from the region by mid-september. at 12:30 p.m., the transportation secretary pete buttigieg speaks about electric and autonomous vehicles. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we are supported by these television companies and more including cox. >> teachers are doing whatever it takes to connect with their students and cox is to by connecting over 140,000 low income students with the internet with the connect to compete program from cox. >> cox supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> coming up "washington journal," we will discuss u.s. climate and energy policy with myron ebell. more on the topic with bob

deans, strategic engagement director for the natural resources defense council. later, american path -- public health association executive director, dr. georges benjamin, talks about the federal response to the coronavirus pandemic. ♪ host: good morning on friday, april 23, 2020 one. the democratically controlled house voted along party lines thursday to advance legislation to make washington, d.c., the 51st state. the bill faces a steep hurdle in overcoming a filibuster. we are getting your reaction and asking if you would support stated for d.c. if you would, (202) 748-8000 is the number to call. if you would not, (202) 748-8001 . and a special line for d.c.

residents, (202) 748-8002. and you can send us a text, (202) 748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you are from. you can catch us on social media . on twitter, @cspanwj. and on facebook. you can start calling in now. it is called hr 51, the bill to make washington, d.c., the 51st state, providing voting rights in congress to washington, d.c., residents. the d.c. nonvoting delegate made her case for statehood yesterday. [video clip] >> the constitution does not establish prerequisites for a new state. three have been considered. population and resources, supports to statehood, and commitment to democracy. the state of washington, d.c.,

would meet each. ' d.c.s population of 712,000 is larger than that of two states. d.c. paid more federal taxes per capita than any state and pays more federal taxes than 21 states of the union. d.c.'s gross to muster product is larger than 17 states -- gross domestic product is larger than 17 states. 86% of residents voted for statehood, and they have been petitioning for this for 220 years. congress has a choice. it can continue to exclude d.c. residents from the democratic process, forcing them to watch from the sidelines as congress votes on federal and d.c. laws and to treat them, and the words

of frederick douglass, as aliens, not citizens, but subjects, end quote. or it can live up to our nation's founding principles, join the 54% of americans -- that is 54%, mr. speaker, and growing, who support d.c. statehood, and pass hr 51. host: the delegate on the house for yesterday. if washington, d.c., becomes a state under hr 51, it would be called the washington douglass commonwealth and would set aside several buildings, monuments, the white house, and the capital as a federal city, and the rest becoming its own state. republicans speaking out against the measure yesterday on the house floor, including from neighboring virginia, congressman bob good. [video clip] >> i rise in opposition of this attempt by democrats to increase

their power. sadly, it is not surprising. democrats have made it clear that american institutions do not stand in their way of advancing their political agenda at all costs. they want to pack the supreme court, in them and eight election integrity, defined pulleys, keep orders open, and prohibit debate inlays this very house, and d.c. statehood is the next step. this legislation is an unconstitutional power grab designed to give democrats more votes to pass the radical socialist agenda. as the majority leader just said, this is about two senators, not about principle. the district of columbia has been a federal district for over 200 years. the framers understood the importance of federal and state government having separate authorities and recognized states would be ill-suited to house a federal government, and this was long before democrats started making everything about race. now democrats want to disregard the founders in order to grab two more votes in the senate.

political advantage is no justification for policy. it disregards the president and the constitution, and i oppose the bill. host: congressman bob good of virginia yesterday, one of the last actions on the house for yesterday before they went on a congressional work recess week, not back until may 11. this morning on "washington journal," starting our program today getting your thoughts on d.c. statehood. if you support (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . for residents, (202) 748-8002. a call from california on the line for those who oppose it. todd, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. d.c. statehood would be unconstitutional. d.c. is a district or city and

you cannot arbitrarily make it a state. i do not understand right -- why the residence of d.c. cannot just vote as members of the state that they are in in elections. also -- host: they are not in a state. they are in the district of columbia. we are talking about proposals that would essentially richer cede the district back to maryland? caller: no, i meant because, although it is a district, if it is in maryland, it is a state, so why can't the residents just vote as members of the state. see what i am saying? host: but d.c. is not currently part of maryland. caller: that is a fair compromise, see what i am saying ? you let them vote as members of the state, and then without having d.c. be a state -- it is

like saying let's turn los angeles into a city-state or something. you can let them vote without having to go to that extreme of making it a state. because when is this going to stop? host: todd in california. it was the 23rd amendment that provided voting representation in presidential elections to the residents of the district of columbia. but currently, d.c. and the congress has one nonvoting delegate and the house, and that is eleanor holmes norton, who you just heard from. if hr 51 is passed in the senate and becomes law, it would provide a voting representative in the house and two senators for washington, d.c. we are asking if you support that proposal. sean, union new jersey, would. caller: i absolutely support it. but for lack of a better way of saying it, republicans do not want people to have direct

representation. the caller before did not understand that people in d.c. cannot vote for senators or other types of elected officials. you will have calls come in that will say this. they do not want that. they are afraid of losing power, or white power, for lack of a better description. so yes, i do support it. host: john in south haven, michigan, good morning. caller: my personal opinion is it is a power play for democrats to make a one-party system in the united states, and this agenda just started. i think it started with obama, and now you're seeing biden put it in. the gentleman in new jersey who made a race thing out of it, it is not a race thing. every time you hear this stuff, it angers people from the midwest. it is getting old. if it passes, it passes it but my feeling is if a group of people set up a district

somewhere else in the united states and make it a federal district, does that make it automatically a call for statehood? constitutionally, it was designed to avoid all that. thank you. host: that was a call from south haven, michigan. going through some sections of the constitution, the relevant provisions here, on the federal city. the constitution having the requirement of a federal city, that is article one, section eight, that congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such a district, not exceeding 10 miles square, is made by particular states and the acceptance of congress become the seat of the government of the united states and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be for the erect and of sports and magazines and arsenals and dockyards and other needful buildings. that sets up the federal city,

although new states allowed to join the union, article four, section three, the provision on new states joining the union. new states may be admitted to congress into this union, but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any state be formed by the junction of any two states or parts of states without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned, as well as of the congress. two important provisions talked about in this debate over d.c. statehood. there is also the 23rd amendment. getting your thoughts on all of this this morning, setting aside the first hour of "washington journal" to hear from you, and we want to hear from d.c. residents, (202) 748-8002. omar in new jersey, on the line for those who would support statehood. caller: i support it because it is not just republicans and

democrats, it is just the people of washington, d.c. and i think we should support it. host: do you think this opens the door for more states, the state of puerto rico, and other states? and do you think that would be a good thing? caller: sure. with puerto rico, yes, i think we should. another thing, i think we should take the money out of politics. because if we take the money out of politics, we will see how many people that will really fight for you. host: david in auburn, new york, opposes the idea of d.c. statehood. caller: i just oppose it on economic principles. seems every time we have a problem, we want to make government larger, bigger, more powerful. all you have to do now is

just look at the workforce involved in governing and the people that are not, the private sector, has to pay for this. you put more states in, you will just have a larger, more expensive, more inefficient government. and that seems to be there answer. every time they go to solve a problem, it seems the solution is let's just make this bigger. and you cannot afford what you have now. and we're going to keep going down that road? that is why i oppose it, just on the principle of efficiency. small, efficient government, large come at a private sector. right now, you cannot find enough labor. that is how i see it. host: do you think we should have less states than we have now? caller: no, i think, you know, 50 is enough.

maybe more somewhere down the road or less. i don't know the answer to that. i know larger right now, it is one more fly in the ointment. you do not need it. you cannot govern it with 50 states right now, and now you're going to throw in more come a more inefficiency, more incompetence. you cannot put this large, inefficient government on the back of the working class and expect this thing to float. that is where i see it. host: this is ralph, also in new york, that line for those who support the idea of d.c. statehood. caller: yes, i am a uaw worker from upstate new york, and i support statehood. it comes down to a simple decision, those who oppose civil rights in this country are going to be against it. those who support the power of people to vote in this country are going to support it, because they were to vote in this

country is a civil right. and the district of columbia has more population than wyoming, with one representative and two senators, so that is where i fall. and i thank you. host: among the states that have one representative and two senators, vermont, delaware, wyoming, alaska, north dakota, south dakota, and montana. the arguments on the house floor yesterday, as the new york times points out in the wrapup of the vote, some lawmakers on the democratic side pointed to the capitol riot on january six in which the washington metropolitan police department up to respond to the chaos as evidence for statehood. officials have acknowledged that the delay in sending troops contributed in the devastation that day at the capitol. among those who made the point yesterday, the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi. [video clip] >> as some of the country watched in horror as troops were

deployed against peaceful protesters in the district without residents' approval. then on january 6, as our capitol was being defiled and police assaulted and killed and our members and staff terrorize, d.c. leaders did not have the authority to call the national guard to protect its people. granting stated means ensuring its leaders have the tools they need to keep people safe. the governor of any one of our states has the authority to call on the national guard. that is not an authority that is afforded to the mayor of washington, d.c. if that were the case, we would have had protection. statehood is also a matter of civil rights. the residents of the district have a right to self-government and control over their lives and futures. and it is particularly

meaningful that we pass this legislation days after the anniversary of president abraham lincoln signing the district of columbia compensation emancipation act, freeing enslaved people in the district. today, not passing hr 50 12 admit the state of washington douglas commonwealth to the union, the house will finally address the unjust and undemocratic situation. host: speaker nancy pelosi on the house floor yesterday. leading arguments on the republican side was the top republican on the oversight and reform kitty -- committee, james comer of kentucky. [video clip] >> mr. speaker, america's federal government should be of the people, by the people, and for the people, but with hr 51, america's government will become of the democrats, by the democrats, and for the

democrats. let's be clear what hr 51 is about, about democrats adding two new progressive u.s. senators to push a radical agenda, championed by the squad, to reshape america into the socialist utopia they always talk about. if you doubt me, just listen to who what our colleague, congressman jamie raskin, recently told the washington post. he said, "there is a national political logic for d.c. statehood, because the senate has become the principal obstacle to social progress across a whole range of issues." so there we have it. hr 51 is not really about voting representation. it is about democrats consolidating their power in washington. host: congressman james comer yesterday on the house floor. hearing from you, asking if you would support or oppose d.c.

statehood. we have that line for d.c. residents. maria is here in d.c. good morning. caller: good morning. yes, it is absolutely about -- [inaudible] about voter representation. if republicans are so afraid about what they call the power grab, why don't they -- [inaudible] why don't they make themselves a party that more people will support? why don't they do that rather than just working toward their base? that should not be the only thing that they say, well, this is why we oppose it. because what about all the people that contribute, and pay taxes, and which are not having a voice in their government? host: maria, as a d.c.

