john curtis of utah talks about energy policy and the u.s. economy. as always. you can join the conversation by phone, text message, facebook or twitter. "washington journal" is next. >> in the coming weeks, i'm going to use the power i have as president to turn these words into formal, official government action through the appropriate proclamations and regulatory power that a president possesses. ♪ host: with more than 60 million americans expected to endure triple digit heat in the coming days, president biden said yesterday, it is time to act on climate change saying he will go out alone for now. this morning, we want to know, do you support or oppose what the president wants to do? if you support, one line.

if you oppose, one line. you can also send us your answer if you text with your first name, city and state. go to facebook.com/cspan and post it there or send a tweet. we will get to your opinions in just a minute more from the president where he announced executive orders, stopping short of what proponents would like, which is an emergency declaration on climate change. here he is announcing more action. [video clip] >> in the coming days, my administration will announce the executive actions we have developed. we need to ask. just take a look around. right now, 100 million americans are under a heat alert. 90 communities across america

set records for high temperatures just this year including here in new england, as we speak. records have been set in the arctic and an arctic. temperatures that are just unbelievable. it is astounding the damage being done. this crisis impacts every aspect of our everyday lives. that is why today, i am making largest investment ever. $2.3 billion to help communities across the country both infrastructure designed to withstand the full range of disasters we have been seeing up to today. extreme heat, drought, flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes. right now, there are millions of people suffering from heat at home. we are working to deploy $385 million right now. for the first time, states will be able to use federal funds to pay for air conditioners in homes, set up community cooling centers in schools where people

can go through these crises. i mean crises of 100 to 117 degrees. host: president biden yesterday in massachusetts. you heard him talk about the $2.3 billion in fema money to help communities build resilient infrastructure projects for extreme weather. this program is very popular. the congressional research service estimated states were looking for something like $3.6 billion for this program. he also wants to broaden the low income home energy assistance program. this program used in states like maine and others where they are using oil to heat their homes during the wintertime. and then, expanding offshore energy projects, largely wind, and the gulf of mexico and mid atlantic and florida coast states. as i said at the top,

environmental groups want more from the president including an emergency declaration on climate change. here is what the sierra club president said. the transition to powers in our country with clean, renewable energy is well underway, but in the face of senator joe manchin of west virginia and congressional republicans' continued love affair with corporate polluters, president biden must exercise his power with a swift, significant action to treat climate change as the crisis it is. this morning, support or oppose with the president announced yesterday? david in maryland, you oppose. go ahead. caller: how are you doing? i oppose. we have more important things in this country. gas prices are outrageous.

the climate, the earth gets hot every year. that is why i oppose it. host: you agree with senator manchin because that is why he walked away from talks on this latest proposal from the biden administration, which included climate proposals saying he is afraid that if you enacted into law these climate proposals from the administration, that it would add to already soaring prices. caller: definitely. i agree. earth has been getting hot for billions of years. this is nothing new. host: ok. let's hear from robin in alabama. you oppose? caller: i oppose. good morning, c-span. i believe they should take that money and go to l.a. and get rid of the smog in l.a. before they try to do the whole world. if they can do it in l.a., then

they would be about to do it all over the world, but i doubt think they can even do that. i also have a comment about this january commission tonight. they started out saying president trump tried to incite a riot, then that he tried to join it. tonight, they are going to try to say he did not do enough. host: let's stick to the topic, but we will let you know that is happening tonight, the january 6 committee is holding another hearing. this is the last in a series, but there could be more hearings to come. we will have live coverage of that, 8:00 p.m. eastern time right here on c-span. you can watch on our free mobile app, c-span now, or on our website, c-span.org. steve in anaheim, california. you also oppose with the president is saying he wants to do by executive order. tell us why. caller: sorry.

jumped right in. because what he is proposing is basically the bare minimum. he is just dragging his feet. today, greenland, in the middle of the glacier, was 32 degrees. there is a tremendous amount of runoff that ran off the glacier today. that was just reported. england or europe is placing an energy emergency. one in three people that are using energy in the future are going to expect their energy rates to increase. stumbling here. now, they're talking about raising the rates, interest rates on top of that, so they are paying higher energy prices because they are relying on russia. now, they are going to be placing higher interest rates because they are worried about

the recession. we have been telling people over and over again, you are going to have to do more. you're going to have to end this crisis. and we run into opposition and politicians that are dragging their feet. host: you mentioned the weather over in england and europe. take a look at the front page of "the washington post." right here in the u.s., 100 plus for millions. caller: they have been telling you this over and over. there will be warming, they will be stronger storms constantly. it is always denial, denial. it is here. they tell you you're going to see global warming, feel global warming. you are now at the stage where you cannot deny it anymore. the problem is, we have machines that are running on water. we have new technology as far as

nuclear plants. we have massive other projects that all have one thing in common. they cannot get the funding to get this thing moving. that is the problem. host: so should the president act alone and declare a national emergency? caller: absolutely. it is time to quit messing around and playing this game with the corporate interest against one way or another, as they are making money on the crisis, and to jump on the problem before it gets worse. it is not going to get any better. the carbon that you are putting in the air today takes up 1000 years to come out. the weather you are seeing now is not going to go away tomorrow. it is going to be with us for 1000 years. host: steve, hang on. keep watching, because for those that agree with you, i want to show you what republicans are saying.

that the united states is already doing a lot to lower greenhouse emissions, and it is the other countries that need to step up. here is senator dan sullivan from alaska making that argument. [video clip] >> this is a factual chart, in mission changes -- emission changes from major economies around the world. you don't hear about this a lot, but take a look at this chart. what does it show? of all the major economies in the world, the one economy with the biggest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is? america. the united states of america, by far. take a look. we have reduced emissions since 2005 by almost 15%. germany did not do that, japan did not do that.

china, a new coal plant every couple of days. india, same thing. why am i bringing up this chart? people need to know we are the leader. we are not the bad guy. i. john kerry keeps thinking we are the bad guy and telling everybody we are. we are not. it is every other country in the world that had emission profiles like we did, you would see a much cleaner and less emitti planetng -- emitting planet. that is a fact. host: there is some context to the chart he showed. this is what one website says.

carbon emissions in the u.s. fell in 2019 compared to 2005. that was more than any other country. but as the percentage changed, the u.s. ranks fifth worldwide. on a per person level, u.s. emissions remain twice that of china. on that chart, specifically, is what they say they talk about. they say at the senate hearing, sullivan displayed a chart showing carbon emissions in nine countries. the u.s. stands out with a fall between those years of 970 million metric tons of carbon emissions. japan went down. china released an additional 4689 metric tons while india's emissions rose. and they say the first caveats of sullivan's approach is that he uses absolute numbers.

the united states has the largest reduction because, in 2005, it had the highest emissions. gregory in sherman oaks, california. you support what the president is doing. good morning. caller: hello and thank you for taking my calls. i think it is a damn good thing the current generation of americans have not been called to fight world war ii. we are talking about the climate threat here in 2022 in a way that would have been disastrous if we have been approaching the threat from the axis powers from germany and japan the same way in 1942. we are in both absolute terms and per capita terms going back decades. the world's biggest climate and carbon polluter. we really do need to lead, not just because america is a

country that leads, but because we have the moral responsibility. this is an existential crisis. 2022 is like the umpteenth wake-up call for america and the world and it is only going to get worse. life is going to be hellish in the future. i would like to warn everybody who is a republican, the elected and people who support, you are putting yourself in a place to be the most despised and hated set of ancestors that every future generation is going to look back on with disgust and total inability to understand. we know this is going to get worse. our world is set on a course to run out of life in the oceans, the forests burned, and one war after another war after another were caused by these problems.

