>> "washington journal" continues. host: i'm joined by mark pocan, the member of the appropriations committee. they give are joining us. guest: glad to be here. host: you are also a member of the progressive caucus. what is it like to be a progressive in the house of caucus? >> we are working hard to try to get things done for the american people and i think the toughest part we have these days -- we have one party working to get things done. we don't get a lot of reports from republicans and that makes it more difficult to actually do the things that i think we need to do, the challenge facing us out of covid with inflation, trying to get things i childcare done for american families. those are things we need assistance on and i guess we do not always get from the other

side the aisle. host: as far as an agenda, is there much an opportunity for your caucus between now and the end of the year when the summer break comes? guest: right now, we are in the middle of the appropriations season. as you mentioned i serve on that committee and will be doing that this weekend the weekend then we are into august break. that september, we will be back and you are almost at the election. we have done a lot of things already. if you think of it as a session from the american rescue plan, they put money into people's pockets, shots into people's arms, passing the infrastructure bill. we have done holster reform, not a lot of notice but it made sure people are guaranteed six day delivery, which is believe it or not one of the top three organic issues people call my office about is the life of the postal service. so we have done a lot, we will do a lot more, we are busy doing things to protect people's freedoms, given the roe decision

we have been codifying women's ability to make her own decisions over her body. we did that over marriage equality and we will do it around contraception. it should not be that we have to codify what is already law, especially in some cases perhaps -- for those are the things we're doing. host: what was it like to see 47 republicans join on? guest: shocking it wasn't every republican. all is said is we are codifying current law ground marriage -- law around marriage which includes interracial and same-sex urges. you had that many people out of can such with their constituents and i would argue reality that they voted against it. i was more shocked the extremism in the republican party carried on into that they could not support current law around marriage. host: as far as the date over yesterday and leading up to a, there has been interpretation looking at what justice alito wrote about how far the decision could go to other areas and what justice thomas roe. what is your level of concern

owned are there of those justices wrote -- concern over what either of those justices wrote? guest: we know the conservative justices trying to -- conservative party is trying to stack the court. we have been saying they tried to overturn roe and i don't think people would believe it. you stack a court with this extremist's and they have overturn the subtle law. what clarence thomas at about marriage and contraception, he said these also should be reviewed. i called the next day and ask is my marriage going to be legal. very much we are concerned. yes, we are paying more for gasoline as there is worldwide inflation coming out of covid or the worst parts of covid, but at the same time, do you want to lose your freedom over making decisions for your body over who you love? that is exactly what is at risk with the supreme court and this congress. host: as far as the decision to

make this vote, what led up to it consider its likelihood or perhaps the lack of likelihood passing in the senate? guest: the problem is anything we pass goes to the senate and it is like going into a black hole. i do not have the web -- webb telescope deep enough to find where they go in the senate . as long as they abide by rules that were wound -- were around, we will have progress. in this case, when you saw the 47 republicans, i hope that would translate to enough senators who set i would not stand against current marriages and law. then again, is an interesting time for the republican party to be normal. host: justice alito, when he wrote about this, he said in the first line or within his opinion nothing in the opinion should be understood to cast down on president that do not concern abortion. he goes on from there. you don't take it at hymns word

-- at his word you take it? guest: i also took him out there word with justice kavanaugh and others that they would not overturn subtle law and i have been like to for people that wanted to be supreme court justices and now our peer it i trust when they say they wanted to go after roe or ted cruz and others say they want to go after marriage equality, even though it is subtle law, with half a million people involved and loving -- in loving same-sex marriages, i will be watching up everything because i do not trust they won't go after those things. host: senator mark pocan. if you want to ask him questions, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans, and independents, (202) 748-8002. you can text at (202) 748-8003. a couple questions as your position to the -- to your position as an appropriator. there has been efforts by you and other members of congress to pull back on the figure being touted. can you ask point was going on? guest: it's interesting.

