tv Washington Journal CSPAN July 2, 2016 7:00am-10:01am EDT
olson outlines a new report that found more than 18 million americans got their drinking water from systems with lead violations. host: good morning. it's saturday, july 2, 26 team. today,headlines americans take more trips than ever this independence day weekend in what is expected to be the highest fourth of july travel by record. at the same time, the nations interstate highway system turns 60 years old and it is showing signs of age with federal officials showing that $170 billion in annual funds are needed to get them back into shape. the question for the viewers so they is, would you pay more for better roads? those on the
eastern or central time zone's call to a 2-748-800 oh. weekende traveling this , 202-748-8002. you can check a social media and also on facebook. let's start by taking a look at those numbers from aaa. just to get an idea of how busy this travel weekend will be. 43 million americans are expected to travel this independence day weekend. that's according to aaa. highest on record, 5 million more than over the memorial day weekend that just passed. $20ican drivers have saved billion on gasoline taxes they
taxes or one of the drivers behind this boost in the expected number of travelers on the road this share. at the same time, there is trouble on the roads according to a report by the american society of civil engineers. a gave america's overall infrastructure system a d+ grade , but for road specifically the roads earned
billion almost $30,000 -- 30,000 jobs and reduces the federal deficit $200 million, and we get the benefit of improved infrastructure. that's why every major interest group supported raising revenues for transportation. when i introduced the gas tax byrease that was supported the american chamber of commerce, the afl-cio, by truckers and aaa, engineers, virtually everybody who bills, uses, maintains or owns infrastructure said racist fee help us rebuild the new america.
quarters of a trillion dollars that we gave the fifth government. they took it. to fix our roads. all i see is seven of the doher's, the two nfl high that does not produce a thing, but have been enriched right taxpayer funds. in thelding behind you media in this country ought to be ashamed of themselves. do is to bother us and still our money. from bloomington, illinois. my, would you pay more money to fix a roads? caller: yes with some caveats. living here in the people's republic of illinois, we have a long history -- we started
driving a 1980 a gallon of gas was $.99. i was driving the most bargain-basement car i could find, which was a 70 plymouth fury which got 11 miles to the gallon. you look at the numbers now, if you are looking for cheap car find one.fit -- 51 -- host: the mileage is brought up. host:gasoline prices have gone down, which is one reason why we have so many people who are on the road this weekend and this year. taxes, -- lower is an increase in the gas tax more palatable to taxpayers? host: that's why i said i agree with some caveats. the caveats would be where they spend it for one thing.
and what states are allowed to do. interstate 80, 94, february funded system. it has tolls on it that are collected now and sent to a third party because of negotiations that have been done . -- thete is getting state should not be allowed to benefit by that money. they are already benefiting from a federal system that put that interstate there to begin with, increasing traffic and commerce. it's going to be unpopular. i would like to see a bottom and on gas prices, just say gas is going to cost two dollars a 50 a gallono dollar
minimum and their attempt goes down whatever that surpluses that's what goes into the highway fund. host: states all over the country are trying to find solutions to the shortfall for highway spending, includes -- including east coast states. which are looking to tax the amount that people travel as opposed to gasoline. pilotsates are proposing to figure out how they might charge motorists a fee for the amount of travel rather than taxing their gas. up next irvine, timberlake, north carolina. would you be willing to pay a gas tax? and what a per mile tax be better than the gas tax?
caller: no that would be the biggest scam of all. debris -- carolina they bring in a billion dollars in gas taxes and they put half of it and a general fund that goes to welfare. to get a car registered here just to transfer a tag is $50. in tennessee it is nine dollars. they just rip you off. you go to court all day long and it ends up being a disaster. your insurance goes up. i don't know what they do that money. i think maybe they just waste it. you live in one of the top 10 easiest states in terms of interstate travel with just 21 4 million -- in billions
in vehicle miles traveled. how do you think the roads are, how do they look in north carolina? caller: north carolina had some of the best looking roads ivers saw. the best roads i ever saw was florida. even the back roads here are excellent. that you have the dot, they'll be fixing the pothole and have five supervisors, three dump trucks and one guy working. that's the problem. if they can figure out a way to quit wasting money and time and labor, then i would be for it. jim: up next we have calling in from spartanburg, south carolina, also a very busy state in terms of interstate
travel. would you pay more for better roads? caller: it depends. what happened to obama's democratsand yet the just showed one of them in the well of the congress complaining and acting like it never happened and somehow we are strapped again. but the money in the stimulus did not go to road's, it went for the california teachers union to buy votes. now they want more money for states like illinois and new york. union hotbeds that don't do work quickly and are protected by democratic union protections. how when you mentioned when she mentioned ohio and you lot of them for the program, you didn't mention governor. i think you did a great job. he should be the one to have received our nomination on the republican side. it's a shame.
taxpayer, i would pay more taxes if there went directly to that and not pulling all sources for people who have nothing to do the stimulus projects directly. from catherine calling in cleave, ohio. ford you pay more money better quality of roads? caller: it depends bit i live in ohio about -- and you can go three feet with it running into a pothole. my main issue is this. if we would raise the taxes, would they bring and cruise from russia? people fromring in india? would they bring in people from mexico? would it be legitimate american jobs, truly unionized jobs. cannot goio, you
three feet without running into a covert that is rotting. now you have six feet of blacktop on top of it. you have the signs up everywhere, i live on zion road here in cleave, ohio. probably less than a quarter of a mile from where i live, there has been to portable light systems on the hill for a year and a half. they said to me because i call the hamilton county roads all the time. the way they want to correct the problem is they are thinking about closing the roads because they don't want to fix them. they complain they don't have enough money. another complaint that they have, which i think is bogus, they say they don't have anybody who will work. ohio, you state like have a lot of interstate going through it, i-75 and other
interest rates -- interim states do you think people should pay a greater share of the amount of my that goes to fix arrive -- rose inside of ohio? caller: no. i think every american should pay the same. i feel like every company should pay more. the problem is that we don't charge companies more. we do on paper, but then they get the tax write off at the end of the year. people like you and i, of course i am retired now, but people who work for a living pay the full load. just some other headlines that we are at today, the house gop plans to vote next week on the corn and gun measure. the debateing off of over gun control in congress, including a sit in by house democrats.
the house republican leaders are planning a vote next week on an anti-terrorism package that includes a gun related measure john on a measure by cornyn, republican of texas. the proposal already rejected by the senate would require the justice department to go to court to prove probable cause before he or she is barred from purchasing firearms. today, as wees talk about the state of american roads on the 60th anniversary of the u.s. highway system. would you pay more for better roads. terrel from lincoln, california, you are on. would you pay more money? caller: not only would i, but probably should. we have have electric cars for three years. we charge them with our solar on the -- solar panels roof so we don't pay anything
for transportation at all. we put over 40,000 miles on the two electric cars that we have had. it seems to me that they are missing the boat as we get more and more electric cars on the road. it's a good thing for the environment that we are getting more and more electric cars, but they are not paying anything to the infrastructure to maintain the roads. we probably should be paying more there. i have been to california and spent a lot of time on i-5. do you think the needs are in california are different than in some of the other parts of the country? ofler: i have spent a lot hours on i-5 myself, i can tell you that mostly the need in california, for the interstates are probably more the responsibility of the long-haul truck drivers, because they do
more damage to the roads than the cars do. i think they are ready pay a larger share for road maintenance and the gasoline taxes. it's probably why the diesel is more than gasoline. host: chris calling from san diego. would you pay more for better roads in california? caller: i would. i think that in pro -- improving roads and infrastructure is the most exciting rings that taxpayers can spend their money on. the roads here in san diego's are not exactly the best quality, but i think that just means we have more work to do. host: how do you think that the spending or the tax should be allocated? there are a lot more people using the roads in california than there are in some of the other states. should it be more allocated? should the residents of those states pay a greater share to maintain they met -- interstate
system or do you think it should be the other way around? i think having a uniform method of taxation by who uses the most oil, maybe promoting using public transportation is furtherg that can deter wear and tear on the roads. it does less damage on the environment. it's not just some states that are facing -- not just federal officials that are iting budget shortfalls when comes to maintain the roads. in new jersey, governor chris priceie who is a rumored program vice president to pick on the republican side is putting road projects on hold in the middle of a funding crisis there. according to the new york times is set for months the governor
said that new jersey transportation funding was not in crisis, but after he embraced plans to raise the gas tax the state senate balked at the proposal. states are facing funding crises as well. summerville, south carolina. do, would you pay more for the ride -- rose in south carolina and what do you think of the roads there? caller: the roads are in horrible condition at this time. i would think that most residents of the state of south carolina would be willing to pay
more in order to have better roads. i also think that the insurance companies, too, should be a part of this responsibility of keeping up the roads as well you it would make the roads safe, and less accidents. tax: would you prefer a gas , attacks per gallon of gas, which are proposed and east officials are looking into mileage tax base on how many miles are under car. how would you like to see additional funds raised to fix the roads? caller: i see no problem with may be raising the taxes on the gasoline per gallon in that way. the price of gasoline will go -- after thehe election anyway. our elected officials need to be held accountable for maintaining
, it should be under two dollars a gallon and it should remain that way. our elected officials with all due respect -- accountability of these funds. billions of dollars are appropriated and to be allocated for good purposes, that money never gets to where it should go . south carolina also should have a state sales tax. it would certainly help as well. ron from boswell, indiana, another busy state for interstate travel. do you think more money should be spent by taxpayers? we should not give it to any government agencies until we can stop the corruption and greed. they should have to show paperwork out every time they spend. them to the same stringent law that they hold us by, it we would be a lot better
off. they waste about 40% of what they take in across the board. they can't run the dmv, the post office. why spend more money to the dead elephant down there and go on with what we are doing with no or personal care what they do with it. they blow it all the time, from health care to roads. until we stop wasting our money, and have fiscal conservative for a money in taxes, we will always end up like this. sherry from canton, ohio. would you pay more money to fix the roads there in ohio? caller: no. please me talk. i do have a solution to this problem. one thing spending on illegal immigrants and i have been
working two months on a special welfare,, of fraud of over $50,000 in one case. a section eight person does not live in the house but they use it for storage. ofm working with the ig cleveland ohio and nobody will do anything about this. host: how does that relate to highway funny. caller: it is showing an exorbitant amount of money is going for fraud and maybe we could use that for the roads. host: ok. we have bob calling it, from canton, georgia. how do you think the roads are doing there in georgia and would you pay more money? georgiaroads here in are probably in average condition. our climate and the gentleman mentioned the beautiful rose in florida. the climate down here compared to what i grew up in michigan is
different, you don't have the salt or the harsh weather. the the problem with the infrastructure in this country is a story of a disgraceful, politically craven strategy on the part of this house of representatives and the u.s. senate. ,his country's infrastructure we have had bridges collapsing, with thisd problems infrastructure for years and we have known about it. they have done the studies and they know how many of these types of structures need to be replaced and which do not pass inspection. at a time when the government , a sickly spent money without paying interest on it because of the way the economy was and because the way the government is spending and the way the treasury bills are set
up, they could have done it cheaply but no. we could not do it because we could not allow this president to bring this country fully back. the united states is not the only place dealing with crumbling infrastructure according to the wall street journal. the world needs to boost infrastructure spending but many countries are cutting back instead of increasing the amount. researchers estimate that the world needs to increase investment i about 2.4% of global output between now and 2030 to meet the increased demands to move people and goods. that translates into an additional $300 billion extra. the united states is not alone in the need to boost its infrastructure including its roads. we are talking to our viewers
about it. we have sheila coming up next from oklahoma. would you pay more money for roads? theer: that unless bureaucracy can put the money where they say it will go. we are missing a big issue. as to why the government cannot pay more to this days. that is because a $20 trillion ,ebt that they have accumulated spending it in different ways. when you say -- when you are saying that some of the states want to tax people for the fuel they use, it will not go to pay for the infrastructure but to the people that are in charge. host: we have robert calling in from frostburg, maryland. would you pay more money to fix the roads? caller: i will tell you why.
