Smoking Corn in a Smokehouse: Traditional Food Preservation Technique. Corn cobs hang, drying and absorbing smoky flavor, creating a rustic delicacy.

Parti Qubcois politician Roland Dussault proposes that a bus lane should be added to the Honor Mercier Bridge going from Chteauguay to Montreal. The Caughnawaga (Kahnawake, a Mohawk community) will provide security for the bus lane. PLEASE NOTE News anchor and reporter image and audio, along with any commercial production excerpts, are for reference purposes only and are not clearable and cannot be used within your project.

00:00:00:00 Mohawk Iron workers Rally outside Canadian Embassy to protest Canadian Govt treatment of tribe members in Kahnawake Quebec in dispute over plans to build golf course on sacred tribal ...

NAME: AUS WHALING 20080214Ix TAPE: EF08/0177 IN_TIME: 11:17:22:20 DURATION: 00:01:36:07 SOURCES: AuBC DATELINE: Melbourne, 14 Feb 2008 RESTRICTIONS: No Access Australia SHOTLIST 1. Wide of the Steve Irwin ship, belonging to activist group Sea Shepherd, docked in Melbourne 2. Close-up of sign on side of ship reading: "Steve Irwin, Rotterdam, Kahnawake" 3. Various of crew working on board 4. SOUNDBITE: (English) Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd Captain: "Well, in January, we were able to stop them from killing whales for three weeks. So, our objective this time is to try and stop them for three or four more weeks. That's going to make a substantial impact on their overall quota and also, as soon as we show up, they're going to start running and they're going to start wasting money on fuel. We cost them about two and a half (m) million dollars in fuel in January. We want to make this costly, and we want to expose what they're doing." 5. Pan of ship 6. SOUNDBITE: (English) Paul Watson, Sea Shepherd Captain: "Next year, I want to come back with two ships and relay them and constantly keep on their case. If we're constantly chasing them, they're not going to kill whales. I think we can shut this down." 7. Close-up of Sea Shepherd flag 8. Watson boarding ship 9. Crew working on ship 10. Tilt-up of ship 11. Pan from harbour to ship STORYLINE: Anti-whaling protest ship, the Steve Irwin, was preparing to leave Australia on Thursday, to head back to the Southern Ocean to resume its chase of the Japanese whaling fleet. The Sea Shepherd vessel has spent 12 days in Melbourne undergoing repairs, refuelling and re-supplying , and new crew members have been brought on board. Captain Paul Watson said local residents in Victoria state had donated money for fuel and other supplies during its stay in Melbourne. Last month, two crew members of the Steve Irwin climbed aboard the Japanese whaling boat Yushin Maru No. 2 in Antarctic waters and were detained by the crew for three days. They were eventually handed over to an Australian Customs vessel before being returned to the Sea Shepherd. A diplomatic row erupted last week between Australia and Japan when the federal government released graphic images of an adult and a calf minke whale being dragged on board a whaling ship. Watson said the Steve Irwin was due to leave Melbourne at 20.00 (0900 GMT). He said they intended to harass and intervene in "illegal" Japanese whaling for the next four to five weeks, when the whaling season was due to end. "In January, we were able to stop them from killing whales for three weeks. So, our objective this time is to try and stop them for three or four more weeks. That's going to make a substantial impact on their overall quota," Watson told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. "And also, as soon as we show up, they're going to start running and they're going to start wasting money on fuel. We cost them about two and a half million dollars in fuel in January. We want to make this costly, and we want to expose what they're doing," he added. Watson said he was working to secure a second ship to enable a non-stop pursuit in the 2008-2009 whaling season. "Next year, I want to come back with two ships and relay them and constantly keep on their case. If we're constantly chasing them, they're not going to kill whales. I think we can shut this down," he said. The 32 crew members on board the Steve Irwin include 15 Australians and volunteers from New Zealand, Canada, the United States, Sweden, South Africa, the Netherlands, Britain and Spain.

CS of notice nailed to post at boundary of Kahnawake Reserve stating that any non-Indigenous person entering the area will be subject to Mohawk law.

AP-APTN-0930: Vatican Saint Saturday, 20 October 2012 STORY:Vatican Saint- +4:3 Kateri Tekakwitha to become first Native American saint in ceremony on Sunday LENGTH: 02:51 FIRST RUN: 0330 RESTRICTIONS: See Script TYPE: English/Natsound SOURCE: AP TELEVISION/KOMO TV STORY NUMBER: 863648 DATELINE: Various/FILE LENGTH: 02:51 SHOTLIST: AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Rome - 19 October 2012 ++16:9++ 1. Wide of St Peter's Square 2. Mid of tapestry hanging in Vatican with painting of Kateri Tekakwitha on it 3. Mid of Finkbonner family walking KOMO-TV- AP CLIENTS ONLY FILE: Date and location unknown ++4:3++ 4. Home video footage of Jake Finkbonner before incident which saw him attacked by skin-eating bacteria 5. STILL of of Jake before incident AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Rome - 18 October 2012 ++16:9++ 6. SOUNDBITE (English) Jake Finkbonner, Twelve-year-old boy from Washington state, USA: "When my face hit the support bar on the basketball hoop, where it cut my lip open, and the infection entered through there." 7. Close of Jake's hands 8. SOUNDBITE (English) Elsa Finkbonner, Jake's mother: "I think it was Wednesday when Father Tim was able to come down and offer Jake his last rites, and it was at that time that Father Tim suggested that we pray for Blessed Kateri's intercession, that she too was of Native-American descent and that she was infected with smallpox. And so, it started immediately, within his first two days that he was there, that we began to pray for her intercession." 9. STILL of painting of Kateri Tekakwitha 10. Pan of Elsa, Jake and Don Finkbonner and Father Tim Sauer 11. SOUNDBITE (English) Father Tim Sauer, Parish priest, former priest on the Lummi Reservation: "I believe that if a miracle could be attributed successfully to Kateri's intercession, it would be a wonderful boost of faith for Native-American Catholics all over North America." 12. Close of painting of Kateri Tekakwitha KOMO-TV - AP CLIENTS ONLY FILE: December 20, 2011, unknown location ++16:9++ 13. SOUNDBITE (English) Jake Finkbonner, Twelve-year-old boy from Washington state, USA: "It makes me feel like I am doing something for God, bringing more people back into his community." AP TELEVISION - AP CLIENTS ONLY Vatican City - 17 October 2012 ++16:9++ 14. Mid of Swiss Guards with Pope in background in St Peter's Square 15. Canadian pilgrims attending canonisation of Kateri Tekakwitha 16. SOUNDBITE (English) Garfield Barlow, Pilgrim from Indian Island First Nation, New Brunswick, Canada: "We're here for the canonisation of an Indian lady that is on her way to becoming a saint. She's been waiting to become a saint almost 400 years, and now I think, I'm pretty sure, it's the first Indian lady from Canada or North America to become a saint. So it's a very proud day for us." 17. Close of medal with face of Kateri Tekakwitha pinned to shirt of a pilgrim 18. SOUNDBITE (English) Boris Copage, Pilgrim from Elsipogtog First Nation, New Brunswick, Canada: "And we have been praying to her for too long and now she is a saint, that's why we're here." 19. Wide of tapestries of new saints hanging on side of St Peter's Basilica 20. SOUNDBITE (English) Cindy Ginnish, Eel Ground First Nation, New Brunswick, Canada: "This is our very first saint. You know, she was a Mohawk, you know, that lived in 1600s." 21. Mid of Canadian pilgrims attending canonisation of Kateri Tekakwitha 22. Wide pan of St Peter's Basilica STORYLINE: Twelve-year-old Jake Finkbonner sits on a roof-top terrace near the Vatican between his two parents, stifling a yawn as they recount his story one more time. It has been a long, painful journey that has brought him to the centre of the Catholic world. Jake has undergone 29 operations since he was attacked by a skin-eating bacteria. As he explains, he was five-years-old when he took a tumble playing basketball, and hit his mouth at the base of the hoop. What is known as a "strep A" - or "flesh-eating bacteria" - entered his body. His mother Elsa says that just a few days later a priest was called in to give him his last rites at the Children's Hospital in Seattle. His family thought it was the end. Jake is of Native-American descent, from the Lummi Nation, a group of Native Americans based in Washington state. The priest called in to give the last rites was Father Tim Sauer, who proudly stands near Jake and his family in Rome. Sauer was the priest on the Lummi Reservation, and Jake's parents were of Lummi descent. Father Tim decided to urge the family, friends and members of the parish to pray to Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha for his recovery. One nun, Sister Kateri Mitchell, even brought a relic of Tekakwitha and held it over Jake's leg and prayed for Kateri's intercession to save Jake. Jake survived and his case was chosen by the Vatican as the second miracle needed to raise Blessed Kateri Tekakwitha to sainthood. Jake has come to Rome with his family to take part in the Vatican ceremony on Sunday that will make Kateri Takakwitha a saint. Father Tim Sauer believes this canonisation will give a huge boost to Native American Catholics. Kateri Tekakwitha was born in 1656 in what is now upstate New York to a Mohawk father and an Algonquin mother. When she was four-years-old, smallpox ravaged her village, killing her parents and brother. Kateri survived but was covered with scars and left nearly blind. The tribe began calling her Tekakwitha meaning "she who bumps into things". Through contacts with Jesuit missionaries in the area, Kateri became a Christian. When her uncle organised a marriage for her to an Iroquois man, Kateri chose to flee her village and headed north, joining a Native-American Christian community called Kahnawake in Canada rather than marry. In Kahnawake, Kateri made a vow of chastity and dedicated herself to helping the elderly, the sick and working with children. She spent long hours in prayer and penance on her knees outside, despite the bitter cold. She became ill at age 24 and died of exposure. The Jesuits, who kept records of her life, say immediately after her death all the pockmarks on her body disappeared. Following her death, Native Americans and settlers began praying for her intercession and Kateri was credited with physical healings and divine acts. In the 1880s Catholics began pushing the Vatican to make her a saint. For someone to become a saint, the Vatican must have proof of a miracle attributed to that person. Jake Finkbonner has provided that miracle. Jake himself takes a very realistic view on the issue, noting on his website: "Please don't confuse the issue which is that my survival is a miracle. We thank the doctors at Children's Hospital for all that they did to save my life. I wouldn't be here without them. I also thank all the people that prayed for me. Obviously, God heard their prayers. This decision to canonise Blessed Kateri is something that the Vatican and the Pope declared, based on testimonies given by parishioners, my family and my doctors." Native Americans from across North America have begun arriving in Rome to be a part of Sunday's canonisation ceremony. They were distinguishable by their T-shirts with a Indian woman with two braids as they wandered around the Vatican. A group of Native-Americans from Canada's First Nations of New Brunswick, Canada. Cindy Ginnish of Eel Ground First Nation in New Brunswick told the AP that this event is "huge" for their community because she is "our first saint". Garfield Barlow of Indian Island First Nation in New Brunswick said: "She's been waiting to become a saint almost 400 years and now... so it's a very proud day for us." Clients are reminded: (i) to check the terms of their licence agreements for use of content outside news programming and that further advice and assistance can be obtained from the AP Archive on: Tel +44 (0) 20 7482 7482 Email: infoaparchive.com (ii) they should check with the applicable collecting society in their Territory regarding the clearance of any sound recording or performance included within the AP Television News service (iii) they have editorial responsibility for the use of all and any content included within the AP Television News service and for libel, privacy, compliance and third party rights applicable to their Territory. APTN AP-WF-10-20-12 1023GMT