when i came to congress i thought it was odd and 10 years later i thought it was odd that we have no accountability when it comes to pentagon spending. every other ability we have audits, regular reviews, but when it comes to the pentagon, there are no laws. they do not follow them. yet we have vehicles that only sink. the most recent class of aircraft carrier has a design flaw and they literally have to flash $400,000 worth of assets down the drain in order to unclog them, flushing money down the drain. we have any f-35 system that's 1.5 chilean dollars that has 800 noted deficiencies. in one year, they fixed two of them. there is little accountability. we have to support the troops but we question when these military contractors are making a norma's profits, there's almost no competition, and in some cases they are buying competition up, and they are the only bitter and we have no recourse. they need a more serious

financial review and i do not think they are getting that. a number of us are concerned and want to make sure we are looking at it with more scrutiny. host: one of those amendment would cut the budget by $100 million and the other $170 billion. can you explain those out? guest: the second was the increase above with the department of defense and what the president asked for. that does not seem to make sense, giving more than requested. the other one, it represents a little over a 12% cuts. there is so much waste in the department without the accountability that we think none of that money would go to any customer of the troops. that was the amendment we put forward. it is time we had proper reviews. the fact of the next 10 largest countries on defense are equal to what we spend alone, we are lopsided in our pentagon spending and we have other needs from health-care to housing to education and every time we put a dollar into some of the

programs, we are not investing in pandemics for the future, not investing in things like cyber attacks aggressively as we should. we are not investing in climate change. all those things, for example, our national security threats. i even think if we broadened the definition of defense to include things like covid, i think most reasonable people would say covid is the biggest national security threat of the last two years in this country. then we could spend money wiser. right now, we are not doing that. host: talk about this year's budget or the nda shaped by events going on between russia and ukraine and nato and the like. guest: that is interesting, people like to use that rhetoric as one of the reasons why we had to keep the budget up, but we voted on that money separately from congress. that a separate funding outside of this funding in the nda, so i supported that funding and i want to support the people of ukraine especially in these times watching what russia is doing but that is not related to the nda and people should be honest about that aspect.

host: today, the president of ukraine will address congress, calling for more support in ukraine. what do you think about the address and additional support for them, what we're doing as far as i country is concerned? guest: i think we're doing the right approach. we do not want to send troops in. i think that is the right approach not to send our own troops in. however, we cannot provide a lot of support along with other nations. clearly russia is doing this unnecessary aggression, trying to take turf back they once had with the soviet union. we are doing the right thing. in general, there has been bipartisan support. we will hear the first lady has to say. host: representative mark pocan, our guest, the first question comes from the independent line, tampa, florida, we hear from beth, you are on with representative mark pocan. caller: good morning. i have a question for you, mr. pocan. how do you feel about what our country looks like right now and how we are living in this

country? how do you feel? i am almost 60 years old and i have never in my life felt as sad and depressed as i see what is going on now. the divide between the left and the right. you say the right is extreme, the right says the left is extreme. how are we going to get along and live as a country? one other question, they want more support? didn't we withdraw from afghanistan because of money that was going and being wasted and now we turn right around and it is going again? and we pay taxes and money is wasted. host: thank you. guest: let me take the second part first. we had troops involved in afghanistan at a level we do not in ukraine and the level of funding is significantly different. i supported getting out of afghanistan. you are right, we never should have gone there in the first place and we spent 20 years wasting money. on the issue of getting along,

the issue is when donald trump came here, he was all about divisiveness. he spread a lot of hate in this country and i can certainly see it in congress. next year will be my 30th year in government, local, state, or federal. when i look at the friends i have on the republican party and state legislature when i was in wisconsin, and i think about people i've worked with even an appropriation committee, republicans, and i look at this new approach and attitude that is all about divisiveness that came out of donald trump and now the moderate republican party, it is said to me. because you have to be able to work together. not everyone is right on everything and by having conversation is how we get to having the best public policy. you find out what you have in common, not what you don't. things we learned in fourth grade. it is easy to figure our differences are and hard to figure out what you have in common and build on those things. donald trump really set up a nuclear bomb in the political

