| Speaker | Time | Text |
|---|---|---|
|
unidentified
|
This live as well. | |
| We appreciate that. | ||
| And one can only hope that he's able to watch C-SPAN on a black and white television set in his prison cell. | ||
| This is being carried live by C-SPAN. | ||
| It's being watched not only in this country, it's being watched around the world right now. | ||
| Mike said before, I happened to listen to him, he was on C-SPAN 1. | ||
|
unidentified
|
That's a big upgrade, right? | |
| C-SPAN. Democracy Unfiltered. | ||
| We're funded by these television companies and more, including Cox. | ||
| When connection is needed most, Cox is there to help. | ||
| Bringing affordable internet to families in need, new tech to boys and girls clubs, and support to veterans. | ||
| Whenever and wherever it matters most, we'll be there. | ||
| Cox supports C-SPAN as a public service, along with these other television providers, giving you a front-row seat to democracy. | ||
| Our first guest of the morning is Pete Maismith. | ||
| He is the president of the League of Conservation Voters here to talk about Trump administration policy, not only when it comes to energy, but issues of climate as well. | ||
| Mr. Maismith, good morning. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Hi, Pedro. | |
| Thanks for having me on. | ||
| A little bit about your organization, first and foremost. | ||
| How do you describe it to people? | ||
| How are you funded? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sure, we're a national organization. | |
| We work to stop the climate crisis and make sure that people have clean air and clean water to breathe. | ||
| We work all over the country. | ||
| We have 33 state affiliates, which are our great partners, and we work to elect pro-climate and pro-democracy champs. | ||
| And then to turn those political victories into, you know, terrific policy outcomes for everybody in this country. | ||
| We're funded by tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of supporters all over the country that support the work we do. | ||
| On the issue of climate, Mr. Maismith, you've been following, as well as those that come from a similar perspective of yours, this recent decision on something called an endangerment finding when it comes to climate issues. | ||
| Can you explain that to our guest, please? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Sure, very simply. | |
| In 2007, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Environmental Protection Agency has the obligation to regulate greenhouse gases unless they found that greenhouse gases didn't impact climate change, which of course we all know they obviously do. | ||
| So they use that and it's through that that there have been a variety of protections that have been put in place, you know, both to tackle climate change and just more broadly on pollution here in this country. | ||
| So it's an important underpinning or the scaffolding that exists there. | ||
| And so what did this administration do to that policy that you just described? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, what's happening is the Trump administration is really turning its back on the people of this country. | |
| They're wanting to undo that finding and the practical effect would to make the cost of energy be more expensive and to make us less safe and less healthy. | ||
| The EPA has a mandate to protect the environment and public health. | ||
| This would go the exact opposite direction by working to undo this endangerment finding. | ||
| They wrote in the announcement concerning the finding, the EPA wrote this. | ||
| I want you to get your response to it saying, in an unprecedented move, the Obama EPA found that carbon dioxide emissions emitted from automobiles in combination with five other gases, some of which vehicles don't even admit, contributes some unspecified amount to climate change, which in turn creates some unspecified amount of endangerment to human health and welfare. | ||
| These mental leaps were admittedly novel, but they were the only way the Obama-Biden administration could access EPA's authority to regulate under Section 202A. | ||
| That's the statement in part from the EPA. | ||
| How do you respond to that? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Those are climate skeptics that are pretending and wanting us to believe because they say it that greenhouse gases don't cause climate change and are not warming our planet. | |
| All we have to do is look at our lived experience right now. | ||
| Fires in LA, floods in Texas, floods in North Carolina and Georgia. | ||
| I'm in Colorado right now, which is where I'm from, visiting family, and I'm up outside of Rocky Mountain National Park. | ||
| And it's really inaccessible right now because of the wildfires that are happening in Colorado, Canada, and other parts of the West. | ||
| The smoke is really, really bad. | ||
| Fire seasons are much longer and more severe than they used to be when I grew up here. | ||
| That's just one example of what's going on with climate change. | ||
| It is impacting our lives in serious and significant ways, and it's impacting our health in serious and significant ways. | ||
| Everybody knows this. | ||
| It's established science. | ||
| And so any language written, preamble to the contrary is fanciful and inaccurate. | ||
