with two curators from the smithsonian national museum of african-american history and culture. light covers begins at 12:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. later in the day, president biden travels to tulsa to mark the 100th anniversary of the massacre and we will have that live on c-span >> see spanish ord view of government. we are sponsored by these companies and more, including buckeye broadband. ♪ >> buckeye broadband supports c-span as a public service along with these other providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy.

>> coming up, we will look at the week ahead for president biden with usa today correspondent. also, american action form president joins us to discuss the state of economic recovery and the policy proposals. later, friends of the earth program manager talks about environmental policies under the biden administration. washington journal is next. host: good morning. it's washington journal. president biden heads to tulsa to mark the 100th anniversary of the tulsa race masker. you can see that on c-span. you can view it on c-span.org or on our radio app. several legislators have a new

effort to pass a federal voting rights bill after texas democrats stopped the bill that would make expansive changes to the voting system. we will show you details and ask you when it comes to voting rights, do you think they should be expanded, would more restrictions be needed, would you say no changes are needed. here is how you can let us know. (202) 748-8000 if you say expand them. if you say restrict, (202) 748-8001 if you say don't change anything, (202) 748-8002. if you wish, you can text us. can also post on twitter. a brief explanation of that voting rights legislation that has yet to be passed in texas is offered by the texas tribune. the legislation would require more counties to offer 12 hours of early voting.

it also deals with voting by mail. the final version would tighten the rules about voting by mail by establishing new identification requirements for voters requesting a ballot to provide their driver's license number and the last four digits of their social security number. the language comes from separate bills that failed to pass on their own. texas democrats walking out, preventing a vote. that prompted a response from the texas governor any talked about the response and what he would do getting the bill

passed. he said in a statement: the governor also yesterday vowing that if that does not take place, he would defund the state legislature after the voting restrictions bill failed. that prompted responses on capitol hill. among them, akeem jeffries from new york. he was on cnn talking about the proposal and what it means for efforts to pass the hr one voting rights bill.

this is a bit of that exchange. >> the texas law is shameful and republicans in texas and throughout the country want to make it harder to vote and easier to steal an election. that's the only way i can interpret the voter suppression epidemic that we see working its way from one state georgia to arizona to texas and across the country in so me different ways. fundamental to democracy is the right to vote. the american people get to decide and work for a democracy that reflects the voices of all americans. not just a certain segment. not just conservatives or republicans or people in certain parts of the country, all americans. i support the effort to move hr one, which will bring to life democracy reform in a meaningful way.

we will have to see what occurs in the senate in terms of whether they could get to the 60 vote threshold. the senate is going to have some decisions to make in terms of reviewing their arcane procedures that have been used to uphold institutions like slavery and jim crow. >> this congressman opposes the filibuster and is hoping there can be filibuster reform. host: hr one for the people act which he referenced was passed in the house, some of the details of that bill and signed by the president would put automatic voter registration and strengthen absentee voting. it would protect against purges of voter rolls. it would create public financing system for federal offices. it calls for an amendment to overturn -- overturn citizens united. it would prohibit coordination between super pac's and candidates. it would enhance resources to stave off foreign threats on

elections. you can comment on what happened in texas. you can talk about the larger efforts on capitol hill or in your state. if you want to let us know what you think about voting rights, if they should be expanded (202) 748-8000. if you think restricted, (202) 748-8001. if you don't want to change the current voting rights as they stand, (202) 748-8002. he is in annapolis, maryland. tell us why. caller: i think they should be expanded because everybody should have the right to vote therein i'm not for this redistricting either. telling people who they should folk four. host: what would you like to see as part of that expansion? caller: i think we should strengthen the idea where there

are souls to the polls. everybody should have the right to vote. host: you say that doesn't happen currently in the united states? caller: not with the way the states are reacting. it's getting to a point where there is going to be an issue like the lewis voting act. host: make it federal law and make changes to the federal law and not just at the state level? caller: the states have gone too far. all of this redistricting nonsense, like the governor in florida and texas. it's just about -- we are getting into a dictatorship with this nonsense. host: that is willie on our line for restrict -- expanding voting rights. this is ed. good morning. caller: before i answered that question, i want to talk about president biden going to tulsa. i want everybody to know that

all of those people that were killed in tulsa, all those black people were all republicans. don't let biden full you. host: what do you think? caller: i think voting should be restricted to only people that are registered to vote. host: why is that? when you say restrict, how would you change that? what rules would you change? caller: i'm working on that right now. i'm writing about it right now. host: when you say you are writing about it? excuse me. what do you mean? we will go to tom. go ahead. caller: i think every citizen in this country should be treated equally. with these georgia crow laws

they are passing it, they are trying to win the election without being elected, by controlling votes. that's just not right. host: when you say to expand voting rights, what do you mean? what changes would you like? caller: we have several states this year -- i think there needs to be of federal and a moment standard of voting rights. the states can take it from there. host: minimum standard as to what? caller: as to eligibility. ease of access to voting.

equal distribution of voting machines. so that you don't see lines where people have to stand in line for five or six hours to vote. that is ridiculous. host: tom mentioned the georgia voting law. the atlanta journal-constitution said democrats and voting rights activists have branded the election law jim crow 2.0.

when it comes to these voting rights, we are asking you if they play out in your state or federally, if you say expansion is needed, perhaps she would say don't change the laws. you can choose the line the best represent you. todd is in california. he says restrict them. go ahead. caller: good morning. there shouldn't be automatic voter registration at the state or federal level. you can accidentally include

people who are not eligible to vote such as illegal immigrants. there should be national voter id laws to prevent fraud. abolish mail-in voting. as far, it's kind of insulting. i have my original birth certificate. i have no criminal record. i have a drivers license. i have no problem. host: if you say axially put those in the roles, what lead you to that conclusion? caller: i voted for trump and the most recent election. i feel that trump actually won the election due to massive democratic party voter fraud and interference. host: we will hear next from

sean who says when it comes to the laws, more restrictions are needed. good morning. caller: when i say restrictions, i could've called on the other line. i am talking about restricting these politicians from enacting jim crow tactics. to protect voters from people like your last caller talking about fraud. there was no fraud. i don't know where he got his information. it's just asinine. going back to more protection, we need to restrict these white republicans and these other republicans who aren't white with these crazy ideas, you go to arizona and georgia. how many times are they going to

recount? host: when it comes to the laws themselves, what's wrong with making these changes? caller: they are talking about they want to throw out votes with no evidence of fraud. i think it's wrong. i want to throw out your vote. let me go to one of the thing. i am actually for voter id. i think that will protect black people. if you go back to the election, the alabama senate election. the democrat won. doug jones. when jug jones, a lot of white repugnance at white people from other states voted.

the white secretary of state for alabama said that's nonsense because we have voter id laws in alabama. that's when i became a big believer. let's bring on voter id laws. it would protect black people. when you have these white folks come up with these tactics, we've got voter id laws. host: that is sean in baltimore, maryland giving his thoughts on the voter id aspect. those thoughts were expressed in a recent house hearing, taking a look at the voter id issue. it featured the chair and ranking member giving their perspectives on voter id changes. >> since the supreme court can 2013, a number of states have

adopted very strict voter id laws requiring voters to present a qualifying voter id in order to vote. some did it immediately after the court decision. voter id laws of been shown to disproportionately burden minority voters. that is a demonstrated fact. i don't believe that many experts would dispute that. voter id laws have been shown to disproportionately burden minority voters. african-american and latino and native american voters for example. they are less likely to have qualifying forms of id. they are burdened by the cost of obtaining id. studies have shown that strict voter id laws disproportionately decrease minority turnout.

we should all be concerned about that. >> 36 states have some form of voter id to vote. we some more people cast their vote than in any presidential election. voter turnout increased in every state, including some of the sharpest and states that require voter id. it dispelled the myth that they deter voting. voter turnout increased among all race groups in 2020. contrary to written testimony, it's clear that voter id does not deter people from legally voting. the data doesn't support it. common sense doesn't support it. i think the american people know that. among the states that ask for id, other states include connecticut, rhode island, new hampshire. for the purpose of this hearing,

i will reiterate what i have said it previous hearings. republicans want to ensure that every eligible person who wants to vote is able to cast a vote. we want to make sure that it's easy to vote and hard to cheat. host: there is plenty more that heating. -- hearing. if you want to see that, you can go to c-span.org. for the rest of the hour, you can comment on voting rights. where do you find yourself with more expanded rules. you can call and let us know. if you say don't change the laws, you can call and let us know. we will take those calls during the course of the r. president biden has a full agenda this week, particularly today in tulsa. here to talk about that is usa today.

thanks for joining us this morning. guest: good morning. host: thanks for joining us. the purpose and goal of this event, what is the president wanting to do? guest: he is going for the 100th anniversary of the tulsa race massacre when a mob attacked a predominately black area in tulsa. hundreds of people were killed. the mob destroyed this community it was known as black wall street. it was one of the wealthiest african-american community's. the visit is capping off a weekend of events and speakers. having the president there draws extra attention to an event that despite its horrific nature isn't that well-known in the country. he is going to be there. he will be making public remarks and meeting with surviving members of the community who are now 101 and 107. a few of them testified before congress recently.

in addition, he announced some new initiatives that are part of his overall racial equity as a priority for the administration. they announced initiatives that would help narrow the racial wealth gap in housing and federal contracting. it addresses the inequities in housing appraisals and to properties can be appraised very differently if one has a black homeowner. on federal contracting, the administration wants to increase the amount of federal contracts to disadvantaged this this is as a way to increase support in that area. host: we saw the president releases budget on friday. what goes on from here as far as the white house selling the budget? guest: the emphasis the white

house has put on the budget is on the long-term -- the big spending plans to recall the big deal as opposed to the new deal. these are generational investments we've not seen in important areas like roads and bridges and human infrastructure. education, childcare, support for families with children generally. these are expensive proposals. he is offsetting with tax creases on the wealthiest households, on corporations. he's got a very tough job. congress is out this week. the president is going to be continuing negotiations with a group of republican senators he's been talking with to come up with a chunk of that plan that is addressing the

infrastructure, roads and bridges. to see if they can put together legislation that has bipartisan support, which the president would like to do. there is a lot of pressure from democrats not to go down this road if they are too far apart. not to spend too much time on these negotiations and try to come up with a plan b. host: as far as the republicans, who is the president targeting to come up with a compromise or way to get both sides satisfied with what's been proposed? guest: the senator from west virginia, she's been leading the negotiations on the republican side. mitch mcconnell is the minority leader in the senate. what he thinks matters a lot too. they have had some back and forth on this. they are both saying positive

things in terms of they think there is -- they're working well together and there is a way forward. they are competing puzzles and are very far apart in the size of what they want to do and how they want to pay for it. republicans say they are not going to reopen the tax cuts that passed during donald trump. they talked about user fees, a gas tax which the administration has ruled out. there are different ways to pay for it. they don't seem to be acceptable to the other side. host: the president will talk about the job numbers. talk about this. what is the president hoping to see? guest: better numbers then came out a month ago. a month ago, the numbers were

much lower than what economists had expected. some of the explanations for that were a lot of people still hadn't gotten vaccinated yet. you still have people reluctant to go back to work or unable to go back to work. there are a lot of childcare issues. school is not fully echo. they are hoping is more people have gotten vaccinated and things are reopening and they are seen better jobs figures than one month ago. host: you can find her work at usa today.com. thanks for your time this morning. we really do appreciate it. thank you to those waiting online, talking about voting rights. janice is in tennessee who says expand them. go ahead. caller: good morning it, everybody.

i think they should expand. the democrats should get together like they did in the 60's. take these people around to get the proper id. estate id and social security card. here, when we voted, i used my estate id and my social security card. that's all they need. the republicans are trying to cut that out. the reason they are doing this stuff, trying to cut everything, they one in georgia. people got out there. they got the proper ids and voted. they should expand the time for voting. people work. people start to get off at 5:00.

