Skip to main content

tv   Key Capitol Hill Hearings  CSPAN  August 27, 2016 12:00am-2:01am EDT

12:00 am
to join us inside the icebergs to continue the conversation and .ormally over snacks and drinks this program is presented in partnership with the national s in celebration of their centennial. happy birthday yesterday. [applause] these allow me to introduce public relations with national park service. she has been with them or 20 years. accepted background and partnerships, philanthropy, corporate relations, tourism, you'd programs and community engagement. welcome, wendy. [applause] >> thank you. thank you for hosting us here
12:01 am
tonight. the national park service is thrilled to join in partnership with the national building museum during our centennial year. the national meal the museum -- building museum advance of the quality of our built environment by educating people about the impact on hold our lives. -- all of our allies. the national park service preserves the national and cultural identity of our nation for the benefit and enjoyment of this and future generations. combining these two great entities will educate all ages about the relevance and the importance of the environment we live in. beach, iyone loves the would say the design and experience of your iceberg exhibit has more people talking.
12:02 am
talking about design and talking about climate change. as the national park service director has publicly stated, climate change is the biggest threat we have ever faced in terms of the integrity of our national parks system. the national park service is working with partners and collaborating with partners like the national building museum to do educational events like that weto work on ways can better position the park service to address the challenges we face and leverage the opportunities presented during the second century of america's national parks. hearing theard to dialogue tonight about design, to hear the dialogue about --
12:03 am
from our experts here on the panel. and hear how the discussion goes about how climate change is impacting the environment and all of our world. i'm pleased to introduce our first panel expert. he is a science communicator. night in dc.d is the second saturday of every .onth on dc-9 he works as a senior washington director at kater communications. please come up, aaron. [applause] >> thank you so much. i'm a science communicator. i work a lot with client size -- climate scientists. the thing i love about working with scientists is that they have this little piece of the puzzle.
12:04 am
they are always cracking away at the little piece of the puzzle. when it comes to publicly communicate about the science, they often want to talk about the little puzzle piece. up second.tep back tell people what the puzzle is first and then tell me about the puzzle piece. climate change is a thing i encourage scientist to emphasize on the following. one is that climate change is occurring. it is already here. it is observable. temperature, precipitation, etc.. a lot of people think that it's often the future. it is. it is also here right now. we can see and temperatures increasing, as the petition patterns changing and what we'll talk about today is sea level rising. occurs.change naturally we also know that climate change today is different. the story of climate science is longer than people think. it is not recent history. one of the first scientists propose the idea that burning
12:05 am
trees could trap heat and cause the planet's temperature to rise. that was 1896. the climate science story is a lot longer than people think. it is a detective story. we noticed the temperature is increasing. let's figure out the culprit. if the volcanoes? the sun? what has changed? carbon dioxide levels. why are they going up? burning gas, burning coal and deforestation. those are the three big in stores -- big leading sources. what does that mean? scientists, when they talk about climate change, for them, it is a scientific endeavor. very technical. us, we hear of about the changes, we have a couple different reactions. one is to just feel overwhelmed because it is huge.
12:06 am
the other action is to feel despond it. despondent.nd -- what can we do about it? i askedg that scientists to emphasize that we face a lot of choices around climate change. choices related to our mission pathways for the future. to turn off the faucet of the missions. -- emissions. and we face choices for climate adaptation. effects a latent heat for carbon dioxide. it traps heat for a long time. then comes back into the system. we take these choices. if you are facing a choice, it is not something happening to us, it is something we have agency over. we can make choices at the individual level, at the
12:07 am
community and city level. and we can make choices locally. -- globally. specifically, the last thing i ,sked scientists to emphasize we talk about climate change in a sense of global warming. whenever i hear it, i get the picture in my head of the iconic nasa photo of earth. that is like a lot of the images you see. or you sepoy bears -- polar bears. has anyone met a polar bear? that is awesome. [laughter] a lot of times we talk about climate change, it seems far away. for social scientists, i translate a lot of social science for natural scientist. it is a terrarium problem. miniaturese little glass boxes that you can fit a tiny ecosystem.
12:08 am
likeonmental change, it is this is happening in some box outside. it is not. i had invited the expert industry. the environment is not something out there, it is where we live, where we play, where we worship. we are part of the environment. we can change the environment rapidly. that is one of the full things -- cool things about human beings. we have to make a local. even as we talk about global sea level rise, even as we realize that all these changes globally, how huge that is, what super interesting is that has local effects that we can look at now. especially for washington dc. we are connected to the coast. we will get into this later. i like to establish the climate
12:09 am
based on. i appreciate everyone being here. has anybody been to a glacier or iceberg? cool. hadave a crowd here who has in-depth expert with icebergs. during the reception later, i'm really blown away by what we have pulled together. we will have each of the speakers come up and give a short presentation and then we will have a discussion of the and we will take questions. peer and then -- up here and then we will take questions. our first speaker will be v icki.she is the director of the first time climate center. she does that at the state and that her level.
12:10 am
the door time climate center serves as a leading resource. she is a professor teaching classes on climate change law and policy. she serves as assistant dean for centers and is a two pictures also taught at catholic, tulane and george mason. she has served as georgetown law environmental -- georgetown laws of our mental program. llm. >> after you get your doctor, you can come back and get your masters in environmental law. >> i love it. this is alexis. she is a program analyst in the department of energy with the urban sustainability administration. d.c.. in thenistration here city. -- d.c.
12:11 am
and this is the final speaker. she is a landscape and architecture designer. that is the design firm decorated icebergs. they are as possible for that space out there. also responsible for the slides. her court interest lies at the intersection of resiliency and place making evident in all her project. [applause] thank you. >> thank you for being here. a hot day. thank you to the building museum for putting this exhibit on. i have to say, one of the lucky people and that i have seen icebergs including in antarctica. it was stunning to see them. , it also the building sobering when you think about it. when you think about the
12:12 am
ving aations hal continent. i have a few slides. one makes the point that our government accountability office has identified that climate change is a top financial threat to the united states. you don't hear about this a lot. you often hear about entitlement programs and terrorism. but it is up there. why? the park service we referred about today and other u.s. government entities in the landtary own a lot of and if research at that will be affected by sea level rise and heavy storms. the government often has to bail out people in times of disaster. insurer fore as an flood insurance and health insurance.
12:13 am
it does have high financial stakes in addition to human stakes. that as of 2013 when president obama made the climate speech at georgetown, the u.s. started to move forward with standards for reducing the emissions contributing to climate change from our major sectors such as transportation. the cars we drive are becoming more efficient. it is on the way up to 54 and a 54 miles per-- gallon by 2020. we have seen the administration finalize rules that finally regulate co2 a greenhouse gas emissions run power plants. those have been held up temporarily but watch this space. arguments are happening next
12:14 am
month and we hope to see real resolution for movement on that large sector. at the climate center, we focus a lot of our energy on state and local actions. the subnational leadership. we work with some of the states and a cap and trade program. we also have a transportation and climate initiative. california has partnered with other jurisdictions including provinces like quebec and canada. the majority of states have renewable portfolio standards tried to get a certain amount of renewable energy to power our homes and buildings. that goes to show that these changes are happening but they paint ave to pick a -- bad picture of life in the future. technologies new
12:15 am
and invest in new technologies. some of the new cars in renewables and cheaper renewables coming onto the market with wind and solar. world areund the standing as leaders. we are preparing for the impact of climate change. we are already seeing the impact. i want to talk about the national and international stage at paris. you might have heard last year there was a big climate conference and we had more heads of state gather to talk about reducing emissions than for any other purpose other before. it was a successful outcome. almost 200 can't use -- countries making commitments to cut their emissions. money flowing to help support poorerntries --
12:16 am
countries adapt. a target of getting our missions down so that the observed increase in temperature will not go above two degrees. that will determine at the economy by the second half of the century. we are putting adaptation an equal 15. -- on equal footing. i was happy to see it and with such a wonderful regulation -- resolution. nd with such a wonderful resolution. all these countries taking up the leadership mantle and holding up the leadership of the states. -- they wereernors leaders on the issues. i just want to point out that while we are focused on federal politics here in what happens with elections certainly matters, what happens in the
12:17 am
local area is also very important. workore information on our on what is happening on renewable power or adaptation, you can go to these websites. thank you for the opportunity. [applause] >> good evening, everyone. i'm a program analyst with the department of the environment. excited to speak with you today. not just because we have an incredible opportunity to address some of the issues that i think may have been missed in previous article movements, i'm excited because we recently have taken big steps in releasing our climate ready d.c. plan. not only do i get to share the impact that we have seen or the research we have done, but we can also move the conversation to real solutions.