| It's probably long to explain, but at least can you explain how the Obama administration reached those things? | ||
| Because the EPA is questioning, I guess, the process of how they reach those conclusions. | ||
|
unidentified
|
The EPA, the Obama EPA followed the science, is what they did. | |
| After the court ruling, they looked at the science and said, yes, in fact, greenhouse gases, obviously some of which, not all of which clearly, but some of which come out of cars, we all know that. | ||
| It contributes to global warming. | ||
| It contributes to climate change. | ||
| Climate change is bad for our health because of wildfire smoke, because of floods, because of, you know, so many examples. | ||
| Extreme heat. | ||
| You know, look at, say, the Southwest and Arizona and the kind of extreme wheat heat that we've had, even beyond what they normally have, mind you, over 100 and then 110 degrees for days and days on end in the last couple of years. | ||
| The Obama EPA did what the EPA should do. | ||
| They followed the science and the law and they reached an obvious correct conclusion. | ||
| And now the Trump EPA is trying to deny that and pretend that that doesn't exist and they're wrong. | ||
| Pete Mae Smith of the League of Conservation Voters with us. | ||
| And if you want to ask him questions about these recent decisions on climate and other things related to environmental issues, 202-748-8001 for Republicans, 202-748-8000 for Democrats and Independents, 2027-8002. | ||
| If you want to text us those thoughts, you can do that at 202-748-8003. | ||
| Mr. Maismith, it was not long after this announcement that Lee Zeldon himself went before cameras. | ||
| It was an interview on Fox, but he talked about some of the legal justifications he saw via the Supreme Court that give him the ability to take these actions. | ||
| I want to play a little bit of what he had to say and get your response to it. | ||
| The Supreme Court ruled in Loperbright and overturning the Chevron Doctrine in West Virginia versus EPA, Michigan versus EPA, and other cases that an agency like EPA can't just decide on our own that we are going to get creative with law and where there's a vacuum and missing language. | ||
| We're just going to make it up ourselves. | ||
| We're not going to ignore the major policy doctrine. | ||
| We're not going to go along with applying extreme economic pain on Americans who can least afford it. | ||
| President Trump, when he first called me asking me to be the EPA administrator, to his last phone call to me when we last spoke, has been focused on bringing back and protecting American auto jobs. | ||
| We want the American auto industry to thrive. | ||
| We want to apply common sense. | ||
| The American public demanded it. | ||
| We want to make sure that cars are affordable again. | ||
| And after the endangerment finding came out, not only were there all sorts of mobile source emission standards, but they also came out with trying to regulate out of existence all sorts of stationary sources. | ||
| They started applying it to airplanes and more. | ||
| We're talking about many trillions of dollars. | ||
| Where does the authority come from? | ||
| It came from the Obama EPA deciding very creatively with a whole bunch of mental leaps that they were going to just claim an authority that we believe after a very plain reading of the Supreme Court cases we don't have. | ||
| So, Mr. Maismith, that was Mr. Zeldon's justification. | ||
| What do you think of the take he makes? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, Mr. Zeldon left out the key United States Supreme Court. | |
| He conveniently didn't talk about the court, Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007 that created the basis that said if greenhouse gases cause climate change, then the EPA needs to address them. | ||
| So he just skirted right past that because it's very inconvenient to his argument. | ||
| Here's the other thing that he said, though, that is a fundamental misrepresentation of where things are in this country right now. | ||
| This will cost people more money. | ||
| This is an anti-people, pro-corporate, big oil CEO polluter measure. | ||
| And here's what I mean by that specifically. | ||
| The cheapest and fastest energy to bring on the grid, the way to bring prices down in this country when it comes to energy, is wind, solar, and storage, batteries. | ||
| 93% of all the energy that was brought onto the grid last year was wind, solar, or batteries. | ||
| Demand is surging. | ||
| We know that. | ||
| AI, data centers, extreme weather is causing that. | ||
| We're electrifying things, which of course we have to be doing. | ||
| All of that is surging demand. | ||
| The cheapest and fastest supply to help people address spiking utility bills is wind, solar, and batteries. | ||
| So by ripping that away, which is exactly what Administrator Zeldon is working to do, it will jack prices up for everybody in this country, for big businesses, small businesses, and families just in their homes. | ||
| And so to somehow pretend that this is bad economics, you know, to bring clean energy onto the grid is a fallacy and just completely misrepresents really what's happening here in this country right now. | ||
| Cheapest and fastest energy, clean energy. | ||