people elect politicians to run our country. until the politicians take control back of running our country instead of allowing these corporate masters to tell them what to do, i do not care what problems we have, we will continue to have problems. until the politicians take control back to roll our government and quit being paid off by these corporate people, we will have problems with roads and every other problem you want to mention. , from theinges american society of civil engineers was on washington journal last month talking about america's infrastructure spending. the next 10ok at years, 20 16-2025, if we continue the way we are investing at current levels, each family can expect to lose $3400 per year.
the u.s. gdp will underachieve by 3.9 trillion dollars by the year 2029. sales will lapse by $20 trillion and 2.5 million jobs will be at risk by 2025. this is a big economic issue. infrastructure issues are also regarding safety. but this is a profound economic issue. randyup next, we have calling in from mount arlington, new jersey. would you pay more for roads? would you think about the current situation there with governor christie? more thatwould pay i think wene else, need to vote for a smaller government. pretty upsetting.
callnd out that we could in and enough people did call-in and stopped the vote. governor christie's answer was -- i made a deal with the democratic houses and you have to understand that. this is a deal that had to be made. he really made us feel like we were all foolish for fighting be taxed. i don't know if you are familiar with sound barriers, but new jersey seems to be the king of sound barriers. down and around overpasses. they are up over health. if you could say -- i will stop 100% of all construction except for roads and bridges with this tax, that would be different. host: let me ask you this -- what do you think about the state of the roads there in new jersey seeing that the governor
has changed his tune a little bit about the need for urgent attention to them? do you think that the need to boost spending is urgent? caller: it is terrible. the cost of the sound barriers over the last few years could have repaired every bridge and every road. few billiond a dollars on things that are not affecting the people driving the roads, and then say that we don't ha any money for the roads, it just doesn't make sense. host: up next, kelly is calling in from bluefield, west virginia. kelly, would you pay more money for better roads there? caller: like a lot of the other callers, we have a government now that says -- we don't have money for roads or bridges but then they will turn around and pakistan need to give $2.4 billion and we need to give ofs country so many billions
dollars. somewhere along the line, the government needs to take into account that we need to not only repair the roads, but also the bridges. the same way with the social security. they will talk about needing to cut social security. we need to give pakistan $2.4 billion or another country so many billions. somewhere along the line, it needs to come back to the united states. we do not need to pay more taxes, we need the government to use the tax money it is getting from us. host: donald trump, while traveling in scotland, stopped to talk about america's infrastructure. let us see what he said. donald trump: the united states needs its infrastructure fixed. the roads are a disaster.
downiend told me -- you go a highway in a brand-new track, and it is virtually destroyed. you have to bring it back because you are hitting potholes all over the highways. our infrastructure is crumbling in the u.s. and we probably spent $4 trillion or more in the middle east. we have a problem. you would be amazed at how similar it is. there is no one that knows how to fix things like me and there is no one that knows how to build like me. that was donald trump speaking and scotland about america's infrastructure. dot callingling -- in from baton rouge, louisiana. saying what mr. trump is is correct. i am not for more taxes. ago, the democrats
had control of both houses of congress for 50 years. do you remember that? we paid more and more taxes. code knows where the money went> what about -- who knows where the money went? what about social security? it is only supposed to be spent on social security but guess what, it was spent on tons of things that were not related to social security. see: what would you like to public officials do at the state and federal level to fix the crumbling bridges and roads in the potholes? thatr: earmark the things can only be used for that. not for social programs when it is supposed to be used for roads and bridges. we have calling in from
inglewood, california, man u well -- manuel. i think we are already paying more money. it is interesting. i was reading an article yesterday in the automobile club in authern california, magazine written by the chief executive officer. he discusses this very issue about the $13 billion we are paying right now and every year in transportation related taxes. he also discusses all of the billions, in excess of $20 billion that has been diverted to other things. besides, fixing the roads. we have a unique situation in california because of the earthquakes. bridgesretrofitting that are outdated. we also have a lot of potholes.
everyone in california drives. we all love our cars. carsee one person in each on the highway in the morning which is a problem in and of itself. that equates to a lot of pollution and traffic congestion, but going back to the money, there is a lot of money owed that the state promised to pay back. the funding is not being directed and our area. besides for peering the roads. host: we have andy calling in calling in from plano, illinois. would you pay more for the roads? caller: no, i would not.
i think our congress could find another way. let them take a pay cut. let them suffer. it hurts the economy when you raise the gas prices. you penalize people of they want to go on vacation or if they can't go on break asian. the hotels. all of the people. -- or if they cannot go on vacation. let me ask you a question about businesses. businesses need roads to transport goods. it shows the cost -- the crumbling infrastructure is costly to businesses in that way. how should they be fixed if not through increasing the tax or other revenue? surer: find a way to make that general electric pays their taxes which they have not paid since they have so many write-offs. go after the big oil companies.
go after the corporations. why penalize the people that need to use these roads to get to work. to use the words -- the roads to go shopping for their daily needs. i have lived in wisconsin in a rural community. 2006s been on sale since and i just sold it in 2015. people cannot afford to live in rural areas because they had to go sometimes 100 miles round-trip to get back and forth to work. calling inve eric from baltimore. i you satisfied with the state of roads in maryland? caller: i think we have to pay more to fix them. we could take care of a couple of problems. there is a mass of stone loans out there and if we could get together and start letting these
kids work off their student loans, we would not have to raise another dime and they wouldn't have to go through life and i am 50 years old paying off student loads i had 15 years ago. you can go one step further. it is summertime. 11th kids are intense and grade who want to go to college. they could work it off. the government could have been working on the wrong side of the people and they could work off their student loans before they even got to college. host: we have steve calling in from lebanon, connecticut. problem withe a paying to repair the roads. had obama first came in, he an 800 billion dollars stimulus program and he could have sunk
it into infrastructure had he chosen. what i got out of it, was a $50 green rebate from an air conditioner that was made in china. when the bridge fell in was designed,t replaced, and up again in a year. them intoave sunk projects. our governor here built $500 million to pave over an old rail freight tracks. i did the math on that. the d.o.t.'s projected ridership, and you could have bought everyone in that bus a ford fusion. when that were out, he could have purchased another one for them. are not crowded with the buses. he did not build roads that everyone could use. it was a social engineering
project. i have very little faith that they will actually build something that the great american public can use. host: up next, what is the safest way to transport oil and the united dates -- united states? to bringe speaking them to is part of the alliance for innovation and infrastructure. a little later, we will have a discussion on how the brexit vote affects the world's future efforts at defensive and security. first, on newsmakers this week, the top u.s. specialist on the vacciness talks about and studies doctors have begun but are worried they cannot finish without funding from congress. >> last week, we started a large study. .t is called the zip study
we started it in puerto rico and we will continue in brazil and colombia. we will be looking at 10,000 pregnant women and following them to ask and answer some of the questions you are asking. what is the difference between a pregnant woman who gets infected but does not have any symptoms versus a pregnant woman that does get pregnant and it does have sued -- symptoms. is there any effect on the fetus. variouse question of trimesters. what is the relative risk you have within those trimesters. most important, follow the children at birth, three months, six months, and a year. what we are starting to see is that there are babies born who
look adorable from the standpoint of not being microcephalic. not have a do microcephalic situation but those babies may still have abnormalities with regard to hearing, and seeing. those are the things we will be following by this large study. host: you think you will be able to get the funding to do that? >> that is a good question. that is not already taken care of. that is one of the things, and this is a good question, that we had to start because we cannot delay. we had enough money to get it started but we don't have enough money to bring this trial to fruition. washington journal continues. now is theng us founder and chairman for the
alliance of infrastructure and ofmer acting administrator the pipeline and hazardous materials safety administration. we talk about what is the best way to transport oil and 90 dates. thank you for joining us this morning. let us talk about keystone pipeline. this week, the canadian company type line keystone xl is seeking $15 billion in damages from the u.s. to cover the costs from rejecting the pipeline. can they do that? naftay can under the free-trade accord. this litigation will continue for some time. hopefully, there needs to be a political solution. the administration has approved other pipelines. pipelinesd other crossing back and forth in canada.
