national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> c-span's "washington journal" discusses the latest issues in government and public policy. coming up sunday morning, we will talk about public opinion polling in campaign 2024 with the director of the political research center and the former deputy assistant secretary in the trump administration on the escalating tensions between israel and iran. join the conversation live at 7:00 eastern sunday morning on c-span, c-span now, or online at c-span.org.

♪ host: this is washington journal for saturday, october 5. for the first time in nearly 90 years american legally bet on the outcome of u.s. elections after a federal appeals court ruling earlier this week. yesterday, the market started taking wagers on political context, including the presidential election in which party will in control of congress. we want to hear your thoughts. should betting on elections be legal? if you say yes, the number is

(202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. if you are unsure, (202) 748-8002. you can text your comments to (202) 748-8003. include your name and city. you can post a question on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. or, on x at @cspanwj. the markets for those bets are live now. to give you more context and to the decision to bring it back after about 90 years, this from politico. harris or trump? election betting goes live in the u.s. it says backers say it offers investors a regulated means to directly offset the risks that can come from a new president or congress.

the markets also create a rich source of data on how the voting public is leaning in a given race. wall street regulators, washington public interest groups and some, cats on capitol hill have more -- democrats on capitol hill have warned it could open the door to manipulation of american elections. the article came from declan harty, a capital markets reporter with politico. he joins us now to tell us more about the court's decision. good morning. guest: how are you? host: can you bring us up to speed on the court's decision to allow legal betting? how did we get here? guest: sure. this is the next step in the process that's been going on that dates back to roughly 2022

on the commodity futures trading commission decided to ratchet up scrutiny on some of the markets. it rescinded a no action letter living dish in another market, and academic back venture. it has dialed up more scrutiny and denied officially a proposal to trade on congressional control from calsheet last year. they sued over the decision and a couple of ago the district court judge in washington cited with calsheet. these markets are up and running. there was a temporary stay lifted on wednesday. that created this recent opening for these companies to begin trading. host: an individual more familiar with traditional forms of betting, sports books and sports betting, explain how the

market side to this decision and what it means. what will betting look like? guest: betting on its face value is not that dissimilar from traditional sports betting. you can see it will offer you the ability to buy yes or no contracts on whether you think kamala harris will win or donald trump or otherwise. on its face value it is not that different. behind the scenes, please are financial contracts similar to a futures or swap product. that is where we are seeing this weird crossover between regulation and what many argue is just gambling. host: your article i read from talked about the pros and cons. in addition to that, where their arguments that the two sides were making in terms of the actual legality? guest: yes.

they argued going back a decade now if not longer this violates its rules. part of the federal statute that prohibits event contracts, which is what these financial contracts are known as, which deal with various things. it's a form of gaming. as part of that, that was at the heart of this lawsuit. when the district judge came back and said it's not a form of gaming, they are now appealing the decision. that is one of the key elements of this underlying legal battle. whether betting on elections is a form of gaming as federal law defines it. they argued violates various state laws as well. there are the agency is making and many of the critics here. proponents say it is a new way

of hedging financial risk [indiscernible] perhaps a democratic administration would be more friendly to electric carmakers or something and a republican lawmaker might dial up scrutiny. that my want to hedge the risk in their portfolios. host: you mentioned the cftc, one of the agencies you follow. explain what that is to the audience and what their role will be when it comes to regulating these markets. guest: sure. the cftc is the top u.s. throughout his regulator -- derivatives regulator. the biggest example are things like [indiscernible] various kind of commodities

that trade on the stock markets. [indiscernible] -- that would be overseen by the cftc. with disrespect to election betting markets, the agency does regulate interactive brokers. these are fully regulated entities. they have to comply with the regulators' various rules and obligations and requirements. the key is cftc has an anti-fraud provision that effectively allows it to investigate fraud in the underlying market of derivatives. the concern the cftc voiced his it will become the election,. there is going to be -- election cop. there will be issues of manipulating the market. the cftc will have to investigate to see if it was

manipulated or moved to the market [indiscernible] for the agency and chairman ross said in no uncertain terms he does not believe this is the role the congress intended -- host: if somebody wanted to participate and get a contract as they are called, how do they go about that? what are the limitations? are there limitations in place? guest: in terms of trading these products, you would create an account at one of these various marketplaces and log in your bank account information and so on. i believe that would open the door. you would check a couple of boxes. the limitations are mostly financial in terms of how much you can trade. you should be able -- most people can trade thousands of

dollars. in some cases, financial institutions could trade as much as $100 million on these products, which is a stunning amount. that is one of the big differences here in these products. they open the door for larger wagers and what we have seen historically. there are other markets out there that are run by academic mentors such as the university of iowa, the university of australia that runs when in conjunction with another entity that is pretty well-known. those have very small limitations on how much people can trade. this is significantly larger. host: as you mentioned, these markets are live for now. there could be more action in the courts when it comes to this decision. what is next? what do you expect to see? guest: what we are watching next

is the cftc is still appealing this decision, the district judge's decision. the agency is moving for an expedited schedule on that. they are asking the court to say can we get a move on here and have oral arguments as soon as early december. they are looking to move the case along. the agency this year also proposed a rule that would ban these markets. the fate of that rule is still up in the air, i think in large part because of this issue but because it is an election year and who knows how long the current leadership will be in control. it is still very much up in the air in a lot of respects. host: declan harty, they reporter for politico -- a reporter for politico. thank you so much for being with us this morning. guest: thanks so much, tammy.

host: we want to hear your thoughts on the question should betting on elections be legal? if you say yes, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. if you are unsure, you can call (202) 748-8002. we will hear first from abigail in nashville, tennessee. she says no. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. my first call. however, i watch frequently. host: welcome. abigail, are you there? caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: i'm definitely against betting on the presidential race. i think people should be more concerned with waiting -- voting

then betting. -- than betting. it is all about money, which is shameful. pete rose died recently. he was never elected to the baseball hall of fame for his betting on games. now it is legal to bet on games, which i also don't like and don't watch sports anymore because i can't trust the legitimacy of the outcome of the game because of the betting. that is how i feel. host: that was abigail. sue in reno, nevada says yes. good morning, sue. are you there?

sue, can you hear us? we will go ahead and go to al in plymouth, massachusetts. he is unsure. caller: good morning. i'm unsure because i did not know this was a thing. to me it really doesn't matter, especially in light of what has gone on this week in north carolina. you had a president come out yesterday and didn't say a word about them finding dead bodies in the mud. is this the question this morning? should the question become aware is president biden on this? yesterday he had his first news conference in six weeks. i think it's an inappropriate subject this morning to be honest with you. this is what everyone went to journalism school for? a seven-year-old child was killed and we are not responding in north carolina?

this is insanity. you need to change the subject, folks. host: that was al giving his thoughts. bill says no. good morning, bill. caller: hello. yeah. i say no because there is no way that you can bet on your future using politics. i mean, you do that when you cast a vote. you were betting on your future for sure. but then you bring money into that. this united we stand business just threw a monkeywrench or money into the process that is

unnecessary and actually they negat -- a negative for our country. i'm concerned about bringing money into politic even more than is right now -- it's wrong. it is just wrong morally, ethically. it's wrong. thank you. host: that was built. john -- that was bill. john and rochester, new york. caller: good morning to you. i think it is hypocritical with the probation vision -- proliferation of gambling. we can bet on everything but we can't bet on what's going on with our elections? of course it should be legal. host: would you place a bet? caller: my bets would have already been down.

host: deepac in california is unsure. caller: good morning. i'm not sure. it makes no sense having a gimli issue in politics. -- gambling issue in politics. [indiscernible] on a presidential race. host: would you vote? would you bet on election? caller: i don't think i would. i'm not sure at the political level. host: a few callers have talked about the legitimacy and accuracy of the election. we wanted to say this article from npr. they talked with an economics

historian at the university of michigan. it says people bet because it was fun but it produced something value, information on who might win. the daily odds would run in big newspapers on the front page. it says they don't have gallup polls yet. it turns out the odds are remarkably accurate. of the 15 presidential elections between 1884 and 1940, it was only ever wrong once. we are taking your calls and

getting comments on social media. carol on facebook says not a fan of this. one more avenue for shady characters. absolutely not. i think it will corrupt th process for sure. he needs to get all money out of politics, including this. it has nothing to do with selecting a government representative. somebody says allowi people to set the outcomes of your selections pes great risk. is already a way to

consistently question the outcome of elections. tom in pennsylvania says no. -- the world series. -- he had with gambling -- this is incredible. this will allow as the other

caller said that means were getting themselves involved in the results of our god-given -- mankind, our right to vote. to me this is absolutely incredible. this is an example -- i hate to say this but i'm thinking here what a corrupt system. they did this to make money for the people who invest in the gambling industry. come on. turn around. these lawyers are incredibly stupid but incredibly filled with avarice. i vote no. host: that was tom. carolyn in charlotte, north atlanta says yes. good morning, carolyn -- north carolina says yes.

caller: i meant to say no, i don't agree with gambling. north carolina was hit by the hurricane. the kite massachusetts, if -- the guy had massachusetts, if you giving time, he needs to stop spreading rumors. fema was on the ground for the hurricane hit. they are just working hard and it's disrespect to all the first responders, all the people that are working to try to do the best they can in north carolina to get this thing done and try to handle it. they are spreading rumors and i think it's disrespectful. biden came here but he didn't come early because he didn't need all the extra attention put on him. have a good day. host: joel in arkansas says he's unsure. good morning, joel. caller: good morning.