Various shots of Indigenous children enjoying themselves in and around a swimming pool, swimming and diving off a diving board. HAMLS of the Caughnawaga (Kahnawake) Celebration Center welcome sign. Several shots of Indigenous people milling about, some wearing feathers, some working at the preparations for the festival. Incidental shots of a log stockade in the background. Sequence on a canoe race, men portaging canoes from stockade to river. LSs of Indigenous canoes racing. Various shots of costumed Indigenous women, youngsters doing dances on a platform. Sequence on a lacrosse game in progress between two junior teams. PAN of the Caughnawaga (Kahnawake) village.

Some 8,000 people live on the Kahnawake Indian Reserve near Montreal -- but not all of them are Mohawks. With less than 50 square kilometres of land and some attractive tax benefits, tribal chiefs have long been trying to enforce the residency rules which forbid non-Mohawks from settling there. Now the reserve has taken the step of issuing eviction notices to those who don't qualify -- even if it means splitting families down the middle. Montreal Canada(Footage by AFPTV via Getty Images)

TVU 23 DEMOCRAT PARADISE NV MOVING AMERICA FORWARD FORUM ABC UNI 021620 2020 Pete Buttigieg Amy Klobuchar Joe Biden Tom Steyer BIDEN [17:20:28] To measure. Just they like you. [17:20:35] Election. I guess they like you. Oh, I thought so. There's an election code now. The election is set for things like infrastructure. [17:20:45] Thank you for. Thank you for joining us. Thanks for having me. Let's start at the 10000 foot level, so to speak. You know, as we were just discussing. America's infrastructure needs work. The roads, the bridges, the highways of America, the airports, the water systems, they all need to work off the board with a trillion dollar deficit. [17:21:05] It's hard to know where to start. But at the same time, every Democratic candidate also thinks that it's important that the country move away from a fossil fuel, energy and transportation system to a more green climate friendly system. So the question is, if you've got to set priorities, where do you start? You start with fixing the old infrastructure or you start with moving on to a new climate friendly green infrastructure in this country. [17:21:31] I think it's a false choice. And if you do both. I think you start off with the fixing the broken infrastructure in a modern way. For example, every every one of those bridges we're talking about, you know, we're we're going to spend billions more over time as these collapse cause trouble. You see people losing their lives. But also, we can modernize them in a considerable way in terms of making them energy efficient. [17:21:58] We can make sure, for example, that I want to do for all the existing highways that should be repaired. And in addition to new ones put in literally five hundred thousand new charging stations over the B in the 2020s. And we can do that. It's not like it's you know, when I say that to people, I know this is infrastructure crowd, you all get it. But I say that to ordinary people out there and they go, what? [17:22:20] What do you mean charging stations? I say, never go to big city, watch all those scooters go around. They just plug in. Well, there's a lot we can do that can create good, good jobs that are our labor jobs that are paying 50, 60 bucks an hour. And still at the same time, both increase the the efficiency of all the infrastructure as well as making it green. There's a lot more examples. I don't want to I know I only have a little bit of time. So when I stop there. [17:22:46] Well, I guess that raises the second most important question, and that is how do you pay for it? Gas tax stalled as it is. What how how do you how do you pay for it? [17:22:57] Well, we're so far behind the eight ball. One of the things you may remember, we had a thing called the Recovery Act. Nine hundred billion dollars. The president would be in charge of it. He loved to do a State of the Union to say, and Joe's going to you never tell me ahead of time. Now, Sheriff Joe's gonna take care of this. [17:23:12] Well, Sheriff, go, Joe. Got to spend $90 billion in infrastructure out of that package. And we did a great deal of work. But what we did was we provided a large number of programs that, in fact, were for every dollar we spent. We brought $4 off of all off the sidelines in private dollars, state dollars, because, you know, I heard you speaking in the beginning. You and I were standing back there that what you have is, you know, it's not infrastructure. [17:23:42] It's not a Republican or Democrat thing. It used to be Republicans used to like infrastructure. They used to actually build it. You know, every month the Erie Canal on. But any rate and what happens is that if you want to grow American business in enterprise, you've got to have the most modern ports. You've got to have the most bonder and airports. You've got to have the most modern locks and dams. You've got to be able to get product from your factory to the customer quickly. [17:24:07] And so there's overwhelming incentive and there's a desire in the local areas as well as among businesses to want to invest if they know the federal government's in. And the way I start off with us and I come from the corporate state of America. You've heard of a Dupont, you know, Delaware. It used to be the eighth largest corporation. The world no longer is. But the point is that we reduce the corporate tax to 21 percent. I raise it back to 28 percent. I think we get some Republicans to support that as well. [17:24:36] That raises $800. I mean, 740 billion dollars over 10 years. I have a one point three trillion dollar infrastructure plan that breaks out and a whole bunch of ways we can talk about. But that's number one. Number two, we should. There are no corporations that are paying any tax at all. So there should be a minimum 15 percent when they report earnings to Wall Street to keep their stock up. [17:25:03] Well, whatever that number is, they report they got to pay 15 percent of that no matter what exemptions they have. Now, if they in fact, they're paying at 21 percent corporate tax rate across the board, they don't have to pay that. But a minimum of 15 percent. But that's another four hundred and twenty billion dollars. Again, one of the things that's happened and now you're all kind of looking at like I hope Bob Biden will get that make that happen. Well, I'm pretty good at getting those kinds of things happen in the Congress. But here's the reason. [17:25:29] The reason is Republicans out there, Republican voters are going, hey, wait a minute, man. Yeah, there's one point nine trillion dollar tax cut. Didn't help me a whole hell of a lot of a mountain top. A couple percent middle class is getting killed. A lot of those folks are middle class Republicans and middle class conservative on social values and the rest. But there's a I believe the Band-Aids kind of been ripped off here and people are ready to do rational. Things, rational things that include the gas tax. [17:25:58] Well, I don't think we have to do that. I think we've got to put in $50 billion off the bat on the tax. The gas tax coming from those tax. Those additional taxes. But I don't think we're. I've tried this before. We're not going to be able to raise the gas tax or may be able to index it down the line. But I don't think going to be able to raise the gas tax from what it is now to what it would be if we had been raised for inflation. [17:26:23] But it would allow you to do all you had to do in the first $50 billion you could do to invest in modernizing those highways, not counting, building new ones. And one part we haven't we haven't talked about at all is that I think the biggest sector and I don't want to get him a trouble, Mayor Garcetti. He can tell you that, in fact, more energy, time and wages are lost. Sitting on an L.A. freeway and you can go beyond L.A. and go to Chicago, got a lot of places. [17:26:52] And if we're able to use the technology that is on the cusp of being able to have, first of all, more transit or transit, we're in a position where, for example, when I was asked to bail out Detroit, put Detroit together, I bet I was mean. That was one of the jobs I was given. I was able to I was able to pick from any part of the government. What we found out was that 60 percent of the people lived in the city. Their jobs were out of town, but they didn't have automobiles. So we put in light rail it a modernized in it and it made a fundamental change in the economic growth in that area. And it didn't add more automobiles to the to the to the highways. [17:27:37] Number one. Number two, if we take a look at what the president allowed me to do, what we did. The first part, the Recovery Act we came up with for I'm a big rail guy. Okay. And High-Speed Rail. If we just took the three Carters that we had already appropriated the money for, including New York from New Jersey through the tunnels, Edmond Modernizers, 1916, all the way from Orlando to Tampa, all the way from Jeffrey, from Choose Me from Tallahassee, all the way across into Mississippi. [17:28:09] These are high speed rail areas where you all know and again, I know there's a lot of transportation people out there. You get people out of their car into a train or into a view into another method. If, in fact, you can guarantee them they can get there in the same amount of time with the same amount of reliability. We can do that. [17:28:28] There is no reason why we shouldn't be able to build in those carters we've identified, including Chicago and up that way. Jet can go 220 miles an hour if you just stay that we can't do this now. But if state now three curves, three curves, and from Washington to New York, you could reduce the travel time. And I've made over I've traveled over two million one hundred thousand miles on Amtrak. That's the God's truth. [17:28:55] That's what these guys are real. Tell me if you straighten out those three curves, which would be a lot now, because you're going to have a lot of eminent domain, you'd have real problems of if you're ever to straighten out those three curves. You can get there in an hour and a half. Fundamentally changing every single band, every single lane highway on I-95. Jerry, one lane, 20 million bucks. Do the same thing on railroad. You're talking about above 4 million. [17:29:20] But let me ask you, you you you mentioned Republicans and that there should be some bipartisan support for doing the kinds of things you're talking about. One of the things Republicans say in a Republican in particular named Donald J. Trump says, is that one of the reasons these thing not a Republican, OK. [17:29:38] You can laugh. A lot of your Republicans, you know, he's not a Republican Party. [17:29:48] Ain't your father's Republican Party? That's true. [17:29:52] So one of the things Republicans generically say is that one of the reasons these things don't happen is they're the regulation to slow them down. They slow down infrastructure. They make them more expensive, particularly environmental regulations. And the Trump administration has tried to do something about that. Are they right? [17:30:10] They're right, but they get the wrong answer. Look at we did the Triborough Bridge. Look, we did a number of we were fundamentally eliminated ans streamlined the ability to get through all of the regulatory requirements that were necessary. You see what's happening in the New York airport at LaGuardia. [17:30:27] So absolutely, we can in fact, streamline significantly without damaging the environment. It's a matter of I'll give you concrete example. When the president asked me to deal with with anyway, I was asked to put together a cabinet initiative and on health care. And I turned to one of the major cabinet holders and I said, why would you have your assistant? This was on February the 7th. And they said, well, we'll have one by the end of the year. I said, tell you what, if you don't have one by March, the first, you're fired. [17:31:02] He said, you can't fire me. I should go talk to the president. Guess what? We had won and we can have. It's not. No, I'm not being facetious. Now I give my word. I'm not kidding. A lot of it has to do with the knowledge that not you have to find some new answer is you have to make a priority to invest in that piece, whatever that piece is. And we can significantly streamline regulations without doing everything from a danger to the the Endangered Species Act all the way straight through to generating more pollution. [17:31:32] And we've done that a number of places. And I would have somebody in the White House had one job. One job at all. Just one. I mean, you're certainly doing nothing but streamlining projects. But do it within the context of having people who, in fact, know what they're talking about in terms of the environment. Most of it is just bureaucratic delay. [17:31:54] You mentioned setting priorities. And we've talked about new trains and, you know, new projects that can be built faster if we streamline regulations. And yet most jobs in infrastructure are in maintenance. And what a lot of people talk about are the crumbling infrastructure of America. So what how do you prioritize that? Do you fix the crumbling part or do you just build all the shiny new? [17:32:25] Well, you have to do both. I mean, it's not I don't think it's either or choice. For example. For example, if you're talking about our ports, you have to build ports that are ready to handle these Panamax ships that are out OK, but it didn't mean you don't have to go back and restore the docks. At the same time, you're increasing the size, scope and a cap on capability. And the cranes that take them off docks, you need both. [17:32:55] YOu have to go out and dredge, which you always had to do, which were way behind on haven't done. You've been able to find spoil air areas. You provide for the spoils, but that's all stuff. But the new stuff is the new kind of cranes. The speed with which it happens. Access from the highway, the height of the interstate highway to the port. We did that in South Kahnawake. Died to help. Didn't do that down in Savannah. We're doing that in Florida. [17:33:24] So I don't see them as either or in the maintenance pieces. We've got to maintain. We have to maintain not only what we have to bring up to snuff, what is out there that's not haven't been maintained. But you've got the new initiatives are going to be much more much, much more capable of sustaining long jefty without this kind of intensive maintenance that's been needed in the past. It's called technology. [17:33:49] And I'm not being a wise guy when I say that. I didn't mean that as a disrespectful way, but that the new technologies are capable of being able to do so much more, for example. There's no reason why at our ports we don't have solar capacity to be able to make sure that we save a whole hell of energy, create a lot of new jobs for people out there, just like here in California. I mean, here in Nevada, go got to take a valley. [17:34:15] They're there, but they're building a 600 megawatt capacity out there. We should be invested in how you transfer that capacity from here to the Midwest and to other parts of the country. We don't have we've not invested the time, energy or money into deciding how you transmit clean energy, whether it's wind or solar. So I've I've honestly got I've not seen that dichotomy. For example, last example, water. Water is a big problem. [17:34:44] There's a lot of potable water that's in real trouble. Well, we have to dig up those old wooden pipes. That's true. But the new pipes we put in the gnomic because we put we ever put in should be much more resilient. We have half the pipes in the ground and therefore over 40, 50 years already. And so you can't say I'm going to just go new without dealing with what's there, in my view. [17:35:10] So before we run out of time, we want to ask some questions that were sent to us by readers and by members of the coalition that's sponsoring here. And one of these questions touches on a subject that hasn't come up yet, which is airports. Richard from Las Vegas asks this. He says, Here in Las Vegas, the County Department of Aviation is developing a new second airport to serve growing southern Nevada. [17:35:32] House Democrats released an infrastructure framework which for the first time in 20 years increases the airport passenger facility, charge it, indexes it to inflation to help remedy airport overcrowding and terminals and increases in a crease in delays on runways. As president, would you sign a bill to increase the passenger facility charge to modernize airport infrastructure, charge passengers? Yes, I would. What it is, is about 5.4. [17:35:56] I think it's about five point four percent now. Yes, I would. But the second piece of this theory is that one of the things that's going to happen is let me give you an example on the East Coast. Every single solitary airport from Maine to Florida, that is within 50 miles of the water, actually