| Our first call for you, sir, comes from Merrill, and this is Mike Republican line. | ||
| You're on with Pete Maismith of the League of Conservation Voters. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Hello. | |
| Hi, sir. | ||
| You said science was out on greenhouse gases being damaging. | ||
| And I'm just curious: if a greenhouse is an enclosed structure that slowly builds up this gas that you're talking about, would that mean that our system is enclosed and it doesn't vapor gas out into the universe? | ||
| Hi, Mike. | ||
| Thanks for your question. | ||
| In essence, yes, obviously, we know that greenhouse gases trap are trapped here in our atmosphere. | ||
| That raises temperatures. | ||
| Again, the science on this is abundantly clear, whether it's scientists in this country, scientists in Europe, scientists in Asia, scientists in India, Africa, it doesn't matter, right? | ||
| There's a global consensus that greenhouse gases are warming, causing the warming in the atmosphere. | ||
| consequences for us are severe and significant, whether it's extreme weather events, prolonged extreme heat, worse health outcomes. | ||
| They affect us in our day-to-day lives. | ||
| And the way to tackle it saves us money because clean energy saves us money. | ||
| So that's where this really falls apart, the whole notion of taking away the endangerment finding. | ||
| Independent Lyme from Bill. | ||
| Bill is in New York State. | ||
| Hello. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yes, thank you for taking my call. | |
| Let's set the record straight on greenhouse gases. | ||
| The Siberian tundra is thawing. | ||
| The deforestation of the Amazon rainforest, both of those are releasing more methane than the U.S. could ever counter through its own actions. | ||
| Nothing we can do is going to offset this global phenomenon. | ||
| So your speaker is misinterpreting the facts, giving hashtags about the phenomenon of greenhouse gases and global warming. | ||
| The U.S. is not the tip of the spear on this. | ||
| The changes have to occur elsewhere. | ||
| Thank you. | ||
| Thanks for your call, Bill. | ||
| Really appreciate it. | ||
| You're undoubtedly right that greenhouse gases, methane, and other gases, you know, we shouldn't be logging in old growth areas or the Amazon. | ||
| We should be protecting places like the tundra, the Siberian tundra, and many other places to make sure that they don't melt. | ||
| You're entirely right about that. | ||
| But let's just stop for a second about the fact that the United States can't do anything about it. | ||
| That, of course, is entirely inaccurate. | ||
| One, we're a very large emitter. | ||
| We pollute a lot, but it's not just what we put into the atmosphere. | ||
| We are a country of leaders. | ||
| To say that the United States doesn't have a role in leading on tackling climate change so we can all be safer, so we can all be healthier, and so we can all have a more affordable future. | ||
| That's abdicating leadership that I think is very unlike who we are as a people and as a society. | ||
| We're going to lead. | ||
| That's what we've always done. | ||
| And we will continue to do it in the future when it comes to tackling climate change. | ||
| We have to. | ||
| On that front, Mr. Mae-Smith, you've probably then heard the arguments from Republicans about leadership in the sense to say, look at China, look at India, look at the concerns about pollution and production they have. | ||
| Why should we take all the effort when you have countries like that still dealing with theirs? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, again, I think we're going to inspire and prod and push other countries to take strong action. | |
| And I should say that in many ways, China is really dominating the race for the future with the clean energy transition, whether it's production of solar components, wind components, and certainly electric vehicles. | ||
| China is in that race and in many ways winning that race and winning that race by a lot. | ||
| I can't believe we would cede the future to China. | ||
| Again, that seems so un-American. | ||
| It is so unlike us that we want to say, no, we want to make sure that we own the future in this transition to cheaper, faster energy to bring on the grid, which is renewable energy. | ||
| That's exactly what we were starting to do. | ||
| And this administration is attempting to pull that back. | ||
| In a realistic sense, with the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, what happens to the future of that renewable energy effort when it comes to subsidies and other helps from the federal government to make that happen? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, the budget reconciliation bill was an abomination. | |
| It's going to raise costs for people across the board. | ||
| Even if we step outside for a second of the energy space, it's going to raise costs on health care. | ||
| It's going to raise costs on groceries. | ||
| I mean, it's just, I mean, it's just bad for people in this country. | ||
| And we're starting to see that already. | ||
| And we'll certainly see that in the coming months. | ||
| But speaking specifically around energy, there's good news there in a couple of ways in the sense that in the states, they are continuing to push and lead and take action to bring solar and wind and other forms of renewable energy online. | ||