yesterday i listened to a man from massachusetts. he hit everything on the nail. c-span is not picking the correct topic. we are 37,000 -- $37 trillion in the hole. trillion now. that could circle this earth 20 times. you need to pick the topics that is important. this topic you picked -- i don't care if you bet on the election or if you don't bet on it. we have people in north carolina that can't get help. 240 people died. they are not going to be able to vote this year. that is the democrat white of keeping the election -- why of keeping the election crooked. goodbye. host: ben in colorado says no. good morning, ben. caller: i disagree with what i

heard and the woman that came up before that he said shame on these people for criticizing the effort they are making to do the best they can with a natural disaster. come on. i have a question that might be interesting. i oppose gambling. i have never been attracted to it. i see people run down because of it and i see a proliferation in sports. this is another extension of that same trend which is very dangerous. it doesn't appeal to me. i would suggest if trump knew he was going to lose, what he bet against himself? that is all i have to say. thank you. host: howard in new london, ohio on the yes line. good morning. caller: good morning. are you there? host: yes, i am. caller: you can bet on anything

so why not that? this is crazy. you have this stupid subject on whenever thing else is going on? that is like the other day when the debate between the vice presidents happened. i misted that night so i got up the next morning thinking it was going to be on c-span because you always have the next thing on c-span that happened the night before. even if it is a rally. it don't matter whose it was. there was nothing. host: we are 30 days away from the november election. you don't think this is a valid question to ask? something that could impact the election -- a lot of different

topics on the network as a whole. i encourage you to continue watching. you may not like everything we air but we do our best to get in a variety of topics. other people probably are interested. let's hear from paul in florida who says no. caller: good morning. thank you for having me. i watch and i try to call in as much as i can but it got to say if you fold the one dollar bill it says the root of all evil. that is what those who finance this are. if we can bet on it, it is just going to create more chaos. i wasn't even born -- my father wasn't born when major league baseball was put up so that the

guys took millions of dollars. it was rigged. once you involve finances, they want to rig it more. we already have enough problems with that as it is. we have enough problems. we do need to worry about betting on who will be president. we need to try to save the country, help where we can. host: do you think allowing the betting on election would impact the outcome of an election? caller: absolutely. absolutely. i think financially speaking we are not even drowning. we are killing ourselves for a dollar and now we are going to -- people are buying powdered

milk because they can't afford liquid milk. in my hometown and the virgin islands people are buying powdered milk because they cannot afford liquid milk for a decent meal. how are we able to put that on betting and gambling? i have played a lot of scratch, the lotto. no, i disagree with that completely. host: that was paul . marine in -- maurine in massachusetts says no. caller: i think betting is right up there with illicit drug use. to turn our elections into an opportunity to bet is just going to lead to more illegalities. this question for c-span to come up with this, whether it is

discussed or not -- disgust or not, it's crazy town. all respect to that people in north carolina, there are plenty of people in massachusetts down there helping people. for her to say everything is ok, that is not what i've heard and that is not what i have read. that should be your question this morning. the fact that fema is out of money. maybe they need to do some betting. i am in shock. host: as i explained to another caller, we cover a variety of topics. you may be interested that are 8:00 a.m. -- 9:15 guest, we are talking about fema and the lack of funding for that agency. keep watching. we cover a variety of topics. a lot of different issues. you may not like everything but people have different interests. stephanie in ohio. she says no. good morning, stephanie. caller: good morning.

i'm calling to say no. we have too much going on now that we can't even trust certain people to do the right thing. i am saying no to it all. thank you. host: bob in richmond, maine, also on the no line. caller: i would say it is a no. i'm not a betting man but i think we have so much more to worry about since the system we have as far as our elections, you are not able to even audit it because of the way -- not everywhere but there's a lot of places where you can't audit the system. the voting system. it is not possible. that is what i'm more worried about than anything. host: you are worried about the connection it could have devoting? -- to voting?

caller: i don't think it is good for the country to have more betting. you can bet on anything and everything. i don't see that being appreciable effect to the voting. i think the system we have now -- the system itself is designed to be corrupt. because there is no easy way to audit. if you can't audit something, no one will trust i this will go on and on, no matter how long we go with this voting by mail. that is the problem. host: that is bob. we are also getting questions and commentscial media. this one is from charlotte betting on elections threatens confidence in voting and should be banned. carolyn says, i've never bet on an election or football game or basketball game, so i know nothing about the gambling, but

as an american citizen if you can afford it, it's your money, so enjoy that is why i love my country, we are allowed to make our own decisions, but remember, you have to live with the consequences also. i'm voting for trump, he is america first, not an open border globalist like kamala. matthew says no, but lawmakers on both sides have lowered standards for everything else, so it's unrealistic to expect this to be an exception. we are hearing from you on this question. should betting on elections be legal? you can say yes, (202) 748-8000. if you say no, (202) 748-8001. if you are not sure, (202) 748-8002. i wanted to note that vice

president kamala harris was at a rally in flint, michigan yesterday. here is a clip from that event talking about her commitment to protecting jobs and union workers. [video clip] v.p. harris: we will invest in the industries that built america, like steel, iron, and the great american auto industry. i see. [applause -- i see you shine. [applause] we will enter the next generation of breakthroughs are not only invented but built here in america by american union workers. [applause] michigan, let us be clear. contrary to what my opponent is suggesting, i will never tell you what kind of car you have to

drive. but here is what i will do. i will invest in communities like flint. flint, which helped build the auto industry and the uaw. we will retool existing factories, hire locally, and work with unions to create good paying jobs, including jobs that do not require a college degree. [applause] because we understand that a college degree is not the only measure of whether a worker has skills and experience to get the job done.

host: a programming note, we will be talking about unions and the 8:00 hour. you can watch for that. we have just about 25 minutes left in the first hour of the program. we are asking, should netting on elections be legal? -- betting on elections be legal? allowing it to move forward after about 90 years of being illegal. this from politico, political gambling is back in the u.s. less than five weeks before election day. the federal appeals court in washington on wednesday cleared the way for a financial exchange startup to revive the first fully regulated election betting market in the u.s.. the three-judge panel lifted a temporary freeze on markets. the markets, while rejecting an emergency bid from wall street regulators pending a full appeal

of a lower court decision and in favor of -- will once again be able to offer trading on republicans or democrats will control congress next year and possibly more. the company has suggested that it plans to expand its betting markets well beyond which party controls congress and other political contests, including presidential elections. this news, this article came out right after the news that it was after the news of the court's decision. you can see that those markets are now live. kalshi asking which party will win the presidency, the senate, and the house? back to your calls. we will hear from cardell in ohio. he says no. caller: good morning.

c-span, have you gone nuts? with all the problem we have voting and voting regulations, who can vote and who cannot vote, and now we are betting on voting? you can do better than this. host: we didn't make the regulation. we are just asking people's opinion on it. do you have an opinion? caller: yes. no. host: let's hear from john in illinois. good morning. caller: yes, just wanted to say how much we love c-span and the work you are doing. i thought -- i buy lottery tickets.

i will be so disappointed if trump is elected that at least i will be able to take some money out and buy a drink. i think -- when you are voting in a legal situation you are paying taxes. i think it makes some sense to do that. thank you so much. host: former president donald trump was in georgia yesterday. he spoke about the ongoing recovery efforts from hurricane helene. here are some of his remarks. [video clip] fmr. pres. trump: we want to thank the people working so hard. we are in evans georgia to express our support, love, prayers, and all of the community suffering, it's not even believable when you see the suffering that's going on now.

one of the questions is there are so many people missing. at never seen anything we are so many, hopefully they will be found and will be found very healthy. it never looks great. from mcduffie county and a lot of people knew these people. such sudden and tragic loss must be almost unbearable. i don't how you can even take it . loved ones all over your county and state and other states, you have florida, you have virginia, you have south carolina, alabama, north carolina, hit north carolina so bad. i want to thank elon musk for his quick action with starlink

who supplied a lot of equipment to the governor of georgia and north carolina in particular. he acted very quickly. they needed communication. there was no communication. the polls and wires are down. he acted really, really quickly. host: another programming note that it 9:15 we will be talking about fema and funding for the agency that is currently working to help those in north carolina. back to your calls. john in pittsburg, california. unsure. good morning, john. caller: hi. i like the remarks that everyone has been leaving. to me, this election is so important. especially now. the thing is, i would say that if you are going to bet, if it's allowed or whatever, the maximum

that you can win is one penny. the maximum you can win is one penny. that's it. otherwise, no. that is my opinion. host: would you bet, john? caller: no, i wouldn't do it at all. i'm just saying for those people who want to bet, you get maximum one penny. that's it. that goes to show you how i feel about it and i don't think it's right. not when you're talking about an election. horserace, maybe. sports, yeah. lottery tickets, sure. this is -- come on. it's not right. host: glenn in maryland. caller: good morning. like the other callers, i am in

the same boat. we are so close to an election to talk about something so disgusting as betting on an election is un-american to me. that is how i feel about it. kamala harris and biden talk about backing unions. i am a broken down steel worker who had a job in baltimore. under obama, it's gone. host: that was glenn. rudy in bowling green, ohio says that he's not sure. caller: good morning. i am unsure but not for the reasons you think. i'm always on predicted. shout out to those guys. in 2016 i put $100 on hillary. it adds an extra level of stress to it, which nobody needs.

on election day, as the votes were coming in, i was watching the money. it changes live and you can see the prices fall. i saw hillary's numbers go down, down, down. that is how i knew before everyone else that trump was going to win. no one needs that extra stress. there are lots of horrible things going on in the world. c-span is great. they talk about different topics. you can watch it during the day or at night. i appreciate something lighter, to be honest. have a great day. host: evelyn in baltimore, maryland says no. good morning, evelyn. caller: good morning. i feel like the united states is really hypocritical. if another country was talking about betting on their elections they would be running their mouth crazy. we already got the lottery. they bet on everything. it's ridiculous.

betting on an election? it's -- gambling can be very addictive. we have enough addicted people in this country from gambling from the lottery. i broke the habit. all of the casinos. the country is greedy, because i know it will be passed. thank you. host: that was evelyn. about 15 minutes left asking, should betting on elections be legal? the question coming after a federal appeals court ruled that market betting could, is legal and is now live across the country in the u.s. for the first time in about 90 years. we will hear next from stephen in lexington, kentucky. stephen says yes. good morning. caller: yes, good morning.

thank you for having me. yes, of course. we live in a capitalism country. we can bet on anything. we can make money out of anything. we can bet if someone will sing the national anthem under x amount of time. we can bet if i will get cancer or not. of course we can bet. all of the elderly people calling in, it is because of you guys. you guys let us do this. you let us profit on anything in this country. you can literally bet if someone will be knocked out in front of you on tv. yes, this is capitalism, this is america, we can do what we want when it comes to profit and making a profit. so, whatever. all of these old people complaining about it is disgusting, no. you guys allowed this. you love being in a capitalistic country where we can make money off of anything and people's

misery. of course, let them do it. this is america. we can do what we want when it comes to making money. host: kathy in massachusetts says no. good morning, kathy. caller: talk about agist from kentucky. at first i thought that the topic was frivolous and i cannot believe that we are betting on elections, but then my concern became how much foreign influence would try to influence the outcome? so, that is my reason for saying no. host: gloria in san diego california says yes. good morning. caller: hello. host: good morning. caller: if anyone is stupid enough to be a gambler, they should be able to gamble on anything they want to. host: gloria, are you still there?

you called in on the yes line. you are saying yes, if someone wants to they should be able to? caller: yes. if anyone wants to be stupid enough to gamble they should be able to gamble on anything they want to. host: do you gamble on anything, gloria? do you play the lottery? caller: no. host: nothing like that? caller: no. host: louis in rutherford, new jersey says no. morning, lewis. good morning. caller: i want you to know, september 10, 2023 i called on this subject. i will tell you verbatim what i said. how much money was made just on the odds of who will win the 2020 presidential election? i am 70 years old. i finally understand what