has fewer people getting on and off an aircraft and are on Amtrak every day. And that. Carter, let's just get some something straight. [17:36:20] So the idea and we continue to subsidize, for example, the tunes of hundreds of millions of dollars, an airport, a boom in Bemidji, Minnesota. Well, maybe you have to still you have to help that, but a lot can change. Jerry, if we look at the transportation net in a way that's different than we've looked at it before. And the way to deal with it, it seems to me, is not just decide we're going to continue the same pattern of distribution of and modernize it and maybe make it real. But you're going to change the way in which regional airports work. [17:36:53] For example, in Philadelphia, a big airport. Wilmington, Delaware, has a large airport that is mostly private. And what happens is that that's a review. Not because of me, but that's where Air Force One practices and landings and takeoffs every. [17:37:10] So that was a good omen. But but rarely all kidding aside, that's all the capacity. [17:37:16] So what we should be doing is figuring out the way in which we deal with routes. Why do we have the routes we have now and our major airports that are so overcrowded? Well, because not over my house. Not over my house. I get that. So you able to redirect. And I'm it's beyond my pay grade to know exactly how to do it. But we should be able to integrate regional airports that are already there. Small airports are already there among the big regional airports to deal with part of the capacity and the overload. But I would, in fact, sign a bill that raised that tax. [17:37:51] So Jim D from Knoxville has a question that has to do with what really becomes the friction between the Democrats desire to bring green jobs and green agendas to the table, but still maintain in many ways the old infrastructure that feeds fossil fuels. So his question is, would you consider national tolls as a possibility to reduce congestion and pay for some of the maintenance or a congestion tax or anything like that to try to get some cars off the road? [17:38:33] Is it Jim? Yes, Jim. Look, I don't see them as you have to change the transportation structure, the network, the structure. [17:38:45] If you have people that you had running through every major city and a a a commuter line there was in the middle of a four lane highway is going to allow those cities. [17:38:56] You could radically reduce the number of people that are on that highway. You would save billions of dollars in lost wages. You'd save billions of gallons of gasoline over time. But so this say you suggest that, well, we have to do is keep the exact same system network as we have it. I wish we had a great big board up here that we could actually draw on the board. The means by which you get from point A to point B, that's got to change. It's going to change and it has to change. [17:39:30] But when it changes, what we've what I've found when I did the Recovery Act was we got, for example, we were able. We had great problems in South Carolina. And I did didn't want to you know, they had problems with the port and maintaining the port. [17:39:44] Well, guess what? Turns out a significant portion of the things that get shipped out of that port gets shipped to them from the Midwest on railroads. But the railroad system was at was backwards, was not working very well. So we took money. We invested in that as well as the Port of Baltimore, kept him an awful lot of factories in Ohio opened up or opened because we get from the product, from the factory to to the port by doing some imaginative stuff, taking and reconnecting railroad systems that used to exist but have fallen apart. [17:40:20] They've fallen apart, particularly freight rail. And so I guess what I'm saying is I think we keep thinking of this. And how do you maintain the old structure or rank, what, twenty eight? Twenty ninth in Society of Engineers. I've met that with a while ago. I think we're twenty eighth or twenty ninth most modern infrastructure in the world. The United States of America, 28 or 29. [17:40:41] You're gonna open up a new factory. You can open up in Hong Kong. You're going to open up in Baltimore. You open in San Francisco. You can open up. And you know, another place that invested billions of dollars in getting from factory to ship and out. [17:40:57] And so I just think we have to think of it in a different way and doesn't mean you ignore the past. It does mean you walk away from it. But it means instead of investing billions of dollars in things that no longer are viewed as the best way to get from point A to point B, whether it's you or product, you can do it. [17:41:17] And when you rebuild it, you can build it. So it is greener. There's no rationale to bill any new infrastructure project. It is agreed, for example, of the billion three hundred trillion dollars of the trillion three hundred billion dollars that I call for over 10 years. And my infrastructure plan. One hundred billion of it goes into making sure that our Fehmi 100 million modernizing our schools. How many of you live in a school district? [17:41:42] You worried you could go to drink the water of the fountain or there's still asbestos in the air? No, I'm serious. I'm deadly earnest or we've taken away tax credit. So you don't. The wind comes blowing through the windows. [17:41:54] You're using so much more energy than you need to use. It makes sense. We can save a lot of money. We can create six million new union jobs. [17:42:05] And by the way, I won't make it clear so far for you Republicans to tear every single thing in my administration. [17:42:13] It's infrastructure job is gonna be Davis-Bacon. It's going to be everyone. [17:42:19] I really mean it because guess what that does? [17:42:22] That generates economic growth within communities. They invest, they build, they stay, they build better homes. [17:42:29] They go out and they do invest more money. And that's where we had a big fight in that that 90 billion dollars, Jerry, that I was in charge of making sure we got about. I insisted every single dollar had to be had to be Davis-Bacon. [17:42:45] And so but the point I'm not trying to be good or it just. But I think we think. Too small. I think we think in terms of when you spend money, you increase salaries. You provide good paying jobs that pay 50, 60 bucks an hour plus benefits that somehow that hurts everybody. The wealthy get wealthier. The middle class is able to sustain itself and the poor have a way up. [17:43:10] That's what it's about. And it's never not been that way. No one's ever shown me a model to suggest that when you have hard work and people and the way I say it to make a point. [17:43:22] If all of a sudden every I work in America went on strike, we had a choice. Every iwere goes on strike or every IBEW member goes on strike, quits for six months or every Wall Street banker quits. [17:43:37] I'm not being facetious. Think about it. It will come to a screeching halt, screeching halt. We should pay these people. And by the way, business trying to take over apprenticeship programs. Not on my watch. [17:43:55] Propagated more than you wanted to hear, less than you needed. I'm sorry. No, no, that's fine. [17:43:59] No, you got us off to a great start and we. And we appreciated your passion for this subject is is really appreciated. And I can't get those millions of miles on Amtrak out of my head now. [17:44:12] Anyway, the way they told me I when I got elected, I there was an accident. My family lost family. I started to go home every night thinking I was only going to stay for six months while I made they tell me over 100, 250 miles a day. I made thousands and thousands of round trips to get home. So that's the only reason I went up. And I got criticized for them naming a train station after me in Dover. She did the whole damn line. [17:44:41] Anyway. Thank you. Thank you very much. Sure. STEYER [17:45:59] Thank you. Thank you for being here. My pleasure. [17:46:02] So we're trying to suss out with all of the candidates the balance that they tried to seek when they look ahead at what their infrastructure priorities and agenda would be when you become president. We have water problems, we have road problems. We have all sorts of airport problems. We have problems with everything that's buried under the ground for the last 50 years and everything that goes across water. So you have limited funds. How do you balance it? What are your priorities? Where would you put the limited resources that you have in to your projects? [17:46:43] So let me say this. There are different ways to do infrastructure in this world. And one of the ways is to raise tax money and spend it. And I think that that's an important way to do it. And we're going to talk about that. [17:46:57] On Monday, the first day of my presidency, I would declare a climate emergency and start changing the rules under which private corporations are allowed to generate energy about the way the kinds of cars they're allowed to produce and the kinds of building efficiency rules they have to operate under. Those are also infrastructure projects. They just don't come under the budget of the United States government. [17:47:21] And so I think on day one, I would declare a climate emergency and we would order those rules and we would prioritize them based on the impact they'd have on dealing with our climate crisis. And so those are not ones that would hit the budget of the United States or take congressional approval in order to have it happen. [17:47:42] But starting on day one, we would move the country forward in terms of spending hundreds of billions of dollars through the private sector to ensure that we start moving on our climate crisis and we send a message to the people in the country and the rest of the world that this is our top priority and we're gonna get it done. [17:48:00] So would you would you move federal money away from traditional infrastructure projects, roads, bridges, potholes to green energy? A and B, do you think the federal government should subsidize the production of electric cars to move the country toward the green environment you want to see? [17:48:21] So let me say this. [17:48:23] Everything that we're gonna do, we're gonna view from the standpoint of climate. But there's a series we have a an infrastructure backlog, including roads and bridges. That is really cutting into our efficiency as a country and our, you know, making rural America very putting into the executed disadvantage. [17:48:41] But we also have a gigantic housing problem in the sense that we probably have 7 million too few affordable housing units in this country. That is also got to be solved from the standpoint of the federal government and from the standpoint of climate, that when we build 7 million new units, they're going to have to be done in a climate smart way. [17:49:02] So in answer to your question, Jerry, really, there's no way to distinguish between the needs of the people and the needs of the climate because we have to deal with the needs of the people real time. But we have to do it in a smart way. [17:49:14] And would you on the electric vehicles front? Would you use government resources to further the use of electric vehicles by subsidizing their production or their purchase? [17:49:24] Well, what we've seen is that over time, the cost of electric vehicles is coming down and it has to reach a point where it's comparable to. You know, internal combustion cars, and so the question is going to be how long does it take for that to happen and what do we have to do in order to make it price competitive for American consumers? [17:49:45] I don't think we're going to have to do that. I believe that, in fact, the the ingenuity of Americans is gonna get us to electric cars that are cheaper than internal combustion cars and are going to be safe. When you take everything into account. So what I really think is going to happen is we're gonna have to push for that to happen faster. And if we have to subsidize things in the short run in order to get the good answer,. [17:50:05] I think actually the way that we'll be spending money on this is most likely to be to help cut families with cash for Clunkers. I think that it's much more likely that the government ends up buying back polluting vehicles so people can go and buy cleaner vehicles without loss than it is that we're gonna actually subsidize production as much as you've made climate. [17:50:28] Clearly the top priority here. They big projects that have been proposed in the past face great opposition from locals. We have the wind farm off Cape Cod, 16 years in the making, still not done. Eminent domain remains an option for the federal government. That's enormously unpopular. So how do you manage that tension? [17:50:56] Should the federal government have more say in land use issues? How how do you how would you balance the desires of a local community to remain unchanged and a priority the federal government to change the country? [17:51:13] Well, let me say this. To the extent that we have a crisis, than the federal government's going to have to exercise its authority. But actually, when you look at eminent domain, the examples that I've seen have mostly to do with pipelines that the real eminent domain question has been how are we gonna build the Keystone Pipeline across a bunch of farms in Nebraska or how or what are we gonna do with the Dakota Access Pipeline? In fact, what we're talking about to a very large stand in terms of clean energy is concentrated. [17:51:44] Economic activities in close built places, public transportation, building upgrades. It's actually kind of you're right about the offshore windmills that people have fought from the standpoint of the views from their houses. But by and large, what we're what we've really seen is that clean energy is not something that has had a huge pushback in terms of eminent domain. And I don't expect that it will. [17:52:15] What we're really talking about is rebuilding America in a more concentrated fashion, pushing things together and trying to make sure that we have as much clean transportation, as much public transportation and as concentrated housing as possible. The real big numbers here and I'm sitting here looking at them, have to do with building upgrades, roads and bridges, clean transportation and housing. [17:52:39] So a lot of the federal government's spending on infrastructure is financed through the gas tax, which replenishes the highway fund, been stagnant for a quarter of a century. The level of the gas tax. People argue for raising the gas tax for two reasons. One is it helps replenish the highway trust fund pays for the infrastructure. And second. Some would argue it discourages continued use of fossil fuels with those things in mind. Would you raise the federal gas tax? [17:53:06] Look, I think what we've seen in California is that that's a super politically sensitive thing. What we are definitely going to have to do is raise taxes. And the question is, is it going to be on consumers? Is it going to be on businesses? If you look at my actual plan, I have a plan to roll back the giveaways to big corporations and rich people. I have a plan for a wealth tax. I should tell people from The Wall Street Journal that I have a plan to treat investment income on the exact same schedule for people that I treat earned income. [17:53:38] If you do that, you get trillions of dollars. So in fact, my goal in this is not to do a regressive consumer tax. Exact opposite. We have a regressive tax system right now. My goal is actually to have a much more progressive tax to undo the tax giveaways of the last 40 years to get and to actually tax wealth in a different way because we actually concentrated wealth in an unacceptable fashion in our society. [17:54:05] My God. Yeah. Look, my goal in this is to raise wages, have more money, come in in a much more progressive fashion and rebuild America in a way that everybody knows. We have to do it and we can easily afford to do it. We just have to get over the idea that rich people don't pay taxes anymore. [17:54:27] Well, testing the limits of fear, green agenda. Would you consider imposing fuel standards, new renewable fuel standards on commercial airplanes? And would you? Right now, the Pentagon is really the only agency that's doing big R&D because obviously the needs that they have, they're all of their planes. Would you invest more money into the Pentagon program and in order to get to a point where you could impose such a stand? [17:54:59] So that's actually a great question. I'll tell you why you haven't figured it out. It's a great question, because in most of the areas of energy, we can see technologies that are either already cheaper than fossil fuel technologies or you can look at a decline curve where they're going to be cheaper. So you can look at solar and wind and say it's cheaper than fossil fuel energy. You can look at electric cars and say, realistically, these can be cheaper. This is not going to be penalizing