transcanada says it is a legal commodity that should be shipped. it would be like telling caterpillar they cannot build a new manufacturing is silly for no reason. critics have said it is about climate change. -- oil we get, 4 million to 4 million barrels a day, we need to shift our dependence. this one will be tied up for a while. host: how good of a case does transcanada have? >> we will have to wait and see but some legal experts i have spoken to says they have a pretty good shot. on the other hand, there will be -- it will be years before we find out. host: we are talking about transporting oil in the united
states and what is the safest way to do that in light of some oil train derailment and pipeline spills. callers can join the discussion. both hillary clinton and donald trump have spoken about keystone xl. what do you think about what they said so far? >> their opinions are interesting. donald trump the least we need more of everything. his energy policy includes more , morerything, more coal oil. hillary clinton's position has changed. as secretary of state, she alluded to keystone as being another infrastructure project. but both sides agree that keystone is not about building a pipeline but rather linking it to climate change.
both candidates have pretty different opinions on how to move forward. >> how -- host: how do you expect things to change under the new administration? >> if hillary clinton wins, some of the rhetoric we are currently seeing, she will pull back some. she has a long history of supporting all forms of fuel. i think she understands, as do most experts, that the next 30-50 years, we will still be dependent on fossil fuels and we have to have a realistic energy, mixed. mr.he other side, with donald trump, we will have to see because he has been short on specifics so far. we need to invest in our , -- we need to invest in our infrastructure. brew we are talking to
again the alliance for infrastructure. we have ron who is calling in from pontiac, illinois. caller: thank you very much. i was wondering -- we just got done with the segment about raising revenues for the federal government. by much revenue can we raise the pipeline activities between canada and the u.s. >> that is a good question. donald trump has said he would approve keystone that he wants a cut of the action. he wants money coming from the u.s. government to proving that project. others will say, that is not typically done in the past. the pipeline company like any utility, has to pay for the land and then pay taxes on that easement they have god. there is an argument that all road, money is given
to state and local communities. that is something that has not been explored before. maybe it could be. host: let us talk a little bit about safety. on june 3, 42,000 gallons of crude oil spilled when the union pacific train jumped its tracks in oregon. do we know the cause of that? isin this case, it dilapidated infrastructure. there is a carriage bolt that links sections of tracks together and that bolt was rusted and had sheared off. federal regulators are likely to bring an enforcement case against the railroad for not maintaining the infrastructure. experts him with sides of the equation say these are things
you cannot predict or others are . easy to predict. host: the federal regulators are calling for oil light rail reform after -- oil by rail reform. >> we have had several reforms over the last year. the dot, has come out with new standards and you factor of 10 cars to make them stronger and more resilient in the case of an accident. the federal railroad investigators called for upgrading the braking system -- systems on trains. others have said, including my that, we published a study calls for deploying technology on the rain tracks using censored technology. and using newer electronic means to inspect the track.
two thirds of all of the rain -- host: we ever alpha calling in from washington, d.c. caller: thank you for having me. i want to talk about natural gas which is the bridge between using petroleum and coal. before we get to the high technology of some of these testing tools. a few new york land donors have blocked that but in a lot of ways, putting the pipeline in what improve the environment. can you speak to us about that? that is one of the ouramental disconnects in country. people are arguing against infrastructure. we need to remember that whether it is a brand-new car or a new pipeline, it will be safer than a 50 year or a 100 year
pipeline. also have to use commodities like it natural gas and pipelines have been shown to be the safest way to move large-scale energy products from one base to another. natural gas is very much a bridge fuel that can help us move from fossil fuel to a renewable economy. the experts will say, when you use a power plant, using natural be in a liquid form, it can throttled up were throttled back very easily. there is a room -- a renewable -- ure, depending on the what is safer? >> i think they are both very safe.
to oversee all hazmat transportation, air, land, and see. -- sea. pipelines have a little bit of a better edge in some cases is because they are the only one way chamfered -- transportation system. everything else requires a return trip and d makes them less efficient. when you look at the total amount of energy used it to move something and then the volume moved, pipelines are pretty hard to beat. int: we have daniel coming to washington, d.c. >> good morning. i want to say that we all have to change our habits. from the guy next-door mowing his lawn every week for no reason.
we have to change our habits. we cannot lock ourselves into another 30 years of spills and the gulf. we have never had a safe technology. we went into the gulf and into the arctic for oil exploration. there is no way we should be committing treason basically against austerity. host: can you address daniel's question? agree that weall need to lessen our footprint. "be good stewards of the embodiment. i think we have to be realistic and understand that advances in technology make us better off than we were during the industrial revolution. we use energy supplies each and every day. are -- we need
to have a policy that starts our march towards renewables. we cannot be naive. host: you wrote to a piece in forbes of the keystone pipeline and the politics behind that. one point that you make is the president's push on the issue of climate change, perhaps it played a part in to the decision to reject. if you look at the keystone pipeline, there is already a alberta,that runs from canada, to the gulf of mexico. the original keystone stopped in oklahoma. keystone xl was a -- an expansion project. then coming on down to the gulf of mexico. a lot of people don't realize approved theident
summit part of keystone at half -- is inne xl was operation today. if you look at the argument that is being used against the pipeline, a lot of them have to do with saying there will be an export pipeline or the oil must stay in the u.s.. southern half of keystone's arctic done and that has not borne out to be true of the northern half of keystone that would have brought more oil than -- down that is what has been held up in politics. that has become the poster child for the at toyota -- anti-oil movement. by not approving a new pipeline, a brand-new state-of-the-art park line that company agreed to 50 plus
conditions, a lot of which go beyond what the federal government require, by not building that come of the same oil is getting here here it is getting here on older pipelines and railcars. the name of the environment by stopping new infrastructure project a are undermining the environment. the state department said he say that without the pipeline there will be more spills and more injuries. it is somewhat counterintuitive. blocking new infrastructure projects can undermine the environment, not protected. host: we are talking to brigham mccallum, formerly of the pipeline and harris -- safety
can get the infrastructure were needs to be. but to schumer's point, there is volatility and some of the oil that is true. if you remove that and strip out the hydrocarbons you are left with an even more dangerous situation because the butane's and the propane center left they don't just burn, they explode and we have no way of shipping them. it sounds good on paper but it can't be gone at this point. ok. clark on the independent line from new jersey. hello. ever read upif you book by energy thing -- called energy victory. idea that ifs an we had a flex fuel mandate, flex fuel standard mandate for every
car sold in the u.s., that we andd get awful fossil fuels onto alcohol-based fuels, f ethanol, methanol, etc.. if we do that if we did that every car sold here, every other country would have one to. because they would want to sell cars in the u.s. we could get the whole world on an ethanol-based fuel economy. if we did, we wouldn't have these spills, there would be no opposed to an oil spill the ethanol spilt would clear up in three days area host: let's give him a chance to respond. guest: there is a big debate going on about this. all endis not the be
all, we can't ship ethanol and pipelines because it is too corrosive. it has been done in south america for short distances, but ethanol is also flammable, and also difficult to manage at times as well. it has to be safely transported exclusively by rail. other people are smarter than i am but my understanding is that what you factor in the production costs producing the grain, the farming and watering and everything else, it is a process of intensive to this point. i am not sure that is the ultimate answer. host: getting back to the organon derailment. governor kate brown call for halt of all trains -- all oil transit or a gun after the release of the preliminary .inding
do you agree with the? -- with that? don't agree with it and that won't happen. it's unrealistic to do that. -- theeral government agency has hazmat the authority to transport hazardous materials. ship backwards, we safely 1.5 million shipments each day of hazardous materials. we ship things that are for more hazardous than crude oil that are needed. it is done by rail every day to ,llow our sewage plants to work to allow us to have clean drinking water. there are a lot of chemicals and most of them are ruled by rail.