residence, is there a compromise here that you would be open to? a lot of the concern on the republican side is what this would do to the balance of power in the senate, with two likely democratic senators being added if d.c. becomes a state. congressman kinsinger said he would be open to giving d.c. representation in the house, essentially allowing delicate eleanor holmes norton to become congresswoman, representative eleanor holmes norton, and having a vote on the house floor. is that a workable compromise for you? having voting rights just in the house? caller: why should that happen? i mean, you have states like wyoming, like north dakota, they have even less as far as population than d.c., and all of that population is represented with two senators. you could say, ok, let's -- i

don't know, maybe we can just have one senator each, both d.c. and north dakota and wyoming, with very small populations, but , no, we should also have representation in the senate. again, why should this be a concern? if that is the concern, restructure what you stand for or expand your base. expand your base so you can still win those posts in the senate. host: we will stay in d.c. with isaac. good morning. caller: good. thank you for taking my call. host: go ahead. caller: i am a southeast d.c. resident, born and raised in d.c. there is a truth a lot of people do not want to deal with. there have been nine capitols

before d.c. so the argument of saying that d.c. was made to be the capitol is a bad argument. d.c. statehood, whether people want to admit to it or not, is a black lives are issue. d.c. -- is ape black lives matter issue. d.c. has always been now in 202e demographic has change, the population has equaled out, which is probably why they hold d.c. statehood thing is being taken seriously. here is the one thing i want everyone to understand, why should residents and citizens in hawaii have more representation in congress, have senators that can speak on behalf of their citizens, than people that were born in the continental u.s.? think about that, i was born

here. i was born in gw hospital. why can i not have representation in congress? why can i not come as a black man in 20 have a senator and governor? is someone scared because of the complexion of my skin? this whole democrat versus republican thing is just smoke and mirrors, and they all know that. host: on the demographics of d.c., this from the census bureau in 2019, 30 7.5% white, 46% black or african-american, 11% hispanic, 4.5% asian is the numbers. that is from a few years ago from the census bureau. host: good -- caller: good. i'm glad we're still chocolate city. it is 2021. you have people born in the united states of america, not on an island, we are born here, and you are telling us to our face

in 2021 that we do not have representation, but you are going to tax us and treat us just like regular citizens, but you will not allow us to govern ourselves or set our own policies. and you do not allow us to vote, make laws in congress that will affect all populations. host: what would you say to pam, who writes in from north dakota watching, saying, it is bad timing, democrats. i agree with voters rights and organizing d.c. perhaps as a state, but it will backfire if it is being done as a political move, and it sure appears to be. she says bad timing is an issue. congress, solve the crisis at the border. if the basement is flooding, saying folks don't sit at the kitchen table and discuss adding a new room at the -- as an addition. i support statehood but not the timing. caller: i will say the same thing they said to women in the

1920's when they wanted the right to vote, the same thing they said to black men when they wanted to get into the u.s. military, same thing they told homosexuals and they wanted to serve openly, it was bad timing. that bad timing is just bull. the time is now. it is time for us to stand up and unite as citizens. everyone is talking about coming together on one accord, talking about the history, why we should be proud americans. who built the capitol? washingtonians tilt it -- built it. so it is time for washingtonians, every washingtonian that lives there, was born there, that bled there, to have the same rights as her, that she gets to have every single day. host: before you go, do you like the new name if it becomes a state, washington douglas commonwealth? caller: i think that that is something that should be open to the citizens, just like when we went from the washington bullet

to the washington windsor's, things of that -- washington wizards, things of that nature. i am open to it. i think the history of d.c. is a very rich history. so i think that that is something i am open to, but i will say that that should be something that should be debated by the residents of d.c. host: thanks for the call. michael in pennsylvania opposes the idea of d.c. statehood. caller: my main reason for opposing isn't really that it is a political thing for the democrats, it is more -- yes, they deserve representation, but, like the lady that messaged in, the timing is off. the reason the timing is off, look at all the other bull crap the democrats have bullied through.

opening the southern border, the going green movement, which i am all for but they are doing that the wrong way, as well, forcing that without taking the correct steps for each region in america. that is for a total different day though. host: actually, a little bit later today we will be talking a lot about that. so finish your comments. caller: just in general, everything they have done since their president took office has done nothing to better this country. host: that is michael in pennsylvania. you referenced the green new deal on the climate front issue.

president biden holding a virtual climate summit with global leaders, day two of that summit is today, already underway this morning. president biden expected to speak around 9:15 eastern at that summit. but it was yesterday during that summit that president biden made an announcement that made the front pages, lead story in today's new york times, that the u.s. will commit to cutting emissions at at least 50%, below 2005 levels, by the year 2030. the announcement yesterday included in rapid succession, japan, britain, and european union doing supercuts on their part. china, india, and russia made no new emissions promises. a lot more discussion on that summit today and what is going to happen today in our 8:00 a.m. hour of the "washington

journal." we will be joined by myron ebell of the competitive enterprise institute for that discussion and bob deans at the national resources defense council, so stick around for that. in other news this morning, yesterday on the senate floor, the senate passing a bipartisan anti-hapeville -- anti-hate bill. the act cleared the chamber and would expedite the review of hate crimes and an official at the department oversee the effort, focusing on violence and discrimination pointed toward asian americans during the coronavirus pandemic. and the department would coordinate law enforcement groups and community-based organizations to facilitate awareness about hate crimes, and they would have an online hate crime reporting system in multiple pages. that is the story on the front page of usa today. a 94-1 vote, senator holly of

missouri was the one lone vote against the legislation. and yesterday, news came out just before 9:00 a.m., the number of americans apply for unemployment aid fell last week to 547,000, the lowest point since the pandemic struck. layoffs are slowing on the strength of an improving jobs market. another story, we have talked a lot about infrastructure, and we will continue to do so as president biden's infrastructure proposal makes its way through prague -- congress. senate republicans unveiled their own infrastructure bill, what they are calling a real infrastructure plan, $568 billion for a real infrastructure plan, as they are calling it here this is the story from the washington times. that proposal focusing on bridges and roads and railways and airports. republicans noting that their plan does not include the many

"human infrastructure components" of mr. biden's plans . republicans concerned at what is being defined infrastructure in that plan. $400 billion for caregiving for elderly americans. not included, $100 billion on workforce development, including $12 billion to provide job training to felons, $213 billion for public housing, and other elements in the president's $2.2 trillion plan. just after 7:30 on the east coast, having this discussion about d.c. statehood for the next half-hour. phone lines among those who support it, oppose it, and a line for d.c. residents. vincent out in the buckeye state of ohio. you are next. caller: good morning. i support statehood for d.c., as well as puerto rico. for those that do not support it, especially the republicans,

and i am not stuck on the republican-democrat thing either, this is not in the 1960's or 1950's, and for those who oppose it because, like the gentleman who called and said -- for whatever reason, you know, if we should not have 50 states, what should we have, 40 states? for economical reasons? oh, come on. let's be real. life is progression. without progression, what is the purpose? i do believe it is all a racial type thing. and i am not on board with it. 20-year military veteran, and i am so embarrassed for what happened on january 6, and they let that go. host: you support statehood for

d.c. and puerto rico. with you extend statehood to guam or other islands, to american samoa, for all the territories? caller: that could very well be looked at. i do know that they have fought for puerto rico for quite some time, as well as d.c. it is way too late for that not to have happened. host: thanks for the call from ohio. to the hoosier state, this is david in french lake, indiana. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i've been listening to your callers, and i understand their views, but this is obviously a power grab from the senate to establish two new senators. i have done a little research on the voting statistics of the

d.c. area, and federal government employees always vote democrat to a certain extent, higher percentages, as well as the residence. my question is, if this was a red-voting area, if the democrats would have such a campaign of establishing two republican senators? it is a guys on voting rights and civil rights, just another power grab. it will be dead in the senate. let's see if they waste the filibuster vote on this. host: do you think republicans would be a lot more in favor of it if it was a red area? caller: i do not. host: you think they would want to keep the federal city? caller: i think it is a constitutional issue. this is a backdoor of the constitution, and the constitution has to be accepted. and it can be looked at,

perhaps, by the supreme court if we do not get another four senators, excuse me, supreme court justices. host: that is david in french lick, indiana. now i call from washington, d.c., good morning. caller: good morning. i do not know what these republicans are talking about. i was born in d.c. in 1956, and at one point we do not have a vote. i guess a lot of people will remember, or maybe they do not remember, mayor walter washington was the first mayor and was appointed. before that, we had governors in this city. and it comes down to a very simple premise, and it is called taxation without representation. and if the citizens here in the city are paying taxes, which we

are, paying some of the highest taxes in the united states, as well as we can go off and join the military and be shot and killed, then there should either be representation in congress and the senate or we should not be paying federal taxes. and i am for either one. if they decide not to give us that, then i would like to see us no longer pay federal taxes. host: do you want to remind folks around the country what is on d.c. license plates, for those who drive around the city? caller: it says taxation without representation, yeah. host: no taxation without representation, on the d.c. license plate. what is your thought about what happens in the senate here? the statehood bill passed back in 2020, nowhere in the senate,

and democrats are now in the majority with the vice presidential vote. what do you think happens? caller: i think it, unless they have it so that it is on party lines, it probably will not pass. they will probably need kamala harris. i do not know whether they will need the filibuster or how, but i am not sure if it is doable at this point. like i said, i would like to see it. i remember when there was not any representation and we went through the whole thing to get d.c., because d.c. had no rights at all. again, i think someone made a suggestion, one of the senators or congressmen said maybe we can lessen their federal taxes. so i would say no taxes and let the federal government be

responsible for the district. that is the way i look at it. host: thanks for the call here in d.c. the caller before brian was talking about the voting statistic in washington, d.c. this is the latest registration summary on the vote -- to vote in primaries in d.c., you have to register by party. the breakdown, march 31, 404,000 registered democrats in washington, d.c. just under 30,000 registered republicans in washington, d.c. 76% to just about 5.5%. stephen is in indianapolis, that line for those who support the idea of d.c. statehood. caller: yes, i support the statehood for washington, d.c. the gentleman that was on right

before i came on noted this country was built on that saying, no taxation without representation. as a matter of fact, they had the boston tea party that had to do with the taxes. if you are not going to let me have representation in the government, then why tax me to help run the government? if i can go off and die in a war that is declared by the congress, by the senate, why can't i have representation in that same body?

or if i do not have representation, it is the same old slave mentality. you are not giving me any thought on how the country has been governed, not giving me any thoughts on how -- on whether or not i support a war that is overseas. you just send me into it. host: we will go back to d.c. residents. this is britney here in the district, as we show you one of those d.c. license plates with that saying. it is right there on the license plate. go ahead. caller: hi, good morning.

thank you for taking my call. i called on this before and just want to reiterate to folks who have either never been to d.c. or they have only been to come as a tourist, there is more to the district of columbia than the monuments and the federal buildings. there are people who are living in the district of columbia, whose jobs and whose life do not have anything to do with the federal government. for folks who are having an opinion on if the land could just go back to maryland or virginia or at least for the voting representation, that may have been what happened historically in the past, but what is right now is d.c. does not identify with maryland or virginia in the ways that family life functions and some of the ideologies. so it seems too simplistic to say, oh, we will just vote maryland. i have to commute in from

maryland to d.c., and having lived in d.c., i can tell you it is very different. it is not the same. and life that happens in the district is not the same, so then your voting would not be the same. for folks who are using words that, in my opinion, down regurgitated from your social media outlets, like power grab, as mentioned by representative eleanor holmes, this has been a request of the residents of d.c. for a very long time, regardless of who is in power, or careless of who has majority. so i want to emphasize again that, from people living in the district of columbia, which is much more than just federal buildings, it is not about a power grab. it is maybe a window of opportunity that a party has decided we will finally support them and we have a window of opportunity to push it through. but d.c. folks are not worried about power grabs.