consumers. [17:55:28] We're on a decline curve where you can see that there'll be more than competitive. The place where it's not true, which is why I'm complimenting you on the question, is on airplanes, because we haven't really seen any kind of technological breakthrough that will really change this. So the question is, how are we actually going to deal with a large source of greenhouse gases, which is air to air traffic? [17:55:52] In a way that we don't destroy it, but also charge people fairly and push towards clean. So the easiest thing to say here, which you brought up with fairly, is that we'll spend a bunch of money on research and development to try and come up with a substitute for, you know, gasoline. And that's easy to say. The Pentagon is doing it. [17:56:13] And we should push as hard on biofuels and whatever we can come up with as possible. The real question will be if that doesn't work or we can't see it working fast enough. How do we respond to that? Is that by charging people for the cost of their pollution and therefore putting a tax on the gasoline itself? Or what do we actually do? [17:56:33] I think that's probably the easiest, simplest thing to do is to charge people for the pollution that they're creating. But it would be a hell of a lot better if, in fact, we spend a bunch of money on coming up with alternatives. So we don't have to cut down on them on the actuals, you know, activity itself. [17:56:50] So the transition to electric vehicles that you talk about requires a national network of recharging stations. Is the construction of such a network the job of the government, or is that the role of the private sector? [17:57:04] Well, the question is going to be how it gets charged for. Because, you know, the truth is gas stations are quite lucrative businesses where people basically charge and make money for every gallon of gasoline and then sell you a bunch of sandwiches and Coca-Cola. The question is going to be, does that kind of activity work? [17:57:27] Once you have electric vehicles, how long does it take to actually charge your vehicle? And you know how practical it is. How do people end up doing it? So to the extent it's like a gasoline station, then it is going to be private to the extent that it isn't. And we end up with a different form of charging like at home or business at a place where it's going to be much more hard than, in fact, the government's gonna end up having to spend much money on. [17:57:53] Well, to follow on that, if the government invests all that money into creating this charging system, then to protect that infrastructure, do you not have cyber worries? What would you have to do to make sure someone didn't hack that system and bring the country to a screeching halt? [17:58:14] Well, to be fair, that exists right now. You know, if you're saying that basically having a series of electric charging stations makes us vulnerable to somebody hacking the electricity system so you can no longer charge your vehicles. That's true of our electricity system right now. And, you know, and we saw what happened. [17:58:31] I think it was in Ohio when a tree fell against an electric line and wiped out like three states electricity for a couple of days. We're very subject to that. I mean, I think as we get more technologically advanced, we may get more dependent on the technology and the ability to hack. It goes up. [17:58:48] You know, some people think that forests and flood plains and natural habitat should be considered infrastructure. They're just green infrastructure. I think California classifies watersheds as infrastructure components. So would you spend traditional infrastructure dollars on green New Deal projects like that in on green infrastructure? [17:59:09] Look, I don't think there's any question that that is infrastructure. But, you know, if you look around this country, wetlands and watersheds and parks are infrastructure that is necessary for a healthy country. And if you look at what it takes to have clean water and to have safe, you know, coastal areas that we're going to have to protect those and you can call it whatever you want, but it's an investment in a functioning and safe America. [17:59:40] Look, I think that. We have obviously failed on infrastructure as a country. We have not spent the money to keep up our roads and bridges or to move into the new things we need to do and were hundreds of billions of dollars behind in roads and bridges. I mean, our estimate is 450. But Mike, my point is this the good news is we need to do it smarter. We have to do it on an accelerated basis. [18:00:10] It is going to be the biggest building project in American history, which means we're going to create millions and millions of good paying union jobs. And so as opposed to feeling like, oh, this is isn't it too bad that we're behind? Actually, now we can do it smarter than ever. Now we can use it to build the kind of country we want to have and we can use it to revive. We can have our estimate is the highest percentage of union participation in the labor force since 1945. Wouldn't that be awesome? [18:00:46] So we're going to switch now to some questions that were submitted by members of the various coalitions that put this great event together and Wall Street Journal readers. So this question comes from John here in Las Vegas. And he points out that 40 million Americans, including 2 million here in southern Nevada, rely upon the Colorado River, Lake Mead and other reservoirs for their daily water supplies. What would you direct your secretary of interior to do to address the threats presented by drought and climate change in the Colorado River basin and across western U.S.? [18:01:36] So water in the western United States. You don't get any more emotional than water fights. And the Colorado River is the center of those fights. So part of this is going to be an extreme need on our part to collect water more carefully, to use water more carefully and to reuse water more efficiently, and we can see that actually this is very possible that we we have very primitive water supplies in a lot of ways. [18:02:10] And in fact, what we're seeing in places that are very short of water, including Los Angeles, is that our ability to capture rainwater is much higher than we understand. And our ability to reuse water and new water treatment facilities is much better than we understand. So whereas the climate crisis absolutely is pushing, putting a huge amount of pressure on water and drought and specifically on the Colorado River, what we also know is that our capabilities and technology on water are far better than people understand. [18:02:45] And we're actually going to be able to solve this problem. It's true. We should understand Americans are smart. We are going to be able to adapt to this. And I can see it when I travel around the southwest of the United States, where really people think Los Angeles could be water independent. That's an amazing fact. That's where we are. [18:03:06] So Casone of New Orleans asked an interesting question that actually ties together several of the things we've been talking about here. He writes that 15 years ago, Hurricane Katrina slammed into my city of New Orleans. About 80 percent of the city was underwater. Eighteen hundred lives were lost. We know that extreme weather events are going to happen more and more. [18:03:24] And older coastal cities like ours are especially vulnerable. How will your plan help coastal cities improve their resilience to crime, climate change? And I would just add as a footnote. Are you prepared to tell people who live in the heartland of the country that they're going to have to help pay for climate change remediation on the coasts? [18:03:45] So. [18:03:46] Everyone in America is subject to climate, including people in middle America. In fact, the best money we can spend is what I'm talking about, which is pushing not to have horrible climate outcomes. The reason that I declare a state of emergency on day one is so we don't get to the point where we have to spend unlimited amounts of money to protect people on the coasts. Because when you really look about what it would take to protect the coast of the United States or the interior of the United States in the worst climate outcomes. [18:04:21] That's more money than anyone can imagine. And let me give you an example on this. Look, I'm from California and I was talking to somebody in San Diego two months ago who is an environmentalist. And I said, what are you guys doing there? They said, we're talking about managed retreat. I said, what's managed retreat? They said, moving San Diego is moving San Diego. That doesn't make any sense. [18:04:45] How do you move a city? How do you move one office building? They're like, well, we're thinking maybe we're gonna have to move to the interior. That is more money than anyone can spend. Anyone in the injury, the United States, anyone on the coast of the United States? There's a reason that I'm saying I declare a climate emergency because managed retreat is not really an option in this world. [18:05:09] That there is a ring that I want to make sure that we act aggressively to stop this because, you know, the old American saying an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Well, in this case, I think an ounce of prevention is worth about one hundred pounds of cure. And if we get to the point where we have managed retreat in Miami and San Diego, look, we spent, I think, 20 billion dollars fixing up New Orleans. [18:05:40] It's a fraction the size of Miami and it's a fraction the size of San Diego. [18:05:45] And so if we get into that world, there's a reason I want to spend two trillion dollars in federal infrastructure spending in a climate smart way, because that is a great investment in this country. That is a great investment in a safe America and a prosperous future. That's the that's great money for this country to spend. So we don't have to start moving office buildings from San Diego to New Mexico. [18:06:10] Many of the coalition members and our readers. And talk about water. Drinking water. It's a top priority for the mayors. And so how do you prevent another flint? Because another flint because they're they're coming. We all know that those pipes have come to the end of their lives. Yes. [18:06:35] So there's a reason I'm spending two trillion dollars and causing municipalities and states to spend trillions more. It's not just that we have old pipes. Flint wasn't a story about old pipes. Just so you understand, Flint was a story about a state governor and a state administration switching a virtually all black city from safe drinking water onto the Flint River. And let's be clear. They switched the city and one GM plant under the Flint River. And the GM called up and said the water is corroding our machinery. [18:07:13] And they took the plant off the Flint River, but left the kids of Flint, Michigan, on the Flint River. So we're gonna have to spend a ton of money fixing up those pipes. That's true. But it's but it's you've gotta see that when you go around the United States and see who lives in Flint, Michigan, and who lives in Denmark, South Carolina, and who lives in the San Joaquin Valley in East Porterville, the places you get sick from drinking the water. We are poisoning black and brown communities at a completely different level than everybody else. [18:07:46] And so when I talk about climate, I start with environmental justice and I always have because I know that if we're going to fix the climate problem, we start with the water problem in the air problem. [18:07:58] And if we fix the air problem in the water bottom, we're going to get the climate problem is going to be just fine. So I'm really just so you know, I'm an environmental justice person. To me, climate is about protecting the people of the United States. And I start with the people are being poisoned the most, which are black and brown communities. [18:08:18] So I think you think we have time for one more question. And does Texas a place we haven't quite banned yet? [18:08:24] Tom Life from St. Petersburg, Florida, asks, What's your vision to build a rapid rail system in the U.S.? The U.S. is behind the rest of the developed world in this regard. The net provides environmental benefits as well as faster and safer, safer travel. How and where would you implement such a program? [18:08:40] Well, as you know, we're trying to get this done in California and it's difficult politically. But look, I'm a huge. [18:08:47] We need more public transportation and we need cleaner public transportation. It's a huge issue. [18:08:53] One of the things I worked on that I'm very proud about is Measure M in Los Angeles. And Measure M, I mean, was the blinding insight in Los Angeles that they needed a subway system? And so that's going to create the original idea passed in 2016. The original idea, and you think about the L.A. traffic, what you're trying to get away from and think about the cost of all that traffic. But then also know that it was originally supposed to provide 500000 good jobs and it doesn't have the word union in them, but they're overwhelmingly union jobs. The most recent estimate I've heard is seven hundred seventy eight thousand jobs. [18:09:31] We are going to have to build more public transportation with the kinds of things like High-Speed Rail is a really good idea. We cannot go spend the rest of our lives depending on single family cars and so we can reap. That's part of rebuilding. This country is going to have more concentrated housing and more public transportation and public fast, high speed public rail is a great way for us to go. And we're going to have to move to things like that. It's going to make we're going to have a more interesting life, but we're going to have to be open to changing some things from the way they've been started. [18:10:09] Thank you for joining us. I look forward to that interesting life. [18:10:14] But you've been nice to share your vision of it with us. Thanks. Thank you so much for having. KLOBUCHAR [18:11:09] Hey, a great group. They're warmed up for it. [18:11:14] OK. Good. But, you know, we I think that you mentioned that AFLCIO and the operating engineers and the Transport Union, but we did not mention the carpenters that are here, which is actually they have a major training facility that I got to visit near Vegas. And there's going to be a lot of openings for carpenters in the future. So I want to thank them as well. [18:11:38] Good for you. So infrastructure is the topic. And we were just like, why? What a sprawling topic it is. But let's start at the 10000 foot level, which we've been trying to do with all the candidates, which is to talk a little bit about priorities and principles. So infrastructure is a lot of things and means fixing roads, fixing bridges, filling potholes, making better airports, ports. [18:12:00] But it also means what a lot of Democrats think it should mean anyway, which is shifting the country to a more green, climate friendly transportation system and infrastructure. You got limited resources is a trillion dollar deficit right now as president. What's your higher priority? Fixing the old or moving to a green new infrastructure system? [18:12:20] Well, you have to do both. And my plan and I over trillion dollar plan. [18:12:24] I was the first candidate in the race to come out with a major infrastructure plan. And a lot of that was actually because of my own experience. And I'll just start out with that. I can see everyone. I'm a little shorter than some of the other candidates. The mayor, Mayor Bloomberg and the president were going at it on Twitter about the president said that the mayor was only five foot four and the mayor said that's untrue. I'm five foot eight. I am the only candidate that has five foot four. [18:12:54] I want that out there now and willing to admit it. Yeah, there we are. [18:12:58] So the for me, the infrastructure issue and the reason that I've led with that in the presidential campaign and the reason that I led the Senate infrastructure bill for the Democrats in 2011 is this. [18:13:12] I actually live just eight blocks from where that bridge fell down on the middle of a beautiful summer day. The 35W Bridge in Minneapolis, that wasn't just a bridge, it was an eight lane highway. And as I said that day, a bridge just doesn't fall down in the middle of America. But it did. And when it falls down, we've got to fix it. And then we have to step back and look at what is going on with infrastructure in this country. And so that took me to that place. But the other piece of this story that has been always with me is what happened with our community when that happened. The whole world was watching. [18:13:49] What did they see? They saw an off duty firefighter, a union firefighter who tethered herself to the side of the river and drove in and out of that Mississippi River in that murky water among those fifty five cars and trucks looking for survivors. They saw a tasty truck driver who had literally one second to decide