world when he came here and, unfortunately, people are still, especially in the republican, behaving that way. look at liz cheney. not exactly a progressive or moderates by any stretch of the imagination yet completely ostracized by her own party. or adam kinzinger and others. i share your frustration. i wish things worked in the way where you can disagree without being disagreeable. but the moderate republican party is not operating that way. host: from mason in minnesota, republican line, you are next up. caller: hi. so a question. when a justice righted to you -- wrote to you and it was settled law and said he would never overturn it, he never said he would overturning, he said roe was settled law and that is their job, to look at settled law and challenge it and return it, much like they did in cases

like for example less eb ferguson when they owe -- plessy v ferguson when they overturned that with brown be. host: i think whether it was kavanaugh or other justices who said it was settled law, they -- that means that is the law of the nation, they don't generally overturn that. for him to say that and then to vote differently clearly even republican senators are saying they were lied to coming from a democratic member of congress, republican senators have said that. i think that is wrong. be honest about who you are in your confirmation process. our real problem is we have no recourse. someone lies through the process to get confirmed and then does something differently, we do not have an ability to go after those justices easily. i think that should be looked at because it has been an organized effort to stack this court for decades, to get to this point. i guess i should not be shocked they are now doing his type of law, taking away half a century

of rights for women in this country, but i'm concerned about it and i think everyone should be. host: so when it comes to the court, we heard a series of legislators maker puzzles to expand the oort, is that something you would back or are there other reforms you would like to see the court take on? guest: i think that is the one we showed. our supreme court has changed throughout years that we have been a country and i think it is time again, this nation has grown significantly, and that is an action we should be looking at. host: kimberly joins us from arizona on our republican line. hi, camberley. your next -- kimberly. you are next. caller: i don't understand why everyone blames trump for everything. i feel he said what people think and did not have the guts to say. i understand it is now in biden's watch. he has made this country a complete mess. why is he still brought into this?

he is not president, biden is and it is a terrible thing what he has done to our country. for you people not to notice this and the border and i live in arizona, it is horrible. this is a joke. it is never brought up by the democrats, it is completely bidens fault. guest: i agree with you. he spoke to a lot of people. i think there was a lot of racism that came out of donald trump's rhetoric and we see that around the country but that is not a reason to say donald trump has not been divisive. clearly any reasonable person who looks at what is happening much less january 6, the first time we had an attack in almost 200 years on the nation's capital and it came when the former president had a rally and encouraged his supporters to come. that divisiveness -- is divisiveness by my definition and most people. host: this is our guest, representative mark pocan. if you want to call and ask a question, it is (202) 748-8000

for democrats. republicans is (202) 748-8001. independence is best independents is (202) 748-8002. when it comes to issues like homage chains, the president is expected to announce efforts on a sacred of orders. some call for him for a climate emergency. what is the appropriate response president biden should have toward this? guest: we need a much bigger approach across multiple levels. whether it be the money we put into the pentagon because of regions where oil is produced and we have to be extractive, whether it be because of the real effects climate is doing that is destroying so much of this country, watching the weather events that we have had, we need to address this. some people say we may even be passed that point to do something. this is in our best interest not as just a nation but as a planet to be doing more. again, donald trump took us out

of the paris accord which was three countries on the planet that were not in that and luckily we are now back in there and trying to do something. i support the green new deal. i think we need to take that sort of effort toward climate change to make sure not to let the planet, pedro you and i, but for our children and grandchildren because that is where the risk is the greatest. host: is the president making a mistake by not declaring an emergency? guest: i hope he does and i hope he does more. in the infrastructure bill, we had measures that addressed climate, half a million new electric vehicle charging stations to try to help that part of pollution but there were other measures in the build back better agenda that did not get done. when you have a 50-50 senate, every senator essentially has veto power and there has been people there who i think have been a little too close to the oil and other energy industries that do not want to change that have stopped other good things from happening but i think we need to be much more aggressive. host: from james, james in north

carolina, democrats line, representative mark pocan. hello. caller: good morning, gentlemen. i will tell you, i feel like this country is really going backwards. i feel like we have a serious problem. i think it is more to do with the structure of the government and country than how we think and how the people think. we are at the point where now we set it up where the minority would have a voice and now we almost have minority rule. we have $700 million put the supreme court in there and they have minority opinions they are putting down places of the american people. you have states like california, millions of people, only has two senators. then you have north dakota has 100,000 people and they have two senators. now, we have the merging of these i would call them mixed -- the emerging of these i would call them extremists.

