p.m. eastern on c-span. ♪ >> weekends on c-span2 par -- c-span2 are an intellectual feast. on sundays, the book tv gives you the latest on nonfiction authors. learn, discover, explore weekends on c-span2. ♪ >> washington journal continues. : we are back with john lott, who is the president of the crime prevention research center and is here with us this morning to discuss gun violence in the united states. john, good morning. guest: thank you for having me on. i appreciate it. host: tell us what the crime prevention research center is, where you get your funding and

exactly what you do. guest: we are about eight years old. we are group of academics from around the country, harvard, the university of chicago, the wharton business school, some places i have taught myself, former chief economist for the u.s. sentencing commission. i recently worked as an advisor to the department of justice. we know where the data is on lots of things. we cover a lot of crime issues, everything from police shootings and gun control, to vote fraud type issues. host: we know gun issues are controversial in the united states. you recently ended up going to what you thought was a commencement address and it turned out to be something else. tell us what happened without. guest: for years, i have been trying to get debates with gun control groups, they refuse to debate you.

they have an agreement among themselves not to debate me. i cannot tell you the number of times i have gotten calls from tv networks to come in and do a show and then be disinvited when they are told the gun control groups will not debate me on tv. what happened in this case was a very elaborate, very expensive hoax that a gun control group put together to get me to do a dress rehearsal for a commencement address in las vegas. they set up a very good looking website that was there to get me to believe there was a school. they spent a lot of money on 20 staff members, big banners for the school, multiple tv cameras when i was there. i agreed to give a commencement talk to what i thought was a large graduating class of about

2000 high school seniors in las vegas. i thought, originally, i was going to give the type of talk i would give to my kids on how to pick a career and be successful. but then they asked me if i would go and give something about background checks, the name of the school was james madison, they wanted me to talk about james madison's role with the second amendment. i told him i was not comfortable doing that because i do not think it is appropriate to give talks for commencement addresses that people perceive as being political. in any case, i finally agreed to do it. then they asked me to get down there a day earlier and i did. i gave the address. a 15 minute address. they ended up cutting it down into less than one minute of me talking. and they really distorted what i said.

i can give you an example. one thing they have in the cuts is about background checks and me talking about gun control groups fighting tooth and nail against me on that. they completely reversed the meaning. anybody who has seen me talk about background checks knows i always say everybody wants to stop dangerous people from getting guns. there is no question about that. i do not believe background checks work very well but if they make people feel better, that is fine. the problem is the current system is a mess. when biden 1.5 weeks ago talked about the 3 million prohibited people that have been stopped from buying guns because of background checks, that is simply false. what he should say is there have been 3 million initial denials and virtually all of those are

false positives. about 99% of those are mistakes. it is one thing to stop a felon from buying guns. it is another thing to stop a person simply because they have a name similar to a felon from buying guns. those mistakes overwhelmingly occur against black males and hispanic males. it is a simple fix. have the federal government meet the same standards for doing background checks that private companies have to meet. if private companies have an error rate that is 1/100 the rate of the federal government, they would be sued. gun control groups will fight you tooth and nail against these reasonable, simple fixes. there is no reason 3.5 million law-abiding americans are improperly stopped from being

able to buy a gun to protect themselves and their families. they can appeal, but most people will need a lawyer. you are talking about starting costs of $3000 or more they're having to spend through no fault of their own. through my point -- they cut out the part about fighting against simple fixes -- they reversed the meaning of what i said. host: let's talk about what is going on right now with the uptick in deaths. over 10,000 people have been killed in the u.s. over the first half of the year. we have a cnn story that says more than 230 people were fatally shot over the fourth of july weekend. what is causing this uptick? what is going on? guest: it is an uptick in violence across the board. gun deaths, or gun violence represents 10% of all violence in the united states.

90% does not involve guns. it has been an increase across the board. there is a simple reason -- last year, in many urban areas, more than half the inmates a been released from jail. police have been ordered to stand down or that budgets cut. you have that prosecutors in many major urban areas from philadelphia, to chicago, to st. louis, to san francisco come up to portland come up to seattle, who are refusing to prosecute violent criminals. guess what -- you make it so it is not risky for criminals to commit crime. even when they rarely do get caught, they are not prosecuted. if it is not risky for them to commit crime, you will see a lot more crime. take chicago. over a year ago, the arrest rate for murders in chicago was 20%. it has gone down since then -- i don't know how much.

gang murders are arrested at an even lower rate than the average. when you consider the rate they are prosecuted, you are talking about gang murders being prosecuted and convicted at a rate of about 10%. that is not very risky of them to go out and commit those crimes. host: do you see any of this to be involved with the pandemic and people and post-pandemic reality, or is this just a normal swing up and down for crime statistics? guest: it is not normal. the pandemic had a sure role in the sense that you had large numbers of inmates being released from jails across the country. huge percentages. in many major areas, over half the inmates were released, many of them violent inmates that were released. that is part of it.

part of it also has something to do with the election last year in the sense there were large, organized riots happening across the country. there was the derek chauvin case out of minneapolis, which served as a starting point for a lot of this going on. and so it became a partisan issue. you had many places, minneapolis, where the city council voted to defund the police. $1 billion being cut from the police budget in new york city. other large cuts being made in police budgets around the country. it is not really surprising that the arrest rates go down and it is less risky for criminals to commit crimes. host: let me remind our viewers they can take part in this conversation.

we will open up our regular lines. democrats, your number is (202) 748-8000. republicans, you can call in at (202) 748-8001. independents, your line is (202) 748-8002. keep in mind, you can always text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media, on facebook and facebook.com/cspan come on twitter, and you can also follow us on instagram. john, we have an abc/washington post poll the talk about how americans differ as what they see as a solution. 55% majority say more funding for police departments would be effective. about half, 51%, said stricter enforcement of gun laws would

reduce crime, 46% said the same of tougher gun laws. eight in 10 democrats and seven and 10 independents say social workers helping police defuse situations would reduce violent crime, while just over four in 10 republicans agree. while roughly eight in 10 -- there are a lot of different opinions on how to deal with the current violence. what policies do you support, john? guest: i think giving more funds to the police, having more police on the street, having higher arrest rates, convicting people when they commit the crimes and not releasing this huge number of inmates from prison. i think that is all important. unfortunately, the biden administration focusing almost

exclusively on gun violence misses 90% of the problem that is going on. people being raped, murdered in other ways not involving guns have been increasing, too. my concern is a lot of gun control laws the buy demonstration is pushing will make it costly and more difficult for law-abiding citizens, particular the people most likely victims of violent crime -- poor blacks who live in high crime urban areas -- to be able to defend themselves. in washington, d.c., where we are, it costs $125 to privately transfer a gun. that might not stop you or i from up tenney a gun, but the very people who need it most, the $125 might make a difference

between whether they can legally obtain a gun or not. that is only part of the problem. there are simple fixes the can be made. if you believe background checks reduce crime -- i am skeptical -- but if you believe they do, you want to encourage people to go and do the background checks. how is making people pay $125 to do the background check encouraging them to do that? if you want to encourage them, pay for that background check out of general revenue. if you believe background checks reduce crime, they reduce it for everyone, not just a law-abiding person going out of their way to obey the law. if they benefit for everyone, as an economist, i would say everyone should pay. everyone who benefits should be paying. if you really believe these are big benefits that are there, pay out of general revenue and you

