will speak on political events, including the recent election results and efforts to pass it mr. risch and initiatives in congress. plus, your calls, text, and tweets, next on washington journal ♪ host: this is washington journal for november 6. house democrats passed the one $.2 trillion infrastructure bill with some republicans voting for it as some democrats voting against it. they also plan to vote on the build back better plan the week of november 15. the president is expected to sign the infrastructure bill 9:30 this morning. you can go to c-span.org for more information and watch on the new c-span video app. for the next hour you can comment on the passage of the bill and comment what you think

about the build back at her better agenda. (202)-748-8000 republicans, (202)-748-8001 democrats, and (202)-748-8002 for independents. you can also get hold of us at facebook.com/c-span and @ c-spanwj on twitter. the insistence that the climate package be passed the same day, they should the stipulation through the weight behind the public works bill which it already passed the senate and help send it along to the president's desk. they agreed to a procedural vote

short of full passage. the tally on the infrastructure bill was 228-206 with 13 republicans crossing the aisle and six republicans registering their opposition to a process that left the fate of the larger bill to air. that was from yesterday concerning the infrastructure vote. the white house sending out a description of what is expected in this package. most of the money going to road and bridge construction at a price tag of $110 million and there is also money for public transport, airports and ports, 65 billion for clean energy, little over $7 billion

for electric vehicle chargers, $50 billion to protect against heat, drought and wildfire and $21 billion to clean up brownfield sites. when it comes to legislators that voted for and against they include a list of many. voting against was alexandra cora conseil cortez, cori bush, voting for was john katko, don young, fred upton, tom reed, anthony gonzalez, anthony andrew garbarino, david mckinley.

with show you reaction to the bill and if you want to call in a comment, (202)-748-8000 democrats, (202)-748-8001 republicans, and (202)-748-8002 for independents. let's talk about the politics of what place with the passage of the bill. casey wooton joining us now. thank you for joining us this morning. guest: glad to be here. host: can you talk about the politics of what the speaker had to do to bring this coalition together to get the infrastructure vote to happen? guest: it was a long day yesterday. leadership expected fairly easy passage of both bills yesterday by the middle of the day but by morning it was clear there was going to be issues in getting these passed. there was a group of house

moderate who wanted to ca cbo score before they would vote for the bill -- to see a cbo score before they would vote for the bill. what was key to this that the congressional black caucus which crafted this deal in which they would vote on the rule for the build back better act, it was members of the caucus who helped create the deal pressed progressives to accept the deal and after several hours of trying to get everybody on board they managed to do it after house moderates pledged to vote for the build back better act

when the cbo score came through that the budget score would be in line with what the white house was saying. nancy pelosi managed to pull it off and avoid what would have been disaster for democrats if these bills would have failed yesterday after they already tried to pass infrastructure twice a nancy pelosi had to pull the votes because of this division between moderates and progressives. host: what role did the president himself lay in this process? guest: joe biden was calling individual members yesterday, trying to get house progressives to go along with this deal and trying to assure them that he was going to deliver these moderates when the vote comes.

place your trust in me, he spoke with the congressional caucus and said, i am going to deliver these votes. i am going to convince these moderates. i am going to convince these moderates it is time to vote and they are going to come along with me. eventually enough progressives decided to -- you mentioned a few that were holdouts -- but they managed to pass the bill because some republicans voted for the infrastructure bill as well. essentially they are taking a gamble. if the cbo score comes out and these moderates are not satisfied, there is going to be an eruption in the party. but it seems like president biden and chairwoman jayapal who went along with this deal, she is putting her faith in joe biden that he is going to be able to deliver on this promise.

host: as far as the build back better bill for a final vote you talk about the hesitancy of some folks. how much of that hesitancy includes when it goes to the senate and possible changes happen there? guest: exactly. this is on its way to the president's desk but it is far from being done. if it ultimately passes the house, and like you said goes on its way to the senate, it will get changed. senator joe manchin and senator kyrsten sinema have not signed off on this legislation that the house is set to vote on. there are certain provisions. joe manchin has issues with the family medical leave portion of the house version. that is probably going to get taken out. there are issues with the state and local tax deduction cap

language in the house version. senator menendez has something that he wants to try to do. there are a lot of issues that have yet to be resolved and it definitely looks like the senate is going to make its own changes, send it back to the house for another vote, so there is a lot of opportunities for this to get snagged. host: casey wooton reports on congress joining us. you can find his work at nationaljournal.com. thank you for your time this morning. guest: thanks a lot. host: the passage of the infrastructure bill and you can comment on that on the phone lines and text us at (202)-748-8003, post on the facebook page at facebook.com/c-span, and tweet us @c-spanwj. shelley in charleston, west virginia. you are up first. caller: hello.

i am so glad the house passed the infrastructure bill last night but i hope that senator manchin is true to his word. because he says that he is and if you sell give somebody a handshake, your handshake is as good as your word. i am afraid of the build back better act because i am afraid senator manchin and senator sinema, who we have not heard anything from because she runs from reporters, that would help. senator manchin knows this. host: that was shelley in west virginia, republican.

this is the republican line, ben in state college. caller: i think even though most democrats tried to downplay the win most are not happy with the way the government has been running since joe biden was inaugurated. they have unified government, the democrats control the presidency, the house and the senate. i know in 2016 after that election republicans had the same deal and we saw how voters felt about their lack of accomplishments on health care and so on. in 2018, they got destroyed in the midterms. i know it is a fairly common phenomena for the party of the current president to fall out of favor after the first two years but a speaker pelosi and other high-profile democrats are listening right now i just want to give them some advice. i'm not a political scientist

that i think it has been demonstrated time and again that the vast majority of the american electorate is not fan of the radical politics. host: what do you think of the passage of the bill? caller: i mean, i just like something getting done in washington. the fact that a bill got passed is pretty incredible news. host: kathy in michigan, democrat line. caller: good morning. it's about time. very tired of waiting. what i have seen here infrastructure wise, i live in northern michigan, big stretch of 31, give me 10 more days, the guy running it. i took a trip to the middle of nowhere. it does meet 72, a major

thoroughfare kind of. beautiful road, 49 was redone. i have to give that to governor whitmer. host: are you saying the passage of the bill will improve what is happening there in michigan? caller: i think so but when i am disappointed when i go to visit my sisters in flint, the roads are a disaster. it is so sad to see the roads in such poor condition. that is where money should go. you need to put it into infrastructure in those places. host: that was kathy in michigan. a lot of the roads she listed in the current condition of those roads and what the infrastructure bill might do. the new york times this morning talked about the specific states that might see benefit from the passage of the infrastructure

bill which is expected to be signed later on this morning. online saying, government agencies will decide where projects are funded but some state priorities were written into the bill during negotiation. for example, some provisions benefit alaska whose governor was a part of the bipartisan group of senators. $250 million for a pilot program to develop an electric or low in knitting ferry that would go to the state. another $1 billion would pay for a ferry system to reach rural communities such as those in alaska. another will fix more than 140 bridges along with over 300 miles of the highway that stretches across alaska's border into canada. west virginia's senator joe manchin drafted pieces of legislation which includes $2 billion for a rural grant

program directing funding for the appellation highwood program. a stretch of that going to connect interstate 79 in north-central west virginia to interstate 81 in virginia, which is gone unfinished or have a century, will now get a jumpstart. you can comment on your own state's infrastructure. this expected to be signed by president biden around 9:30 this morning. if you want more information, stay close to c-span.org. you can watch along on the c-span now video app. john in clifton park, new york, independent line. caller: good morning. thank you for what you are doing. essentially i agree with the gentleman that spoke previously. essentially it is about time that something got done in congress and how is it done. you read an article about all

the various things involving lisa murkowski, joe manchin, kyrsten sinema, shelley capit o. basically they got it done but they were dead set on they wanted to get this done and took the steps they needed to take in order to get this bill to the point where it is. they worked in a bipartisan fashion to get it done. they did not turn around and say, well, the democrats are obstructing, which they claimed in the previous administration, instead of negotiating and compromising with the democrats which the democrats had done in order to get this done with republicans. it is a good day in america that finally something in congress is

getting done and both parties need to remember this day. host: john in new york. this is nelson in san antonio, texas, independent line. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: our country gives a lot to everybody. my only thing is with the immigration thing. i like helping people but why give them $100,000 because they get separated from their families? i am an american and pay my social security and i am retired and on disability. why don't i cross the border, lose my passport and come in? host: what did you think about the passage of the infrastructure bill? caller: i think it was good in some aspects but i think they leave a lot of gaps open that we don't know anything about and that is the problem. host: gaps such as what? caller: in other words, we don't know where the money actually goes.

we are getting in more and more debt. we are never going to pay it off. 100,000 generations from now we are not going to pay it off. you look at everyday we have to pay, you know what i mean? host: after the passage of the legislation speaker pelosi on her twitter posted a picture of her signing it, tonight i probably signed the historic bipartisan infrastructure framework, sent it to the president to be signed into law. it delivers a once in a century investment on infrastructure, creates good paying jobs and takes the crucial step to build back better for the people. they also advanced vote on the build back better legislation. that expected to take place november 15, the week of. speaker pelosi asked several questions related to the events of yesterday. here is some of that now. [video clip] >> president biden, he really made the difference.

[indiscernible] all along but especially at the end it really mattered. >> what do you say to republicans that voted for it? >> thank you. >> [indiscernible] [crosstalk] >> we are very pleased. >> what is your reaction to the six democrats that voted against the infrastructure bill? >> it was about winning the vote but the success is attributed to president biden. host: you can find that on speaker pelosi's twitter page. comments on the vote yesterday on the infrastructure bill with a shot of the capitol. house members out next week. the build back better vote expected the week of november

15. greg in mechanicsburg, pennsylvania, republican line. caller: good morning. i think you do a very good job. this week peter has been on a lot. it is interesting, my significant other liked the way he handled his job and he was more confrontational than anybody as a host. i think that helped the conversation on the topic of the day. i don't know it is the way to go on every issue in every day but it was a welcome change. you and he are challenging people and that is the way it should be. host: as far as the infrastructure bill yesterday but if you think about its passage? caller: it is amazing. didn't donald j. trump propose this with more money when he was president? host: i don't remember the

specifics of the dollar figure. i would have to look that up a go-ahead. caller: yes. i think your research will say that's true so why didn't they do it before? the infrastructure passage is a good thing overall but like a caller just said no one knows exactly where the money is going to go and it is going to be years before the money gets out of d.c. down to where it has got to go. who is going to take their cut out of all the money that flows down? it should have been done when trump was president but, of course, there is no way a democrat could vote for anything. a cure for cancer? no, he did it. we can't vote for that. that is the message here. host: let's go to douglas in hazel crest, illinois, democrat line.