12:18 am
i want to talk about the studies we have done. what we have seen and what we project will happen to d.c. across several planning horizons. the impact on the infrastructure and are ponderable populations. -- vulnerable populations. and about the plan and some the challenges we are facing. my colleague did an incredible amount of work working very closely with some of the leading climate scientists. talking about some of these reports. gloom. little doom and we have a lot of issues. most recently, the heat. we have survived the heatwave of 2016. hottest year on record. you can see all the headlines today. it is intense.
12:19 am
just that the average summer daytime temperatures but also looking at the nighttime temperatures. what we have done is taken climate data from international and global models and we had done some down scaling to match with different data points. we can see that not only as a look back to the 1950's but also protecting out across the 20 20's, 20 50's and 20 80's, is getting hot. if you are not a math person, it is going up into the right. more extreme and more severe. we're not seeing alleviation of the dangers a hot days. longerseeing heatwave but not stop at night. , we have a big challenge. precipitation is another challenge. this is not just the storm or rayna eventually we also think about snow. and if you may have been
12:20 am
impacted. ellicott city all across the nation we're seeing thousand year flood events. people talk about the 500 floodplain be in the new 100 floodplain. the impacts are intense. we are have seen is that trending up into the right with all the other data. , we arets we look at seeing increased happiness and short eventually getting twice as much rainfall. extreme weather is another big one. ratio duratio was big. thinking about the stress and puts on ponderable populations. -- vulnerable populations. looking at the data and the designs looking at the spatial
12:21 am
distribution. when we think about sizing our stormwater infrastructure, a lot of our pipe systems are not able to take what we know will be the new storm events of the future. we have sea level rise. te rivers are title rivers -- idal rivers. and the chesapeake bay is sinking. we have think it from groundwater -- sink edge -- si nkage from groundwater, we have seen libels rising. -- sea levels rising. are credibly important. this is looking at some of the projections of high, medium and low samaras depending on how we factor the warming of the ocean, -- scenarios depending on how we factor the warming of the ocean and other samaras. -- scenarios.
12:22 am
surges as we are entering hurricane season. we're going to continue to experience more intense storms. that has been a big challenge again has a think about moving people around. and the impact on businesses. this is the answer of a storm surge maps -- picture of a storm surge map. we are right here. we are in a flood zone. this is where the creek used to come down. this is looking at storm surges. pretty challenging when we think about where we are going. a lot of waterfront developing happening. we can step back and say that by the time i'm in my 70's, we will see an average of 10 degree in
12:23 am
ofced -- increase temperatures. imagine being heat. when we think about precipitation, there will be more inches of rain and it is expected to double. same thing with extreme weather. all the storms we're saying -- seeing are going to more intense and frequent. sea level rise has increased about 11 inches. that is almost a foot. -- since 1924. the recent flooding has increased 373% since 1950. a grim reality. i'm excited that we did this with the projections and it is going to inform how we look at the data and what it means for our infrastructure. the second piece we had done was looking at the impact on our infrastructure but also our
12:24 am
vulnerable populations. we use the projections to look at the impact on infrastructure. -- the heatut causing derailments. same thing with flooding. major infrastructure work being done here. some flooding that occurred recently. this is a picture from hurricane sandy look at a substation that is bloody. two of the three substations that major floodplains. they are not retrofitted to handle a storm event. -- major storm event. ge did a lot of mappin exercises to find out who will be most impacted. most of the emergency services are concentrated downtown. there are a lot of services in ward 7.
12:25 am
of course, other areas here. the areas around the blue plane facility. west branch neighborhood here flooding from the creek there. this and some of the historic letting. -- flooding. there is a lot at risk. we have always talked about climate change with these images bearseberries -- polar sad. i'm glad we have shifted the conversation cannot just the polar bears but also be indigenous people hunting side-by-side with them or it populations here. -- the populations here. we have identified things like
12:26 am
age, mobility, community connectedness, looking like economics. are you able to survive a $400 emergency event? and people with existing medical conditions? and identify those communities 8.centrated in wards 7 and we think about delivering services and evacuation, a big challenge. ready ase see climate not the solution to everything, but a step in the right direction. the plan is to identify 74 different options we can take both on the mitigation site and the adaptation side to address some of these impacts. it also identified partner agencies, stakeholders involved in the decision-making process. lastly, identifying whether actions are short, medium or long term.
12:27 am
some of the solutions will expand some of the things we hear today. treeplanting to increase carbon deforestation happening naturally. rain gardens. low impact element. all these wonderful things that will help us deal with rain events. and also things like green infrastructure. look at micro goods -- micro-grids. when new york was out, thinking about modernizing the grid. these are great solutions. we still have lots of challenges. thinking about the intense amount of interagency involvement. and congress oversight many of our -- of many of our land-use policies. and how do we look at the political landscape? had to we think about things like finance -- how do we think
12:28 am
about finance? it is where we get today and implement into solutions and having conversations with people ready to implement them. thank you. [applause] >> hello, everyone. conversationhe perfectly to set up all the problems. once all the number crunching is done and policies are made, what happened, drawing board. what happens when a landscape architect or architect is handed an acre here? the site translate into meaningful opportunities for resiliency and dealing with issues of climate change? architects, --
12:29 am
landscape architects, our projects have to respond to multiple mandates. to social mandates relating public space. -- anetic mandate aesthetic mandate. this is working in the context of the iceberg. we have work in the public realm. it is mostly at a scale that permits us to make issues related to climate change visible your issues such as flood resiliency, water management systems and habitat. assumed we would be in
12:30 am
that space. i decided to open with this side -- slide shows the relationship of the iceberg. this is where you are right now. that space is a great place to start because along with the aspiration to create this sort of surreal, underwater world of glacial fields, i think one of the best hopes we have from this installation was it would really sort of invoke these important topical conversations. make the issue really visible. and that it would instigate forums of this nature. and that is sort of -- one of the bigger goals of things like this. i am also going to show a couple of projects that deal with issues of resiliency and climate
12:31 am
change, but at a slightly different scale. this is a project we did in new york in the harlem river and columbia university. it is the marsh. it is a small, constrained urban site. it is only one acre but it has actually both a saltwater marsh system and a freshwater wetland system. and the plantings filter a lot of the rainwater and help to actually improve the water quality of the harlem river. so in a manner of the strategies , alexis, you were showing that can be taken. if you could imagine this one acre being done in many places, many universities funding and many park departments picking up
12:32 am
initiatives like this, you can actually imagine a lot of these issues starting to get abated. and lastly, i wanted to talk actually about this project we have in seattle. it is the elliott sea wall. it is part of the ongoing project for the seattle central waterfront. the city of seattle is utilizing this infrastructural overhaul of rebuilding their seawall as an opportunity for ecological improvement and recovery. the sort of light-penetrating service that you see over here is made of transparent material. it lets light through. and what the light allows is to let the salmon migrate with ease. apparently, that is something
12:33 am
they need to migrate. this is one of the ways in which we overlaid a public space with a migration corridor for the salmon. the textured surfaces, this is an underside of the same place that these people are walking on. and so these textured surfaces aid the marine habitat to grow. i mean, great public space and great enhancer of marine environment, what is really exciting to me is the juxtaposition of the public realm and the necessary sort of infrastructure being used to make the environment of the bay visible and pleasant again. so in conclusion, what i would like to get to is using these projects to make these matters and these issues really visible
12:34 am
and engage the public is something we see to do through all of our projects. i hope it is one of the ways to engage the public. thank you. [applause] aaron: great. cool. so vicki, i wanted to start with you and ask, for a city like d.c. to pull together an adaptation plan, how common has that become? over the past several years, are other cities doing well that d.c. should be looking toward as they implement this plan? vicki: sure, i think in recent years, we have seen more interest. one thing we do is share city examples. and of course, d.c. operates as
12:35 am
a state and city. there are about 14 states that i think have comprehensive adaptation plans. just with adaptation in mind. more are in the works. but there are a lot of other states if you look at our maps and the research our team has done, there are efforts to start to incorporate changes we have been talking about today. you might not call it climate adaptation or climate ready d.c. which has been a real leader. they might talk about sea level rise and coping with coastal changes like my home state of louisiana, where the politics of climate change are not what they are in other places. but they are starting to incorporate things like sea level rise into planning. and frankly, that is fine with me. i would rather them call it climate change adaptation, but as long as they are starting to incorporate changes and start to really mainstream them and plan whether it is transportation,
12:36 am
zoning or land-use or other policies, i think that is a good thing. and that is happening more and more around the country. aaron: alexis, when you look at the city's plan, how do you see implementation going forward? is there a way people can help participate to shape the plan? are you working with businesses or our neighbors in virginia and maryland? alexis: yeah, stakeholder engagement has been at the forefront of all planning initiatives. so community driven planning and consensus-building are common themes. but there are also questions around accountability and transparency. so i think we made a good effort both in engaging agencies who are engaging in similar initiatives and extended that to the private sector working with business improvement districts, working with great streets initiatives, and providing technical assistance. and i think there is this big question around community engagement.