"follow the money" means. the odds were so much for biden that is how he won, if he won. did you hear me? host: yes, go ahead, lewis. caller: so, i believe that is how he won. the first three people who congratulated him i also mentioned was netanyahu, putin, and whatever his name is in china. so, they are counting their money. host: ethan in south dakota since yes. good morning, ethan. caller: hey. i am so glad to be on c-span. thank you so much. i want to say that i do agree 100% that betting on anything is totally american, totally american. but i think there are some concerns.

where are the bets going? who is running the money in the background? where do the funds and up going? sometimes the government cannot be too trustworthy on how things are checked and balanced. i think it is a potential slippery slope with gambling, different things like gambling and drinking and things we allow in the world. it's totally american, but i think it needs to be totally regulated. thank you so much for having me on. host: are you a gambler? would you bet on the election? caller: i try the best that i can. i always lose. [laughter] host: always a chance that is going to happen. tim in north carolina says no. caller: how are you this morning? there seems to be an awful lot of people out there this morning that want to shoot the messenger. [laughter]

i am opposed to gambling. lottery, whatever, because i am an engineer and i understand math a little bit. i know that the lottery is particularly a tax on poor math skills. if someone wants to make a bit between a family member or the company pool, that's fine, but i think the judges were misguided on this. it is certainly not c-span's fault who made that decision, but they did. host: you are in north carolina. how are you doing? were you close to where helene hit? caller: no. i am in the middle of the state. host: i'm glad to hear that you

are doing ok. caller: it messed with three weeks ago hit the eastern part of the state and we missed this one. we only got wet. host: glad to hear that. thank you for your call this morning. jim in missouri says yes, that gambling should be legal. betting on elections should be legal. good morning. caller: good morning. i have been thinking about this. i don't know why they are upset because i will place a $2 bet when we have billionaires throwing billions into election at one time. aren't they betting on who will win? a $2 that will not hurt anything. i'm sorry. host: you said that you are for sure going to place a bet? caller: yeah, i will spend 2bu cks, but i'm not going to put in

$10 million that tha -- $10 million to bet on it. host: are you going to bet on the presidential election or congress? caller: the president. you know, everybody has so much money. democrats raised $600 million. some got $200 million. i think the bet on kamala to win if you're going to put in that kind of money. host: ronald in oklahoma is on the unsure line. good morning, ronald. caller: good morning, c-span. i am so glad that you have this topic because it proves that if you look at the supreme court, citizens united, when they said an unlimited amount of money can be spent on elections, this is a beautiful topic. thank you, c-span. thank you extraordinaire from

oklahoma. there are tornadoes in oklahoma, they get tore up our town and it will be late this year coming up we will have more tornado. i think california is going to have an earthquake. sooner or later the whole country is going to be split in half exactly in half. millions of dollars here and billions of dollars there. the republicans want to run up our debt with wars and rumors of wars. like they said in the bible. thank you, c-span. this is a great topic. host: tom in jacksonville, florida says yes. good morning, tom. caller: how are you doing? i appreciate what c-span -- please inform everyone they are betting $7 trillion on this election according to the wharton school of business and all of the economists who signed on to that. jd vance said not to trust the

economists. if they are right, everyone's children and grandchildren go into debt another 7 trillion dollars. more voodoo economics. everyone is betting. it doesn't matter if it is at the casino or the ballot box. $7 trillion to bet that all of the experts are wrong is a pretty long shot bet. thank you again for c-span. host: it is time for one more call. virginia, carlton says no. caller: good morning. i say no. i just think it's wrong. aren't they doing that in vegas already? host: it is not prohibited in

las vegas before this week. it's only certain companies now offering it. caller: ok, well, that clears that up. host: i think you can bet on everything else in vegas, though. caller: to the haters about the topic, i understand that they may not be talking about what they want to talk about right now. but if they have an opinion wait for open forum and voice it there. as for the topic, give your opinion and make time for someone else. thank you, have a good day. host: that was our last caller for this first hour.

later, bloomberg law lor reporter ian kullgren. and from the union of concerned scientists, shana udvardy discuss climate disasters and preparedness. ♪ ♪ >> attention, middle and high school students across america, it's time for the c-span studentcam documentary contest 2025. your chance to create a documentary that can make an impact. your documentary should answer this year's question. your message to the president. what issue is most important to you or your community. whether you are passionate about politics, and the environment,

or community stories, studentcam is your platform to share your message with the world with $100,000 in prizes, including a grand prize of $5,000. th is your opportunity to not only make an impac b be rewarded for your creativity and hard work. scan the code or visit tcam.org for all of the details on how to enter. the deadline ijanuary 20, 2025. >> as the 2024 presidential campaign continues, american history tv presents historic presidential elections. learn about the pivotal issues of different eras, uncover what made these elections historic, and explore their lasting impact on the nation. today, the election of 1932. >> what our people need is the restoration of their normal

jobs, the recovery of agricultural prices. >> i pledge myself to a new deal for the american people. >> at the height of the great depression, democratic new york governor franklin roosevelt unseated the incumbent republican president herbert hoover in a landslide victory. watch historicdential elections sunday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on american histy on c-span2. >> the book is titled "all the president's money." it is how the men who governed america governed their own money, according to the subtitle. the author is the founding partner of checkers financial management a san francisco-based firm specializing in tax and financial planning for high net worth individuals. megan gorman says that the

american presidents are a complex group to tackle. they live in a mudslinging reality on the way to and through their presidency. the moment that their term ends, they become historical figures carved in stone. >> "all the president's money available on the free c-span now mobile app or wherever you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us to discuss labor unions and campaign 2024 is ian kullgren, a labor reporter for bloomberg law. a lot of news this week in terms of unions. let's start with the deal of the port workers, their tentative agreement. what does it look like and what is next? guest: it is really more of a

cease fire than a tentative agreement at this point. the only thing we worked out is wages. granted, that is a big issue on the table. they agreed to a 62% increase, reportedly. that is not as high as the 77% that the union originally wanted, but it is still one of the biggest jobs we've seen in wages in the post-covid union resurgence. this buys them time until january 15 for leadership to negotiate with the port operators and importers to come up with a deal. notably it punts the issue until after the election. host: almost until right before the inauguration. guest: correct. host: let's talk about one of the big issues still to be resolved. that's the issue of automation. wanted to read this quote from

"the washington post," from heather long. "it is now possible to run a dockyard wmosto humans present. the two key jobs operating cranes and moving containers around can be automed cranes pick up the having containers from the and sort them on shore. the tcarry the containers from the docks to wherever they need to go. next, the railroad, trucking hub, or storage facility, people are needed to oversee things, but their role is now more i can do air traffic control, neatness and i.t. jobs remain. the bottom line is fewer workers are needed." talk about where this agreement or cease fire, as you put it, leaves this particular issue. guest: it leaves the issue of automation completely open. this is not a new issue. this goes back multiple

agreements. it is something that concerned the west coast dockworkers when they were negotiating recently for contracts as well. it's something that is a very real issue for these workers. there are already automated terminals at the ports of long beach and los angeles. the east coast workers, the agreement we are talking about under the international longshoremen's association, they don't want unchecked carte blanche automation for the port operators to put in whatever they want without negotiating over it. it really leaves the issue of automation unsolved and puts a stake in the wage issue as a way to pause the strike and avoid big economic disruption and be able to continue forward towards this issue. host: it isn't just the port workers who have concerns with automation. how have other industries and

unions tackled this issue? guest: that is a great question. one thing that we can look at that may seem counterintuitive to compare are the workers in hollywood, actors and writers. this was a huge issue in their strike in 2023. they ultimately were able to bargain a system with the studio operators to have workers share in profits from their likeness being used via ai and other projects moving forward. obviously, that is a very different industry than the one we are talking about, but what a lot of unions have done, including sag-aftra and the hollywood writers, is negotiate a clause that any big new

introduction technology must be bargained over. it gives them a seat at the table and prevents the employer from just doing whatever they want to put in whatever technology they want and the operation may or may not affect workers' jobs. host: when did we learn from the port worker's strike? it was pretty short compared to the hollywood writers strike. there is a current machinist strike that has been ongoing for weeks. does the short strike indicate anything? guest: well, historically, as experts have told me, port strikes tend to be shorter than other strikes because they have such a broad economic disruption all across the country. you think about how many industries rely on things being shipped in. without those, without those shipments coming in, it can

tank the economy really fast. it can take a toll on the economy before the strikes start as importers redirect cargo to the west coast, making contingency plans, doing things to prepare for the worst. it disrupts the entire supply chain. it would have gotten really bad if it had gone beyond two to three days. that's when you start to see some real consequences. all of the parties wanted to avoid. i think the fact that they were able to get a deal on wages, which is about half of the battle, signifies that they will probably be able to get something done before january 15. it may come down to the wire, but it certainly is something that protects the economy from a lot of turmoil. host: you mentioned the wage increase. the percentage is over a period of years. is there a potential impact for

inflation or further raised to be passed on to consumers? -- for the raise to be passed on to consumers? guest: if you asked the port workers are advocates in the union space they point out that importers have been making a lot, a lot of money for a long time. since the pandemic. profits in the import sector as a whole were about $2 billion in 2020, the start of 2020. by 2022 it was $63 billion profit. this is something that this money is something that has been coming into the industry for a long time. workers feel strongly that they should share in some of that profit, because they were helping to make the profit. that is the fundamental argument on their side. host: we are talking with ian

kullgren about the state of u.s. labor and campaign 2024. if you have a question or a comment for him you can call in now. if you are a republican, (202) 748-8001. democrat, (202) 748-8000. if you are an independent, (202) 748-8002. we also have a line set aside for union members. you can call in at (202) 748-8003. the contract is now extended until january 15, right before the inauguration of the next president. talk about the role for approach that the biden administration took to the port workers strike. guest: the administration's involvement ramped up pretty quickly. in the early days before the strike, i was told by folks close to the situation that they

were not really getting anywhere in trying to parlay with the union to come around to getting a deal to avoid the strike. as soon as the strike started, there was a pretty big push by the administration to end it as quickly as possible. it involved some of the highest level folks in the administration. the chief of staff, the national economic council director, pete buttigieg the transportation secretary, the labor secretary, they were all involved in this coordinated effort to end the strike. that really hit a tipping point thursday morning when there was a zoom call with some of the port operators. they pressed them to get a deal and "the washington post" reported that the port operators