caller: good morning, good morning. i'm listening to some of your callers but i'll tell you, this infrastructure, if one don't go, the other one don't go. this gas going up just happened in 10 months, nine months as this president is here. host: you wanted to see a vote on both of these bills and passage of both of these bills not the way it was done yesterday? caller: well, i know that he wanted to say we are doing something for america but when they passed this next thing and send it to the senate they're going to cut it down and it ain't going to be worth

nothing. you know what, i know it. joe is doing the best he can because he is a good guy. host: that was douglas in hazel crest, illinois. the build back better legislation does have to pass the house and then go back to the senate and then go back to the house to line them up. if that happens it goes to the president's desk. this is republican fred upton who voted for the bill yesterday said, i think the bipartisan infrastructure bill is critical for project without raising taxes or increasing the debt will replace lead water pipes in benton harbor and across the country. one democrat the voted against the legislation, congresswoman cori bush, saying conservative democrats are trying to tell mike immunity we should shut up and accept half a deal. congress needs to do the most for all of us. we will not accept anything less than the president's full

agenda. the people must win. she part of a handful of democrats voting against the package. representative upton among 13 republicans voting for it yesterday. tk in california, independent line. caller: hello, pedro, and thank you for c-span. thank you for being one of the best correspondents in national broadcast history. what i would like to know, pedro, we have a problem with the debt. if the speaker can allocate where the $1 trillion is going i think it would make the country a little more comfortable because you have high tax districts that the potholes are being fixed. for instance, in inglewood when the rams and chargers stadium was built, all those potholes,

everything, fixed, fixed, fixed. what about south-central? hour talking about bridges first? are we talking about real infrastructure? i think the speaker should really put an allocated and itemized amount to where all that money is going. we have, what, 52 states? i think the money should go equally and it should be honestly distributed, what do you think? host: i will let other people comment as they wish on that topic. over to nebraska, republican line. jerry, hello. caller: i don't know whether i am for or against this bill but i am wondering if anyone can tell me where the $800 billion during the obama administration went? nobody has ever heard about it

again. host: since we are not talking about that we are talking about the infrastructure bill, why are you not for it or against it at this point? caller: well, i just don't know why we got to do it. we got state and federal tax on gas and diesel. where's all that money going? host: do think it is enough to cover road projects in nebraska? see it in overton? caller: the state taxes, we pay $.50 a gallon on gas here on state and federal taxes. we got good roads were pretty good roads. host: do you generally think roads should be a state thing versus federal thing overall or do you think there is nuances to that? caller: i think there should be -- the state should take care of the roads and the federal highways like interstate 80 should be taken from the federal

government. i just want to know where all this money is going. host: as far as overton, where's that located in the state? give us a landmark soda state. caller: about the central part of the state. host: jerry giving us a call telling us about his situation in nebraska when it comes to roads. you can do the same and put the picture for where you live across the united states. from wyoming, independent line, this is june in cheyenne. hello. caller: good morning. is the united states that naive? are we honest to god that naive that we can't figure out why this infrastructure bill was recently shined in the middle of the morning after it has gone through how many rebuttals? do you understand these senators and house of representative

people are being bribed? they are being bribed for their own state to put certain things in their state so that they will vote. host: how did you come to that conclusion? caller: all you have to do is go back and watch how they are handling this. all of the different motions it has gone through. i have watched every day and i can tell you one thing, all of a sudden these people don't automatically calm up and say, we will vote for that, after they refused 70 times. host: do you think the elections this week, especially in virginia and new jersey, is why they pushed it yesterday? caller: slightly. i think in the next year and a half see a massive change. god help the american people because we need help. we don't just need a bridge or a highway. the federal government has been

butting in on highways for years but gas, education, help. host: that was june in cheyenne, wyoming. you can do this up until 8:00. (202)-748-8000 democrats, (202)-748-8001 republicans, and independents (202)-748-8002. you can text us at (202)-748-8003. if you go to the website of u.s. news & world report's, there is a story related to the infrastructure bill. democrats quietly next president -- nixed president's

infrastructure bill. the city council members joined educators, parents and students gathered in front of the school doors to protest the unsafe conditions inside where an ongoing construction project left asbestos exposed. that story related to the events of yesterday. she writes, when the president unveiled would hundred billion dollars for school construction and modernization as part of his package many advocates who have been pleading for federal investment in. school facilities thought this is when the infrastructure of the country's k-12 system would be prioritized. but between the democrats and the month-long infighting amongst the moderate and progressive wings over a total cost the $100 billion proposal was whittled down first to $82 billion in september and then a major blow that left agitators

and school leaders stunned. funding was completely eliminated which congress was poised to send the president's desk. jamaica, new york, independent line. duane, good morning. caller: good morning. that i understand june that we don't need bridges and highways? i welcome that to come to new york. we have the williamsburg bridge, the brooklyn-manhattan bridge, these are old bridges. i destroy my car driving on the roads. we do need this money for infrastructure. i am confused with these people that call in. they don't know where the money is going, it is going to the states biden has an advisory board that is allocating this money. they are not listening to the real economic people.

they are listening to fox news rhetoric and beating up on these economist. fox news economists our way out there. host: are you confident legislators and leaders in new york will use the money appropriately? caller: i would say so because that is what put them in there for. we put them into put do what they need to do. aoc, i don't know what her issue is not voting for the bill. you cannot say you are for the bill and then vote against the bill. that confused me. i'm happy that the bill was passed. host: jamie in leesburg, florida, republican. hi. caller: hi. host: go ahead. caller: the last caller for one thing he believes that everything new york is going to

do is for the bridges and all of that. i lived outside buffalo, new york and i can tell you that is one of the most corrupt states there is in the highest taxes there is. host: as far as the vote overall yesterday, what did you think of the passage of the bill? caller: the passage of the bill? i am for it but i am surprised aoc did not vote for it. unless it was coupled with the other bill. that how come it passed? i think the democrats are realizing they are losing and biden definitely has mental problems. why doesn't somebody address that? host: we will go to joe in alexandria, virginia, independent line. caller: good morning, sir. i am very pleased.

it was a long time coming for this vote to get across the finish line. the thing that astonishes me about all things going on in washington these days is that we have broken out into travel factions. if this was the same legislation offered in the same way, in the same manner under the previous administration, it would be cheered by the group opposed for it and it would be demonized by those who are now for it. i really do worry about the state of our republic. we should not be holding up these bills. we should not be holding up what things we need to make sure we keep on moving. the bill is trimmed down. you have investments in ports, roads, transit, and anyone who travels internationally knows that america has to build back our airports because they are dilapidated and taking forever to give up to speed. but they should never have taken it hostage. another piece of legislation i support --

host: to the point you are making, what do you think about these republicans that voted for it and the democrats that voted against it? caller: good to the republicans who voted for it. this is an in infrastructure bill. i know the democrats want both of the bills but don't spite your district, don't spite your constituents. many of the folks that voted against the package, republican or the 13 democrats, are going to go out to their community in the next election and tout the investments they made. republicans took to social media or their town hall to speak for it. host: that was joe. 13 republicans voting for it according to the hill, tics

democrats against it. representative omar putting out on twitter, passing the infrastructure bill without the build back better plan risks leaving behind health care, housing, education, and a roadmap to citizenship. more from her twitter feed if you want to read that through yourself. people will hear from bob florida, republican . caller: i am very pleased that it got passed. even though they vilified joe biden the last presidency could not get it done. they are going around making fun of him and everything like that which is bad for both parties. it is disgusting but at the same time he got it done. nancy got it done. you cannot take it away from them and republicans in both

houses passed the darn thing. yes it was three months but it got done. host: we will go to jimmy, westbrook, maine, republican line. caller: good morning, pedro. why don't we sell the statue of liberty and the liberty bell? let's just keep spending money. why do you think bread and milk is going up? i drive 200 miles a day, every 15 miles it is four dollars out of my pocket. with so much oil and gas here. i am all for clean environment. we could keep those people working, invest in green energy, clean this up and do it right. we are broke with $30 trillion in debt. host: clean energy initiatives are part of this infrastructure

bill? caller: i'm sorry? host: clean initiative energy is part of the bill. caller: that's great but the point is we are doing it backward. we are ripping the american worker -- working the american worker out of his job. in wyoming, the keystone pipeline. get rid of it after you fix to the problem. host: how does that relate to yesterday's vote? caller: it is all about money. there is no money left. it is $30 trillion in debt and going. why stop at giving childcare? why stop at giving this? just of them everything. everybody has got problems, give it to them. host: that was jimmy in maine. one of the other storylines yesterday was the release of the jobs report. wall street journal headline talking about the increases say, the economy turned out 531,000 jobs.

the biggest gain in three months according to the labor department. restaurants, consulting firms and factories boosted higher suggesting broad strength across the economy and nationwide job growth was stronger in august and september. the president taking to the cameras yesterday before the vote to talk about the results of the jobs report and what was produced. here is a little bit of that from yesterday. [video clip] >> our economy is on the move. this morning we learned in october our economy created 531,000 jobs, well above expectation. we also learned job growth over august and september was nearly 250,000 more jobs than previously thought. in total, the job creation and the full nine months of my administration was about 5.6 million new jobs, a record for

any new president. that is a monthly average of over 60,000 new jobs each month. 10 times more than the job creation and three months before i took office. new unemployment claims have fallen for the past five we and down by more than 60% since i took office and are at the lowest level since the pandemic started. people continue to move. host: more on that at c-span.org. lauren piller from twitter rights, what you call it infrastructure? it is hardly that. not even 25% of the bill is about infrastructure and lynn saying, i am glad that the president and america have a win. now build back better will go to the senate and be up to the democrat to get that passed. america needs the build back

better bill. you can give us your thoughts on the phone lines. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 republicans, independents (202)-748-8002. david in new york, independent line. caller: good morning, pedro. i just wish some of the people opposed to this bill would take a look around. there is a lot of our highways and bridges and electrical grid in shambles. china's infrastructure is much more modern than ours. i think if we are going to be a player, we have got to invest in our machine and keep it in good shape. host: where is pauling, new york

and how would you describe the bridges and roads? caller: [laughs] not that great but there are bridges in this county that have been put on the back burner for quite a few years. they are aged and falling apart. i would say low average if i could give it a mark. host: is that upstate new york? caller: i would say it is 70 miles north of new york city. it is right in the valley and it has a nice facade. you probably have some problems there too. like every town in the state it could stand a little sprucing up on infrastructure. host: gotcha.

let's go to maine, republican line were scott is. good morning. caller: how are you doing today? host: doing well. how about yourself? caller: i have a problem with this info structure bill. i read a bit about it and it says $174 billion will be on electric cars. i don't understand that because i don't know why we are subsidizing electric cars. $115 billion on roads and bridges which is fine. but of the miscellaneous projects? $85 billion to modernize public transit rotation? i live in maine, why am i subsidizing people who use that in boston or whatever. why my subsidizing commercial buildings? they make a profit on the building, why my subsidizing that? host: you're saying if this was a strict roads and bridges bill, that is something you could support.

caller: absolutely. but it is not. there is a bunch of junk in there. host: why do you think if instructor does not go beyond roads and bridges? that have been debates over what infrastructure is in the definition but for you, why do you think it strictly belongs in that camp? caller: i don't think we should be subsidizing electric cars. i think if a person wants to buy an electric car, go ahead. we should not be subsidizing 500,000 charging stations over the next 10 years. when the market permits -- when somebody needs a charging station they will build it. wiry putting the cart before the horse? host: if you go through the white house sending out a sheet this morning looking at the pieces of the bill, $7 billion, little over, for electric vehicle charging stations. other categories of spending, too. you can go to our site as well,

type in the if the structure bill, and you can find the spending involved. in connection with the passage yesterday which heads to the president's desk today the president expected to sign that around 9:30 this morning. if you want to keep track of that, go to c-span.org. if you are going to be out and about and want to listen or watch along, you can download our c-span now app. rom in maryland -- tom in maryland, democrat line. caller: once again it is the same thing pelosi did when they did the mandate for health care. you vote on it and then you get to see what is in it. they keep saying electric cars and all that stuff and they are more deadly. what about the lithium? what about the mining? we are carbon-based life forms.

carbon emissions do not hurt. let's talk about the volcanic eruption's occurring around the world. that is where you're getting the temperature change. this global climate change thing in my opinion, there are no facts to support it. what they are telling us is garbage. it is all propaganda. you better start learning how to speak cantonese or mandarin because that is where this country is going. this isn't america anymore. it is the people's republic. i am totally disgusted. let's go brandon. host: los angeles, california, independent line. caller: hi. i have mixed feelings about the infrastructure bill. it is nice to see bipartisanship is not dead but i do feel a lot of this money will go to states who do not spend it. i lived in new york city and now i live in los angeles.