12:37 am
you know, we have a lot of vulnerable populations who are not going to be able to make it to the 7:00 p.m. meeting. and a stick around for two hours and make comments that way. we have done a lot of traditional community meetings. we recently held our first webinar that had 81 people talking about science. i think the key is going to be incorporating the feedback and also thinking about setting up a implementation framework. whether we are identifying outcomes and performance indicators, i think a framework andng out the hows, whats, short-term setting up some type of advisory committee to guide and ensure ongoing there are multiple points to touch with our most at risk residents. aaron: you said something interesting about what happens , you know, when people are implementing projects. i wonder if you both might
12:38 am
both actually be able to address what degree these plans make sustainability and climate planning part of what we do every day. how does that actually translate for you? do you find yourself working with communities that have kind of already bought into this? are you going to other cities that are not there yet? do you have a cool design for them? what does it look like when you're bringing it down to the granular level of a new thing your building in the world? sanjukta: a lot of our projects have finite boundaries. right? i think the best we can do -- we do a lot of larger projects. we do a lot of outreach with them. and i think, yes, there is obviously buying into the idea of protecting homes and communities and the notion of combining those efforts with public space because that is something most communities really want. and in most cities, you can
12:39 am
combine most of these efforts with actual public space. i think the frustration i have often is perhaps the neighboring property and a different developer may not have the same incentives to do the things we are doing. and i think there are efforts. i mean, new york for instance, they started a great program in the mayor's office for resiliency to try to tie together some projects so they would meet the same standards to some degree. but it is not as much of a mandate, let us say, as i would like it to be. a best practices idea. not a mandate. vicki: i think we face similar challenges. you're trying to put up something. like, it is pretty simple. we just need permits, stakeholders, notice. and we have issues internally.
12:40 am
you know, we have to be champions to talk to organizations that already have a legacy of challenges they are working through and have a strategic plan. we have to go, this is the new science. we are trying to get you to recycle and compost. and like turnout the lights. we also need you to retrofit your facilities at the same time. then, make sure you have also solar on your roof. for the most part, everyone in d.c. his ready to talk about climate change. but having those conversations, you have to be very specific about which puzzle piece you are talking about. reminding me of what you were talking about, not everyone wants to hear about equity. not everyone wants to hear about ecology. but they want to know about the bottom line. and how we quantify ecosystem services. shifting is definitely necessary. sanjukta: incentivization models have worked in the developing world. right?
12:41 am
generally by the book. but not everybody has those. so i think creating those models. and it is a constantly shifting target of what is the best practice and next best thing to do. so i think that is the struggle. you may be doing the right thing but your neighbor is not. right? aaron: i want to open it up to the audience in a second. but i also want to ask vicki, you talked about the macro changes we are seeing in fuel economy and energy. right now, i think for a lot of years, it was policy driving a lot of technology and design choices. and over the past couple of years, we have started to see the economics drive more of this. i'm thinking of how solar prices have come down and a lot of fuel efficiency technology is cheaper than expected. what are some of the macro economic trends? and is this becoming something easier people can do? even if they are not super bought into it?
12:42 am
vicki: i think it is getting easier. i don't want to suggest policy is not important. a lot of leadership of the state and local level along with federal tax incentive policies for both solar and wind have played a role in being able to bring down the cost over time. so i think it will be a combination. but let us face it. the fossil fuel industry has been subsidized in various ways for some time. so i think we need both a policy perspective but also to take advantage of market opportunities. and the benefits to having solar power from a resilient perspective. so you're not just doing it because you are bringing down your cost or not contribute to climate change. you are also doing it because then you will have power if and when, you know, the grid fails with a storm. there are all kinds of reasons. it is helpful to package the narrative so it is not like we are wanting you to go back to the caveman era and sacrifice. as opposed to you have
12:43 am
technologies that will be win-win. and they are getting more affordable. and with government policies and incentives, we can tilt the balance in that direction. aaron: let's open it up to questions from the audience. do we have a microphone back there? if folks can raise their hand, rebecca and i, my colleagues, we will bring the microphone to you. we are also recording this, so we want to hear your questions. please do so now. aaron: right up here. >> i did not catch her name. vicki: vicki arroyo. >> ok, thank you. i think it is pretty clear. a lot of us realize the global warming you are talking about is really just a partisan thing and most of us realize if in fact the white house changes over in a couple of months, all the
12:44 am
global warming funding you are talking about will pretty much disappear. so my question really is to alexis. which is the number one issue i hear about all the time like black lives matter, how do you talk about money that white rich people want to spend on global warming is money that does not go to black lives matter? how do you justify that? alexis: yeah, i think that is a great question. and that is what i love about climate change. like i said before, even though it is horrible, when we address climate change issues we literally address first nation community rights, vulnerable populations, systematic oppression. for me, it is not just about this or that. it is about creating a culture shift and change that allows us to evaluate our policies and our programs in a way that will lift all of us. so one of the things i think we
12:45 am
need to look at, and i'm interested in this intersection of equity. d.c. is number one in leed certified buildings per capita. and all of this great data. but if we don't have black and brown people in the buildings, why are we building? and if those buildings are 25% occupied because federal workers know, at home and don't want to come in. it is a challenge for us. we don't want just to plant trees. we want them in black people's front yards. and so part of it is i don't want to talk more with communities about bouncing back when we have not had conversations about bringing the forward. and so for me, it is like we want you to be resilient if there is an emergency, but we also need you to have food now. we need you to have training today. and so part of it is our ability to say we don't necessarily have the right tools and framework to engage in a lot of these organizations, that because we have science and know who is impacted, it behooves us to have the conversations because they
12:46 am
eventually become the support networks knocking on doors we have emergencies. but i don't think it is either or. i don't think they are separate conversations. i think climate change allows us to get to the root of the problem which is the cultural shift that needs to happen that will fuse policies and programs and hopefully end up on people's front doorsteps. >> do you think black lives matter people are == -- alexis: no, no. aaron: the question is whether black lives matter folks have talked to you. alexis: no, they have not. my sister works with black lives matter. they got an e-mail from me. multiple groups get an e-mail from me. there have been people that have said climate change is another way we can talk about displacement. but the reason there is that fear is getting at something we need to talk about, which is, like what are the buildings we need to retrofit and who lives in them?
12:47 am
so i have not heard anything specifically about that being a challenge. but i want to open the conversation and say what can we do together, what can we do better? what are we doing well enough? vicki: the federal spending has not been what it should be in part because we have a congress that really has not wanted to support adaptation. for example, there have in some funds going in through the national disaster fund to communities. and we have done work here and in my town of new orleans looking at how those dollars can be spent to hire local people, many of whom are african american men who are out of work or underemployed. this gives them training. i know d.c. waterworks has a program -- get it? people do things where people get trained to install solar panels. that gives them skills they can go into the private sector for. i think people are linking these themes and that is really important.
