tv Washington Journal Mandy Gunasekara CSPAN April 25, 2019 4:13am-4:47am EDT
justice. he is interviewed by richard blumenthal. >> basic issues, how to resolve an issue? what you have, you have two problems. when people do engage they yell invectives and say, you are ugly or fat. there is what about is him. it is very mean-spirited and terrible and it affects people's opinions of the whole process. what is worse is the other problem. people don't engage with the other side at all. >> watch this weekend on book tv on c-span2. >> coming up, an interview with former trump administration sacredl, many going to to talk about president trump's energy agenda.
mandy will be here this morning, talking about your company and policy. explain what energy 45 is. guest: it is a nonprofit organization dedicated to educating the public on the good news story we have to tell on it comes to energy, environment, and the overall economy. host: what is the good news story? development, we have drastically expanded energy development in the united states while improving environmental progress. we have when it comes to clean-air protection, we produce criteria pollutants, things like particulate matter, sulfur dioxide. we have reduced those by 73% since 1970. we continue to make advancements in the clean water area as well. recently in this administration we have invested billions of dollarsguest: they are not.
there are different ways that you can organize nonprofit organizations. the national priorities list, the superfund site area. we are returning these areas to places where people can come in and live and be healthy and live happy lives. the: why did you leave former epa deputy assistant position to start energy 45? think republicans in general when it comes to issues on the energy and environment, there is not a good dialogue, a good positive dialogue about the statistics that are out there, so i left to fill what i characterize a communication void when it comes to having these types of conversations, which is see the benefit of americans as they go into 20/20, but also the benefit of this administration and talking about the actions we have been taking, the good responsible actions we have been taking. host: and naming it after the
president, energy 45, the 45th president. who funds the organization? guest: it is funded by people who believe in the mission and who support the president's overarching agenda, which is defined by energy dominance. host: the oil and gas companies? guest: it is a range of constituencies, everything from different companies to different entities to individual people who believe in the mission of energy 45. listed onyour donors the website? they are not -- guest: they are not. there are different ways that you can organize nonprofit organizations. some people appreciate the preference or have a press fence -- or have a preference for privacy in donation. when it comes to these issues, it is unfortunate that there are , ngoprimarily on the left organizations, that will go after people because they support endeavors like mine. so people have prioritized
privacy to make sure they are not the subject of personal and harmful attacks. host: respond to reverend mitch epcot, at an event for the new democrat coalition here is what he had to say about the trump administration energy policy. >> we have to work to build a national policy, whether we believe in some type of market-based system. we can talk forever about the various proposals. we like market-based systems because we want the market to work. but that all has to be tea up ed up,pefully -- to be te and hopefully in 2020 when we will have new leadership that can get something done. even with all of congress, it is not vetoproof. i do not know if you can see i am ank there, evangelical christian, but it is not to advertise my face. it is to remind me when i on
capitol hill, of who i am supposed to be representing. i freely admit that this is the worst administration ever for environmental rollback. am fighting mercury toxicity standards right now. something funny is going on. host: mandy, your response? i think this administration has been successful in terms of advancing environmental interests in a practical way. deregulatory actions, that has certainly been at the forefront of the overarching agenda. it has a negative connotation in some instances, but it is a good thing. the important context is, where are we starting? the last administration use the epa and the department of energy and the department of interior to you their missions to span federal control in ways that were unprecedented and was against the parameters, the
clear parameters set out by the law and congress. when we came in, we were deregulating. it is important to know that in the context of deregulation, it does not mean we are setting aside the important admission -- the important mission of the epa and the environment, but to do it in a balanced way that is consistent with the law and that does not take away the cost and benefits -- that takes away the costs and benefits without unduly burdening businesses and consumers with high costs. host: we encourage our viewers to join in. .epublicans, 202-748-8001 democrats, 202-748-8002. , 202-748-8002. tell us why you and others argued about being in this deal. guest: the overarching reason was, it was a bad deal for the
united states because it put a lot of the cost responsibilities and regulatory responsibility that was going to have negative thect on energy jobs, on cost of electricity prices for consumers across the country, and put all the burden on the united states and let most other signatories get a free pass. the focus of that should be on india and china. if you look at what has panned out today, the united states tom 2000 to 2017 -- 2005 2017, we reduced our in missions of thewhile the rest world has increased in missions. the paris agreement was a lot of empty rhetoric that offloaded a lot of the cost on the american people. host: how do you respond to people who say if we are not in it, we cannot influence those countries? guest: i completely disagree. the best way to influence those countries is to develop out the