the infrastructure is not great. but where are the state -- why are the states not picking up more of the tabby? they are spending it unwisely. if they get this money, are they going to allocate money that was for infrastructure for other unwise purchases? host: do you think that is going to be the case in los angeles where you live? caller: that they will get some of the money or they will get the money and then use -- host: ultimately what it does for infrastructure in and around los angeles. what you think might happen. caller: i'm sure they will. i hope everyone will vote people out who don't use this on infrastructure.

los angeles does not have good infrastructure but again, money is fungible. if you give the money for infrastructure, they can use the money for something else that might not be the best investment. when you look at the debt level of some of the states it does become more worrisome. california's biggest debt is to the teachers union. i'm not criticizing bashing the teachers union but i have mixed feelings. i am glad there is some sense of bipartisanship. it is needed at this point but again, one of the callers said give us a detailed list and i think that would be the most helpful. i think that would convince a lot of people that this is an bad. host: we gotcha. let's hear from craig joining us

from scarsdale, new york, democrat line. caller: hi. these bills are a bunch of nothing. it is like the cold deck. they took money from the federal government and gave it to every state to help with the covid problem. most of them are using it for something else. they are not using it for the purpose it was sent to the states for. it is incredible. if you don't do something with china, china is building 500 more coal plants. they say we cannot produce coal and sell it. those plants are going to burn that coal anyway. host: back to the bill for a second, why do you think the money is not going to be used as it is supposed to be? caller: because none of the bills are. look at the covid bill. look how many different areas that money went to in new york

besides what it was meant for. there is still a covid problem. they are not keeping that money in reserve to help if there is another outbreak this winter. they are taking that money, spending it for someone else, and then they will tell the people, we are having this outbreak, we need more money to the state. the states do not use it for the purpose it is meant for. host: bob in oxford, pennsylvania. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. the infrastructure bill is a great bill but i think they're missing the point. i think they should have added any material that is going to be used in these bridges and down the roads or building the schools or building the sidewalks, it should be manufactured in this country.

otherwise the corporations are only going to get richer and richer making their products out in the foreign countries and shipping it back into here, charging us the maximum and getting it the cheapest. i would also like to make one other comment. we make our phone calls to medicare or insurance companies, any country here in this country should answer in this country. not the philippines or china or all of the world where these poor people -- i don't know what they make -- but just because they are a little cheaper. host: we will leave it there. one of the things coming out of the bill yesterday reported by coin desk.com saying the representatives passed the bill containing something about crypto.

the reporting requirement would be seeing brokers report action under the current tax code. they worried the definition would be too broad. miners and parties don't facilitate transactions. another would amend60501. requires recipients to verify the sender's mission and report the transaction to the government within 15 days. if you're interested in crypto, that is a story for you. walter in hartford, connecticut, democrat line. caller: hello. host: you're on, go ahead. caller: i support the infrastructure bill. i live in connecticut.

the governor prior to the one we got said 75% of the bridges needed repair. 25 years ago we had a bridge on 95 going south toward new york that a section fell in. for five people got killed -- four or five people got killed. there is going to be a little red tape maybe but you have the daycare, i wish they had daycare when i raised my kids. we had to pay a babysitter. there is a was going to be a little controversy that

shouldn't be in the bill but i think the majority of the bill is going to help a lot of people. most of the builder the right thing. there is always going to be some -- host: chris, tiptoville, tennessee. caller: good morning. i think the bill is a good idea and it is an endless process of building roads. endless the things you see doing. host: what specifically is a good idea? caller: it needs a lot of maintenance. there's a lot of stuff that needs totally rebuilding and it is a never endless process. host: when a person from

michigan tell us about his roads and one from new york. where is tiptonville within tennessee? caller: northwest tennessee. it is that the largest lake created in north america by earthquake. [laughs] host: fact of the day. caller: a lot of the roads need to be reworked completely. host: that was chris in tiptonville tennessee. learning about where he lives in his perception of the bill and how that might apply to the roads and bridges where he lives. you can apply that as well in the next couple of minutes we have in talking about this topic. west virginia, bobby on the line

for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. as a pager? host: it is. -- caller: is it pedro? host: yes it is. caller: we have lost quite a few jobs over the years here. for every coal mining job there were seven to 10 jobs. this infrastructure bill is literally -- let me give you a prime example. we lost a bridge here in the early 1970's. i am sure everybody knows about that. we are probably 40, 50 years

behind on infrastructure in this country and this is not going to be a one year job. this is probably going to go on for 20 years once you get it started because there is so much repair that has been neglected that needs to happen, you know what i'm saying? host: i think you said in the past you were in the coal industry. when you read about these provisions for electric cars or provisions on climate issues and reducing coal, does that concern you about where you live? caller: well, yes because they are going to have to get the charging stations up. that is not going to happen overnight. this infrastructure bill, they are going to have to have steel and as of right now they have no other energy source but coal

they can heat these plants up. open up some steel plants in america because that is what joe biden said, this is going to create local jobs. they are going to have to put some of those guys back to work because you've got to have steel bridges and steel for guardrails. one job creates another job which is great about this. i know coal is being phased out and the green deal is coming in but in the long run if those are renewable jobs, which a lot of them is going to be down the road, that means your kids and your grandkids can get jobs. we were told that in the coal industry for years. you're going to work here for your lifetime and your kids' in your grandkids' lifetime. host: that was bobby in west virginia. thank you for the perspective. sarah in michigan, independent

line. hello. caller: hi, how are you today? host: fine. caller: i am sitting here watching this as i often do and i just don't know what we don't understand about this structure of government that is put into place. it is supposedly a two-party system, which it isn't. i find deck it after decade things are said but nothing is done. they use the money deficit it -- facilitate power and now we are seeing what happens with a covid pandemic. nobody notices the slow grooming toward where they want us. i am not sure i understand why people are just letting this happen. infrastructure bill, that's funny. for a decade we paid for roads, we paid for taxes, and now this is a crisis? you care about the planet? we knew the colorado river was down 25 years ago but it was not a propaganda point that could facilitate money andpropaganda .

now we are here. we have to understand media is designed to constantly groom them both sides. why would one side say -- host: ok we will go to jerome. jerome is the last caller, california, democrats. caller: good morning, pedro. host: good morning. caller: my idea is that for broadband should be deployed through the post office of the united states, and that way it would help rejuvenate the post office, which literally was built as a communications device for the united states, but also provide a post office with -- the post office would just have communications, would be required to disseminate information that is not like attack ads or negative, it would just be information.

also there is a post office in every city and every rural location in america, so building on the hard infrastructure that is already there, it would rejuvenate democracy. host: jerome and before you finishing off this little over an hour talking about the passage of the infrastructure bill. thank you to all of you. we will turn our attention to issues of climate change, particularly how the world is tackling this issue. the recent u.n. climate change conference the president attended, being part of that, sara schonhardt of e&e news will talk about that. we will talk about what other parts of the world are doing when it comes to climate issues. she will join us next. later on, we will hear from washington times podcast host cheryl chumley as she discusses the infrastructure vote, election results, and other political news of the day. those conversations coming up on

"washington journal." ♪ >> exploring the people and events that tell the american story on american history tv on oral histories, veterans from world war ii to the iraq war share their experience in war and its aftermath. two programs on robert e. lee, carol channing, discusses her book ends of war, the unfinished fight of lee's army after appomattox. the book examines political and military uncertainty in the weeks following the end of the civil war. new york times columnist alan yells out with his book on a refined up bringing in virginias high society, his long career in the u.s. army, and his leadership defending the federate -- the confederate cause.

find a full schedule on your program guide, or watch online anytime at www.c-span.org. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us out, sara schonhardt of e&e news. she is their international climate reporter here to talk about events worldwide when it comes to the issue of climate change. good morning. thanks for joining us.

guest: thanks for having me. host: we heard in the last couple weeks this event called cop26, the u.n. climate change conference. can you tell us a little about that? guest: this is an annual conference to discuss the issue of climate change. it brings world leaders together . they come and talk about what their country is doing, ideally with their country is doing to address climate change to try to reduce their emissions that are contributing to global warming and then discuss ways that they can advance those emissions reductions, and then talks go on to deeper negotiations between climate negotiators and envoys, and then we will see on monday ministers come in to finish those discussions. host: as far as an event itself, when these countries come together to discuss these issues and make agreements, are they binding in nature? how would you describe that? guest: these are voluntary

agreements i think the thinking is everyone has come together on the world stage, and people will be watching. yes, they are voluntary, which is one of the challenges. host: some of the specific goals, and maybe you can explain them for us, on the website it says the first goal of the conference is to secure global net zero by mid century and keep 1.5 degrees within reach. can you explain that? guest: this has become a real talking point of this conference. you will hear a lot of officials saying they wanted to keep 1.5 alive. a lot of this is based on a report from the u.n. scientific body that says temperatures are warming and a warming path to a certain degree will lead to catastrophic disasters in parts of the world, so rising sea levels, increasingly intense storms, heat waves, droughts,

all sorts of things that will impact human populations. they have set this target of cutting emissions roughly in half by the end of this century, so 2030, on a pathway to get to lower temperature goals by the 20 50's. another term you will often hear is the word zero, which means countries are committing to effectively zeroing out their carbon emissions or greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. there are all sorts of ways they can do that. that zero means you are not admitting -- emitting more than you are storing or taking in. this is part of the talks as well. host: the website says to deliver on those bigger goals, specifics they offer is to accelerate the phaseout of coal, speed up the switch to electric vehicles, and it would encourage

investment in renewables. how many countries generally are on board with those proposals? guest: this has been a big week. there has been a lot of talk about the progress made this week. there are 197 countries signed up to the u.n. framework convention on climate change, which is the organizing body hind these talks -- body behind these talks. this week there was a global methane pledge organized by the u.s. and european union that brings countries together to commit to reducing their emissions of methane, which is a highly potent greenhouse gas. a lot of it comes from the burning of fossil fuels, particularly natural gas. countries are committing to reduce their emissions of that gas by a certain percentage. it is 30% by 2030. there was another pledge made to cut deforestation and on a path to ending deforestation by 2030.

these are big pledges. i think they have gotten a lot of applause for highlighting the path forward. the methane pledge, more than 120 countries signed onto that. i think 80% of the world's countries that are covered by forest signed onto the global deforestation pledge. big pledges. the next question is are there potential loopholes in these deals? do countries actually live up to their promises? host: we will talk about this as the segment goes on. you are welcome to talk to our guest, ask her questions. regional lines if you live in the eastern and central time zones (202) 748-8000. if you live in the mountain and pacific time zones (202) 748-8001. if you want to text us your question or comment, (202) 748-8003. you can always post on our facebook and twitter feeds as well. the president while he was there talked about commitment, but also called out countries for

not even being at the conference. i want to play a little of what he said. then we will talk about that on the other end. [video clip] >> china -- a new role in the world is a world leader, not showing up. come on. the single most important thing that has got the attention of the world is climate, everywhere, from iceland to australia to -- it just is a gigantic issue, then walked away. how do you do that and claim to be able to have any leadership now? same with putin and russia. his country is burning. literally, the tundra is burning. he has serious, serious climate problems. he is mum on the willingness to do anything. i genuinely believe, and i mean this from the bottom of my

heart, when i said at the g7 that america was back, you know, people wondered whether that was really true, and we are able to change the dynamic of a lot of things coming out of the g7. i think -- what i am about to say sounds self-serving. two world leaders came up to me today and said thank you for your leadership. you are making a big difference here. you are moving people. i think you and i talked about that. i think the fact that america showed up, america showed up and decided to lead and lay out clearly what it wished to do. host: he calls on china, calls out russia. what other countries should also be in that mix? guest: one of the things about these talks is it is a chance for countries to come to the

global stage and kind of hold each other's feet to the fire. a lot of the pressure that these agreements operate on what they call a ratchet mechanism. every year countries are supposed to decrease their emissions to start tackling climate change. the last big agreements to come out of this were in paris in 2015. we are moving on from that, setting new targets. countries are supposed to be showing up to show that they really care deeply about these issues. i think what biden is highlighting by not having some very big countries, but also large greenhouse gas emitters, china is the largest in the world, russia plays a very large role in the oil and gas industry, not having them at these talks or at the table shows either the lack of commitment or sort of stymies

some of the progress they can make and also shows that they are not leading as they claim to be. i think other countries, saudi arabia has not sent representative. i think they have a couple of delegates there that are discussing in negotiations. that is significant because it is a major oil producer and has committed to a net zero goal of reducing emissions. not having that representation does not allow people to really understand their perspective or how they are going to reach these goals. brazil also has had a lesser presence at these talks. i think brazil has major forests and has signed onto a lot of deals, including a deforestation deal. people want to hear more from the leaders of these countries and the representatives of these countries to hear how they are going to achieve those targets. host: we here in the united

states on the rhetoric about the united states being a leader on these issues. other countries, are we really a leader on that front, do they look at us and change their patterns because of what we do in the u.s.? guest: i think there is a very cautious approach to the u.s., particularly because the u.s. is seen to be working quite closely with china to form this paris agreement in 2015, and then under the previous administration, the u.s. pulled out of that pact. there is a lack of trust i think among a lot of countries as to whether the u.s. is capable of living up to its word. there is an understanding administrations change, and with that commitment to pledges. on top of that, the biden administration has shown good faith. they have shown up talking about the action they are taking.