when you have a 10-year-old girl and they want her to have a baby because this is their belief, it is scary. then you have every crack, every norm in our political structure -- the republicans just destroy it. they go through it because there is no law to say you cannot do this or that. they breach every norm. host: for interest of time, what would you like our guest to address specifically? guest: that's might -- caller: that's my question, how are we going to fix this structure because it is out of whack? guest: i think i would answer it in this way, there are a lot of things we should modernize. we are at the point where close to 250 years as a nation and there have been changes throughout history that we have done. i would argue there are number of things, expanding the supreme court, is one of those issues, looking at the electoral college for the reasons you mentioned would make sense. we have had people who won the popular vote but not the electoral college. i don't think anyone envisioned

that happening. i would argue the rules of the senate, most rules were invented when people came here in this building wearing white powder ways ask -- white powdered wings. i thing there is modernization required and your point is well taken. host: you think the president should take a stronger voice on issues like that? i know after roe v. wade, there were many in the party calling for a stronger voice from the president on what he could do. does he need to take a stronger stance particularly leading up to an election year in the midterm? guest: as farm some of the things i have talked -- as far as some of the things i've talked about, he is respecting the separation of powers and trying not to go in our lane and has respect for the legislative process i think the president has tried hard on efforts like build back better and other things to get done. the reality is we have a 50-50 senate and a four seat margin in the house of representatives. the worsen imaginable numbers you could have to try to get thing done -- things done.

any one person could kill things in the senate and a handful could do that in the house. it has been difficult for him to get the agenda done in the way we need to. don't forget there are 15,000 plus lobbyists for special interests in this town in washington dc, those that would want to stop things from happening i think the president has done the best he could in trying to put ideas forward. i would love for him to be more aggressive because i think his values to connect with the american people's values. the one thing i think is the most at is build back better agenda is people pay no more than 7% of their income from childcare. i have been told by my business leaders, republican leaders in wisconsin, the number one holding people back from going to jobs is childcare. i heard this over and over and he had a plan you pay no more than 7% of an income for a couple making 100,000, paying 7000 instead of 15,600 i knew -- in wisconsin for example. that would been -- would have

been a great savings. that fell apart when build back better did not move forward. the president has been given tough things given covid, the inflation, other issues out of covid globally as we are experiencing. i think his values are right. host: i know he is on the others of capitol but when you hear the named joe manchin, what goes through your mind? guest: i think of individual sport teams and team sports. i always wish everyone who had a d on their team realized that team is more than one person. host: from nikki, joining us in wisconsin, republican line. good morning. you are next. caller: good morning. i wanted to say we have to stop thinking about trump. we have to think about what is going on right now in the country. every time you hear a democrat talk, which is like this morning, everything is about trump and the insurrection. i am from wisconsin, i have

lived here 20 years. i do not see anybody excited about a burnt down kenosha. i don't see anybody worried about that. believe me, we are not covered. they have not done anything. the business people lost, the citizens of kenosha lost, our police department has lost, all we care about is trump. so here's the question, for the next two years, are we going to spend every minute and every day , every democrats, telling us what trump did and what happened with trump or are you going to fix the problems we have today? every day we have a new problem, nothing gets fixed, because we are concentrating on blaming everything on trump. with this election coming up, i do not want to hear about the blaming trump. i want to hear about what you are going to do to fix wisconsin and get your head back in wisconsin. host: we got the point, caller,