were told that the president would be informed that there was were would be a deal by the end of the day even though there wasn't at that time. at that point, the labor secretary went to new jersey to speak with union leadership. it was something that -- there were a lot of folks wondering if the administration, being a lame-duck administration, would really be able to do anything, get something done? the answer was, yes. they came together pretty quickly to get it done. it's interesting to note that president biden himself wasn't quite as involved in this one as he has in the past during the rail disputes in 2022. he zoomed into the meeting and talked to the rail operators and union leaders directly and held a big victory celebration in the

rose garden after when they got a deal. that ended up being more complicated than he thought and congress had to approve it to force the deal. biden himself was not as involved as he was before, but certainly the upper ranks of his administration were. host: something that was noted and usually comes up when we see strikes like this, is the taft-hartley act was an option for president biden, but he didn't use it. remind us what that does and doesn't do. guest: the taft-hartley act allows the president in times of economic turmoil in certain limited circumstances, the ports being one of them, to forcibly, legally, break a strike and

force the workers back to work. that's not what this was like at all. any resolution brokered by the government will help management, because it erodes their economic leverage. there were warnings early on from schuller and others warning the administration, warning him not to get involved. the administration's involvement was kept pretty low-key for most of the deliberations because they wanted to avoid any perception that they were going to use taft-hartley, break the strike. that would have been a very difficult situation for president biden and would have had blowback on kamala harris as well. host: on spring our audience into the conversation -- let's

bring our audience into the conversation. joe in maine is a member of the union. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to thank you. this is the first time in five shows that you have had a guest on that wasn't a republican lying through his butt. you had representative buddy carter on here talking about how he didn't say there were 5000 dead people -- host: joe, we are talking about unions with our guest now. do you have a question for him? caller: yes, i'm thanking him. my question is, would you please go through the republican's treatment of unions? you just expressed how joe biden has got support. could you show donald trump's nonsupport? could you make examples of that? thank you.

guest: certainly. under president trump leading the party, the party's positions on unions has gotten more complicated. it used to be across-the-board antiunion. you saw the teachers president unions be cut the republican national convention. jd vance in his speech at the rnc talked about bringing in union workers and union household voters. however, ther i -- there is a disconnect between some of the rhetoric and the policies that unions support. they, being republicans, are still on the opposite side of a lot of the legislative priorities of the unions. they will tell you -- the one thing that former president trump and his campaign has pivoted back to is the focus on

trade protection and how that can ultimately help union workers. it's true that some of those positions online pretty seamlessly with what unions have wanted and advocated for over the past eight years. her example, they did -- for example, they endorsed the trade agreement that the trump administration brokered and was approved by congress. but you don't see many saying endorsing former president trump and that is for many reasons. they point to him not supporting reforms of labor law that would make it easier for workers to organize. a lot of the biden administration's priorities have also been supported by unions.

he has rarely done anything that's gone against what unions have wanted and what they've stood for. if president trump wins he will have a task ahead of him, which he wasn't able to do the last time he was in office. host: you mentioned that there are not a lot of unions endorsing former president trump. one notable union, the teamsters, declined to endorse either candidate. why? guest: well, if you look at the polls that the teamsters ran, you will have your answer pretty quickly. there was a big disparity between support for kamala harris and support for former president trump. the final number that they released was 50% supported trump and 31% supported harris.

that is more than 10 points down from where president biden was. if these internal numbers are to be believed, teamsters members resoundingly endorse former president trump as he said that day when the poll came out. at the same time, there was not enough support among the teamsters leadership to endorse president trump. any marginal support has evaporated pretty quickly when he said in the letter x spaces event with elon musk that elon musk should fire any striking worker out there in his company. that is a pretty nuclear thing to say for unions. those are fighting words.

that was not what they wanted to hear from the former president at a critical moment like that. host: jess in massachusetts on the independent line. caller: two questions. one question was, can you say what the amount of automation is in the u.s. compared to china and japan? are those countries more automated than we are in terms of the loading of the ships and the like? the second was, if u.s. companies have been trying to incentivize the workers to get trained? if they train on the automation get better pay as another path to a better standard of living? those were my two questions. guest: those are great questions. to the first one, more than

automation the concern for unions is the cheap labor in china that can undercut u.s. wages and make it harder for folks to stay in business and harder for companies to operate in the u.s. the ila has noted how many shipping companies have gone offshore and are based offshore, not just in china but in other countries as well. it is something that economists are going to be watching closely in the coming years, especially as china outpaces the united states on other technology, like

ev battery making, which is a big one. the u.s. has been falling behind . it is something that is an evolving issue that the negotiations on whatever agreement they reach will be very telling. host: dave in new port richey, florida, a member of a union. caller: good morning, c-span. i have a feeling that automation is inevitable. i think that these men and women , the longshoreman and all of these people, should grab it as long as they can. get everything they can. it will come, as far as it goes. unfortunately. i believe that our country has been sold a bill of goods by a

bunch of people who send everyone to college, don't teach them trades, it's a real shame. anyone getting into the trades right now is going to be able to name their price because there are not enough people who don't want to do it. like i said, i think they should grab everything they can get. guest: certainly, i think that the union would agree that it should grab everything that it can get right now. we are seeing a lot of new skills related to, maybe not automation erratically, but robotic assisted manufacturing and things like that. i spent time at the gm ev battery plant in ohio, for example, where workers are doing things that don't look anything like your traditional auto plant

or assembly line. they're using advanced computer robotic arms to mix the metals that make batteries that go into cars. it is something that general motors and others are trying hard to figure out the best way to train these people. there is not really an infrastructure for educating a lot of these people in these specific ways that these emerging industries need. as our caller alluded to, a lot of those skills are going to be very valuable in the coming years. the question for unions is if it can provide that infrastructure and keep a hold on those industries to avoid the erosion of wages and union density that

has been going on since the 1950's and that they need desperately to turn around. host: the color also suggesting that unions should grab everything they can. we talked about the wages in the port workers' strike. that's the one issue they agreed on. automation is still in the air. what other issues will they have to figure out between now and january 15? guest: those are the big two that will make or break the deal. of course there are always a myriad of issues that come up in these negotiations. but the big sticking points are always what they call economic issues. wages and benefits. another thing that will surely be discussed in depth is retirement. with increased profits from these companies, unions are increasingly pushing for pensions back, for example.

none have really been successful in achieving that, but it goes to show how much they believe there is on the table to be won back that has eroded over the past few decades. host: christy in illinois on the line for democrats. caller: hi, yes. i wanted to call and say thank you for the topic. i'm an importer of records and i work with the supply chain and our ports. i'm really thankful they were able to come to a solution and to give my support to them. i work with certifications and import security filings, so i know how important and critical it is for our infrastructure. thank you. guest: any response for christie? i would love to talk to her and

hear more about what she does. that is interesting and she would probably make a good guest on the show. host: she probably would. kristi, reach out to ian. good morning, andrew. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have traditionally always supported organized labor. i understand the importance of it. i'm a little taken aback by the port strike, i have to be honest. these are jobs that as these workers have said are being threatened by automation. and robotics. and ai. i find it a little backhanded to go and demand a 70-something percent raise and be given a 50% raise and then say that that's not enough. i am a teacher.

i teach children how to read. i will never receive a 50% raise in my life ever. i live in texas. i received a 2% or 3% raise year on year for the past six years. also, we don't have teachers unions in texas. if i went on strike i would be completely fired. i hope that some of these folks with this union can think about the rest of us a little bit. i know that a taste of deal was reached and they have ended the strike -- that a tentative deal was reached and extended the strike until january so they have time to negotiate, but i hope they can be reasonable and think about taking what they can get and be happy with what they get. the salary numbers that i hear for these guys are very, very high. these are jobs that could be done by a robot.

i hope that they can think about the rest of us with all of that. i was hoping that the guest could comment. thank you so much. guest: sir, well, first of all, thank you for the work you do do. teaching kids to read is an incredibly important job. a genuine thank you to you for doing that hard work. i think the issue that the caller raised has been on the minds of a lot of people, including folks in the biden administration, about how to explain to people why this -- why these raises are justified and necessary. 77%, 62% is a big raise. most of us, myself included, have never gotten a 50% raise. the -- one thing they have been

quick to point out, however, is that it is happening over several years. it's not all one year. it is making up for inflation and making up for lost time. that's almost exactly the response that i got when i posed this question at the port of baltimore a few days ago. i spoke to a state senator on the picket line to represent the ports, a republican state senator, actually. i asked, how do you explain to your constituents why a 77% raise is justified and important? he said, look at inflation. it's making up for lost time since the last contract was negotiated. also, it is an aspect of it being relative to your worth, right. right now with the current contract, longshoremens' salary

rate tops out at $40 an hour before overtime. some workers make considerably more than that because they work a lot of overtime. that is about on par with what the autoworkers make. actually, they are about to make more progression under the current contract where they are. i think as the caller noted, that is, from a pr standpoint, something that the union and its allies have to explain and explain thoroughly to folks. host: we are 30 days, today, away from the november election. vice president harris held a rally in flint, michigan yesterday and criticized warmer president trump over his record on unions. here is that clip. [video clip] v.p. harris: make no mistake,

donald trump is no friend of labor. he encouraged automakers to move their plants out of michigan so that they could pay their workers less. when the uaw went on strike to demand higher wages that they deserve, donald trump went to a nonunion shop -- don't forget. and he packed the uaw. he said, striking and collective bargaining don't make a bit of difference. remember how he talked about striking workers. they should be fired. that's how he talks about union labor. that is how he talks about workers. flint, we know strong unions mean higher wages, better health care, and greater dignity.

for union members and for everyone. host: can you talk about the impact of whoever wins in november on unions and labor workers? guest: first of all, it is great to see the vice president in flint, michigan. i grew up up the road from flint. probably the only thing that she missed was the support for the detroit tigers in the playoffs. her poll numbers would have gone up a lot if she mentioned that. there are enormous steaks for unions in this election. anyway that you cut it, you are going from what labor unions broadly agree is the most prounion president in history, at least in our lifetime.