people also understand legislation is struggling to get through congress, and so a lot of our climate goals, the biden administration pledged to cut emissions in half by 2030. those are contingent on the laws we put in place and legislation we are able to pass. there are things administrations can do to reduce emissions. i think countries see that and wonder what exactly are we capable of doing. are we going to move if the u.s. is not moving? i think there are a lot of questions. host: our guest, sher schonhardt of e&e news, their international climate reporter. debbie in pennsylvania, you are first up. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: hi, sara. i am sure you are an excellent reporter. i wonder the extent of your background, physics, science. do you ever examine -- these are major nobel winning scientists

in physics and absolutely reject global warming. co2 is plant food. it causes plans to experience rapid growth. you touched on china, how china is building coal powered plants. i think they are going online 100 a week, maybe in a month. tremendous burners. the rich are always going to jet set. it is like a punishment. it is holding down the lower economic peoples, and there was a report in the 1960's, iron mountain report, and it was a for the wealthy elite to use a scare, be it extraterrestrials or climate disaster to keep people in check. there are many scientists, highly respected, who do not take government funds that reject this global warming hypothesis. host: that is debbie in

pennsylvania. go ahead. guest: i think the scientific consensus, and i think other journalists would agree with me on this, shows climate is changing, and that is impacted by human activity. i would say myself along with our other reporters stand by our reporting and ensuring their research has been robust. i would say to your point about lifestyles, that has come up at these talks and the fact that people will dramatically change their lifestyles. it is a very difficult thing to do, which is what makes this so tricky. so that is part of the conversation, but reducing emissions generally is well

accepted as something that needs to happen in order for us to prevent some of the greater impacts of a warming world. host: this is mike in west springfield. go ahead. caller: good morning. it is great to talk with you. i have a question pertaining to climate change. i have always believed that going back to the era of the cold war, when so-called superpowers around the world were testing all the nuclear bombs, not knowing what the consequences to this earth would be, i was wondering, you do not hear about it anymore, but all the radiation and chemicals that were released into the atmosphere on this earth, do you believe they could play a minor

to major role in climate change? this is a question i have. thank you. guest: thanks. i cannot speak to that directly. there may have been some research into that. we have not reported on it. i would say that certainly human activities over time in the way that we burn fossil fuels and cut down forests and the way that we do even agricultural activities, a lot of this is -- accounting for that and figuring out how we can go forward is key to these discussions. host: you talked about some of the agreement making done at these conferences the potential of loopholes. what did you mean? guest: a lot of these agreements do not have strong details tied to them yet. there is acknowledgment of that.

they say discussions will continue going forward. there are questions about how they will achieve some of the targets, what exactly it includes. there was also a commitment this week by a number of countries, including the u.s. to stop financing fossil fuel projects internationally, which is an important deal, but what exactly does that encompass? does that include -- what type of infrastructure, what type of funding will not be allocated to that? i think there are a lot of questions. with the deforestation deal, indonesia, one of their ministers came out and said this is not exactly what we were talking about. i think we will see these deals start to come under greater scrutiny in the weeks ahead, and hopefully we will get some clarity on this question.

it is certainly not set in stone. host: from delray beach, florida, this is margo. caller: good morning. my question is james hansen, who is one of my heroes on the climate front, attended the recent gathering on climate change and whether the body heard from him about his proposal that in order to meet these very rigorous climate temperature targets we must immediately switch to nuclear energy and something called new nuclear energy? could our speaker comment on that for me please? guest: thanks for the question. i do not know if he was there. i know his name has come up. he is very well respected in these circles. i know that talks are continuing in the weeks ahead around energy and alternative energies and what can be used to get to the goals set out under these

agreements. i do not know if he was there in glasgow, but i know he is certainly well respected among the leaders on the stage there. host: when it comes to nuclear energy, how well is that embrace, or how easily is that embrace considering all the other types of alternative energy? guest: i would say it is still much more controversial as opposed to wind and solar. those are strongly embraced as clean alternatives. nuclear is more challenging for a lot of reasons. japan has serious concerns over nuclear, and as a result is sticking a lot longer with coal as an alternative because it does not want to -- nuclear. there are a lot of questions that remain. energy experts believe it is

certainly an option and alternative we should consider more. i think there remains room for discussion on nuclear. host: sara schonhardt joining us for this discussion on international efforts on climate change. she is with e&e news. what is e&e news? guest: e&e news is an online news outlet focused on energy and environment reporting. i am fairly new to the team and focus more on international policy around climate change. we have more than 50 reporters to cover congress, who cover domestic policies, who cover up things happening all across the united states, and deeply knowledgeable about their specific areas of work. we are really trying to make this topic a lot more accessible to folks who may not know much about it or are really interested in following the ins and outs of climate policy. host: from bill in illinois, you

are next. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am just curious because where i live was actually under ice 10,000 to 12,000 years ago, so climate has been changing since this rock come to be, and i don't believe we been good custodians. what makes people think we can actually control mother nature? i think that is what we are trying to do. guest: well, i think that it is not a question of whether or not we can control mother nature, but the fact that things need to change. we cannot continue to operate according to business as usual because we are seeing the impact of that already. communities are really struggling and suffering from the impacts of global warming. you see that happening in the u.s. it has been happening in other

countries for a long time. it is not a question of determining whether or not we should be controlling nature. i think it is more the fact that we need to address the problems if we want to continue to live on this planet. host: sara schonhardt, one of the goals of cop26 on the website was about funding, when it comes to finance saying that by 2020 the countries involved agreed to finance at least 100 billion in climate finance per year. how is that goal going? guest: finances are a big part of these talks because particularly the less developed lower income countries that signed onto the paris pledge agreed to do so knowing that they would need some support, both in terms of technical pass, but also they would need money to do this. developed countries, including the u.s. and others, came together and said we will agree to mobilize $100 billion.

they made this pledge more than a decade ago and agreed to deliver that in 2020. it looks like they will not hit that target. in fact, a group of countries was put together to determine how they would deliver this money, and it appears now that it may not be available until 2023 at the earliest, possibly 2022. that is a real matter of trust for countries, i think, believing that they are entering into these discussions in good faith. tier earlier point, that the will meet that. not delivering this finance has become a big part of the current discussions happening this year because they are also discussing finance going forward and how countries are going to deliver the money for the next set of five years ahead. knowing that countries are living up to their pledges and

honoring them is important and figuring out how to make up for the shortfall. host: what level has the united states pledged? guest: the biden administration has pledged to little over $11.4 billion by 2024, currently going through appropriations, there is about 3 billion put into appropriations. that has not yet been passed. the challenge with the u.s., a lot is dependent on policies being passed and congress. u.s. financing for international climate -- and people see that as important because the u.s. economy is so large. there is a need to deliver on what people call fair share. host: it was at the conference has invited and reiterated the fact that the u.s. would help poorer countries with its climate goals. guest: that is through financing.

it is also through support and technical capacity, through consultations. india has a very ambitious goal of increasing their renewable energy capacity, and so the u.s. has been working with them and having conversations about how they can provide technical assistance in order to reach cycle. it is not just about money. money is quite key to trust. host: let's hear from bill in palm springs california. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i have two environmental degrees from -- university. we talked about the fact that things were going to be changing 20 years ago in the way of storms and how severe things are, and look at the storm that just came through up north here in california. i was born and raised in philadelphia area.

we use to ice skate on the crum creek. the crum creek has not frozen in like 20 years. things are getting milder. i have friends in canada that did not see snow last year. to me it is the same people that said cigarettes are good for you are the same people now saying there is no such thing as climate change. i remember over 20 years ago. rush limbaugh was going on and on about how it was not an issue. it is all lies. it is all proven to be lies. we have made mother nature out of control. it is not that we are trying to control nature. we are trying to put things back to where they should be. thank you, all. have a safe day. host: that is bill from california. we will hear from chris in florida. hello. caller: good morning.

yes, i would tend to disagree with that previous caller. you get a lot of these people calling in, spouting off these hypotheses, and most people do not understand the difference between hypotheses, theory, and scientific proof. there is zero scientific proof that climate change is man-made. it could be from solar flares. it could be from numerous other phenomenon. it could be just normal cycles. ok? china is not the least bit interested in changing their ways. as a matter of fact, they are going the opposite direction and building more and more coal plants while we sit back and destroy our economy, ok? this woman saying it is the consensus of the journalists. surprise, surprise.

-- surprise surprise, the left-wing generalists have got together -- journalists have got together, and it has become like a religion. people do not understand it but they go along with it because of -- host: you said there is zero proof it is man-made when it comes to climate change, what do you think to it is set on? caller: scientific method. host: what scientific method do you base that on? she hung up, but if you wanted to respond, go ahead. guest: just to clarify, i said scientific consensus, not journalist consensus on climate change. our job is to represent what scientists are saying. i will say something about china, which is that i do not think that china can, you know, does not care about this issue.

the chinese government can act in bad faith ways, and i think it is an authoritarian government, but there are people in china being affected by climate change. in fact, large parts of china are subject to very severe weather, and people are dying. this is not china not caring about the issue, this is geopolitics. i think it sums up these discussions, and i think now is a more difficult time then maybe it has been in decades, and certainly much more difficult than it was when the paris agreement was arrived at. but to say china does not care, i don't think that is true. china is taking efforts on making action to address this problem. the argument from china and other countries whose economies are still growing is that the u.s. and more countries from the

global north have had far, far longer to build their economies on the burning of fossil fuels and other activities that we are now saying we cannot do any longer, and there is a fairness factor there that, you know, in order to keep producing the goods, and the fact that americans buy, china needs to use coal right now. it is about sitting down and talking about how china can changes trajectory without giving up economic growth that i think a lot of countries do not want to sacrifice. host: "the new york times" reported that china is increasing the coal production to make accommodations for the winter month, so there is the tug-of-war as far as their needs and desires when it comes to climate. guest: certainly. there is an energy issue happening and complicating the talks. a lot of countries were turning on the coal again to get through

the winter, and this is something that is necessary in order for us to serve our populations, and it is hard to push back against that one there are certainly human needs that need to be fulfilled. but, longer-term, that does contribute to rising emissions. there is a real tension there that has to be followed throughout the talks this week. host: let's hear from norma in missouri. caller: good morning. i just have three things, maybe four things, one it to us, and i will hang up so she can answer -- i wanted to ask, and that i will hang up so she can answer. right now we are supposed to be in the most destructive category of hurricanes and floods that has ever been. according to google fact-check, alliston hurricane in 1900 -- galveston hurricane in the 1900 was the most destructive in the u.s. history with death and property destruction.