they would like to have representation in their government. host: before you go, you sit you used to be a d.c. resident and now you are a commuter into dcp why did you leave the city? caller: i left because of affordability. so my husband and i are starting a family. we wanted to buy a home. and we are transplants into the city. we started when we moved here living in a 4000 square-foot studio. again, building our family, that same studio would cost, to own i t, $300,000. host: a 400 square-foot studio? caller: yes, cost $300,000. so having been from michigan where you can get 2000 square feet for $300,000, it is quite a shock. and that is really the way the city is going. the city is building, expanding,

developing. so even for families like myself, my husband, who are comfortable, it is not affordable to live in the city if you are buying. host: thanks for the call. joe is next out of pittsburgh, opposes the idea of d.c. statehood. caller: yes, i think we need to go back to the reason that d.c. was created as a capital city and look at the reason they moved it several times from philadelphia, which was original when they did the constitution. they did not want any one to have an influence or power over the federal government, so that was the reasoning, to make it its own state -- i mean, its own district. so a couple options are moving back to pennsylvania or to a different state that might be more accommodating and not have

the problem of all the extra votes. another option is move it to the central area in the united states where it will be centrally located, and i know it is going to be expensive to build a new city and the middle of the country, but it will open up a lot of commerce in that area. and if we can spend billion's of dollars and trillions of dollars, then why not do it, take a look at it? host: what about this solution, we cut out the places where people live and work and you keep the u.s. capitol, the white house, the national mall, the monuments, you keep that as the federal city, and the rest of d.c. then becomes its own state? caller: if you use the argument of population, the next thing you will have is new york city, l.a., chicago, atlanta saying, wait a minute, we have a similar population, why can't we be a state also and have senators and

representation, etc., etc., etc., so i think that argument does not hold water when you just use population as a criteria. you have to look at other criteria, not just population. what about guam, puerto rico? host: this is what the constitution says in article four, section three. new states may be admitted by the congress into this union, but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state, nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states or parts of states without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned, as well as of the congress. congress would get a say on that. the legislatures of those states would get a say on that. caller: as they do with d.c. remember, d.c. was part of maryland and i think a small section of virginia, but that

had to be conceded from maryland to become the district of columbia. so a similar thing would happen if other areas of the country say, well, we want to segregate and want to be a state what if texas wants to split in half and say we have the size, bigger than any four states other than alaska, and we want to split and become two states because we had the population and the size. that will be something that happens next if this happens here that is why i am against it. look at it differently, i think puerto rico or guam have more of a reason to become states then a 10 square mile area in maryland. host: even less than 10 square miles at this point. i believe about 68 miles total, not a 10 by 10 square anymore. thanks for the call. rick out of boston, mass.

good morning. caller: i am just here to say that i think they should have statehood and what-not. number one, times are changing. i think the people who are running the country do not want the change, like the republican party. i think they are a bunch of crooks. they need 50 new senators on the republican side, especially what they did when they try to help trump overturn the election. the guy tried to overturn it and broke all kinds of laws. they let him get away with it. we need all new senators. liz cheney knew what she was doing. republican party people do not support her, do not to be there. know what i am saying? host: a few comments from social media and text messaging service. lives in texas saying all citizens discern representation.

stephen in michigan saying representative good, who we played earlier from virginia, is wrong. if they do not want to give d.c. stated, stop making the residents pay federal taxes. everyone has the right to representation at their tax. of course not, says patricia in michigan. it should be split into virginia and maryland, and pennsylvania should again be the capital. jimbo in bakersfield saying if washington, d.c., is not going to get federal representation in congress, they should not have to pay taxes. taxation without representation, seems simple enough to me. to new york, frank opposes the idea. caller: yes, how you doing? you have got a lot on your plate today. for one thing, puerto rico was annexed back in 1918, if i am not mistaken. and they should be given back --

they should become a country, like they were. that is why the united states never annexed them to be a state. as far as washington, d.c., which is 80% black, this is the racist thing, everyone that keeps calling that are colored, they all want washington, d.c., to become a state. host: 46% black or african-american, 37.5% white, and about 11% latino, and 4.5% asian alone or native hawaiian. caller: ok, and how much crime is committed by the minorities? 90%. host: i do not know where you get that statistic, frank. caller: if the blacks want their own state, let the move to indiana -- host: alright let's go to john in arlington, virginia, just

across the potomac river. caller: i consider myself basically conservative, but they have got to do something about the district. either retro seed to maryland or give them voting rights or even a minute federal taxation. but they have to do something. you have got guys out of there that served in vietnam and afghanistan and iraq and all that stuff. and i do not like their politics necessarily, but i think they should get some kind of rights. when it was set up originally, arlington was part of the district, but they found they could retro seed arlington to virginia and still govern as a district. but they found out they really cannot, so you have the pentagon, cia, nsa, even andrews air force base, none of them are in the district. so the idea that you need the district to run the government just does not -- makes less

sense than it did. so they can separate the federal buildings and the capitol, and it is like a lot of other areas, and have the district be represented one way or another. just like i think puerto rico should be brought in, by the way. but the republicans will just have to deal with the fact that these guys are not their cup of tea for the time being, and they will have to work harder to get that support. but they need to have some kind of vote, and they should not just let it go by. again, my central point being that a lot of them served in the military and gave their lives, and why shouldn't they have voting rights of some kind? host: the mayor of d.c., her statement yesterday after that house voting along party lines to pass hr 51, the bill that would make washington, d.c., the 51st state.

she said with historic support and the strong backing of the white house, d.c. stated moves to the u.s. senate. 45 senators have already acknowledged our nation will be stronger when we end the disenfranchisement of more than 700,000 americans living in the washington, d.c. frederick douglass once said i would unite with anybody to do right, with nobody to do wrong. we call on the 55 senators who have not signed on in support of the bill, which would build a more perfect union and seize this opportunity to right a 220-year-old wrong. the mayor of d.c. jonathan and pennsylvania, good morning, opposes the idea. caller: good morning, people. i am looking at this from the primary picture from the architects of this country. we had the rim, the axis, and the spokes.

the spoke is the state, the rim is the territory, and the axis is the federal government. i believe people in d.c. should be represented by a congress and by a federal representative. that is basically my point. host: the federal representative, should that person be able to vote? or is that the nonvoting delegate, eleanor holmes norton? caller: the population in d.c. should have representatives from the congress and from the senate . federal government is still a separate entity. it is in the state, but d.c. will not be classified as a state. it will still be a district -- it is the axle of the entire country. this is where everything comes together. state and federal. so people need to be

represented. host: just a few minutes left for this discussion. at 8:00 a.m. eastern, we will talk about climate issues and president biden's virtual climate summit with global leaders, day two of that summit is underway today. a call from frederick, maryland, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my first time to call. i used to live in alexandria, virginia, which is right outside of washington, d.c. and this issue has been is cost for some time, and there has been no resolution. i think we need to come to a resolution. if you are paying taxes, just like if you are in the service, you should have representation. you should have a voice, and those people are not having a voice. it comes down to -- every time someone mentions that it is more about racial, certain people do not want to discuss it, you know

what, the supreme court -- when the supreme court rules were changed to put these recent supreme court justice on, no one from the other party said anything about it. but now because they call it a power grab -- it is not a power grab, it is about people being represented. i think we need to get away from everything being racial because someone disagrees with you. people say, well, it is about race. if someone wants to bring up race, than that is their issue and that is their discussion. allow them to say what they have to say and not just cut them off to say it is a racial issue. people should be able to say what they want to say, and no one should judge them over how they look, what they look like, what they are saying. everyone has a voice. this is america, and everyone has a voice. and if they want to bring up race, no one talks about the big lie, but you know what, we don't

talk about that. we moved on. we do not talk about what happened on january 6. we have moved on. allow people to have a voice. everyone have a blessed day. let's stop judging each other and putting each other down. we are supposed to be americans. so if this is america, allow people to say what they have to say. do not ring up statistics about climate, all that other stuff. host: a lot of discussion about the state of wyoming when it comes to d.c., in part because wyoming has more than 100,000 less residents than the city of washington. doug is in laramie, wyoming, on that line for those who oppose the idea of d.c. statehood. go ahead. caller: in the last census, wyoming was reported as having 500 67,005 residents.

i am undecided about washington, d.c. i heard some congresspeople saying it is constitutional, some saying unconstitutional. some say the founders intended that it should not be a state, but they never said which founders, when, where, to whom, and by what means they expressed their intention and what letters or official documents. i success -- i suggest c-span invite a constitutional scholar who is nonbiased to explain and clarify the constitutional arguments about statehood. which fathers argued for and against statehood, where, and by what means and what letters or documents they argued or otherwise expressed their desires or intentions. host: a lot of those arguments

center around article one, section eight, of the constitution. article four, section three, and the 23rd amendment to the constitution. we talked about all three today. all three of those cited by several of the folks who talked on the house floor yesterday. but if you want to watch the debate in its entirety or the committee debate on d.c. statehood, you can do that at our website, c-span.org. time for maybe one more call. angela here in d.c. caller: hi, i am in favor of d.c. statehood. i'm originally from the u.s. virgin islands. i think it is an issue of fairness. and i want to clarify for the previous caller, puerto rico was annexed in 1899. before that, it was a colony for over 400 years. puerto rico was never independent.

i really feel that, really everyone under the u.s. flag should have voting rights. but for territory, that would need a constitutional amendment. but overall, i am in favor of d.c. statehood. host: our last call on this segment two more hours this morning. next, two perspectives on the biden administration's approach to climate and energy policies. you will hear first from competitive enterprise institute's myron ebell. later, from the natural resources defense council, bob deans. stick around. we will be right back. >> our live coverage includes a bipartisan group of governors and lawmakers meeting for an infrastructure summit. it is being organized i married -- marilyn governor larry hogan at 12:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. at 9:00 he spin -- 9:00 on

c-span2, madeleine albright joins diplomats more discussion about the future of afghanistan. as the u.s. moves to withdraw all troops from the region by september. at 12:30, pete buttigieg speaks about the benefits of autonomous and electric vehicles. >> sunday night on q and a, a con -- q&a, a conversation with susan page about her biography, madame speaker, on the political career of nancy pelosi. >> not many people knew this but she was planning, once hillary click did -- clinton was elected, as so many people thought she was going to be elected in 2016. nancy pelosi was going to step down. she has nine grandchildren, 76 years old, other things she wanted to do, but that election night was a shock for her and so many others. she said once she realized donald trump was going to win the election, it was like a mule

was kicking her physically. she didn't say this metaphorically, she said she felt like a mule was kicking her over and over again. she decided she wasn't gonna go anywhere, that she was going to stay and try to stand up to donald trump and to protect democratic priorities, including the affordable care act. >> susan page on her biography, madame speaker, sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span and's q&a. you can also listen to q&a where you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: myron ebell joins us via zoom and he led the environmental protection agency, served as the director for competitive institute for energy and environment. remind viewers first what you do and what your mission is, especially on this issue of a

changing climate. guest: cei, competitive enterprise institute, is a fairly small public policy institute that specializes in regulation, all kinds of regulation, not just energy and environment. from a free-market perspective. host: how long have you been around? guest: 1984, fred smith started cei with his wife, fran. host: what is the center street -- center for energy and environment there? guest: we have a very small team. your average environmental group is over $100 million per year and cei is $7 million per year and we have maybe a third of our work is energy environment, so we have a small team and we try to hit the highlights on virtually every type of energy policy, chemical risk, plastics, climates, energy, transportation