response to doing more with less , making energy use more efficient and safer by developing technologies and exporting those technologies to different countries like china and india. going into china, they continue to develop coal plants at a fast pace, and they do not use basic pollution control equipment. i am not even talking about greenhouse gases, i am talking about particulate matter. they do not use the kind of technology that our power plants have been using for decades. it is about engaging in ways we can share that type of technology and expertise we have at epa and other agencies, some of our regional and local officials who have the know-how to take the technology, build an effective pollution control program and ensure that places like india and china enjoy the same environmental benefits we have established here. host: mandy gunasekara is our guest this morning, founder of
energy 45. up first from flint michigan, a democrat. hi, debbie. caller: good morning. thank you for being on. i wonder, what are your thoughts about trump releasing all the gas and oil onto our public lands? when elizabeth warren did her town hall, she said that would be the first thing she undoes. for that, she is going to get my vote. i am really offended that he has handed out these leases to his buddies.and oil that is our land, honey. if you are as old as i am and have been paying into the federal system as long as we have, you would be offended, too. i am not a trump fan, as you probably can tell. ruled that we people here in flint, michigan, can soothe the epa because of what
they did with the -- consume the epa-- we can sue the because of what they did with the water. we can sue the federal government. believe me, people in flint, michigan, because for many, many years, we had a big general motors imprint here. money intoa lot of these systems. i will go ahead and take my information off-line, but i am really offended that he thinks -- i am almost as offended by him doing this to public land as i am to him entertaining the russians in the oval office. as far as i am concerned, bill clinton can do what he did in the oval office every day for the neck hundred years. host: i am going to leave it there and have mandy respond. up two i want to bring important points. first come on the leases on federal lands, it is important to know that is a very
competitive process. competitive government hitting process -- government bidding process. number two, land development occurs on federal lands that is subject to the strictest clean air, clean water, and overarching permitting requirements that ensure relative protections in each of those categories. it is done in a responsible way. the third aspect of that, when energy is developed in the united states, it is done cleaner, or efficient than any other place in the world. the energy is going to be used one way or the other. we need to ensure we use our resources in a practical and responsible way, export it out to other countries, other countries that have historically been relying on oil from places like iran and russia, where there are a host of problematic out ofthat develop relying on them for their source of energy.
flint michigan on the wall quality -- on the water side, that was a massive failure of the last administration when he came to ensuring and maintaining clean water in all areas, including less populated areas like flint, michigan. one of the things that we prioritized in this administration is to go back to the core mission of the agency, which is cleaning up the air, the water, and ensuring communities have healthy land to be successful and prosperous. on the water side, this administration has helped fund over $4 billion worth of water in the structural development to ensure that places like flint, this does not occur in places that are similarly situated. host: let's go to rossville, illinois, an independent. caller: regardless of her responses, because you do not , i a chance to give feedback
--lly disagree with what with the way this woman is portraying the trump environmental policies. first of all, when you establish an organization, have transparencies about your funders. i have three points i want to make. this is the first one. funders should be transparent. they have agendas. the idea that you are protecting their privacy is ridiculous. courage to step up to the plate if you are making a donation to an organization, that you stand behind personally with your name for the policies they represent. secondly, at a local level, we in illinois are dealing with the ,utcomes of the coal industry it is about to leach into the groundwater, the rivers. the companies are just leaving
it there. the epa is not doing anything. they want to put band-aid berms on a river that raises during any kind of rain or flooding. the idea that flint was the obama administration is ridiculous. the local and state republicans -- thery bad decisions health department, the governor -- all those republicans that are responsible for the terror because in flint michigan. and at the national and international level, the stuff you're saying is ridiculous. being oil wells in national parks is not responsible. i do not care how you try to portray it. at the international level, our environmental policies are considered ridiculous. you know what? we are not creating the kinds of treaties, we are not participating at an international level. while maybe, thanks to
california and the democrats there, we have some decent environmental policies that have developed over decades and decades. trump is trying to completely destroy anything, and particularly his absolute obsession with obama. host: we are going to get in more calls and have mandy respond. guest: she said three. i got four. i will go through them quickly. first, on the funding and relative transparency. my opinion and approach to these informeds shaped and by my experience in the u.s. house and senate and working in this administration. isapproach to these issues -- has not changed because i have started this organization and to organize and in the way i have. on coal ash, i know the epa is paying attention to it.