in 1925, the tri-state, march of 1925, was, well, i guess that was part of the flood. let's see in mississippi river in 1927 was supposedly, according to google fact-check, was the flood of 1927 with the most deaths, 2000, and the most destructive flood in the u.s. history. in 1930, the drought, the dustbowl drought, was the most destructive in u.s. history. host: i appreciate the point, but for sake of time, what would you like our guest to address? caller: were those climate change? host: we will leave it there. guest: [laughter] i think when we talk about

climate change in relation to whether there has been research around how storms are becoming more frequent and more severe, so, there are certainly severe storms throughout history, and as our caller pointed out, there has been major storm events that have led to a lot of destruction and death. but we are seeing that happen more frequently and often the storms are more severe, so i think that may have been attributed to climate change, but we are seeing that increase and we are seeing more of it now. host: terrence is in honolulu, go ahead. caller: i am living in hawaii for 32 years. you can look at pictures from 1900, turn-of-the-century, and look at the same pictures of waikiki today, and the ocean levels are exactly the same.

global warming really has not changed much in the last 1000 years, except for maybe one or three degrees in the last thousand years. there is absolutely no evidence that there are more storms now than there were at the turn-of-the-century. this whole mobile warming is not true. you can just google it. anybody can go out and google it, look it up, and american studies show global warming is not an issue. there are not more storms than there has ever been in this country. right now, hawaii has been without storms pretty much. and since i have lived here, it is not true. host: that was terrence in honolulu, hawaii. for those actively engaged, no matter where in parts of the world, they have to at least faced idea of when it comes to perspective that if people do not see it happening, it is not

happening. guest: right, that is a challenge. please do not just go and google climate change. i think for so many communities, they are living through this and they are seeing the changes happening before them. and how that is impacting their homes, their lives, the livelihoods of those around him. -- around them. this is evident and real to many people, but there are also communities in large parts of the world that have not seen the impacts of climate change. that is where we are in this discussion, and it makes it difficult to move forward when you're lived reality does not indicate that this is a problem yet, but, i know -- you know, having empathy and understanding of what people in other parts of the world are facing is critical to this because sea level rise is serious for many others in parts of the world. host: a recent story out of cop

26 that you wrote about about the coal industry. you said "coal and cash are colliding at climate talks in glasgow in scotland." can you explain that? guest: there are some big deals this week, and thursday was nominally dubbed energy day. coming out of that day, there were major pledges, one was to end international financing for fossil fuels. that is the agreement of more than 20 countries, many are major funders. some of the biggest funders were not signed onto that pledge, but i think it is a step forward. in addition to that, there was another pledge to phase out coal . some very important country sign on to that, where countries like vietnam and indonesia, we are seeing asia coal use grow or than anywhere else in the world at the moment.

and they are continuing to open and build coal powered fire plants, indonesia's largest export. so getting them to agree to phase out coal for developing countries, the target is 2040 from more developed countries -- the target is 2040. for more developed countries, 2030. part of it hinges on finance. there was an agreement signed also this week between the u.s., the u.k., a couple of countries in europe and south africa to provide a $.5 billion to help south africa -- provide $8.5 billion to help south africa transition away from coal. that will be used to help people build new skills, find new jobs outside of the coal industry. that is significant because almost 90% of south african power comes from caol. -- coal.

if this is successful, it is a model for other countries dependent on coal and to show how we can put finance and support towards helping those countries transition to cleaner forms of energy. host: a few more minutes with our guest. this is ahn from union, new york. caller: i can understand how skeptics say that climate has always been changing. there have been nice ages, that is true, but what i we going to do? just let the forests all burned down? are we going to let the floods invade our homes and the sea rise come into our cities and wreck them? we have to send bruce willis out to the asteroid and try to fix this thing. we saw, we had evidence during covid, we do not have as many

cars driving in l.a. and beijing. the air cleared up. who do you think because that? humans caused that. what are we going to do, keep emitting sut into the atmosphere from coal and getting all of our clothing and homes all over us? i we going to let -- continue putting crap into the rivers? host: thanks, caller. guest: yeah, i think the point there is certainly the climate has changed her out time -- throughout time, but what is important now as it is changing rapidly and affecting people's lives. to sit back and not do anything, that is what is typical about these talks this week, that the need for action is really evident, so making sure that what comes out of the talks is

something that can be implemented and quickly is important because action does need to happen. it does need to happen starting out. host: we paid a lot of attention because the president was over there with the talks, but what is expected? what else happens after the world leaders leave? what else can we expect? guest: this is when negotiators get down to the nitty-gritty of what needs to come out of these talks. at the end of it, they will issue statements for the next round of progress and where countries need to go after the discussions. there is something that often people talk about as a paris rulebook. it is basically things that were agreed to in paris that never finalized. that includes issues around carbon trading. there are also issues around something that is not officially on the agenda, but a lot of vulnerable countries. countries vulnerable to climate

change are discussing loss and damage. that is to say they are already suffering from the impacts of climate change, and they need some money to support and help deal with that. having more great with the financing component are questions around how much goes to mitigation, which would be things like building clean energy systems versus adaptation, and adaptation would be something that would maybe be a reforestation project or a rehabilitation project, things that are going to help nations to respond to the impacts they are already seeing. these are key things that need to be hammered out this week. again, i think what happens there will set the stage for the talks and the negotiations in years ahead, and also determine whether we have been able to restore some trust internationally on how countries are dealing with climate challenges. host: let's take one more call.

linda from georgia. go ahead. linda from georgia, hello? one more time for linda. ok, i think we will let that go. as far as going forward, as you focus on the united states, what do we expect? will there be a yearly conference next year this time, and what is expected at that next conference? guest: depending what comes out of this conference, countries will go back and get to work, and they will start, you know, implementing the pledges that they have made. we will see more details come out around the deforestation pact. i think methane will continue to be a scale and that has come out of the discussion that there is a need for better data monitoring and verification of methane emissions. really, countries will need to

take these pledges forward and this is an annual conference and it is not as big because every five years they do a stock taken and they set the path for the next five years and then a 2023, all the countries will do the stock take of their emissions. and what needs to be done at that point, but it is about sending ambitious goals now we can try to move forward and we don't have a lot of time left, 2030 is eight years away. host: the website is eenew.net, sara schonhardt, thank you for your time. guest: thank you. host: for the next half hour, we will talk about the passage of the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill. the president expected to sign

it today around 9:30. you can let us know what you think about the passage of the bill and the movement for the build back better bill, (202)-748-8000 for democrats. (202)-748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202)-748-8002. we will take those calls when "washington journal" continues. ♪ >> sunday on "q&a," -- >> most people care about community. but how long does the community support journalism? because now people want to get their news for free, and people are saying, oh well, that is not worth one dollar. and that is not how you sustain democracy. >> we will discuss the award-winning documentary "storm lake."

the film details the small town's family-run newspaper in iowa and the efforts to stay afloat. >> we are the first ones to entice employees, and there was a dramatic spike that was unbelievable. we are continuing to report on the numbers the best we can. >> now, storm lake is the hottest spot in the country. >> it is a very stressful time. we are losing money, and there is not a thing you can do about it. >> it does not make a lot of sense to borrow money when we could just walk away from it now. >> the filmmakers sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span's "q&a." you can listen to "q&a" and our podcasts on the c-span now app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: again, for the next half

hour, you can call us and let us know what you think about the passage of the $1.2 trillion infrastructure bill. you can use the phone lines or text us at (202)-748-8003. if you wish, post your thoughts on our facebook page at facebook.com/c-span or post on twitter, as well. the president expected to sign the bill around 9:30 today. for more information, follow along on our website at c-span.org. some of the people tweeting about yesterday included pete buttigieg, sending out a couple of tweets, saying it is a next ordinary moment, and our team at the department of transportation stands ready to work, delivering these resources to improve life across america. also with bipartisan support, the president will sign into law that the structure and jobs act, the most significant investment in my lifetime. again, $1.2 trillion, the price tag of the bill.

if you break it down, it would reauthorize the transportation profits funded by congress for a number of years and add 110 million dollars for roads and bridge projects, specifically, also money for public transit, airports, including amtrak. and there are 60 billion for broadband expansion, also $65 billion for clean energy transmission projects, and that when it comes to electric vehicles, $7 billion plus for that, $50 billion to protect against drought, floods, and wildfires, $21 billion to clean brownfield spikes. that is some of the analysis. one of the people talking about it yesterday, after the vote with the house speaker herself, she sent out a tweet earlier with her signing the bill, and also talk to reporters about the passage of the bill.

next steps, here is a little the conversation from speaker pelosi from yesterday [video clip] >> at the end, or all along, but especially at the end, there is a strong message. >> what to republicans who voted for it? >> thank you. thank you. >> [indiscernible] >> [indiscernible] >> what is your reaction to the democrats on the structure bill tonight? >> i want to say that our success on the infrastructure bill is for president biden. he really makes a difference. most people [indiscernible] [end video clip] host: "the washington examiner"

picking up on the republicans and democrats voting for and against it. representative donalds can, one of those who voted for it, saying tonight i voted for the bipartisan infrastructure bill, not the bernie sanders socialist know, which would cost american taxpayers their hard earned money. full statement available on the twitter feed. also another comment yesterday, one of the drivers as far as negotiations, said they were still much more to be done. to fully invest in working families, i will continue fighting for them while ensuring the simple structure funding reaches projects throughout seattle and washington. alongside the infrastructure bill, there is to build back better bill, and it is currently set to be debated during the week of november 15. your comments on every structure bill, jonathan from minneapolis, democrat's line. good morning.

caller: good morning, pedro. how are you today? host: i'm fine, thank you. go ahead. caller:. great. i think the infrastructure deal is great for the general public because it creates jobs. it gets people out of the house, and it has allowed people to move on with their lives after covid and the crazy world we are living in. my one thought about this news why does my senator who votes no , and aoc, these progressives are going to ruin a chance of having a great man as president instead of crazy president 101. i am tired of each democrat and republican not working for the american people. if they do not get it together, the republicans will win the office for congress on both sides of the aisle, congress and

the house of representatives, and they will continue to impeach biden and harris. you know what, mr. president, why don't you use the vice president more? she is a remarkable vice president, and that is the question i have. host: that was jonathan from minneapolis. a tweet sent out yesterday says "my community cannot wait any longer for much-needed investments. i cannot in good conscious support the infrastructure bill without voting on the president's transformative agenda first." amanda next, independent line, kansas. caller: good morning, pedro p how are you -- pedro. how are you? host: i'm well, thank you. caller: i had watched about the last hour of c-span on this passing the bill before they voted.

there were two concerns that i had. one, i had believed that they had taken out the authority for the irs to check our bank accounts of anything over 600, and one of the gentlemen pointed out that they had put that back in, and that concerns me. another concern that one of them raised was that the cost of energy and gas was going to go up, and that would directly affect those of us who are on fixed incomes are lower incomes and would raise our bills by 30%. now, i do believe we need infrastructure, and we have needed it for a long time, and it keeps getting, you know, kate the can down the road, and not deal with the problem -- kicked

the can down the road, and deal with the problem and we do need to deal with it. 25% of this money will go towards it. i just do not feel like at this time we are still dealing with covid and people trying to get back on their feet. i do not think the american people feel like we can afford to do this right now. those are my -- host: thank you, amanda for those. stephen in san jose, california, republican line. caller: good morning, pedro. one more thing that was hidden in this bill that was not talked about was the fact that we are now going to be taxed on the mileage for our cars. i do not know how this is going to come about. it might be the by yearly smog