| We need to keep doing that. | ||
| We need to ramp that up. | ||
| And there will still be activity even at the federal level, not nearly as much as we would like, and frankly, as there needs to be. | ||
| But we can't stop. | ||
| We're not going to seed leadership and we're not going to allow people in this country to have to deal with further spikes in their utility bills, which is exactly what's going to happen if we really don't put more wind and solar and storage on the grid. | ||
| And as part of that, there's a viewer on X who asked the question of you this morning, if wind, solar, and storage are, quote, the cheapest and fastest supply, won't they prevail without government subsidy or promotion? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, that's a good point. | |
| In the long run, the answer is absolutely yes, they will. | ||
| Now, the problem is that we're still continuing to subsidize oil and gas and coal. | ||
| And I mean, there's some crazy provisions in the budget reconciliation bill that would help coal that we don't even use here in this country, that we ship abroad to wait, guess for it, China, right? | ||
| So, I mean, there's just subsidies in there that make no economic sense that are, again, bad for us as a country, whether you're looking at it from an environmental or climate perspective or from an economic perspective. | ||
| So, in the long run, undoubtedly, wind, solar, other forms of renewable and storage are going to win the day. | ||
| The question is how quickly we get there. | ||
| And that's what we need to push just as fast as we can. | ||
| Our discussion is with Pete Maismith of the League of Conservation Voters. | ||
| Let's hear from Johnny in Kentucky, Republican line. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Am I talking to Pete Maismat? | ||
| You're on with him? | ||
| Yes, go ahead, please. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Hi, Johnny. | |
| Yeah. | ||
| What does climatologist say about climate change? | ||
| Have you heard anything from climatologists? | ||
| From climatologists, like climate experts? | ||
| Yes, we've heard a lot from them, Johnny. | ||
| And they very much, I mean, the evidence is overwhelming. | ||
| It's clear. | ||
| It's convincing that we know greenhouse gases are leading cause, the leading cause of climate change. | ||
| They're warming the planet. | ||
| And as that happens, the consequences for us are bad. | ||
| That's what I want to keep coming back to, right? | ||
| When we see longer fire seasons, more intense rainstorms, more intense storms, much more severe flooding, all of that and more, it makes us, it puts us at risk. | ||
| It is more dangerous for us. | ||
| And it makes us less healthy. | ||
| Our society, our friends, our family, our communities, where we live, all these places are more at risk and will increasingly become so. | ||
| And again, remember, the answer to it is the cheapest and fastest energy that we've got, which is wind, solar, other renewables, and batteries. | ||
| So it's both good for people's pocketbooks, right? | ||
| When prices are just too expensive in this country. | ||
| And it makes us healthier and safer in the years to come. | ||
| If this endangerment finding is rolled back, could states step in, particularly blue states, I would imagine, to set up their own frameworks for environmental at least ways to help reduce the damage to climate. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah. | |
| Well, yes, Pedro, I appreciate you saying that. | ||
| I mean, states have been leaders. | ||
| In 2017, so right as President Trump took office the first time, less than 1% of people in this country lived in a state with a commitment to 100% wind and solar energy, renewable energy. | ||
| Now over 40% of people in this country live in states with that commitment. | ||
| So the point is states have started to lead. | ||
| They've been leading now for quite a while and they're going to continue to, whether it's around the endangerment finding, whether it's around tackling pollution, whether it's around bringing more renewable energy online. | ||
| They are going to continue to lead, but we need a federal government who is a partner in that. | ||
| And that's what we see with this EPA that is working to really just be open season, you know, kind of an open door for polluters and big oil CEOs to do whatever they want. | ||
| And then, you know, that it comes at our expense, both our health and our pocketbooks. | ||
| It's both those things, our health and our pocketbooks. | ||
| And I said blue states, that's an assumption. | ||
| Are red states willing to do that as well? | ||
| Is it primarily blue states or is it a bipartisan approach when it comes to these issues? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, there's definitely some bipartisanship. | |
| I think a lot of the strong leadership comes out of the bluer states. | ||
| But you look at some of the redder states, you look at a state like South Carolina, for example, where there is good progress on exactly these energy issues. | ||
| Again, because they see the economics around it, I think that's the thing that's so important, because I think that's not typically how people think about these issues, Pedro, is that this is an economic argument. | ||