what to do. He's going down, the bridges collapsing. He can save his life by running into the back of a school bus full of kids, or he can veer off to almost a certain death. [18:14:23] He veers off, saves the kid, but burns to death in that cab. Then there's a school bus that plummets 30 feet down. There's a guy named Hernandez, a school counselor who's on that bus. And he literally in the second, the doors open up in the back. He's got one second to decide what he's going to do. He could have gotten off himself and instead he gets all 30 kids off that bus to safety. That's our country. [18:14:48] So when we think about infrastructure and I know we're going deep in the policy details here, we have to also remember that our public works and our public good is a part of who we are as a nation and looking out for each other. And that's one of the major jobs of government. The major job is keeping our citizens safe. And it is also shared prosperity. And I think infrastructure is a great way to get there. [18:15:15] So in answer to the question, I think you've got to both fix existing problems like roads and bridges, major part of my plan. But then make sure we are meeting, though. Why would I call the member when they had the rural electrification of our time? That's rural broadband right now. We can get rural service for not just self. So not just cell service, but also high speed internet on Iceland with all its folk volcanoes. More easy than we can get it in northern Nevada. [18:15:49] OK. That doesn't make sense. So there's a lot of work that has to be done. There are schools and then green infrastructure. And when I look at this rail, I just heard my friend Tom Stier and some of the things that he was talking about. All good. But when we rebuild existing infrastructure, we have to make that climate resilient when we build new infrastructure. Sure, that always has to be on our minds as well. [18:16:15] So it's got to be a combination of things. And I think it's very important for any candidate in this race. If you're going to start talking about infrastructure when we've got a president that made a bunch of promises, I still remember that night on election night watching his speech. I bet many of you do to remember one of the things that he promised infrastructure. That was one of the top three things. [18:16:38] And while Congress has kept the funding going in so many areas, we have not seen the big infrastructure investment that he promised, not one that keeps our country competitive, not only in light of climate change, but also competitive with the rest of the world when it comes to being this great nation that supposed to make stuff and invent things and export to the world. CENTAGE And do you need transportation to get your products to market? [18:17:04] So, Senator, that raises a second question that we've been trying to put to everyone. You mentioned your trillion dollar plan. So the question is where does the money come from? [18:17:16] We all know that the Highway Trust Fund is. Being depleted and the gas tax, no one wants to raise it. So how do you raise that trillion dollars to pay for everything that you would like to do? OK. [18:17:31] So once again, the reason we didn't get a good infrastructure package is that the president, despite these promises, wouldn't work to pay for it and get it done. And he basically blew up a meeting with congressional leadership instead of facing the issue that you had to find a way to pay for it. Instead, he did that tax bill. The Trump tax bill. [18:17:52] And it would have been the perfect opportunity to combine that tax bill with some tax reductions like bringing the corporate rate down some. But he went so far and basically sucked all the money out of the system that you could have used for infrastructure. And then after he signed it, he went down to Mar a Lago and said to all his friends, you just got a lot richer or any of you in that room. OK. [18:18:18] I just want to make sure I don't want to embarrass anyone or anything like that. So this is how I would pay for it. I would take those Trump tax cuts where the corporate tax rate went down from the mid 30s to 21 percent. Every point it went down was one hundred billion dollars. So you could still have reduced it and use a bunch of money for transportation. So I would take the first four points of it. [18:18:42] And get $400 billion out of that. Then I would take the international tax rate if you put it back to where it was under Obama. That is one hundred and fifty billion dollars, you get out of that. So now we're up to $550 billion. Then for the rest of it. I would do infrastructure financing authority. That is a bipartisan proposal that has long been floating around Congress in the U.S. Senate. It is a proposal between Senator Warner and Senator Blunt, and it has a lot of potential to pass. We'd also want to make sure that it goes to good projects and that we distribute the money fairly across the United States, that that would create a lot of backbone for the backbone of our infrastructure. [18:19:28] And then in addition to that, I would do the Buy America bonds, which again in the Senate as well as in the House. But in the Senate is a bipartisan proposal between Senator Widen, the ranking member on the Finance Committee, as well as Senator Hovan. Why do I mention these names, hoping the Republican from North Dakota? [18:19:45] Well, I think having a president that knows who people are and has the experience to try to get that done is going to matter when we put together this package. And the difference between a plan and a pipe dream is that a plan, there's a way to pay for it. And there's a way to get it done. [18:20:06] So, look, let me take you back to the to the Internet, to the broadband buildout question, because there's kind of a tension here between gigabytes and in roads, I guess because everything is there's limited resources. So does the government pay for that buildout? I'm from Kansas. You're from Minnesota. Gets to places that don't get it otherwise. [18:20:23] But is that the government's responsibility or should that be the responsibility of the big carriers? And if it's the government that does it, who owns it? Does the government own it? Or is it turn it over to those companies to make money off of the network it's built? [18:20:35] It is a combination responsibility. And I actually in another life did telecom law in the private sector for years. I represented MCI when they were trying to bust into the local and long distance markets and create more competition which helped to bring those rates down. And so that experience helps me to get this. I also serve on the Commerce Committee. My plan is to get this done by 2022. [18:21:02] And there's every reason to think we can do that to connect every area of the country, not to like dial up slow speed, but to actual high speed Internet. And the way you pay for it is a combination of things. One is part of the infrastructure plan. I just mentioned that to some of the money can come from the Universal Service Fund, which is traditionally used of course, for underserved areas would be their impoverished urban areas, rural areas. And you want to be able to pay for local service for emergencies for people. [18:21:33] But some of that money can go to broadband as well. One of the problems that I have identified, spending a lot of time in rural areas and meeting with people in small telephone companies and the like is sometimes that money is going to carriers that aren't using it, particularly some of the bigger carriers or midsize ones that aren't using it to actually build out. So you have this crazy patchwork situation where one town and one area will have high speed Internet and the other won't. [18:22:02] I remember being in a tribal area in Minnesota where one of the houses had decided to pay us kids house had decided to pay for high speed internet, which was very expensive because they didn't have it in on the reservation. [18:22:18] And all these kids every day would go to the guy's yard and do their homework, or that the doctor who would who would can get, of course, Internet in the hospital, but he can't get it at home. And you have emergency calls. So he would have to if he wanted to bring up an x ray or look at other things, he has to go to the McDonald's parking lot or the farmer. And farming has become increasingly high tech with the machinery and the like. [18:22:46] Who wants to contact customers has to go to a, you know, drive Miles, to go to a target. I mean, that's what's happening. So I think the answer is a combination of things like everything else. If you're realistic, it's getting the direct funding in through this infrastructure package. Right now, the funding for Internet goes through the USDA as well as the Commerce Department. USDA handles smaller things. There are kind of local government owned situations and some of the rural areas actually. [18:23:14] One of them are the Blandin Foundation. And Minnesota has spent a lot of time working on this. And I just don't think it's one size fits all. But the key is to make sure the money is not going to phone companies that aren't using it. [18:23:27] THUNE Senator Thune and I, the Republican from South Dakota, have done some work on this to try to get people with standalone Internet as standalone cell phone service to get better Internet service. There's a bunch of things we can do, but you have to have a president step back, look at all these programs and figure out it's literally mapping out. I passed a bill for mapping, by the way. Mapping, exactly. So we have accurate data about where it is and where it isn't and then we get the resources to where they're supposed to go to follow on that. [18:24:00] On this topic is the the big companies have seen the government coming. And so they've gone into many states and passed laws that says the government can't come in and create a public owned broadband system. So what do you do about those laws that would stand in the way of trying to get into some of these communities? [18:24:24] Well, there's always ways. First of all, you can create incentives if that's the way we're going, that those states aren't going to get certain resources. If they put those in place, the second thing is to do preemption with some kind of major national drive for broadband. And I think it just depends when the mapping is done and we get all the data on how we want the money to be spent and where we want it to go. Because a whole bunch of money is going where it shouldn't. And then, of course, there's not enough funding. [18:24:55] It puts our country at such a disadvantage. I see it because in Minnesota, we can see Canada from our porch. And for years, we saw how the resorts over in Canada. Had better service. So they were able to get customers and they were able to get people that could get those customers that we can't get in our state. And we've made some major improvements in northern Minnesota on that front. And I'm sure you see the same thing in parts of Nevada. [18:25:20] So you're president, you get to do what you want. Do you want to build a high speed rail network in this country? And by the way, if you do, that's more popular in populated areas on the East Coast where we live now than in the Midwest and rural areas where you kind of come from. [18:25:38] Oh, you haven't gone on that empire builder. [18:25:41] It's pretty popular. I haven't been. I can see you don't know what it is. I now know that is that there's just a ray of around. I see you guys now. I've made up the high speed things, one person. [18:25:51] But that is that is from Chicago and it's across the west. And there's just a lot of interest in train travel in the middle of the country as well. And going to glacier and going to our national parks, it's actually a really popular thing. [18:26:07] But on the high speed, yes. I mean, that's going to be more of a need for four major cities. [18:26:14] But I will say, like, let's say even where I just was for some reason in New Hampshire, the Manchester area has the highest density of an area that doesn't have any commuter rail at all. So it is a combination of some of these shorter commuter rails, which really aren't as expensive as well as these high speed rails. Because when you are on those high speed rails, which I'm sure a number of you have tried out in other countries, whether it be in Europe or in Japan or the like, you're able to see how efficient that is. [18:26:49] And so I'm just a big believer in rail. I love it because it's one way my husband and I can travel where we don't have an argument about directions. And I also like it because it's better for the environment and it's a good way to get around in it. Of course, as the operating engineers and so many people out there know create good paying union jobs. [18:27:16] So, as I'm sure you know, we solicited questions from members of the coalition and Wall Street Journal readers. So we're going to turn to some of those questions right now. So Camille asks. What would you do to speed up the process to get some of these new projects going? Are there regulations, as the Trump administration has asserted, that you can be changed? Are there any that you would set aside in the interest of saving money and speeding up the process? [18:27:51] Well, there I am, one that's always open to looking at rules and regulations to see if you can make them work better. However, I'm not going to mess around with safety or the environment or things like that. So I think you've got to look at each rule and say, ah, there's things we can do to make it work a little bit better. But I will tell you my background. My grandpa was an underground miner who worked fifteen hundred feet underground, and back then the mines were incredibly unsafe. [18:28:20] Those sirens would go off and everyone would run to the mines. My grandma. All of the spouses and the families, never knowing which miner had been killed or maimed. And it was unions that made a difference because those safety rules were put in place. [18:28:37] So that's something that is near and dear to my heart. [18:28:42] And then in terms of approvals and the like, you can always step back and look at things. One of the things that I would like to see, for instance, is a two year budgeting cycle. I think that would help us to when we put money out there, then we would have another year to look back to see how it was spent and to make sure it does get spent instead of sitting there. [18:29:03] I think there's things you can do that would kind of speed things up like we did with some of the work we did with the stimulus bill, because a lot of that money did get out there and make sure that the money is getting out to the projects can be built in addition to looking at red tape and if there's anything we can do to speed things up. But I did want to mention one thing that's really important to me, and that is prevailing wages when I actually was in local office. [18:29:34] I had a full time lawyer that worked on prevailing wage for our biggest county, which was over a million people. And then that person helped other smaller counties to work on prevailing wage. And I just think if you're going to build whatever it is, whether it is a bridge or whether it is a highway or whether it is rail, that you want to make sure that the wages are fair for our workers, because the whole idea here is to allow people to share in their prosperity of our transportation system. [18:30:08] So, Senator, let me take it to another infrastructure topic we haven't touched on yet. [18:30:12] Airports. Michael from Raleigh, North Carolina asks this. He says U.S. airports have not seen investments from federal funding or user fees go up in 20 years. At my airport in North Carolina, due to a slow moving, moving federal approval process and funding challenges, the airports maintaining a runway one slab at a time as president. Would you support adjusting the user fee paid by passengers to allow for long term investments in adjusting is a nice word for raising. Would you regard. [18:30:42] That's very nice work. I would be certainly open to that. And it hasn't been raised for a long time and we'd want to do it in a way that's fair. But I hate the thought that our airports are lagging behind. And I think you see here I was just on your landing in Las Vegas. I was just on the tram. It was very good. And worked well. That went between the terminals. I'm. I have a hub in Minnesota, so I'm well acquainted with the issues there. [18:31:13] That's been a very successful hub, actually. And some of the issues there, of course, for us, which I'm sure you've had in Nevada, is just some of the TSA issues and not having enough workers there. At some point it was so bad that I had to get the TSA to get a dog. Teams from Maui. The poor dogs had to go from Hawaii to Minnesota in the middle of the winter to speed up our lines because we were having so much trouble. [18:31:43] SO I think it is a combination of upgrading our infrastructure. That is one way to do it. The other