, and all kinds of federal lands, property rights, and others. host: it is cei.org if you want to check it out. as day two of the climate summit gets underway, president biden announcing a goal of cutting u.s. greenhouse gas emissions in half 2030. is that achievable and what would it take to reach that goal? guest: i suppose it is achievable if we have a commanding control economy or we have a commanding control economy, so people were told what they had to do. the fact is we have a huge energy system, and huge energy resources. when you want to change things, it is hard to do anything except incrementally. that is because we have got over 330 million people values a lot

of electricity, most of them drive a lot. the idea we should cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 50% in nine years is preposterous. unless you want to devastate the economy and make -- especially make poor people poor. people -- poorer. people in the lower income bracket spend much higher percentage of incomes on energy then better off people. if you want to really devastate the economy, you could do it. given our current situation, assuming we will not have a command and control economy is just preposterous. host: this is president biden yesterday from the summit, his pitch on doing it, and how to do it. pres. biden: engineers and construction workers building new carbon capture and green hydrogen plants, to ford's

cleaner steel and cement and produce clean power. i see farmers deploying cutting-edge tools to make soil of our heartland, the next frontier in carbon innovation. by maintaining those investments, and putting these people to work, the united states sets out on the road to cut greenhouse gases in half, and half by the end of this decade. that is where we are headed as a nation. that is what we can do if we take action, to build an economy that is not only more prosperous but healthier, fairer, and cleaner for the entire planet. these steps will set america on a path of net zero missions economy by no later than 2050. host: the pitch that it is an economy that is more prosperous, fairer, cleaner. guest: well no, sorry. you can't create a sort of

fantasy economy. this is going to destroy huge massive economic activity because energy prices are going to go up. when energy prices go up, the price of everything goes up. the whole biden package, when you look at it, every piece of it will take economic activity out of the economy. it creates a lot of jobs when you build a wind factory or solar factory, but it also destroys a lot of jobs from the plants closing prematurely, that have a big investment that is stranded. it will create huge economic devastation, and the idea -- president biden, i'm sorry to say, his understanding of economics is at a fairly low level. it's about the same level as trump's understanding of science . this attempt to paint a rosy

picture will soon come to grief. let me give you one practical reason. it takes years and years to build these plants. one of the reasons is because of our regulatory process of permitting them. it allows for long delays in getting the permit done, and long delays from litigation, because people will file lawsuits. so the empire state building back in the 1920's was built in a little over a year. today, to build anything takes five to 215 -- five to 15 years and they are taking? -- talking nine years we will be emission cut -- talking nine years we will be emission cut? host: folks already calling in.

one of the first actions that president biden took was rejoining the paris climate agreement. to these big, global agreements work in getting worldwide emissions lower? guest: the underlying treaty, the u.n. framework convention on climate change, was signed by president bush, the elder, in 1992 and ratified by the senate. so we have almost had almost 30 years of -- so we have had almost 30 years of climate action. on climate change, conferences have been held around around the world. i have been able to go to some of those. if you look at the graph of greenhouse gas emissions, we have done nothing to bend the curve down. emissions keep going up, and

that is because the world is not energy rich. it is energy poor. china is the big actor here, going from going way behind the united states and energy used to being way ahead, so china now has emissions from their mostly coal-fired power plants. there emissions are now longer -- larger than the united states and europe combined. india is starting down that road area you see at the summit yesterday, the chinese communist leaders, be -- xi jinping saying they will continue to go up. they are really playing us for fools. i think a lot of people in the media go along with that, it is like they are part of the team, they are a party to the paris climate treaty, so they are doing their part. there emissions keep going up and economy goes rooming and we

are putting off on our economy by making these promises. host: if you charge on the new york times demonstrating what you're talking about, emissions by country in the united states here on the left. declining emissions as you can see. european union is the same. then there is india, and on the far right and large increase there is china. during his remarks in the climate summit yesterday, president xi jinping of china had this to say about emissions. >> we will continue to prioritize clout -- economical -- china will strive to peak carbon dioxide emissions before 2030 and achieve carbon neutrality before 2060. china has committed to move from carbon peak to carbon neutrality in a much shorter time span than what's might take many developed countries, and that requires hard effort from china.

support has been given to encourage peeking pioneers from localities, sectors, and companies. we will strict lick control coffaro -- coal-fired power generation projects. we will limit the increase in coal consumption over the land. and face it down in the 15 five year. -- five-year period. host: for those that don't spend their days understanding this, what did that mean? >> he is making big promises. this is quite a ways into the future. i forget who wrote this one in the newspaper a few weeks ago, china will have to close 600 coal power power plants. they have invested hundreds of billions of dollars in these, so there's not -- these are not old plants, these are new plants. we know a lot of coal plants that can be closed down because there at the end of their life expectancy.

china put huge bouts of money into these power plants because it is the cheapest form of electricity. that is what powers their economy. india is doing the same thing. i think they play us for fools, and they make these big promises that they don't do anything. it's the promises in the future, americans will have a new president by then, the european union will have a bunch of new prime minister's, so our leaders come and go and there's tend to stay around for a long time. they play the long game, so i would not put much faith in any promise from the chinese communist leader. host: china commissioned 38.5 gigawatts of power plants in 2020, more than three times the nearly 12 gigawatts commissioned by the rest of the world according to a report from the global energy monitor and senator for research on energy and clean air. myron evils --myron ebell is our

guest. plenty of calls for you. we start in ohio, line for democrats. in morning. caller: good morning -- good morning. caller: good morning. i wonder what his plan would be and how he wants to move into the future, how he would like to make things different and better, have a better economy. guest: yes, i believe societies are very able to handle challenges when they have good institutions, political institutions, premarket technological capability well. and a lot of energy. when i look at the future, i see a prosperous, resilient america that uses all kinds of energy and has an abundance of it that is not put on an energy poverty

diet. the idea is that global warming is an existential crisis or threat, or emergency is blind by the fact. the fact is, and i should say this, the global warming debate is run by the modelers. if you look at the data, we have a modest rate of warming far below the model projections, and we have impacts that are mild and mostly, on average, beneficial. so yes, there may be challenges in the distant future, but we should not hamstring ourselves and make ourselves poorer and less able to handle environmental challenges, less resilient, by putting ourselves on an energy poverty diet. host: he say climate change impacts our total un-beneficial. what are you referring to? guest: if you look at all of the impacts of the u.n. reports, you

will see global food production continues to go up, virtually every year. there is no record set. why is that? one of the reasons is because co2 is necessary for plants to photosynthesize. geologically speaking, we are at a low point at co2 levels in the atmosphere. if we have higher levels, plants grow more. this is well demonstrated in the literature, and that is why the earth's screen and you can go to the nasa website on this and you will see the satellite photography since 1979. you will see the earth has greened up substantially. that is the main benefits. there are a lot of other benefits. growing seasons are longer, the green belts are widening as the growing seasons expand a little bit, because we are not having more hot weather around the world, we are having less cold

weather, so summertime highs, we don't have -- in this country, we have many fewer days over 90 and a hundred than we did in the 1930's, but in the winter, we don't have as many really cold days in the fall and spring, so it -- so in general, i think the stress has been manufactured out of scary models by people who have less interest in the facts and more interest in an agenda. host: from kentucky, roberts, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with the guest on basically everything he is saying right now, saying china is playing us for fools. i wondered if you knew anything about in the past, china coming to the toe fields and actually went underground with their employees for numbers of years. looking at their equipment, and

it seems like, if china, in the future, wants to be a world superpower, president biden would be tougher on them and wouldn't have to cut their emissions if they are going to be flexing all of their muscles towards us in the u.s.. i was wondering if you could comment on the chinese desire for equipment in the past. guest: i am not an expert on this. you probably know more about this than i do. i have a dog that has had some surgery so he decided to move around. in this world of zoom television, it happens. guest: i am not an expert on this but clearly every country in the world is trying to use the best technology, so it is natural a country like china, which is way behind us technologically, would try to come for the united states and

use our technology. the question i think that has to be asked, are they doing it in a legal way where they pay for it or get a license to produce their technology, or are they stealing it? i'm not an expert on that, so i want to ask that. host: is there any country in your mind handling climate change correctly right now? guest: i think, yes. countries that make promises under the paris climate treaty and have no intention of implementing them are -- their hypocrisy is better than what we are doing, which is trying to -- what we are trying to do is make big promises and then force the political system, congress, and the states, to go along. that is what president biden is doing. he does not have the support for it, and it will show that. most people are willing to spend something on climate change, but

it is around $10 per month, per family. you can get it up to $20 per month for family, but the fact is that these policies are going to cost thousands of dollars per year, hundreds of dollars per month. that is just getting partway there. as we get further and further along, they will become more expensive if people believe the goal is getting all of the coal, oil, and natural gas out of the world's energy system. coal, oil, and natural gas provide 80% of our energy, 80% 30 years ago, 80% of the world's energy, and world energy consumption is going up. demand is going up. the united states is pretty flat, but there is a lot of countries that do not have much electricity yet. a lot of people have no electricity, india in particular is in bad shape. people have it for a few hours per day or week.

they cannot live the kinds of lives we take for granted without electricity. world energy demand is going to go up. how do you take out 80% of the world's energy and keep that curve of energy consumption going up? it is insane. host: from california, this is lori, democrats. good morning. caller: hi. good morning. i just, you know, i am listening to the guest and i'm not trying to be like opinionated, but in my opinion, i can tell you you are a republican, but as far as the climate record and everything, biden is trying to get back into it after we ended up getting out of it, and as far as, where do you live as far as everything changing? i have lived in california 25

years now, but i can tell we have more wildfires. it is getting hotter, and we are having to deal with it on a regular basis, yearly, monthly we are having less rain so you are saying it is not getting hotter or warmer and it is supposed to. i think you are purposefully trying to misinform people, because anybody living in the climate today knows with the wildfires, floods, and lack of rain, and you know this is not how it used to be 50 years ago. this is not how it used to be 30 years ago, not like it used to be 10 years ago. every year, it is getting worse, and we are having to deal with losing homes, losing every day,

having just survived. guest: thank you. well i am also from the west. i am one state up, from eastern oregon, where we have had tremendous welfare problems. similarly in california, they were a result of political mismanagement of our resources. if you close down timber production, if you not allow controlled burns in areas that are subject to wildfires, if you overbuild in areas that are susceptible to wildfires, you are going to have more problems. i think the problem you have in california is a political one, not an environmental one. you have a government, both parties, unwilling to take on this issues -- these issues in a responsible way, and you also have the federal government with the federal land, federal --

california is 40% federally owned. the mismanagement of public lands is criminal. these droughts, california -- there is a long series of records and parts of california. california, the average is misleading, because california has seven years of draft typically in every 10 year period and three years of much more rain. that brings more average up, more precipitation brings average up. i think you ought to look into political change rather than saying the environment is getting worse. it is due to mismanagement. host: on twitter, america has the chance to be a world leader in the future of energy. listening to naysayers will not

make as a leader. well-paying jobs will be in the new energy industries and infrastructure that will support the well-trained workers and their families. guest: america is the world leader in energy production. we have the world's largest reserves of coal, which we are foolishly closing down, closing down coal-fired power plants and coal mines. we have traditionally been the leader in oil and gas production, but that went down for many decades as the conventional fields, but because of the shale oil and gas revolution, america is now the leading producer of energy. we are no longer the leader -- leading consumer, china is, but we are the world's biggest producer of energy, and the biden harris plan, and what is being proposed under in congress would essentially kill that. we would become an energy poor

and needy country that would have to try to get by on less and less energy. i think these are two very different worldviews, and i think, unfortunately, the worldview that seems dominant in washington, d.c. right now, not most of the country but washington dc, is based on a fundamental misconception that you can believe models more than scientific data. host: we go to lake city, tennessee. a republican. good morning. caller: we are down all of our coal-fired plants and our nuclear plants. jeff bezos is buying 100,000 of those electric trucks that are heavier than gas powered trucks. they run up and down our roads, these electric echoes, they don't pay any gas tax that keeps

our roads repaired, and this bill that it is saying it builds bridges and roads, only 6% of it is for that, we will not have any roads left. those trucks are huge, and what are they going to do with all of those batteries that emit fumes? where are they going to get the electricity when they shut down all of the coal-fired plants? guest: yes. you raised a good point, the fact that electric nichols, which the government is supposed to force people under the biden/harris plan to -- under green new deal as well, to buy electric vehicles, no more gas and diesel. that raises the question, how are we going to pay for the roads, because it is the federal gas tax, the people tax that pays for the roads. if you look at the biden so-called jobs plan or infrastructure plan, as your caller said, only 6% of it goes for roads.