that is not realistic to do, but again, today probably nothing will happen. volumes understand the of products move versus a small number of incidents, it is something we have to do it at her job of managing, but you can't stop movement of transportation. host: chris: in on their independent line from milwaukee. good morning. caller: good morning. i am against keystone just because it is going across the aquifer. they don't even know because it is such a dirty oil for one thing, they don't know if it would get in the aquifer, if they would be able to clean it. itcan live without oil, would be nice, but we can't live without water. the people in that area around dependentaid they are on the aquifer. i want to have to
disagree with you. i wrote an article on this, i call it the green herring in the room. aquifer, therea are tens of thousands of miles of pipeline running above and in the aquifer. after nebraska, is a sand a soccer for -- sand based aquifer. the oil from canada is not dirty. i don't understand that terminology. i don't know what the difference he crudelean and hurt oil. it's just crude oil. geologic experts have said the heavier type of oil that comes from canada would not be able to permeate the aquifer because it is more of a molasses type of product. it would slow down and stop when it gets out of the pop line -- pipeline. the filtration system would stop
it. the plat pipeline runs east to west through the aquifer as it has since a 1950's. of our viewers, tweets and assess the country should use what we have the most abundance of, natural gas. i like natural gas. pipelines, miles of most of that is for natural gas. natural gas is used in most of our columns and factories. it is used quite a bit. there are concerns with fracking as well as has to be looked at. ultimately, when somebody advocates all or nothing, both sides are probably wrong. we need a realistic energy mix just like you would not have one tool in the toolbox. you need more than just a hammer.
mix which includes renewables and also includes nuclear and natural gas. host: we are talking about transporting oil in our nation. generale first consul motor carrier safety administration. and you are also serving on active duty in the navy as a navy officer and aviator. william, calling in from tupelo, mississippi on the republican line. caller: good morning. i am for infrastructure come always has been. who will profit from the keystone highflying -- pipeline? who is hiring the people to do the work? who will make money at the end of the day?
we all need to understand that the pipeline company does oil anymore- only than the postal service or ups owns a package that we take into ship. they are what is called a common carrier. they are shipping symbiosis commodity. there were half a dozen different energy companies that have signed up or subscribed to shipping oil on the keystone pipeline to the refineries in texas and louisiana. most of the pipelines were wasduled to be built, it going to be 100% union project. for those that were building it come from a multitude of different companies and those workers make their livelihood as tradesmen moving from project to project. we have rick calling in from louisville, ohio on the independent line to
that you were for the bush administration. when bush and cheney took office, oil was $20 a day up -- barrel. exxon might have been going bankrupt. they get in office and they create a war in iraq because they kick exxon and halliburton out of the country. you continuously bring on the sociopaths on your show, and they are nothing but liars. host: we are moving on from that. i worked for norman mineta, a democrat as the secretary of transportation area transportation is a very bipartisan issue. it shouldn't be a political issue. it is one of safety. we are trying to move people and cargo as safely as possible and
that shouldn't be a partisan issue. about some oftalk the safety members -- safety measures is a part of the act? guest: the cisco the safe pipes called the safe rights act. it is put in place by pipeline companies over the next few years. it will require an agency to go back and look at how they do business and it requires them to collect more information and then be used for decision-making the agency requires to look at technological solutions that are available. we have come a long way with technology over the last 5, 10, 20 years. the pace of change is quicker than it has ever been.
the federal government is slow host: join us. in what ways with this new technology improves safety? if you look at how popular their operated, we used to after fill them with water, over pressurize them to see if they broke or not. it is stressful to the pipeline itself. some argue it actually weakens the pipeline. have internal inspection devices that can give us a 3-d image of the wall thickness of the pipeline from inside by using sensors. we have technology that can accurately locate the pipeline and save that information. if anybody has been out on the markingset they see across the ground where underground utilities are being marked. we can do better than that today. they are remarked every single time. we could have a map that shows us forever what is under there
and what changes. that also helps us eliminate hitting those underground pipelines, that's the number one leading cause of pipeline accidents today. hitting aparties pipeline or an underground pipeline during construction? cynthia, from florida on a democratic line. people would be more willing to pay for roads if they showed us where the money is being spent. you: i'm going to interrupt because now we are talking about transporting oil. the roads was a previous segment. do you have any questions about how oil is trans-ordered in the u.s.? caller: the reports are too convoluted. keep it simple, stupid. host: we're going to move on
from that. you are on. caller: good morning. america does not need innovation. needs his revolutionary inventions that will change our solutions. here wellur problems solved by slaves. the worst place where trains have accidents is in -- texas. usedlution cannot be because these people do not pay for the solutions. host: let's talk about
innovation in terms of the solutions. at aii.ou can find us org. frustrationof the is that the government tends to move too slowly in adopting new technologies. on the flip side of this is that the government is set up to make sure that new technologies are safe before they are required. there is a little bit of a lack when it comes to deploying technology. i think that's frustration that he is showing has grown because the technology is coming more quickly than ever, yet our ability within the government to adopt new technology has not sped up. there is frustration out there and there are a lot of great commercial solutions that could make us safer or makeup transportation systems more efficient.
we have been very reluctant to move forward on those. that is something that our elected officials need to think about. we have been talking about what elected officials can do. what about carriers? are there things you would like to see them do and encourage the kind of innovation you're talking about? guest: there are. a lot of carriers are starting gis solutions to keep track of their cargoes, they are using complicated systems to make their logistical routes more efficient. also using technology, if you see an 18 wheeler on the highway, oftentimes they have the skype -- side skirts on the so ofr, or is at the deco the back of the trailer. that increases fuel efficiency as well. there are things like that that
can be done. and there are more things that can be done as well. a lot of that simply has to do with getting our mindset wrapped around the fact that we need a 21st century solution to the transportation system. host: up next is rob from austin, texas on the democratic line. caller: thank you. i just wanted to say that transporting the oil through the pipeline is a better way to go. understandingk my that the canadian oil is it is a tar sand oil and it is very heavy. when he gets to the water sinks to the bottom and makes it very difficult to clean. it's very hard to get out. was thathought i had
when you pop it down -- all the way down by texas city to be it easier to makes put it on a tanker and ship it. host: that's a lot to unpack. oil comes in all six of different quantities. the canadian oil is similar in the two california, heavy crude. similar to mexican or venezuelan crude. it is heavier. it does tend to not dissipate as well as others. there is a debate. i think there is a split of the experts on if it stays together, some say it is cleaner to clean up. if it stays together and sinks others say it is more difficult to clean. we have a race to clean up the oil. last year we transported 11.3 billion barrels of crude oil and
refined products around the country and we lost 32,000 barrels due to spills. it's a very small amount. i would still like to see zero and it is something we have to use. that's why of was a little upset that she still was not approved. it would have used the latest in sensor technology, i think we would have more spills moving forward if we don't approve these new projects. i talked a little bit about the report about the it gives thea d. railroad systems a c plus. i think railroads have
made great strides for progress in the past several years. they have invested record amounts of money into the infrastructure system. some of that is for new capacity . it is not all going back into fixing older infrastructure. more needs to be spent. the railroad industry has directed appeals and applying something called positive train control which which would have prevented the philadelphia crash. saying they need more time and it is too complicated. i would say to that is a regulator that they need to hold their feet to the fryer. gave them an extension and they are already saying they may not make the next extension. we can figure out how to deploy that. the feet dragging has to stop. this new technology can be deployed and it will prevent
accidents. more needs to be done but they are headed in the right direction. calling from amsterdam, new york on the republican line. discussi would like to about the transcanada trying to steal land under cover of the domain. i was wondering if you can comment about these foreign companies trying to use the american law to seize property from private -- private property owners? guest: i think that's a misnomer . transcanada, doing business in the u.s. is a u.s. company. u.s. is atoyota and u.s. company. build factories here in the u.s. and they are not stealing anyone's land. the transcanada corporation that is a u.s. company that is
putting this in is a utility company. think that is a dangerous viewpoint that is starting to pick up traction. nobody can put in a cable line, nobody can put in an a new gas line or a pipeline because it crosses somebodies property, we can't get anything built in this country. all of us tos to have an integrated infrastructure system. eminent domain is used as a method of last resort, not as a can't getrt, when you the property any other way or you can't agree on the valuation of the property. it is ingrained in the u.s. legal system and upheld of the supreme court. we have to have that to have projects bill. from nathan calling in ohio. caller: good morning.
i was wondering if you know about the latest theory about oil really comes from, we are finding oil soap deep in the earth now we are finding wells that have been pumped dry and then they go back a few years and the wills are full again -- wells are full again. manufactured by pressure from the core theory. host: let's give him a chance to respond. guest: i have not heard that one. what i do know is we are fighting more oil. that poses a difficult scenario for some because oil is still cheaper than a lot of the renewable alternatives. i do think that is shifting. we are getting to a tipping point where printable rules will be able to keep up with oil. you may remember one of the
original reasons to moving for that is we are running out of as technology has improved we have discovered more oil that is out there. i familiar with what you are talking about but i will look into that area host: alan on the republican line. caller: good morning. i have a technical question i am curious about. what is the flow rate of the amount through the pipelines itself from north to south? i am furious about what that amount is good i know it's highly technical. is, isother question there a way that is feasible at all to build a pipeline from the east coast to the west coast to the excess of water from reservoirs or the great lakes to the west coast? your first question, i'm
going to say depends. pipe based on the diameter whether it is 24 inches, 26, 48. and the pressure is under. we did a lot of talking about keystone today but on average pipeline of that size 36 inches, the flow rate is about 800,000 barrels a day, give or take. it moves sort of like a fast walking speed. it takes a week or longer to show up at the other end. as far as using pipelines for water, especially in the southwest, that has become an issue. people have been looking into moving water long-distance is via pipelines. several have even looked at possible ways of moving water to the great lakes. thus far, those projects have been shown to be very expensive. i don't know if they really have
gotten off the ground yet. host: lc calling in from the sulfuric, north carolina on the democratic line. just retired from driving a truck. ,hat pipeline and that oil canada was glad to run the pipeline from just above nationn, but the first and the people of think who resent no. -- said no. the lady who got elected in alberta, she does not want the pipeline. her, this can be easily checked. people call in don't know what they are talking about. after the u.s. held at
the keystone project 5-7 years, canada has look for other ways to sell their oil. yes, there is some political debate act and forth in alberta right now. looking for other ways to get into the market because it is a very them orton commodity read that is another reason why it i believe it should come here where we have the epa regulations. by canada will sell the oil, if we don't buy it they will sell thankmer else area host: you for joining us this morning. coming up next, most of the discussion around the brexit is focused on economic issues. we will be talking about defense and security with rand corporation's chris chivvis.