is direct investment, as I've proposed in this infrastructure package and just making it a big priority. You also have small and mid-sized airports that don't need all the deluxe things you might use, like trams in some of the bigger ones. [18:32:09] But I think we also want to make sure and those are the rural airport issues that we keep those going as well to be able to have a rail transportation system. I've worked I'm the ranking member of the antitrust subcommittee in the Senate. I know that sounds really exciting, but it actually there's a lot of issues with airline mergers and the like to make sure that we keep our small and medium sized cities, airports going because otherwise their rates can go, as, you know, way up sky high if we don't have competition and can be a real problem. [18:32:44] So there are issues related to airports and our airport system independent of the facility upgrades. But I do think that we need to continue to upgrade our airports if we're gonna be able to compete. [18:32:57] Senator, just to touch on quickly, one more issue that's very important to this audience. Kevin of Milwaukee asks Whether as president, would you think the federal government can provide cities much more help to address clean water issues, drinking water for and particularly in disadvantaged areas? Yes. [18:33:24] Having been to Flint and seeing that after all this time, they are still using bottled water in a number of the homes and a number of facilities in Flint. [18:33:37] I met with the mayor there and everyone has bottled water. That is so sad. And by the way, that is just one example. These examples are all over the country. I'm one of the interesting things about water projects is that they're not always the bright, shiny object for the political ribbon cutting that you have with highway overpasses or with a brand new commuter rail system. But they are just as important. [18:34:06] So investing in water infrastructure and by the way, in states like Nevada, as you look at the water shortage, yes, it's about water infrastructure and the pipes and the upgrades, especially in light of climate change. But it's also about looking at incentives for conservation, for water, as well as, by the way, water storage, so that we make sure that the water we do get that we're keeping stored, the surface water and the like. [18:34:34] So we can use that. So I think water in general is going to be a very hot topic and has not been addressed on the federal level as much as it should be. And it's something that me from the land of 10000 lakes would be more than happy to make one of my priorities. [18:34:54] Senator Quadrature, I know you have to go out and use that infrastructure system, roads, bridges, airports to hit the campaign trail again, but thank you for taking some time to talk about it with us. And good luck. [18:35:04] Well, thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Gerri. Thank you, everybody. [18:35:16] So I think I think before we move on to our final candidate, Jack trm, United for Infrastructure is going to. BUTTIGIEG [18:41:40] Good afternoon. [18:41:42] Thanks for the opportunity to be with you, I'll be brief in introducing our infrastructure vision because I'm I'm looking forward to sitting and having a conversation together. First of all, I just want to acknowledge and thank everyone who is so committed to making sure that we take real steps when it comes to infrastructure because this is a mayor's native language. I'm so excited to finally be with a group of people who care about wastewater as much as I did. [18:42:07] I think, look, it isn't always sexy, but it is so important. [18:42:14] The infrastructure that is aboveground, the infrastructure that is underground, and the digital infrastructure that is going to help decide whether the future works for America or not. The governing image of my campaign is the image of what it's going to be like the first time the sun comes up. And Donald Trump is no longer in the White House. [18:42:34] I look forward to it, too. [18:42:36] But our political objective, obviously among everybody, my party running for president is to bring that day about when that day comes. [18:42:45] Then comes the hard part. That song will be coming up over an environment where our country is facing challenges, some of which were barely understood. Just a few years ago. And doing it in an environment characterized by a level of division and political polarization, the likes of which we haven't seen in modern times. [18:43:01] And yet one of the things the American people actually agree on is the need for a major investment in the future of our infrastructure. It's the one area where I will admit I think the president had a lot of us fooled because it sounded like a good idea when he said he was going to do real infrastructure. It was popular in both parties. It was going to help the economy. And then they come come out with the vaunted plan. [18:43:24] And it turned out the plan was for us, state and local officials to do most of the work and come up with most of the money, which is how it already works. We have an opportunity to do something different and take in an infrastructure week back from being a punchline and actually make sure that it is the template for a better future in order to meet our climate goals, in order to meet our economic goals. [18:43:44] We've got to do this and we've got to come together to make sure that it actually happens. I've proposed a plan that will do that across every level of the infrastructure that we need and do it with an eye toward equity, too, because we know that the racial and economic inequality we experience in this country plays out through the inferior infrastructure that so many Americans are expected to put up with. [18:44:08] And we don't have to do that anymore. If we're willing to come together, make the investments, change the way the politics twists our infrastructure priorities, and deliver on something that the American people already want, already expect and already insist that we do something about. So I'm looking forward to our conversation. And thanks so much for having us together. [18:44:31] Well, thank you so much. [18:44:34] We we do want to ask everyone, the candidates. You've got limited amount of money in the federal government. You become president. And you, more than any of the other candidates we've talked to, have dealt with the part of that crumbling infrastructure that people talk about. And yet there are a lot of proposals for fancy new things. So where do you see the balance? Like how much of the money would the government really need to focus on fixing things first before creating a new high speed rail? [18:45:10] Yeah, I think this is really important because sometimes the exciting look is as a political figure, you have a lot of incentive to create the exciting new thing. But we got to get back to basics, too. And so mine is the only infrastructure plan that works to make sure that federal funding that goes to states for fixing roads actually fixes what we've got in addition to adding new and exciting things. [18:45:30] We cannot continue to add new pieces out there if we're not willing to look after what we've already got. And we're seeing right now a built physical plant that is not being fully maintained, which is part of how we got the crisis of environmental and racial justice. That is Flint. We have got to deal with the unsexy things first. Now, the good news is it is possible to do that. And to add to things like rail, I believe that we should be increasing. [18:45:57] I'm not asking for a Japanese level standard of train travel. I would settle for an Italian level of train travel would still be a hell of a lot better than what we have right now. And an important part of how we meet our climate goals, because it is easier to decarbonise medium range travel over rail than it is in a lot of other areas, from personally own vehicles to air travel. [18:46:17] All of this has to be part of a smart mix to get us toward the goals that we have toward 2050. [18:46:22] So I think in your plan, you said you would inject $165 billion into the Highway Trust Fund. That Highway Trust Fund is financed through the federal gas tax. So where would you get the hundred sixty five billion dollars? Would you do that by raising the gas tax? And by the way, in a sort of more radical thought, perhaps when interest rates are as low as they are now. Is this the search sort of thing that the government shouldn't worry about paying for because you can borrow the money for next to nothing. [18:46:50] And that's where we should go in terms of dealing with the kind of money we're talking about to do with infrastructure. [18:46:55] Well, I don't think we should be fundamentalist about the uses of debt financed for infrastructure, because in a low interest rate environment, there can be a lot of virtue to infrastructure investments that, unlike what we were told about tax cuts for the wealthiest, actually have been demonstrated to pay for themselves. That being said, I think the time has come for my party to assert its ownership of fiscal responsibility because the other party that has talked about it all the time has reached new heights of walking away from it. [18:47:25] With this president putting a trillion dollar deficit before the American people without even bothering to explain how there might be some way to deal with it. And so I believe in having pay 4s for all of the things that my campaign puts forward and we can do it. And I'm not even talking about going back to Eisenhower level taxation. I'm talking about rolling back the Trump corporate tax cut. I'm talking about closing loopholes and make it possible for companies that earn billions of dollars in profits to pay less than I did on my Mayah salary last year in federal income taxes, specifically zero. [18:47:58] And when it comes to the gas tax. Look, the reality is we are going to have to graduate from the gas tax because we're going to have to graduate from gas. We know that it is not a viable long term funding mechanism for our highways. We got some time to make that transition. I think that we can bring parties to the table and identify alternatives. I think something that links to vehicle miles traveled is attractive only if we can answer some of the big brother dimensions of what it means to actually assess vehicle miles traveled and we should be serious. [18:48:28] You think those can be addressed, the big brother? I think I can't be. I mean this. Look, we're already in a society where we've got way too much of our personal data being tracked in way too many ways. And so we ought to be smart about it. But I do think that we can come together and find a solution. [18:48:42] You've also mentioned climate action bonds. Tell us, what are those bonds and why do they build? [18:48:49] So the idea is to create a financing mechanism again for investments that we know, at least in an environment where you have carbon pricing and the true cost of carbon reflected in our economy will, in fact have a meaningful return. And there are so many worthy climate projects that still don't happen because of a lack of financing. It's one thing to get an energy energy savings contract, a solar rise, a small business or a home. [18:49:13] It's another for, well, a community like mine, for example, to be able to lay out the kind of car charging infrastructure we would really want to in order to move into the electric vehicle future. There are so many things that are being put together at the local and community level and in climate. Don't we think about this as a national issue and a global issue, and of course it is, but so many of the innovations are actually happening at the local level. [18:49:39] So not only would I convene a you know, make sure that we join the Paris agreement on day one, but I would convene a Pittsburgh summit of local and regional actors because the answers don't all have to come from Washington. Maybe again, this is the mayor's eye view, but I think the answers don't all have to come from Washington. It's just more the support and more the financing should. [18:50:00] So let me take you back to that land of the mayors and the less sexy water and sewer issues that get you a big cheer over here. [18:50:07] We got a wastewater second on the grounds off the wastewater vote is not always as vocal. [18:50:13] So I enjoying this a lot. I'm pretty sure you locked it up today. [18:50:19] But I think as mayor of South Bend, you took advantage of a Trump administration program to ease some of the environmental requirements of the Obama administration when it came to dealing with wastewater and sewage that flows into rivers. So the question is, did the Trump administration have it right on that subject in the Obama administration go too far? [18:50:40] So here's the problem with the Trump administration's rollbacks is they are actually about lowering the standard of water quality. Now, there was a problem in the old regulatory framework and the problem was this it held cities accountable and still does in many ways not for the environmental result. You get on the back end, but for how much money you put in on the front end. [18:51:01] So whether you pour in a lot of money and it doesn't quite work or whether you pour in a lot of money and actually get the job done, you almost the the framework can't really tell the difference. What we did was we use technology to create a system that would at a dramatically lower cost for our low income ratepayers, still be able to lead to less pollution going into the river. And we do need the flexibility to do that. But it's not about walking away from our commitment to environmental quality. It's about being outcome focused instead of input oriented. [18:51:36] But as a general proposition. Do you think the federal government gives mayors and even governors too little flexibility or some of these matters? [18:51:44] I think what's happened in practice is it's really varied by the regions. I found that I could often get the administration to listen, but sometimes those those forms of innovation and flexibility weren't always making their way through the regional offices. That's one of the reasons I think we need to set up our federal administration to listen to the voices of mayors who are actually solving these problems better than it currently does. And needless to say, bringing that perspective in the White House. We will. [18:52:10] Well, let's reverse that perspective for just a second. If the federal government and your administration were to have the Green New Deal as a high priority, then should the federal government have more say in questions of land use and eye races before we have the Cape Cod wind farm that is over 16 years in the making and it's not there. [18:52:38] And planners say to be really efficient, you need to put these new green sources of energy close to where people are because you need to transmit it to them. And so you're getting right in the heart of some local areas and cities. So should the federal government, should there be a different role for the federal government other than maybe eminent domain? But, you know, some other change in that conversation and that balance of power. [18:53:10] I think a lot of those issues start to sort themselves out in the market if we have carbon pricing, which is why I think we need to make that move. In other words, instead of trying to engineer every piece of it from a Washington perspective, let's make sure that the market signals are actually in keeping with the advantages in a in a world that prices carbon appropriately to things like wind power. And yes, that, you know, the federal government should, of course, be encouraging greater use of renewable energy and greater development of innovative techniques. [18:53:41] But I think a lot of the federal role is actually further upstream. It's on the research side. Remember, think of it this way. Only private industry could invent something like the iPhone. Right. But only federal research could invent something like the Internet. And what we need to do is be putting more in the basic research on energy storage, carbon storage and renewable energy generation that market actors can then take and run with. [18:54:07] So you come from a river city. [18:54:11] River cities are worried about the effects of climate change, you've talked about this. Coastal cities are worried about the effects of climate change. Should part of an infrastructure plan, part of your plan, be to spend tax dollars to help river cities and coastal cities deal with the effects of climate change? And if so, are you prepared to tell people who don't live in those areas that they're going to have to suck it up and spend some of their money to fix those problems, order or to prevent those problems? [18:54:38] We do have to commit federal dollars to this, I believe. And by the way, we can create a lot of jobs when we do. But it's why we need to invest in funding to. [NOT ROLLING ON A P2 FOR REST OF HIS REMARKS]