he considered them in every decision that he has made. so you're going from that to at best for them, someone who is relatively unknown and comparison to joe biden and versus somebody who really most of them consider a mortal enemy. there was a period of time at the beginning of the first trump administration where unions gave him a chance and because a lot of their voters do support president trump. this and other thing they have to navigate as well. and it's something that i'm going to be watching very closely in the election. because even in 2020, although joe biden won the blue law states, a lot of folks forget

that exit poll that president trump actually gaining support among union households. in ohio, in pennsylvania. so how that's going to sway this election, we don't know yet. unions are working on the ground in the election. they don't feel like this thing is a lock in the blue law, let alone georgia or arizona. there's some concern throughout but the support from union households that they're seeing. but, you know, really for them, if president trump gets back into office, not only will he probably not support their legislative priorities but in addition, he will probably undo a lot of the things that president biden has done for unions. even the consolation of small

things he's done related to union work in federal contracting and incentivizing union work in electrical vehicle production. now that said, what kamala harris is also facing is that trump's rhetoric, especially about electric vehicles, for example and some of these swing states speaks to very deep anxiety that union workers there have. it is true that electric vehicles as the former president says often don't have many working parts, aren't as complicated to build. and some of these don't take much skills and therefore, union labor is at stake in this transition to electric vehicles. and as we know, this was -- former president trump has a

very -- knows how to speak with some of these workers visceral fears and concerns in a way than not a lot of politicians can. host: and talking about the swing states, we can show you these figures. they're from the bureau of labor statistics. they came out earlier this year. for context, total national union membership is at 10%. it's 14.4 million people. and the swing states was above average union membership is pennsylvania. that's 12.9%. michigan, 12.8%. and nevada, 12.4%. it's still a small percentage but it is notable that in pennsylvania, that is 749,000 workers. michigan, 564,000, and in nevada, it's 171,000 workers. there are swing states with

below average union membership. those are north carolina, 2.7%, arizona is at 4.2%, georgia, 4.6%, and wisconsin, 7.4%. let's hear from ricky in virginia. he is a union member. good morning, ricky. caller: yes, good morning. yes, i'm from virginia. i just make a couple of points. one of the things that i think is missing in the conversation about the automation. one of the main things is automation and machinery, they don't pay into our tax system. they don't pay into social security. but when you consider it, you know, there's the benefits of taxes for roads and military, social security for our retirement. so that's being replaced just out in california with 500 jobs

cut out. so you have 500 people that are not paying taxes. and the other thing is the efficiency isn't there as some guy pointed out. they're not more efficient than humans. and they get around 10 boxes per hour where we'll probably get around 35 per hour. just want to make a note of that for anybody against union and someone don't realize our contribution. guest: interesting. well, as our caller noted, there actually is quite a bit of debate about whether automated systems at the port are more efficient than humans. i've talked to experts who are not as efficient as humans but you don't have all of the pesky nuances of working with human beings like wanting more pay and

going on strike for several days. so, there is a very legitimate part of this conversation about how much automation would improve the port system beyond simply replacing humans. host: martin from michigan. caller: if the union management settles for 25 cents more an hour or whatever, and now, manufacturing is going to sell it to wholesale and not at 25 but at 50 cents, now the wholesale is going to give it to the job and it's on to 75 cents. the jobbers now are going to give it to retailer. it's up to a dollar. and now the retailer is going to sell it to the individual, got the 25 cents to $1.25.

and that's where you have inflation coming and i feel like people should have the -- freezes and a lot of corner,s should go to valuation events visual workers. thank you. guest: that's how much inflation plays into the conversation. i don't think we would have been here with a lot at strike whether it was this, whether it was john deere in 2021, whether it was the united auto workers. we wouldn't be here if inflation hadn't shot up so much and stretched people so thin. it's one thing to see the company you're working for get -- have a big increase in

profits and not get a raise. it's a whole other thing to feel like you're getting a pay cut as that's happening. so that combination is really what is continuing to animate workers even three, four years after the pandemic was really the peak and took it's toll on the supply chain system after. host: dave from the independent line. caller: good morning. everything is based on things like relativity, on costs and everything. now, i was never in the union. but my family was. but i've known businessmen all through the years. my question is every state, it seems like to me, it always

seems feasible that our government would be involved at the table but negotiations with business people in that state are the relative income basis. so where is our representation when it comes to the people that should be at the bottom at the -- union at the bottom side? seems like we've always been minimal wage hasn't been relative to anything else. and i like to know your honest opinion on how we can go state-by-state with that. who would be involved in it. thank you again. guest: i don't know if i can offer any strategic advice but it is very, very true what he said about minimum wage has not gone up in a very long time. since we're in 2009, don't quote me on that, it was when ted

kennedy had a share of the health education labor pensions committee and it's been a while. and it hasn't been indexed in inflation and it is true that as a result, a lot of lower wage workers, the majority of which are not represented by unions as you mentioned with those numbers from the bureau of labor statistics have not gotten a raise in a long time. it's an issue on a federal level that has been deadlocked again for quite a look time like i mentioned. there has been a lot more progress in the states. you see a lot of states that are well above the federal minimum wage of $7.25.

so from the perspective of effectuating change, it could be argued had the state route was the more effective way to go. obviously, you have states that are going be resistant to that but are still at the federal minimum wage. but in recent history, a lot of these policies have been effectuated by states and cities as well. if you look at the start of the $15 minimum wage movement a decade or so ago, it started in cities. i believe seattle was the first city to approve a $15 minimum wage. and then the movement, especially in new york and other cities. there's a lot to be said about the effectiveness of leverage

local and state government for sure. host: we have time for one more call. chris in pittsburgh on the line for democrats. good morning, chris. caller: good morning. hey, you know, i grew up in a real strong union family out west, and i was lucky enough to get a summer job, you know, working for good pay for the union. and, you know, just a related story for the analogy of the whole thing. you are walking into work one day, hey, if you ever cross a line when we're striking, you might end up with a good bump on the back of your head. you know, that's the kind of environment. but it paid my way to college. but on the other hand, the unions working for the poor has to find a way to train and hopefully retain their membership and train them on the

automation and preserve those jobs. there's just something out of whack in this country the top three wealthiest people in the world, you think they like unions? they have a wealth of over i think $250 billion each. that is out of whack. host: response for chris. guest: well true that a lot of the wealthiest employers probably don't like unions. jeff bezos has fought the union very hard at amazon warehouses. it's a top organizing service for unions including the teamsters not just drivers but folks in the warehouse as well. and i think he articulated very well the case for unions that is

getting a lot more mainstream attention, particularly since the pandemic than it did before. if you look at the public approval numbers for unions, they have hit historic highs in the last couple of years, highest in decades. and the -- a stark contrast to how they reviewed in the aftermath of the recession as, you know, potentially contributing to some of the economic inefficiencies that made it harder to recover at the very least from the recession. so it's certainly a change in public opinion. we're definitely seeing more folks like our caller and more folks on both sides of the aisle, really, think the way he

does. this is not nearly as binary of an issue as it was before. i was talking to a republican state senator on the picket line at the port of baltimore this week who was talking about how larry hogan had been there the day before. he was in talks with former president trump's team trying to get him there and trying to get support for the workers there. so it's something that crosses ideological lines now. and the way i think it's going to be really interesting to see how that develops and hardens in the next few years. host: all right, that's ian kullgren, he's the labor reporter for bloomberg law. you can find him on x@ian kullgren. thanks so much for your time. guest: thanks so much.

host: still ahead on "washington journal"his morning, union of -- union of concerned scientists shana udvardy is going to join us. you can start calling in now for our open forum. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. and independents, 202-748-8002. we'll be right back. ♪ >> american history tv, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. watch american history tv.

-- former franklin roosevelt director paul sparrow talks about the wartime struggles with aviator charles lindberg and the politics of isolationism. watch "american history tv" every weekend.

book tv, every sunday on c-span2 features leading authors discussing their latest non-fiction books. beginning at 2:00 p.m. eastern book tv presents coverage of this year's mississippi book festival. highligh include an oral history of normandy, france during world war ii. a look at former nfl quarterback brett favre and the mississippi welfare scandal at 4:00 p.m. eastern. -- and then at 10, timothy snyder argues that freedom is

misinterpreted. he is interviewed by elizabeth anchor. find a full schedule on your program guider watch online. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: welcome back. we are in open forum for the next 25 minutes or so. we'll start with this headline. the front page of this morning's "wall street journal" -- employers added 254,000 jobs last month. that was significantly more than the 150,000 economists expected and marked the largest monthly increase since march the unemployment rate slipped to 4.1%. the bumper payroll report is likely to close the door on

another half perch point -- percentage point rate cut. the fed is trying to engineer what is called a soft landing in which inflation moves down with major deterioration and the labor markets is one data point. -- yesterday, i'm surprised the media by making his first appearance at a white house briefing. here he is talking about the jobs report. pres. biden: today, we got more incredible news. since the american economy -- it's about the strength of the american economy. new jobs created 250,000 jobs in september. the expectation was for 150,000 jobs in september which far

exceeds that number. not only the previous two months, and from the very beginning, we were told time and again that the policies we were pursuing, we've put forward weren't going to work, make things worse, including some of the other teamers are saying we're going to make things worse. but we've proven them wrong. we were told our american rescue plan was too big and it would crowd out private investments. it proved them wrong. vaccinated a nation and got immediate economic relief for people in need. when i came to office determined and trickled down economics. and grow the economy from the middle out and bottom up. that was the policy we knew that. the middle class grows the nation stronger.

we were told it wouldn't work. and i was determined what was ignored for much too long. on hiring american workers and using american product when they were available. and that's what we did. we were told that was going to be a big problem. but all the money i was authorized to spend by the congress has gone to building to hiring american workers and use the american products. host: and we will hear from you for the next 20 minutes or so, 20, 22 minutes. let's hear from tom in lawrence, kansas, calling on the republican line. good morning, tom. caller: good morning. i just have to comments that your last guest that was on. with these raises and the

unions, like a real good deal but is that going to cause inflation? i worked for a culinary union back in the 1970's. i made $11.74 an hour and i still had to pay union dues. no, that was a shift. working on hotels. i don't know what they get today. i believe this whole cause of inflation and not all union members are going to benefit this way. and also, i think i could be wrong on this, but there's no new taxes. but won't that put them in a different tax bracket? so their take-home pay will be going back to the government. and this is a conspiracy theory but i believe that i just giving the government more power to come up with more programs and

eventually give them more control because people will need the government to do more for them. and that's my comments. host: diane in ohio. line for democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, tammy. first of all, i wanted to say that my son is one of the first responders and right now, he's in south carolina because they can't get into north carolina until they are able to repair some of the streets. i don't want my son going down the ambulance and then floating away. number two, i think between jd vance and trump, they're trying to destroy ohio. number one, what happened at -- that was trump's fault? look at the computers. number two, what they were

saying about what happened in springfield. our governor and the mayor of republicans those haitians help get that city back in order. we have 55 plus groups in ohio. we don't need anymore help. that's why we're republicans. because of all these hate groups. i hate the fact that we are republican state. i'm a democrat and i love people. host: diane kingsley in new york, calling on the republican line. good morning, kingsley. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that my first election that i voted in was ronald reagan. i voted for him and i'm a person of color. but i want to say that liz cheney coming out yesterday with kamala harris was amazing and it