week report issued this found signs that in 2015 more than 18 million americans got their drinking water from systems would lead violations. eric olson will tell us more later in the program. be weekend long we will exploring the history and .iterary life of provo, utah coming up today at noon on c-span2's book tv we will be featuring our provo library programming, and decided to work moon will be showing us books from his multimillion dollar collection. >> provo has a difficult story. narrative ofig mormon settlement in the region is about coming to this place and make it work, even though other american and even british
and other explorers never chose to settle here. this was seen as a difficult place to live, and not a desirable patch of land. that was part of the reasons that mormons took it. young wanted a place exit the isolated from other american settlers, so they wouldn't run into the same kinds of conflicts they had in the east. that dream was only partially realized. not only did the gold rush bring some 30,000 non-mormons are utah the 20first three years, --native americans here 20,000 native americans here, these stories became as difficult as the ones that mormons experienced before. misunderstanding cultural alienation, violent displacement
. but native americans are moved out of their traditional homeland and it becomes a difficult story to tell. this month, watch c-span's coverage of the 2016 republican and democratic conventions and every saturday night at eight p.m. eastern, we will look back at past conventions and the presidential candidates who won their party's nominations are at tonight we will focus on nominees who ran for president only once during their careers. harry truman, at the 1948 democratic convention in philadelphia. 60 convention with john , thedy, barry goldwater 1976 republican convention with gerald ford in kansas city, missouri. walter mondale at the 1984 republican -- democratic convention. the 2004 democratic
convention in boston with john kerry. asked republican and democratic national conventions tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span. washington journal continues. host: we are joined by we will be -- talking about the defense and security implications of the brexit vote. tell us a little bit about one of the security implications are of written spoke to leave the eu? guest: i think like with another implications will play out. a lot of different things it could happen. there is potential impact from nato, from the security of europe at a whole at a time when
it has been very troubled over the course of the past few years. the biggest impact is for the security implications of the eu itself. have -- it will not have its most powerful member participating any longer. host: the new york times talks a little but -- a little bit about the security implications about the brexit vote. some eu leaders push for military union that fathers are focusing on from within. at france and germany so the leadership void they will have the opportunity to pursue a shared goal that britain has blocked, expanding the european union integration to include military policy. that ambition which some officials are already pushing toward what ickes and the diplomatic body and put muscle behind its prominent role in the world.
what do you think about this move to bring it more to the security realm? guest: it is possible, as the european union grows smaller, cooperation on difficult issues like security and foreign policy will become a little bit easier. it may be that france and germany will be able to do more in the security round that they could with britain. i am skeptical about that to be honest. the u.k. is a critical and important country when it comes to security and defense policy. its absence from the block even it makes it easier to agree on particular policies will diminish the eu and international politics. host: we are talking to , our viewers seven can join the conversation.
if you are outside of the u.s., you can call. in the same new york times report it talks about the unresolved issues such as fighting terrorism. it says that europe's terrorism internal one. attacks have been conducted by european citizens, many were trained by the islamic state. has failed to share information on suspects. this is complicated by the open borders. i think that is mostly true although i would disagree that there is a strict distinction to be mad -- to be -- betweenternal
internal and external sources. often we see plots that are involved by people with an born and raised in europe sometimes cooperating were getting training overseas. there is an interconnection and it's not as simple and straightforward are they in europe or are they overseas host:. how important is the u.k. when it comes to fighting terror? what is their role in europe and the u.s.? u.k. one of the most important countries in the world when it comes to counterterrorism operations. very capable and key concept capabilities such as special forces. the u.k. says a whole division
to participate in the iraq war. what has happened over the past because in part of their contribution to the iraq and afghan wars. the toll on their military and army as a whole and today they are not as capable as they were 10 years ago. even still, it remains one of the most important countries in the world my comes to counterterrorism. other areasant and host:. we are talking about the defense and security of the brexit vote dinesh -- of the u.k.. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. brexittural aspect of isn't mentioned very much. i think folks could learn a
-- planit about the which set in motion the eu decades ago. den-klergi plan. was an aristocrat. i guess about 80 years ago, he died in the 70's i believe. his plan was to create a populationungish -- in europe that was not white anymore. his idea was to bring in nonwhites from the middle east, from africa and all sorts of places. just on the continual little bit. in order to create a more malleable population for the elite classes. i'm not familiar with that particular plan.
he is recognized by some people to think about ways in which more cooperative political arrangements could be possible in europe. his ideas are influenced by the demise of the austro -- austria hungarian and parker some people said he had some cap a contribution for the early thinking about the eu. we have marianne calling in on the republican line from pittsburgh. caller: thanks for taking my call. i wanted to ask this gentleman with all these people invading a country, with all these like did youether, make a safe seven or stop terrorists before list of -- resources has a caller:.
i'm not sure which country you are talking about. theou're talking about migrant crisis in your right now, i think that a lot of people would argue that europe's openness and germany's openness in excepting what is an unprecedented number of refugees and migrants has been a very significant step for europe. it has raised a lot of challenges that they will be dealing with for many years. itre are some downsides to but also on the whole, there are a lot of upside in terms of what it says about fundamental ideals that europe's stance for. how do u.s. and u.k. troops were together in places like afghanistan in terms of security, and how much of an impact does the brexit vote have on this? guest: i think it's the closest
working relationship the u.s. has with any country in the world. terms ofrue both in intelligence. it will have no impact on that operationally. only way it could have a negative impact is if brexit for some reason leads to a decline in the u.k. economic resources, that could impact intelligence and special forces and military capabilities. if that happens, the range of things on which the u.s. can cooperate with this ally will begin to diminish. host: will it affect the uk's relationship with countries remaining in the year -- in the eu. guest: it could. the u.s. relationship with france has been much stronger over the course of last few
years, cooperating in africa and afghanistan among others. french resources are going to go either. host: joe, from texas on the democratic line. caller: good morning. say that i do not necessarily agree with their that the british exit from the eu will weaken the security mechanism of the eu. that germany is still there, francis still there, italy is still here. if you go further afield, turkey is still there. the remaining countries just need to come together and form a stronger union and show the brits that they made a mistake. i just want to make one other point. i know that the attention is not paid to the history of third
world countries. but in 1958 english reaching -- speaking caribbean's former federation to make -- pulled out of the federation and a move to years later. as it was said at the time, one to 13 leads to zero. and it leads to collapse. i think those are symbolic point that you make. it is theoretically possible that the european union's defense policy could go stronger without the u.k. there. you have to admit that the u.k. is not the most capable, at least one of the most capable in the european union. when it comes to security and policy iflicy defense
they blow. people have been wondering what is going to recommend germany. this is a difficult questions for germans for his -- historical regions. germany could be playing a larger role and fill in for the loss of the u.k. certainly in their rent on her but it is nothing but a blow to the european union defense policy. host: let's talk about russia. yesterdayreport saying that the brexit has hurt american security and how russian aftershocks are now rumbling through through the distant capitals of moscow and washington. the shakeup could be bad for military interests. in the run-up to the uk's guest:dum last thursday
i think brexit probably warms the cockles of president putin's heart. think they believe that the europe and the west always increasingly are inward looking and divided. if anything, it is confirmation of that. aboutis a question whether it does anything in practical terms to help russia or weaken the west. there is no doubt that it made moscow happy. host: we are talking to christopher chivers about the security and defense implication of brexit. up next, we have bill calling in from illinois on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. who waserson
enthusiastic about the vote. the european union economically is declining relative to world gdp. that itd one not think would be good for the u.s., for australia or new zealand. britain will have strengthened relationships with all of these other countries. and it doesn't really imperative u.k. from continuing military ties with the european union. guest: the answer to the last i think it does in paradigm more than people may be willing to admit at this point. britain will no longer be in the european union.
it will impair the outside of a certain number of specific -- specific types of implications. whether or not you think it will be good for britain, but most of the economists suggest that is a fairly risky move. loses it won't be a good idea for security. host: how will brexit affect nato? will: it's one that we hear a lot about during the course of the next few days. strictly speaking does not affect nato.