they are doing everything they can right now to steal the election. they are the ones trying to steal the election. host: that is janice in tennessee. let's hear from kevin in connecticut. he says don't make changes. caller: we don't need changes. this is a nationwide effort to rig elections. democracy is out the window. yesterday was memorial day. when you go by veterans cemetery, republicans are stealing it from us. it's a war here now. host: when you say don't change it, are you saying the system as it currently stands is a good one and a reliable one? caller: yes. the republicans in these states,

we are taking democratic votes from this candidate and give it to republicans. the voters need to have a say in the election. it's crazy right now. host: kevin in connecticut. some of you are giving your thoughts through social media and are texting service. this is tim.

that is mike in orlando, for the. you can give your thoughts on our text. (202) 748-8003. put your name, city and state on that. let's hear it steve from california. he says restrict the current rights. go ahead. caller: absolute. i am a retired teacher. this is a perversion.

every four years, philadelphia votes. they have more people vote then it registered. are you going to force black people and challenge them? how 40 think republicans are going to get? the elite liberal media is the problem. they just cheated trump out of this election. he was up 800,000 votes. at midnight, they had 11,000 complaints. the elite liberal media -- host: if you calling for specific -- restrictions, what you asking for? caller: i look at the inner

cities first. they stole the election from president trump. anybody with a mind knows that. host: what would you change? caller: i would make it more restrictive. everybody has to have a voter id. just like when you go to the airport. they talk about voter suppression. they are cheating and accusing the republicans of doing it. host: you made those points already. let's hear from paul in virginia who says don't change things. caller: we've got to remember a lot of things happened during covid. there were a lot of changes that were made in a lot of states without legislative approval. that's number one.

personally, i think they should take it back to pre-covid voting. some of the states had two weeks early voting, some had a month. i will say, i was a member of the military. i was a merchant marine. i am 66. i have voted in every election. any time i had to vote absentee, i had to provide some sort of identification. when i requested my absentee ballot. mailing ballots to the entire population is ridiculous. host: you would change what? you are calling on the line that says no changes.

is the mail-in ballots the only thing you would want to change? caller: i am saying don't change because what happened was they did get changed under covid without legislative approval. host: that is paul in virginia, half an hour of your calls taking a look at this idea of voting rights in the u.s. some few would say to restrict for more regulation. you can let us on the note -- the line that represent you. if you say expand, (202) 748-8000. restrict (202) 748-8001. if you say don't change things, (202) 748-8002. you can post another things. president biden made a statement about the texas effort and how it plays into the larger picture.

this was on the 29th of last month. that is president biden from the 29th. this is from sharon on her facebook page.

again, that is the input from you as far as where you are at when it comes to this idea of voting rights. audrey in philadelphia it says expand those rights. good morning. caller: i want to say that i

loved your interview. thank you for that. the reason donald trump is leading at midnight was because he said malin votes could not be counted until the day of the election. that's why that happened. i think it should be expanded. you can't win on ideas, you cheat. this is been done by the democrats as well as republicans. i think felons should be able to vote. i think people who have been purged from the voting rolls should have a way to appeal that. there should be of voting holiday where people are off work. malin voting should be expanded. host: if all of those things were put into play, you can still keep and integrity? are there concerns about expanding it? caller: i think it's always a

balance between the integrity. we are maintaining the integrity now. in pennsylvania in the past election, the state senate, democrats won over half the vote but republicans got 54% of the seats because of jeremy. in the house, democrats won the most vote but the republicans got 58% of the seats. there are mechanisms in place that are disenfranchising people. the majority, even the republican party, support many progressive policies. they never get enacted because we have a government that is more to the right of what the people's agenda is. we see different mechanisms for making it happen. i would like to keep it fair. i don't want to cheat.

i think there are many mechanisms that are doing that. host: audrey in philadelphia. let's hear from richard in little rock. go ahead. caller: the lady if this was the right line. there are a couple of things. if c-span could do something like this, make a list of the voting rights in every state in the country. you will notice everybody complaining about georgia. they have a more expanded ability down here then states up north. all they do is pick out states and say they are bad. c-span would be great to make a simple list of the top 20 things and put them on your website. if people will look back at the last election, the democrats did everything the republicans are doing it now, they were doing

stories about how -- the only i could think about, some people say how they are for equal and all they do is attack one party. as long as people are attacking one side or the other, it doesn't matter what laws are out there. host: you said you called to said restrict voting rights. what would you like to see specifically? caller: as far -- i don't think there should be massive ballots sent out to everybody. voting is a right. i think it needs to be earned. if you don't want to vote, who knows what's going to happen. people should be suspicious in a county, somebody suddenly gets over 95% of the vote. the president of syria got 95% of the vote. people should basis.

-- a spacious. everybody out there is a grown person and they are going to have an id. they are going to have an id. trying to say people don't have id, that is putting people down. host: that is richard in arkansas. to your point about various states, if you go to the website u.s. vote, they have a good round up of how states in individual states take care of voting issues, particularly in light of legislative efforts to change them. you can check that out for yourself. let's hear from deborah who says expand voting rights. caller: i do think that voting rights should be expanded. i think we should receive ballots 30-45 days ahead of

voting. i feel like it should be made a federal holiday so people could be off all day to vote. the reason i would love to see the ballots come early is because i was purged before the last presidential election. i found out. i was concerned. i called and checked to make sure everything was ok. i had to talk with our registrar and get my name back on there. i voted in the same place for the last 10 years. i am a democrat and a red state. i was purged. i did get it back on. host: did you find out why you were purged? caller: nobody could ever tell me. i have questioned and questioned and no one could ever tell me.

all i ever got was i don't really know. that was the best they could do for me. host: when it comes to voting, as part of the larger discussion it, tina in pennsylvania on our restrict line. good morning. caller: i love listening to you. i live in pennsylvania. we all know pennsylvania was a hot mess during the presidential election and during our primary. this is my opinion. we all have the right to vote. as an american when you turn 18 it, you can vote. my problem is these mail-in ballots in the last election, i live in a split household. my father-in-law it's also a democrat.

he was taken off the rolls in 2016 of dementia. to protect his ballot, we respected and absentee. i have them. he received five malin's plus the absentee. according to the website, he voted. we need to go back to the older system, get it of these electronic machines. anything can be hacked. we need to go back to paper. it doesn't take all day to vote. i used to live in florida. i get it. these mail-in ballots are a nightmare. the roles are a nightmare. it's the responsibility of the family member when somebody passes away to take that death certificate to the courthouse and say they passed away. host: if i may ask, do have a

sense that the election officials in your states will do something as far as mail-in voting is concerned? do you think it will stay the same? caller: i think they have taken the power away from our governor. i am hoping they will take them away. i am against it because it can be fraudulent. prisoners -- those that have lost their right to vote, they can get their rights back when they come out of prison. mail-in ballots were going to their home addresses. they were being filled out and sent back in. they don't have the right to vote. host: we have other people on the line. we heard from pennsylvania giving an experience. you can relay that to the larger

discussion of rights. el paso, what do you think as far as not changing? caller: ever since what happened in austin, i haven't had a chance to sleep. i was on pins and needles. i'm glad to see the democrats walked out last night. if anybody lost the election it, it was hillary clinton and 2016. i never liked the electoral college vote. if there should be changes, we should go to straight voting and keep electoral college out of it. host: you are saying don't make

changes. caller: i don't want to make changes. if they wanted to make changes, they need to -- in texas, i don't want them to change anything. they are trying to rig everything. host: if this law passes, what changes for you as far as voting? caller: i am blessed not to have a problem. i am retired. i don't have relatives who work and their time is limit. i don't like when they take away the church thing. it does bother some of my fellow citizens. host: go ahead. caller: it would bother and affect them with the hours. host: do you think republicans

will pass this legislation? caller: i hope not. i don't want to think it. i hope democrats stick to it and don't happen. host: john given us the personal experience and el paso. we showed you where the texas legislature was set to vote on these changes. democrats walking out of the process. the governor said the special session would be called. the governor issued a statement earlier saying as part of that, he is willing to take away the money to run the legislature. you can relate it to the larger issue of voting rights as well. aaron is up next. let's show you some people from our facebook pages. we will start with the text.

even if you put it -- those of

you posting on twitter can do so. we saw several texts this morning. (202) 748-8003 is how you do that. one perspective comes from the wall street journal. they say this: senator schumer said before the break that he will force a vote on a chart 1 when the senate

comes back into session. recently, we had the heritage foundation talking about a chart 1 and the issues he had with it. >> it's basically a federal takeover of the administration of elections. the problem with it is it puts it in all kinds of bad mandates, mandates that are dangerous to the integrity of the election process. it gets rid of every security and safety protocol that states a put in. if the state has a voter id law, that will be voided. if the state requires a witness signature on an absentee ballot, that is out the window. it requires things like same-day registration, which means states have to allow you to walk into a polling place on election day

and register and vote. if you combined that with the fact that you can't ask anyone for an id, you are inviting fraud. it's not tied to an existing state record, which is an invitation to cyber attacks and hackers committing mass fraud. host: off our twitter feed: this is another texture from toronto.

this is from baltimore. expand those rights. it good morning. caller: good morning. my idea is we should expand voting rights. we should expand them, we should have voter id. everyone is eligible to get a permit to drive. everyone has a state id. that would be pretty easy to expand voting rights if you use your id as your way to vote. why is it that republicans think we have fraud in our elections and states that democrats win, they don't see it in states where republicans win.

that in and of itself is questionable on the republican part. have a good day. host: pamela is in maryland. she also calls for the expansion. caller: the founder of the conservative movement, he's the cofounder of the heritage foundation. he said at a conference over 40 years ago, i don't want everybody to vote. trump said republicans would never be elected again if it was easier for everyone to vote. expand the right to vote. host: what would a chart 1 do? caller: everything that's written in it.

it would allow mail-in ballots to be utilized. every legal citizen is given a social security number at birth. that should be our voter id. host: that is pamela in maryland. the issue of voting when it comes to when it takes place is the topic of the nevada lawmakers. lawmakers passed a bill on monday. the bill that passed in the state assembly must be approved by the governor. this would make the change for the 2024 calendar.

the push to jump past iowa and new hampshire as the first in the nation primary follows a lobbying campaign led by the former senate majority leader. you can read more on that. this is liv in anderson, south carolina. caller: good morning. i have never been intimidated by any poll workers. unless you are an elderly person or disabled, i think you should walk into your local polling place and vote. as far as these mail-in votes, i

do believe they were devised as a racket. i think it was wrong. i think it caused a lot of problems. in the future, it will. regarding transportation, you can take a taxi. even the local state and government offered free transportation to vote. it is baloney saying people cannot vote. host: george in maryland on our expand line. hello. caller: how are you doing? host: what do you think about this idea? caller: i think it should be expanded. president trump had a commission in 2017 after his election. they found there was no voting problems.

number two, in kentucky, you had over 600,000 people, larger than most cities, that only had one precinct. host: go ahead. caller: a lot of callers have said people should have to get a right to vote. it is a right to vote. you shouldn't have to earn your right to vote. that is restrictive in itself. host: when you say expand, what do you mean? caller: there should be more voting precincts so people wouldn't have to wait in line for eight hours. now they say they don't want to give people water for somebody waiting in line. i think you need to have equal number of voting precincts in every county so you don't have a

discretionary voting problem. host: a viewer off twitter said voting should be identical in every state for federal elections. if states went to mismanage state elections, that's up to them. we will hear from madeleine in virginia who says don't change things. caller: if 36 states approve a voter id, what is the problem with the other states that don't think we should have voter id? it is to protect everyone. i've never had to go any farther than one mile to vote. why is it 36 states approve a voter id? host: when you say don't change

things, you are saying keep everything as is? what do you mean? caller: why do the other states not want voter id? it is for our protection. we should keep voter id. why would people be against it? 36 states already approved voter id. host: we appreciate all of you who contributed to the conversation. coming up, we will talk about the budget release from last week with the american action former president. we will discuss the economic recovery in the policies of the by diminished ration. later on, we will hear from the friends of the earth senior program manager. she will talk about the president's economic policies.