| If you want to tackle these spikility bills, the way to do that is with clean energy. | ||
| It's the cheapest and the fastest to bring online. | ||
| And so the point is to your question, yes, it's their bipartisan understanding of that. | ||
| The other thing is jobs and projects, right? | ||
| We saw some members of Congress who ultimately voted for the budget reconciliation bill, which was something they absolutely should not have done. | ||
| But they talked about all the jobs and projects, manufacturing facilities in their districts that are helping people, you know, put money on the or bring money home, put food on the table, roof over their families' heads. | ||
| That is another way that we're going to win the future economic race as we bring more manufacturing here to the United States. | ||
| That's exactly what we were doing in the clean energy industry. | ||
| And we need to get back to doing that just as fast as we can. | ||
| Let's hear from Anthony. | ||
| Anthony joins us from New Jersey, Independent Line. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Hey, guys. | |
| Thanks for C-SPAN. | ||
| Yeah, I agree totally with Bill from New York. | ||
| Yes, there is greenhouse gases and it's overcoming the planet and that's happening. | ||
| I have never seen a plan, especially with the IRA, the Inflation Reduction Act, which is really another name for the Green New Deal. | ||
| You know, okay, let's give subsidies for more electric cars. | ||
| That's not really a plan. | ||
| That's just Washington at work. | ||
| What we need is really a plan. | ||
| I don't see a plan where we say like, if we had so many electric cars, this is how much the greenhouse gases would decrease because no plan exists. | ||
| And, you know, by having people from in the Washington communities, you know, just, okay, we have science and facts, but we don't never see a plan that lays it all out. | ||
| So, and I live in New Jersey and I object, and I will say you're wrong when you say that wind or solar is the cheapest. | ||
| We tried to have winds here in New Jersey offshore. | ||
| It was a European company they brought in. | ||
| They backed out because they said they couldn't meet their budget and costs overrides. | ||
| And in fact, because of that, our electric bills have gone up 25%. | ||
| So I just want to point that out. | ||
| And I know if we keep saying the words science and, you know, reckless and dangerous and people will die. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Yeah, that's good. | |
| Maybe Canada needs to hire more firemen. | ||
| That's what I think. | ||
| Thank you guys. | ||
| Have a great day. | ||
| Anthony, New Jersey. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Anthony, thanks for your comments. | |
| So appreciate that you're on. | ||
| Appreciate your New Jersey perspective. | ||
| You know, just a quick interesting way to think about that. | ||
| In that gubernatorial race, two states in the year after the presidential election elect their governors, Virginia and of course, your state, as you obviously know, Anthony, New Jersey, is the other one. | ||
| One of the candidates in that race, Mikey Sherrill, she's a former member of Congress, is talking about this issue from an affordability perspective. | ||
| She's really very compelling on it. | ||
| She's done some good papers on it. | ||
| She's done some good advertising on it. | ||
| Maybe you've seen it. | ||
| I'd encourage you to go look at it. | ||
| You and lots of folks, everybody who lives in New Jersey, to check it out, because she really is talking about how bringing, say, take, for example, community solar on top of an old dump that's been covered over, but isn't suitable for, you know, humans for people to go play on or live on, right? | ||
| Turn it into a community solar array. | ||
| That energy then feeds back into the grid. | ||
| And again, it's the cheapest and fastest we can bring on the grid. | ||
| So there's really, there's great examples out there. | ||
| There is a plan. | ||
| A lot of people have plans that they've been putting into action. | ||
| We were in the middle of putting a plan into action when Trump and Zeldon decided to try to undo it in part through the budget reconciliation bill. | ||
| Mr. Mason, he did bring up Canada wildfires there, the effects of smog and smoke here in the United States. | ||
| Isn't this an example of a natural phenomenon causing issues of concern and ways that we can't control it because wildfires do happen? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Wildfires happen. | |
| I mentioned that I'm in Estes Park, Colorado. | ||
| And yesterday we wanted to go outside and do some hiking and explore and poke around. | ||
| And we couldn't because of the terrible wildfire smoke that's blanketing this part of Colorado right now. | ||
| Those are from wildfires. | ||
| I think some in Canada, some in Colorado, some in other parts of the mountain west. | ||
| It's been a story that's been, you know, is all too common now for a number of years. | ||
| I grew up here in Colorado and that was not nearly the case, you know, for years and years and years when I was growing up here. | ||
| So this is a global problem. | ||
| That is undoubtedly true. | ||
| We all need to take action. | ||