12:48 am
like alexis is suggesting. aaron: the latest show solar employs more people than coal mining right now. more people than the gas people. solar being a huge job greater. creator. more questions? >> my question is for the whole panel. are any of you actively involved in were aware of a longer ranging advocacy for the uncoupling i guess of white-collar labor which involves the internet and custom microsoft office suite and other programs based on the industry you're in? that uncoupling of labor from the physical location in a city center. i just don't know why we continue to drive too big buildings when we had everything we need in our house or will in the future pretty soon. so as part of a bigger, longer range and plan? vicki: at georgetown university, my execution, we have been
12:49 am
having those conversations not only around climate change and stewardship but about frankly, just practicality given what is happening with metro and repairs and the need for people to have flexibility in their lives to manage other commitments or focus on a work project a little bit more from home. talking about writing and research. i think that is a trend we will see more of. i think younger people will definitely want more of that and expect more of that and negotiate more of that. i don't know what that means in -- in terms of not having spaces where we work together when we come together. maybe the government is thinking about that more comprehensively. i think right now, we are doing it more in response to difficulties people have had with commutes lately. aaron: where does metro fit into this? alexis: well, director wells was talking about how metro loss of confidence is at a huge impact
12:50 am
on maintaining where we are with our mission supporting. to the gentleman's point around questions regarding density, at one point, we were adding 1100 people a month to the district. so we have to think about how we make sure we have enough building stock and jobs for these people. and on the other side realizing 76% of emissions are coming from just our building stock. shift,ack to the culture we have to think about land use, best use, travel, and transportation. but i also want to challenge that and say, where do you make the most impact? i think we have a lot of great ideas. and sometimes the private market is like let us go at it. we have the expertise. a lot of times we are not looking at who we will affect. my challenge and opportunity and job is how we can make data driven decisions that will impact people who are most at risk. i would argue having a community policy or reducing density and development will hurt the people
12:51 am
we are trying to help the most. doing it right is the challenge. right? i'm not saying we're doing it right. but we have to have a conversation about what that means when we change policy decisions. because i think most people are living in cities now. cities will determine the quality of life for most people. and most people who are living in cities will continue to be brown. sanjukta: that is true. a lot of projects we do, we are asked to create more accessible environments. we have to create more by bikeable, more walkable, more accessible. accessing your workplace, your home could -- should be a bike ride away, should be a job away. we should create designed for those lifestyles, in a manner of speaking. most of the data -- it is a divine challenge.
12:52 am
right? how do you make people give up those ideas of commuting unnecessarily and long distances? and have a sort of much healthier way of living their lives? aaron: one thing i know a lot of cleantech folks are really bullish about is battery costs coming down for electric vehicles, not just at the car level, but electric bus lines in the cities and those sorts of things. and transportation emissions are actually higher than energy omissions. i think that happened last year. if those battery costs come down and they become incumbent for drivers and transportation, that could be a game changer. so a lot of folks are excited about that. >> good afternoon. and first of all, i thank the building museum for putting this on. i think until we all get better events and better educated about the science and what we can do, we are not going to get things done.
12:53 am
so let's go to the issue of adaptation a little bit, because even though someone mentioned that the temperature range by 2080 will be dramatically higher -- even if -- of course, in paris, they were looking for a two degree celsius, or 1.5 degrees celsius limitation, it's going to be almost impossible without some dramatic technology changes to get there. so with that assumption, as much good as we will all do, can we talk a little bit about the adaptation/resilience issue that the landscape architecture and building communities are going to have to deal with? do we have data? and this goes to the gentleman's discussion about federal funding. do we have data or can we get data that every dollar spent for resilience, compared to dollars spent for rebuilding, makes it very compelling for the federal government, state government, local governments to spend the money and set the standards for buildings and communities to be,
12:54 am
quote, "resilient"? black, white, green, it doesn't matter who's living there. that it makes sense. the dollars being sent. do we have an analysis of the dollars spent for resilience beats dollars spent for rebuilding? thei: i cannot recall source, i think you get four returns. we do a lot with communities with transportation agencies and all that, that are trying out to figure out -- trying to figure out how to build differently and better. how do you know what you're going to do is going to work? the future is not static. is changing over time. there are some uncertainties. you know, as we saw with the unexpected flooding in louisiana last week, that's not like a katrina, which actually caused my own family to lose homes, but at least they could get out of harm's way in time with some stuff because they saw it coming. so, you know, there are so many changes we don't know how to predict. that doesn't mean people can start taking action to plan
12:55 am
differently. and you see some of the decisions to invest in things like trees and green roofs and things like that, permeable pavement in the district. that makes a lot of sense. but i think it's hard to compare really dollar for dollar what green infrastructure, which a lot of these kind of storm water management systems will get you, compared to some of the great infrastructure of the past, like the big seawalls. and we are wrestling with that now. and i know that the district through the river smart communities program is trying to accumulate some of the evidence to show that the green infrastructure solutions can be as cost-effective and have more multiple benefits than just putting in big seawalls and gray infrastructure and basically being left with a barren coastline that, basically, nobody wants to live like that. sanjukta: it's hard to put a dollar value to the social factor. right? you would rather do anything you can, any kind of --
12:56 am
adopt any kind of best practice you possibly can to increase resiliency, rather than have the disaster. because, like they are seeing in new orleans right now and in sandy in 2012 in new york, the amount of time it takes for communities to recover -- so the cost of rebuilding, even if it is lower, it's just a matter of time that the social factor it creates ends up being so much more problematic than the actual economic value at times. think wend i mean, i have started a conversation. i know there have been a lot of national studies about impacts. i think one of the things we did with one of our risk assessments was look a little bit at comparative risk. we did have, as i mentioned before, our inner agency staff task force that did look at, how do we start to think about the impact, the likelihood, economic
12:57 am
loss, impacts to the lifecycle management of buildings, operations? and so we actually have in our report started to look at those big community assets and infrastructures and how do we start to prioritize. so we've used it in a different way. i think you're getting on a different point. a lot of people have started to have that conversation, but it's hard to show something quantitative if it hasn't happened. we can project, and we've done that. we can say this would be the loss of ridership for metro going down, businesses. we can start to draw those numbers. but for me, when i think what shift needs to happen is that it's not just about thinking about, you know, how and when, but, you know, what's it going to take. do we have to wait for some type of catastrophe to happen to us? and in some cases, we have and then we've been able to pull those numbers. but i don't necessarily think that we are going to see a citywide -- like we are going to do it all and figure it out.
12:58 am
i think what we will see phased, incremental investments that will be integrated into long-range learning. integrated investments that will be integrated into long range learning that has already been done. long-term, we talk about some of these big technologies to get ahead of the development timeline. and say, ok, we've talked about the risk from a disaster, but let's talk about the tangible bottom line that will save some energy and think about some other adaptation solutions and what that perceived threat mitigation would cost. we are trying to have them, but i think it's going to be up to us if we are going to go out and do it or it's going to be pressure from some type of outside event. vicki: policy matters. the federal government just put in place a policy for flood standards, a federal standard for money for buildings, a 500-year flood standard as opposed to the 100-year flood standard.