Shot of freighter moving slowly past camera in seaway, Caughnawaga (Kahnawake) buildings visible in background. Brief LS of freighter moving away. MS sequence showing elderly Kanien'kéhaka (Mohawk) men and women sitting on porches, chatting, young boy siting on lawn. MS of abandoned privy in backyard. Shot of children walking on sidewalk, little children playing along water's edge, climbing playground slide set in a few feet of water. Shots of Kanien'kéhaka (Mohawk) people sitting on porches, man rocking in rocking chair, wearing eye patch. Shot of man attacking big rock vigorously with a sledge-hammer. CU of epitaph honouring 1907 Quebec Bridge disaster victim in Caughnawaga (Kahnawake) Cemetery. TRAVELLING SHOT past cemetery. Various static MSs and CUs of tombstones epitaphs in Indigenous languages.

Some 8,000 people live on the Kahnawake Indian Reserve near Montreal -- but not all of them are Mohawks. With less than 50 square kilometres of land and some attractive tax benefits, tribal chiefs have long been trying to enforce the residency rules which forbid non-Mohawks from settling there. Now the reserve has taken the step of issuing eviction notices to those who don't qualify -- even if it means splitting families down the middle. Montreal Canada (Footage by AFPTV via Getty Images)

When your texting your wife. (Footage by wilding_8/Doing Things Media via Getty Images UGC)