that's coming up when washington journal continues. >> c-span was a landmark cases explores the stories and constitutional drama behind significant supreme court decisions. for the next several weeks, watch key episodes from our series, sunday atomic rpm easter on c-span. the 1919 case shank the united

states that allows the united states, particularly in times of war, to limit freedom of speech. whole -- court upheld the conviction of charles shank who distributed leaflets encouraging young men to avoid the draft. listen online or with the c-span radio app. >> "washington journal" continues. >> douglas holtz aiken is the president of the american action forum and also served as a former director of the congressional budget office from 2003 to 2005 joining us to talk about economic issues and the biden administration. morning. guest: good morning. host: one of the key takeaways from the release of the budget last friday was this topic of debt and ultimately what happens to it. summarize what you saw from the report and talked about what that means for people who look at these things such as yourself. guest: the report was striking. this is a budget that plans to

spend more as a fraction of our national gross to mystic product on average over the next 10 years than we ever have, including the world war ii period. so you see the government spending a lot of money. to finance that, they will raise trillions of dollars in taxes, and we will average more in taxes then we have in the modern economic history, and it will also add another $1.4 trillion to the national debt by running deficits over 10 years. it is a lot of spending, taxes, yet more continued borrowing. host: $1 trillion in deficits that the budget -- or the highlights, where would you see those contributions coming from? from the proposals of this administration or what other factors make up that number? guest: the deficits will total 14.5 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. of that, 1.4, 10%, our new -- $1.4 million, 10%, are

new. host: as far as the legacy of the past, that factors into the previous administration in spending issues and the tax cut from that era as well? guest: it goes back to the george w. bush administration, beginning in the early 2000's. we ran deficits steadily to fight the iraq and afghanistan wars. the obama administration inherited a big recession, huge deficits by the standards of the time, never really got back to close to eliminating those deficits. the trump administration, as we know, cut big taxes in 2017, spent money pretty freely as well. we have seen this for the past 21 years. host: philosophically, where is capitol hill, particularly washington, when it comes to this idea of deficits and if they ultimately matter? guest: i don't see any real concern at the moment. a biden administration has no

concern about the enormous deficits they intend to run. we learned, i think in the pandemic, that running large deficits to most of the economy in the face of an enormous downturn, which there was, was the right thing to do. i agree with that. the question is, what happens when we are in 2025-20 26, at some point. we have to control the excessive deficit spending and get our debt under control. guest: with tax proposed -- host: with the tax proposals the biden administration is proposing, how much of that covers the current spending plan? guest: it does not cover it. they are planning to spend about 140 billion more dollars -- $140 billion more each year than they plan to increase taxes. there is some attempt to pay for things. we will see what guess there congress but this is not a balanced approach. host: our guest is with us and delay 45 time if you want to ask questions about budget and --

with us until 8:45. if you want to ask questions about the budget and deficit. (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and (202) 748-8002 for independents. and you can texas as well at (202) 748-8002 -- text us at (202) 748-8003. if i per -- 5% projection in 2021, estimating 4.3% growth next year, 2% for the rest of the decade. what to those numbers look like as far as a reality? guest: they are a little baffling, to be honest. i think growth is growing much stronger than that. most people put 2021 at something between 6% and 8%, well above that budget. they could be fairly strong next year as well. certainly the 1.8, 1.9, two point oh, that is a fairly pessimistic view of economic growth. quite frankly, the promise has been the big spending here or

investments and infrastructures are different types are supposed to increase growth, but there is no more rapid growth in the projections that we have seen in the past. it does not hang together with rhetoric and proposals for the budget. host: as far as doesn't hang together, what do you mean? guest: the standard way to do the budget is to have the projections reflect the policies. this economy that they had in their budget is not growing more rapidly than they seen in the past. that is at odds with the kinds of things they are saying about the impose holes, investments in infrastructure, supposed to improve productivity of the economy, grow more rapidly, supposed to have childcare and paid family leave to get people in the labor force, increasing the pace of economic growth. they are not reflected in their projections. that seems odd. host: those numbers, are they based from the cbo, which you

are the head of, or based on other factors too? guest: those are entirely the administration's economic and budget projections. the economic projections are traditionally put together by the council of economic advisers with cooperation with others. the treasury and tax -- this is entirely an administration document, a statement of the presidents vision. it will now go to capitol hill and the congressional budget office will reanalyze those proposals. it will say what they think will cause as opposed to what we said, and they will look at the economics and say this is what we think will happen. that analysis of the budget is one of the core pieces of the year every time we see the budget. host: because you watch it play out or didn't watch it at one time play out on capitol hill. it is a blueprint once he gets to congress. what is the expected role of democrats and republicans, now that they have received the blueprint? guest: i do not think it will affect much. it is not a signature piece of

the administration's policymaking, and i think we know that because they put it on the friday before memorial day. they were not trying to get attention for it. we already know the core pieces of what they want to do with the big infrastructure proposal known as the american jobs plan, and a second thank all the american family plan, which has the paid leave and other proposals. the kinds of things that they want to do are well known. we are watching the negotiations on capitol hill to see if republicans and democrats can get together to execute on some of them, or will the democrats go it alone? host: give me her assessment of the current state of the economy. guest: the economy is in good shape. the only thing holding a back remains the coronavirus, which has been the real force that has stopped people from going to work and going out and spending, stop people from going to restaurants, arenas, and hotels.

as that receipts, we see the economy pick quite well. in particular, the service sector has come back strongly. i see no real headwinds for the economy, assuming we can make progress on the public health mission. host: last week, president biden was in cleveland, ohio talking about his blueprint for america. he talked about the state of the economy, the role of the administration in it. i want to play a little bit of what he had to say and get your response to it. [video clip] pres. biden: we had record job creation, record economic growth , creating a new paradigm. one of the rewards work the working people in this nation, not just those at the top. we did a study, 85% of my jobs plan or 95% of my jobs plan you don't need a bachelors degree. 75% you don't even need a degree that is a community college

degree. it helps. but guess what, the bottom line is that people are going to be going back to work. there is a new bargain, everyone in it will be on the deal this time. now, as our economy recovers, there will be bumps in the road. of course there will be. you can't reboot a global economy like flipping on a light switch. there will be ups and downs, jobs and economic reports, supply chain issues, price distortions on the way back to a stable and steady growth. host: that was the president from last week. how much responsibility or credit does the current administration take for the state of the economy? guest: i think every administration takes for what happens under their watch, but there is little of it done that has delivered the growth we have seen. this was already happening based on the actions in 2020, both congress administrations on a bipartisan session things that were very necessary.

there was large support for the economy happening in march in the cares act of december, almost one show you dollars of support. at the time of the ministrations first effort passed in march, most of the projections were for 6% growth in the first quarter and we got sick .4%. that was already happening, so now, the issue is what more can they do, and if you listen, the real claim is the administration will somehow deliver better to the letter skilled -- less skilled, less educated than in the past, and that is a challenge, because one of the things that was true in 2018 and 2019 was unemployment was at record lows for many communities of color and many of the lease to skilled people in america and wages were rising more rapidly at the bottom then anywhere else. so we have already accomplished a great deal there and can do so again. the question is, what more will the administration do? host: andrew, houston, texas.

you are on with douglas holtz aiken of the american action form. andrew, go ahead. caller: good morning. thanks for being on today. my question is, do you think that when facing the american -- the debt crisis, and i'm sure you have seen a lot of this, the debt counter that is continuously rolling higher and higher, do think congress can find a bipartisan way to look at that and deal with that? thank you very much. guest: it's a great question. the one that keeps me awake at night, quite frankly. there is a lot of discussion now about whether a lot of debt is a bad thing or do we really need to get the national debt to down. there is an on norma's amount devoted to should we have a higher low level of debt related to say the size of our economy, but the key fact in all of that is you are picking the level of

debt. you say we would like to have a lot of debt or have less debt. the u.s. has shown no capacity to pick in the 21st century. we have seen the debt only rise. rise in absolute terms relative to the size of the economy, all of the projections to rise in uncontrolled trajectories going forward, so we have yet to demonstrate, on a bipartisan basis, an ability to control the size of the debt. until we do that, i am concerned. host: you may not be able to see it but we will show the folks at home, the debt clock is currently standing at $28.3 trillion. you said this keeps you up at night. what is the responsible result going forward as far as reducing the debt? guest: the key is not the debt, per se. the key is where does it come from. one of the enormous drivers of the debt is our social safety nets, the things we think are

essential for taking care of americans, social security, medicare, medicaid, the affordable care act are key features. in every case, those are sending out more money than they are bringing in and delivering a lot of debt. medicare alone was responsible for one third of all of the debt outstanding. so that is something that needs to be tackled. we need to care about those programs enough to make sure they are financially sustainable and make sure they deliver the benefits to the beneficiaries that are counting on them. we have not done anything on social security. it is going to run out of trust fund monday -- trust fund money in under a decade. we have nothing on medicare and the clocks ticking on four years, probably with the pandemic less now. one of my deep concerns about the biden administration and their proposals, they are promising a lot of new social significant program, paid family leave, childcare, earned income tax credits, expanded health

subsidies, a lot of credits for children and checks going out on a monthly basis. that sounds great, but they are using the money to pay for those programs in part, not paying for all of it, that we need to a fix the existing programs. we are not taking care of the business where we have already problems. that is what we need to do. we need to make a strong decision as a nation on which programs we will have and make sure they are sustainable into the future. host: host: do you host: get a sense the biden administration will tackle the programs you initially started with, social security, medicare and the like. guest: we haven't heard a word about social security or medicare. they're talking about lowering the eligibility age to 60 on the campaign trail. it does not bode well for the sustainability of the programs. host: charles is next in fort collins, colorado. good morning on the independent line. caller: hi. i think biden was a programs

would be sustainable, to a point, but we need to pay for them. i just noticed, in the fdr years, look at the effective tax rates back then, they were 60%, 70%? we are not going to be able to pay this on the average joe living from paycheck-to-paycheck , and who is going to have to pay for this is the jeff bezos of the world, the guys making $180 billion, not paying taxes, just skating through this as we go bankrupt. i look at this, and this infrastructure thing, and i'm looking at the republicans who want to put the tax burden and gas tax, is it, wouldn't that just be another tax on the average person where the biden administration wants to put the tax burdens on the people who are making over $1 million and

making the money off of the backs of americans. thank you. guest: the proposals out of the administration are to finance them using exclusively taxes on those making more than $400,000. and they have an array of proposals. that does not even cover their spending plan. there is an arithmetic problem at a minimum. they may run into genuine economic problems, a feature of their proposals -- problems. a feature of their proposals is to raise the corporate tax rate from 21% to 28%. when the corporate rate was 35% in 2015 through 2017, we had a continual problem of losing the headquarters of large companies. it left the united states of one or two per year for 10 straight years. we lost a number of important headquarters. when we cut the rates, we put

the u.s. in the middle of the economic pack, competitive with europe, great britain, china, and that seems fine. to go to 20% puts us outside of the past, well above everyone else. i feel we will restart the problem. what happens when you use the head horse? do executives move to another country? no, they are fine, but the jobs go. so the folks you're worried about on the most likely impacted by that proposal. my concern with the stated goal of keeping the burden off of the average person is the average person will end up bearing the ill fruit of bat economic policies, and i worry about that a lot in these proposals. host: the desire for the biden administration to reach that 20%, is it a reality, or do you think him from eyes might happen for a lower rate -- 28%, is it a reality or do you think compromise might be a lower rate? guest: in the end, you want a

healthy economy with job creation and wage growth. 20% does not deliver that. something lower will. -- 28 does not deliver that. something lower will. caller: good morning. i think i'm trying to figure out how the biden administration expected first thing they did, was shut down our oil flow, which the pipeline was the most -- absolutely the most economical way to pass oil around. which then, what that did was put a stress on our trucking situation, which that trucking situation puts a stress on everything else in this whole country. so everything else is going to be going up. there is no way around that. i am in agriculture, and everything i buy has gone up 30 took -- 30% to 40%. it just happened within 100 days. his first 100 days, that was the