-- bi-yearly smog requirements, but like nancy pelosi famously once said, let's pass it, and then we can read it. so, let's keep smiling. you democrats, let's not be unhappy, and the poor are going to get hit the hardest. host: that was stephen in san jose, california. "usa today" under their fact check section, said that it would not impose a tax, saying that that was the claim, talking about online one popular narrative and opposition to the bipartisan public works bill, one of the largest in history,

centers on a driving tax, which is expected to cost eight cents a mile, which is the source of a former speechwriter in the trump administration, and then it goes to talk about similar claims. it says that the structure bill does not include a driving tax, adding its other independent fact checking organizations includes a voluntary program on a per mile user fee to maintain the highway trust fund. there is no new vehicle tax and that the structure bill, according to a watchdog group. you can check out that fact-check and others when it comes to that claim. indiana, democrat's line, gary, hello. caller: good morning, sir. i just want to start out with an old saying, now we are getting someplace. because this particular issue has been on my heart for a long time, and because, let me tell

you, let me give you an example, when your check engine light is on, you do not keep on and keep on until it breaks down. you have to go to a mechanic right away. same with this. when there are problems, you have to see it, identify it, and then say, ok, this is what we need to do. it is that simple. bernie sanders pointed out that we had a d+ rating in our infrastructure amongst other countries of the world, yet, we are the richest country ever on the face of the planet, and we have this issue to deal with that is not acceptable. one last thing i would like to point out from steve from san jose, he talked about the driving bill. if there is one, bernie sanders gave me this idea for a solution, tax revenue from wall street. he proposed that plan of playing for free college, if not that,

why not use that for this idea? host: this is wes, independent line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say i think this bill is a bad bill. it is spending too much money. i think electric cars and energy is the answer to a lot of the problems. i work in the landscape industry, and i have been watching the outside world every day for years, over 22, and we always get these storms. they blow through. we have been about three weeks in maryland from the normal schedule on how things actually come through, and we are three weeks behind. i do not know if that is climate change or climate shift. my thought on it was, you know, when we had the solar flares, that might have been something that shifted the planet slightly

as another explanation other than climate change. host: so this infrastructure bill includes money for electric vehicle charges and to protect against drought, floods, and wildfires. it sounds if you are supportive of it, but of the bill overall? caller: i just think it is too much money. they need to figure out exactly how we cannot reflected on the american people's wallets. host: wes in germantown, maryland, independent line. another topic to tell you about. about various state filing suit against the administration's january 4 vaccine mandate, saying the attorneys general involved, 10 republicans and one democrat, said the mandate will hurt his nieces and worsen the job market. they also argued the federal government does not have the authority to issue requirements, saying under the new requirements released by the labor department on thursday

employers that qualify have until january 4 to make sure their workers are vaccinated or produce a negative test weekly. in workers must also wear face masks at work. also adding that employers who do not adhere to the rules could face penalties of up to nearly $14,000 per violation. if you want to read more of that in "the wall street journal." let's go to bill in texas, independent line. hello. caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. i guess, to me, the biggest problem i see with bills of this nature is the fact that there are so many pages for people to actually read what is in the bill, then on top of it when we are talking about a bill that is euphemistically named an infrastructure bill, let -- yet less than 10% of this bill is

actually toward the bridges and roads that we really need to fix. i would really like for people to talk to both of their political parties, because i have not voted for either of these parties as long as i have been able to vote. people need to realize that the parties are not serving your best interest. host: if the bill was tailored only to road and bridge specifically it was something you could support? caller: exactly. host: ok, bill in texas. this is david saying children in west virginia are sitting in parking lots to do schoolwork. they do not have broadband internet at home. i voted for those kids and the next generation of virginians. the bipartisan infrastructure bill will help transform west virginia. again, many, many legislators putting out their thoughts on twitter. if you want to read their feeds,

particularly how your legislators voted yesterday. michigan, democrats line, frank is next. hello. caller: good morning. yes, i am all for that bill. i heard some comments talking about the cost of the bill. to me this was an investment in yourself. this is a bill that is going to give you dividends as a taxpayer. now you are going to have clean water, roads, bridges, broadband. right now you have to go out and buy water to drink. that is part of infrastructure. over the years infrastructure changes to have an updated electrical grid. that is infrastructure. these are things we need as people. i've heard some comments say, we are putting our grandkids in debt. if we don't do some of these things our grandkids will not have a decent america to live in. host: that is frank in detroit

giving us his thoughts this morning. the bill was passed yesterday, the infrastructure bill. the president expected to sign it today for he goes to his home in delaware. 9:30 the expected time this morning. so, be on the lookout for that. also online, several stories, including the passage of the bill. if you want to see some of the back-and-forth you are not staying up late enough to watch, as far as the various boats were concerned, to our website at c-span.org. george in georgia, republican line. hi. caller: pedro, i have been calling your network for over 30 years. we cannot afford this infrastructure bill. we need to cut spending and taxes, and that is why i'm so excited about glenn youngkin being elected governor of virginia. i think someday glenn youngkin will be president.

we can't afford it, pedro. we have to cut spending and cut taxes and quit adding. how about the children and grandchildren with these incredible debts? we are going to bankrupt the future of the country with this big spending. i'm totally opposed, 100%. host: bill in amarillo, texas. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i think some of this infrastructure should have in to build a wall to keep some of these felons from pouring into this country. felons of every sort. that is not listed in the bill, i imagine, do you? after all we have a dorian gray leaving our friends and allies and americans stranded over there in afghanistan and providing the terrorists with billion's of dollars with weaponry. host: as far as the bill that was passed yesterday, what do you think about that passage? caller: what concerns me most of

all is, of course, the border. but then cutting off our supply of oil, the keystone pipeline, i gosh, our energy independence is destroyed, our border is destroyed, our allies are alienated. this man has ruined this country. thank you for the call. host: from ohio, next we will hear from mary. hello. caller: i'm originally from texas, so shout out to your any texas callers, however i may be a different voice than you have heard from them. i believe we have been sacrificing our children and our grandchildren for many, many decades. i always say, oh, that costs too much, we can't filter the water in michigan because that costs too much. we can't replace bridges. that costs too much.

and yet we are outraged when we learned that people in central mexico sacrificed children to bring rain for their prosperity. what is the difference? thank you. host: gary is in maryland. hi. caller: yes, i think this will be one of the first bills that the democrats have pushed forward that the 2022 republicans that are going to be coming in or going to completely dismantle and get rid of, because it is nothing but a communist takeover. host: are you talking about the infrastructure bill? he hung up. let's go to catherine in bradington, florida. good morning. caller: good morning. host: hi, you are on. caller: i'm absolutely proud of what president biden has accomplished here with the infrastructure bill. he took his time, they worked it

out in congress, they worked it out in the house. i think it is lovely it took this long and it was not pushed through by no means. he listened to their party, their democratic party. they had options, they had decisions. it wasn't jump on the bandwagon and everybody vote yes for it. this was bipartisanship. when i woke up this morning and i saw 12 or 13 republicans voted yea, it was absolutely brilliant. host: the six democrats who voted against it, did you think of them? caller: that is part of it. that is part of the whole idea of a government that works, not because you follow each other, because you have your own thoughts, you have your own territory that you have to represent them you have your own ideas. and everybody's ideas are beautiful. bring them to the table. let's talk about it.

we don't want to follow, we don't want to be -- i hate to say this, but the trumpsters, they follow each other down the path of destruction. and allies, and -- and lies, and they convince people of these lies. i live in a community where i hear so much rhetoric and lies about what is actually not happening in the world, and what happened here -- and within a year is to biden -- president biden -- brought us an infrastructure bill. we are going to build on that. i woke up this morning to see that employment has risen. it is just going to be better, and he has only been in for a year. god bless him. host: that is catherine and florida talking about the events of yesterday. never a from our twitter feed commenting on it as well, saying, but it passed. need to do more.

i believe we should strive to be the best. we can't be that if everything is crumbling and we are not surpassing other nations on even basic infrastructure. being best is costly, get used to it. if you want to post there it is that -- it is @cspanwj. caller: i would like to say, why did they pass these bills in the middle of the night? what are they trying to hide? this is just going to kill our country. thanks. host: janelle, crescent city, california, democrats line. caller: yes, hi, good morning. i have been very pleased that this was a bipartisan effort in passing this bill. i believe it is a great investment for the future of many generations to come. it is a little late in coming, unfortunately, because we have

done so much damage to our planet, i'm hopeful. i'm hopeful that we can work together as a nation, and hopefully as a planet. host: why are you supportive of the action even though you think it is late in coming? caller: well, i believe we were warned by scientists decades ago about this, and now it is not climate change, it is climate crisis. host: ok, janel in crescent city, california, one of the places to visit if you plan a visit to washington, d.c., the tomb of the unknown. the public, according to the new york times, not allowed to get close to it since 1948, but will be able to do so for a couple of days, saying since 1948 a military guard has kept the public from getting near the sarcophagus. on tuesday and wednesday people will be able to place flowers to commemorate 100 years since its dedication. many are expected to visit the

monument, which has become a sacred site for veterans, as well as visitors who watch the changing of the guard. on november 11, 1921 thousands of people marched to arlington national cemetery to watch as sergeant younger was lowered into the marble tomb. warren harding describe how the soldier might come from any one of the millions of americans homes. hundreds of mothers are wondering today, finding solace in the possibility that the nation bows and grief over the body of one she bore to live and die, if need be, for the republic. we will go to sylvia in virginia, republican line. hi. caller: i'm so happy they passed something last night. i tried to stay up all night to see what was going on. i'm glad there is money out there, because every time we see a bridge that is crashing to the ground it is horrifying to me,

and i'm glad they have some money out there. i hope it helps to clean up the planet too. thank you so much. host: and vivian is the last call for this segment. democrats line. caller: good morning. i'm calling about the infrastructure bill. and the other bills they've got in there. this could have been passed along time ago. i'm sick and tired of the democrats saying they want this, they want that. it is the public. we put them in there to vote and help us. they look like it is theirs, with manchin. host: some democrats were holding out to see the passage of those at the same time. are you saying that is not a good strategy? caller: we put them and there for these bills. they are acting like it is theirs. it's not, it is ours. i am sick and tired of them.

joe manchin. i'm tired of them that act like they own this. we put them in there, and we need infrastructure, need these bills. i care in tennessee, our bridge we found out to go across tennessee to arkansas was breaking up. sir, if you see how far that is, if that bridge had a cave-in, so many people would have died. host: ok, vivian in collierville, tennessee. the passage of the infrastructure bill from yesterday. joining us next is "washington times" podcast post cheryl chumley. she will talk about initiatives of the biden administration. you will have the chance to talk with her as well. she will join us next on "washington journal." ♪