would solve that problem. you would make it so the poor minorities, that are most likely victims of crime, will afford ways to protect themselves. police are extremely important. i think they are the most important factor. they always arrive on the crime scene after crimes occur. what should people do when they have to confront a criminal by themselves? having a gun is by far the safest course of action to take. host: john, you brought up the biden abatis ration and what the current presidential administration is doing about guns and violent crimes right now. president biden addressed his concerns a few weeks ago and i will bring to you what president biden said. [video clip] pres. biden: crime historically rises during the summer. as we emerge from this pandemic,

with the country opening back up again, a traditional summer spike might even be more pronounced than it usually would be. for folks at home, there is what you need to know -- i have been at this for a long time and there are things we know that work to reduce gun violence and violent crime, and things we do not know about. things we know about -- background checks for purchasing a firearm are important. a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. nobody needs to have a weapon that can fire up to 100 rounds, i miss you think the deer are wearing kevlar vests. these efforts work. they save lives. over time, these policies were gutted and woefully underfunded. host: react to president biden there. guest: many times over the last

couple months, biden has said the big increase in violence we have had over the last year has been due to lax gun control laws. i would like someone to ask the abatis ration or the president one time what gun control law changed this last year because i do not know of anything that could explain the big increase. if it is lax gun control laws, why did they not increase it two years ago, three years ago, four years ago? i think it is pretty simple white increase, and that is the things we have been taught -- i think it is pretty simple why it has increased, it is the things we have talked about. there is no reason 3.5 million law-abiding citizens should be improperly stopped. overwhelmingly black males and hispanic males.

the error rate for black males is 3.5 times their share of the population. there is no reason those mistakes should be occurring. there is no reason why those law-abiding people who need guns for self-defense, particularly now, should be stopped from protecting themselves and their families. host: lets let some of our viewers take part in this conversation. we will start with cornelius who was calling from louisiana on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. god bless both of y'all. i am a military police officer. i served in the louisiana army national guard. i want to thank c-span for having john lott on. i joined the republican party, i

was a democrat for a long time. what i wanted to say is blacks have always been denied guns. after the civil war, you can look at the history -- the white democrats did not want us to have guns. i believe you are right. we are trying to get constitutional carry in the louisiana, where everyone can carry a gun without a permit. can you talk about the history of blacks trying to get guns? we were denied because our names might be similar. thank you, c-span, and god bless america. guest: sure. you do not need to go through a long history, just go through the stuff today. we recently got a hold of all the concealed carry permit carriers in los angeles county. los angeles and new york are different from the rest of the country. all you have to do is pay your

fee, pass a criminal background check, do your training and it is up to you if you get a concealed carry permit. in places like los angeles and new york, you have to give a good reason to a public official -- and in these places, it is a democrat. in los angeles, you only have about 5% of the permit population being black, even though they make up twice that share of the population. nationwide, about 14% of permit holders are black, which is close to their share of the population. is it just that blacks in los angeles do not have crimes being committed against them and do not have a reason for doing it? it is because the reasons they give are not approved by the politicians will prove whether or not they have a good reason. it is a similar issue with women

in los angeles county. nationwide, about 30% of permit holders are women. in los angeles county, it is 7%. is it just that women are not being stalked or threatened? i will give you an example between illinois and indiana. illinois is a heavily democratic state, indiana is a heavily republican state. in illinois, .3% of the adult population as a concealed carry permit, indiana, it is 20%. illinois, it costs over $400 to get a concealed carry permit. >> in illinois overwhelmingly

white males who lived in the suburbs. in indiana, a bigger mix of people. many people living in high crime, urban areas who are able to go through the process of getting a permit. and the dual source of other things. -- and they do also's of other things. there's no training source in chicago. you're not allowed to take a permit concealed handgun on public transportation. if you are a poor black living in chicago and you don't own a car you have to borrow somebody's car for two to four days to travel way outside of the city to get training to get a concealed carry permit. they went through everything they could in terms of the checklist to put in a huge cost. we are talking about the total cost of getting a permit. not the cost of buying a gun or the other fees you have to pay in illinois. it's not too surprising that when you have those huge costs, the very people, poor minorities

, who are the ones stopped for having the option to legally defend themselves and their families. host: you brought up people needing a car to get the training. one of our social media followers has a question -- short statement about what they think should be done. this is from crag, in albany, new york. he says gun ownership he forced to get insurance just like car owners. what you think about that idea. that idea? caller: if we treat cart -- guest: if we treat gun ownership like cars there would be revamp of many rules. you could drive your car from one end the country to another. if you have a concealed carry permit depends on whether your state has a reciprocity agreement with other states. if you are a truck driver you are not able to travel through may be illinois or california or

new york for a number of other states that are there. or new jersey. so with regard to insurance, i think this is one way to make it particularly costly for people to go and defend themselves. the impact of this. there's a whole range of things they are trying to do, whether the cost of the background checks, or insurance, or a range of other types of fees that they are trying to do on this. it's just a try to make it as costly as possible for people to be able to own guns to protect themselves. you have another side to this. which is not being taken into account with insurance. which is the benefits. people use guns defensively to stop crime. about five times more frequently than they are used to commit crime. are we going to pay people money because of the benefits they are producing? if you are going to make them

after pentecost it seems like you have -- you want -- if you have them wanting to pay the cost you should also have the effect. it's the net benefit, not just making them pick up the cost. if you look at surveys of police officers, 76% think that private ownership of guns is extremely important or very important in terms of reducing crime. it makes their job easier. that's why police officers overwhelmingly support private ownership of guns. are we going to pay people a fee for the fact that they are helping reduce police costs and making police jobs easier at the same time? you hear about things to make it costly. look at the proposal from the biden administration to go after rub gun dealers. everybody wants to stop rogue gun dealers but that's not what they mean.

they have a zero-tolerance policy for any gun seller makes a mistake in terms of the paperwork. no matter how trivial. he put down the city name in the county box. what are they going to do? drive places out of business. make it more costly for people to go buy guns to protect themselves and their families. when biden says that 5% of the gun dealers make up 90% of the guns that end up in criminals hands, he fails to note that 5% of the gun sellers make up 90% of the sales. they make up slightly more than their share of guns being used eventually by criminals. these are not people selling guns out of the back of their store. i could go on, but unfortunately

i believe this is just one out of many ways of just making it costly. particularly minorities will be priced out of being able to buy guns. democrats are concerned about voter ids. they see -- they even free voter ids prevent poor minorities from being able to vote. what is a $400 fee do to people being able to defend themselves and their families. what does $125 background checks in washington, d.c. due to people's ability to defend themselves and their families. what are the fees that the person that is running that down is going to do them. host: let's talk to robert, from chambersburg, pennsylvania, on the democratic line. caller: i've been listening to for 15 to 20 years and i agree with 100% of what you say but i will be honest.