Caughnawaga (Kahnawake). LS of boy floating on inner tube as bow and hull of a huge freighter moves into frame. Cut to stern of freighter as Kanien'kéhaka (Mohawk) boys dive into water. Shots of sand lot lacrosse game between young boys, of various plays, of fight between couple of boys. HASs of two boys diving into canal from side. MLS of canal, boys diving into water, Mercier Bridge in background.

Pan left around a bay of water from a sandy beach on the French Riviera. (Core number: FKRA102T. AEVZ001J)

Slow TRAVELLING SHOT through Caughnawaga (Kahnawake). Shot of belfry of church, TILT UP to weather-cock, TILT DOWN. More TRAVELLING SHOTs through town, no one visible. TRAVELLING SHOT along fence, yellowish blossoms on hedge. Foggy PANs from lift bridge over seaway at Mercier Bridge to Caughnawaga, PAN back. TRAVELLING HAS of Caughnawaga from elevated highway. Front view of abandoned building, CU of door handle and lock. Cut to two other shots of abandoned houses, overgrown lawn in early morning. Brief shot of sun rising above horizon. Various shots of sun peering through foliage. Front TRAVELLING SHOT of road, of tunnel, of Caughnawaga street, buildings, few Mohawks visibles in distance. Static shots of buildings, church.

Signs of rust and corrosion on the metal framework of the Mercier Bridge. Roadsigns and traffic on the Mercier Bridge. Structure of the portico of the Honoré-Mercier bridge. Rusted steel structure (a lot of rust) of the Mercier bridge, ZOOM OUT steel structures of the bridge leading to Kahnawake and the other leading to Montreal, ZOOM IN Road traffic on the bridge, TILT DOWN rusty metal framework. Traffic on the Mercier bridge, ZOOM cars and tow-trucks. Roadsign "Mercier Bridge". Keywords: LASALLE DISTRICT,MONTREAL (CITY),BRIDGE,HONERE-MERCIER BRIDGE

4K tracking shot shows regrowth and regeneration after the extensive, catastrophic and devastating bushfires in NSW and Victoria, Australia in 2019 and 2020

Devonport waterfront in Auckland, New Zealand