what they are doing is taking money out of the highway fund and using it for other things. if we are going to be forced to buy electric vehicles, whether we want to or not, and some people will want to. they have advantages. but if we have to go to an all electric vehicle fleets, we will have to find a new way to pay for the roads. i think probably the easiest thing would be have a mileage vehicle, but we would have to talk about that. host: time to wonder ash time for one or two more phone calls. nicky in new york. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you, c-span. i have seen you before and i know you are a well paid by the oil industry. there was a hearing i believe yesterday on c-span with katie porter, and a gentleman from the oil industry, and he is

well-paid also. the fact is proud forth that ppp, the oil industry has gotten over $50 billion in ppe, right? yet, at the same time, they furloughed or they lost 107,000 jobs. i thought that ppp was post to keep the jobs, but aside from the fact, 97, you are so's -- you are subsidized. my tax dollars are subsidizing your industry. host: i want to give him a chance to respond as we are running out of time. could you talk about the funding comes from for your organization? guest: as i said at the beginning, cei is about a 7 million per dollar per your

organization, and the average, if we are funded by the oil industry, we are not funded nearly well enough. the average of environmental groups all have budgets over $100 million per year and are really big business. i do not represent the oil industry, i am not paid by the oil industry, i am not a lobbyist for it. my view is somewhat contrary to what the oil industry or what any industry wants. i want low energy prices, low wind power prices, low oil prices. everybody in the energy, that is good for consumers and the economy. everybody in the industry once i prices, so the idea i am a lobbyist for the oil industry is absurd. host: myron ebell is with the competitive enterprise institute

. may i add to the folks on twitter who say your dog was a good dog during the segment and need a treat, things were coming on, sir. host: up next, we continue this discussion on energy and environmental policy and will be joined by bob dean's of the natural resources defense council. later, we discussed faxing hesitancy with dr. georges benjamin with the health association. we will be right back. >> sunday, may 2 on in-depth, a live conversation with author and new york times columnist who wrote -- writes about politics, religion, moral values, and education. >> progress hasn't ceased but it is on a particular dimension that feeds back into the larger pattern of decadence, because it leads people to spend more and more time in virtual realities and simulations of reality, and

to retreat from both certain kinds of economic activity but also to bring us to another forest, retreat from family formation, romance, sex, childbearing, which is the aspect of decadence i call sterility basically. >>'s latest book is the decadent society. other titles include privilege and bad religion. joining in the conversation with your post -- phone calls, facebook comments, texts and tweets and sunday, may 2 on noon eastern on book tv on c-span. ♪

>> "washington journal" continues. host: continuing our climate discussion after earth day and on day two of president biden's virtual climate summit, we are joined by bob dean's from the national defense national -- from the natural resources defense council. president biden's announcement to cut u.s. emissions in half by 2030. guest: it's great to be with you. that is terrific news. this is what the science tells us we need to do after all. the science is clear that we have got to cut the dangerous carbon pollution from burning fossil fuels in half by 2030, and set the stage for stopping in the atmosphere altogether by 2050 if we are going to have any

chance of averting the worst impacts of climate change. so that is all clear. this is what the science says we need. number two, we can do it. we are well on our way, about a quarter of the way, toward getting all of our electricity in this country from nonfossil fuel purposes. we've got to get half of it from nonfossil fuels. we are talking about mostly wind and solar, hydropower and other sources. we are halfway there. we know we can do it. here's how we do it, we invest in efficiency, do more with less waste, we invest in electric vehicles, invest in more wind and solar, more clean, homegrown american power, and invest in modernizing that system. this creates millions of good pay jobs and fuels strong, durable, broad-based recovery that we need, and does it in a way that struck a blow for equity and injustice in this country because we know that it comes from introducing people of color who are paying the highest

price for climates, hazard, harm, and the danger of fossil fuel production. if you think about it like you would a family, you are sitting around a kitchen table and saying, the goals here, we are trying to save up for down payment on our home or send junior to college in a few years or grandma will have to need money set aside for health care later in life, and you say, how are we going to get there? what if we cut our spending 5%, 5% per year. we cut our spending 5% and put that money in savings. pretty quick, it adds up and we are able to meet the goals. that is exactly what this is. we know we have to do it. that is what the science tells us. we know the benefits of doing it. host: the new york times, in their wrap-up of president biden yesterday talking about some of the models out there, possible paths to achieving a 50% reduction in emissions by 2030. you mentioned one of the things they talked about, half the

country and their electricity coming from renewable resources but this is some of what is else in those models. new natural gas plant would be largely built with capture -- technology to capture carbon dioxide. all of the coal plant would be shut down unless they can to -- they can also capture their missions. new cars and suvs would be battery-powered, all new buildings would have to be heated by electricity rather than actual gas. the nations deal, chemical industries would have to adopt a new energy efficiency targets, oil and gas producers would have to slash their emissions of methane in the nation's would have to be reworked so they pull 20% more carbon dioxide out of the air than today. as all of that achievable, especially by 2030? guest: absolutely. with strategic investment, the kind of investment the president has aligned out and common sense standards that set real goals we

can achieve, and with other kinds of tax credits and other incentives, policy that is aligned to getting us that way, sure we can do it. one came out a couple weeks go with our own analysis of how we get there. in our analysis, we are looking at something similar to what you cited, we are looking at getting half of our electricity from nonfossil fuel sources. we are half the way there but now and already getting 25% of our electricity from nonfossil fuel forces. we look at about 55% of new-car sales being electric. that is aligned with what the industry is doing. big car motors like general motors, ford, voltswagen, volvo are said to invest $257 billion between now and 2030 to produce electric cars. they see the writing on the wall and they know where this trend is going. so that is in line.

striking the health of our wetlands, croplands, and forest lands is in our interest on so many levels, and as you said earlier, these systems naturally absorb carbon dioxide from the air and lock it away to help the soil. that is what we'll want to do. host: phone lines if you want to join the conversation and bob dean's is with us. republicans can call in at c-span.org -- can call in at (202) 748-8001. democrats (202) 748-8000. independents (202) 748-8002. as a practical matter, are these pledges 10 years in the future, are they helpful for presidents to make. would it be more accountable of joe biden said this is what is going to have been by 2024 or maybe 2028? guest: i think when you set this kind of a tenure goal because you recognized we are talking about structural economic shift, talking about a just and equitable transition away from

the fuels that have been powering this country for generations to cleaner, smarter ways, it is a recognition we did not get here overnight and will not fix it overnight. over time, if we have a plan, if we set our goal, we can do this, we can drive innovation and american enterprise and get the best of this collective genius of this nation on this mission and we will achieve it no question. host: i figured you want to respond to police one of the statements by myron people and our last segment of the "washington journal". he said total climate change has been beneficial to humanity. do you want to respond to that. guest: sure. i friend myron must not have been reading the papers the last several years. here's what we know. since 1970, the first earth day, yesterday was earth day. since the firth -- first earth day in 1970, and burned more coal, oil, and gas locally then

in all of human history before that. let that sink in for up second. here the impact. we have added to the concentration of carbon monoxide in the atmosphere. it is up 30% since 1972 its highest level in 3.6 million years. who says so? the national oceanic and atmospheric administration. the gold standard for climate data worldwide. we are in a world of hurt. what difference does it make? we wrapped up the hottest decade since global record keeping began in 1880. and we have seen the consequences. we are not talking about computer models, we are talking about looking out the kitchen window, talking about record hurricanes that lashed our southern coast last year. the rate chose, when storms followed by drought that devastated our midwest ranches, farms, and communities, and

wildfires that torched enough western land to cover the state of new jersey. all of this and more continues to get worse if we do as myron suggests and continue to ignore the problem, taking it down the road, and taking things out a ground and setting them on fire like we have been doing since the dawn of civilization. we have cleaner, better ways to do it. host: we head down to louisiana, james, a republican. you are on with bob dean's of the natural resources defense council. caller: good morning. first, i want to ask why you invite a lawyer to talk about science. he certainly did not bring any real science with him. we are at a lull in hurricanes, not at a record hurricane era. tornadoes are at their all-time low. the wildfires in california forest mismanagement. how come you don't have somebody bring science onto the program.

the 30's was the hottest decade ever. he talks about equity and poor people. when you increase the price of gas 40% over three months, that hurts poor people the most. when you cancel the keystone pipeline and put 40,000 people out of work, that is working class people that lose their jobs, and there are no green jobs to just jump in. there are no things to replace. i want to know how much money the national resource council gets from russian to keep the price of oil so high that russia can keep selling high-priced oil and bob can keep coming to his studio in his suv. host: let's give bob dean's a chance to respond. as you do, do you want to talk about your credentials on this issue? guest: are you talking about me or james? host: you, mr. dean's. guest: john, i was a journalist for 30 years and i came to the natural resources defense council 12 years ago. what i'm trying to do is tell

the truth about one's happening to the environment and health -- help advance our work, seeking policy solutions to help all of our people. we have attorneys that do hold leaders to account with our laws and courts. you bet james is right about that. i think james, it sounds like he bundled a lot of things in there, but i think his main concern seems to be about jobs for working-class americans. i hear you, james. i am with you. d.c. is with you on that. we are all about solutions that expand prosperity for all people and create jobs. let me tell you what i'm talking about. today, there are 3.4 million americans who get up every day, suit up, roll up their sleeves, and go to work, helping us to become more efficient in our workplace and homes, help us get more clean, homegrown american power from the wind and sun, help us to build right here in

this country, some of the best electric cars anywhere in the world and help us modernize the grid and storage system so we do not have catastrophic outages likely suffered in texas last winter. that is what this is all about, 3.4 million jobs, and these jobs pay 25% more on average than the national medium -- median. we will create millions more good paying, clean energy jobs as we lead a just and equitable transition toward a low carbon economy. we will not leave anybody behind. we are talking about keeping -- helping people in appalachia, and louisiana, and the oil and gas patch, making sure these people's pensions are protected, that they have extended unemployment benefits, that they have gotten access to training so they have an on-ramp to the clean energy economy if they so choose. so we are thinking along the lines, i am breaking from the question and thank you for calling. host: the caller seemed to imply

the nrdc gets funding from the russian government. do you want to talk about that? guest: of course not. that is complete nonsense. we are funded by our supporters, our donors and foundations. we have 3.3 million supporters nationwide, and that is where we are funded. host: this is charles, a democrat from the buckeye state, good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to know why nobody will say anything about all of the energy that is going to the pipeline that isn't even going in the united states. it is going overseas. it is going to be refined here and shipped out, and then another thing is nicola tesla had free energy for everybody, but they stopped him. when he died in new york, they took all of his papers and the government has those papers. why don't they release those