i think you're wasting your breath. these gun grabbing democrats and politicians that are supported by them, they want one thing, to disarm america. they want to take guns away from law-abiding citizens so we can defend ourselves. they want to make it dangerous to even walk down the street yet i think we ought to let them come and get it. come and take these from us now and we can get this all over with in a few short months and put republicans back in power so they can keep the constitutional way it is supposed to be. thank you. guest: over the last year, one of the big increases in gun sales, because there has been a big increase in gun sales has been by democrats. many in urban areas have gone out and bought guns.

they want the police to defend themselves but they realize there are limits on what the police have been able to do. i have been making what i think are reasonable suggestions to fix the gun laws. to try to make them work more reasonably. get rid of the mistakes in the background check system. make it so the poor people are able to pass background check rules. if you make those simple changes you could go and get your universal background check system past tomorrow. but they fight against them. when i brought it up, they will fight me tooth and nail against those reasonable changes. and i've come to agree with the caller. the main motivation for why they pass these types of rules is to make it costly for people to be able to own guns. particularly to prevent poor

minorities from being able to going get guns to protect themselves and their family i wish it was otherwise. tell me what reason you can have first system that creates about 3.5 million mistakes. where you have law-abiding stop buying guns. when all you have to do is make it that they base the same rules as private companies face. if the rules are good enough for private companies, why is it so horrible to have the federal government have to meet the same standards for making sure there will be mistakes. do you want private companies to go out there and use roughly phonetically similar names to do background checks? there would be huge numbers of mistakes. it would be -- it would not be occurring if they were looking at similar names and similar birthdays. they would not think of doing that on their own. why is it ok that the federal

government has those mistakes. host: let's talk to joann, falling -- calling in from nevada, on the republican line. caller: i worked for job corps in the 90's. that was an eye-opening experience for me. the thing was, the gang bangers that i was a vocational instructor. the kids went to christmas and vacation and i moved a chalkboard which had a home murder plot. we had the reno pd and the university cops. but until they address the problems of the gang banging neighborhoods -- because

compton, california. i got a lot of their kids. the women, girls, they would take a white baby and want to kill them. until they address that mentality, because it's the blacks. i heard a gentleman call on here saying he feels safer and his gang banging neighborhood. yes, you're probably grandpa gang banger. they are all related. we had generations. this has been fed into years -- for years. what are we gonna do. guest: a lot of our laws have been responsible for those types of problems you're talking about. the victims of these crimes are overwhelmingly black. that's why you have adam, in new york city, who had such strong support among the black community. because those are the ones being harmed when you have these riots three web parts of the cities do you think were being destroyed.

whose jobs were being lost with the business is being closed? who owned those businesses? where are those people going to shop? they are not just the victims directly of the crimes in terms of the assaults or the murders. they are also the victims in many other collateral ways. murder in the united states is a very localized problem. over half the murders in the united states take place in 2% of the counties. if you look at a murder map of those counties what you find is that almost two thirds of their murders occur within 10 block areas. murders are extremely heavily concentrated in tiny areas within the country. those areas, overwhelmingly the murders tend to be drug gang

related. gangs fighting against each other over drug turf. i was listening to the call before i came on today, your talk about drug legalization and what have you it's a complicated problem. there's no nirvana. if you were to go and legalized tomorrow, it would do a similar thing that you have when alcohol prohibition ended in 1932. you have a 60% drop in murders that occurred over the next two years. if you legalize drugs he would have more drug use. the price would go down, people would use more. and you would have more people addicted to it and problems there. it's not like you got nirvana in either case. he will either have or drug gang activity because there is a lower -- a learner -- a lower -- allure.

maybe if you legalized it you could have the money being used on law enforcement and other thing to go deal with drug addiction. but you have to make a decision on which one those two problems you fear the most. host: we have a question from one of our social media followers. they want to know what are your thoughts and opinions about school administrators and teachers having a gun for protection against possible violent attacks including students. guest: i appreciate that. it is something that has motivated a lot of my research for over 20. we recently put out a report that looked at all shootings in schools in the united states from 2000 up until the hand of 2018. there are 20 states that have teachers and staff being able to carry guns. in some of those states, any teacher with a permanent concealed handgun can carry. in others, texas, oklahoma,

ohio, 40% of the school districts have teachers that carry. we have found that there was no attack of any type during any school hours were teachers were around carrying at any of the places where teachers are staff were able to carry. all the attacks in which somebody were harmed, wounded, or killed, occurred in places where teachers and staff were not allowed to carry. you often have these concerns about teachers losing control of their guns or students getting a hold of it. you can look through the data. there is not one of those types of cases that has ever occurred in any of the schools that allow teachers or staff to be able to carry a gun. you can have a police officer in one of the schools, but they have an almost impossible job in stopping like a mass public school shooting. if they are the only person with

the gun, and the attacker knows that, who do you think they will go after? having someone in uniform is like having somebody with a neon sign that says shoot me first. because the killer knows that once they take out that one person that has the gun, they are gonna have free reign to go after other people. there's no way a police officer has eyes in the back of their head. they cannot guard against everything. even if you're going to have a police officer servant of school, having teachers or staff be able to carry makes the job of the officer safer because the attacker knows if they go after the police officer and reveal their position there is somebody behind them or to decide that they will have to worry about that could maybe stop them at that point. you look at the data and what you find is that none of the problem people have been concerned about have occurred when teachers and staff are carrying guns and you've not had

any of the attacks that have occurred. we have had some increased school shootings over the last few decades. it's been occurring entirely in schools which have not allowed teachers and staff to be able to go and carry. host: let's go back to our phone lines and talk to jell-o on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. god bless you. it irritates me that it's referred to as gun violence. the gun is violent. this issue of gun control from the biden administration, and most democrats, just don't believe they are concerned about human life and the safety of humans.

they are anti-gun. they would like guns to be removed society. it's all gun control and its racist in my opinion. guest: 90% of violent crime does not involve guns. the people who are being harmed, the vast majority of violent crime in the united states has nothing to do with guns. even if you could go to magically eliminate all criminal guns that are there, you are not to have -- juergen have a lot of violent crime. my concern is that a lot of the rules that get past are more likely to take guns away from law-abiding citizen as well as criminals. look at mexico, a couple tens of 1% of the mexican adult population legally owns gun. it's costly, difficult.

they have one gun store in the country since 1973. the most powerful gun you can legally buy in mexico is a 22 caliber short round rifle. yet mexico has a murder rate that is six times the murder rates that we have here in the united states. it's gone up a lot because they have the types of gun control laws that they have. but i did have a criticism of the callers comment. you have to acknowledge that guns make it easier for bad things to happen. but they also make it easier for people to protect themselves and prevent bad things from happening. you have to keep in mind that guns are used about five times more frequently each year to go and stop crimes then to go and commit them. you have to be careful. i will give you a simple.