that is what caused the horrible war in syria. it is fueling many other conflicts. the flood of people coming from central america and mexico, they are fleeing problems we created was carbon in the atmosphere. not to mention all of the guns that have gone down south as well. the republicans precious work product is misery as far as the eye can see into the future. i would like to see democrats take over the country lock, stock and barrel. host: let me ask and get your reaction to this from axios. they dumbed down a peer research poll and said this is their headline "a gop generation gap on climate change." it shows that the younger republican generation say --

these are the folks that we republican, so the federal government is doing too little on the topic. but this concern drops off pretty sharply by age. what do you make of the younger republican generation believing that climate change -- sorry? caller: i know younger people are more data oriented, better educated, even on the republican side. for that reason, i would like to make this suggestion. i think young, first-time voters should get a double vote in our elections. they have the most to lose as well as the most to gain in the future course of the world, far more than the people like me in their 70's or even 60's or 50's. the young people, anybody in their 20's, let's say update 26, who has not voted before, they

get one double vote the first time they vote. i would like to see this happen in federal elections. nothing like a constitutional convention in the year 2026 to celebrate the quarter millennium of american democracy to start making real fundamental changes that might enable this country to start its decades overdue cast of saving the planet from our own human destruction. pogo famously said we have met the problem, we have seen the problem and it is us. we are destroying our future. the countries that are most responsible also have the most ability to turn things around with energy efficiency and smart policymaking. the high cost of gasoline.

we should immediately change the fair labor standards act to reflect from a 40 hour workweek being the standard week that establishes full-time employment for the sake of pensions, social security, and all of the perks and benefits that come with at least some jobs. make it a 36 hour or maybe even 35 or 34 our work week likes some european countries have done, to reduce by at least one day a week the amount of driving so many people have to do. host: you might be interested in this piece in "time" magazine. cows are the new coal. how the cattle industry is ignoring the bottom line when it comes to methane emissions. it says one of the early attention grabbing announcements at novembers climate conference in glasgow was the commitment by more than 105 countries to cut 30% of methane emission by 2030. potent greenhouse gas has often

been considered the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to slowing down global warming. the cop pledges alone would slash warming projections by .2 degrees celsius by the 20 40's. a new report produced by an investor network worth about $45 trillion focused on the environmental, social risk of intensive livestock production shows the meat and dairy industries, including livestock suppliers, is undermining the cop pledges on methane reduction by not tracking their own emissions and by failing to track those of their third-party suppliers. rick, we will go to you and you oppose with the president said he wants to do yesterday. caller: i used to be with earth

first, and environmental group. i'm sort of an environmentalist but i get tired of all the lies. if you do the real research, the overall earth's temperature, not climate in different areas, the overall earth's temperature, to tell people the truth, it is sitting a little less than one degree fahrenheit above normal. when i was a kid, it dropped one degrees and scientists said we were all going to die in 10 years and freeze to death. then still manufacturing went over to third world countries and said we are saved. the northern hemisphere is getting warmer. i am for fax. -- facts. america recaptured co2 90% to

96%. now, we are pushing for windmills. i have been in the energy business for 25 years. to build a windmill on land costs approximately $5 million. over 10 years, he put $2 million into it. when you build a windmill, you put 250 tons of co2 emissions in the air. people don't understand this. solar panels are built with toxic materials inside. if you have solar on your house, you have a toxic waste dump on your house. one unit of solar has 300 times more toxic waste when you dispose of it then a nuclear facility. windmills and solar are not green energy. host: i want to get your

reaction to what the president announced yesterday. this is in "the washington post." on wednesday, the centerpiece of the announcement was a plan to open more than 700,000 acres in the gulf of mexico to commercial offshore wind farms beginning with an area off the coast of galveston and another near lake charles, louisiana. scientists estimate wind turbines in this area could power more than 3 million homes. caller: they can say whatever they want to say, but they are total losers. i have done solar, windmills, oil and gas projects. that is what i have done for 25 years. solar and wind are always the losers. if you want to lose 80% of your income, fine. they just don't generate the power. solar is a toxic waste dump to be having on your roof. it is toxic materials. host: i'm going to go to tyrone in new york who supports.

caller: i support what joe biden is doing. i think we need to understand that we are trying to make earth more habitable for the human race. the little time we are here, why can't we make the best out of it? fossil fuels are destroying our atmosphere and we can do something about it, why not? why not do something about it. as for the other countries, if they decide not to follow our lead and we are the only ones doing it, so be it. if i have a pocket full of money buried six feet under, it is not going to do me any good. we need to know our priorities to realize we are here for a limited amount of time and need to make the best out of it instead of killing our chances to live a little longer. host: i just read that rather

than fossil fuels, if the world focused on the emissions of methane gas, which "time" says is more effective at heeding the planet than carbon dioxide -- caller: i believe what you are saying and that is definitely a problem. there are always other avenues we can take. we can also adjust how we are dealing with meat. we can always adjust our ways of living if this is to make us have a longer life and a longer time on this earth because like i said, this earth is going to be here. we are the ones that are going to go. we need to make the best out of the time we are here instead of killing each other and doing all of this nonsense. we need to make the best out of the time we are here. that is the way i see it. host: edward, clarksburg, west

virginia. edward opposes. your turn. caller: this earth has been around, by what i understand, 450 to 550 billion years. all this stuff that they are screaming about -- we find out we did a good favor. nobody ever told buffalo bill that and we have got a president that would jump in the river to get out of the rain and telling us what we ought to do and the only thing he really chooses is when he goes to bed and when he gets up. he is told what to do the rest of the day. host: rick, why do you oppose

the action by the president on climate change? caller: good morning. i guess what i pose more so is the executive orders. it seems like we have this tendency that that is the way to govern. we use executive orders. rather than try to build consensus on whatever issue you might have. to me, it seems like we end up changing our minds every four years so we can't get traction on an issue. although i agree that we need to do things about climate, i'm not certain that trying to shove it through with 50% of the folks for it is the way. i am not saying i have an answer for that, but i do have an issue with it. host: you say 50%. i want to show people the polling.

americans are divided over the direction of biden's climate change policies. they show this, deep partisan divides over whether biden's climate policies are taking the country in the right or wrong direction. among democrats who say the right direction, here is the percentage that say the administration could be doing a lot more, 61%, and has done as much as can be expected, only 37%. there it is. that pie chart. there is partisan defied -- divide. caller: my sense is until we overcome that, they just ran through a little bit of a gun bill here and they had some consensus. that is kind of my point on this. as terrible as an issue might be, if you have 50% of the folks against you, it is hard to do any legislation on it. maybe that is the point is trying to get everybody together

on it. i don't know how we move forward unless we don't. how about the amount of money that you might spend pushing toward your end, whatever that might be, and then somebody else gets elected and now, we are going to reverse that and what have we just spent? gobs of money on an issue we are going to turn around. host: speaking of bipartisan efforts, "the new york times" front page this morning, senator susan collins, joe manchin negotiated a bipartisan bill that aimed to block what happened on january 6. it is a group of senators that oppose legislation wednesday to modernize the 135-year-old act. the legislation aims to

guarantee a peaceful transition from one president to the next after the january 6 attack on the capital announced how the current law could be manipulated to disrupt the process. that front page of the "new york times." that january 6 committee that has spent the last year investigating what happened that day will hold its final hearing in a series, not necessarily the last one, but the last one for a while, tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern time. you can watch that here on c-span 1 or on our website or the free c-span video app. one thing that is going to be unveiled today is a video that shows the president trying to record a message condemning the violence so that they could get a look at that tonight's hearing. he was trying to record a three

minute message. the committee got a hold of this video and they say they are going to be able to see that tonight. rick, good morning to you. you oppose with the president wants to do on climate change. go ahead. ope. rick, sorry, i already talked to you. we are going to take more of these calls coming up at the top of the hour. we are going to take a short break. when we come back, we will talk with congresswoman jan schakowsky, democrat of illinois. we can talk about climate change, data privacy legislation, a lot on the table. later, representative john curtis will discuss climate change, the economy and other news of the day. we will be right back. ♪