12:59 am
so i give the obama administration credit for using the authority they have had even without a sip ported congress -- a supported congress necessarily providing funds for it. >> [inaudible] a republican congress that does not want to do the things we want to have done for mitigation, i think there will always be an opportunity to get dollars for the kind of pardoning our infrastructure that we are talking about. that argument will always work better for them than the feel-good things that we always love. aaron: i worked for a republican member of congress for a while, from a coastal district in new jersey, and there you had to did -- had the conversation about the coast, the security it provides. i think a lot of people can come to this conversation -- i'm borrowing this from reverend yearwood, who has worked in this space a lot as chairman of the hip-hop caucus. and the way he puts it is, you need people to be able to come
1:00 am
to their issues through your door. you can't make them come through your door. so i do think there is more room for agreement, especially on the clean energy front as those costs come down and as more people are just employed in the industry and as it grows. when you are talking about something like building standards, if the industry is saying we built to a 500 year standard now, so hard to come in and then say, well, now the politicians are going to force you to undo all those business decisions you've just baked into all your long-term planning for the past five years, 10 years. so i think it will build on itself in a healthy way. it will become normal. i have to hope against hope that the weird lyrical contentiousness that happens around climate science in particular will eventually become a thing of the past as we get to the business of actually solving this stuff. >> so, yeah, this is is just a bit more of a macro question about things. obviously, there has been a bit of oil price volatility in the past few years and volatility in
1:01 am
the markets from various political movements that are happening all over the world. i'm wondering if you think these volatilities in the market might increase the amount of investment that goes towards green energy or also, like government investment, subsidies. given that green energy is not a risky proposition to invest in. vicki: the volatility, i think, can sort of cut both ways. the fact that we've seen such low prices. i don't know about what you've seen lately. i think i saw $1.85 per gallon. you know, i think if people get in their head that those low prices are going to stay with us for some time, it will start changing some of the buying behavior that we saw a really migrating to some of the more efficient vehicles. the standard that the obama administration put in place even in their first term. you know, they are not going to be even as driven to go to those kinds of vehicles. but on the other hand, i think people who are rational know that those prices won't stay there forever because of global disruption, terrorism, what have you.
1:02 am
you know, and this is, of course, the key to the argument that many of us have made for years for having some kind of a price signal on fossil fuels, whether it be the gasoline that you put in your tank or the fossil fuel that is burned as natural gas or coal for building power. because then that helps to create that incentive. when you see the prices that have dropped this low, it seems that, as a politician, it wouldn't have made sense to have some kind of price floor that the price wouldn't sink below and then use that difference, that delta to invest in things like biofuels and renewable energies. because we've seen some disinvestment in some of the alternative fuel strategies when it really just hasn't paid off yet. and with the low gasoline prices, it's hard to be competitive. i do think, again, it's just another example of where policy plays a role. because you can't just rely on the fact that people will realize that, over time, those gas prices might creep up again. aaron: let's keep the questions coming. how are we doing on time? >> we are doing pretty well.
1:03 am
we can take a few more questions, and then we will break for the reception. aaron: keep them rolling. >> thank you. hi. this question is more for alexis and vicki. i'm curious about your take on more national disaster relief competitions that relate to designers and policymakers collaborating across many stakeholders and if these are successful in your eyes. can we learn from previous design competitions and implement them more in the future? alexis: sure, yeah. although i think, nationally, it's important. i really, really want to shift the conversation to local. i think we have a talent nationally, but i think because there is such geographic climate policy challenges that are very related to the places we are talking about, the cities, i think that this model of leaning on design and leaning on the
1:04 am
innovation of the price sector is exactly what we need to be i find, as administrators, we don't have that capacity. we don't always have the ability to take the risks. i did have the opportunity recently to attend, actually, a reception -- what is it? there's an architect collaborative that is here and recently had a reception. it was exactly the type of conversation we need to have, where, i think, on the kind of local level, we have, on the one hand, where we need to have local capacity so that the money from an economic point is going to the firms that can grow with us. it's not just national groups that are coming and going. like then we are going to be gone. but people who are invested in the community, and not just our private groups. our youth. you know, we have so many colleges here. we have tons of partnerships. gw, american university, howard.
1:05 am
d.c. colleges here. so, i think it's really important that that become a model. and i think we've seen that recently. we've had this office of public-private partnership come to the forefront in this discussion about that being a model going forward. and i think it's been incredibly effective, but if we have all of the designs in the world and we don't have the financing when we are looking at urbanism projects on a small scale, then it's like, ok. so i think for us, there is definite appetite. there are so many people who are like, i'm a landscaper, i want to get in the game, but i think it behooves us -- also, there is funding for these opportunities so we have these design ideas that we can move forward. that will take a lot of leadership from the top down to say we are ready to move forward and here is the idea. and go for it. >> we saw with the rockefeller foundation partnership with hud for rebuild by design that it really did unleash some real creative juices and got people to really start to think more
1:06 am
creatively, whereas the usual federal rules wouldn't allow you to invest differently. you know, per cost analysis. it started to really be able to stretch those boundaries and improve design by learning and doing. both good and bad. my colleague jessica is writing a report on the lessons on that first round of rebuild by design. we served on the board of national resilience competition. just for all the jurisdictions that were a part of that. and i will say there are winners and losers when there is a finite pot of money. it is a tremendous effort for all of the jurisdictions that compete, whether or not they get it. on the one hand, even if you don't get it, you now have a concept that maybe you can sell some local private sector partners and philanthropies to try to get it funded. on the other hand, there are some that feel it is really a heavy lift to be part of those design competitions. if you don't actually get the funding, you've really lost that time. so i think people have to figure
1:07 am
out whether or not they are willing to take that risk, but i think we are learning a lot of really good things from rebuild by design and from ndrc. sanjukta: rebuild by design -- the great thing was they dealt with really large segments of the cities that they were looking at. and from what i was saying earlier, we usually get smaller size, fairly finite boundaries. and something like rebuild by design is really great because they come up with some kind of degree of standards, right? so you need to meet certain elevations or you need to build seawalls in a particular way or you need to adopt certain green technologies. so the kind of vocabulary of strategies that competitions like this build -- i think that's really good, because it kind of says, ok, if you are going to parcel it out to somebody else or somebody else who has the money to build it
1:08 am
now, they have some kind of standard to build two. i think that's really missing right now. for the local person to come in and actually do something, a larger standard of what should be done is actually missing. and something like rebuild by design actually helps to promote that. aaron: ok. some more questions? i know i saw some hands earlier. there we go. >> hi, so, we haven't really touched on agriculture. i was just wondering how you see that playing into being in the cities and whether it should i guess remain separate in the cities or become integrated. and just touch on that in general. alexis: for d.c., i think we like less than -- i don't even know. less than 0.8 square miles of cultivated. mostly small parcels. i think one piece of what we
1:09 am
know is happening ecologically. it's been hard to figure out here what that looks like, not just the agricultural piece, but fishing. and the food, transportation of goods that aren't necessarily cultivated, but brought into the district. i think the biggest issue for us is going to be kind of increasing our local distribution of food sources and having them be on micro scales. so, again, not just looking at impacts of water crises -- on food prices, but also thinking about access for people who can't necessarily afford to go to whole foods or wherever and buy. i think for us, we have a distribution issue we are looking at. how can we have more stuff they can go here? -- that can go here? some of the challenges of being so spatially confined. i think we also have to revisit the original conversation that brought us into climate change, impact on ecology. we know our streams are heating up superfast. we know that droughts are
1:10 am
decimating crops. and that puts pressure across the board. for here, we may not see that so much in terms of impact for residents across the board, but come along term, we have to think about sourcing for food and looking at local providers, fractures, and more large-scale production that -- crop shares, and more large-scale production that puts food in grocery stores here. aaron: cities have a lot of resources, a lot of money. what does that adaptation look like for rural communities, specifically poor rural communities or ex-urban communities? folks who are out of the cities. vicki: i think it's tough. we worked with vermont after tropical storm irene hit it. and it was really devastating. it washed out miles and miles of roads and hundreds of bridges. and this is an example, to the gentleman's point earlier, of when they tried to rebuild differently, they were first denied the reimbursement from fema, saying you built to a new
1:11 am
standard as opposed to the old way. but they said, well, given that we actually have regulations on our books to the new standard, and we know the climate is changing. and so it over time, fema has revisited that. but i think it was an example of the rural poor and often in flood zones that were the most affected by the devastation of the floods. and at first the townspeople really weren't getting reimbursed. and they don't have a huge population. if you're making that investment and you are not reimbursed as a town, that's hundreds of individuals who make up that town, so it really is a fiscal issue. and i think it really does come to the need for revisiting things like the stafford act, which is the disaster act that we have been dealing with that tends to look at disasters in the old way where you put things
1:12 am