there are number places that have tried to ban handguns. washington, d.c. tried to ban all handguns. but there are other places in the world that have tried to do that. every single time that either all guns are all handguns have been banned, murder rates have gone up. this applies to gun control generally. you have to be careful that when you have a regulation it does not primarily disarm law-abiding citizens. it's not that these criminals are paying for the background checks. if you pass a rule and ban guns as a simple example, turns out it's the most law-abiding good people who turn in their guns. not criminals. to the extent that you disarm law-abiding citizen relative to criminals, you actually make it easier for criminals to commit crime. one time, one place where they

banned guns, murder rates went down or stayed the same. yet every time they went up, guns are bad. then murder rates should fall but they go up every time. host: we would, the president of the crime prevention research center for being on with us and talking about the gun violence in the united states. john, thank you so much for your time. guest: people can find more at our website. thank you. host: coming up next. we are going back to our original question. we want to know what your view of marijuana laws in your status. we want to know what your view is. you can see the numbers on the screen. we will take your calls when we come back. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute,

which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> former president trump gives or marks on the conservative legal action conference in dallas on sunday. watch live at 4:45 on c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> sunday night o >> sunday night, on q&a, a historian talks about the political members of several members of congress and attracted the attention and anger of several members of congress, from fdr to nixon. >> he had an article going around it appeared -- around that appeared in newspapers from 1932 to 1959. to continued under jack anderson. he had a radio show sunday night, popular radio show, and he tried to make it into television in the early 1950's.

he was a best-selling author. he was a man who told the truth as he said. he said when you hit the truth, it hurts the most. he told wood politicians would prefer not to see in the newspaper. he tried to get behind the news and tell people what was really going on in washington, and as a result, he ruffled a lot of feathers, especially of presidents, senators, representatives, british prime minister's and other politicians. >> historian emeritus of the senate and author of the columnist, donald ritchie, sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on q&a. you can also listen to qi day as a podcast wherever you get your podcasts -- to q and a as a podcast wherever you get your podcasts. >> washington journal continues. ashington journal continues. host: we are back and we want to

know what your view of marijuana law is is in your state. we want to know what you think about it. if you support your state's current marijuana laws, whether the state makes it legal, allows only medical or recreational, if you support your state's current law we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8000. if you oppose your state's current loss, no matter what they are, we want to know why. call us at (202) 748-8001. before we get to the conversation i want to bring to you a story about amazon, one of the nation's largest employers. now saying that in some instances it will no longer test for marijuana use and its businesses. this comes out of cnn. amazon is one of the first major corporations to arrive to the cannabis reform party. it publicly plans to relax its drug testing policies and to

back federal legalization efforts. and now it's a question of how many others will follow, especially during a time when some firms are desperate for workers. amazon kicked off june with an announcement that it should not testing cannabis as part of its screening program for positions not regulated by the u.s. department transportation. the company also said it would back the federal marijuana opportunity reinvestment and expungement act. a bill aimed at the scheduling marijuana and reassessing past cannabis convictions. that's amazon, one of the country's largest employers saying that some situations will no longer test for marijuana and will support federal decriminalization of marijuana. what do you think about the loss in your state -- the laws in your state or let's start with braddock, in st. louis, missouri. -- brad in st. louis, missouri.

caller: i'm 64 and support the full legalization of marijuana. i don't partake but i have seen too many lives ruined because they are smoking a plant. i don't think it's that dangerous. and there are so many reasons to explore and research this plant that's been around humankind for tens of thousands of years. so there's my opinion. host: scotty is calling from fort hearn, michigan. caller: good morning. i oppose the marijuana thing. in michigan it's just a joke. it's like the old west. people -- it's all about money. you take john boehner, the old speaker the house, he's involved in it. nothing but to make money, money, money.

the marijuana has no good for the brain. the guy just brought up marijuana as a plant. it should be legal, people -- copies are a plant -- poppies are a plant and do nominee people are oda not heroin -- oda -- oding on heroin? marijuana should be illegal. it's no good. it's ruining the brains of the youth area it's a communist conspiracy. get rid of it. host: let's talk to james, calling from endicott, new york. caller: i support the new york laws for medical marijuana. we are on her way to legalizing marijuana. i want to say, i would like to see it taken out of control of drug dealers and gangs. i don't think that -- i know

there are some statistics that say if you legalize marijuana the harder drugs will be used more often and the drug dealers will get a hold of that. but by the same token -- it's a tough situation. a lot of people addicted to various drugs. data no. i honestly don't know what the solution is. i don't like to see the use of drugs. but to see people penalized because of a marijuana violation and not able to get a job. i think part of the solution is changing the law so an employer cannot discriminate against hiring somebody who has one of those. people change. when you are young a lot of time to take drugs and realizes get

older it's not smart. it's affecting your potential career. people change. they become law-abiding citizens. go ahead and legalize it. that's the solution. host: let's go to mike, calling from marion, iowa. caller: from a medical standpoint, when i was seven i was pushed out of the barn and i hit my head. and i got brain trauma from that . i would have the rest of my life involved by epilepsy. severe headaches from the time i hit my head. i was introduced to marijuana at an earlier age and i did not

understand it and i didn't do it all the time. i was a kid. i would go to a friends house maybe. but eventually i have realized as i was growing up in my teens, depending on the severity of the headache it would get rid of the headache. or get it down to where i could do my schoolwork. or do my job. and function. i'm definitely a proponent for marijuana. i think with the amount of people that have the problems that they do, and they can get to a doctor. not everybody in america can get to a doctor. i think it should be legalized. host: let's talk to ruth.

good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? and thank you for c-span. i oppose marijuana. i'm opposed to any drug that takes something that keeps you from being able to learn and function be normal in life. i have seen so much of it in my life. i have seen people sitting up on the streets, beautiful girls in show business, young people going into drug places and get the marijuana. the next thing you know they are in the street. we don't need this. you have young people coming up, a new generation. we want to see the generation without using drugs. a generation that eats properly.

a generation can function and help us in our life. keep giving the marijuana and they will not be around to help you. host: let's go to olivia, calling from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: yes. i am for the legalization of marijuana. i had a hemorrhagic stroke about 11 years ago in march. i'm going to tell you something, my heart stops every night. my husband give me one puff, he buys marijuana legally -- i am for it. for it. i had that hemorrhagic stroke 11 years ago. massive. i have seizures.

i had a grandma seizure after -- grand mal seizure after the stroke. i don't know what to do. can you tell me what to do? can anyone tell me what to do? host: tom is calling from winterhaven, florida. caller: good morning. before i begin, the caller that mentioned epilepsy. i have epilepsy and i take zina barbara tell -- and i take a medication. legally i have to show my id for it. with gun violence, what's going on with that, just based on casual observation in the news, it seems like it's definitely linked to the war on drugs. host: we are talking about marijuana laws. you are in florida, what do you think about florida's decision to allow medical marijuana?

caller: i think it should be medical and recreational. legal it come -- legalize it, regulate it, and accept. -- tax it. host: let's go to mary, in philadelphia, pennsylvania. caller: i oppose recreational marijuana. because the government has no control over who is actually issuing the marijuana drugs. because they have already documented that they are mixing marijuana with other illegal substances which is basically making people out of control. k2 is very high in philadelphia, pennsylvania. and they can't trace it. so the government needs to make sure they have total control over any controlled substance,

all background checks, do not privatize like we have in the past. based on gun control. illegal substance in this country. if we should not privatize anything that the government cannot find -- sign off on. when we privatize and give it to the hands of private industry, you cannot find who signed off on background checks. that's the problem that we have in this country. host: let's go to mike, in iron mountain, michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for the format. i am totally for the legalization of marijuana for the state of michigan. i have suffered from two types of cancer, both similar types of cancer, cll and lymphoma.