>> "book tv" every sunday with leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. joseph henrik, harvard professor on his book "the weirdest people in the world," where he recounts how and why western democratic societies prospered. at 10:00 p.m., a former nasa deputy administrator provides a first-hand account of the efforts to modernize nasa and expand space exploration with her memoir book "escaping gravity." she is interviewed by christian davenport. watch "book tv" every sunday on c-span2. or watch online anytime at booktv.org. >> there are a lot of places to get political information, but

only at c-span, do you get it straight from the source. no matter where you are from or where you stand on the issues, c-span is america's network. unfiltered, unbiased, word for word. if it happens here or here or here or anywhere that matters, america's watching on c-span. powered by cable. >> "washington journal" continues. host: congresswoman jan schakowsky, democrat of illinois, a senior chief deputy whip of the leadership of the democratic party in the house and chair of the energy and commerce subcommittee on commerce protection. i want to begin with climate change and what the president did yesterday on using executive power. he did not declare an emergency on this issue.

do you think he should have? guest: i certainly do think the issue of climate is existential for our human beings at least on the planet. what i would like to see is that we really invest, put money into making sure that we do everything all thing that we can -- every single thing that we can to make sure we reduce the fossil fuel emissions. i think the president has done a lot of important things, but i think that congress has to also take action, both the house and the senate. we were hoping to do that more this session, and i am hoping that we still will. host: is that part of the agenda for the remainder of this congress? and what else could the american people see democrats put on the house floor? guest: i absolutely want to cs

limiting some -- want to see us limiting some of the licenses that have been issued to allow more drilling, but i also want to see really deep investments in clean energy alternatives. we have seen that the private sector has really stepped up and is doing a lot more to make sure that we are not reliant on these fossil fuels to make sure that our economy keeps going. we want to see more use of electric cars. we want to make sure that we do everything we can to promote and really support industries that are providing for clean energy options. host: yesterday, the energy and commerce committee voted on the american data and privacy and

protection act, something that you support. it sets national standards for how companies obtain and manage data, requires companies to provide individuals with clear ways and sets additional requirements for kids data including banning companies from using targeted advertising for all minors from transferring data to third parties without consent. "the wall street journal" referred to this as a milestone. guest: this is really a huge change. what we have seen as the vast majority of americans feel pretty helpless online right now. they feel like their data is being sold, used, that they are being surveilled. that these big companies know everything that they do and everything that they buy.

this would, on day one, set those limits. americans would have the opportunity to be able to delete, to change the companies that they deal with. they would be able to transfer their data, they would have the right to not accept -- right now, i feel myself, when i go online and i want to buy something and i get to the end of the transaction, i am ready to get something i need and it says, would you agree to all of these cookies? would you agree that we could sell your data to data brokers? this legislation pretty much gets rid of data brokers who are able to buy and sell our data. it also would say the only information that a company can ask for you is exactly what they need to make the transaction.

in other words, if somebody asks for your cell phone number or your credit card number or another credit card number, that you don't have to give any data other than exactly as needed to confirm the transaction. your social security number. i think consumers are begging for some sort of security online that says i am not the product. i am not the profit of these companies. i am control of my data, particularly for children. that is why, in this legislation, we raise the age of protection from 13 to 17 years old to protect children from online harms that we have seen. host: this passed out of committee 53-2. do you expect this will get

bipartisan support and gets the president's desk? guest: we do have support in the senate as well is in the house, bipartisan support. it has taken almost four years to finally work through what we needed for a data protection, online protection for consumers. a lot of work with stakeholders from all sides, civil organizations as well as the industry. everybody was at the table. it is not something everybody loves, but it is something that pretty much everyone has agreed to in a bipartisan way. i appreciate the support that we got from the republican side. host: facebook was at the table? guest: i'm sorry? host: facebook at the table? guest: i think we are going to

get it done. i think it is going to be passed and it will be the law of the land. host: i also want to ask you about the supreme court. you are in support of expanding the court. can you tell us why. guest: what we have seen is a court that has really been manipulated in many ways. in the four years during the trump administration that mitch mcconnell was the head of the senate, we saw him not only a point some 200 right-wing judges to various courts, but we saw the appointment, we saw the confirmation of three senators, of three members of the supreme court under donald trump. one of them was barack obama wanted to appoint someone and mitch mcconnell said oh no, there is not enough time. we have to let the people decide.

there was almost a year of the administration of barack obama left. and it did not happen. and so it waited until after donald trump was elected to get a supreme court justice. and then, with coney barrett, what we saw is that even as the election was underway and billions of people have voted, she became confirmed. it was clear that joe biden was going to be the president of the united states. i am saying and many people feel that the integrity of the court right now is in question given the decisions that have been made. it is not unprecedented that more people, that are different number had been on the supreme court, there is no magic to nine members of the supreme court. i think it is time now for congress to say we are going to

rebalance the court. this extreme right wing court that we have right now is not representative of what the american people want. host: what would stop republicans from then raising the number even more when they are in power? guest: we would like to see that while we have the opportunity, yes, it could happen. back-and-forth is what people say. but we think if we have a court that reflects what the american people want, for example, not taking the rights of women away that we have seen in this court, that we would be able to add to the court in a way that rebalances it toward what the american people want. host: host: host: let's invite our viewers to join in this conversation.

one line for republicans, one for democrats and one for independents. you can also text, include your first name, city and state. you can go to facebook.com/cspan or twitter. i want to get your reaction to more reporting from inside of the record -- supreme court. "politico" this morning, former religious right leaders says i saw phrases in alito's abortion opinion. the reverend outlines efforts to get the justices to be bolder. the same reporter who broke the story about the draft leak opinion about the abortion case, this reverends says that on a religious focused podcast that the behind the scenes lobbying

efforts led by his former group to encourage the conservative justice to be more assertive in their opinions on social issues like abortion contributed to the sweeping nature of the decision to rollback abortion rights. should congress do something about who has access to supreme court justices? guest: i think there is no question about it. the justices certainly are not immune to public opinion. i am sure they read the newspaper, but people who might have an inside influence on the members of the supreme court, particularly to advance a religious agenda or far right agenda, i think this is really a problem. we know on the decision to overturn roe v. wade and take away women's rights that existed for half a century to access

abortion, that it was a privacy right, a fundamental right for americans is so unpopular in this country. we talked earlier about climate. we saw that this supreme court said the environmental protection agency cannot really have the power to regulate fossil fuels in this country. this is an extreme court that it makes sense to me they were influenced by forces that should not have been able to persuade this court. host: a little bit more from the article for people interested. "political" reported the supreme court focus was called "operation higher court" and sought to use social interactions with a slew of religious interactions to coax

conservative justices. these couples build relationships with the justices through dinners at private homes, vacation getaways and swanky restaurants and sadly offered -- subtley offered information that they were the nations last defense. caller: i always look at the supreme court as something we honored but the way it is operating now. being on balance, there's no way the levels of justice can be balanced to the way it is set up. i think if they take power away from the people or change something that has set precedents in the past, i think that would set a lot of the problems we have. i am also concerned about the judge having so much power with his wife. in my opinion, they should not do that. fundraisers, they should not do

anything. they need to be under the same rules as any other judge. host: what are the rules that these justices could be under as far as disclosure requirements when they go to dinner, etc.? guest: the caller is right. there is a different set of rules for the court. and a different sense of accountability for the court. there is a law that says if the spouse of a justice gets involved in politics and influences the judge, that that is not legal. we have actually seen that happen. host: here is a text or tweet from one of our viewers who said there is 13 federal judiciary