in place the way they were where they were. we dealt with this in new orleans after katrina, when 80% of the city was underwater and it was the beginning of the school year. we knew some of the schools and neighborhoods were not going to come back, but nobody was sure. and originally, again, the policy was put the infrastructure and people in place. i think we are seeing with this administration attempts to allow people to spend that money more flexibly. but you do have to have that money to spend. that's where i think changes at the ballot box are really important. because people need to be able to talk about climate change if you are saying you are going to spend the money differently in an era of climate change. aaron: do you have a question? maybe we could do a lightning round. two lightning round questions. so let's just go down the line. what's your biggest pet peeve in this field? like what do people not get about your work that, like, annoys you, that you wish they would get? let it out. [laughter]
1:13 am
sanjukta: as a landscape architect, i think we do -- a lot of what is seen as green infrastructure is considered to be soft and kind of spongy and, like, essentially something that comes as an afterthought. but i think what people don't realize is the tremendous amount of engineering that goes into making a resilient thing. there is a tremendous amount of what looks soft is not actually soft is all i'm trying to say. and i think that is a perception i would love to change. i don't expect people to know what goes into it. because if you have kind of done a good job, it should look like a beautiful, passive park,
1:14 am
right? but i think that's something that people need to know, that it's not an expendable amenity. it's something that's doing a job, a really important job that is engineered and it's there for a purpose, not just to make it beautiful. alexis: and i think -- i get so frustrated. and i work for government. but i am just like thinking, it's always the same thing. it takes so much time for us to cut through red tape. everyone is, like, shaking heads. you guys were in these meetings. just the amount of e-mails it takes to figure out the word for, like, equity. you know, i think about the amount of attention we put on these small things, a culture that's kind of afraid to take risks. not only that, but because we are afraid to take risks, we have all these policies and approvals. when we do take risks, they are calculated. we know what the impacts are. we prioritize the risks so they
1:15 am
are ok. and that's really hard. likese sometimes i'm just you guys have to drop the pens and go out and do something impactful. let's stop talking. sometimes it does need to go through the traditional heads and stuff. which is great. we have a lot of programs on equity and a solar that we've done. but it is still challenging. i have to go to the community meetings and talk to people and say, yes, we've been in the planning process for three years, yes, we will probably be in this for another couple years, yes, we need funding, but hang there with us. i asked people to trust me. but i have no idea where i take this body of feedback. because it can get lost in the structure we have of d.c. and being a kind of state and city all at once. so that's my frustration. vicki: i think mine is more meta. and it's the disconnect between the magnitude of the problem and the rate of change we are seeing and what all of this work is. we are working -- many of you
1:16 am
are working, really -- in part, because of some of the obstacles that you are saying, whether bureaucratic, political, whether it's just that people haven't really wrapped their heads around what's coming at us. but it's always shocking to me how we really haven't managed to have more of a real national conversation about the crisis that's before us, how we are going to prepare and plan for it, both in terms of the impact that it's going to have on people's lives and communities, and also in terms of the opportunities to have a different future that we envision together. and if so, you know, i just wish that was more in our everyday discourse. aaron: maybe i will do one more lightning round. ok. cool. and we will all be around at the reception if you have some more questions. feel free to grab me or a panelist. my last question, let's go reverse order this time. what's the best, most hopeful, happy surprise that you've had in your work in the past couple years, something you didn't expect that made you feel good
1:17 am
about our ability to tackle these problems? vicki: well, i will go back to the example i gave, the paris climate talks. like i said, you know, i have been going to them off and on for 15 years. i've been to some that ended in people literally standing on tables and arguing. and when i say that i mean people from the u.s. environmental community arguing with each other, not just, like, saudi arabia and one of the sinking island states or something like that. so we've really come along way in acknowledging the problem -- in part because we are seeing the effects already. in federal and state government, when people start taking these actions, they see they can do it affordably and there are women -- win-wins in it. aaron: just as an aside, the international climate meetings
1:18 am
for folks that have gone to them, it is a very weird, stressful bubble for about two weeks. and i remember i went to one that didn't go well. and i will never forget, at the end of it, just watching grown people with phd's, experts, just cry from the release of stress at the end of the thing. and that there's a guy you probably know who i worked with for years who has been to almost every one of these meetings since the early-19 90's. and after the paris accords, there was a journalist who had also been to these meetings. and he says he knew the meeting was going to end successfully not suppress could his smile. so for the folks who work on international climate policy, it's frustration, frustration, frustration. so it's kind of a weird thing. like, i think everyone is very happy that there is a deal and that there is a constructive path forward, and, at the same time, saying, and we have to actually do even more than what the pledges are.
1:19 am
you know? alexis: i think i'm really excited about things lining up. finally, i feel like we've got the last piece of the social justice movement fully realized. the 1960's and 1970's, gender equality, race equality, all this stuff going on. we have all this data and science and technology we can share and access. and then, there's all these people. and i think the private sector is ready to have these conversations. people are constantly saying, hey, we have a climate group. i'm like, great. then, i get another e-mail, we have a group on climate. people are starting to come up and pull up their own seat to the table, and i love that. because it's such a good time when we have this huge conglomerate of other issues coming up. and there is this neat little intersection that's super complicated and stressful in some cases. but because now it has been elevated to this national conversation, i feel like we can finally have those conversations because people are at the table. and even though there is an incredible amount of stuff we have to do and a lot of people
1:20 am
saying can we even do it, at least people are at the table and we are talking about equity, policy, political landscapes. i think that is really great. for me, because like we don't have to do it alone anymore. we are not just heavy lifters, environmentalists in the back room. we are getting policy officers, whole branches and divisions. and so i think that is just really great. sanjukta: i think, for me, you know when people are in design school and they are in studio everything seems really tough? all the projects seem so hard. once you become a design professional, especially i think in landscape architecture -- what i found was once you are meeting people who really want public spaces, who want to go to parks, who want their communities to have places to play and work, people generally really like what you are doing. and i think that realization was a pretty watershed moment.
1:21 am
like, ok, the pain is kind of worth it. the other one was -- we had a project in miami. actually, aile, rail line and they are converting it into a biking and walking trail underneath it. and miami is notorious for the amount of driving that goes on there. people will not give up their cars. and in our first couple of public meetings, we had a few pretty angry people, who were like saying "who is going to bike here? why are you spending all this money?" by the third or fourth time, they were like, "i think we will give up our cars for this," which was pretty different from "we will never stop driving." that was pretty good. aaron: i want to thank the audience for coming out. please give yourselves a hand. [applause] aaron: i really appreciate the questions and the dialogue.
1:22 am
we will see you in the exhibit shortly. please give a hand to the panelists. thank you so much. [applause] >> if folks could just join us in the east court, we will have drinks and snacks and the conversation can continue. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2016] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] announcer: both tv on c-span two , 48 hours of nonfiction books and authors every weekend. here are some featured programs as we can. saturday at 10 p.m. eastern on afterwards, the presidential candidacy of donald trump is the subject of syndicated columnist and coulter's book. in trump we trust, which argues that moderates conservatives, democrats should support him. she is interviewed by tucker carlson, editor-in-chief of the daily caller. ann: i think he is a genuine
1:23 am
patriot, generally love the country, looked around and saw so many things going wrong that he can fix. in that opening speech, he said something to the effect of if we do not stop this now is want to be too late, unsalvageable. announcer: at 7:30 p.m. eastern, urban radio network bureau chief april ryan moderates race in america, a panel discussion on race in relation to the news, politics, and american culture. including an examination of the rise in racial incidents, origins and possible solutions. at 10:00 eastern, antonio martinez, former facebook and twitter manager, talks about his book chaos monkeys, which gives an insider perspective on the silicon valley tech world and examines the future impact of online marketing and social media. also this weekend, the washington post's dan zak reports,nicolas irving
1:24 am
and international vice president david rawls on the movement to increase worker wages. go to c-span.org for the entire schedule. app makes it radio easy to continue to follow the 2016 election wherever you are. it is free to download from the apple store or google play, get up to the minute schedules, plus podcast times for popular history programs. stay up-to-date on all the election coverage, c-span's radio app means you always have c-span on the go. >> now, a look at the women's vote. on washington journal, we talked to the cochair of the group, women vote trump. this is 40 minutes. ashington journal continues. host: we continue our discussion
1:25 am
on campaign 2016 talking about thefemale vote with cochair of the women vote trump, an organization unveiled back in june. what was the reasoning behind this super pac? guest: we wanted the women's voice to be out there. we realized that mr. trump does need women in this election. one of the interesting things along this campaign is that women have been reluctant to speak out. there has been pressure because of the gender shaming -- you are supposed to vote for hillary, the first female president. he wanted to give women a safe place to support mr. trump. -- did you find
1:26 am
yourself saying i could support donald trump? guest: for me, it was in february or march. i came to this more from the "never hillary" side and was waiting for things to shake out amongst the republican candidates. toould have been willing support several candidates. telling the 90's during the hillary care issue, and the health care task force. health care has been my area of policy and work, and being upset about the way that was run. proposal, but the way it was run. i see a history of exclusion, trying to keep things secret.