♪ >> residential historian craig furman calls the autobiography of calvin coolidge the forgotten classic of presidential writing. the new authorized expanded and annotated edition of the autobiography has just been published by isi books. many slaves and met dual heart quote coolidge as saying, "it is a great advantage to a president and a major source of safety to the country for him to know that he is not a great man." we asked him eddie to give us some background about the released autobiography, which was originally published in may 1929, 92 years ago. >> the chair of the calvin coolidge presidential foundation

on this week's episode of footnotes -- book notes plus. book notes plus is available on the c-span app or wherever you get your podcast. ♪ >> weekends on c-span2 are an intellectual feast. every saturday you will find events and people who explore our nation's past on american history tv. on sunday, tv brings you the latest in nonfiction books and authors. learn, discover, explore. weekends on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: it is our regular spotlight on podcasts. this would joining us, cheryl chumley. she is the host of the bold and blunt podcast. she is also the online opinion editor of the "washington times." thank you for joining

us. how do you describe your podcast to other people? guest: my bold and blunt podcast is me giving a christian conservative view of politics, culture, news, and events. host: when you take on topics or decide people to talk to, how does that work and who have you talked to over the past couple of weeks? guest: i talk to anybody and everybody who has an interesting viewpoint to offer. my most recent past have included mark meadows. we talked about faith in america, trump, his new book. for that it was victor davis hanson talking about founding father viewpoints of america. i have had mike pompeo on, peter navarro, charlie kirk. i have had several pastors. i have had several people you probably would not recognize their names, but they offer interesting perspectives about things like contact tracing and vaccine mandates. host: when you decide on guests,

particularly for the guests people may not have heard of, how do you determine that, and what kind of rationale do you have to put people on the podcast? guest: early, you know, i would take anybody as a guest who is open to a rational discussion. i would welcome leftists and even socialists and people strongly disagree with on viewpoints and policies if they could come on and talk in a rational manner and have a reasonable discussion. but for the most part my guests have similar viewpoints. they are concerned about the direction of this nation, they are concerned about the lost of judeo-christian rights in this nation, and they are willing to talk about that in context, discussing ongoing modern-day politics and culture. host: when it comes to topics, you talk about, as far as topics

of the day, let me give you an example, the passage of the infrastructure bill. without become a topic? guest: yes. i have a guest planned in the coming weeks about this. i will probably talk about it from the viewpoint of the boondoggle of $1.2 trillion in way that will lead. the upcoming, looming social spending bill coming down the pipe. the burden to taxpayers, the immorality of taking on more national debt for things that may be a lot of taxpayers in america don't want. that is sort of the angle of discussion. host: you mentioned the boondoggle, why do you describe it as such? guest: $1.2 trillion is huge. this was billed as a bipartisan infrastructure bill. up until recently when you say infrastructure most americans think bridges, roads, the things that you see during and they agree for the need to use tax

dollars to replace these things and maintain them. but this bill brings in a whole new definition of what infrastructure is. joe biden on the campaign trail talked about redefining infrastructure to include human infrastructure. that basically opens the doors to all kinds of spending, which this bill does in part. it includes, for instance, $50 billion for climate change and drought mitigation. it includes another $65 billion for internet connections. if you start going through the hundreds of pages i'm sure you're going to find a lot of things that are eyebrow-racing. host: when you look at it differently if it had only stuck specifically to this idea of road and bridge spending? or was that off the table too? guest: no. you know what? we need to spend to maintain our roads and bridges. that is an expense that most

americans are on board with. that is what tax dollars are supposed to be used for, right? they are supposed to be used for things that we in most of america agree that this is what we want our money spent on. roads, bridges, the basic infrastructure as it was previously defined until recently. those are all expenditures i think 90% -- maybe even more -- of americans can agree on. host: the podcast is bold and blunt. here to take your calls on various topics. if you want to ask a question, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. and independents, (202) 748-8002 . you can text us at (202) 748-8003. as far as the politics of this passage yesterday, what did you think about those 13 republicans who decided to support it? guest: i think these 13 republicans, some of them are

not running for office again. most of them, if not all, are the anti-trump faction. i think they are making a political misstep and miscalculating the tone and tenor of conservatives in america. there is a very good reason why donald trump was elected, and it was because most conservatives in america over tired of their republican politicians that they elect going to capitol hill and then going behind doors and caucusing with democrats and coming out with agreements and collaborations that favored more the democrat agenda then republican. i think when republicans go on capitol hill and the don't pick the fight that grassroots conservatives want them to, the basic conservative principles of limited government and limited spending, i think they are making a political misstep. for many it is turning into political suicide. host: on the flipside of that,

let me ask you about the six democrats who voted against it. guest: lester: democrats, let's call them what they are. i know the media paints them as progressives, but they are basically socialists. they are throwing a temper tantrum because they did not get their whole social justice, social entitlement spending bill tied together. host: ultimately this is going to be the topic of discussion, particularly as far as mid-november is concerned. speaker pelosi saying a vote will take place. we'll possibly see some changes. what do you think is the future of that bill? guest: it is hard to say, because it depends a lot on democrats. it rests a lot on joe manchin's shoulders, right? to me that is a little bit uncomfortable to look at this upcoming bill and have to rely on a democrat to put the stopgap on it.

i do believe that senator manchin has emerged from this debate as one of the more moderate, cooler head-type, rational democrats. if you look into the future of the democratic party, if there were smart they would look at someone like senator manchin to run for the white house in the coming years. i doubt they will, he is somebody at least two has an obvious concern for america and americas taxpayers. host: our first call for you is from tom. he is from philadelphia. you are on wet cheryl chumley of the "washington times." go ahead. caller: yeah, good morning, cheryl. i think you are hitting on a lot of good points there. i think the biggest problem is that the politicians are not hearing the voices of their constituents. should probably be holding more

town hall meetings and, you know, really feeling the pulse of what americans really want and what they would like to see. also i want to say real quick, i have an idea. i don't know if this is ever come up, how to pay for a lot of, instead of raising taxes and things like that, it seems like there is a lot or investors buying stocks and, you know, especially younger people. putting a tax on every transaction, whether it be $.50, one dollar. i mean, there is thousands of transactions every day, and i don't think many people will complain about that. host: tom, we will leave it there and let our guest respond to those. guest: thank you, tom, for your comments. republicans, democrats, every you stand i think at this time in american history we can

pretty much all agree that our politicians, our leaders, our humble public servants, are not listening to us in america. on the conservative side you have vaccine mandates and those sorts of protests. on the left side, on the democrat side you have, you know, unfortunately to me, socialists feel they are not being paid attention to. as for your other comments about putting taxes and fees on transactions, i'm not a big fan of that. i agree that amount is small enough he could sway some people into accepting that idea, but i am a bigger fan of government living within its means. and i think government has enough money. the issue is that government spends -- mr. spends -- misspend s money. caller: good morning, ms.

chumley. at the beginning of your discuss there, you know, he sounded like you kind of wanted to blend the line of, you know, our great country -- which i totally believe in -- our bill of rights, god-given, not by man. so doesn't that allow pretty much anyone to come to this country and do pretty much whatever we like to do as americans? i saw a clip yesterday with, i don't know, 100 migrants coming across the rio grande and all i could inc. was a reminded me of mary, joseph, and the about to be born jesus. and, you know, not to get messianic here, if we truly believe that this country has a unique role to play in the world

as far as our spiritual you know, progress, why are we so mean about, like, somebody might get 1% more than me? host: caller, thanks. guest: that is a really interesting viewpoint, and it is one i have had lengthy discussions about before, but let me just get the jest. if you read the bible, if you believe this nation was founded on judeo-christian principles, he believes still in the rule of law. so there is that. that is what a moral government is supposed to do. uphold the rule of law, which in this country is the constitution. that does include border control. there is another skewing of biblical teachings i see go on in this country, particularly in the social justice gospel-type churches.

that is to say that jesus, if he were walking on earth, if you were in america today, that he would be a socialist and he is all about love and he would embrace everyone and let everybody in. it is all about love, it is all about spreading the wealth, taking from peter to give to paul and share fairly. but that is not true. jesus -- i find calling jesus a socialist very -- a very misinterpretation of biblical principles, because if you are a christian, if you read the bible , you know it is all about the individual relationship. there is a difference between taking government money and giving it here, and reaching in your own pocket and cherub early -- and charitably giving it. you have to keep that distinction in mind. host: this is justin, layton, pennsylvania. caller: good morning morning,

how is everyone? guest: hi, justin. caller: a couple of things. first i want to put down some stuff that jesus was fond of. we will start with luke 17:2. i will leave it to the audience to do their own research. two other things. one is the very clear that if you look joe biden, on c-span. how has he not been detained for pedophilia? host: caller, we are going to stop you there. i'm not going to let you make accusations like that on the air, especially toward the president of the united states. if you have a question, go ahead with it. caller: are you familiar with friends of the constitution? host: are you addressing that to me or ms. chumley? guest: no. if you are addressing me, no. host: we believe that there. detained -- we believe it there. to change topic, the results of

the elections in virginia and new jersey. what do you think is the end result? what do you think produced those end results? guest: i think it was a combination of things. i think most people have been discussing this in the last few days and hitting it head-on, that i live in virginia and i know one of the biggest issues in virginia was the fight between parental rights and government overreach. terry mcauliffe, when he was an entry he dismissed that idea, he mocked that idea. and glenn youngkin picked it up, and he, without even having to attack his opponent, he ran on that core issue. so that was very big. that combined the fact that this state went 10 points for joe biden in the presidential election, and his poll numbers, his favor among virginians has fallen dramatically. then terry mcauliffe brings in

these people to campaign for him. that was a sort of meeting on the head -- beating on the head that terry mcauliffe is the same political machine as joe biden. host: you said parental rights. how much do you think the race stemmed from this discussion about critical race theory? guest: i think that was a huge part. no, it was parental rights over critical race theory, it was the sexual assault that occurred by the transgender boy in the school systems here in virginia -- not just once, but twice -- it was the economy, it was covid vaccine mandates, it was face mask mandates, it was all of that coming down in a perfect storm where conservatives were energized to come out and vote. you had the latino vote that basically democrats have always assumed would go to them, the latinos came out and voted in

large part for conservatives. you had moms and dads, you had parents, you had a really energized conservative base, and a sort of, you know tony down -- toned down democrat party. host: this from the new york times. charles blow said this, saying, what can't be denied is the degree to which youngkin released white racial anxiety, positioning in its most potent form the helpless, in this case children. youngkin honed in on critical race theory, even though critical race theory is not being taught in the state's schools. that didn't matter. guest: i'm getting ready -- really tired of the left painting anybody who is white who votes for a conservative as being automatically racist. it was despicable to me to hear the pendants on certain cable

outlets after the virginia election automatically dismiss the issues of concern to voters and paint it as a some sort of protection against white ethnicity -- against white racism and so forth. let's just cut to the chase here and say that white people automatically are not racist just because they vote for republicans. we actually do have issues that we care about. and racism is rarely part and parcel of the boat. host: aside from that, the dynamics in new jersey. phil murphy winning the election, but what do you think the dynamics were at play there? guest: phil murphy, you know, he really cracked down on businesses and citizens in that state over the last year and a half of the coronavirus. i think there was a lot of backlash against that.

i think that also you had the joe biden factor, you had some people tired of the democrat party, which basically in new jersey you have one mailing more democrat voters they need to republicans, and yet the race was so tight and it went down to the wire. i think new jersey is more a predictor of what the midterm elections are going to go as a backlash against joe biden, then even in virginia. what is significant about new jersey is you had that truck driver -- edward durr, i think his name was -- he just unseated the state senator from his long-held office. he reminds me, in virginia here, of when eric cantor was unseated. i think it is another wave of conservative takeovers coming in the midterms. host: this is cheryl chumley

joining us, the host of the bold and blunt podcast. from chicago illinois -- chicago, illinois, democrats line, you are our next guest. yaya from chicago, good morning. go ahead. caller: i want to ask cheryl, donald trump extended secret service to his adult children for six months post-presidency. is that socialism? guest: what? [laughter] i don't even know how to answer that. host: yaya, do you want to try that again? go ahead. caller: i want to know if it is socialism for donald trump to have extended secret service to his adult children. guest: i don't know. is that really the question you called in to ask? if there is a deeper point go ahead, that i don't even know. caller: is that socialism?

host: ms. chumley? guest: because tax dollars are being spent for something that is approved by legislation in the first place? i don't know. host: ok, let me ask you this. you said it several times. you define people as socialists. what do you use as a definition, particularly when it comes to people in politics? what causes you to do that? guest: i actually wrote a book called socialists don't flee. in that book i talk about the definition of socialism. we have had in this country for a very long time a scholarly definition of what socialism is versus what progressivism is versus what democratic socialism is versus marxism and all of that. here's the thing, here is my viewpoint. we need to up the standard and make it what is constitutional

versus what is not constitutional. what is a god-given right versus, what is the government overreach? when i talk about socialism and socialists serving in public office what i mean are those people who can the constitution and they run roughshod over it to take entitlement spending, to change the culture of this nation from one of individualism to one of collectivism, and in so doing lead us from a path of constitutional rights -- god-given rights -- down a path of first democracy, then progressivism, then socialism, and communism, and ultimately collectivism. i think we need to reel back to standard and make it constitutional versus not constitutional. when callers call in and ask things like, is it socialism to -- for donald trump to have six months worth of pack -- worth of

taxpayer dollars spent for secret service for his children, i really don't know how to answer that, because i'm not sure where the approval for the money game for that. host: charles in kansas city, kansas, republican line, you are next. good morning. caller: yes. what did jesus say about -- what does god say about two men marrying each other or two women marrying each other? guest: well, and the bible it is pretty clear that homosexuality is an abomination. host: from eric in california -- is that your personal holding as well, as far as your personal belief? guest: i believe in the inerrant word of the bible. host: ok. eric in california. democrats line. caller: yes, good morning. host: you are on, go ahead.