districts so we should have 13 supreme court justices. there should be 20 year terms with no possibility of a second term. what do you think about term limits? guest: the idea of term limits is one that we ought to consider. this idea of a lifelong term that regardless of anything else, that the person is able to stay there for life. i think this is a very reasonable idea for us to look at. it is something i would support. host: mike in maryland. republican. caller: good morning. i just have a comment. at least for myself, it seems like the left has pushed things in one direction, that this is almost a level set. i don't know if you would agree with that but when you push

abortion over, whenever you allow unelected bureaucrats to govern with people losing their jobs and other rules made by unelected folks at these agencies, and finally, decisions where everybody, regardless of another unelected bureaucrats or organization to determine, maybe your reason is to protect yourself, especially with the biden crime rates, i think it is a shame to maybe be radical because you don't agree with a lot of these decisions but it is really a level set mind. everybody comes back to the metal. -- middle. host: i'm going to have a congresswoman respond to your argument. guest: i am not sure that i do. it was a little bit muffled for

me. host: he was basically saying that the supreme court decisions that you disagree with on abortion and on the epa, the ones you mentioned, you may view them as radical, but he says they are just common sense. that they are coming back to the middle. that the country is too far to the left and the supreme or is bringing it back to the middle. guest: actually, the idea of privacy, of women having the right to make a decision, taking that away is the first time that the supreme court of the united states and all of our history has taken away a fundamental right. it really does that women are second-class citizens in the sense that younger women particularly cannot control not only their own bodies but control their future. it is something that is supported by 60%, 70% of

americans. we are going to see women die. roe v. wade was not the beginning of women having abortions. it was the end of women dying from abortions. you could have safe and legal abortions. when you talk about the environment, again, this is something that is so existential for human beings and to say that the environment protection agency does not have the right, this is taking away abilities of the government and of individuals, mostly individuals to make decisions for themselves. host: kevin in michigan, independent. you are on the air this morning with congresswoman jan schakowsky of illinois. go ahead. caller: could you explain to the american people the ethics

behind nancy pelosi's husband buying thousands and thousands of shares of stock in a chip company that she is going to decide on giving the company $54 billion? people don't believe you guys anymore because we see things like this. we don't understand how this is not inside trading. her husband and her are as close as you can be. she did not say hey, you might want to buy some of this. host: we will take the point. guest: insider trading has been made illegal. it is not something that can be done. a not familiar -- i am not familiar with the speaker of the house and the case with herself

and her husband, but we have ethics rules that need to be followed that i think everybody should be following. i don't know that she has not been prosecuted for that that any crime was committed. i'm not familiar with that particular case, but i do think we do have ethics rules that need to be applied to everyone. host: phil is a democrat in tennessee. -- bill is a democrat in tennessee. caller: i agree with that sent a text in a while ago. since we have 13 court districts, we should have 13 representatives on the supreme court. the last time the updated that was some time close to the civil war area when we had nine districts. i think we should update that now. guest: we agree on that. i think it is time to, i like

the term rebalance because i think it is not balanced right now in a way that really reflects our culture right now, the american people, and that it is time to make a change, that we have an extremist court right now. frankly, i would say it is a stolen court in many ways. i have even called it an illegitimate court. host: richard, a republican in louisville, kentucky. you are next. caller: you are upset because mitch mcconnell outplayed you and the rest of your comrades in the demo party. as far as the epa, you want them to make laws, but that is your job. you make the laws and if you want girls and ladies to have abortions, pass a congressional law. say hey, get everybody on board and pass it. don't put it up to judges to

take care of what you should be doing. thank you. guest: thank you for that because actually, the house of representatives did pass not once, but twice the women's health protection act, which would reinstate the right to an abortion. in the united states senate, we know they have -- that we have 48 members who would agree with that. in the next election, if we elect two more senators who support abortion rights, we would be able to pass it as the law of the land. i am looking forward to seeing that this issue is on the ballot in november. people who want to see that abortion rights are reinstated, the answer can be as close as just a few months from now when

we elect senators who would vote in that direction. you are right. the congress can override what the supreme art has -- supreme court has said. host: from "the hill" newspaper, clarence thomas sparks interested in contraception. guest: we have heard from clarence thomas and others that even issues like contraception should be in question, which is just shocking to me. particularly if you are against abortion rights, then certainly, you should be the right for all people, men and women to be able to select the contraception rights of their choice. but we know that there are even those that want to limit the ability of women in particular to be able to choose their

contraceptive method. we voted also this week to protect marriage equality, the right of same-sex marriage. do you know that only 47 republicans voted for that, which really is scary for me. if the republicans take over the house of representatives, so many basic rights, the rights of the lgbtq plus community, gay people, the rights of people to choose to marry who they love, the right to get contraception, the right to control their own bodies. all of these things that have been the rights of americans for half a century or more, or at least for decades, and the

supreme court made a decision about same-sex marriage that was the right decision, these decisions could be changed by an extreme right wing court. that is why we have to elect people who are going to make sure that our rights are protected. host: chris in saint augustine, florida. good morning. >> good morning and thank you for taking my call. congresswoman, the hyperbole that you are speaking, you should not do that as an elected official. the supreme court did not take away abortion. the supreme court put it back down to the states. there are some states that have abortion that are in their law and not going to be taken out. so to continue to say that is just untrue. and uneducated voters are going to take that and they are going to run with it and say the supreme court did this, the supreme court did that and it is not true.

where is the fundamental right to an abortion? where is it because you made that statement that they took away a fundamental right. where is that fundamental right in our constitution, paperwork, laws? where is that right? guest: thank you for that question. what the supreme court did was essentially overturned roe v. wade, which is the law that said that everywhere in the united states that abortion would be legal. you are correct that certain states right now are the only ones that can make the decision. although, which mcconnell has already said that if they get control of the congress, that he wants to see that abortion rights are illegal all over the country. but you are correct and i am fortunate to live in a state, the state of illinois, where our state has made abortion legal.

i am also glad that you mentioned that because those people who live in those states like illinois, if you have an appointment, if you're going to go to a clinic, it is still legal to do that. we also passed a bill in the house that said people can travel. in these united states of america, from state to state. there are several states right now that want to make it illegal for americans to travel so that they can go and get the health care that they need so that they can get an abortion in another state. imagine in the e-commerce clause it has been interpreted that americans can travel across state lines. and yet, there are states that want to prevent that right now. i think clarifying the difference between what is happening in the state and what is happening in other states is

very important and host: the president is traveling to pennsylvania today to announce action on fighting crime. he is expected to call for more money for the police. your reaction? guest: i did not hear that exactly. for the the police? host: more funding for the police to fight the rising crime in our country. guest: there is this idea that people say that we should defund the police. that is very rare that people say that. we understand the importance of law enforcement. but, we also believe there ought to be more community ability, abilities of communities to have violence prevention activities. i know the president has funded

more of that, so we can have more support from civilians, even people who can go in and intervene when crimes are predicted to be committed, when there are these kinds of retribution crimes. i absolutely believe that we have to support our law enforcement to make sure that we reduce crimes. we also want to make sure that we fund community involvement in helping to reduce crime in our communities. host: the president will make that announcement around 3:00 p.m. today. congresswoman, thank you as always for talking to our viewers. we appreciate your time. guest: thank you. host: when we come back, we talk about climate change, return to our question about whether or not you support or oppose

president biden's actions yesterday by executive order. after that, we talked to congressman john curtis, republican of utah on climate policy and climate change. we will be back. ♪ >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span two. explaining the people and events that tell the american story. at 11:00 a.m. eastern, the 75th anniversary of the cia with several park grams -- programs, after dr. harry truman signed the national security act of 1947 into law. it will feature lectures in history about the cia and national intelligence agencies during the kennedy administration former president h w bush bidding farwell during the final days of his presidency. at 2:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency, rob real with his

book, quest for the presidency, where he documents the stories of every presidential campaign from george washington to donald trump trade exploring the american story. watch american history tv, saturdays on c-span2 and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. ♪ >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the house january 6 committee hearings, investigating the attack on the capital. go to c-span.org/january 6, our web resorts page to watch the latest videos of the hearings, briefings and all of our coverage on the attack and subsequent investigations since january 6, 20 21. we will have reaction from members of congress and the white house, as well as journalists and authors talking about the investigation. go to c-span.org/january 6 for a fast and easy way to watch.