this has been a topic of ongoing discussions on capitol hill for a long time. it is also something that i briefly worked on before we got a larger political team at epa to ensure that the companies out there are complying with the gold standard of environmental requirements when you are talking about coal ash or you are talking about other industrial operations. in illinois, this is our region five -- they have a robust oversight enforcement program, so i know they are out there on the ground, ensuring that operations are being done consistent with the requirements and expectations of those illinoisaws and the state law requirements are and on flint, i think that you go back and look at some of the reports that have been done, it was a failure of the last administration. and the reason the previous caller brought up that it was decided by the courts the other consume the citizens
epa, that speaks to the veracity of some measure of responsibility -- citizens can sue epa, that speaks to the veracity of some measure of responsibility. on international participation, we are still involved in international discussions. g7, theywent to the have an environmental ministerial's, they do breakout sessions on energy, environment, and other relative areas. we continue to participate and have robust, meaningful conversations with our international counterparts. i would say that in those conversations, when we are talking about clean air and clean water and the relationship of the federal government to state entities, every one of the ministers from other countries are looking to us because we not only have a clear measure of organized leadership, we have
clear actions that produce positive results. this comes in terms of what i started out with. we have reduced air emissions by 70%. we are cleaning up water, building out infrastructure, and we are trying to share that information with our international counterparts who continue to engage in meaningful ways. host: next, tulsa, oklahoma. kid, on the republican line. caller: good morning. mandy, you are a breath of fresh air you are intelligent and presenting logic. that drives the democrats crazy. i think theat es on the huge benefit of trump's decision, to get out of the past accord, this was a transfer of wealth from the people of the united states to the u.n. for them to distribute. that was all -- that was a big
now, and the idea that through the deregulation, we trulynergy independence, are exporting -- we are the main exporter of oil, so we are not dependent on the mideast red so i really appreciate what you are saying and what you have done for the country. host: you were shaking your head while he was talking about distribution of wealth. why? guest: a big part of the climate accord was financial commitments from the developed world that was going to be distributed to the developing world. and a lot of this was the green climate fund. we had major problems when i was working at the u.s. senate. re-characterizing it as a u.n. slush fund. the administration committed $3
billion while converting the appropriations process. that is a story do not -- that is a story that a lot of people do not focus on, that the first installment was $500 million. in the appropriations budget, that has been zeroed out. nonetheless, president obama redirected funds from state department funds that were set aside to -- for volunteerism. ,gainst the will of congress and with laid out instructions in appropriations bills per that did not get a lot of attention then and it has not gotten a lot now, trying to assign some measure of similar discussions with president trump's actions in other areas. it was a massive transfer of wealth. giving the money is not what they need. the best thing we can do as a
country is, we already have technology. we do not even -- they do not even use them, but we have been using it for decades. integrating these technologies into their existing infrastructure, and continuing that dialogue and those relationships. and then we can deploy it elsewhere. host: are you talking about renewable energy technologies? guest: i am talking about all sorts of energy technologies. a lot of places have coal reserves, natural gas reserves. they are well situated for nuclear technologies and renewables. it is all of the above, making sure that the technologies that we are employing and helping them with are consistent with the resources that they have available and the amount of money they can invest in building these out. host: we go to cherry hill, new jersey, on our line for democrats. caller: i just want to say that
i agree with the minister we heard from earlier. there were so many examples of why mr. trump's energy policy is the worst ever. i want to mention briefly three. he is trying to bring back coal, which is the energy source of the 19th century, not even the 20th century but the 19th century. we should keep coal in the ground. allowing drilling in the habitat of the sage grouse, that could drive that species extinct. here in new jersey, we love our jersey shore, our beaches. even chris christie is against offshore drilling in the atlantic. willin new jersey, we fight offshore drilling to the bitter end because we do not want our beaches to become like the beaches in the gulf of
mexico two years ago. host: mandy, go ahead. guest: first of all, what we have done in this administration is something the last administration failed to do, which is that the first ever greenhouse gas standards -- i am referring to the clean power plan, which was the centerpiece climate action of the last administration, that failed miserably because it was patently illegal, and the supreme court stopped it in its tracks. what we have done, because we are taking the approach of acting within the confines of the law, and respective of that, we have proposed the affordable clean energy rule, which stops fornhouse gas standards existing coal-fired power plants. in an environmentally friendly way, this will ensure that we have the energy we need to support the growing and robust
economy that we have experienced under president trump's economic agenda. on the second piece, i essentially wrote it down as the endangered species act issue of the sage grouse. projects that have implications for any specie listed on the endangered species act. the problem is that it has been used to stop some projects in their tracks because there is an imbalance between figuring out how to protect livable habitats but ensuring that projects that go forward that have minimal in fact -- minimal impact can in fact go forward. that is at the forefront of conversations across a number of agencies in this administration. it is somewhat of a false dichotomy to say that you can either have this project or you are going to have negative impact on this species. to protecttinue