papers so they can figure out how to go ahead and do the experiments he was running to provide energy for everybody. host: i don't know how up you are on tesla's experiments, but you want to take that? guest: it is always great to hear from the buckeye state. we are not yet figured out how to find free energy. we look forward to the day when some but he figures that out, but i will tell you, i will answer your first question. we are producing 16.5 million barrels of oil every day, oil and natural gas liquids, which are processed in a similar way. we are exporting 8.5 million barrels per day of petroleum products, crude oil and refined products. our communities in ohio, in texas, in oklahoma, in north

dakota, they are suffering the damage, the harm, the danger of this production. it is being shipped overseas to our competitors abroad, and the oil companies are making a profit. in other words, big profits for big oil and big risk for the rest of us. we think that is wrong. i appreciate your question. host: to greg in tennessee, republican, good morning. >> -- caller: thanks for taking my call. my thing is this green new deal thing wants to give a lot of money to the car manufacturers to produce electric cars. am i on? host: and your concern about electric cars? caller: general motors is moving all of their plans to mexico. guest: general motors is

investing heavily in domestic plans. i think they have plans to invest $22 billion between now and 2030 to build electric cars here in this country. that is no small thing. that money will grow as well, because general motors -- motors, if you notice, six weeks ago, the chairwoman of the company pledged general motors would be all electric in 2035, 14 years from now, not that long away. why is that happening? they see the benefits of electric cars and see people are shifting that way, this assad toll shift can happen quickly, but china is devoting itself to electric cars. even sooner than the united states, one out of everything cars -- every three cars sold in the world is sold out of china. the entire industry is shifting to electric. there are parts of the country right now where it may be difficult to drive a car and it may make sense for the next several years for some people,

but where do not make sense, it is real -- it is a real improvement from efficiency. when i get into an internal combustion engine car, 80% of the energy is wasted because of the inefficiency of internal combustion engine and because i'm burning gas while i'm sitting at stop signs, stop lights, waiting in park lights, that sort of thing. when i put 10 gallons of gasoline in my car, eight gallons is wasted. only two gallons move me forward. in an electric car, it flips the equation. 70% of energy used electric cars takes us where we need to go. that is a huge difference. it is just about doing things in a smarter, cleaner way. host: to napa, california. rick, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. sweet jesus, that first caller, how bad does the environment have to get before he gives up his adolescent lacked -- adolescent act of rebellion?

for most conservatives, this is more about owning the liberals. 90% of scientists say the climate is warming because of our actions. i see it all of the time in california. the year we have the napa fire, we had two straight weeks of 100 plus degrees weather, and that never happened before in october. the forests are bad and i drive an electric car. i have solar panels on my roof. it has not affected me one bit. it saved me a lot of money. my daughter gets her solar panels started up today, and my mate -- my neighbors are starting to do it. california is leading the way. we get 30% of our power from renewables, and we can do this. i just do not know why the cons want to go against it.

guest: i really don't have anything to add besides california has been leading the way in so many important ways with cleaner energy for quite some time. california understands the problem. these wildfires are real. host: john is in california, staying in california, a republican, good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question about the science. one thing i have been watching is that our son is turning into a red star. the last 20 years, we have had more solar flares and sunspots. we have had a magma burst a couple years ago that went the other way that, had it hit the earth, it would have wiped out most of the communications on earth. so what we're dealing with is a sun that's, every day, gets hotter and bigger. hotter and bigger. that is what is driving the

climate change. to an electric car, the real solution is a 500,000 mile car. a car that can go for a long distance because the electric cars only last 100,000 miles, and then you have to buy a new one. they have to make plastics, have to make steel, have to put all of these costs into making these new cars, so if you can make a 500,000 mile car and not have these manufacturing pollution to offset your gas savings, you could maybe make a dent. but what has happened is it is politicized and we are not getting the science we are not getting the science about the sun, not getting anything real about the real cost of climate change, we are getting people that will punish american citizens by raising gas prices, by raising -- cutting jobs, by

making people poorer, and that is how we will fight the climate. host: mr. deans? guest: let's talk about where our information is coming from. it is coming from the national academy of sciences, created by congress during the civil war to tell us the bedrock truth about what is happening in our country. it is coming from the national oceanic and atmospheric administration, the gold standard on climate information and interpretation worldwide. it is coming from the national air not mix and space administration, the folks who put a man on the moon. it is coming from people who were building lasers when chuck berry wrote roll over beethoven. these people know what they are talking about. they know about sunspots, they know what is happening in the universe, they know all of this. here's what we know. we know that since 1970 we have been increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in the global

atmosphere by 30%. we know that has led to the hottest decade on record. we know we have more carbon in the atmosphere now than any other time. this is a problem. the scientists who know what they're talking about telus it is a problem and a successful country acts on sound science, acts on the rule of law, on what is in the public interest, and moves us forward. that is what we are talking about doing. host: a couple minutes left with bob dean's, the engagement director of the natural resources defense council and author back in 2012 of the book reckless, the political assault on the american environment. that book coming out in 2012. is there an update for 2021? what would you say in that update? i think what i would say, and in view of some of the comments i've heard today, i think it is a crying shame that some people

regard commonsense standards that we all depend on to protect our environment and public health as a partisan issue. this is a manifestation of a larger source of division in this country that is of great concern, because look at the history now. the greatest conservationist president in history was teddy roosevelt, a republican president. dwight eisenhower, another republican president, set aside the national wildlife rescue -- refuge so future americans could enjoy this country the way the first americans sought. ronald reagan went after gasoline, george h dubya bush went after acid rain and signed the most environmental legislation in history, the clean air act which has saved hundreds of thousands of lives. even george w. bush and his last state of the union address said we have a problem in this country. we are addicted to oil.

richard nixon created the environmental protection agency. this idea that comets and protection of our environment should be a red state or blue state issue, that this is a new idea. it is a pernicious idea, not moving us forward. we need to get around this idea that we are united in wanting to leave our children a livable world. it is that simple. host: sounds like you made an update to the book? guest: i'm thinking about it. thanks for the question. host: scott in utah, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to thank you for the work you are doing. it seems to me that some people want to stick their head in the sand, and i see them driving bigger and bigger pickup trucks. like you were saying, the battery technology will just improve. all of the technology will improve. batteries will get wider and more efficient and right now, i

am driving a four-cylinder small pickup until i can get my hands on an electric vehicle, but i am a business owner and have had to change my business two to three times to adapt to the times. how long have these people known that this is the way things are going and they just leave, marks on the industry and do not want to progress into what we know is coming. host: what kind of business? caller: i have a home improvement company. i have done signing and awnings. i had the changeover from siding to awnings as i got older. i have had to make a lot of adjustments. now, i am semiretired. i have made adjustments over the years. i have had to, and that is what needs to happen with these people. they need to look ahead. host: have you made any adjustments specifically because of the climate issue, has a change how you did your work? caller: yes. another thing, i go to hawaii in

the winter, and i've been fortunate enough to do that. but yeah, i have another idea about what they were talking about taxing vehicles. in hawaii, they tax them on weight for the roads, so they could text these electric vehicles, the weight of the vehicle for wear and tear on the roads, and as they get more efficient and lighter, that will work. number one is to thank this gentleman for the work he is doing. host: thanks for the call, scott. guest: scott is a great example of a hard-working person who is specialized in home renovation and repair. this is one of the fields benefiting right now from the shift in clean energy because, as we approve -- improve the efficiency of our homes, we are talking about jobs for roofers, carpenters, electricians, and more broadly for steelworkers, tool and die makers,

pipefitters, he's are real jobs for real americans, and we are benefiting from this. when a home is better insulated, it means lower energy costs and a healthier home. i'm grateful for that, but this is a good way to sum up the potential here of clean energy investment through the experiences of someone like scott. as we continue to drive american innovation and enterprise, to drive american investment in a strategic way towards clean energy, we are playing into the economic play of our lifetime, because we know there will be more than $11 trillion invested in clean energy worldwide over just the next 2.5 decades. we want american workers and american businesses to be winners in the global marketplace, and that starts at home. that is what the biden plan is about. we know we can do it and we know the science tells us we have to do it and we can see the

benefits before our eyes. host: this is mike in dallas, north carolina, a republican. good morning. >> good morning, sir. how are you? host: doing well. caller: i want to ask the gentleman a couple questions. i am from a poorer state, and people drive a lot of these cars , and i don't know if you won't know what a junker or a clunker is, a car driving down the road and you look over and they might have two different vendors, two different colored fenders or doors, and you are wondering it how it is making a down the road. does he think this is a fashion statement? host: caller: do you think four e are driving these cars for a fashion statement?

i'm driving a 12-year-old used car now. i can't afford an $80,000 tesla. you are not with me. you think money pops out of thin air. guest: i don't believe that at all. what i believe is it's a sin and a shame that lower income people are the ones who are paying the highest price for the kind of environmental hazards we see from climate change. people in north carolina ravaged by hurricanes and record rainstorms. people are suffering from dirty water because of concentrated animal feeding operations. people across north carolina in the southeast of this country having to face the price of

climate change, where that's from rising seas in our coastal communities or anything else, or mosquitoes, more text, or disease. people have a right to clean water and clean air. they have a right to access. they should not be denied that because of their income or because of the race. that's what i believe. i believe in environmental justice. people of color in low income people are entitled to the kind of quality of life that comes from having a safe environment, a healthy environment, a clean environment. that's what the plan is all about. i am grateful for your call. host: that book again, the political assault on the american environment. we always appreciate your time on washington journal. guest: it's great to be with

you. host: up next, we turn to vaccinations in this country. american public health association dr. georges benjamin joins us as we talk about vaccine hesitancy and how to overcome it. >> c-span shop.org is a new online store. go there today and order the congressional directory, a spiral-bound book with contact information for every member of congress, including the committee assignments and contact information for governors and the biden administration cabinet. every purchase helps support the nonprofit organ -- operation. saturday on the communicators, a look at social media and content moderation with the director of the center for technology and

innovation at the competitive enterprise association. >> republicans are upset about the moderation being too much and it seems to be politically motivated. a lot of the democrat members of congress seem upset that more content isn't being taken down. they feel it's dangerous for untrue things are left up. that is creating other problems that spill over into our off-line world. a lot of washington can agree that content moderation is something everyone is upset about. they come at it from two separate ways. >> saturday on the communicators on c-span. >> washington journal continues. host: dr. georges benjamin is

back with us. dr. benjamin reports of a decrease in the seven-day average of shots in arms. at this point, how much of that decrease is attributable to the johnson & johnson vaccine pause? how much is attributable to the more concerning development of less demand? >> both of those play a role. i think j&j is less than people think. a lot of people had their appointment set up to get the j&j vaccine and found out it had been paused. they were either not able to get another vaccine or they had to reschedule their appointment. i think it does play a role. there been surveys that looked at the fact that the fda did pause for j&j.

people thought that was a positive action. host: that is expected to be lifted today. the reporting on the new york times, officials are leaning toward lifting the pause on the use of the j&j vaccine after finding a limited number of additional cases. do you think it was the right thing to do? guest: i think pausing was the right thing to do. that's the way the system is supposed to work. when you see something that is concerning, you stop. you do an assessment. if you find you understand what's going on, you pursue or not. every time in aircraft crashes, they stop flying those crafts. they do an assessment and move on. any we have a significant number of medication problems, we pull

those from the market until we understand what's going on. if we are ok with it, we put it back at. sometimes we put it out with a warning. this is exactly how our safety system should work. host: in terms of demand, at what point do you expect we will be lining up for the shot. what is the pitch to move beyond that low hanging fruit? guest: we knew there would be a point where we had more vaccine than people raising their hands. we are getting to that point. we are also seeing distribution of where the vaccine is. some states have more vaccine than they can deliver and others are requesting more. we will have to move around so we can optimize goals and who wants it.