basically, anything that i have tried to have prescribed by doctors, the side effects, headaches, migraines, vomiting, rashes from head to toque, sores -- had to toe. medical marijuana doesn't give me any of that. a couple of miles from the house we have a dispensary. i see more out of state cars from wisconsin than i do see from my own michigan. which is a little disturbing. host: let's see what our social media followers are saying about their views on marijuana laws in their states. here's a post from facebook that says i don't like it, never have, not my jam. there are drugs -- drug studies that show health benefits.

alcohol is far more dangerous. the question is, will the alcohol and pharmaceutical companies loosen their grip? legalize it, let people make their choices. here's a text that says if you are for medical marijuana because it makes people feel better, why doesn't everyone deserve to feel better? another facebook post that says support the legalization but having problems with the plantation. statewide legal, but county to county laws differ and cops are seizing crops and ruining lives. also we have to get -- have to let people out of jail and clean the offenses off their records. there's a facebook post that says legalize, regulate, tax. and one last one that says i don't support california cannabis laws. despite making it legal they

have imposed taxation and regulation that makes it impossible, except for big businesses to do startups. it also has not created jobs. it's been a huge job. and stop calling it marijuana. let's go back to our phone lines , jerome, in pineville, arkansas. you're on. caller: the reason that i oppose my state laws against marijuana is because i don't want her alana legalized -- marijuana legalized. i have sold marijuana illegally. i personally don't agree with the legalization. the government will do it in the weed sucks. why would you want to pay more money for weed that sucks and cost more. host: we had a former dealer

from the west coast on earlier who said that he had transitioned and illegally selling marijuana on the west coast -- had transitioned legally to the legal sales. what would be response? caller: you have a person who is been arrested for selling marijuana in the past, they can go through the -- if they can go through programs to be a proper licensing program, because there have been people selling us from long time [indiscernible] some of us have been arrested for selling illegally and we know that we have a lot of knowledge. is there a way for us to be legally certified? because it is simple [indiscernible]

you just make it accessible to a small minority. host: let's go to ricky, calling from philadelphia, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. i am for the use of marijuana because i'm a desert storm veteran. the reason for me, you know those opioids of the pharmaceuticals put out. that's taken out some of the younger generation, mainly in states like west virginia. and most of the servicemen, they go to opioids which is more dangerous than marijuana. i've heard most of the other callers that are opposed to marijuana.

but alcohol is dangerous. it says that it's dangerous on the pack of weed, causes lung cancer. and on marijuana, you don't see anybody getting -- dying over marijuana like opioids or crack cocaine or anything like that. but it's been stigmatized, people getting locked up for for small amounts. but i am all for it. i'm all for the use of marijuana. and hopefully, in the near future, the federal government sees the benefit evidently approve it. host: let's go to richard in blackhawk, colorado. caller: good morning. ain't you -- thank you. i'm calling from the great set of colorado where we legalized many years ago.

the money that is collected from taxation -- host: are you still there? caller: yes. the money collected from taxation from licensing fees has been used for rose, education, extend collecting millions and millions of dollars over the years. it should be federally legalized . there could be lots of money collected. i'm not a prescription drug user , but i do use marijuana to great effect. it takes away depression among other things. and it's a personal choice. personal choices should be left up to the people of this country. host: let's go to jim, calling from california. caller: good morning.

i'm calling because california has more duis after they passed the marijuana law than they did. i think the bad parts of marijuana outweigh the good parts. that's gotta say. host: let's talk to lance, calling from fort lauderdale, florida. caller: good morning. i support the change to medical marijuana in florida. i'm a chronic pain patient trade i've been on a morphine regimen for more than a decade and will be on one for the rest of my life so i can function. i'm also disabled. my medication is paid for by the united states government.

with the laws where they are now with dipping a scheduled one drug, i can't get my marijuana car with medicare. i can't afford to do it myself or to pay the $25 a gram for it. if i could get it and it was not a schedule one drug it could decrease the amount of morphine i have and make my life better. but i can't because it is scheduled and medicare cannot cover it. nobody thinks about folks like me who are elderly and disabled and do not have the funds to pay $125 every six months and then you have to pay $25 a gram for marijuana. host: kate is calling from adrian, michigan. good morning. caller: i want to say, briefly, after listening to that fella, my experience is that marijuana is extremely expensive to buy.

i will start with that. i was looking at a site on dispensaries in our community. part of the line michigan is that you have to do something to support some kind of organization. so what this dispensary does is gives part of its money to the local soup kitchen, the daily bread. i think that's written in the law. the other part that i read about was the effort to get people out of prison who are sitting there -- anyway. they were arrested for marijuana and now it's legal and i think it would be extremely difficult to sit there in prison realizing that it's legal. those were couple points i wanted to make. host: we would like to thank all of our callers for that segment.

coming up in the weekly spotlight on magazine series, our guest will discuss the bipartisan infrastructure bill which she says was a gift to wall street and detrimental to the environment. she will be with us in just one second. >> weekends weekend on c-span to bring you the best in american history. book tv features leading authors reading their latest books. today a veteran recalls his experience in the war including the day his vehicle was hit by an ied and his road to recovery. then an emory university professor teaches a class on conspiracy theories and american

culture. watch american history tv and book tv every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or visit c-span.org/history. coming up monday on c-span, federal and state supreme court judges testify before a house judiciary subcommittee about having diversity in the judicial branch. at 1 p.m., the house administration committee holds a hearing on congressional authority under the elections because of the constitution. on c-span2, a subcommittee meets to review eligibility requirements for food assistance programs. washington journal continues.

we are back with kate arnott, who is here to discuss a bipartisan infrastructure bill which seat -- she says is a gift to wall street and detrimental to the environment. kate, good morning. caller: good morning. host: the bipartisan structure bill, which has been endorsed by the white house and we expected to be pushed into the senate later this month. but the version they are working on cut out some of the president's key climate initiatives. including carbon free electricity and clean energy tax incentives. why were those pieces left out? what effect does not have on the bill? caller: to give it a little context, when we talk about things being cut out, like that american job plan which the biden administration put out, we already have people paying attention to what's happening in the atmosphere. this plan, the american jobs

plan was about $1 trillion of climate spending over eight years. which is about 1% of gdp, and really nonpar within existential crisis or what economists say is necessary. so the american jobs plan was already -- and in the bipartisan infrastructure package, by virtue being negotiated is much smaller than that. there's two things that i think are important to focus on about what that packages, there's a spending limit -- there's spending on climate which is a few billion dollars each for great investments, -- grid investments, and for electric vehicles much smaller. which was the pledge that the president made coming into office.