is not going to have a big impact. it will only matter if the u.k. isn't able to invest in a intelligent work in the kinds of important capability that the u.k. brings to the table to that there willationship be a huge effort and washington to continue that relationship. host: how will brexit impact
some of the other allies when it comes to the issue of defense and security? but ourf your site european allies, there was a. in which the french and the british were trying to increase cooperation. i think the french became itstrated about how the low was going to they look to the british to establish a flank of british -- a version of the special relationship. it hasn't gone as well as a lot of people had hoped. there is substance to it but it has not gone as far as people would have hoped. to decision of the british believe the european union could also impact that relationship, which would turn france more closely towards germany. calling in oneath the republican line. i am not the smartest
person in the world. i live in world america. all i know is that globalization is not so great. , iare struggling down here guarantee if they gave us and it has nothing to do with race, if they would give us a chain to follow we would do it in a heartbeat. people don't realize these policies -- i can understand britain's anger. how can you sit here place when you have wide open borders. isst: the sentiment he expressing is some of the sentiment behind the brexit phot. probably there is the feeling that he is six resting. host: there's a report in newsweek about how brexit could
strengthen isis. says, there are unintended and on ridiculous security consequences. we have seen how there has been violence in the u.k.. we will also strengthen the clash of civilization narratives that is at the heart of isis and al qaeda's view of the world. that's maybe a little bit exaggerated. i do think it is true that they
will strengthen each other. far right extremists will strengthen isis. so far brexit comes from a strong nationalist dealing with the u.k.. divisionss to further , i do think that will strengthen isis and in turn it is possible that you could see more far right groups within europe's growing. mutuallyan unfortunate , whether you are talking about isis or far right groups. terms of making policy to fight isis, does it make it more difficult for europe to come up with a more cohesive policy? europe will not be cohesive. when you are talking about a challenge like isis which stand -- spans through iraq and north africa and libya and egypt in
south asia. no one country will be able to deal with this problem. in aeed to approach it cohesive and cooperative kind of a way. host: we are discussing the security and defense operations. up next we have jim calling in from jonesborough tennessee on the republican line. good morning. good morning. i wanted to ask your they seem toe forget about the will of the people in britain. people are making excuses about what they don't know what they are doing. the fact is that they voted to leave. portion ofa large the british public also voted to remain in the european union. that is important.
we are debating whether or not that something that a large percentage of the british public wanted to do. we are talking about the implications of what it will be an ultimately will it be a good thing or an not a good thing for the u.k.. host: what should we be watching next essilor progress rolls out -- as the progress rolls out. will we see the decrease or increase? guest: we had the nato summit coming out next week. we will want to find out what it means. there are different versions of it. over the medium and long-term, the key issue is whether it helps or hurts the u.k. and the european economy, and if it helps them can they invest more in defense and security. if it hurts them if further reduces their capabilities in
this area. from up next jacob pennsylvania on the republican line. caller: good morning. far do you is how -- how party figure will drop? host: can you ask for more time? the question is how far will gdp drop if i heard correctly. i am not an economist and i can make a prediction on that. there are a range of different economic estimates out there. proponents feel that it will go up. host: you talk a little bit about china. how do you think chinese there will be some
very much. the subject has early been discussed please excuse a. i grew up in the 50's and 60's. it isets me because conventional wisdom there is a history gap in the united states. among younger people. for those who are willing to listen to the show, the 1950's and 60's, week were up hiding under our desk. the interstate highway system was built up so we could .vacuate our cities it was crucial to our lives. it was focused when kennedy at the showdown with the -- curse khrushchev. in those days, the economists said the
the runaway socialism in greece, and also they are going to have thecurity problem because iraq receipt of the eu is so it iso deal with difficult to get them to do common sense stirrings. let's let chris unwraps some of the points that you put on. does the motivation make a difference in terms of security? guest: i think it makes some difference. thati would say to tom as what we are trying to figure out is what the cost and benefits of leaving the u.k. are -- the eu. and how that plays out over time. the debate over whether or not to leave had to do with some
point -- people point to the cost of being in the eu and some cost pointed to the significant union benefits. how does that turn out if the u.k. leaves? host: we talked a little bit about the relationship and the u.k. in terms of military strength, but what about intelligence? how might brexit affect that? guest: i don't think it will affect it at all. cooperation is the strongest between any countries that i can think of in the world. since world war ii there is a history behind it. i don't see any kind of an impact on that. host: are there any other types of impact that we might see that could affect the u.s. defense or security? guest: i think we touched on a lot of the important ones.
ultimately the resources we have to defend ourselves against the , isis, globals pandemics, any kind of crisis out there, depends on having made good choices and investments. we have to be smart about it. thatr as brexit impacting host: it will be the biggest thing overtime. up next with simon calling in from california. my question for your guest is, i don't quite understand from his answers how which trumps the other as far as a military relationship. my next question would be as far europe and nato be more concerned with what they are going to do as the u.s.
participation the kleins mode -- declines militarily because of economics and the united states not really wanting to get involved anymore in the world. guest: those are two important questions. regarding nato as a whole, compared to the european union when it comes to military, nato is far more important. between then capabilities of the european union and those of nato. there is no direct impact with brexit on nato. the second thing about u.s. participation with nato. we see a range of different views in america. a debate about what america's contribution to nato ought to be. we are to pursue the problems with our allies and cooperation with others.
that's a debate we are happy right now. should the u.s. moved to the see, to be honest i don't that happening anytime soon, if ever. that would be a significant blow to nato. host: bob calling in from oklahoma on the democratic line. caller: thank you. fearssue of hope versus and how that forms up our paradigm of what is possible. what we need to focus on his natural resource management. there is no way that war can carry on as a basic of the economy in a world that is essentially eating itself up, and client -- climate change
indicates we are beating ourselves up. what we ought to focus on are what are people going to do, not who sue and just exactly the to the power as much as the relationships of the practicality of whatever economy will form up so that we can read the surface of the earth as much as humanly possible. host: thanks bob. it's interesting that you point to this because obviously the foundation of the european union has long been very much economic in nature. one of the reasons why it doesn't have a lot to show in the security and cooperation in arena is because it has been successful economically.
including a things like the through the european union. that will likely continue. sue from illinois on the democratic line. good morning. be that in would think we ought to stand to better as a nation. in comparison to the rest of the world. if we look back a little bit on our own history of many people were killed here by terrorism considering the kkk we have far bye people that died then american citizens by americans. i think the people that have not ahe terrorism hispanic in there or anywhere.
leave everyone alone and come together as americans and by the way donald trump's father-in-law is a member of the congress party. thank you. this is not a time for hysteria. wehink we are far from that need to be nuanced and our understanding in what constitutes a terrorist attack as opposed to a hate crime. there are those that argue that the orlando shootings were hate crimes host:. joe calling in for -- from baltimore. we have so much between the nations as far as our relationship with britain. we are friends with britain. first and foremost.
a lot of the relationship that we have them came out of world war ii to that was helping to defend the u.k. against the nazi german threat and earlier so that war. our cooperation has deepened since then, especially on security issues and a range of other areas. the question more broadly about why we do we have allies, there are many problems out there in the world, in the security range and economic sphere and in other areas. they happen in different parts of the world. that havingfound allies to deal with these problems has been very beneficial to america's interests. host: thank you christopher senior policy scientist at rand corporation. more information can be found at rand.org. will beunning as an we
talking to eric olsen about a new report talking about the potential of lead being found in drinking water. stay tuned. on american history tvm c-span3 this july 4 weekend. tonight at eight lectures in history, generally award how focused on her position as a mother. which isof course, what is driving her support as suffrage. to say that women are different than men but women can do society better than men have done. heather coxe richeson on the new roles women assumed as a workforce that politics during the late 19th century in the growth of political organizations run by women. morning at 10:00 and wrote to the white house rewind cap about 1968 republican them at conventions.
-- strongithout without being arrogant. that is the kind of america that will help build the peace of this world. for us toe has come leave the valley of despair and climb the mountain so that we may see the glory of the dawn, a new day for america and a new dawn for peace and freedom in the world. nixon accepted the gop presidential nomination in huber humphrey accepted the democratic nomination in chicago. supreme court justices ruth bader ginsburg share stories about the current supreme court traditions. >> whenever the justice as a birthday, she brings in some wine and wheat toast the birthdayand sing happy
. we are missing our leader because he controlled most of it. supreme court curator catherine sent with talk about -- for a complete holiday special go for c-span.org. host: washington journal continues. joining now is eric olson, he is with the national resources defense council they have program director. he is here to talk to us about the new report issued last week that found that more than 18 million americans get there during the water from systems contaminated with lead. talk to us a little bit about the major findings of this new report? guest: we found that over 18 million people cap drinking
water systems that file later the lead and copper rule. that could mean that they did tests of the water for lent, it could mean they failed to report contamination to the citizens, or that they didn't treat her to get rid of the lead problem. we are not saying that all 18 million people got contaminated water but we are very concerned. one of the shocking things was flint, michigan, didn't even officialn epa's database tracking violations. we think there are other violations of error. talk about the percentage of the systems that were analyzed under this for more. how much of the system was analyze and how many americans would be affected by this? looked at the entirety of the whole database, first attracts every drinking water and the u.s. this is all said by the u p -- by the epa to the states.
we found that there are a lot of these situations where the they were not testing and a way that would have detected lead, even though it would appear there were problems in the system. we believe that although 18 million people that are served, that's a big number, there are probably a lot of other problems out there that are inspected. talking to eric olson, who is the strategic director for health at the national resource defense council. we are talking about the recent study about lead levels.
there is no one out there making sure that the violations host: are facing a consequence. we are talking with eric olson about the recent report about potential lead contamination and american water systems and consumers can ask their water utility to make sure if there are led pipes and there are literally millions of these led pipes that connect these people houses with connection to the water main to the street. those should be removed.