1:27 am
i was working with a group that sued hillary over the secrecy of the task force. host: your group is women vote trump. who is part of this coalition? fundraising, what level are you looking at? guest: not for the campaign, for our pac. we are a super pac. my colleague is the former chairman of the tea party express, and considered one of the founding mothers of the tea party movement. she was one of the original founders of the tea party patriots. one of our cochairs was a longtime republican activist and a cofounder of the women's history is he him. ann has moved over to the trump campaign, which is great.
1:28 am
she is doing coalition work for them. that is great. amongst the female groups and ad hoc groups. host: one of the latest snapshot from monmouth university, the latest polling goes through august 7. so far, they look in terms of white women without a college to become a 49% support donald trump post up 32% support hillary clinton. women with a college degree, 27% support donald trump, 57% support hillary clinton. speaking to that audience of women, what is your message? guest: let me preface one thing, did they ask who would you be voting for, or favorables? guest: that is a key issue here.
1:29 am
we are dealing with two candidates that have high unfavorables. unfavorable does not equate with will vote for. tahhat is key. back to your question. what we are seeing is that polling isn't giving us a snapshot. particularly in those communities of the educated, white, upper middle class, there of gender pressure to support hillary clinton. so, those are the women that have been reluctant and reported a great deal of pressure and backlash if they talk about trump. we are not sure those numbers are complete accurate. the message is it is ok to vote for mr. trump. he is a supporter of women.
1:30 am
i talked to a woman who is 26 the other night, college-educated. her first answer was "he loves women, it is obvious. i can tell none of this information painting him as a misogynist is true." host: you can send us a tweet @ cspanwj. your organization set up back in june, how would you describe the trump campaign outreach? guest: well, one of the reasons we set up was that we saw the trump organization seemed not to have the ground game together that in the spring and early summer.
1:31 am
we saw all of these ad hoc groups springing up a stub nevada women for trump, new york women for trump, all over the places. there are hundreds of these groups doing it on their own. we wanted to create a home ofor them. we call ourselves the home for women who support trump. then, the -- i thinkw e have see n a change as our cofounder and think of -- i still her as conway. as her of her so long maiden name. we will see a big difference now. we can move back over to the idea of being the role of a real path. to raise money to get the
1:32 am
women's voice out there. we are looking to tell women's storeis. we have women who have worked for mr. trump. they are telling their stories. peoplere -- there are you may not expect. latina woman who wants to go out and tell her story. so many people are willing to speak up. three, his third campaign manager. what do you think of her. guest: i have known kelly a long time. she is very organized. i don't knowis -- how to describe it. reasonable,y organize person who is a good
1:33 am
move for him. host: are you seeing that influence in the couple of comments he has made so far? guest: so far? i think so. in on thei am not campaign. i have no communication with the campaign. standing back and looking as an observer, i would say i am seeing her influence. that is to -- she is a very calm, reasonable person. i am seeing some of that generate from the campaign. host: let's get to the calls. good morning. this.just wanted to pose the considered a leader in republican party in utah. for me number one thing because i am also african-american. the reason why trump has
1:34 am
outreachsome of his and his position is because he wants to appeal to white women voters. i don't know if that is true. i would like to pose the question, from a woman's point of view, what is the main reason that he has been making this transition during this outreach? my number one concern has been literally early in this campaign hurtd a tweet that -- it my soul as a plaque republican -- black republican. he has apologized. what can women expect from these changes? guest: that is a really good question. one of the things we have heard
1:35 am
is they are supporting him because of him telling it like it is. they feel like they're getting the truth from him. we acknowledge and say clearly in our video he is not perfect. a perfectat he is not candidate. women now he is not a perfect candidate. of, he is -- it is a breath fresh air to women. he has to balance keeping that, always telling the truth, along with tone. someoneisclose, i am who has coached candidates for debate. i prepped him for doing their presentations and speeches. be known as a spin person. i can tell when somebody has been focused grouped and prepped and is going down the talking points.
1:36 am
that is not mr. trump. i saw that from the very beginning. sometimes he stumbles on words and what he is saying. he is speaking off the cuff, without a teleprompter. well, when you do that, sometimes you will misspeak. i will this speaks today because i don't have a script. dot is what we saw him sometimes. that was a problem with his tone or a question with a choice of words. what he is trying to do is be more disciplined about his message in my opinion. he will be more disciplined about his message while remaining true to who he is which is to tell the truth. we want to see, that is one of the things that women like so much about him. he is telling the truth. when they see hillary clinton and think that it is focus group tested and she has had everything -- host: now on our democrats line.
1:37 am
caller: good morning, greetings from tropical ohio. being surrounded by other democrats, i voted democrat since jimmy carter, they think ofn i tell them the story bill and hillary leaving the white house and taking furniture, artwork, linen. they had to count the silverware. they think it is a conspiracy. . they think it is a trumped up thing from the republican party. it wasn't until she was ready to run for senate that they said these things back. could you please corroborate my story that this really did happen? with notnot trust her taking things the white house how can we trust her as president? guest: iam showing my age. i was there. i came to washington in 1993 to
1:38 am
fight hillary care. the lawsuited in against hillary because of the lawsuit in the violation -- the secrecy in the violation of the laws which required open meetings. they refused to hold open meetings. that is back to 1993. we started right off the bat with the clintons with secrecy and deception. they said nobody -- everybody on the task force was a federal employee. they were financed from all over the country. people from insurance companies were able to, i would now say evil to bu -- now say able to buy seats. they did take things from the white house. millennialsive our and education in the last 25 years of history with the clintons.
1:39 am
they warned around. i was talking to some young women, they want around for all of the escapade with the clintons in the 1990's. they don't realize this is a very long pattern. host: our guest is the cochair of women vote trump. to find out more at womenvotetrump.com. some comments on twitter. i don't think, one says, that we or identityve race politics. another says is there a silent majority among women that will vote for trump that we are unaware of? do women for trump think about having a female nude model in the white house? before that was -- the silent majority. i completely agree with that. women'shrough the movement in the 60's.
1:40 am
i was a witness to the civil rights movement in the 60's. i feel like i have been breaking the glass ceilings. i was one of the first women in a television station. i would love to see a woman in the white house. i can't tell you how much i would love to see a woman in the white house. but not this woman. not hillary clinton. i am not proud to have her represent me as the first woman in the white house for stuff there are many women who feel the same way. again, they are afraid to say it and speak out because of the pressure. i want to talk about one thing -- i don't fit labels. i am not a long time republican activist or consultant. that is not me. i was previously a democrat. but, i don't fit the labels. it is difficult to segue into the other question.
1:41 am
into the labels most what we've seen so far is trying to get people by gender, race, i would likeics -- to see that stop and shutdown and just talk about issues. beenf the things that has extremely disappointing, i will leave the show today and i can tell you my twitter feed will be full of all kinds of ugly comments. most will be gender specific. they will refer to my weight, l ooks, and call me dirty names. from -- the truth is, it is coming from the hillary supporters. that needs to stop. the gender politics, the racism, i am insulted when i am called a
1:42 am
racist because i support donald trump. that deeply offends me. it wounds me, and upsets me. as far as a nude model in the white house, i am more offended by having a first gentleman having liaisons in the oval office than i am by one picture few melania trump did a years ago. i want tood morning, begin this by saying i am a yetired, very senior militar retiree. i have a phd. phd at is completing her the university of minnesota. they will both be
1:43 am
third-generation graduates. she is being threatened by her c lassmates, let alone her professors, because we support donald trump. they have gone as far as denying her thesis. her support for trump, it has nothing to do with what the thesis is about. it has everything to do with her politics. yetonsider this to be another example of political correctness.