biggest economical explosion i've ever seen as far as disaster i would call it. everything he has done, i feel like, has been economically wrong. it is hurting our money. our dollar is devalued now, and everything i buy costs more. this is going to keep going on. the good thing is i was early enough to buy a lot of things, to pre-buy. i went out and pre-bought a lot of my supplies. so i'm set for good this year, but we have next year. host: that is roger in kansas. guest: i think there are two things going on. the first is that the administration has stated repeatedly that climate is their number one priority and they are going to push the united states pretty aggressively toward a cleaner energy foundation, heavy use of renewables, less use of

carbon-based fuels, in particular coal, natural gas, oil. that carries with it economic costs. there is no question about it. you tend to move in that way and you have to make the things you want cheaper, so that requires taxes and subsidies for the things you don't want more expensive, which is what we are seeing with oil and natural gas and things i can. so that is going to go on, and that is their goal. that is going to be a costly venture. it is hard to transform an economy the size of the united states to change its fundamental feel -- fuel and a rapid fashion. that will be a hard thing to do simultaneously with growing rapidly. they are trying to manage that. the second thing, which is a mistake in my opinion, a fundamental mistake, is that we passed nearly one chilean dollars in stimulus in december, and as i said before, the

economy was growing rapidly and we had in place support for those people out of work because of the virus. then, the administration passed a nearly $2 trillion american rescue plan, which is simply too big. it is more stimulus than the economy needs, the unemployed mitt rate is near 6%, not about 10%, 11%, 12% where that might be justified. they have built overheating into the economy. we have seen the money flow into people's banks account -- bank accounts first because they saved three times normal in the first quart of this year, then it flowed into all sorts of assets. -- quarter of this year. then it flowed into or source -- into all sorts of assets. now it is starting to show up in prices. construction costs are up, and we are starting to see pressure on consumer inflation as well. this is going to be an issue for the administration. $1.9 trillion is going to have

consequences. the question is, how will they manage them? host: is there a correlation in your mind, some republicans make the argument that the federal unemployment from the passage of the coronavirus packages are keeping people from going back to work. do you see that correlation? guest: that is a concern. here's why it is a concern. there's a lot of research that shows in regular labor markets, those not impaired by the coronavirus, but in regular labor markets, the fraction of someone's usual wages they replace with unemployment is a key indicator of how long people stay unemployed. the more you give them compared to what they usually earn the longer spells of unemployment on average. that is well-established in the research. we are, right now, with the federal bonus, replacing more than 100% of these wages. that's 37% of americans would make more on unemployment than in their previous job. in a normal labor markets, that

would have to increase the length of unemployment and raise the unappointed rage. so as we move, hopefully successfully, to eliminate the coronavirus from the way we think about the economy and move toward a more normal labor market, that will be less of a headwind. some people are afraid to go back to work. they are afraid of getting sick, they have health conditions that make them at risk, some people have issues with school, childcare, those kinds of things. the third would be this unemployment issue. they're all going on right now, but increasingly, it will be the unemployment. host: to the last point, this is tony from florida, -- from texas, aren't we going to experience growth from pent-up demand? why would anything need to be done with the need on the public of crisis? guest: i think that is the perfect diagnosis. he's got it exactly right. and we were seeing that. we were seeing the big growth in the first quarter prior to the

biden animist ration did. the only real concern, the caveats was we did have this two-part economy where there were some parts of the economy that were unaffected by the virus and then there was the service sector, particularly leisure and hospitality, which got shut down. you could not took -- not to go to restaurants, concerts, tells, things like that. so there was a chunk of the labor market that was long unemployed and needed support. that got put into place december. the rest of the pent-up demand is enormous. we will see spending coming from them. host: douglas holtz-eakin of the american action form, serving as their president. tell us about the former my folks event. how are you financially supported? guest: we are a standard 501(c)(3) nonprofit. we are supported by donations, and i would be thrilled if everyone chose to donate today. that would be great. we are interested in understanding public policy, tax

policy, regulation, environments, essentially the waterfront of domestic and economic policy issues. the american action form is built like the congressional budget office, which i ran and loved that job. it was my highlight of my public service. this gives me a chance to weigh in on the same kinds of issues from the perspective of a center-right market oriented philosophy. host: americanactionform.com is the website. this is glory in maryland. you are on with our guest. caller: who, me? host: yes, that's you. go ahead. caller: i have a good idea for saving the nation. how about writing books for saving the nation? people don't like to write books, because they have [indiscernible] well how about writing a children's book on two sides of a piece of paper?

then charge five dollars for the book. the government could run it and we could write the books, and anybody -- social security could start at 50 instead of 65. any man that works before 50 should not have to write a poem, but -- host: ok, gloria. part of what the viewer said, and this was a viewer off of twitter, saying when it comes to the president, he needs to remove the cap on social security, also adding to increase taxes on the wealthy, removing tax loopholes on corporations. he also asked about military spending and if it needs to be addressed. guest: i think the key and when i talk about the most are the big social programs, that is where the money is, quite frankly.

increasingly, the annual decisions from congress on defense spending are a small part of the budget. they are 30% or below depending on the year. my concern is where the money is, to control the deficit. it would be a good thing, in my view, if we did not squeeze out of the budget the annual decisions. nondefense spending is basic research and infrastructure, education, all the places you can genuinely invest in the future of the country. the fence mending is national security and capacity to project values around the globe. to have those get shorted is a concern in this day and age. our budget has two big problems. one is the mismatch between revenues and spending, and the inability to get those up, and the second is the fact we are letting these large social programs push out of the budget the places where our founders thought the government had its

most important role. host: aside from the taxation efforts to pay for infrastructure, do you think investing in infrastructure is a good idea? guest: yeah. i think there is no question that we have a little bit of a need for infrastructure spending. we do a lot, but we can do more at this point in time and do so pretty effectively. the issue of how to finance it, to go back to one of the things the caller said is do you view the user fee method -- do you do the user fee method, which is to have a gas tax or vehicle miles traveled tax, harbor fee, or airport fee so that those using the infrastructure goes from the wear and tear to pay for it or do you want to do it out of general revenue? that is the divide in congress right now. host: the wall street journal highlights the fact some republicans, when it comes to paying for infrastructure, would like to see unspent funds from

the covid relief used in user fees on electric vehicles. guest: one of the issues with the gas tax is it would not impose a fee on drivers of electric vehicles and a lower fee on hybrids. there is a lot of interest in moving toward fees based on vehicle miles traveled. if you're traveling on the roads, you pay a fee. if you do those kinds of proposals, you can vary the fee based on the weight of the vehicle and number of axles, which is really a way to make sure the trucking industry pays for the vast amount of wear and tear they impose on the roads. host: a republican from georgia, this is jonathan, your next. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: gentlemen, i think we're going -- i think we are going collectively insane. [laughter] the first year i voted, the budget was $500 billion, now we are talking about spending $6

trillion? our deficit was in the billions then, and now we are approaching $30 trillion in debt. what is the unfunded liability in this range now? this is beyond insanity. we spend $5 trillion per year now, and we are talking about crumbling bridges and roads? why in the heck's are bridges and roads crumbling when they take so much wealth from the american people? guest: i share your concern about the scale of these proposals and the large deficits we are running. when i ran the cbo, we ran a deficit of $432 billion, and people yelled at me. it wasn't even my decision. people yelled at me about how large the deficits were. we are going to average $1.4 trillion over the next 10 years and the next -- years, well over

one trillion, well over 5% gdp for the next 10 years. there is not a collective sense that we should do budgeting the way we used to budget, decide on the priorities, pick the ones we are going to spend money on, and those we are not, and how much we are going to spend, then raise taxes to cover it. that is not the kind of budgeting going on. we see a lot of let's do it we did last year and add some things. and not have a comprehensive idea on how it adds up. host: here's an argument from a viewer off of twitter. jersey girl is how she is identified, how are european countries able to provide so much more robust and all-encompassing social programs and we are in the united states while remaining out of debt? they text wealthy citizens and businesses appropriately. guest: and they text that middle-class extensively. the real truth is there's 21% added taxes, so 20% of every time you spend you will pay in

taxes, and that is across the income group. the real mismatch between the biden aspirations on the spending side and european model is their unwillingness to have the middle-class pay for the benefits they will receive. host: in georgia, independent line, kenny, hello. caller: if you look at the debt clock, it says the dollar to gold ratio is $33,000 per ounce. here's my question. if we could get the speculators to quit suppression and let gold be the real price it should be, couldn't u.s. sell off its gold reserves to pay off the national debt? thank you. guest: at one time, maybe, but not now. there is not an asset the federal government holds and has lots of assets, whether it is buildings, financial assets, that can solve our fiscal

problems. asset sales are a band-aid, and we have seen them at times, but they will not solve this problem. this is a problem decided by slowing the growth of spending, raising tax revenues, and nothing else will do it. host: what do you think of the cryptocurrency craze? guest: crazy. [laughter] i think the right way to think about these is that they are not currencies. current sees are things which are a stable medium of exchange, stable place to hold value, something that is readily acceptable. that does not match what is going on with these assets. these are boutique asset classes with a lot of risk. people can invest in them or not, but looking forward, there will be a digital currency. i think there is no question about it. i think the issue is going to be whether a monetary authority establishes that currency, and i'm sure the fed is looking at this closely, and whether the

dollar, in the reserve currency, the currency in which international transactions are made, will also be the digital currency of the future. host: what you think about china developing its own digital currency? guest: china has every intention of having its currency be a reserve currency if not the reserve currency. it certainly would like to establish the first digital currency and have it be the widely accepted medium of digital commerce. they are aiming to compete with the dollar. host: loretta is in cleaving, ohio. a democrats line. hello. caller: good morning, pedro. good morning, mr. eakin. i had a whole different set of questions for you, but now we are talking about finances. -- finances of the country. i don't understand. the first thing george bush did,

the sun bush -- son bush, the first thing he did was give away money and tax cuts. that was the money clinton decided to pay down the debt. then, i don't know. what is it with corporations and the 1%? they feel as if they are entitled to tax cuts every year, and they have never been paid for. it is just incredible that people forget taxes pay for the cost of government. taxes pay for the cost of government. host: thank you. guest: and that is exactly right. certainly if you rerun economic history of that when he first century, one of the first things that happened was in 2001, we saw the bush tax cuts.

that was a time when the clinton administration had run surpluses, the budget was imbalanced, a rarity for the federal government, and indeed the level of taxation was about 20% of gdp, well above the 18% or a little below that is average in the u.s.. the thinking at the time was, there is room here to cut taxes, get closer to the typical rate of 18%, and still keep the deficit outlook in check. turned out to be wrong, because what was driving the revenue was the.com bubble, a huge speculative bubble, which produced a lot of options income, bonuses, all of which had been driving tax revenues up in the late 90's, -- 1990's, and that collapsed in the 2000's. i am aware of this because i had to explain where had the money gone. that was largely an economic

fund more than tax cuts. that happens, and i think it's a lesson on the importance of prudent planning. you are not going to get in the biden budget, trump budget, obama budget, you will not get the numbers you put on the page. you have to think about what happens if we go to high or too low, and what other -- too high or too low and not paying the downside risks attention is the downside of that. host: one is to look at the internal revenue service to get the money, especially from the wealthy. what hurdles does the biden administration face with that effort? guest: i think they are on the right path. the irs does need to modernize, does need to be a more consumer-friendly entity, does need additional staffing, and all of that will be a good thing and necessary think our country. it will not raise anywhere close to the amount of money the biden administration is counting on.

they have flooded numbers as much as $700 billion over 10 years. they would be extremely fortunate to see $200 billion. that does not mean you should not do it. it should be something on someone's list -- something on everyone's list. host: why do you think it is not able to happen? guest: but -- guest: politically, it has always been difficult to invest in the government. the pay is slow, so if you are running for congress and you have two years before the next election, spending money there that is not going to be seen by your constituents is a hard sell, because what is in it for the average person? it is also true that you will have some conservatives or those interested in -- not interested in building a bigger government, so both the sides have like of energy to do that. host: this is the democrats line. caller: hello. i have a simple question.

if you can't answer it, i was wondering if c-span might be able to find out for me. i know how much equity i have in my house, so we keep hearing about how much the deficit is, so please tell me, how much is the united states worth? guest: the united states is worth the size of its economy. $2 trillion per year -- $28 trillion for as far as we can see. the question is how do we divide that value between household uses in your take-home pay and where you spend it and public uses, whether it is your state, locality, or federal government host: host: paying in taxes. the core value is what we can produce as a nation, and that is the size of the economy. tarrance in michigan, independent, high.