| And that's not to say that, you know, everything is going to be made perfect. | ||
| We all know that's not the way the world works. | ||
| But we can make things better. | ||
| We can arrest the worst of these disasters. | ||
| And we can make sure that the disasters don't keep getting more and more extreme, more and more intense, which hurt our health. | ||
| So again, by taking action, we can be a global leader. | ||
| I think of the United States as a leader, not a laggard. | ||
| We can protect our health and we can protect our bottom line because it's a pro-affordability. | ||
| It's a low-cost way to help everybody in this country. | ||
| So the win-win-win that happens is significant, but we've got to be willing to take it on, which we were doing. | ||
| And then this action by the EPA is and the budget reconciliation bill both are attempting to walk backwards. | ||
| Well, let's end there then, since we started with that. | ||
| If this goes forward, are there legal recourses, other ways to keep this from happening? | ||
|
unidentified
|
Well, absolutely. | |
| I mean, certainly we can't stop fighting and working to tackle climate change. | ||
| So this is, it's a little bit like Pedro maybe, you know, when the bad guy in the movie is running away and he darts through the doors and stuff and he tries to slam doors behind him and pull, you know, furniture down to obstruct the, you know, the people that are trying to stop the bad guy from getting away. | ||
| It's to slow him down, right? | ||
| So what the EPA is trying to do is to slow down future attempts to make sure that we are smartly tackling the climate crisis. | ||
| We're not going to let that happen. | ||
| Whatever we need to do to respond to this, whether it's in the legal venue, and that certainly will be one way, there's a political venue and making sure that people who believe in climate change and have plans and want to lower costs for everybody in this country and make sure we're healthier are in office. | ||
| So there's a variety of ways moving forward that we'll be seeking to address this. | ||
| LCV.org is the website of the League of Conservation Voters. | ||
| Their president, Pete Maismith, joining us for this discussion. | ||
| Mr. Maismith, thank you so much for your time. | ||
|
unidentified
|
Pedro, thanks so much for having me. | |
| Take good care. | ||
| C-SPAN's Washington Journal, our live forum inviting you to discuss the latest issues in government, politics, and public policy from Washington and across the country. | ||
| Coming up Thursday morning, we'll discuss how congressional redistricting works and the ways both political parties have used it over the years with University at Buffalo political science professor Sean Donahue and later senior scholar of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security Dr. Amesh Adalja talks about recent changes made to U.S. vaccine policy by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. | ||
| C-SPAN's Washington Journal. | ||
| Join in the conversation live at 7 Eastern Thursday morning on C-SPAN. | ||
| C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, or online at c-span.org. | ||
| Have been watching C-SPAN Washington Journal for over 10 years now. | ||
| This is a great format that C-SPAN offers. | ||
| You're doing a great job. | ||
| I enjoy hearing everybody's opinion. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I'm a huge C-SPAN fan. | |
| I listen every morning on the way to work. | ||
| I think C-SPAN should be required viewing for all three branches of government. | ||
| First of all, if you say hello, C-SPAN, and how you'll cover the hearings. | ||
| Thank you, everyone at C-SPAN, for allowing this interaction with everyday citizens. | ||
| It's an amazing show to get real opinions from real people. | ||
| Appreciate you guys' non-biased coverage. | ||
|
unidentified
|
I love politics, and I love C-SPAN because I get to hear all the voices. | |
| You and C-SPAN show the truth. | ||
| Back to the universe for C-SPAN. | ||
| It's the one essential news network. | ||
| Book TV every Sunday on C-SPAN 2 features leading authors discussing their latest nonfiction books. | ||
| Here's a look at what's coming up this weekend. | ||
| At 2.15 p.m. Eastern, Carol Mosley Braun talks about her political life as the first African-American woman senator, presidential candidate, and ambassador in her book, Trailblazer. | ||
| Book TV commemorates the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with several author conversations. | ||
| Beginning at 3.15 p.m. Eastern, Ari Hota looks back at the attack on Pearl Harbor from the Japanese perspective. | ||
| Then at 4 p.m. Eastern, A.J. Boehm recalls the challenges that President Harry Truman faced during his first four months in office. | ||
| Max Hasting explores World War II from the personal point of view, using detailed stories of the lives of everyday people as they struggled to survive at 5.45 p.m. Eastern. | ||
| And at 6.45 p.m. Eastern, Susan Southard examines the impact the atomic bombing of Nagasaki had on the city and its people. | ||
| We also continue our celebration of America's 250th with author conversations on the American Revolution. | ||
| At 10 p.m. Eastern, Andrew Roberts looks back at the reign of King George III and argues that he has been misunderstood in his book, The Last King of America. |