really impressed me. i'm sort of a double hater, i guess. because i was going for rights of women but it's like dick cheney. like they used to call him a -- never in my wildest dreams would i ever think that dick cheney would endorse kamala harris. so it just really impressed me and i thank you for allowing me to speak. host: kingsley talking about liz cheney endorsing or speaking with vice president harris this from the "new york times." it says ms. cheney says that in november, putting patriotism ahead of partnership should not near i will be an aspiration, it is our duty. her remarks delivered with an air of somber restraint were as much a public indictment of mr. trump as they were an

endorsement of ms. harris, calling her candidacy a threat unlike calling his candidacy a threat. she called on conservatives to join her and urging cause -- and to reject what she calls the former president's depraved cruelty. back to your call. marilyn from tennessee, the line for democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. the first thing i want to say is why isn't ex-president donald trump and jd vance under arrest for stealing hate crimes? and i would like to know how much money they have cost the state of ohio with all the special responses that have had to be done? thirdly, tennessee, north carolina, florida, everywhere is

in a disaster because of global warming. fourthly, i'm a christian, and i believe that jesus taught us to love each other. not to spew hatred and to help one another. thank you and i will take my answer off line. host: bob in eagle river, wisconsin on the republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say about the economy. why are we in this mess? when obama was in office, our debt was $9 trillion. now it's $34 trillion. we have had three presidents, obama, trump and biden. trump and biden, trump gave $4 trillion bipartisan for covid, biden gave $2 trillion debt for covid. that leaves $19 trillion. trump spent an additional $4 trillion. that means that democrats have

spent $15 trillion since obama. what have we got? schools, roads, dams, bridges? nothing. who's fixed anything for all this money? it's insane. it's crazy. thank you, america. host: that was bob. and this article from abc news. talking about former president trump's appearance in butler, pennsylvania today. the article says that trump's rallies taking place at butler farm show. the same location as the outdoor rally where he was shot in the right ear nearly three months ago. just one main difference. security will be tighter. security will be of the utmost concern during trump's remarks after lapses in security, plans led to the gunman being able to scale an unmanned building. security personnel have already

started increasing measures, for example the security perimeter was enacted around the fairground earlier than usual as the campaign started to set up the rally sites. also, trump will be surrounded by bultpof glass. c-span wilcay that rally live today. you c watch it starting at 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span,ur c-span now app, our free mobile app and online at c-span.org. amen in temple, texas, calling on the line for democrats. good morning, amen. caller: how are you doing? the last time i called, i told the person that was there that we were going to have some terrible weather that was going to be coming this way and that was about four or five months ago and i see the weather is

coming this way the thing that i don't understand is everybody's talking about this and that, the government is talking about the weather. if you read the bible, you will see every time before god sends somebody to take charge for him or he comes himself, he starts out with the weather. now the thing i don't understand is in israel. now, israel is a jewish state. we got 420,000 soldiers fighting in world war ii -- israeli the jewish people out of the cells and so they wouldn't be in gas tanks we help to do that. now, the president has given israel all the weapons it needs and he cannot get them to stop doing what they're doing which

is destroying palestinian and innocent children and everything. so i'm just going to tell y'all. i have nothing wrong against israel. but you can't be greedy and the person that gives you some, you're not going to do what they want you to do. this is the last days, people. and you better get ready for them. thank you. host: that was amen. we will show you the headline on the "new york times." says the u.s. present and middle east spurs debate at pentagon in the 12 months since hamas attacked israel launching a conflict that included yemen, iran and lebanon. -- the pentagon announced it

would add a few thousand more troops to the equation and essentially doubled its airpower to the region. president biden says the u.s. hardware and extra troops are there to help defend israel and to protect other american troops on bases throughout the region. in an interview thursday, the deputy pentagon spokeswoman says the defense department's leadership remained focus on the protection of u.s. citizens and forces in the region the defense of israel and the de-escalation of the situation through deterrence and diplomacy. -- let's hear from daniel in massachusetts on the line for republicans. good morning, daniel. caller: i lost my nephew about 10 years ago in afghanistan. what i don't understand is why all these people say none of us

are giving us troops in harm's way. there's about over 200 troops right now they kept bringing problems. they are not working anymore because they got hit by scrap metal or the bullets that were thrown in there from iran. i don't know why nobody's doing nothing. why not we retaliate for that? it's crazy. these guys, they're not dying. but they get brain injuries which is even worse, i think. who wants to live with a brain injury? they walk around in a wheelchair and they go around with walks. we don't retaliate. we should be joining in with them and going after these guys after they what they did with our own men. no one talks about them. they get -- host: i got your point, daniel. john in massachusetts, on the independent line. good morning, john.

caller: i like to tell the american people what our taxes are for. this weather. it's not no act of god. we're destroying the environment because the rich elites, the global elites are ones that are always getting tax breaks. we always get tax breaks for wall street so we can have war. so, we can go and hit venezuela for their oil or go hit north carolina for their lithium, right, people? so now, when they come and grab all that olympic yum from north carolina, so now we can go and invade other countries. this has been going on for 100 and something years we're killing our own soldiers. so, the 13 families on wall street can profit.

hillary can profit. clinic can profit. and all the pedophiles in hollywood can profit, right? host: got your point. robert from democrat line. caller: when donald trump talked about let's make america great again, he's talking about going back to 1930's when he was with his father, fred trump. in new york city, it was called a night at the garden, february 20, 1939, when the nazis got the rally and that is where -- there was -- they talked about [indiscernible] they came from philadelphia, all the up to new york city. and when they get into that rally, it was 20,000 nazis

sympathizing this, marching at madison square garden wearing nazi uniforms, a big giant picture of -- 20-foot tall in madison square garden with nazi symbols on both sides of george washington -- 1939. donald trump -- put it this way. charles lindberg was -- american. but he was a nazi sympathizer in 1939. henry ford was also a nazi sympathizer like donald trump. and when they talked in 1939, they called german people with horns on their heads, they said the public -- the jews of running a news press. they had horns on their heads. we're going back -- donald trump

-- when he said make america great again, he's talking about 1930's and 1936. the greatest -- in the world. beat hitler in the 1936 olympics. the greatest runner that ever ran. but when donald trump make america great again, i want to know this country bringing us back to the 1930's. host: al in new jersey on the republican line. good morning, al. caller: hey, how are you doing? i just want to say president trump is a fearless warrior, going back to butler, going to campaign. he helped all the people when they had the tragedies with the weather and taxes with the ice in florida. he gave all money to help the people over there. harris is taken forever. they don't care about american

people. president trump is one of the best presidents we have. and god bless president trump because he's got the holy spirit on him and that's why nothing happened to him. but all these knuckleheads and clueless democrats want to vote for harris and walz. don't take away your democrat. vote for president trump and vance. thank you. host: that was al in new jersey. vice president harris will be in new jersey from the news and observer says she will visit north carolina saturday to survey the catastrophic damage left across the state from hurricane helene. she will survey the impact of hurricane helene and receive the

on-the-ground briefing and communities across the state one official said the vice president will also provide updates on federal actions that are being taken to support emergency response and recovery efforts in north carolina and other states throughout the southeast. the official did not specify where in the state harris would visit. just a few minutes left. we'll hear next from loretta in cleveland, ohio, on the line for democrats. good morning, loretta. caller: oh, good morning. good morning, america. i'm calling, i want to respond to the guy putting all this debt on biden. and i don't know how he did that. coming off of george w. bush, we had two wars that he didn't even put on the books.

ok? two wars. they lied about all of the wars. then they came back and they lied about wall street crashing. they got $756 trillion for that. we are in debt forever. and people need to wake up. and whoever got the money is the one who did it. i mean, how dumb are you americans? are you serious? host: that's loretta in cleveland. our last call in this segment, leticia in palm springs, california on our republican line. caller: i just want to say that a lot of people that are calling, democrats and republicans are correct in their aspects. but what i want to say is you

know, kamala going to this survey and biden on this survey. they're just taking up more money and they're not helping the people. the people from north carolina and all the people that are suffering right now needs government help. and we should not be in these wars. i agree with the people that say that we're not supposed to be in these wars. we're not. we're suppose odd be helping our people. and yes, we are in debt because of these rich people. there are plenty of racism here in california. there is plenty of -- you're cutting me off. host: nope, i'm not cutting you off. go ahead and finish. caller: ok. i grew up here in california. there was always racism. there is never going to change racism. people gravitate to that.

chinese, asian people, they gravitate their own race. it's a natural phenomenon. but that's not what we're talking about. we're talking about the united states of america that needs to unite, that we're a surplus of people that try to help. there's good people here in the united states of california. there's bad, yes, there's bad. but the good ones need to unite, you know, whatever you are, muslim, christian, black, white. where are we going if god isn't watching us right now? we have children that are suffering in north carolina. their parents are gone. and where there's nobody helping? there's nobody helping them. it's a tragedy. a tragedy that we live in a country where we have helped so many other countries. and trump is the only one that

is looking ahead and saying ok, this is how we're going to solve it. it's not perfect, but he's an action person. and biden's gone the beach. and kamala's in hollywood. i'm sorry. i used to be democrat. and then i became an independent because of the corruption. and now, i'm definitely republican because republicans seem to step with god. and god -- host: i'm sorry, we have to leave it there. that's our last call for this segment. but next on "washington journal," union of concern union of concernedscientists shs discussing the rising costs of natural disasters and climate preparedness. we'll be right back. ♪

>> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's happening in washington. keep up with the day's biggest news, white house event, the court, campaigns, and more from the world of politics, all at your fingertips. you can also stay current with the plays episodes of "washington journal" and find scheduling information. plus a variety of compelling podcasts. c-span now is available at the apple store and google play. scan the q.r. code to download it for free today or visit our website at c-span.org. your front row seat to washington, any time, anywhere. >> "american history tv" exploring the people and events that tell the american story.