and there was also a mechanism -- we have been looking at the -- over the last [indiscernible] like this program borrow from australia, basically to selloff on top of an exchange for quick cash to build more public assets and other infrastructure. and there's a way to put public goods, things like water pipes, water systems, or electricity grids, all of these things are critical to living life in the united states. selling it to private actors who want to extract user fees and do that for cash which may or may not be enough to fund the venture. public-private ships are big part of how the that partnership is -- public private

partnerships is a big part of how -- was going to pay for this. [indiscernible] giving house democrats and senator something they can run on for reelection. republicans would never be interested in passing something to attack all the climate crisis . but even something that is broadly popular that could help them cracks with real -- help democrats with reelection. this is sort of a poison pill. there is some of this critical infrastructure that we need to deal with the climate crisis and they put it in the hands of paul whose goal -- the hands of people whose goal is to extract profit which -- from things that nobody should be extracting profit from. and to make a return to their investors. that's when i in this article

and other advocates have argued this as well. we could see an infrastructure plan which is worse for the climate overall. partly because we know that traditional infrastructure packages which concrete, big carbon investments, the need to be balanced out. they need to take carbon away from the projections we have. and that -- included in this bill will probably not balance this. i don't have the degree to say for sure exactly the carbon intensity. in part because we have so few details about it. but it's worrying that even through compromise legislation, the compromise has been with her -- widowed down -- winnowed down

so much. we have to see what happens with reconciliation. we don't have great signals so far. host: you address this a bit in your statement, but i want to ask this question directly there has been a lot of talk about the definition of infrastructure during this whole debate. that brings up the question, are climate concerns -- is this the place to have that discussion? in the middle of an infrastructure bill? infrastructure isn't about climate, is it? caller: i would say infrastructure is all about climate. look at the last couple of weeks . look at the pacific northwest. there were transit line whose wires were melting in the heat. the building that collapsed in miami, the below it -- that you don't of been built. there's critical infrastructure

weaknesses. our infrastructure is not set up to deal with this. if you look at hurricanes, he bay street i live in new york city. after about an hour of rain the other day you saw people waiting -- waiting -- wading through the subway systems. it looks like titanic. that's what many subway stations looked like. so we have an infrastructure that is not equipped to deal with the climate crisis. we hear this line often from republican that this is all extraneous to a debate about roads, bridges, and the focused infrastructure conversation. nothing could be further from the truth. all infrastructures going to have to deal with the climate crisis.

and this could be a way to make sure that you're dealing with it. to lower emissions instead of dealing with them. that's not been where republicans really want that conversation to go. there was this call with greenpeace and last week there was a transcript with [indiscernible] and he said honestly on the call , very transparent about what exxon wanted from washington, lame -- lawmakers, all of this discussion. it something that we are trying to do to refocus. instead they want to focus on just the traditional things.

it's not too hard to parse out why republican might be saying that. especially those who take a lot of money and have regular meetings with exxon mobil. host: our viewers can take part in this conversation and we will open up the regular lines. for democrats (202) 748-8000. for republicans (202) 748-8001. for independents (202) 748-8002. you can text us at (202) 748-8003. we are always reading on social media on facebook and facebook.com/c-span, also on twitter and instagram. kate, the infrastructure package in front of congress right now has money to build the national network of electric vehicle charging stations. they are going to purchase thousands of electric buses and upgrade the grid.

is that good enough? caller: no. it's good. it's not good enough. especially if you look at the scale. electric vehicles are positive. we live in a country where a lot of people drive and people should have cleaner transportation options to get to work. but the american jobs plan mentioned that it would fund 500,000 electric vehicle charging station. that requires tens of billions of dollars. what we are getting in the most recent proposal was $7.5 billion in grants to build electric charging stations which could produce maybe a couple thousand. definitely not 500,000. and another tax credit to maybe incentivize some corporation somewhere down the line to build these things. if we are investing in the

climate crisis as a thing that's worth spending public money on and worth protecting the united states from this really dire challenge, we could spend that money directly. there is no shortage of cash to go around in the u.s. government. there's no reason we cannot spend the money directly instead of using this tried-and-true method of coaxing private capital along. there are strings attached. so even by the administration's own terms, they are not going to get to the 500,000 charging stations. that should be worrying. this is a small part of what we should be getting. we need electric transit, we need funding for trains buses, high-speed rail. all these things requires many millions of dollars.

it's not controversial logic about deficit spending. if you put it towards investments you get the money back. there is no need to be beholden to those who put public assets into the hands of private capital. you don't -- you can make those investments directly through the federal government instead of helping that private companies will come along and make good investments and make them work. we have too many examples of private companies building public infrastructure which falls short. they don't have the expertise. that should be in the federal government host: i think you just touched on this a bit.

but explained us how this would benefit wall street. guest: sure, one thing -- i did not have details as of yet, but i laid out a couple of these reasons in the article. there are all of these documents in major banks that we are really excited. to put these things on their balance sheets. have the government the risk and what that means is essentially that the government will come in and shoulder all of the project. they will come in and say, if you lose money on this, if you are going to take a cut, we will absorb that cost. that is the role the government traditionally played and that has allowed wall street to come in, take no risk, just make profits off of critical climate infrastructure through assigning

user fees which has been the case for highways. to set up climate infrastructure like the highways. it makes it expensive to beyond, -- be on. that becomes a steady asset class for whether or not blackrock or goldman sachs or any of these companies who very much like to have something steady and robust, but those goals, the go street -- the goals of wall street investors are not the same. -- the same as climate change solving. to make our basic binational -- foundational infrastructure, the things we need to get through our lives, to get to school, to get to work, to get home, to make that contingent on private

companies making a profit is irresponsible. that is why myself and others argue that this could be dangerous, actively harmful beyond spending on climate change being lower than it needs to be. host: that some -- let's let some of our viewers take part. let's start with pamela from new york on the democratic line. pamela, good morning. caller: good morning, i have not heard from the beginning what kate had to say because i just tuned in. but i have some things to say about both of these topics. i am a senior citizen and from 2001 -- between 2001 and 2009, i drove the country from new york to california six times. back and forth. i was completely appalled at the infrastructure problems we have in america. i did not even know the extent

to what it was until i drove these highways. and i have done the northern route and i had down the southern route and i can tell you if the american people who want to go on vacation just take a drive, across the country, they will see that the infrastructure is crumbling. -- crumbling in america. it is horrific. i do not even know a whole lot about that, what it takes, but i note that is the price of a two by four would make your hair stand on end. the fact is, we need the money to do this and it is going to be next to impossible to get this through congress. that is one thing. i have a question about that in a minute. the other thing about climate is, i just came back from oregon in june. i lived out there for a year and a half trying to be closer to my son. between the covid -- it was enough when it shut.