if any public health program we've had, that has been tough to abide by. this is not surprising. we do have a lot of work to do. host: the phone lines are split differently. it is (202) 748-8000 if you have been vaccinated. (202) 748-8001 if you haven't are waiting. (202) 748-8002 if you plan to not get vaccinated. president biden yesterday made his pitch for americans to continue to get vaccinated. >> we've made remarkable progress. as we continue, the time is now to open up a new phase of this

historic effort. to put it simply, if you've been waiting your turn, wait no longer. now is the time for everyone over 16 years of age to get vaccinated. unlike the target groups where we made such great progress, the broad swath of americans are vaccinated. the number of states they were not eligible for the vaccination until this week. too many younger americans may think they don't need to get vaccinated. host: his comments from wednesday. dr. benjamin, what is the role of public health officials? what are you doing on the ground to overcome the hesitancy? guest: we do a lot of studies to understand why people have concerns. we are trying to address those concerns. people who weren't sure about the safety and people who were

not sure about the efficacy. i think the efficacy part of this is clear. it will keep you from getting really sick and almost all cases. we now know if -- the safety profile. we have delivered 219 million shots in the united states alone, 300 million worldwide. the safety profile of this vaccine is the best we've ever seen. there were some side effects from the johnson & johnson vaccine that people were concerned about. they looked at that. we will find out more today when the cdc and the fda get together to talk more about the findings. host: we will let you start with a few of our collars. we will start with people who don't plan to be vaccinated. you are on with dr. benjamin. caller: i called because when

you've got saying this is fda approved, we realize that was a false statement, people are telling you it's approved, it never was. you've got people getting sick. all the statistics i've seen is the ratio -- without having the vaccine, you are better off. it's got less percentage than not taking it at all. host: do you want to respond to that? guest: i am going to put my hat on now as a physician. i would encourage you to talk to your doctor, whoever provides health care for you. i think it's pretty clear from what i've seen on the data.

you are far worse getting this disease than anything we now know about the vaccine. we have given this vaccine for over five months. we know a lot about the side effects. they are generally mild. i am fully vaccinated now. the first shot i got, a sore shoulder. the second, a little bit more of a sort shoulder. i didn't feel well for about 24 hours. i was able to give speeches and work. i felt great after that. i know people who have gotten this disease and as a physician, my advice -- my information for you. getting this disease is far worse in the short term for sure then getting the vaccine.

i can't promise you what will happen 15 years from now. i can tell you that people who have had this disease don't want to get it. host: iris is in michigan. go ahead. caller: i would like to know why the shot in the arm and it's punched into a muzzle rather than lower down. -- muscle rather than lower down. the j&j gives in and one. are there different recipes being used? host: a couple of questions

there. guest: we tend to give these shots in a muscle. an arm is easy to get to. we can get to a lot of people by shooting them in the shoulder. it's convenient and effective. the amount of solution we put in the arm is appropriate for the shoulder. the second question you had was why i chose to get the two shots. i got two shots. the reason i did that was because it was what was available. had it been johnson & johnson at the time, i would have been happy to do johnson & johnson. the health department that i got my shot from was only giving the modernity at the time. i waited. i did not want to get vaccinated

ahead of many many other people that i thought needed to get vaccinated. what prompted me was i decided i am a clinician. i miss taking care of patients. i went out with my health department into a community that was impacted by covid and gave shots. they were vaccinating the vaccinators. i did get vaccinated at that time. host: what was that experience like? guest: it was kind of neat. i haven't practice for quite a while. it was need to give shots again. we were doing people who were 75 and older. there were no concerns. they were lining up to get the shot. they wanted to be protected. i was able to vaccinate a gentleman who was being an

example or. he was 100 years of age. he wanted to get his shot to encourage other seniors to get their shot. there was a lot of press and media around. they spent a lot of time talking to him. his name was harvey. i was very happy to be part of his getting the vaccination. host: we've got about 15 minutes left. if we talk about heard immunity, define what that means and what we need to get to. what do you think the delta will be between the low hanging fruit and going through that population and the has it population we need to convince. guest: let's say, we want to get to about 80% overall. since we are not doing kids, we want to get to 80% of the

population, which will be adults and children 12 and older. right now, we are at about 50% of the population that has had at least one shot. 34% of the population has had to. going forward, we will have probably gotten to half the population that get vaccinated. that means we are going to get to about 80% of the population, we still have a ways to go. we've only been doing this since december. we have already done over 200 million shots. half of the targeted population has had at least one. if we keep up this pace, we might get there.

this is my concern. my concern is that last 30% will be tough to get. that includes people who are homeless, people who are mentally ill and may not be able to consent. there are people who have concerns. we need to listen more than talk, the ssent to what their concerns are and try to address their concerns. the gentleman that had the concern earlier, i wanted to address his concern about the safety and efficacy as well as the effectiveness of the vaccine. those with the questions he brought up. i hope he will hear those and think about it. the other thing is not only the messenger being important, somebody you trust, it's also

the message. we are not telling people to get vaccinated or else. we are telling people get vaccinated because it's the best thing for you and your family. host: we will get to a few of those collars. sean in d.c. has been vaccinated. caller: thank you so much for taking my call. i just wanted to share my story. i got my first shot last friday. it went really well. the nurse made me feel comfortable. there were no -- it went really smoothly. my mom is a nurse in new york city giving out vaccines. my family believes in the efficacy for the public health. i just wanted to share my story and urge others. it's not that big of a process. it is for the good of the community and the good of our country.

host: leo is in illinois. caller: i was poisoned by an antibody. it destroyed my autoimmune system. i could never take a shot because i have a destroyed autoimmune system. i am slowly dying. guest: you took the medication and you had a complication. i think general practice and belief is even people with weakened immune systems can take this vaccine. i do encourage you to talk with your physician. not just make the assumption that you can't. i am wishing you well. i wish you recovery.

i don't know how long you have been ill. my support goes out to you. with your illness, i certainly wish you well. host: nate is in bethesda, maryland. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question for the doctor, i think getting a vaccine is a no-brainer. i think anybody should do it. if johnson & johnson's experience, those six people who had the vaccine had died, which is not the case, 7 million people weren't vaccinated all, you would expect 7000 deaths. if i have a choice between taking a thousand dollars, i will take it every time. what does the public health service doing about easter shots next fall or next year?

it seems to me people should be thinking about that. what is going on with that front. guest: just to remind everybody, this is a new experience. this disease has been in our society for maybe a year and four months. the vaccine experience is starting sometime around last summer when we started the research studies. what we have is we know about six months out, people still maintain pretty good immunity. that's what we've been measuring. there is some concern that over time because of these variants we may need a booster shot at the very least. that means maybe one shot, it

depends on what vaccine you got. but the companies are doing is looking at the variants and ways to make the boosters. the science around making a booster shot is pretty simple. the real issue is production. there have been real challenges because of the production capacity. they are going to have to make a booster and build the capacity to do that. current thinking is maybe in a year at the earliest. the question is whether an annual, we don't know that yet. host: you mentioned we are not doing children yet. will we be doing that eventually? how low will the age range go?

guest: like most of these vaccines, we will go all the way to infants at some point. i do believe by the end of this year, we will begin doing children in elementary schools at the very least. there is a request in from pfizer to bring their vaccine down to age 12. i think there will be a vaccine available and all of us old folks in the next few weeks. if things go really well with the research, maybe we can begin vaccinating elementary school children this fall, late this fall.

host: when we get to that point of vaccinating children. do you think the covid vaccine should eventually be on that list? i think it will be. guest: i think the first caller said it was approved under emergency use authorization. we would want to make sure it goes through all the process. most of that is time and data to get that final stamp of approval as a required vaccination. i can tell you once it is available for our youth, i have three grandchildren. i would look at that carefully. based on everything i know and what we see in adults, assuming there is no difference, i would become to bolt recommending to my daughter that my grandkids get vaccinated.

host: good morning. caller: good morning. i was in the camp of i'm not going to get the vaccine. i'm just going to change my mind. i've been vaccinated. i got the pfizer. then i see that the ceo of pfizer is saying now we think you might need a third shot and an annual booster. it's really frustrating for people to have this moving target. it feels like they are using this to keep tracking people, keeping the economy shut down. now that we've had 30% of the

people vaccinated, why don't we open up the economy now, let people get vaccinated. if pfizer says you need a third shot, i'm not going to get it. they have these vaccination passports where you can't travel. you might not be able to get a job. some corporations will not hire you for a job. what's up with that? guest: i've heard three questions there. the first is whether or not you need a booster. we will learn more about this. i don't think anyone promised this would be a two shots and you are done for life. most of us had measles, mumps, chickenpox. we had three or four shots for

measles, several others, a tetanus shot every 10 years. our bodies do erode over time. you have to get another shot. looking at a strong person who has disagreed with the concept of vaccinating passports, we are in the same camp there. there may be a requirement for people to show their vaccinations to go to school. we have done that for many years. at some point, that will probably happen. there are many countries that require you to have certain vaccinations to get into their country. when i went to panama i had to

have yellow fever vaccination. i carry that in my passport. the vaccine passport is not illegal document. countries require you to have certain vaccinations to come into their countries. i look forward to being able to go on vacation. if it requires that i show my vaccinations to protect me and the people in that country, i am willing to do that. i am not supportive of doing that for a job or to go from one state to another. host: mark is on twitter with this.

guest: over the last four years, they became very politicized. i think that is going away. i do believe they are focused on science. we are learning more. we are learning more and more each day. you study something it you learn something, you learn what works and doesn't work. i'm going to admit publicly i was in that camp of people who said early on you don't need to wear a mask because our cup public health experience with the first sars virus did not say that we needed to wear a mask. when we discovered that it was highly effective, i am a convert. i followed the science. i looked at the evidence and the effectiveness.

we were wrong. it's important for us in public health to admit when we were wrong and to tell the public we were wrong and why we were wrong and move on. host: you do believe it was politicized? guest: there's no question in the trump administration that the messages were politicized, they were changed, they were not allowed to do certain things. people wrote things for the cdc that were not approved by the cdc and put on their website. that should never happen. that was wrong. host: this is roger in michigan. guest: -- caller: good morning. i just wanted to let you know that i have the vaccine. i have the first one in march. i made the mistake of having them put that in my left arm.

i am a left arm sleeper. i had no problems until i went to bed that evening. that i had my second shot a week ago wednesday. that when i had put in the right arm. i did have a sore arm with that win. the second one was a little worse. i did not have any kind of problems as far as not feeling well. i have had that with previous flu shots. i did have a question. during all of this, i remember my mother, she was panicking with polio. our member going to a clothing store here in detroit to get the polio shot. i am curious, is the polio vaccine still in use today? do we need that?

did we actually conquer it? guest: polio is still around. there is a good news, bad news story. a few places where we still have polio very active are in places where there are places in war. some places in africa, some places outside the united states. in the united states, we don't see polio. it would be imported by someone who wasn't vaccinated. host: dr. georges benjamin, we do appreciate it when you chat with our viewers. guest: thank you. host: we've got about 30 months left in the program today.