they can ask their drinking water utility camera move the lead line. and have the water tested for lead. laboratory go to a you can findsite, information about how to find a lab that will do your testing. you can get it done for about 50 bucks. report also has some recommendations in terms of the water system itself. some of those recommendations, -- ainclude an immediate , also invest in the entire country water infrastructure, fix drinking water loss and what -- and that citizens can easily sue for relief and give more local communities more input in solving water structure
problems. talk a little bit about flint. i know this is where all of this began. flint is a unique example. it is more extreme than the other examples that we found. it has a very severe problem. they switched to very corrosive water in order to save a little bit of money. that werete officials order to wound the water supply in flight and they made very bad decisions. we really need to replace a lot of the infrastructure, especially the lead pipes. we need to be delivering drinking water because today as not safe to be drinking the water, two years after this happened. that has to be the top priority. we would like to see congress passing some legislation so that when citizens are protected.
we need to branch out and look at the national problem. let's fix flat first and try to take care of the national and -- issue. for decades we are living off of our great grandparents investment in our drinking water supply. pipes right outside the studio work is -- were installed as long ago as the civil war. been updating our infrastructure in many cities across the country for decades and decades is. there leadave been she led into the water supply. host: isaac on our democratic long, -- line, condoms cincinnati. caller: good morning. cincinnati is my question. is there any history there about cincinnati lead problem? guest: if you go to our website,
we have a map and you can sue in and find violations to your lead roles in your county. i went to a recent presentation by the cincinnati officials. they do have a lot of lead service lines underground in cincinnati. they started replacing them. there is a controversy in cincinnati and other cities whether to replace the whole pipe that goes from the person's tose out to the water main the street, they really need to do that in order to make sure you are protecting the citizens. subsidies are only replacing a piece of that which can make the problem worse. we want to make sure we are , to make sure we're taking care of the whole problem. host: craig from tulsa, oklahoma. caller: good morning.
i was interested, is there a cut off year when american regulations and buildings set up using lead or not use led. i do understand like in ancient rome it was part of the downfall of the room -- rome that they use a lot of lead pipes. a lot of water supplies are fairly supply -- nearly safe. civil war tight pipes, did they not know there became a year when they were knowing and they started using different typing -- piping. i am not challenging the findings, little or massive amounts, is it massive amounts you are fighting? led iswe have known that dangerous to people for many
.ears, for hundreds of years even the ancient romans figured out that letter was a danger. the more we learn about lead, the more we know. even at levels were used to think that was safe, now propose health risks. we do have a lot of cities that have this problem. there was a law passed in 1986 that band pure lead pipes that said you could not have more than 8% lead in your pipes and fixtures. that is still a lot of lead. until 2014 that there was pretty much an outright ban on virtually all led in sauces -- faucets and fixtures. 1986, there is a decent chance you have lead service
lines. economicthere an component here? a city like flynn is economically depressed. did you find there are more be in more economically depressed areas? guest: we didn't look at lead in flint specifically. there is a huge economic issue in flint. that was one of the reasons that they were having such a challenge dealing with the problem. we have called on the federal government and the state to step in and help flat replace their lead pipes because the city is in a serious economic state. we did start to look at how we can correlate the economic problems in a city by economic compared to some of these
violations. we will be doing another report coming out looking at that issue. we did not have enough time to take that on here. correlate weather violations, not just of led by other contaminants might be correlated with racial data or economic status and with other economic indicators. host: we're talking with eric olson with the national resources defense council. good morning. i was calling because it is interesting. [inaudible] has definitely [inaudible] to our environment. my question really is, what is place i go to in my state? why are her question schools not independently made
water?t the uest: first of all, the best place to zero in on lead issues our inking water issues in and you can gle find the report and there is an zoomactive map and you can in on your county. ut a lot of problems with lead don't show up in the federal data base. or you may find a problem you may not. just because you are not in aere doesn't mean there's not problem. flint doesn't even show up because there's been a lot of underreporting. best way to find out is ask your water utility or get your tested for lead. as to schools that is an interesting question. passed in 1988 that required school systems to lead.he water for
-- rtunatelies it was unfortunately it was written in way that was struck down as unconstitutional because of a drafting mistake and for monday no nationalhave had requirement to test school systems' drinking water. new york state is about to adopt statewide requirement to test all school systems' drinking water for lead. that at the national level and certainly schools and states should be citizens', r particul schools', dirinking water. describe what the safer water drinking act and copper act? guest: the safe water drinking passed in 1974 signed by president ford and has been while.a originally there were some
they did rules but apply to lead. in 1981 a new rule called the copper rule was intended to deal with lead contaminated drinking water. it was very complex and we thought it was very complicated enforce and to probably wasn't going to take care of the problem. hat we have found is the last wasears since that rule fee -- adopted we have not taken care of the lead problem. i will not get into the details but basically it says test the isk risk -- risk cones and if you have a lot of high detected it is not a violation but you have to treat some advanced do ood work on how to treat worth that is leaching lead into the
drinking water and pull out the lines if that doesn't work. it is a very long complex rule it simplified ke and strengthened. that is one thing to fix the copper rule and make it strong are and there is a letter sent to e.p.a. this week by i believe 60 embers of congress asking e.p.a. to strengthen that rule. it is important. just will a piece from "u.s.a. today" about how lawmakers are urging e.p.a. to standard for lead in rinking water signed by 61 members urges the u.s. environmental protection agency standards e federal for lead in drinking water so it etter reflects the latest science on the brain damaging the s to better protect public in yesterday's "u.s.a. today." o you think that would be a important element?
guest: it is very important. learned is that we used to think lead, we have long time it is not good for you but the more we subtle died it has effects at low levels it can child's brain development even at extremely low levels. zero level is what everybody says because it can cause learning, behave kwrorl problems in children and entire population that is exposed to lead to have all and problems.s we don't want that happening in flint. e don't want it happening anywhere. we need to strengthen the standard the e.p.a. has for lead so we don't ater have these problems nationwide. host: up next on the end line we from brighton,ng massachusetts. morning, mark. caller: thank you for taking my
call. i want to bring up a couple of points. the first thing is i will mphasize to the listening audience and i would like to get your guest's viewpoint on the having a good quality water filtration system, but for any number, probably 100 different known contaminants. virtually all water supplies. more so in some. pet paoefr did -- peeve is the things we put in ater for example fluoride linked to all kinds of issues healthwise. hyperactivity, cancers, lowered i.q. arthritis. on and on. he science on fluoridation of water has come out and there ave been some pretty good high level science come out that was
suppressed. host: we will let eric respond to that. systems, to filtration certainly if you are concerned about your drinking water and you know you have a problem, you a couple of options for a filtration system in the home. at the tap filter that you might screw on to the kitchen faucet. kind of filter you get you want to make sure it is to rnational certified remove the contaminant because ou can buy a filter that won't remove lead if you get the wrong one. so get one that is certified. t is extremely important to maintain the filter because if you don't mann it you can -- you can make things orse because contaminants can build up in the filter and that can cause a breakthrough that you would havely a huge amount of contamination in your water. you can get firms that are under
your kitchen sink or a whole house filter. expensive. some of them will remove contaminant.y so you want to get one that is n.s.f. intercertified. as for fluoride i would were very uggest we involved many years ago trying to get e.p.a. to reduce the of fluoride in drinking water. we are not saying we think there fluoride in water but we think the number e.p.a. should be high and reduced. national academy sciences issued report several years ago that said e.p.a.'s number is too high and needs it come down. to see it come down and obviously that is could do if .a. they had the had to do it. host: up next we have debra from at-bats -- hyattsville, maryland.