-- host: tarrance in michigan, independent, hi. caller: if we are not going to give obama credit, these stimulus checks, but we are going to give credit to an economy bill by trump, i would ask, did trump get an economy handed to him by obama? then i would ask, what did they hand obama from george w. bush was a last down the job? if we are going to follow the money, and he seems to think the social programs are where the money's assets, i may suggest that, for the wealth in this country, is the 1%. the military complex is only 30% of the budget, which i think is a little off. i'm not going to quibble about the dark money involved in this. the contracts that are given, we

know where the money is at. how are we going to pay for the social programs? why are these programs so expensive? but how are we going to pay more? we could probably pay more like we paid for the wars, we will just pull it out. that is my comment. host: terrence in michigan, thanks. guest: so there's this issue of attribution of blame for the economic conditions. this goes on all the time. i think the caller said it well, how much to get bush versus obama, obama versus tron, trump versus biden. i would say it is early in the biden administration. i think the stimulus checks and other aspects that came with the 1.9 chilean dollars will be too much, and -- 1.9 trillion dollars will be too much and not their best move, but it is 100 days in. the things this president wants to accomplish and take credit for i think are yet to be done.

a little patience in deciding how things went down is probably the way to do it. host: let me play you from last week at the white house, the deputy white house secretary spoke about inflation or it asked about inflation, and the biden administration's concerns about it. i will play you what she said and get you to respond. [video clip] >> when we think about the inflation and where we are currently, the president's plan is working. we are growing the economy from the bottom up, and the middle out, faster than any time in the last 40 years. we are creating an average of 500,000 jobs per month, up from 60,000 per month before he took office, before this president took office. if you look at unemployment insurance claims, they are down. americans have much needed in their pockets thanks to the american rescue plan. we are going in the right trajectory, looking at the trend. the trend is going in the right way. this is a president to understands about making sure we are not wasteful, making sure

when we think about when he was the vice president, he overlooked that stimulus recovery package back then, so he made sure there was no corruption or waste. he understands how this works, and he has a team that will be on top of this as well. host: that is the assessment, what is your response? guest: as i said before, the economy was growing at the time the american rescue plan was passed. it would have continued to grow , in my view, and didn't require stimulus of that magnitude to grow. the notion that somehow the american rescue plan, which by the way much of which has not even yet been executed, is responsible for what is going on, i think is an overstatement. those big numbers, generating $500,000 per month, growing more rapidly than the last four years, that is what happens when you come out of a deep recession. we had an enormously deep

recession. i'm not sure viewers can appreciate the historic magnitude of what they have lived through. in 1932, the worst year of the great depression, the u.s. economy contracted by 12%. in the spring of 2020, in three months, the u.s. economy contracted by 10%. we nearly experienced the worst year of the great depression in the spring of 2020. there's a lot of place to spring back from that, and that is with the economy is doing and it takes big numbers to spring back and we will see big numbers. that does not mean the administration's policies generate. host: what is the real threat or potential economic or affect? guest: inflation is a hard call. i think we have seen already asset price inflation. people have a lot of money, can't spend it, can't go out, the viruses out there, so he goes into vehicles for saving. and people say it's in the savings account not making anything, let's put it in the stock market.

or you say let's buy a house. we have seen the prices of those assets go up. the question is will it show up in bread and potatoes of the budget. we have seen some price inflation suggesting it is in the supply chain and heading toward consumers. it has not happened yet, and anyone who says we have big inflations because of the biden is not really reading the data fairly, but it is a risk they face. certainly it is a risk the federal reserve has to be cognizant of. they have been saying clearly they are going to remain extremely accommodative, not raising interest rates or pulling back on policies. they may be forced to move quicker than originally planned because of this. host: one more call from mia in california, the democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. one of the things i want to speak with your guest about is i do not know how much your guest

may be in touch with the average worker or person out on the street. one of the things that we always here, and even republicans, what i've noticed is every time it is something to help the average american out, or the average citizen, we start hearing this debt talk or deficit talk. i'm 38 and i have been hearing deficit talk since i have been able to start paying attention to politics. probably with bill clinton is when i first started paying attention to politics. it always seems like it is the same mantra, when the democrats get an office and get to doing things like the social programs, to help the average citizen out, here goes the debt monster. but we don't hear the debt monster when the republicans are there, giving away tax breaks that we can't afford to give away. we can't afford to give away anything. i don't understand why we can

give away tax breaks when we have a big deficit. another thing with covid, and i don't know everything, but it seems like america has a lot of butt-backwards politics and a way of thinking. however, with covid, if china is responsible for the covid, why can't they be financially responsible for any moneys that is lost from the covid situation? host: i will leave it there, and we will let our guest respond to that. guest: on the first point, i have a lot of sympathy for what you said. i don't pick republicans have any credibility on deficit issues because they have so clearly pay no attention to debt and deficits during the four years of the trump administration. now to turn around and say they care deeply about this is hard to buy. at this point, i would say the two major parties have no credibility on deficits in my view. no one has paid attention to this, and i would like to see

more attention from both sides of the aisle. as far as the origins of the coronavirus, i don't know. the president has asked the intelligence agencies to make a definitive assessment of where came from. if some culpability lies with china, collecting from another sovereign nation is a difficult thing to do, and my guess is there will be some effort of sanctions and some sort. there's a spotty record at best of success there. host: again, douglas holtz-eakin served as the former director of the congressional bubble -- budget office from 2003 to 2005 and is a current president of the american action forum. americanactionforum.com is their website. thank you for joining us again. guest: thank you for having me. host: until the time of our next guest, we will revisit the question when it comes to voting rights i, any effort by texas republicans to pass a change to voting rights stopped by democrats.

the governor vowing it will pass. you can talk about that but also talking about the issue of voting rights. if you want to see an expansion of the rights, give us a call at (202) 748-8000. if you want to see restrictions or more regulations in the process, (202) 748-8001. perhaps you don't think changes are needed when it comes to those rights in the united states, call us at (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's online store. your purchase will support our nonprofit organizations -- operations, and you still have time to order the congressional rectory. go to c-spanshop.org. >> today, the washington post looks at the 1921 tulsa race

massacre with the curator for the smithsonian's national museum of african-american history of culture and marielle of it -- elliot, curator of american slavery at the museum. live coverage begins at 12:30 eastern on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our question is based in part over lengths -- events of the last few days concerning the attempt to pass voting rights regulation -- legislation in that state. the texas tribune reporting emerging from the negotiation from the house and senate in texas, a gop priority bill to enact new restrictions on voting will be on what each chamber originally passed to curtail voting options and that now includes even more voting law changes. democrats walking out of session on sunday in order to keep the bill from being passed. the governor saying it will -- at least he would like to see it passed in those issues resolved.

in terms of a special session is concerned. you can talk about that, but the larger issue of voting rights as part of this as well. there's a piece in the texas tribune, stephanie gomez saying when talking about this instance of texas, texans have been silenced and sidelined throughout this legislative session. at every turn, a lack of transparency and accountability with a thinly veiled attempt at the democratic process. we cannot let the big lie lobbyists and jim crow revivalists call the shots. the enemies of our democracy are ruthless and cannot be held offer lever -- off forever. without the right to ensure our elections are fair and secure, democracy is in peril everywhere. she is referencing the piece of legislation that passed the house, hr one, that senator chuck schumer says will force a vote on that in the senate when the senate returns from its break.

wall street journal for its part, putting an editorial in the paper taking a look at what is going on in texas. writing saying the texas bill is imperfect and no election law since the exercise involves allowing -- the point is that it is hard to take seriously the president was a narrative about an assault on democracy in stay they gives voters two weeks to cast a vote. it goes on to say looking forward then to a more overheated rhetoric from partisans like mr. biden, but remember, his histrionics are intended to get political coverage to democrats in congress who want to override 50 state election laws jamming through hr one on a partisan wrote -- vote. you can talk about what is going on in texas specifically and expanded to the larger issue of voting rights if you wish. you can call the lines if you wish. if you say expansion is needed, (202) 748-8000. is number to call if you say morrill -- is the number to call.

if you say more regulation is needed, (202) 748-8001. if you don't think changes are needed, (202) 748-8002. you can text us as well at -- >> so even expanding beyond where they are because i think the younger people are actually more -- getting more involved on the internet and all of the exposure they have, and the fact they're still in school at 16, it would be best to start voting at 16, get them started, get them registered in schools, teach them about voting, make that part of the fabric of the education that they are getting, so once they get out, they can continue with their voting. that will help with

registration, that will help with a lot of things, but i'm not going to going to the changes they are putting through in texas, because that is just depressing. host: from ad in akron, ohio wants to see a restriction. good morning. you are next up. caller: thanks for taking my call. i don't know if it is so much restrictions would change some of the rules. some states can count the votes overnight, and some states might take, you know a few weeks. i think any party that wins big at the polls and they keep coming up with more and more paper ballots or more and more votes, wherever they come from, are going to feel like maybe their vote has been stolen or the election has been stolen. that is all i got. host: so should there be a requirement to count votes within -- he hung up. let's hear from phil in california. he says expand rights.

good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call, pedro. yes, i think the voting rights extended and expanded to all legal american citizens. my wife and i vote by mail for many years, and i think that's the appropriate thing for the country. i get the impression that republicans are trying to restrict rights to vote, yet they are really pushing expanding gun sales. in other words, they're pushing one thing in one direction, and trying to restrict something in another. i think the voting rights needs to be expanded. host: as far as the expansion, are you specifically talking about mail-in voting or other aspects? caller: i'm speaking about mail-in voting, but also in particular in rural communities, it is rather difficult for some people, particularly older people, to be able to get to a

place to drop off their ballots. i think a way for them to be picked up is certainly appropriate as an agency or someone going around, volunteers. host: so-called third-party gathering of votes? caller: that's correct. i think it is important for american citizens to be able to vote. that is one of the first things that comes to mind as being an american citizen that our founding fathers wanted us to have is the right to vote. and i think since being emphasized, no restriction. host: fill in california giving his thoughts, let's hear from joe in florida on the don't change line. hi. caller: how are you? host: i am well thanks. caller: just wanted to mention, i think i think everyone should vote. there's no doubt about it, but there is also a level of

integrity that has to be maintained. to be able to vote. folks like frankly the knucklehead we just talked about who want to basically get of the skate or hide -- it doesn't matter if there is a level of integrity or not behind the process or don't hide their -- have their eyes open. we can see in georgia where they had watered down the level of voter verification, and the level of signature on -- signature matching. forget about the stole the election stuff. the issue was around people in this country losing their confidence from voting. my mom in florida voted by mail for many, many years, and that is what we want. at the same time, we want to have the level of integrity that makes sure who is voting is an actual votes. host: joe in florida giving his thoughts, particularly on mail by vote. telling the experience of his mom.