watch "american history tv" series historic presidential elections exploring the pivotal issues of different eras and their lasting impact on the election. the election of 1932. democratic roosevelt unseated hoover in a landslide in both the popular vote and the electoral college. on lectures and history. mark mayor discusses interpretations of the vietnam war when it comes to questions about the necessity of the conflict and whether it was winnable for the united states. on the presidency, roosevelt library director paul sparrow talks about the wartime struggle. exploring the american story, watch "american history tv" every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch o any time at

c-span.org/history. >> the book show podcast feeds makes it easy to find all in one place so you can discuss new authors and one idea. biography, current events and culture. from a signature program, about books, after words, and q&a. listen to c-span's bookshelf podcast feed today. or wherever you get your podcasts. and on our website, c-span.org/podcast. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: joining us now to discuss

the rising cost of natural disasters and climate preparedness is shana udvardy. she is the senior climate resilience policy analyst for the union of concerned scientists. 2k the program. guest: thank you. host: why don't you remind the audience about your organization, what you focus on and who you work with. guest: sure. the union of concerned scientists is a national nonprofit organization. we were founded over 50 yearsins ago and we put science and help to develop a solution and advocate for a safe, healthy and just world. host: one thing that we are hearing about in the news is the disaster relief fund. explain what that is and what funding from that pot of money goes toward. guest: sure. so the disaster relief fund is the federal government's largest

resource for disaster relief. and so it goes for all types of disasters, things like climate-related disasters, such as what we're seeing with hurricane helene, the wildfires out in maui and also natural hazards such as earthquakes as well as incidents like the failure of the bridge in baltimore. and it can help support large projects for state and local tribal, territorial governments to help repair critical infrastructure. so a lot of the funding goes towards debris removal and assistance that can help households and individuals pay for shelter and pay for food. the immediate needs funding is

fema's last resort and they need to tourney the obligated funds that have been put towards projects for communities and local state governments to repair critical infrastructure and things like that. but the good news is the day before the hurricane hit, the congress did pass the supplemental, continuing -- i'm sorry, included $20 million for the fiscal year 2025. they are very concerned about having enough funding to ride out the rest of the atlantic hurricane season. host: what is the -- what are

the challenges when it comes to determining the amount of funding that's going to be needed, especially when we see the cost of these disasters increase something. guest: absolutely. so fema normally does their estimates for the president based on the past 10 years. and so the problem with that is that we know with climate change, we're going to be seeing more climate fuel disasters like with hurricane helene. and so fema really would benefit from looking at projections into the future based on climate science. host: we are talking with shana udvardy about the rising cost of natural disasters and climate preparedness. if you have a comment for her, you can start calling in now. we've broken our phone lines by region. if you are in the eastern or central time zone, your line,

202-748-8000. if you're mountain pacific, 202-748-8001, and if you have an experience with a natural disaster, there's also a line for you. that line is 202-748-8002. how has the baseline fumbled changed? guest: with climate change and with the really terrible disasters, what we're seeing is with fema's funding, it's like groundhog day in the middle of the hurricane season. we've seen fema having to put the immediate needs funding, the last mechanisms in place nine times since 2001 including last year some it really underscores the challenge that fema has, especially during in the middle of a hurricane season when their staff is already, you know, very stressed and their resources are

running thin. so we really need fema to work on increasing their projections based on climate science and we need congress to fulfill fema's request when fema testifies in front of congress. host: when you talk about climate science, what exactly are you looking for? what should they be looking at or factoring in? guest: with hurricane helene, what we know is scientists from the berkeley lawrence national laboratory estimated that climate change made the rainfall 50 times heavier and made the event 20 times more likely. so what we can do is take a look at projections for the rainfall which is harder to do, but the national oceanagraphics and atmospheric administration is working on updating the rainfall

projections. host: and i want to show this chart. it's on climate.gov. it shows as of last month, the u.s. had had more than 60 disaster declaration including 20 in the billion-dollar threshold. this chart shows that reached the billion dollar threshold last year. there were 20 of them. when we hear a cost like that, what is included? guest: yes. so the last year there, were 28. and actually, 2022 was the record year with 165 billion dollars. so these disasters are increasing and we know that because noaa is provide the data. but -- what was the question, i'm sorry? host: just looking at what's included in the cost. guest: absolutely. the methodology is on their website but it includes things

like building damage. that's one of the basic things fema goes to is looking at how much substantial damage building or home or business has incurred as well as things like infrastructure, critical infrastructure that's on the ground. and then there's debris removal. so it is really a wide slot of different pieces of data that they're looking at. host: let's talk with our audience. several people waiting to talk with you. we'll hear this from justin. he is in new orleans. good morning, justin. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: my comment is the scientists, they got thousands and thousands of scientists. these people, is and know what to do with this stuff. and you got people calling in that don't know nothing but science. don't want to know nothing but science and they just hedge fundering people trying to make

things safe for their crazy behind. and donald trump, he went down there, running down there with a little truck to try to make a point. you can't just run into the storm. you have to let people do their job and they will tell you when they can start putting stuff out. people don't listen to the science. they are not going to go there. they're just making my -- i agree with the lady on tv. guest: yeah, absolutely. you know, the science is really helpful to inform federal agencies and noaa does a lot of hard work in that area. but when it comes to a disaster, the first choices is just to make sure people can recover and have the resources they need. fema has that assistance right now. and people can go to their website. but one of the other things is once you have this science, you need to be able to help educate people. so it's so important that people

understand the risk they face when they live next to rivers or if they live next to a coast. host: you are -- i want to get it right. a certified floodplain -- guest: manager. host: manager. what does that look like in your experience somewhat do people miss? guest: one of the biggest thing that people miss and we are hearing about it in north carolina and people haven't seen these kinds of floods before. they haven't seen these kinds of rainfall before. so that's what's really critical is about educating people about the science and understanding the impacts of climate change but also just on the ground. there are people that thought they were -- didn't -- local community had changed the flood map. so they no longer needed flood insurance. and now they're left high and dry. and so not only understanding the risks of what types of floods we can see like 100-year flood is just the minimum.

we're seeing these 1,000-year events much more frequently. and so we really need communities that are near these risky places to understand their risks and then have that flood insurance if they can afford it to have that buffer. host: mika on the line for experienced with the natural disaster. caller: i'm helping out at the fire department trying to feed all the first responders and stuff. we got hit really bad with helene. the town that's maybe 10 minutes, 10 minutes from us is completely destroyed. i don't understand how you would value the loss of an entire town. the biggest issue that we've seen up here is there's been landslides because we can't handle all of this water and roads are complete fully shut off. mountains aren't really meant to handle this kind of stuff.

we've got a bunch of people that are coming in to try to tour the damage and we can't -- our crews that are out working trying to repair the roads can't get anything done because so many people are on the roads. i think the biggest issue that we have is too many people are here while we're trying to repair and recover from this. that's really that is really all i wanted to share. oh, yesterday, you had a guest on saying they are not prioritizing door-to-door checks on people. we have been going door to door in this community. i am pretty sure most of the fire departments in the area have been to check on people. it is rough. we just need people to stay out while we try to recover. host: that was mika in hendersonville. guest: thank you for your service. i am sorry for the struggles you

are having. fema does recommend people not go to the area. i am sure local authorities such as yourself are recommending that as well. how to value something like a whole town being devastated by hurricane helene is quite the statement. it is irreplaceable. right? you have people who have been living there for generations. it is something that may not be accounted for by exactly, the culture significance, etc., but it is a devastating impact. i hope you get the resources you need. host: annie in florida on the line for experience with natural disaster. good morning. caller: good morning. i love the last caller about the floodplains woman. fema has always been helpful.

i feel more bad for north florida which got hit harder. congress must meet this week apparently to approve more funding for the future. i believe this should be the final nail in the coffin for republicans as we will be able to watch real-time this week congress members that will vote against. great easy to understand, if they will pay attention to this. even a kindergartner will be able to understand that the republicans will vote against this bill and we will be able to see which ones do it. trump has been going around blaming congress, which is ridiculous because the white house approved fema funds, the

allocated funds, before the storm arrived in florida, so well last week. and sunday, more was approved. now, we have to go to congress to approve more for the future. thank you for your time. for trump to do that, to use that as political and use us for his political blame is sickening. host: annie, we will get a response from shana. guest: it is unfortunate when it comes to disaster that it can be a political football when it comes to actually funding, providing funding for people in need. unfortunately, as i said, we have seen this playbook before. i do hope congress comes back from recess and provides this critical funding. host: what are some of the challenges to getting supplemental funding went something like this happens with fema where they have run out of

money but there is still so many storms, the expectation they will need more funding is still there? guest: the challenges is that our fiscal conservatives that want to control the budget and keep costs down. unfortunately, this is not the place to do cutting, especially when so many people are in need. there are many other budgets that can be cut. it is just a small portion of the overall budget. host: next, we will talk with gobert in birmingham, alabama, experience with a natural disaster. caller: i have done a lot of research on the ucs and i find most of it i concur with. taxpaying citizens are suffering through the disasters. with all of the wars going on

across the world with all the bombs being dropped and everything, do you think that could be one of the reasons we have these extreme conditions across the world? after all, the earth is 70% water. people with all this devastation, bombing, smoke, gas, the amazon basin, do you think all of that could be contributing to the conditions we are suffering not only in america but across the world? guest: great question. thank you for that. thank you for looking at the ucs website and data. yes, unfortunately, we know that fossil fuels are increasing the temperatures. it is at unprecedented levels. part of the reason we are seeing such strong hurricanes now and accelerating hurricanes is because we are seeing warmer

pacific temperatures. the warmer air can hold more water so it drops more rain. we have been hearing this from fossil fuel companies. -- we have been hearing disinformation from fossil fuel companies. we do need to reduce emissions rapidly. that means cutting emissions to about half by 2030, which is just a few years away, and then getting to net-zero by midcentury. host: the other side of recovery is preparedness. we want to play this thought for you from the ranking member of connecticut asking the homeland security secretary a question about preparedness during the budget hearing and the request. [video clip] >> i would like to focus on prevention and predisaster mitigation.

the sad reality is disasters are going to happen. can we speak to the 20 request for fema? how do you envision it should be focused? where our increased investments needed for you -- where are increased investments needed for you? what policy changes should congress be considering? these are homeland security issues. >> congresswoman, i look forward to working with you on assessing what legislative changes are needed to better address the increasing impacts of climate change, increasing frequency and gravity of extreme weather events. i have spoken with mayors around the country about the need to update building codes. >> ok. >> something as basic as that because the building codes are addressing the weather of yesterday and not the weather of today or tomorrow. i believe it is colorado state university that just issued a report about its prediction for hurricane season.