when you cannot see it live. >> "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back to the journal. we returned to our conversation about climate change and what the president announced yesterday by executive order area here is a headline in the washington times. item unveils executive action -- biden unveils executive action to -- climate change. here is the president yesterday, in case you missed it. >> in the coming days, my administration will announce the executive actions we have developed to combat this emergency. we need to act here and take a look around. right now, 100 million americans are under heat alert. 100 million americans. 90 communities across america set records for high temperatures this year, including here in new england. by the way, records have been

set in the arctic and antarctic with temperatures that are unbelievable. it is astounding, the damage is being done. this crisis impacts every aspect of everyday life. that is why today i make the largest investment ever, $2.3 billion to help communities across the country build infrastructure designed to withstand the full range of disasters we have been seeing up to today. extreme heat, drought, flooding, hurricanes, tornadoes. for millions of people suffering from extreme heat from home. i team is working with the states to deploy $385 million right now. for the first time, states will be able to use federal funds to pay for air conditioners in homes, set up community cooling centers in schools where people can get through these extreme heat crises. i mean, people in crises of 100

to 117 degrees. host: president biden in somerset, massachusetts yesterday saying he will go at it alone for now, asking congress to act. stopping short of declaring a national emergency. here is a headline related to what he had to say, this is from cnn.com. the amount of greenland ice that melted last weekend could cover west virginia in a foot of water. these executive orders, the resident announced $2.3 billion in fema funding to help them unities handle extreme weather events. this program is so popular, according to the washington post this morning, the amount of money that states would like is more around $3.6 billion. he announced an executive order to broaden the low income home energy assistance program, and expand offshore energy projects, largely wind, in the gulf of mexico and florida mid atlantic

coast. do you support or oppose what the president said he is going to do? norman in wesley chapel, florida. you oppose, you were first. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, congresswoman. host: the congresswoman is not with us any more. go with us. caller: i oppose. i am 75. i was born on a farm in maine. i remember in the summer time during the season, many days over 100. there was a stream up on our property. we used to run into the stream to cool off and then go back to work. i mean, mother nature is mother nature.

man will never out power mother nature. thanks for taking my call. host: philip in orlando, florida. you also oppose. caller: yes, i oppose it because it is not enough. i just do not understand how we are not considering how dangerous we are headed towards, the dangers. i think by the time we go home to turn on the air conditioner, watch some movies, get up and go back to work, we really do not take into account the realities of climate change. i think it is not enough, i think the most common sense thing to do would have all of our used cars converted in some capacity to our driving without fossil fuels. i know the big oil companies will stop anything like that. unless they get wise and start initiating new technologies that

are clean to be implemented. it is the cars, it is transportation, primarily. you've got to radically go after, i do not think it is radical enough. host: what about the methane gas from the livestock? caller: yeah, you are absolutely right. the diseases we are getting, pandemics. look at how many diseases that are popping up, that is a result of all of these things that have been buried underneath the frozen turf that are being released. it is our atmosphere. you do not seem to want to think, we just react. take the politics out of it, deal with the basics like do or die. what are we going to do instead of die? what we have everyday prescribed scenario of life is doomed.

we do not get it. watch a republican call up and say, he is saying this and saying this. it is not correct. we've got a smart alec way -- they have got a smart alec way of dealing with life, but they do not do anything. i'm calling to say to do something practical, the science is now. this is a moment that oppenheimer's and people coming together with great minds to figure this bad boy out. host: after the cop summit in 2021, this article was written by time magazine. cows are the new coal from the cattle industry ignore the bottom line when it comes to methane admissions -- emissions. we know the potent ring house gas, methane gas, which is up to 80 times more effective at heeding the planet is often being considered the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to slowing down global warming.

philip in orlando, florida. good morning. caller: we just spoke. host: i will get your reaction, then move on. caller: the methane is twice as potent as the carbon in the atmosphere. what do we do? maybe we make acts for cattle. we have got to come up with something. we cannot come up with a statistic, what do we do about the problems? host: michael, st. petersburg, florida. you support what the president is doing. caller: i do. i do not think it is enough. what i feel problem is what is happening in washington with lobbyists. the lobbyists is sending so much money with the oil companies and other companies. they need -- if they want to do something in washington, they need to pass a law where any

politician takes any money or anything from a lobbyist, they will be penalized and prosecuted. stop this, and you will see change up their. when there is no man -- no more money being drug in, then you will see it. host: robert, you oppose. caller: ramona. there was a perfect example when -- was down, planes were low. the air cleared and the temperature dropped, they have done studies on it, one of the biggest things they could do is get the -- 80% of aviation places is heaton -- heating up the atmosphere, for every gallon of fuel that burns, there is never going to come and admit that because there is too much money. that is the way humans are. good luck. host: steve, san jose, california.

oppose. caller: i oppose everything that biden is doing or attempting to do. until such time as the united states government levels with us, opens up to us about what is going on with harp, that is harp, the facility up in alaska that is pumping microwaves into the atmosphere. the air force website about 15 years ago said that we will own the weather. if you are going to make a statement like that, you can own the weather for good, or you can own the weather forbade. the second issue is, until the knighted states government opens up and tells the american public about kim trails, and we have all seen them.

a kim trails is the exhaust from a jet aircraft that stretches from horizon to horizon, long after the aircraft is gone. normally, an aircraft exhaust will disappear within 30 seconds. there is something going on to this. host: i'm going to go to everett in washington, who is supporting the president. caller: what am i supposed to say. host: it is your turn to say why you support. caller: mi supporting --i am supporting because we need a policy around climate change that works. host: all right. caller: i would like to know if everybody can -- host: barbara, you are opposing.

caller: yes, i am opposing. i grew up in california in the valley. i chopped cotton one time when it was 115. in oklahoma during the dust bowl days, it was 113. here in 2012, it got hot. we are not going to change the weather. this is the weather. you are not going to change it. i grew up in the valley with no air conditioning and we survived and did quite well. sure, it is hot. it is hot here, i will agree. but, it is not anything that, if you take care of yourselves, it is not anything that you cannot take. this is crazy. biden is not god. let's face it. he is not god, but he is sure as heck not on. host: barry, you oppose as well. caller: pittsburgh, we got a

heat wave warning, too. the warmest weather was in 1983. the thing that bothers me, this plant that biden was that, the chips are coming from china. what i wonder is, how much is the biden family making on this, it seems like it involves a lot of things these countries are just making money. the hot weather comes and goes, and the global warming is a joke because england and all the countries over there with high, they have been involved with global warming nonsense for years and have got the highest temperatures. host: melissa, louisiana. why do you oppose what the president is opposing? caller: hi, greta. everything he proposes is a boondoggle. we cannot control the weather. mount everest used to be underwater. this is how the earth works.