1:44 am
correctness it is supporting. host: we appreciate your call. guest: we get this a lot. our celebrity cochair has talkedloquently -- eloquently about the hate she has received and the impact that is happening on her professional life. a personal you example. i had a yard sale in seattle last week, it is a pretty blue area. we have a socialist on the city council. i took my trump sign down before sale. the yard i can't keep a sign up. i was worried about pushback. i should know better, but i caved to it. lines, ang the same
1:45 am
tweet that says my expensive, private college educated wife won't be voting for hillary if her life depended on it. , what youck to that said earlier. a reflection be that among white women trump is trailing clinton by 30 points. that is just the opposite for women without a college degree. is one of the things that we realize. we can nudge the numbers on those women a few numbers, and make the difference in this election. host: let's hear from sharon, on the democrats line. caller: i find it insulting that
1:46 am
women feel the need to put for hillary because she is a woman. please give us more credit than that. frankly, you are -- your twitter all.e should say it said, bitchna fey is the new black. i have been called so much worse supporters with the words i can't even repeat on the air. never telling me to do things to parts of my body that are physically impossible. i wouldn;'t want my mom to see those things. i am old enough to have come glass ceiling myself. i didn't care what you called me, that was ok just give me the job. that was back in the women's movement in the 70's.
1:47 am
things were quite different than. as for as feeling like they have to vote, was in the marilyn albright to told us there was a special place in hell for women who didn't support other women? a moment when i decided i needed to do something to support mr. trump and take action. i was deeply offended that madeleine albright telling me i was going to hell if i didn't support hillary. i take offense with your position as well. also on how democrats line, good morning. as a democrat, i feel betrayed and they turned mr. trump into a demon. i have a masters degree in computer engineering. all my compatriots are voting for donald trump. democratsd for more
1:48 am
to vote republican. part -- i feel his heart is there. he wants american -- america to be better. i think he wants people to appreciate him and respect him as a leader. he has proven he is a leader in his own business. today is national women's equality day. end of theate the amendment giving women the right to vote. women'she models of the deeds,e movement was, not words. that is one of the things that we look at mr. trump is look at his deeds, look at his hiring of women, hiring of minorities. look at his family, how he treats the women and respect
1:49 am
women. look at his daughter. look at the deeds, not the words. be, hees he doesn't this says things we would rather not have him say. thank you so much for support. bannon,ws about stephen he was in a domestic dispute is in the headline of the "new york times." it was part of an effort to reset a candidacy that has stumbled with minority and female voters. mr. bannon brings to the post his own background that includes misdemeanor charges of domestic violence and allegations that he threatened his been wife with retribution if she testified in a criminal case.
1:50 am
the charges were dropped in that case. how difficult does this make your efforts? upst: this kind of burns me when i see these types of things coming out. they had to work long and hard to find something, of which he was not convicted. nothing andt to be it has gone on. i wish that the press would do the same investigating -- if they are going to talk about sexual behavior or actions towards women, to somebody who is a campaign person, all we have to do is look at the first gentleman if you want to talk about sexual escapades and treatments of women. -- treatment of land. there is no comparison between what is more important. things in our past
1:51 am
that we probably are proud of. if you want to research any person on the planet you can find something. this turned out to be nothing. host: mary lou in new jersey on the independent line. bill andood morning kathryn. thank you for c-span. catherine i voted for donald trump in the primary and i have every intention of voting for him in the general election. however, i am very troubled about what i am hearing regarding his change in policy on the issue of immigration. , it was hishis is signature issue that made many people flock to donald trump. this issue has been out of control for so many years that when he stepped up to the forefront and said he was finally going to get this under
1:52 am
control, this is what basically attracted me to donald trump. i think one problem is that he is starting to surround himself with too many people from the establishment. if he isn't careful, like in my case, i will stay home. if he changes his policy and does not follow through on building the wall and deporting these people that are in this country illegally, i, for the first time, will not be voting. this is very important that he sticks to this. i know a lot of people who are enraged by this change. when he getshat feedback from his supporters, he will turn around and follow through on what he promised us, to get him elected in the primary. guest: i like it that you are speaking out. you raise a couple of things. immigrationabout
1:53 am
first. seen is that he is a work in progress, and that he is trying to define his policy. he has not yet delineated the policy. the talk this week was delayed. what i see is that he delayed it because he wanted to get more information. he was at eight tom hall -- he and asked town hall for feedback. it seems to me that he is doing what i want a leader to do, which is going out and getting information and talking and listening to people. he can listen to what you have to say. change as seen any far as the wall. know everybody is analyzing every word he said about it. i don't know what is in his heart or mind. i personally think that the wall is set.
1:54 am
he also talked about deporting jails,minals in our sending them back to their home countries as a done deal. is, this is so complex and issue, is harry reid and nancy pelosi and president obama wanted to fix it or could fix it, they had two years to do it with the control of the house, the senate and the president he. it is a very -- the presidency. it is a very complex issue. keep speaking out and let him know what you think. i like it that he is listening checking.e is still the other thing that you raised is the establishment that you are worried about the establishment people coming on. i like it that you said that, because, one of the things that i personally like about him is
1:55 am
that he is very disruptive to the republican party, and i like that. , that'shave changed when we have change sometimes we have chaos long we have change. i see that as a positive. host: her comments are reflective of the wall street journal headline. donald trump's mixed signals on immigration on the campaign. silver spring, maryland. caller: hillary is personal for me. i am 69 and legally blind. my wife who was an extreme liberal, as soon as the clintons got into office she gave me an ultimatum, either the marriage or rush limbaugh. i picked rush limbaugh and she dumped me. rush said on his show many times
tv-commercial
1:56 am
that hillary will remind every man who has been through a divorce with the way she screams and yells, she does remind me of my former wife, who i cannot stand. that youm glad apparently got custody of c-span as well, or joint custody as well. host: a new ad that came up by the clinton campaign focusing on some of the things that donald trump has said, and families reaction. here's what it looks like. clip] go --n help them to himself. when mexico since its people,
1:57 am
they are bringing drugs, crime, they are rate this. you could see there was blood coming out of her eyes, coming out of her wherever. >> our children and grandchildren will look accurate this time at the choices we are about to make. the goals people strive for, the principles we will live by. we need to make sure that they can be proud of us. i'm hillary clinton and i approve this message. host: what did you think? this is a little reworking of the spot that has been running since july, they tacked on the hillary, at the end. promisesherry pick from any candidate and string them together and make them look. if we want to take hillary
1:58 am
parking and some of her comments and string them along, we can do the same thing with her. vote trump does have a spot to answer this spot going on. looking at theo deeds, not the words. this is a state of politics today. every time a candidate missteps or says something, that becomes the thing that will go into the spot and get played over and over again out of hours and hours of comments, rallies, speeches, etc.. politicians and people who run for office must have different dna than the rest of us to be willing to do this. i'm in all of all of them on all sides, that they are willing to do it. fishers, indiana on the democrats line.
1:59 am
caller: hello. i heard her talk about hillary. i am having a problem with trumps ethics. not paying contractors, his investment. i don't really see the comparison. i never knew a democrat to take away rights. i have seen republicans take away rights and want to take away rights. whisking women's rights -- risking women's right is severe. cap -- this is beyond me to hear this. i am voting for keeping rights. guest: i don't see what rights mr. trump is trying to take away when he talks about bringing jobs to the country, bringing jobs for women. one of our former co-chairs worked for mr. trump back in the
2:00 am
1980's, and has known him for many, many years. she told us that the issue with the subcontractors was that he had a problem and they had not done the job, and he wasn't paying them until they finished the job. it's not that he just refused to pay a bill. back to people who work for him, they have wonderful things to say. -- you tough about the democrats and republicans taking away rights? itt is a big discussion, but seems to me that it is the democrats who are trying to limit using big government as the weapon. the other thing that you you don't think that his ethics compared to mrs. clinton's. i can't see how you can even begin to compare whether he paid a contractor or not with the factha

77 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on