you can add yours to the mix as well when it comes to voting rights. our next caller from ohio, brian. he says restrict the rights. caller: i'm with the last guy, not so much restrictions. the problem is you have to have identification in everything you do in this country. i don't care what it is. when it comes to the most important comes to the most important thing in this country, we don't need no id? we don't need to prove anything? that's where the integrity is lost. i believe you need id, you need verification to elect the high officials, the most important people in our country. people need to realize that and we need id to buy cigarettes and pay hospital bills. we need id to go anywhere and do anything. you need id to pick the most

powerful people in our country, that's common sense. host: brian in ohio. on the health side -- on the house side there is a subcommittee on elections and they held a hearing on the topic of voter identification, both of the majority and minority had a chance to invite people to testify on the topic. for that hearing that chair and ranking member had a chance to comment on the topic of voter id. here are their thoughts. cracks since the supreme court in 2013 in the case of shelby county verse -- a number of states have adopted very strict voter id laws requiring voters to present a qualifying voter id in order to vote. some doing so immediately after the court's decision. voter id laws have been shown to disproportionately burden minority voters.

that is a demonstrated fact. i don't believe there are many experts who would dispute that. voter id laws have been shown to disproportionately burden minority voters. african-american, latino, and native american voters, for example, are less likely to have qualifying forms of id. they are particularly burdened by the cost of obtaining ids. studies have shown that strict voter id laws disproportionately decrease minority turnout. we should all be concerned. >> 36 states require some form of voter id to vote. in 2020 we saw more people cast their vote than in any presidential election in history. voter turnout increased in every state including some of the sharpest increases occurring in states that required voter id. further dispelling the myth that

voter id laws deter voting, voter and -- voting increased among all age groups. -- the written ash -- i think it's clear that voter id does not deter people from legally voting. the data does not support it, common sense does not support it, and i think the american people know that. among the states that ask for id to vote is my state of wisconsin as well as the home state of the president, delaware. connecticut, rhode island, new hampshire, and the list goes on. for this hearing i will reiterate what i have said at previous hearings. republicans want to ensure that every eligible person who wants to vote is able to cast a vote and we make sure that every lawful ballot is counted according to state law. we want to make sure it's easy to vote and hard to cheat. host: more to that hearing including the testimony of

experts if you want to go to our website at c-span.org you can do that to find out more about the topic of voting rights. for the next 15 minutes when it comes to voting rights in the u.s., should there be an expansion of more regulation, or perhaps don't change the rules. pick the phone line that best represents you. you can also reach out via text, twitter, and facebook. many stories in the newspaper about greenwood, oklahoma, the site of the tulsa race massacre, this story from usa today. "successful entrepreneurs who had turned the 35 block area into tulsa's black wall street were left with nothing as white attackers looted homes and businesses before setting the whole area on fire. churches burned, an elderly couple killed in their home and families seized by guards who took furnishings, jewelry, and cherished possessions. a century later the legacy of that weekend is still being felt after being reduced the whispers

and left out of history books for the decades. their stories are being told. that area will be the site where president biden is expected to go out today to oklahoma to talk and make comments on the tulsa race massacre on the 100th anniversary. 4:15 this afternoon is where you can see that event on c-span. you can also watch it on c-span.org, or follow along and listen on the c-span radio app. 4:15 this afternoon. go to our website for more details. russell in massachusetts says expand voting rights, you are on. caller: good morning, pedro. my thing is this, if we look in this country at what restricting things does, if we restrict more [indiscernible] we've restricted gun laws almost to the fact that it has choked out any second amendment right in this country, and we see what

is happening the shootings. when we keep restricting things nothing gets done. we need to remove those people who are restricting them. the folks who don't want to move the nra, the folks being paid by big lobbyists. as an indigenous person in this country i lost my voting rights the minute i remove myself from a reservation because i did not have a physical address under the united states voting. a lot of folks in this contrite -- native american people were put -- indigenous people were put on reservations because they did not have a physical address. most tribes -- host: if you call for expansion, what would you like to see expanded? caller: open everything, everything. i understand where folks say

illegal immigrants. being realistic with reality, if they're not indigenous everyone is illegal. of the ones here by government standards of citizenship being u.s. citizens, what have you, we need to realize and go back to our old ways. host: kenny from facebook adding to the conversation saying voting rights should not be expanded or restrict. we need laws that ensure that everyone that is voting has a legal right to do so. election integrity is the most serious issue facing our nation. more than half of the country does not believe joe biden is the legitimate president. facebook is one way to make your thoughts known on this topic. we will go to timothy in florence, oregon on our expand line. you are up. >> i didn't know what expanding meant, but the reason why, i am an honorable veteran here in oregon.

i did vote this year, i had not voted since ross perot. you didn't vote then you didn't get paid. it was this year, this 2020 i voted because i was allowed to do a mail-in ballot, being handicapped it was hard for me to go to polling areas. they worked with me and i could do it through the mail. if they have anything like that it's a good thing i think. i get to put my vote in, and that helps all of us, and god bless you and thank you for your time. host: timothy calling us and letting us know his thoughts on voting rights. you heard that previous guests make mention of the hr one bill that passed in the house. senator schumer saying, when it comes to the senate side he will force a vote on it when congress returns on its break. just to give you some elements of that bill that has been passed by the house, put into play automatic voter registration and would

strengthen early and absent male voting to protect against purchasing voter -- it would create small dollar non-public finance system for federal offices. some other elements would call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the supreme court citizens united decision and prohibit coordination between super pac's and candidates and requires states to use a redistricting commission. it would enhance resources to stave off foreign threats on elections. jim says, don't change things when it comes to voting laws. locust grove, georgia. go ahead. caller: i am 72 years old. in my lifetime, until this election, and this president i've never seen a time when we,

as americans didn't trust our vote, didn't trust the voting rights, and i think this is all about one thing. one thing, the rise of fascism in this country. i believe that's where it's coming from. host: you are calling on our line that you would say don't make changes to voting laws. is that your opinion? caller: we don't need any change. it's all about the big live. that's all it is. thank you. host: michael is next from new york on our expand line. good morning. caller: thank you, pedro. where do you start? i would like to say that our former president sold a lot of lies about election fraud. it started long before the election was over. the fact that, first of all, a famed political scientist wrote a book called "america the semi

sovereign people." that americans could perform the quietest revolution ever performed on the face of the earth by doing no more than walking across the street and voting on election day. that 51% of the people voted in this last election, that's barely a majority of the people to try to restrict peoples voting lights -- voting rights, democracy is in trouble. these laws that have been passed in texas and georgia, they may expand access, but they give the legislature the power to overturn the people's votes. host: you yourself are calling for an expansion, what would you want to see? caller: i think hr one is the one. hr one only applies to federal elections, not state elections. to say it's a federal takeover of state elections, that's false.

not only that but the fact is to give the power to the legislature to overturn that's what trump was trying to do in georgia. a republican secretary of state stood up to him. you had a guest on who does not point out that their heritage foundation did a report of elections and since 1980 there were 1322 cases of proven voter fraud out of 168 million votes cast. that's 1000th of 1%. it's a ruse. host: you mentioned a guest we had on recently to talk about hr one and his thoughts against it. here's part of the reason why. guest: hr one is a federal takeover of the administration of elections that have been run by state since our founding. the problem is it puts in all kinds of bad mandates, mandates that are dangerous to the

integrity of the election process. it also gets rid of every security and safety protocol that states have put in. if a state has a voter id law, that will now be voided. if a state requires a witness signature on an absentee ballot, that is now out the window and they can't enforce that. it requires things like same-day registration which means that states have to allow you to walk into a polling place on election day and register and immediately vote. if you combine that with the fact that you can ask anyone for an id, you're basically inviting fraud. it's the same thing with requiring states to have online voter registration. it's not tied to an existing state record on an individual, which is basically an invitation to cyber attacks and hackers getting in and committing mass fraud. host: that full program available if you want to go to

our website, c-span.org. our next caller from huntersville, north carolina. go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. i would say they should be expanded, if only to offset all of the reductions in voting that is being done now just to get back to where we were. host: reduction such as what? caller: most actual voter fraud that has been actually seen and documented or should be documented is done by republicans. i don't know why nobody is talking about that. there is the man whose mother died during the election, and he filled out her ballot and voted for trump in addition to his own. there was the man that was seen burning ballots in boxes just

before the elections. that was a trump supporter. host: what would you like to see expanded? caller: everything, everything that can be expanded to make it easier for the people to vote. we deserve to be able to vote and these republicans are doing everything they can to keep us from voting. that is not right. host: you heard one side of thoughts on hr one from the heritage foundation. here is another from the house democratic caucus chair hakeem jeffries asked about efforts to pout that -- pass that on the sunday shows. >> the texas law is shameful and republicans in texas and throughout the country want to make it harder to vote and easier to steal an election.

that's the only way i can interpret the voter suppression epidemic that we see working its way from one state, georgia, to arizona, to texas and all across the country in so many different ways. fundamental to our democracy is the right to vote and self-government. that the american people get to decide and work for a democracy that reflects the voices of all americans. not just a certain segment, not just conservatives, not just republicans or people in certain parts of the country, all americans. i support the effort to move hr one, the for the people act, which would bring to life democracy reform in a meaningful way. we will have to see what occurs in the senate in terms of whether they can get to the 60 vote threshold. the senate will have some decisions to make in terms of reviewing their arcane procedures that traditionally

have been used to uphold institutions like slavery and jim crow. >> to translate for people at home, congressman jeffries opposes the filibuster and is hoping there could be filibuster reform. host: when it comes to that texas effort, the governor, greg abbott, earlier this week saying to efforts to get it passed "i declared election integrity and bail reform to be must pass emergency items for this legislative session. it is deeply disappointing and concerning for texans that neither will reach my desk, ensuring the integrity of our elections and reforming a broken bail system remain emergencies in texas. legislators will be expected to have worked out the details when they arrive at the capitol for a special session. connie is next from illinois. hello, go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a problem with them wanting to change to automatic voter registration. a good example, it's not because

i worry about fraud, but accidents happen. i'm here in illinois. if you are an undocumented immigrant, you can get a drivers license. a few years ago our secretary of state, jesse white, decided automatic voter registration cards would go out to people who got drivers licenses. guess what. several went out to undocumented immigrants. they did vote and in a few cases they voted twice. that may not seem like it would make a difference, but one person, and one county that that happened in one by one vote. it does happen. i have a problem with automatic registration. as far as id, everyone has a social security card. my grandkids got them when they were born. you can't get anything without your social security card. that would not be hard.