the earth has been around for 4.5 billion years. i will echo what the nice lady from oklahoma said. it has always been hot. we have period of severe heat, it is down here in louisiana. very hot. luckily, we have air conditioning. what we need to push for is for more nuclear power, power we can use in the modern world, not these silly windmills that kill birds and pollute with the products that go into making them and we cannot dispose of the arms of them, either, so they are burying them in wyoming . these toxic -- nuclear, we can live comfortably with efficient and inexpensive energy. thank you, greta. good to see you. host: thomas in massachusetts, why do you oppose? caller: i oppose because we are

not the problem when it comes to climate change. we are part of it, but we are also not the solution. if we follow biden's plan, it is meaningless unless russia, the united kingdom, germany and china follow our lead. i do not see that happening. this will end up being meaningless. host: stan sullivan, republican senator from alaska, made that argument on the floor. here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> this chart is a factual chart. emission changes from major economies in the world from 2005 to present. you do not hear about this a lot, but take a look. take a look at this chart. what does it show? of the major economies in the world, the one economy with the

biggest reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is america. the united states of america, by far. take a look, we have reduced emissions since 2005 by almost 15%. you did not do that, germany did not do that, china. a new coal plant every couple days, it seems. india, same thing. why am i ringing up this chart? a, people need to know we are the leader. we are not the bad guy. i know john kerry keeps on telling everybody we are the bad guy, we are not. it is every other country in the world had -- if every other country in the world had emission profiles like we did, you would see a much, much cleaner and less emitting plant.

that is a fact. host: dan sullivan, republican of alaska. carbon dioxide emissions in the u.s. fell by about 800 million metric tons in 2019 compared to 2005, that was more than any other country. as a percentage change, the u.s. ranks fifth worldwide. on a per person level, u.s. emissions remain twice that of china. on the chart that the senator showed, what pulled effects says about this chart is -- political facts says about this chart is the caveat he uses to this approach is he uses absolute numbers. -- says it is misleading, he says the u.s. has the largest reduction because it has the highest emissions. freddie in houston, texas. you are supporting what president wants to do by executive action on climate change.

good warning. host: good morning. caller: to make any progress, congress has demonstrated itself to be wildly partisan at this point and unthinking. the house is supposed to be the rabble, the loud group. the senate is supposed to be the stern and august body that considers more deeply, we have not seen that. we have seen extreme specials from individuals like ted cruz, and we have seen an unwillingness to even work with the other party because of the trumpisation of the republicans. i am an independent in that i do not agree with either party wholly or fully, but i have respected republicans quite a bit through ronald reagan, john and through others who are willing to work together to get things done.

it has been demonstrated that our senate is incapable of action. at that point, it falls upon the executive to make a decision and push an executive order. i cannot even get started on our supreme court right now. host: not now. the are talking about climate change. [laughter] caller: so far as the epa is concerned and our ability to engage in actual climate considerations, the epa was of the serrated recently by the -- even serrated by the supreme court and designated by supreme -- by congress through law to act on their behalf. that has been destroyed. i worry, a lot of people call in saying they're worried about the country, the country is being destroyed. what they failed to consider is the breadth and depth of the way it is happening. they do not seem to understand, if you've got a good idea about how something could be easily

fixed that is a big problem, odds are, they are engineering considerations and scientific considerations that make it a great idea to have in your living room, but not viable on scale. those people do not understand $1 billion. host: it is a busy day in washington, including the january 6 committee holding the last in a series of hearings, that will take place at 8:00 p.m. eastern tonight. we will have coverage on c-span, on our free video app called c-span now. also, on our website, c-span.org . the former white house aides are expected to testify and answer questions on what president trump was doing as the attack on the u.s. capitol was happening, that is the theme of tonight's hearing. on saturday, 10:45 a.m. eastern time, generally six committee member jamie raskin and former

federal judge michael loving, who joins a discussion on the events rounding the u.s. capitol attack, is hosted by the virginia bar association. you can watch it live at 1045 time eastern time on c-span, the free -- at 10:45 eastern time on c-span, or c-span.org. tess in north carolina, you are opposing the president's executive orders on climate change. welcome to the conversation. host: thank you for having -- caller: thank you for having me. the senator from alaska who had the charts, i researched this last night. i found that in 2019, we led the world in our reduction of co2 and clean water infrastructure. that was 2019. i said, well, did it continue on? i went for 2020.

we also led the world in 2020. now, what happened was, the united nations came out officially and said all the united states needed to do was keep doing what they were doing. we did not need to be a part of this paris climate accord. now, i know this presents as an emergency, but these types of shifts have gone on since the beginning of this earth. it is the weather we see just changing and everything. man does not make this decision to have these heat spells or cold period's of time. what i am saying is, we should give credit to the administration in 2019 and 2020. we should keep doing what we are already doing, which is leading

the world. we should gather nations together and forced by mandate -- force by mandate china and india to change their position. they are polluting the world while the rest of the civilized world tries to grout, how can we figure this out. we have to figure out a way for them to do the humanity thing, which is to stop polluting. host: i will hear from anna in durham, also opposed. caller: i believe that climate change is an existential crisis we are facing. i think only radical changes can affect it. host: you oppose what the president did because he did not go far enough? caller: yes, i do not think he went far enough. there is a statistic that came out a few years back, 71% of

global warming is caused by 100 corporations. i think we need to regulate companies more strictly, and use fcc mandate, as well as the epa to try and go over -- go after these corporations and rein them in. host: chris, opposing. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you doing, ma'am? host: good morning, your turn. caller: i want you guys to look at a story i found about a guy. host: it is difficult to hear you. are you away from your phone? caller: give me one second. can you hear me? host: yes. caller: can you hear me now? host: yes, we can. caller: sorry about that. i wanted to see if you guys could look at a video from cnn

technical team, this guy talking about covid and climate change as a fear factor. could you look at that? that is project veritas. host: we are going to take a short break. we continue with the conversation and hear from republican congressman john curtis of utah, talking about energy policy and climate change and the economy. we will be right back. ♪ >> we need backup.

>> the generally six committee returns to prime time as they investigate former president trump's response following the initial breach of the capital. live coverage begins tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org. you can visit our website, c-span.org/january 6 to watch previous hearings and other videos related to that day. c-span, you unfiltered view of government. >> live sunday, august seventh on in-depth peer columnist and talkshow host larry elder will be our guest to talk about political correctness and racial politics of the united states he is the author of several books, including 10 things you cannot say in america, what has race got to do with it, and a memoir about his relationship with his father.

join in on the conversation with your phone calls, facebook comments and tweets. in depth with larry elder, live, sunday, august 7 at noon eastern on book tv, c-span two. >> c-span brings you an unfiltered view of government. our newsletter, word for word, recaps the day for you. from the halls of congress, to daily press briefings, to remarks from the president. scan the qr code to sign up for this email ends -- and stay up-to-date with everything happening in washington each day. subscribe using the qr code, or visit c-span.org/connect to subscribe at any time. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined this morning by congressman john curtis, republican of utah. you are the chair of the conservative climate caucus. what is that?

guest: we worked hard on that name. we are conservatives, but willing to talk about the climate. not only willing, we want to be talking about the climate. we are proposing ideas that do not require people to leave their conservative values at the door. i think it is important to realize, there are so many things we can be doing for this earth that are in line with conservative consoles. we want to be talking about them. host: what are they? guest: let's talk about the abundance of energy in the united states, how much cleaner it is then in other places of the world. for instance, u.s. natural gas is 40% cleaner than natural gas. we could dramatically reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions by replacing russian natural gas with u.s. natural gas. colburn in china with u.s. natural gas, fueled the u.s. economy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. just one example.