i got there in the fall of 2019. when covid struck, that was bad enough. what got me back to my home state in new york was the firestorms. in oregon, washington, northern california. i really thought that was going to be the end of me, i am 73 years of age and i could not to another firestorm in that state. i am telling you now, if you do not believe it, climate has something to do with it. my son is 46 years old, he was born in portland, oregon, and it used terrain 282 days on the average -- to rain 282 days on average and now they are in a drought. if you do not think that is just enough proof, i do not know what to tell you. but the question i have about this is, you touched on it a bit saying, what is the deal with the finances of doing this? what is the real bottom line that congress does not pass this? is it just about money with the

corporations? can they really ignore this knowing that their own grandchildren and great-grandchildren are going to be affected sunday? -- someday? guest: thank you so much. i would just really emphasized the first two parts of your question. infrastructure is really crumbling around the country and the american jobs plan, which is much more ambitious, was doing the ordinary functions of what government should do, invest in it. in roads and bridges and in many things that are essential to deal with climate crisis, i would thank you for that and i would emphasize that and i am glad to hear your son is all right. that is the situation so many people are facing. the places where they grew up are no longer behaving the way they expected them to. this is something that should be

obvious to people who are living through this, the people who have worked outside or in warehouses that get up to 120 degrees in portland, oregon. that is not normal, right? that is not something that anyone should have to deal with and something that would not be possible as recent scientists have found were not for the climate crisis. the heatwave would not happen happened -- would not have happened if it were not for rising temperatures. there is a willful ignorance among republican lawmakers in particular about this crisis and there is no shortage -- in periods of crisis, it is a fraction of what we are dealing with now. we will reshape the country within. if we spend no money, that will be further work. if we spend the money, this country will be reshaped, our environment will be reshaped and that will lead people out of

their homes or lead people to running to different parts of the country. it will make parts of this country uninhabitable if we do not invest in our infrastructure. and republicans, you know, know that. that is the lie that we have been good at testing, they do not believe in these things, the republicans did nothing climate change is happening. i think that gives us too much credit and we know again and again, seeing people saying this frankly, whether at conferences or i read a book that touched on this, they know the climate crisis is happening, they know how bad it is, they have constituents who are dealing with the stuff day in and day out in places like california. you know, minority mccarthy, his constituents are dealing with climate change. they also know how big the scale

of the crisis is and what the sort of sweeping policy changes would be needed. they note that that represents -- they know that represents a threat to business as usual and that has been dangerous to their donors and in many cases -- study after study has shown us that continuing to dig up fossil fuels is not going to get us where we need to be and that model of these companies is on a collision path. taking on this crisis, even passing and for structure, which can help, which will not get rid of the climate crisis, we have about 1.1 degrees celsius -- what we are seeing now will get more intense in the coming decades what we can do now is head off the worst of that and keep ourselves from getting to two degrees celsius and make the full court press to do that. and build and infrastructure

that is equipped to adapt to the changes we know are coming. the escalation of the types of heat waves plus hurricanes that we have seen over the last weeks. i know that the republicans know this full well. host: this seems to be a good point to define a couple of key terms from your story. first, tell us what critical climate infrastructure is and second, talk to us about what esg assets are because these are important when we talk about the businesses and infrastructure. guest: sure, yeah. first one, critical climate infrastructure is not a practical term. i use it in a broadway to refer to and for structure. as we discussed -- it will be

essential to dealing with the climate crisis and this is basically everything. there was no infrastructure which will not have to deal with the climate crisis. when you look at the roads, the highways that are going to be hit by harder weather, that in some cases are ill-equipped to deal with extreme heat in some parts of the country. those will need to be proofed again cap fires, floods, all of these effects coming our way. bridges, they are the things that can break down if -- and take a lot of stress under extreme weather. we know they will need it more likely. even the bread and butter traditional infrastructure things, where republicans and exxon mobil and these traditional infrastructure investments, where fossil fuels -- those are climate

infrastructure, critical climate infrastructure because there is no piece of infrastructure that is not affected by the climate crisis. there is no part of the country that cannot be affected by the climate crisis. this is the terrain on which all politics is happening and we cannot ignore it. that is the reality we are living in. these are the things we had seen getting much worse in every part of the environment. esg is a technical term, environmental social and governance factors that his -- has evolved a bit in the last several years. that term traditionally referred to a investment where investors in companies like blackrock or vanguard, these big institutional investors, or people who are putting their money there to say, i want to make -- these funds that screen

for these factors. with that transformed into with the rise of green vines, green bonds, a fleet of things not well defined, that transformed into a suite of asset classes which there is not a great definition of, the conversation is a bit more advanced. -- more advanced in the eu then here. -- than here. that can be anything, including something which arguably are not sort of needed to deal with the climate crisis. anything that sounds a bit green can fall into that category. and, you know, that does not go to discussion of what esg means. it is primarily a way for wall

street investment banks and companies to make themselves look green by offering green funds and esg funds and building that culture as a revenue stream. there is not a great definition for what that actually means as of now because we are still evolving. host: we will try to get some of our callers in here, let's start with david, calling from massachusetts. david, good morning. caller: good morning, sir. thank you for having me on. it is north acton, massachusetts. i did not hear -- staff writer there. are you with me? host: keep going, david. caller: i do not know if she has a degree as an economist, as a finance major, as an engineer,

or science, i do not know what. she is all over the waterfront. let me go from -- to a larger example. in this time, we have woke select persons who want to have electric charging stations in the town. many people did not want to do, but it happened. they told us at the same time that they would not use any of our tax dollars to buy an electric car for any of the town's departments. within a year, they bought an electric car for the fire department when quality was readily available for the same purpose. that is in a microcosm. we go to the much larger thing, that they want to essentially take that same example and have

it all across the u.s. at a great expense to taxpayers and never mentioned the level of pollution that the chinese -- that china puts today or india puts out. we never talk about that. it is not in the discussion at all. yet they are polluting far beyond what we have a clue. now, people have talked about the infrastructure in this country. i have driven on these roads. i am approaching 70 years of age. in my working history, it has brought me back and forth across the country. we have been doing nothing but building new roads and bridges as long as i can remember. almost everywhere you go in this country, they either have recently completed new bridges and roads, are in the process of building new bridges and roads, so for some to say that it is all crumbling, i am sure that there is some stuff that still needs work, but a heck of a lot of work has been going on for

the past 30 plus years. host: go ahead and respond, kate. guest: sure. there's a lot to respond to. i would say that we have different readings of what is happening and that is ok. i am sorry that your town of massachusetts bought an electric charging station without consulting you, is maybe what it sounds like. i would say that federal infrastructure investments in any climate smart infrastructure -- i am not hearing the downsides of that. is it bad? are your town bought it -- or your town bought it. i know that the climate crisis is happening, people are dealing with it in the here and now and

we have an interceptor that's it up to deal with it. -- ann infrastructure not set up to deal with that. host: does bite and have an overall policy on how to fight climate change? there are two types of climate infrastructure, does that help mitigate climate change and those that fortify structures against it. which does this infrastructure bill spend the most money on? guest: i would say the latter, and that is a good question. i would say this is more -- in the bipartisan package, it is geared toward sort of making our existing infrastructure more resilient. what we have not seen and maybe what the commenter was getting not -- getting at was a broader use of power, around what can happen through executive action, other arms of the u.s. government, that does not an

easy set for the interceptor package -- for the infrastructure package. that can do a lot, we can get something to electricity standards, not in the bipartisan infrastructure package, but in a reconciliation bill where more is possible. with a partyline vote. it is hard to do under the government's purview, like regulate in carbon dioxide, which during the obama administration came under a lot of pressure, was held in a lot of lawsuits, but there is a broad goal that the administration can use in raising capital requirements are for wall street banks to invest in fossil fuels so that they have -- it raises the cost in investing in fossil fuels. what we are seeing in the

infrastructure proposal is a small fraction of what is needed to deal with this crisis. and even that is much smaller than what we would hope for that segment of it to be. host: let's talk to randy calling from alabama on the democratic line. randy, good morning. caller: hi, how are y'all doing this morning? host: go ahead. caller: she reminds me a lot -- the world will come to a end in 10 months, 10 years, and we listen to that forever. thank you. host: do you consider that a compliment or not, k? guest: when i was younger, -- that is hard to hear. the climate crisis has gotten worse.