i just think that mistakes happen. they just do. i have a big problem with that. host: we will have to leave it there. thank you for calling and the rest of you who called we appreciate your time and engaging on the topic. we go onto feature another guest in just a few moments. we will hear from friends of the earth senior program manager chloe waterman. she discusses president biden's policies when it comes to animal agriculture. that discussion coming up. ♪ [washington journal theme plays] [gavel sound] announcer: c-span's "landmark cases" explores the drama behind significant supreme court decisions. watch key episodes from our series sunday at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, shank versus

the united states, the case that allows the government in times of war to limit freedom of speech. the court upheld the arrest of an activist who handed out leaflets urging young men to oppose the draft. watch "landmark cases" on c-span or listen with the c-span radio app. ♪ [fireworks] announcer: washington journal continues. host: joining us is chloe

waterman, she is with friends of the earth, client friendly food program senior manager. thank you for joining us today. chloe: thank you, pedro. host: start with your organization, what it is, and how you are funded and supported. chloe: friends of the earth is an environmental and social justice organization founded in 1969 working here in the u.s. to build a healthy and just world including a healthy and just food system. we are funded not by government at all, but we are funded by our individual members and supporters who give us money and through grants from foundations. >> we are here to invite you to talk about issues of climate change and how it intersects with animal agriculture. can you talk about that intersection and how it happens? chloe: absolutely, everyone knows fossil fuels are a big contributor to climate change but fewer people know about the role of animal agriculture in

driving climate change. globally, animal agriculture accounts for between a quarter and a third of global greenhouse gas emissions. livestock alone counts for -- accounts for 14.5%, more than the entire transportation sector combined. all the omissions from the tailpipes of trains, planes, cars, buses, and automobiles in the world. we need to make sure that animal agriculture is central to our strategy for addressing climate change. host: i don't mean to be gory, but when you say omissions, is this because of defecation, belching? chloe: there are omissions, we have to look up and down the supply chain. the first place these omissions come from is the clearing of land to grow corn and soy for animal feed. that is land that often is sequestering carbon that is then

converted into land to grow these monocultures of soy and corn. they use pesticides and fertilizer that is energy intensive. that feed goes to feed the animals. absolutely the animals have these omissions, that is the burbs and parts of the cows while they are alive. these are breeding animals that are living and they are high on matters of methane which is a greenhouse gas that is 80 times as potent as carbon dioxide. these animals do have a big footprint when it comes to carbon dioxide and methane and other greenhouse gas omissions. >> the amount you cited previously as far as their contribution, what kind of science has been done on this? >> there is a consensus in the science that animal agriculture plays a huge role in this. the number i cited earlier is from the preeminent global

authority on climate change, the intergovernmental plan will on climate change. they produced an important report in 2019 that showed that in order to meet the paris agreement targets we not only have to engage in climate smart agriculture practices, we have to maintain healthy soils and transition to organic agriculture. we have to make sure we use rotational grazing and responsible management of livestock. we also have to shift the types of foods we are growing and have to transition away from the factory farming system and the way we produce animals in this country to an agriculture system that is regenerative that grows plant foods not things that go to feed animals. host: you have talked about the biden administration and what they want to do, how much have they dedicated to this topic of animal agriculture, and is it enough? chloe: i'm afraid they haven't

done nearly enough. the usda issued a 90 day progress report on its climate strategy. there was no mention about any kind of regulation for animal agriculture, tracking of omissions, efforts to reduce omissions. there was nothing in there about a transition away from factory farming. there are members of congress working and leading on this. senator booker has the farm systems reform act he plans to reintroduce in congress this month which initiates a just transition away from factory farming to a diversified, regenerative, and sustainable agriculture. president biden has not picked up on that strategy. we are not going to be able to succeed on our climate strategy unless we address animal agriculture. we are worried we haven't seen that so far and are hoping to work with the administration to make sure those strategies are included in its climate plan.

host: our guest with us until 10:00. if you want to ask questions, republicans, (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000, and independents (202) 748-8002. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. what about secretary of agriculture tom vilsack? where do you think he is on this? chloe: secretary vilsack has in his previous terms not been strong on this issue. as you mentioned, he comes from iowa, just before he took this job he was working for big dairy. we are really hoping that sec. vilsack will break with his ways of the past. you have to confront these industries in order to be successful on climate. he says climate change and racial justice are among his top priorities but we have not seen those included in his agency

strategies for addressing the biggest crisis that is affecting this generation. host: part of the issue is to talk about where the u.s. is philosophically on the topic of meat, and can you change that? chloe: sure. there are many americans who are wanting to eat less meat and incorporate less meat in their diets. the consolation of policies has a big effect on what ends up on our dinner plates every night. the majority of americans want to incorporate more plant-based proteins in their diet. almost nobody is eating as many fruits and vegetables as is recommended by the dietary guidelines. we don't even produce enough fruits and vegetables in order to give every american enough for the dietary guidelines recommendation. that is usda's own policy, its right hand on the production

side policy and what it is subsidizing and choosing to support is not aligned with what it is recommending for a healthy diet. >> there is a response to the overall topic from a joint press release from the national cattlemen's beef association and the public lands council he'll write that direct omissions from cattle account for only 2% of the united states greenhouse gas omissions and that livestock raising significantly improves soil health increasing the capacity of grasslands to sequester carbon out of the atmosphere and saying that last year corn growing to feed beef cattle represented only 7% of harvested corn and grain in the u.s., how do you respond? >> i would can -- chloe: i would contest their numbers. the epa estimate for the amount of omissions associated with beef, they are not counting important sources of omissions. they are not counting what we would consider the carbon opportunity cost. all of that land that is going

into producing that corn and soy and is being used for grazing, what would be the alternative use of that land? that land could be sequestering carbon, bringing carbon into the soil and set of being a net a meter. that is not counted. the number that cattlemen are referring to is under counting the impact of methane which is a very potent greenhouse gas. livestock production according to the epa is the greatest source of methane pollution in the country, which is a greenhouse gas we have to control in short order if we are going to be successful in addressing climate. to respond to their second point around soil health, if i could add onto that. we believe there is a rule for livestock production in a sustainable climate. pasture raised livestock absolutely can have carbon sequestration benefits if done correctly. that is disingenuous to refer to the benefits of that when 99% of

the meat production in this country is happening in these concentrated animal feeding operations or factory farms where hundreds of thousands sometimes millions of animals are cramped into unsanitary conditions and pumped full of antibiotic submitting waste into our waters and streams creating noxious mills that make your eyes water and your nose burn. absolutely there is a role for pasture based livestock. that is a very small proportion of the livestock in this country. that's one of the things abide in administration can do, help farmers transition from this environmental catastrophe of factory farms to a sustainable and pasture based livestock production and production of other foods people can put on their tables. caller: we havoc -- host: we have a call from georgia on a republican line. you are on with our guest. caller: yes sir. we have a tree that is called a

swamp white oak that produces acorns the size of pecans. those trees don't require fertilizer. they have to be cross pollinated , that means you can't grow a single tree and get a fruit off of it. that tree is looking like it's going to be probably definitely across the sun belt, because we can't grow corn or soybeans down here because of the jet stream moves north during the summer months. like they can in iowa or nebraska. the sunbelt, we have to put water, and that's another issue. i think we are going to have to look for a different crop, and it is probably going to be the swamp guaido, those of the same

trees they pent -- planted at the 9/11 memorial. host: lewis from georgia, thank you for the call. caller: -- chloe: thanks for the call. i think the things you brought up around the scarcity of water is an important point i would like to pick up on. animal agriculture is one of the greatest drivers of water usage and water quality which is becoming an increasingly scarce resource in a climate with natural disasters happening more often than they have in the past due to our changing climate. the other point that lewis brings up is the importance of having diversified agriculture. as the climate changes we need to make sure we invest in research and development and having diversified agriculture resilient to the impacts of climate change so we can sustain our agricultural system and have healthy soils for future generations. host: as far as the biden administration what policies are being consider or would you like

to see considered to make these changes? chloe: there's a real shortage of policies that the administration is currently considering that are looking to shift subsidies away from factory farming. we need to really ramp up our spending and conservation programs and help farmers transition to climate smart practices in that stuff is included in the plan. to help farmers transition to climate smart agriculture practices. we need greater investment and are conservation programs. we need to look at procurement. it's a gory topic to some but the u.s. government is likely the largest purchaser of food in the world. right now a lot of that purchasing power is going towards purchasing food that is running counter to our climate goals and racial justice goals and nutrition security. we need to leverage that purchasing power in the same way we have done for clean energy and energy efficient vehicles, to also buy sustainably grown

food. we need to look at school food. we are feeding 7 billion meals to kids every year, that is a massive amount of food. these kids want more plant-based options. 79% of gen z people are trying to go plant-based one day a week. only 4% of entrees in california are plant-based. mostly not butter and jelly. let's meet the demand in public feeding operations so the students and people already dependent on the government to set menus for what they eat have access to these healthy and more sustainably grown foods. there is a lot biden could be doing. host: i am sure farmers tell you that what you are proposing would affect their livelihood, what would you say to them? chloe: absolutely, and we need to make this transition just. it's a similar concept when we think about coal miners. we know we need to transition

away from coal to renewable and clean energy. we are not going to do it overnight and were not going to do it in a way that leaves people behind. we need to help farmers transition to different types of farming. they can transition to types of farming more profitable than what they do now. many of the farmers, and the chicken industry there is a lot of contract producers trapped in these abusive contracts with these companies. a lot of these farmers would love an alternative and that's a big part of the role of government, to help them transition. think about our transition away from big tobacco. there were buyouts of tobacco farms and support for farmers that did use that industry for their livelihood. we recognize that this is a product that is creating social problems that is creating health problems and creating in the case of meat, environmental issues. we need to have adjust transition but we do need it to transition away and make sure that those farmers and the workers dependent on it are

taken care of and move into industries that i think in many cases are not only going to be more environmentally friendly, but more profitable, and safer to work in. >> from keith in alabama on the republican line for our guest. keith, go ahead. caller: i am a cattle producer. the amount of methane coming out of people rear ends, what does that do for the environment? sounds to me like some buddies on some kind of smoking something. host: how many cattle do you produce? caller: about 100. host: it's your main livelihood? caller: no, you could never make a living off that. host: if these changes were made, how would it impact that side of your business? caller: there already ain't no money in them.

everyone i know that raises cows has at least three or four other businesses going. it's not something you want to try to do for a living. host: that's keith from alabama. chloe: thank you for your call, and thank you for being a producer of the food that feeds people. i am sympathetic to what keith is saying. it's hard to make a profit in a lot of farming, especially when you are small-scale like keith is, 100 head of cattle. this industry has become so concentrated with a small number of companies controlling so many of the resources in this industry that makes it hard for small-scale farmers and farmers who are using these environmentally friendly practices for socially disadvantaged producers and producers of color to compete in this market. we need to break up these big food companies --

make sure there are way smaller farmers can compete with that. to the question about methane emissions, there are other sources of methane production, the second-largest source is natural gas and petroleum, that still follows after animal agriculture. that's a place we need to focus when it comes to reducing methane emissions. host: democrats line from raleigh, north carolina. caller: do you know how much agribusiness gives to both parties? i don't see any chance of any major reform without campaign-finance reform. chloe: thanks for the question, bob. i completely agree. as these companies have grown and become more concentrated, as i was mentioning, so has their political power. we have the chinese owned smithfield and the brazilian owned effort displacing

indigenous people in the amazon. tysons foods -- tyson foods has incredible lobbying and political power. tyson, during the pandemic where it was treating workers in egregious ways and not providing them with the ability to distance, they were lobbying the government to increase the line speeds, which usda granted to several meat processing plants in the height of the pandemic. i think you're absolutely right, these corporations have huge lobbying power. i think there is opportunity to push back on the industry in the same way we have pushed back on the fossil fuel industry and been able to regulate that industry even though they have immense power. we should be able to regulate animal agriculture. our bedrock environmental protection laws are the clean air and water act. we are not really tracking omissions associated with animal agriculture at this time. we are really far behind and i do think there is progress we

can make, but we absolutely have to address money in politics and curb the political power of the big meatpacking companies. host: on the independent line, jon vera beach, florida. caller: my defense -- my question relates to the department of agriculture and the states and if there are any states taking proactive measures to encourage more sustainable raising of meat products, and also reducing the environmental impact? chloe: absolutely. one thing i would point to is many states are looking at healthy soils legislation and one healthy soils practice is managed raising and pasture based animal agriculture. you have to transition away from one type of production to a sustainable amount. we do need to have less animal

production, but a sustainable amount of pasture based animal production, some states are leading the way on this. what we are missing from the federal government and from the states is that bold and transformational vision of shifting away from these factory farms to different types of agricultural production. we need to help farmers make that transition and make it profitable and give them technical assistance and support in transitioning. we don't have time to tinker around the edges which is what i think the biden administration's plans for animal agriculture amount to now. we can't look at these counterproductive technology measures like factory farm biogas to buy a set problem. we need to tackle the issue head-on and curb factory farming. thank you for the question. host: on commercials for plant-based meats, you see them

featured in restaurants. talk about the current state of how much that's being offered as an alternative. where do you see growth from that going forward? chloe: over the last 10 years plant-based options went from appearing on 1% of restaurant menus to more than 10% of menus. the plant-based food sector has been growing year-over-year about 20% compared to 1% to 2% growth in the food sector overall. the demand for plant-based foods is growing rapidly and we need to supply to grow just as rapidly. i think we will see this trend continue. people are wanting to incorporate more cap -- plant-based sources of protein in their diets. some are wanting to for health reasons other for environmental and animal welfare. more people are demanding this and we need to invest and make sure the supply is there so that people can easily have affordable access to these options. host: are there unintended