caller: yes, good morning. question for cheryl chumley. she basically went -- yes, good morning. host: caller, you're going to have to stop listening to the television. there is a delay, so go ahead, please. caller: cheryl chumley just went over the definition of socialism . she mentioned marxism, communism . a question for her is, you know, in my days when i was taught in school and went to college also, there is no such thing as true communism. not one thing whatsoever. as far as socialism goes, there is no such thing as a socialism in the united states. there is, as pertains to countries such as china and russia. the other question i have is, as a retired police officer, state of california, i, myself -- and

i feel everyone else, as far as the law is concerned and constitutionally under the law -- nobody is above the law, such as our former president. he thought he was. thank you for my comments and thank you for listening. guest: thank you. i didn't get the question if there was one. host: ok, we will go to joel. laredo, texas. republican line. caller: yes, ma'am. you are right on with all of your points. my parents immigrated in 1960. they waited in line, working people. they were democrats, i voted republican. people need to be honest about this. i should be -- why should we be carrying all of these people coming across? why are they coming across? go to the appropriate points and do what you have to do. i pay taxes.

there is no such thing as free. i just wanted to comment and say you are right on. thank you for all the work you do and i will follow your podcast. you have a wonderful day. guest: thank you. you know, if i could just make a quick comment, the democratic party under jfk was a completely different democratic party than it is today. i've even set on several occasions that the democratic party under bill clinton is completely different from what the party is today. bill clinton, as much as i disagreed with his policies and his agenda, and definitely his morals, i do not think bill clinton actively worked to undercut american principles. i think bill clinton still liked america. the democrat party today has become one that most of its members are either actively or tacitly, silently working to bring down america from within and bring about a system of government and principles that

is more in line with a collectivist nation than anything based on individualism that the founding fathers put in place for us. host: to the elections of new jersey and virginia, he wrote a column shortly after that, particularly aiming at to republicans, in which you give them advice, do not get cocky. elaborate on that, if you would. guest: right, because this is not about political whims as much as it is about a fight for the financial -- the foundational principles of america. while i am happy republicans won in virginia, to clearly since i live here, and while i'm happy a lot of conservatives around america are coming out and getting more involved in politics than ever before, we need to recognize it is not the political system that matters the most. it is the culture, it is the moral compass of america. on that we need to stand strong

on principles and realized that we can elect republicans across all major power halls on capitol hill. we can have a republican president, republican house, republican senate, republican governors, but it is the principles we need to stand strong on. because republicans are politicians too. as you can see with this infrastructure bill, 13 voted on the side of democrats. in my viewpoint that goes against the ideals on which america was based. it is always the moral compass we need to fight for first. host: when it comes to those republicans that supported it and the idea of bipartisanship, is any bipartisanship good or bad in your mind? guest: bipartisanship is good, but look, we haven't had bipartisanship on capitol hill in years. and that is not exactly the fault of republicans. i've seen from my viewpoint -- and i'm sure there are a lot of

your listeners who will disagree with this -- from my viewpoint i have seen republicans bend over backwards to make concessions for democrats. go back in time to when barack obama was president and remember how john boehner used to go behind closed doors with barack obama and to the public he would say, were not going to increase the debt ceiling, we are going to stand strong. and next thing you know, here we come with a debt ceiling increase again. this led to the tea party takeover, right? in my viewpoint it seems like republicans are a lot more willing to reach out and discuss possible collaborations with the democrats. but the democrats, as they have become infiltrated with the far left, the socialist, collectivist types, they don't want to have any type of discussions, rational or otherwise, with republicans. and look, look at the squad on capitol hill. that underscores my point.

host: there is a viewer who makes this analogy. she says, the republican party is the same as the reagan party today. would you agree? guest: maybe. honestly, without doing a little research to flush out my opinion. host: let's go to danville, virginia. you are on with cheryl chumley. good morning, go ahead. caller: yes, good morning. pedro, i hope you will just let me say what i'm going to say. this is what i'm saying. you know, if we as america would go back to standing for god -- because my people -- host: rosetta, you are still on. go ahead. caller: if my people would call by my name and pray, turn from our wicked ways and seek god, then he will heal the land. america needs healing for blacks

, whites, and god does not look at us like that. i don't care who is the president as long as he treat people right. but there is things we need in america. i'm 85 years old. but we ought to be different than what we are doing now in america. we ought to treat people like we want to be treated. thank you, and you have a blessed day. guest: i think those are great comments, and i think it basically dovetails with what i say, that this nation was founded on judeo-christian principles, and the democratic republic we have in place can only last until -- last insofar as the people in government, the people and culture voting for the people in government, are properly morally compassed. when you have a belief in god not only does that create less reliance on government -- so it

gives you that limited government -- but it erases a lot of these divisions. it erases racism, because you cannot have a true faith in a higher power and be racist, because he realized that god made all people of all skin callers with all types of different missions in life, yet all equal in god's eyes. host: does your podcast when it deals with religious topics, do you talk with people of other religious faiths, not just your own? guest: you know, maybe. mike podcast is christian and conservative in viewpoint, but i do not explicitly ask people, what is your faith? i know i talk to people of other denominations. for instance, i'm baptist, but i have talked to people of catholic faith and different denominations. if you are asking if i've talked to people like hindus or muslims

, not that i'm aware of. that's not to say i wouldn't. host: gerard in texas. democrats line. hi. caller: good morning. how are you doing, miss chumley? guest: good morning. caller: i am a conservative democrat. believe in self-employment, fully yourself up by your bootstraps. i would like to deal with facts and the fallout of facts. bill clinton in modern times is the only one who pay down the debt most conservative republicans cannot still come to terms with that. and after he left office the first act was to eliminate or take the funding or the proceeds that would have continued to pay down that debt. those are facts.

and a lot are attacking that history. that cannot be undone. secondly, when barack obama came into office and had to deal with the fallout of that that, the collapse of the economy, he made the wrong choice in going the medical route in terms of trying to go with universal health care. if he would have followed the same path as clinton and focused on the economy we would not be here. we would not have had a trump or any of the far right issues that this country is facing. host: great. you, caller. miss chumley, go ahead, please. guest: here is my brief

response. you are not going to get any disagreement from me that that in this nation is out of control, and also go so far as to admit republicans have falling flat -- fallen flat on dealing with it. that is a moral and debt enslaves people. you are somebody -- if you are somebody who carries debt on your credit cards, you know how your paycheck goes to pay your bills and you have nothing left. the same thing happens to a nation that is so enslaved to debt. it opens the doors for other nations to come in and basically influence us and take us over based on finances. so, republicans and democrats ought to, for the sake of america, for the good of the country, for the good of our children that we say we care about, ought to get a handle on debt and start really living within its means and paying down what we owe. host: jim in eagle, idaho.

public in line. you are next up, good morning. caller: good morning. thence for taking the call. i have an observation. when you introduced this topic 40 minutes ago you showed a series of slides of what is in the infrastructure bill. all the way from roads and bridges and public transit, to cleanup of this, and energy transmission product -- projects, etc. the total of those -- at the bottom it said white house, so i presume those were slides prepared by the white house, or maybe that was just the source. host: it was the source. caller: anyway, those numbers add up to about $600 billion. in the bill is $1.2 trillion. so i guess the question that comes to my mind is, that is a big "other" category you are racking up numbers for something

that is a huge number to begin with. i guess the question is, why was the other 600 bill -- pardon me, want to make it any worse than it is -- i was the other $600 billion not summarized in some fashion? host: we concentrated on the big topics. that source came from the white house, and that is, you know, who it came from them. that said, do you want to address a question to our guest or leave it? caller: to me that reflects something. he said they came from the white house. that indicates to me that the white house preparation of a document only went to that point, to identify essentially half of what the money is being spent on. host: ok. there is details there too, but i don't want to belabor the

point. guest: i think i understand what you're guest is getting at. right before i came on the show i was looking at headlines and trying to get more background info on the infrastructure bill and its passage, because i knew we would be discussing it. most of the headlines said $1.2 trillion bill passes and so forth, there were a couple of headlines that said $550 billion infrastructure bill passed. i ran out of time, but i think what you're guest is getting at the math is not getting up -- adding up. if it is $1.2 trillion, where's the rest going? that is something we will have to listen to joe biden and go through the work ourselves and see how this coverage lays out. host: akron, ohio, mike, independent line. morning. caller: yes, thank you for c-span. i am an independent, like most

people. the way we are raised affects the way we take later on. i am a young per stamp. i just turned 68. i feel a lot younger than that. my parents were conservative, pro-life, pro-union democrats. which seems like an oxymoron to me, but they were conservative. they would air on the side of caution. they would make sure i got vaccinated before i went to school. my dad told me, you know, mike, if you want to live with there is no rules or regulations, join a hippie commune. people at fox news, they have all been vaccinated, yet they tell their audience that it doesn't matter to get vaccinated. i, myself, put health over wealth. i am fortunate i have both, the fight could only have one hour would rather keep my health. host: ok.

mike in akron, ohio. guest: i guess if i could use one thing to keep it would be my individual liberty. health is great, wealth is great, but in this country it is based on individualism, which means when you are talking about vaccines and vaccine mandates you are getting into individual choice versus government overreach. host: from terry in wellsville, pennsylvania. go ahead with your question or comment, please. caller: good morning. this is what i got to say. you are talking about people that are coming into this country, well, reagan, he allowed 3 million of them, he gave them amnesty. you know, through the congress. and then talking about that, well, that is when the debt really started to take off, when

he left office we were $2.78 trillion in debt, then you are talking about socialism, i just don't get it. when all of this corporate welfare has been going on in this country ever since i was a kid. so what is it? why not help give a hand up to people that need it like we have been giving the companies in the country a handout? host: all right, caller, thank you. guest: i'm not a partisan, so i can agree with a couple of points the caller made. they're probably not his conclusions. reagan has been roundly criticized for letting in people from across borders. we have already had those discussions many, many times among conservative ranks over the decades. and as far as corporate welfare, you know, i agree with you there.

the reason i hated is because i believe deeply in the free market and capitalism. and when tax dollars start in distributed to the private market, to private businesses, that gives government an in the government doesn't belong. what adults -- what it also does ultimately is give people like alexandria ocasio-cortez the ability to make the case that the free market is not working, because the free market has been meddled in by governments handing out tax dollars to it, so it isn't working in some respects. but to me the answer is not to move more into socialism and government control, it is to remove those socialist-type takeovers of the free market and turn america to a system where the free market is actually free. host: cheryl chumley, how often do you produce your podcast and

working people find it? guest: twice a week, tuesdays and thursdays, and you can get it anywhere podcasts are. but a force at "washington times." host: cheryl chumley is the host of the bold and blunt podcast. you very much. guest: thank you. host: we now go to the president of the united states. [laughter] pres. biden: folks, yesterday i don't think it was an exaggeration to suggest took a monumental step forward as a nation. we learned that our economy created 5.6 million jobs since we took office on january 20. recent unemployment rate of 4.6%. two full years earlier than the vast majority of economists predicted that would happen. we are just getting started. we did something that is long overdue, that long has been talked about in washington but never actually been done. the house of representatives