purchase a car, their concerns are safety, if they can put their bikes or beer in the -- gear in the back, and climate change is not one of the top concerns. so you are definitely seeing competing interests there. host: next caller, flung florida. caller: hi, c-span, hello, america and your guest. 25ave the idea that will put to $30 per month in every , that is 100 50 million homes in the united states, $3 billion per month, $30 billion per year, back into nationwide. i know that climate change

cannot be stopped, but america, you can slow it down. all you have to do, is go to your fuse box, opened the door, and where it says hot water heater, turn it off. 15 minutes before you take a shower, turn it on. 15 minutes after you are done, turn it off. when you get home and tonight, there is still hot water to take dishes.wer, or wash that will put $30 billion per year back in the economy, and it will slow the use of fuel into our power plants. host: ready you get that data? caller: i've had my electric $5 under $50 per month for the last five years. my water bill is under $30 per month, study. power your dryer or do your washing after 7:00 at night, it is cheaper.

i am an independent, i have been since ross perot, and i think the independent party should do solutions. working america, if you can do this now and work together, you will see the change next month. host: ok, jeff, i will leave it there. thank you for that. amy: to the caller's first comment about how climate change cannot be stopped, but it can be that. i agree with . i think there has been too much focus in washington on this binary -- combat climate change -- it is not something we will ever fight and get over. gay marriagemat was allowed in the supreme court, some gay marriage groups dissolved. i do not think that will happen with climate change, that should be emphasized. also, more to your point, it is very important to talk about what consumers can do with their use.y i think it is unfortunate,

because most people are not nearly as informed about their electric bill as this caller is. i think there is increasingly awareness and attempt by some utility companies to empower their consumers with knowledge do.t what they can i think part of the problem, your electricity bill comes once a month. , it isine by email automatically set up to pay, so sometimes, i do not even look at my electricity bill. wearers if i had a car, when a drive a car and fill it up, and a exactly what the price of gasoline is. so i think it is unfortunate that there was not as much as much awareness about what consumers can do. hopefully, that is something we will be seeing more of. host: chris in silver spring, maryland. caller: i just want to say, the ipc, see models, have been way off. they have not been able to model the actual temperatures that have occurred. the mendenhall glacier's and other glaciers have been receding for the past fiv 50

years. there has been climate change for years, and people seem to want to ignore climate change history. al gore said, the icecaps would thatne, and obama promised we could have our own doctor and all of that stuff. i just wanted to emphasize that we ignore climate change history. the trump administration is opening the debate with climate change history, because the science is not civil. thank you. amy: i have two points to say on that. he raises an interesting point about uncertainty. i do think it is important, for climate scientists -- the majority of whom do agree that human activity is pushing the over theemperature up last century, they agree that there is uncertainty in climate science, there is uncertainty in all science. so two painted the nation

-- to paint the nation that all of it is settled, i think it is not fair to readers or viewers. i have members in my family who question the science, and that is ok. to understand that even though there is uncertainty, there doesn't mean that there was a scientific consensus that human activity is driving the earth choco temperature up. to the point on of the icc, the intergovernmental panel on climate change, lots of acronyms in this world -- it is a government organization underneath the u.n.. some of the models have proven to be wrong, some of them right. i think it is an inherent matter of science. to mark your calendars for the walks among us, the icc is announcing in october of this year, the next big update on all the science, so i will definitely be keeping a close eye on that. host: if you would like to follow amy harder's reporting on axios.com, or follow

her at her personal twitter @amyharder. all day today, we continue with our coverage on alaska weekend. thank you all for watching. enjoy the rest of your weekend. ♪ [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. 2018] ♪ >> a discussion about hurricane preparedness.