consequences? i figure if this continues we will need more land and water and other things to make these plants go, wouldn't that affect concerns about agriculture and environmental issues? chloe: actually, no. as far as these products are displacing some factory farmed animal products they are going to use a lot less land and be associated with a lot fewer greenhouse gas omissions and less water usage. if we transition to plant-based products that actually clears up land that can be used for direct food production that can be set aside to sequester carbon. the shift towards more plant-based foods might shift some of what we are growing, but it will result in less taxation of our natural resources than the current system of industrial animal agriculture. host: brian is in massachusetts

on the republican line for our guest. caller: thank you for letting me talk. i would like to ask ms. chloe waterman how many courses she has had in soil science or animal science. she throws out term like factory farming, can she define factory farming? what does that mean? it appears that she has a vegan agenda. i will take my answers off line please. chloe: yeah sure, thanks for the call, brian. just to clarify, friends of the earth is not promoting a vegan agenda or vegan diets et al.. we take a philosophy of less and better meet. as i mentioned earlier we see a role for animal agriculture in a sustainable environment. we do want to transition away from factory farms in particular. you asked me to defined that

term and i'm glad you asked. factory farms we used interchangeably with the term concentrated animal feeding operations. these are facilities where thousands, sometimes millions of animals are cramped into crowded and unsanitary conditions and pumped full of antibiotics. 80% of antibiotics produced in this country are fed to farm animals. not because they are sick, but they are kept in conditions where we expect they may get sick. the problem with concentrating a lot of animals is you concentrate all of their waist and everything they produce. the state of iowa, the pigs produce mormon newer than all human waste combined in iowa. there is not really a plumbing system in place for those pig factory farms. where does that waste go? it seeps into our waterways it is our water and air resources and harms the local communities

around those areas that are disproportionately communities of color. it should not be a surprise to us that factory farms are disproportionately in low income men black and brown communities. it lowers the property value and they are an environmental and social disaster. we don't want to push a vegan agenda on everybody by any means. we just want to transition away from this particularly destructive way of raising animals in these concentrated animal feeding operations or factory farms. host: what your organization call for less production of livestock itself or a reduction of livestock, pigs and the like? chloe: absolutely. we do need to eat less meat. in the u.s. we can -- consume 2.6 times as much meat as the global average and it's not a sustainable amount from a nutritional perspective and climate perspective. we do advocate for replacing

some of the meat in our diets with plant-based sources of protein in alignment with the usda recommendations. host: from washington, d.c. ralph is next for our guest. caller: hi, interesting conversation. what i tend to see is a lot of [indiscernible] in the environmental area. we need to look at wider solutions. i do agree the government can have a hand. if you look at some of what the government has done, you look at ethanol, ethanol is marginally effective and the energy put inverse the energy out just encourages mono cropping of corn. it has really backfired. there were studies done on seaweed, adding seaweed to cow feed and they found it nearly eliminated the ethanol production, it's a win-win

situation. seaweed reduces -- reduces carbon dioxide it adduces methane in the cows. trying to get to congress, good luck with that. we are facing an environmental crisis. there are small things the government can do. one is to pass a tax on plastic so plastic can be recycled. it will never happen because of special interests. the other one which is my pet peeve is a technology called molten salt reactors, which is a form of nuclear reactor developed in the 60's and 70's. it would eliminate all the forms of nuclear reactors. they can't explode, they are nonproliferation and have a 500 year half-life of material used and they can burn nuclear waste. host: he put a lot out there, we will let our guest respond. chloe: thanks for your call,

ralph. i agree that the mono cropping of corn to produce ethanol has not worked. it's not been effective in reducing omissions and it has crated a host of other problems associated with that mono cropping like the use of pesticides and fertilizers and they have been decimating pollinator populations which are crucial to the future of agriculture. ralph did mention that there are technologies that are being developed to potentially reduce the emissions associated with animal agriculture. we should be researching those things. i would caution the biden administration and listeners not to pin too much on technology is yet to be proven that can often have adverse consequences. one of the technologies that the biden administration and secretary vilsack have been leaving on so far in their climate plan for agriculture is factory farm biogas.

the idea of taking anaerobic digesters that can convert maneuver into energy. it sounds good but the problem is in order for these to be economically sustainable they have to be subsidized and they require an almost constant supply of manure. that just further concentrates animals around these and encourages more livestock production. where are these located, disproportionately in communities of color. these are just further entrenching this harmful system of factory farming when we need to move away from it. i would put feeding seaweed to cows in a similar bucket. that may reduce their omissions marginally, but we need a transformational shift and we need that to happen in short order -- short order. we have nine years left to take bold action in order to avoid truly catastrophic climate change. we can't afford to tinker around the edges with these

technologies when we know the solution is to move away from factory farming and industrial animal production. host: one of the things we saw during the discussion of pollutants in the air was a cap and trade program in an effort for a reduction. is there a similar type of effort being made in the agricultural field? >> there is and i'm afraid that it may have done damage in the same way many of the cap and trade laws have done in california and europe. there is talk and a bill in congress that has been gaining steam to create new carbon markets. the problem is it still allows the big polluters to just pay to pollute and they are going to pollute in low income communities. that's what we see with the california cap and trade law which has funded projects like these methane digesters that are harmful to rural communities and entrenched factory farming.

why create this new carbon market scheme that can so easily be gamed by big players in and as other callers have pointed out they have so much corporate control over the system. who supports these carbon markets are the big agribusiness is because they see profit. this is not going to help everyday farmers. we are asking the biden administration to invest in our proven conservation programs. we have great conservation programs that are politically popular in the u.s. that require a lot more investment given the urgency of addressing climate change. we are proposing that is the more straightforward, more effective solution and the more environmentally just solution as opposed to creating new carbon markets that will benefit big polluters. host: our next viewer is from chico, california. go ahead. caller: i would like to point out, in the first place, i am against factory farming because

it is cruel. 200 years ago there were millions of buffalo, deer, elk, wild, ruminant animals that far every day -- every couple of minutes. i don't think cows are any worse than millions of buffalo, they were all over the continent. not just on the prairie. i don't think you ever considered that as compared to cows. they also pollute when they poop all over the place including in the streams and in the waters. you need to make comparisons sometimes. host: betty, thank you. chloe: thanks for your call, betty. i appreciate your awareness of the factory farming issue and

thinking about this. i would go back to the numbers that the epa offers around the current emissions. i can't speak to what the emissions were associated with the buffalo when those populations were larger, but we know that cows, these are human caused omissions because we have -- we are the ones raising cows to feed us. livestock through manure management and fermentation are the largest sources of methane emissions according to the epa. host: you talked about efforts on capitol hill, do you have the ear of legislators to your cause, particularly on this issue, who is listening on this? chloe: we are starting to gain traction and there are members of congress in the house and senate that are starting to take this issue on in a more serious way. i mentioned earlier that senator booker plans to reintroduce his farm systems reform act which is a really important bill that

sets the course for the transformation we need away from the factory farming system to sustainable and pasture raised livestock production and production of plant-based foods that will be healthier for people. it does this in a way that centers justice and centers issues that farmers and ranchers are facing, as an earlier caller mentioned we have to make sure that the people who are dependent economically on this industry are taken care of. that is one piece of legislation to look out for. this is the year that congress is taking up child nutrition and looking at ways to improve our school meal programs. there is a lot of opportunity there. only a small portion of meals served at school are plant-based despite growing demand from students and school foodservice professionals that want to offer the options that need the support from usda and congress to do so.

we expect to see legislation to create new grant programs and opportunities to support school districts in serving plant-based options and meeting the demand. that's another place to look out for. last i will mention the infrastructure package. there is opportunity in the infrastructure package to look at the government's own procurement and the power the government has over the supply chains that the federal government is at the end of, where it is the purchaser. would love to see the government leverage that purchasing power to buy food that is better for people and better for the planet. host: this is christopher in ann arbor, michigan on the democrats line. caller: yes, hello. [indiscernible] to not acknowledge that is to not acknowledge the color purple. my question is, if you have a magic button, what happens to

the livestock? cows, chickens, pigs, what happens to them, if you had a magic button. i just got done eating a plant-based salad for breakfast. i would have no problem swiping out -- swapping out beef, chicken, pork for a plant-based diet. i'm also concerned being a christian about the livestock's that are left. chloe: thanks for your question, and thanks for your concern. in this hypothetical situation of a magic button, maybe we would be in trouble, but there is no magic button. we are talking about a gradual transition that is going to happen. it needs to happen fast because of the time limit, the ticking time bomb that is the threat of climate change, but we are not

talking about this change overnight and the animals raised for meat in this country have short lifespans. we wouldn't just be left with a bunch of roaming cows and chickens across this country. we are breeding and producing these animals in very short order. we would do this in a way that is just for the animals as well. we are talking about transitioning away to a different type. if we stop breeding and raising these animals for food then they won't be breeding and propagating on their own. host: bonnie is in pennsylvania, republican line. good morning, go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. quick question, how can we get our dogs and cats out of this commodity category so they can't be sold as a cow or a pig or a

horse and have to be treated humanely in these puppy mills? how can we get these places closed down and put them out of business. these animals i guess are considered a commodity, especially the dogs. chloe: thanks for your question, bonnie. you mentioned the issue of puppy mills, where dogs are raised in commercial bleeding -- breeding facilities. that's not an issue friends of the earthworks on, but i think it's important to point out that we have a lot of moral concern for dogs and cats in this country and we find it completely unacceptable, i agree that it is unacceptable for dogs to be raised in puppy mills where they are bred continually and have their puppies taken away from them and not afforded adequate veterinary care and protection from the elements and things like that. i think if we work to extend the same consideration to animals that is where a lot of people

come to their concern about factory farming as well. cows and pigs and chickens, these are intelligent animals that feel pain as well. we need to honor their lives. if they are being sacrificed to feed us we need to make sure they live lives that are not completely engrossed in pain. that means that transition away from factory farming where they are kept in these intolerable conditions and shiny kate -- tiny cages. they're also producing all this waste and causing these environmental harms. whether you look at it from animal welfare or from an environmental perspective are health perspective, there are so many reasons we need to transition our agriculture system to be regenerative and organic and humane. host: this is from martha in tennessee. martha, we are running short on time so jump in. caller: i was just going to tell

miss waterman that i am a christian, i read the bible, i know revelations says there will be rumors of wars, there will be hurricanes, there will be tornadoes, there will be earthquakes, there will be all of this happening, and it will continue on. host: how does that address the topic at hand? caller: nothing she can do to this environment today will stop god from bringing all this about and it will come faster and faster. host: ok, that's martha from tennessee. chloe: martha, i'm going to have to disagree with you on the point that there's nothing we can do about this. the science is clear that the climate is changing. we have nine years left to really take bold action in order to avoid the catastrophe that climate change will bring on with hurricanes and wildfires that we are already seeing.

we can't leave any solution left on the table when it comes to this issue. we can't afford it for the next generation. this is the determinant presidency when it comes to climate change and making sure that this climate is livable for future generations. i would posit that we can have an impact here and one of the crucial ways of doing so is by addressing the emissions associated with animal agriculture. otherwise we won't successful on climate and we have to be. host: our guest's with friends of the earth, chloe waterman, she is the senior project manager, action.org -- thank you for the conversation today. host: this afternoon, president biden is visiting elsa, oklahoma as part of the 100th -- visiting tulsa, oklahoma as part of the 100 anniversary of the tulsa

race massacre. you can see it on c-span, you can see it at c-span.org. if you want to listen along to the event later this afternoon, you conducive -- you can do so at our free app, the c-span radio app. you can get it from google play or the apple store and listen along as well. we do want to let you all know also that tomorrow on the program, we are going to feature a representative from the national beef association from the side of a beef producer. just a few moments from now, we are going to show you an interview featuring the federal reserve vice chair of supervision randal quarles, talking about economic output. we will take you there now. >> it is also sparking fears of inflation and bubbles. joining me is