species and continue to develop out clean, efficient infrastructure projects that are needed to build the economy in an environmentally friendly way. the piece on offshore development, again, offshore development is subject to the department of interior's offshore agencies, and they have undergone significant review and rightsizing in terms of ensuring offshore development is done without any negative implications for the offshore ecosystem. so there is this path forward where we can all have a little bit of what we want, which is a safe environment and robust energy development that will need to continue to move the united states forward as an economic powerhouse. host: jerome, california, on our line for independent callers, you are next. caller: good morning, greta. how are you doing today? host: doing fine. see a: i have yet to
responsible drilling project in the united states of america, no matter what kind of regulations or stipulations you put on it. go down the line of how many of those we have had. was, ise i wanted to say am getting sick and tired of this administration -- of all administrations -- saying they did this and they did that, and we are ahead of these guys. i don't care. if your friend jumped off a cliff, would you jump, too? no. it does not matter what way did. it matters what we do. guest: he makes a very good point. it is all about what actions are we taking. this administration has taken extensive action to ensure that the energy development in the country continues to comport with the gold standard of environmental protection. on the drilling sites, i have been out to a number of drilling sites across the country -- in
ohio, oklahoma, texas, even my home state of mississippi -- these are done -- i would urge him and others interested to go out and take a look. these are efficient, clean processes that have to comport with an extensive amount of complex regulations put in place by a team of engineers to ensure that people do not mess up or -- when it then call comes to oil and gas development, this 1990 oil and gas development has more than doubled. -- since 1990, oil and gas development has more than doubled. oil and gas in missions have gone down -- oil and gas emissions have gone down 16%. you know, you bring up the point of -- it is true, there are
accidents that happen. i am not here to defend those accidents and to say that is something we should look past. again, when those sorts of things do happen, they are tragedies when they occur. if that is a lessons-learned process for everyone involved, but what the administrator and has done in the past and even today, when things happen, you take a look at what are the problems and you ensure you have protections in place so you do not get yourself in that situation again. host: let's end with a lighter moment, or at least talking about what happened on the floor of the senate in 2015. you worked with senator inhofe, and this is a mineral -- a memorable moment, when he comes to the floor and talking about the issues of climate and global warming. what led up to this moment? what was behind it? hest: the speech was that
was doing was expressing frustration to the administration, the previous administration, that climate change was a greater threat than terrorism. so we had the whole speech talking about that. that morning, it had snowed and he wanted to take a snowball. part of it was that it was an interesting moment. part of it is, it is a .ommentary on the media no offense meant here, but in general, the media has been somewhat dishonest when talking about and covering issues like climate change. so he took a snowball to poke a little fun and make light of the situation. that was february. it was snowing there they have been lots of instances where other weather related events have occurred. but the media takes it and runs with it with the justification that climate change is this major existential threat. it was a little bit of fun commentary, pointing out some of -- dishonest or disingenuous
that's a better word -- coverage by the media. but the speech itself was pointing out a serious issue in terms of, terrorism is a more existential threat than climate change. he was putting that in context. host: >> c-span's washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up this morning, center for climate and security director talks about the national security risks in climate change. ernest moneys talks about the andre of energy policy former trump campaign transition official jason miller on campaign 2020 and trump's reelection strategy. be sure to watch washington journal live at 7:00 eastern this morning. join the discussion. >> thursday, a discussion about
the future of gas taxes and highway funding from the information technology and innovation foundation. that is at 10:00 eastern on c-span. at 3:00 eastern, a discussion about hate crimes in the u.s. a.m., the at 9:00 national commission on military and public service. also a hearing on military draft registration. on c-span3 we bring you a discussion on trade with china. >> here are some of our teacher programs this weekend. on book tv, saturday night at 8:25 eastern, robert caro talks about his latest book "working" with conan o'brien. >> you remember one thing, turn every page. never assume anything. turn every goddamn page.
i cannot tell you how many times in life that stuck with me. words, an inside look at how the judicial process works drawing from personal experiences and case histories justice." book "doing he is interviewed by richard blumenthal. >> how to persuade someone to your point of view, what you have, you have two problems. when people do engage, the yell invectives and say, you are ugly or fat. there was also self nonlogical arguments that is very mean-spirited and it affects people's opinions of the whole process. what is worse is the other problem. people don't engage with the other side at all. >> watch this weekend on book tv
on c-span2. >> once tv was three giant networks and a government supported service called pbs and then in 1979, a small network rolled out a big idea. let viewers decide all on their own what was important to them. c-span opened the door to washington policymaking for all to see bringing you unfiltered congress -- content from congress. this was true people power. in the 40 years since, the landscape has changed. there is no monolithic media. youtube stars are a thing. c-span's big idea is more relevant today than ever. it's nonpartisan coverage of washington is part of public service by your satellite or cable provider. c-span is your unfiltered view. you can make up your own mind.
♪ >> the president and first lady traveled to atlanta to speak at the national perception and drug abuse summit. president trump talked about his administration's initiative on drug interdiction efforts. this runs in our. -- this runs an hour. >> ladies and gentlemen welcome congressman hal rogers. [applause] rep. rogers: thank you. thank you. for the first time in the eight year history of this summit, we