i do not think you need to look at anything beyond the last couple of weeks. that we really are facing an existential crisis in this country and around the world. it empirical reality would show for that fact. host: let's talk to louis from marlborough, massachusetts on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. hi to your guest too. i am fifty-year it -- i'm a 58-year-old man. i have seen democrats and republicans fighting it out over votes. when it comes down to it, each party wants to get the other party out of office. the green new deal is a great deal, i care about the planet as well. it is not really one of our talking points because we really

want to move ahead with and. we do. i understand kate's point where it does affect bridges and i get it. you have to have something to deal with the environment. i get that part. great talking point on her part too. but the bottom line is, what are we going to do? it is a serious question. electric, does not run by coal? if we have all electric cars, i get it, what will happen? we will still pollute the atmosphere with coal. how many -- not wind mills. how many turbine plants do we need? how many solar paulos doing it. -- solar panels do we need? where will we put this? won't that affect the environment too? beside looking for votes, talk to me and the people so we can all pitch in. republicans and democrats. i will leave it at that. guest: that is a great question. i would agree with most of that

than i disagree. i think electric vehicles are a really -- i am confused because exactly as your guest said, if we have electric vehicle charging stations run out of coal, that can be worse for the planet. then if we had standard internal combustion engine cars running around. i do not agree with any of that. i am not looking for any votes to subscribe to the new republic. it underlines for me what the scale of this transformation entails. we know that this has to be a transformation to invest in the grid, to bring things on to the electric grid. a small amount of activity happens on that grid. it is coming from sources that are not coal, oil, and natural gas and methane gas essentially in the long run.

this is a massive problem. i am frustrated that from a different end of the political spectrum -- these little things around the edges are going to get us where we need to be. i think people should have a say in deciding where solar panels go because some covered companies should not come in and build those in your backyard without a say on how those spaces are used. these sorts of investments, which are on the table in the american jobs plan, could really do a lot for folks who had a hard couple of years around this country. i do not think having that over to private companies to get us -- is going to get us to where we need to be and it could feel some backlash because of people

-- they see a wind developer coming in, making a huge profit off of something that they were not informed about, maybe they are not seeing dollars returned to them in a real way, seeing jobs go to their neighbors or the people around them. why would they support that? that speaks to the needs of structure and infrastructure package that shares those benefits widely. that will get people essay -- a say. over where the job go for these projects. host: let's go to york, pennsylvania on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i want to say thank you for having this platform. i just drove from the houston, texas area to pennsylvania. about two weeks ago.

our infrastructure needs help and credibly and i fear almost that unless there is incredible loss of life like a bridge collapses, that our politicians will take heat -- he dealt these important counties. you will see a difference from the west of one state to another. it is nationally detrimental to the everyday man -- we get this done as soon as possible, not down the road, not in five years, but right now. this is very much needed and i do not think a lot of the people making the decisions with the votes have traveled these roads. thank you. guest: yeah, i do not have much to add onto that.

what i will say is, what your infrastructure looks like is incredibly lovely. i always think about the county where i grew up, you drive from one county to the other, the roads will get bumpier in the county i lived in and will be less maintained. that is the reality for a lot of people. places like new york city where i live now, wealthier zip codes, will be able to deal with the climate crisis and have higher tax rates in many cases and they will cover a lot of the investments needed to make our infrastructure resilient, to make the roads resilient against the climate crisis, but that will not be everyone. that is the important thing, to level the playing field and make sure everyone has infrastructure that can withstand what is coming in the next couple of decades. host: let's see if we can get omar from san diego, california.

can you get a quick question in for us? caller: yes. i definitely agree with the infrastructure as far as roads, especially in california. but then there are those subject to plate tectonics. please get off the kick of climate change, so the up -- study up -- unfortunately, your generation is pretty much lost on that subject as far as climate change in the previous caller regarding india and china. it is always america first on this. if other countries are not willing to cooperate. at climate change is real, which i believe it is not scientifically speaking, then it is lost. as far as electric vehicles and

what have you, get out that kick in the people do not want electric vehicles. it is a political scan. we need to stop -- start talking scientifically. thank you very much. guest: i would say that i wrote about that addressed these points called "overheated: how capitalism broke the planet and how we fight back." if you are curious to a number of those talking points, you can find it on that book, "overheated: how capitalism broke the planet and how we fight back? i would consult that with answers to this question. host: we would like to thank kate aronoff writes for the new republic for being with us this morning and talking about her article, the bipartisan infrastructure bill is a gift to wall street at the planet's expense. thank you for coming here this morning. guest: thank you for having me.

host: we will like to thank all of our guests, our callers, and our viewers for joining us for another washington journal this morning. we will be back again tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. for another edition, everyone, have a great saturday and please remember to continue washing your hands. have a great day, everyone. ♪ >> we discussed policy issues that impact you. coming up sunday morning, cybersecurity expert of the r street institute discusses

recent ransomware attacks and how the u.s. should respond. and the pew research center's ruth talks about the organization's recent analysis of the 2020 presidential electorate. watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern on sunday morning and joined the discussion with their phone calls, facebook comments, texts, and tweets. >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government i'm a provided by these television companies it and more including buckeye broadband. ♪ >> buckeye broadband supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, gives you a front row seat to democracy.

president trump filing suit against facebook, google, and twitter along with their ceo for allegedly censoring him and the public and violating his free-speech rights. here is a portion of his announcement from earlier this week. >> i just want to say that i stand before you this morning to announce a very important and very beautiful, i think i'm a development for our freedom and freedom of speech and that goes to all americans. today, in conjunction with the america first policy institute, i am filing as the lead class representative, a major class action lawsuit against the big tech giants, including facebook, and twitter. as well as their ceos, mark zuckerberg, send our pitch i --

and a jack dorsey. three nice guys. we are asking the u.s. district court, southern district of florida order an immediate call to social media companies, illegal, shameful, censorship of the american people and that is what exactly they are doing. we are demanding a end to that shadow banning, a stop to the silencing and a stop to the blacklisting, banishing, and canceling that you know so well. our case will prove this censorship is unlawful, it is unconstitutional, and it is completely un-american. we all know that. we all know that very, very well. i am filing -- to allow comp restitution and restoration and we can name about 20 other

things that has to be prompted because it is destroying our country. of my accounts, in addition, we are asking the court to oppose punitive damages on these social media giants. we are going to hold big tech very accountable, this is the first of numerous other lawsuits that i assume will follow. but this is the lead and i think it is going to be a very, very important game changer for our country. it will be a pivotal battle in the defense of the first amendment and in the end, i am confident that we will achieve this for american freedom and that the same time, freedom of speech. [applause] >> next. regulating social media content, hosted by the federalist society.