host: are you saying, more drilling, more fracking? guest: i want to be careful. what we are saying is, look. right now, based on resources, innovation, demand, fossil fuels are a important part of world energy needs. if the world is going to consume fossil fuels, which they are, why not produce some in the united states where we do it cleaner, safer, better than anywhere else in the world? why are we shutting down u.s. production and encouraging production in venezuela, in a ran, in saudi arabia when we do it better and cleaner? i think that is something that conservatives want to discuss, we are with you. let's reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but do not rule out u.s. also fuels as a tool to reduce read house gas emissions. host: are you and your group for

alternative energy resources? guest: absolutely. one of the things that is sobering to consider is, there are 800 million people in the world today with no energy source. they are burning wood, producing mass amounts of carbon. how do we fulfill these needs? we need renewables, we need fossil fuels, we need nuclear. nuclear is an important part of this that we are not talking about enough. all of these things, we need to be talking about how to use them in a way that does reduce greenhouse gas emissions. i think we can do that, i think we can reduce dramatically greenhouse gas emissions. and, meet our energy meads -- needs, as well. host: we ask our viewers if they supported or opposed yesterday what president biden proposed yesterday. he wants to broaden the low

income housing home energy assistance program and expand offshore energy projects in the gulf of mexico, and the mid atlantic florida coast with wind turbines here do you support that? guest: wind turbines are a great source. i would encourage those. i am concerned with robbing the fema funds to do this. this is a problem with executive orders and congress not acting. what happens when those fema funds are needed for wildfires in the west, which we surely will have as we go through the next few months? i would rather that the president stepped back and take a more holistic look at this picture, work with republicans on this like, how do we reduce greenhouse gas emissions? much of what i've seen the president who has been more symbolic, more feel-good than

actually reducing emissions. i will give you an example, closing keystone xl increases greenhouse gas emissions because we are still consuming the same amount of petroleum. we are bringing it in by trucks now, instead of pipeline. it was -- it felt good to close it, it felt symbolic, but it did not reduce rain gas -- greenhouse gas emissions. a couple of weeks ago, the new hummer uses more greenhouse gas emissions than a shelby -- chevy malibu. we are giving a federal tax credit to buy a hummer, putting up charging stations for that hummer, and it is going to produce more greenhouse gas emissions than a fuel consuming chevy malibu. host: the president closing keystone, the company had decided not to build that last leg of keystone before the president announced that. guest: so, why did he close it?

why did he feel to make this big need to go and close it? host: politics, perhaps. the house launched a new climate and energy strategy, more meat on the bones will be announced in the coming months. this is from the washington post , it would streamline permitting process for large infrastructure projects, increased ms to fossil fuel production and boost exports of the u.s. liquefied natural gas, endorse expanding hydroelectricity, blocks president from borrowing fossil fuel and mining on federal land without congressional approval. can you talk more about this? guest: there is a lot there, let me start with permitting. i've got an opportunity to talk with secretary home twice, we have talked about permitting reform. there seems to be broad, bipartisan consensus there seems to be problems. it does not seem to matter if

you want to promote a solar farm, a wind farm. we have problems with permitting. this is a low hanging fruit that should be bipartisan on permitting. i think that is a important part of the strategy that we have talked about. we touched on u.s. fossil fuels and why those should be used to lower greenhouse gas emissions. this is really important for republicans. you have done a tremendous job in the past to lend people we do not like, when comes to climate, this is important. we have ideas of our own, we are going to tell you what they are and come out with an aggressive agenda to tell the world that we do care about what is happening with the planet. we have good ideas, ourselves. host: i want to invite our viewers to join in on the conversation. give your comments about climate change. democrats can call in at (202) 748-8000.

republicans can call in at (202) 748-8001. independents at (202) 748-8002. you mentioned republicans being at -- there is something out there, there is climate change and i want to share this axios piece. digging into a pew research poll that found the younger generation of republicans saying, not enough is being done on this topic. host: i represent the youngest -- guest: i represent the youngest district in the country. they want something done. for some, this is a single issue. i believe we will lose young republicans if we do not get a grip on the way we talk about this issue. unfortunately, i think it is fair to say republicans have been branded as not caring about the environment. i do not think it is true, but i think the branding has been allowed to happen.

part of the reason i am speaking out that we formed the caucus is to show our young republicans to show the world that we do care, and we have important ideas. i think sometimes we get wrapped around the axle on this whole question about climate change, and sometimes i like to say, can we simplify this? less pollution is better than more pollution. can we all agree to that? do not have anybody in utah that does not agree to that. sometimes like -- sometimes, i think those are the important questions. do we want to leave the earth better than we found it? yes, i found we can engage any conservative on that level and have a thoughtful discussion on how to do it. host: in florida, doug is a democrat. you have questions for the congressman. go ahead. caller: yes, sir. i wanted to ask two questions. one, why didn't you say because joe biden closed the pipeline

that is going to do the carbon and all of this, one. i watched all of the hearings, we are not getting a drop of that oil because we do not even have the capacity to refine it. why is it the dang republican saying that is a lie? have a good day. guest: [laughter] i know you said two questions, i only heard one. when the keystone pipeline was shut down and for whatever reason was not completed, we did not change demand. we are still using the same amount of petroleum that was going to come through that keystone pipeline. it is either being trucked in rather than being brought in via pipeline, that was the first pipeline in the world to be designed on 100% clean energy moving petroleum into the united states.

we were increasing greenhouse asked emissions because we were using the same amount of oil. it is less clean for venezuela, iran, russia. that is why it increases greenhouse gas emissions, to close that down. host: this is from politifact about the president being accused of shutting down or canceling the permit. he says the keystone pipeline was never built, the biden canceling of it did not make the u.s. relying on it, which was claimed by mike pence. the company decided not to build that last leg of it. david in swedesboro, georgia. caller: good morning, greta and john. john, first, i need to knock out a few things. the xl pipeline was a pipe made in china, i mean india.

the oil out of canada would be produced for china. i want everybody to know that, because our facilities in texas are not set up for the crude instead of the heaviness coming from anywhere else. the point i want to get at john, because you are on this energy committee, is the natural gas flares. when you look at the weather m an, you will see a hot streak through the middle of the country. that is where all of these natural gas flares are burning 24 hours a day. i have been there, john. i drove a truck. i have seen these monsters. they are in hundred foot tall, you cannot it within 100 eight of them without getting cooked paired phase -- cooked. this policy says, i need to turn on my heat in the middle of the house and sit here with it 100

degrees outside. we have got heaters burning from the gulf of mexico to the arctic circle. host: let's take the point. guest: thanks, david. i think what is is you are referring to is flooring, i think the industry agrees we want to eliminate flooring. it relates to the product we can sell and earning it. to capture methane or natural gas that is caring, they pulled -- they put it in a bipartisan area to figure out how to stop that flaring. when i find is, most of our large corporations have the resources to capture that, turn it into an energy source. some of the smaller players do not, that is some of the discussions i'm having with my colleagues. how do we deal with this in a way that does not put those small players out of business, but capture that so they are not flaring? host: santa rosa, california.

bob, republican. welcome. caller: hi. i am confused about these things going on. i do not believe in the extremism that is going on, they are using the weather. like in california, they are saying the whole place is burning up. in santa rosa, california, i have been complaining in 1959 about the weather. my grandfather told me, do not worry. by 1964, you were going to have a fire. by 1970, it is going to be hot. it sure was, it goes on every 50 years here. it is part of the cycle, there is no -- they kill people in this town by not telling them, they allowed them to build houses. we went up and talked to the people who wanted us to come in and haul stuff away because they wanted to get these new houses

built before the fires came. we went out there about a year and a half before these things before they could get them built, they got them build, and the fire burned them all out. it is natural, because the trees up here. these environmentalists came out here and stopped everybody from cleaning everything up. after the fire. host: bob, congressman. guest: i think you represent a wide swath of republicans and conservatives who are confused and turned off by the extremism. as part of the environment to movement, i think that is why we get this brand. as not caring. i think you would agree with me that, less pollution is better than more pollution. we want to cut emissions. by the way, we can do this and fuel the u.s. economy and have energy independence. what i would like to do is ask somebody like bob to join me in

this quest. let's lower emissions, but not kill the u.s. economy when we do it. let's not bring in the extremism. i think, bob, a lot of republicans would feel more comfortable with this conversation if they understood, this would be good for our economy. we could reduce emissions at the same time. host: melvin in fort lauderdale, florida. democratic caller. caller: thank you. i want to ask the representative one question and go from there. where would we be if reagan would have followed jimmy carter's lead with the solar panels and all of that, trying to build the problem back then? again, build --, when they tried to get the country prepared for solar panels and everything else to cut down on theirs. we are -- with respect to fracking, i am from ohio and

pennsylvania. we have more earthquakes coming up then people could explain, that is why they are all fracking in the same particular area. republicans have been against anything to deal with environment and the way to deal with anything other than using fossil fuels. that is why we are in the same situation we are in right now. thank you. guest: melvin, appreciate your frustrations. i might point out that there is a republican president who founded the epa, richard nixon. a lot of republicans are not happy with that decision. you go back historically, republicans have shown great care for the earth. at the same time, i acknowledge and agree that as things started to become extreme, republicans were turned off by this conversation. for instance, if the suggestion is, we should power the world with solar panels, republicans are going to push back on that and say it is not feasible.