it is really looking very troubling. an ounce of prevention today is absolutely vital to preventing calamities in local communities across this country. they situation is getting worse from an extreme weather perspective. we have to work with every community to ensure it understands what it needs to do with the funds that we distribute to it and the funds that they themselves have, in terms of understanding how houses and residences of all types need to be prepared, need to be safeguarded, and what people need to do should an extreme weather event actually occur. host: your reaction to that exchange? guest: excellent question. i agree with the secretary's response. we need a paradigm shift. we need a lot more funding

toward mitigation. for flooding, that looks like elevating homes. the secretary said building codes. we were happy to see the resilience funding and infrastructure and jobs act but it is not sufficient when it comes to helping build in a climate smart, stronger way. host: let's hear from frank in california. in morning, frank. -- good morning, frank. caller: thank you for taking my call. i believe in climate change. i have heard the immigrants are taking money, over $1.3 billion out of the fema money. i want to hear if that is correct or not. i saw last night when president biden was asked about the storm, he said, what storm? i hope you play that because i

remember when bush was president, they said he did not like black people and it ruined his political career. i wonder if the shoe was on the other foot and if trump was president if you would do the same thing and run that over and over again. and by the way, mr. john kerry, the head of climate change, his family makes heinz ketchup bottles, plastic bottles. no one says a word about his footprint. he flies around telling all of us to behave yourself. i think the double standards in this country, people are fed up and tired of it. is it true money is going to people who have broken our laws coming in here while our poor people are suffering? thank you. guest: absolutely. it absolutely is not true. fema has different pockets of money. there is a small pocket of funding that does go towards the immigration program. i have not seen secretary

biden's comment. we are in the middle of the atlantic hurricane season as well as wildfire season. there are quite a few storms going on at the same time. it is possible it was a legitimate question and he was asking which storm you are referring to. host: want to let the caller know, asking about the claim, the article says the false claim pushed by trump that the disaster money was given to migrants has spread quickly in recent days boosted by former president trump and some of his most high-profile supporters. fema has also launched a webpage in response to those rumors. you can find that and their comments about the issue on fema.gov. we will hear next from leslie in

spartanburg, south carolina. good morning. caller: a caller called in about chimney rock. this is not the first time that town has fell into the water. you have heavy floods up this way, especially in the mountain areas, this hurricane was a noah's flood type thing that not only flooded rivers over the banks but brought the mountain down with it. look at the copper graphical map -- topographical map. as far as fema goes, i think they have done as well as they can. this republican congress passed

that bill in the midst of the storm. they did not know the damage. they did not want to hang around another day. i hope you are still there. host: we are still here. caller: they did not want to hang around. they got out of town. they should have passed extra supplemental funding! host: leslie, we prefer not to use that kind of language. shana, any response? guest: we know it was a terrible and devastating storm. we saw a really heavy, unprecedented rainfall. it was already moist soils. it is just devastating. we have not seen this kind of flooding before. as the caller said, they have seen flooding but not to this extent. unfortunately with climate change, we are going to see more of these types of disasters because there is more fuel to make these storms worse. host: your organization has

called for congress to reauthorize the program with meaningful reforms. what reforms would you like to see and what are the challenges? guest: the last time the national flood insurance program was reformed was 2019. one of the major reforms we want to see is how congress gives fema the authorization to establish unaffordability program for flood insurance. -- an affordability program for flood insurance paid we are hearing from some the people cannot afford flood insurance. fema has given congress a framework of how to do this so congress needs to provide that authority. we need to do better on flood risk maps to make sure they are incorporating the latest climate science. these types of rainfall events will be better known by people

and they can prepare. host: the ability to get homeowners insurance can be made difficult by the increasing number of climate events. how does that factor into preparedness? guest: absolutely. one of the proposals could be that you provide grants or other types of incentives to homeowners to reduce their risk. this could be elevating buildings or what have you. by doing so, that can reduce their flood insurance costs. host: fred in albany, new york, good morning. caller: [indiscernible] host: fred, are you there? caller: yes. host: could you turn down your tv in the background? caller: ok, it is down. host: go ahead, you are on. caller: yes, how people vote against they own interest with

climate change. like the young lady was talking about earlier how congress barely wanted to pass the resolution but how you know the republican congress, you know, don't, most of them do not believe in climate change, you know, so they really don't want to fund it. even when president trump was president, he pulled out of the paris climate accord which strengthens our ability, you know, to maybe put a dampen on climate. a lot of the disasters happening happened in a lot of their constituents' states. the people vote against their own interests. with these disasters and how it is politicized, we have trump going there spewing lies about

how the biden administration and fema is not helping. none of this stuff helps. if people keep voting for people who does not have the interest at heart, i just do not understand it. that is all i am saying. thank you. guest: absolutely. i am in the same boat. climate science, we have known about the impacts of climate change for quite some time. we are doing the best we can to educate people on the science and the impacts and how we can provide solutions. not helpful to politicize it. the best thing people can do is educate themselves about the risk but also vote. host: does your organization work with members of congress? how do you try to reach them? guest: we educate members of congress on the latest climate science, absolutely, and help them to figure out some of the solutions they can put in place.

helping to educate about the climate science. host: jay in new hampshire on the line for experience with natural disaster. caller: good morning. thank you to the guest. hats off to the incredible crews in vermont and new hampshire dealing with the flooding. it is unbelievable the damage. i just want to say it does not seem to me the union of concerned scientists or the media are properly interested in the real causes of what is going on. there has been an interest for centuries to control the weather. there's an air force document, " owning the weather by 2025, whether as a force multiplier." i think they are using this as smoke to be able to shoot energy into the tops of the storms. if you do not know about the

weather, you will die. i do not see the expert forecasters saying we went to bed for category category 1 and when we woke up it was category 4 in 12 hours. this is anomalous. i am seeing this all over the place. i do not think the media and scientists are properly interested in the causes of this stuff, it is one thing to blame some meathead in a pickup truck driving around trying to feed his family but another to look at what, the energy being input into these storms. god bless everyone in the southeast united states. holy smokes. host: we will get a response from shana. guest: absolutely. what we are seeing from climate change is the high increase in temperatures and they are gathering more power and

accelerating faster. as the caller underscores, the scientists are doing the best they can to forecast. different forecasts for the storm were quite accurate. it is hard to get people on the ground educated, not educated, but giving them the information they need in such a short time. i am empathetic with the caller and everybody on the ground. this storm happened quickly. it happened at night. if i recall correctly. it is a hard time. people have busy lives and they are trying to get the latest information. unfortunately, i think a lot of people were not prepared and could not expect this type of impact. host: on your website, one of the items you show is what you call danger season 2024.

it has a figure of over 72 million people in the united states are currently faced with extreme weather and has a map. what else can you tell us about what you have on your website? guest: absolutely. we are trying to help show folks that we are seeing different types of climate change related events across the country. it shows the events for wildfires, flooding, things like that as well as places seeing a combination of different impacts. danger season is the time may to november when every part of the country is seeing some type of extreme event. host: you can see the green on the eastern coast is flooding. yellow and the california area is extreme heat. the orange covering a good

chunk of the midwest and the west is fire weather. this updates daily. if you wanted to look and see what may be going on in your area. karen in georgia is calling on the line for experience was natural disaster -- with natural disaster. good morning. caller: i was calling because i wanted more clarification on a caller who called in and said, is there money going to immigrants? if i understood correctly, you said there is part of fema that does give money to immigrants, and housing and shelter or whatever. the commentator read an article from abc that said it is false. i was trying to get clarification.

i think that is very important for many people. this is a total disaster in these areas. people are suffering immensely. help should be there. host: karen, the article is from nbc news. the headline is false claims pushed by trump. it says there is no evidence disaster funds were used on immigrants in the u.s. illegally. fema disaster money comes from a dedicated fund that cannot be used for other purposes. ron in ohio, go ahead. sorry. are you there now? caller: yeah. i would like to know, all this money, even if it was not going to immigrants, what about all the money going to ukraine and all of that?

it seems the biden administration can find plenty of money when it comes to other people. what about our people? guest: i will just say when it comes to these types of disasters, there is never enough funding. i think people are really devastated. they are looking for the next meal, never mind kids going to school or finding medicine, etc. these are really trying times. i think the administration is doing the best they can. but as you said, we do need congress to replenish the disaster relief fund with a supplemental. host: sue in florida, good morning. caller: good morning. you asked if i had been through a hurricane. yes, i have. i lived through michael. it was pretty bad but not nearly as bad as this.

but the reason i called is i am hearing trump, trump, trump, blaming trump for everything. well, we have democrats running this country right now, so i am getting sick and tired of people blaming trump for everything. as far as climate change, kerry flies around in a huge plane that burns a lot of fuel, puts out a lot of emissions. kamala harris spent $6 million, i heard, on planes. i am assuming she was flying in illegals. i do not know what she was doing with it. as far as congress, biden can overstep congress. he overstepped everything else. the first day in office, he did away with everything trump had in place. he has continued to do that, and

to lay on the beach. i am 80 years old. i have lived in florida all my life. and i have never went through what these people are going through. but i have seen trump up there trying to help. i have seen biden and kamala out campaigning or laying on the beach. guest: i do not have a comment. host: we will go on to josephine in new jersey. good morning, josephine. caller: good morning. we are assuming we are the only country in the world experiencing what we are experiencing. that is why i like to listen to the news from around the world. europe is experiencing floods like we are, number one. number two, the mountain areas are getting snow like never before. you know what they do differently? they accept science. how unique of them. and they are preparing themselves for this kind of situation.

we, on the other hand, are choosing to ignore science. one former president was in georgia and asked point blank, do you believe in climate? he said, no! with a very nasty no. when you have someone playing ignorant for profit, unfortunately we suffer. quite don't you tell them how the east coast in the future is going to change -- why don't you tell them how the east coast in the future is going to change the configuration because of the high water? the state afforded, half of it will be in the water in the next five to 10 years -- the state of florida, it will be in the water the next five to 10 years. guest: absolutely. i do want to underscore there are many parts of the world suffering these types of flooding. nepal and europe. i think everybody is working to try to think about how to rebuild and put different types of risk mitigation measures in

place. all of the united states is not the same, as we know, but there is a majority of americans that do believe in climate change. we do know there are quite a few mayors out there doing their hardest work to help people against extreme heat, against wildfires, and sea level rise in florida and the new england coast which is accelerating. we will see unfortunately people on the coast, their properties going underwater or at least being affected so much that it will change their way of life. our recent report looks at the type of infrastructure at risk. we find unfortunately affordable housing, public and affordable housing is one of the most at risk types of infrastructure for tidal flooding. host: we have time for one last

call, donna in louisiana. caller: i just tuned in. you were talking about climate change. did you mention asheville's catastrophic flood of 1916? that was 100 years ago that happened. i would like you to maybe touch on that. thank you. guest: absolutely. i think a caller mentioned the 1916 flight. it is a marker there. when we refer to the types of floods, the percentage or chance of flood, we can speak to these types of events. this was much more catastrophic than the 1916 flood, but there are these types of floods that have happened in the past. we are just seeing the much stronger because of the heavy rainfall and much broader and larger. host: our guest is the

senior climate policy analyst with the union of concerned scientists. you can find their work online at ucs.org. thank you for being with us. that does it for today's "washington journal." we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 eastern with another program. enjoy the rest of your day. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2024] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

lican wyoming congresswoman liz cheney at a rally. live coverage here on c-span. [cheers and applause] >> thank you all. thank you. [chanting "thank you liz"] >> thank you. my god, what an