thank you very much. it represented, go ahead. guest: i hear you. here's what i wish. that the republican party would quit talking about donald trump. he is a guy that still runs that party. i don't know if it is a political party as much as i called these days. he endorses candidates, tells people to dance and they say what dance and he says jump and they say how high. from kevin mccarthy to leader mcconnell, i'm watching people still go back to whatever donald trump wants. if he is the leader in exile, that is why we talk about donald trump because the republican party has no vision and no leadership here in washington, d.c. doing anything other than what donald trump wants. that is the problem. host: represented come o2 what degree are you concerned about losing the house were democrats losing the house after midterms? guest: midterm election after president is elected is not good for the party in charge. i would normally not bode well for democrats. there are heavy headwinds with worldwide inflation, whether it

be gas prices, food, it's a trip that people are concerned about -- food, etc., that people are concerned about. if people look at what the republicans are standing for, you are losing your freedom as an individual, a freedom to make decisions about your own body as a woman, the freedom to love and be able to be married to someone legal in law that could potentially be overturned. there is a huge difference between paying an extra 15 to $20 for a tank of gas because of global issues and losing your ability to actually have your freedom as any american that everyone wants. i think that issue could supersede everything else and people will realize what is at risk. host: the cochair of the lgbtq plus equality caucus and part of that, you also chair the 21st century presidential act. what is that? guest: there's a lot of references to a president's in statutes but they never recognize a woman could be

president, a game and could be president, and we had to fix the statutes to modernize it to talk about spouse rather than wife. the bill passed through the house with support from both sides of the aisle and i'm hoping we can get it through the senate. whether it be a nikki haley, a liz cheney, a tammy baldwin, and amy klobuchar, elizabeth warren, or pete buttigieg, all of those folks could be president sometime and because of that, we need a statute represented. host: our next caller is on the democrats line, go ahead. caller: i just have any issue i keep thinking about because like one of your previous callers said, we have a skewed system right now. the people that produce the most money in this country and the most heavily populated areas are grossly underrepresented. i'm wondering if you or anybody in the house of representatives

talked about removing the cap on the number of people in the house of representatives. it is stuck at something like 400 something or whatever. the house is supposed to be as equally representative as possible and it is far from its now. it is not as grossly bad as the senate, where 20 -- 20 million californians are represented by two senators. it is bad. if that was -- if it was at least on my population. guest: i have not heard that much talk about it. i think the problem mentioned by the previous caller is around the imbalance of say california versus vermont by population. each has two senators but obviously that seems to be skewed especially when it comes to things like electoral college and other issues on the house, i

have not heard as much. we each present something like 750 thousand people in each district but i have not heard that as the concern -- 750,000 people in each district but i'm not her that is a concern as much as the senate. host: one more call, rose, north carolina, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call p i want to refute a couple things that you have said and maybe clarify why the public is so upset. if democrats who turned this phrase creative destruction, they are welcoming sheba to build back better. you are the ones who are breaking the rules from sodomy books to transgendered in the bathroom, not wanting voter id and wanting aliens crossing the border, late-term abortions, even when the day after pill exists for that woman raped. the crisper program, altering the dna and wanting us to eat

crickets and bugs instead of our usual meet. -- meat. host: how to forsake of time, what is the question for the guest? caller: why do you think that would not put us on the defensive? thank you. guest: i honestly got to tell you, on your remote for your television, there are buttons that allow you to go to other channels then fox news. i strongly recommend it. i don't know anyone talking about eating bugs or some of the things you brought up. you really need to explore, even if it is just for curiosity's sake, try other news sources and perhaps you will see a little different worldview. i think the worldview you just presented is not necessarily what i would say most people see, so i can't really address it and i do not know much about the eating bugs part. host: as far as legislative occurs, this week, what other things would you like to see as far as appropriations?

give us a status report of that. guest: our fiscal year ends september 30. we rarely get everything done by then. the house passes most of the bills, the senate starts later. it is important in a year where we have elections coming up in november, potentially, as you said, they would be a risk for a party transfer. it is important we get the business of the federal government done. we need to do that in a bipartisan way and everyone to work toward that. that is my hope that we can get the work done and try to restore some of the faith people should have in congress. host: representative mark pocan serves on the appropriations committee and part ofiolence reo

the administration of elections. [indiscernible chatter] >>