day two is underway with the global climate summit the white house is hosting this morning. president biden is expected to speak this morning. we are asking you about his pledge yesterday to cut u.s. emissions in half by 2030. do you support it or oppose it? there are phone lines for both on your screen. we will be right back. >> american history tv on c-span three, telling the american story every weekend. thousands of people visit washington for the blooming of the cherry blossoms. we look at the history of the cherry tree and the title basin served as a swimming hole and the scene of a political scandal.

sunday on the presidency, look at the various truman -- harry asked truman library in independence, missouri. watch american history tv on c-span 3. >> washington journal continues. host: yesterday at the virtual global climate summit hosted by the white house, president biden announced the united states would be cutting emissions by 50% by the year 2030. we are asking you if you support that move, whether you oppose that move. if you supported, (202) 748-8000 . if you don't, (202) 748-8001. in the new york times, in rapid

succession, japan and canada and britain and the european union committed to deeper cuts in their own admission level. russia, china, india made no new promises. the meeting is continuing this morning. day 2 is on unleashing climate innovation. this afternoon, focus on the economic opportunities of climate action. that is underway. you are going to watch that on c-span.org streaming online. if we see the president pop up, we will bring you his remarks. we are hearing from you. diane is in new york, opposes the idea of those emissions goals. caller: i am opposed that the

process does not go far enough. there are still other pollutants that we have to consider also, as far as making electric cars and electric batteries, the process of solar wind turbines and what we put into the ground as far as landscapers. there are dumping grounds the government has put in. toxic radiation off the coast of california. i oppose because it doesn't go far enough. that's what i have to say. host: richard supports the announcement. go ahead. caller: definitely.

it's like finally we've got a president who is putting into action and coordinating with other leaders around the world after being missing in action. this is an existential threat we've talked about for decades. it is coming to a turning point. if we don't act and change, we are going to be in a crisis around the world. time has creeped up to the point of crisis. i am pleased about the action by the administration and the commitment. when the united states commits, other countries will commit further. this is a worldwide crisis. industrialized nations need to address this the most. maybe we can get china and india on board even more so.

i really believe this is going to explode economic prosperity and jobs by switching the infrastructure over to clean energy and electric cars and all that. host: when it comes to getting the rest of the world on board, john kerry is the special envoy for climate. he will be speaking this morning at the leader summit on climate. we are expected to hear from the president in just a few minutes, they are wrapping up their discussion this morning. they are turning to the idea of the economic opportunity of climate action. robert is in florida, opposes the announcement on emission

cuts. go ahead. caller: my favorite show. i'm a little concerned because of what i think it will do to the economy. my greatest concern of all is we've got to get a grip on overpopulation. it is exploding. the world can't handle the mouths we have to feed it. we've got to do something about overpopulation. host: what does one do? do countries institute limits on the amount of children couples can have? caller: i would like to see a discussion on it. i would like to see more emphasis put on it. i think it's too political for anybody to touch. it's going to come to a point where they are going to have to address it. there are way too many people. host: if you support the cuts

and that -- announced by the administration, if you support that idea, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . that is our conversation in the last 20 minutes. this is peter in arizona. good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm doing well. caller: you present a question that will cover this in the dr. that was on before. i wanted to spread my covid condition and why they are trying this instead of taking care of shots and getting me the proper medical marijuana i need. host: link it to the climate

discussion. caller: five years ago, i got legionnaires' disease and almost died. i have oc pd. i have another mysterious deadly disease. i am 60 years old in arizona. i would like -- host: get to the climate discussion. caller: i'm opposing the climate because they can't give me the medical marijuana and they are worrying about covid. you can show up at the southern border in arizona. host: we are going to move on.

joseph is in alabama. go ahead. caller: you've got to clean up the environment. when they passed the first environmental laws, mobile was a mess. we never saw the sun. all of a sudden, the air got cleaned up and it's been great around here, it's really been great. we need to get the air cleaned up. we are running out of fossil fuels. we need more wind generators. god bless america. have a great day. host: the editorial board of the wall street journal focusing on the 10 year climate plan, he is committing the united states to a far-fetched goal without the vote of congress.

if you want to read the wall street journal vittorio board on it. from usa today, biden being pushed to go big on climate, focusing on the left flank and those in congress pushing for the green new deal. that calls for higher education, health care. if you want to focus on the

proposals in the green new deal, usa today. michael is in florida. good morning. caller: good morning. we finally have a president who is sticking up for the people, not big business. we have a serious pollution problem. he is finally addressing it. we have had a president who did nothing for the environment other than lip service. i recently moved to florida from new jersey. this is not far from the new jersey turnpike, you could taste the diesel. we need to clean up our diesel trucks, all of the hydrocarbons. we need electric vehicles. host: to bill in florida, opposes the proposal. caller: how are you doing this

morning? i oppose this because of a certain element of it. that's these charging stations. what a brilliant idea. how do you keep them to charge? don't you have to use electricity to redo those charging stations? that's all i've got to say. host: a few comments from you on social media and our text messaging service as well. this is from marcia in colorado. this from erie, colorado. one more saying they support only if china does the same.

the washington times focusing on that issue. the headline, china soils the climate summit. some of those divisions can be seen on the front page of the new york times, where they show carbon emissions over recent decades. the united states on the left of this chart, they are heading in the downward direction along with the european union. india and china are in the upward direction. china is in a steep upward traction. jonathan, supports the idea. good morning. caller: thank you.

it seems to me the people who oppose the admissions changes or against the future. the world is changing. we have to change with it in order to make the world better for everyone. people have arguments. it seems to me that i don't like change and i liked things the way they are. host: president biden took to the microphone. this is the president. >> today's final session is not about the threat of climate change. it's about the opportunity that addressing climate change provides. it's an opportunity to create good paying jobs around the world. jobs that bring greater quality

of life, greater dignity to the people performing them in every nation. for line workers, connecting battery storage, making our electric grid more modern. building electric cars, trucks, and buses. skilled workers installing charging stations throughout the country. construction workers and engineers upgrading our schools and commercial buildings and constructing new energy-efficient homes. manufacturing workers building nuclear and carbon capture technology, solar panels, wind turbines. people working in fields we haven't conceived of yet, the things we haven't thought of so far. this challenge and these opportunities are going to be met by working people in every

nation. as we transition to a clean energy future, we must ensure that workers who thrived in industry have as bright a tomorrow in new industries and in the places where they live in the communities they have built. when we invest in climate resilience and infrastructure, we create opportunities for everyone. that is the heart of my jobs plan in the united states. it's how our nation builds an economy that gives everybody a fair shot. this requires innovation. that's why have asked the secretary of energy to speed the development of critical technology, to tackle the climate crisis. no technology is the answer on its own. every sector requires innovation to meet this moment.

this is going to propel the most impactful breakthrough at home and around the world. we are going to move to net zero in all countries. that is president biden speaking at the climate summit. you can go to that live at c-span.org. if this is the fifth and final summit. we are expecting to hear from the secretary of transportation and the national climate advisor as well as several others in this session. you can stick with us if you want to talk about it and the announcement yesterday, the plan to cut u.s. emissions in half by 2030. we are asking if you support or oppose. john is in alabama, opposes it.

caller: jesus warned us about this in the bible when he spoke about the four horsemen. the first horseman brought bad weather to the earth. the second brings disease. the only thing man can do to get out of this is to repent. thank you. host: georgia, you're next. good morning. caller: good morning. i think the more we -- they are running our lives, the less we change, the less we evolve. talking about change, the oceans have risen 400 feet over the last 10,000 years. they haven't risen anymore over the last century.

we've just experienced record cold spring weather across our nation. host: is the private sector driving this? are you ok with car company switching to electric vehicles? caller: when they get benefits, money the politicians take from the taxpayers. if they want to fatten their portfolios to do it, all power to them. host: that was john in georgia. this is larry in houston. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i totally support it. i live in houston. we've got the biggest chemical industry in the world. when the freeze happened,

because of these politicians that support big oil and want to push big oil, we froze for week. let's face it. we lived on coal until that plays out. now we want to be last in the world well everyone moves forward? we will be the poorest country. we will be behind china. i think it's very important. host: concern from those who oppose this idea that it's going to put fossil fuel workers out of business. you say you work in the oil industry. are you concerned it's going to put yourself out of a job? caller: i have a trucking company. that's not going anywhere. it burns more cleanly than

everything else. it's the only industry that stays gone. if you look at everything that's going on it, you've got to change. it will open up other jobs because it's a different industry. host: thank you for the call. finish your comments. caller: thank you. host: we mentioned that the transportation secretary is speaking at that leaders summit this morning. he is speaking this afternoon with axios at an event. we are airing that live on c-span 2. you can watch that on c-span.org or listen on the c-span radio app. brian is in massachusetts. good morning. you are next. caller: thanks for taking my

call. i called in on the oppose line. i do support it. i think the science is there. i raise a caveat, i don't think there should be a wholesale fossil fuel energy. natural gas is a natural battery. it stores potential energy. for example, in the northeast here, many people heat with natural gas. it runs power plants. it stores attentional energy. from my understanding, that can make a huge dent in carbon and greenhouse gases. my understanding was the science

-- i heard a climate scientists. they said we need to buy time. we also need renewable and clean energy. we need to work on the carbon sequestration. i suspect they realize we can't have enough batteries to store all over the world. i question we won't ever have combustion again. host: electric vehicles are part of the mix. the york times focused on one of the models of a path to the carbon emission reduction. they say natural gas plants

would be built with technology that catches carbon dioxide. coal plants would have to be shut down the mistaken capture their emissions. new buildings would be heated with electricity rather than natural gas. steel industry would have to have new targets. oil and gas producers would have -- last methane. all of those things would have to happen together to meet that goal. caller: it sounds wonderful. do both. i think they need to be integrated together. cleanup fossil energy as much as technology allows. absolute, clean up the carbon,

clean up the atmosphere. for us to say we can never burn anything again, i don't think it's realistic. we could go in the reverse and we will have more demand on heating homes. host: that is brian in massachusetts. donna is out in california. you are next. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am totally supportive and surprised at how progressive joe biden has been. i'm very pleased about that. i purchased an electric car a year ago. it has -- it is way beyond the technology i'm used to. my old car was 18 years old.

my electric bill went up $20 a month. i charge it at night. at midnight, electric rates go down. we have to get behind this. the only other thing i have to say is my son, who is working for a company zooks in the bay area. they have a self-driving all electric car without a steering wheel. they are talking about self-driving electric, they have gone even further. the doors open like an elevator. it sits for people. we've got to go with it. we've got to progress.

thank you so much. host: what is your son's first name? caller: taylor. host: it sounds like you are proud of taylor. caller: he is married to a young lady, she graduated from berkeley with a degree in chemical engineering on a full scholarship. host:host: good luck to them. thank you for the call. we will be back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. have a great friday. ♪

♪ >> today, republican governor larry hogan of maryland has -- to talk about infrastructure policy. live coverage begins at 12:15 p.m. eastern online at c-span.org or you can read --

listen free on the c-span radio app app. >> the spacex dragon launched successfully. they are scheduled to dock at the space station on saturday morning. that will be followed by the welcoming ceremony. also online at c-span.org or listen in with the free c-span radio app. up next, a look at this morning's launch from the kennedy space center in florida, followed by a nasa news conference from earlier today. right now we are waiting to seize the prevalves open and the chill begin. >> stage one engine chill has started. >> and there is the callout.