we talked earlier on the show, about 800 million people without power. we simply cannot build solar panels to get ourselves out of this. we need to develop new technologies, how to do fossil fuels with carbon c3 equation to get to net zero. i believe we can do that. host: what about coding livestock and cattle, methane gas emissions? this is from the guardian. meet accounts for nearly 60% of greenhouse gases from food production, this is according to a study. product of meat worldwide, according to a major study. another headline shows cows are the new coal, proposing mcdonald's, costco, walgreens track air emissions from food production of meat. guest: i would say this is an example of one of the areas that turns off republicans in this conversation.

the stigma of having a thoughtful conversation -- discussion of how do we support our community? how do we engage them in solving the problem, we tend to attack them. i represent coal country, i have a country called carbon county. i have seen firsthand the dehumanization of coal and the people who have mind that for decades, versus their health and safety so we can flip the switch and be warm and cool. this conversation, i feel the same way about our farmers and ag community. they feel fillon eyes -- villainized and attacked. if we would approach them, we could figure out ways to reduce. livestock is one thing, but the plans they plant, to see -- farmers may be our secret sauce in this. i would advocate we work with them, be careful not to demonize

the very people that can solve this for us. host: robin alabama, democratic caller. caller: no, i am an independent color. host: sorry about that, go ahead. caller: the first thing we need to do is read the constitution. nowhere in the constitution doesn't say that the president makes laws, congress makes the laws. that is way -- the way the constitution is written. the presidents executive orders, which have been increasing with every president in both parties for quite some time, are just plain unconstitutional. the other thing is, we have the cleanest energy in the world. our fossil fuels burn cleaner, they are produced cleaner and, yet, the president wants to shut down drilling on federal land while encouraging saudi arabia,

iran, russia, other nations are our enemies, to birders fuels much dirtier -- to produce fuels much dirtier that create greenhouse gases and shut off our supply anytime they want to. which is a national security problem. what we need to do is drill more, drill safely as we have been doing, and become energy independent again like we were under president trump. we do not need to be dependent on iran, iraq, saudi arabia, venezuela, which is a pure dictatorship. host: the congressman is shaking his head, yes. guest: i would love you to be my spokesman. i do not know your age, but i grew up in the 1970's and 1980's. i remember what it was like for a foreign nation to hold us

hostage. we made a decision back in the 1970's that we would be energy independent. we were not going to be dependent on another power for energy, we seem to have forgotten that in today's world. i wholeheartedly agree with you, energy independence matters. to your point, we do not have to give up reducing emissions in order to have energy independence, because we cannot produce it cleaner in the united states. host: independent, kenny. caller: yep. like i say, a lot of solving stuff is sitting in our padding office. that is the people that came up with stuff, the energy companies bought and buried. if we looked at that, that would beat the executive order. find the stuff out. would be all right then. take care. guest: i am with you and the previous caller on executive

orders. this is a bad trend that we are in. i will give a shout out to you as innovation, i agree. there are so many innovations we have, and yet 50 years from now when we look back and say, how we get out of here? i think we will see innovation we did not even anticipate as part of the solution. host: california, ron, a republican. you were talking to -- you are talking to congressman john curtis. caller: greta, you are looking wonderful today. especially today. congressman curtis, i have got to tell you something. one is a canard we have got to get over with, that is the keystone and the dakota pipelines. canada is still sending us that drudge oil to galveston, it is still down there. it is coming on trucks, trains,

the same thing. the pipeline has no impact virtually on that issue. the other thing is, what about clean refineries? where are they listed? when these guys turn down a refinery and shut it down, how come we are not following up and sing, when are we going to create clean refineries? no one mentions that. if he could answer those two questions, that would be helpful. thank you, greta. guest: greta looks so good, i have got nothing. host: [laughter] guest: appreciate your call. i think we beat this keystone to death, it is what it is. it is unfortunate that it has taken off a life and has become symbolic on both sides of all that is good and all that is bad. i think if i understand your question correctly on refineries, i would point out again that we do it better,

cleaner, with more regulations in the united states than anywhere in the world. we ought to be thinking about how we can boost that, because it can reduce worldwide greenhouse gas emissions. host: cisco in bethlehem, pennsylvania. democratic caller, good morning. caller: i will make my question as brief as possible. i want to recognize the political division in the country. i have listened to many caller's that have called insofar, questioning climate change. i would like your opinion on the ipc climate support, and how it is used by the united states military to deal with the budget , specifically over the last year or so, even during the trump administration with reinforcements, the bunker filter systems, the base relocations, and the housing has

been starting to move by the military. i know that before we begin any conversation on change, we have to have a true -- of people to indicate climate is a serious issue. host: we will have the congressman respond to you. guest: i would love to point out this caucus we just talked about briefly this morning made up of republicans to talk about climate is the second-largest caucus in washington, d.c. that would surprise most people that the second largest caucus in washington, d.c. is republicans talking about climate. host: they are republicans that do not deny it? guest: the first 10 of the caucuses are that there is climate change and -- republicans are on a continuum of exactly where they are at on this. we agree that this pollution is better than more pollution.

less emissions is better than more emissions and we have a responsibility to leave this earth better than we found it. i think we get off track on this climate debate when we demand a litmus test, how much is the climate changing, that tends to start the division. that is how the division starts. i would advocate that we back off that. the litmus test should be, do we want to leave the earth better than we found it? we got to bring republicans and democrats together to talk about this. nothing happens in washington if it is not bipartisan. every once in a while, when it does through reconciliation, it is just one party. it is forever fought by the other party. we have got to come together on this. part of the way we do this is changing the way we talk about this that does not turn people off on either side. like so many issues in washington, sometimes the extremes, both right and left,

dominate this when there is hundreds of good legislators ready to talk about practical solutions on a bipartisan basis. host: did you recount the democrats? guest: absolutely. sometimes, it is hard to talk about. when i talk about extremism's, sometimes people think i am lumping in everybody on the left. no, i am talking about the extremism to take your head off to fix her headache. not the people who want to come together, put their ideas on the table and debate them. that is what we are supposed to do in washington, and let the best ideas prevail. the republicans have not been at the climate table to debate that, the one sided solutions never work very well. i think bottom line for your caller's today, that republicans want to see at this climate table. we think we have good ideas, almost everybody says we are going to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero by 2050, we do

not know how to do it. i think republicans do not know how to do it. i want us to engage in that conversation and with our good friends on the left. host: where is there one place where there could be middle ground? guest: nuclear, renewables. i could give you a long list. there is more that we agree on then we disagree on. host: nuclear, we could agree on. guest: we all need storage for renewables, that is a bipartisan issue. new technology, fusion, hydrogen. there are a lot of bipartisan issues, we just need to focus on those and spend less time in the things that separate us. host: congressman john curtis, republican of utah. he is a member of the energy and commerce committee, and the chair of this conservative climate caucus. you can find more information if you go to curtis.house.gov.

thank you, sir. house gaveling in early for their legislative session. we bring you that now. live coverage.