caller: good morning, eric. wssc consumer board and we bring different talk to us once a month and the meeting goes on an hour and a half. but we are doing things here in maryla wssc serves two and ies, prince george's montgomery county and wssc tests over 500,000 times a year and that equals out to 1,300 a day. didn't , i believe they est the water a lot and i'm so happy that they are going to do that. theat wssc they really test water pretty much like i said, year.0 times a that is a lot of times to test day.ater per host: let's give eric a chance
to respond. wssc, washington suburban sanitary commission oversee two wealthy counties' drinking water supplies in suburban washington and they can afford to do a lot of things that a city like flint was not unfortunately. we would like to see more rigorous testing requirements in the u.s. s especially for lead. what you were referring to is that is all testing all for all caontaminants year. for lead a lot of cities they re testing maybe 100 tools per year and in some cases they only have to test every three years nine years and that is crazy. we need more frequent and testing.sive that is one of our strongest ecommendations for lead and copper so we have two tiers of rinking water in the u.s., really good in some well to do
communities that can afford it very good drinking water in other communities that cannot. e need to balance it and we need federal and state investment to help communities hat are having problems struggling like flint. lets fix flint and fix the nationally. think we do have a disproportionate issue. host: speaking of flint and investment, te e.p.a. administrator gina mccart mccarthy testified last month drinking water act -- safe drinking water act agency was misled by flint officials. drinking waterfe act congress gives states the rimary responsibility to enforce drinking water rules for he nation's approximately
152,000 water systems but e.p.a. authority.ht typically e.p.a. has strong relationships with our states work with them under this act. ut looking back on flint from day one, the state provided our confusing, ice with incomplete and absolutely incorrect information. their interactions with us were andance genetic, misleading contentious and as a result e.p.a. staff had insufficient understand the potential scope of the lead a year until more than after that water supply was switched. cause the . did not lead problem, in hindsight we should not have been so trusting the state for so long when hey provided us with overly simplistic assurances of technical compliance rather than to our ive responses concerns.gly growing
although e.p.a. regional staff epeatedly asked the michigan department of environmental uality to address the lack of corrosion control we missed the opportunity late summer to quickly get e.p.a.'s concerns on the radar screen. that i regret. host: what is your reaction? guest: well, there is some truth to whether the administrator administrator e said. it is true the state of michigan inir response to the problem flint was absolutely unacceptable. there was an excellent report by a commission basically a ate ribbon panel that looked flint and it was independent and they found there was a lot of around, serious blame for the state which was responsible both for making decisions to switch the way the water was the lead d caused problem and fall to oversee and
enforce the law. e.p.a. definitely dropped the ball. as the administrator said, she hindsight at had there were problems. i will say if you take a hard e.p.a.'s at happened fficials knew in early 2015 that there were problems with lead in the drinking water in a report there was written by a very strong mid 2015 or e.p.a. in saying there was a big problem basically that was shu by e.p.a. de officials particularly the regional administrator who has left the agency. i think there much big problems state level and they were primarily responsible for the bad decisions but e.p.a. as well. host: up next we've john calling from miles, illinois, on the line.endent john, you are on with eric
olsen. mr. olsen.d morning, thanks for being on. my comment and question is you bring up really good points. this is a topic people don't often recognize and i having sufficiently engineer i will bring up the other point. economics.rms of american society of civil engineers already made a report billions of dollars of failing bridges and roadsways in the united states. related to howis specifically would you be able chicago, i live near the chicago public schools have wa ing water.drinking where does the money come from for this kind of work when we have billions of dollars of bridges and roads that need work? guest: that is an excellent point. iniously we failed to invest our infrastructure not just the
drinking water infrastructure but the clean water treatmentture, sewage plants. roads and bridges. but i think a lot of us notice that have huge potholes and bridges that are down.ng and falling very few of us notice, because it is not around, all our infrastructure. that is is why we have really been treating it as an out of and out of mind problem. the money will primarily have to come from the localities. it will come from probably some increases. and some of it will have to be also paid by the federal government and states. it will be a shared responsibility. we would like to see congress strong legislation for water infrastructure to bring in funds from all sources. be private funding that can be brought to bear. but it will be a shared responsibility. believe it or fornot some estims engineers is tly it could cost a trillion dollars
to fully deal with our water problems.cture so, it will be expensive. that is the next 25 years. now, at we are spending believe it or not at the federal level, is about $2 billion a which may sound like a not but compared to $1 trillion that the problem. host: when it comes to federal reaction it the water it is nation problem hitting chest to home with a -- close to home with a report staffers in one house ffice building may have been exposed to tainted waterer months. in cannon may rk have been exposed to lead os long as water nine -- as long as nine months. tests ed before recent the last prefer tests were -- stresses were in september and came up clean could have been tainted soon after that.
er brockovich tweeted that is right congress has a lead point.ng let's hope they won't wait quite flint as the people in did. guest: that is an interesting is aposition of congress stepping in to protect themselves but not flint citizens. don't fix the ng problem in the cannon house office building. fixed and we be don't want a pregnant mom or oung children visiting to be exposed to excessive lead. but how about dealing with the flint going on two years and we know children's lood lead levels have been increased. c.d. krfp c.d.c. just in the last week or nub report saying -- new report saying in flint children's blood lead levels went up as a result of the water ain he drinking
flint. let's do with there tragedy in this tragedy in flint and deal with the national problem. maybe we can deal with it flint first. host: next is joel on the independent line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my phone call. story on cnn website a few days ago and i became very concerned. i called my water company and they echoed exactly what you are saying. it is the service line that you from is of greater concern the meter to the road or from the road to your home. i'm going to get my water tested. what satis she conveyed the way to protect of un it cold a couple minutes, make sure you flush out everything if there is a lead your home but
flush it out and then it is good get the en until you water tested and know for sure. guest: that's right. described basically was water flushing does is it takes in your houseipes all the way out to the lead ervice alone between the water main and your house. if you flush it a couple of do tes, we recommend if you that you don't waste it, you reserve it for watering plants or some other use. but if you flush it a couple of minutes the water temperature can containing when it is -- change and run it another 30 seconds to a minute after that should have reduced or no lead in it if you do that. obviously that can waste a lot of water and a ot of people frankly may do that for a little while and get tired of it and go back it using the way they always have so we need to replace the service lines and -- how many will flush it every time
you take a drink or cook or use consumptive purpose. lead important to get the lines replaced. host: we are talking it eric nrdc about lead contaminati contaminati contamination. you previously worked for pew and deputy rust director of the pew health group. mentioned that the e.p.a. some of the statistics you even track dn't flint and the situation there. be you concerned there could another flint happening someplace and we don't know? guest: i think there it is other flints. are maybe not as severe and extreme flint was a unique terrible storm of events. there are not other flints but there are other cities with serious problems may not be detected.
there are tricks of the trade have used to test the water that doesn't find the ead so you can test at a election that you don't think has lead service line or you can a method way using that is less likely to find a lead contamination. e.p.a. recently, in february, put out a memo saying sop doing stop doing that. it is a little bit late but it for years but on moving forward we are hoping to have a little better testing regime. wants to avoid complying with the law, what our pretty hows is you are unlikely to be prosecuted notice nationalless up into a issue as in flint. host: timothy is calling from on the democratic line. good morning, timothy. morning, folks. i just got the mail along with
reading bill and i was to repair to the use of filtered and inadequate surface water there is a trong possibility that your drinking water may become ontaminated on the way to the tap. we are an agrarian community there is staph collie oliform but we they uge farms here and fertilize all the time. i was almost going to say with impunity. aerate and it gets and that is hamplain
a huge lake and a huge problem. i'm headed where thesis. respond.'s let eric guest: in a lot of rural serious there are problems with agricultural unoff and what can happen is manure or pestity sides or applied can seep into the ground water and camp -- contaminateer well water and run in lakes and streams and contaminate that. coliform.oned systems.ested by e-coli is a subset of that sort the bull's eye bad type of
coliform. i don't know what they found but you can have a violation of the total requirements or of the e-coli and that is a big problem. the other issue is night traits fertilizer and manure. health issue where there's been a lot of manure.zer and it is blue baby syndrome where a extremely t can get sick and die if there is too uch nitrate in the drinking water and makes it so they can't bsorb the oxygen and turn blue and be very sick or die. so we want to control things nigtrates and some bacteria. from akron, avid ohio on the democratic line. i just wanted to mention
are sampledd copper the instructions for sampling water sit dormant six hours and sample so you under the worst case scenario if you will. ne thing that consumers can do is before they use the water i hink you mentioned a couple of callers earlier you can flush the line and make sure you don't from warm water, only cold water. get moneyor infrastructure i would suggest losing tax loopholes and diverting foreign aid money for the vital need we have in u.s.a. uest: as to the testing, it is true the way that you are supposed to do it is you are inposed to let the water sit your pipes for six hours and then you test what is called the first draw. the worst case
scenario. frankly, i think a lot of us coffee in the morning or the first thing we do out ke the water straight of the kitchen faucet. how many of us flush the system three minutes before we use this water? very few of us. worst case st the scenario it is a pretty likely scenar scenario. if you want to make sure that water is safe to drink, problem,y if you have a if you have had your water ested, if you know you have ead service lines or plumbing, it makes sense it flush it or get a filter to remove the lead. where money will come from we think it will be a mix. we would very much like to see government go back to funding something like the 2009 they did back in under a law sort of recovery law increased funding to about
$8 billion per year. we think that is a minimum of ought to be spending on this at the federal level. a lot of it will have to come and state level. host: networks on independent -- independent line is april. aller: i have a question concerning the camp lejeune water. i was up there and wondering if you thought that with tuation with flint help our cause go farther. state of north carolina has a statute of limitation saying time ve 10 years from the you realize that you have been well inated, which was after that when we realized it 1981 and iher died in was just notified in 2013 that killed he water that her. so many people are affected by th military, active caught,
retired, their dependents. lost so many and tried so hard to get this. if you could g give me any information on that, please. guest: yes. for your loss y and i know how serious the problem was at camp lejeune. basically contamination ith synthetic organic chemicals. he problem was that this contamination went on for years hofrp ks on active duty drinking the water much not being told and a lot of people litigation saying they got sick or they lost people in of it.amily as a result it went all the way to the supreme court of the united brief in we filed a that case on this sort of issue bout the statute of limitations. what is supposed to happen if you are not being told that your water is contaminated and people
in your family get sick well contamination occurred, is it really fair for hose people not to get compensated because they didn't sue earlier? there is a fundamental problem legal system if people that are harmed by contaminated do anythinger can't about it and can't hold accountable the people that were responsible for the problem. we feel very strongly people in the this need to losses nsated for the and my heart goes out to you. calling from washington. you have few seconds to ask the question. caller: this sounds hraoeulike everywhere everywhere in our country you can have this problem. originally from flint and been gone since the early 1980's. hreufpd in the city --
lived in the city when i was young. they always show the north end of flint which is the low income african-american community. other side.he -- inger highway host: you can answer. guest: the flint situation lit the whole city. it was a very serious problem. linesnes all over -- lead all over the city. we have got a citywide problem were affected ds by it. we need to invest in fixing that as soon as we can. thanks for joining us this morning. that is all for today's "washington journal." we be back at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow. enjoy your 4th of july weekend.