Joining us now is Ro Khanna who represents California's 17th congressional district.
Ro, thank you so much Congressman Ro Khanna, thank you for joining us.
>> I'm certainly fine, great to be on.
>> So you just voted on the assault weapons ban,
which was reported to have passed the House, which is great news.
A lot of great legislation tends to pass the House and
then it immediately stalls in the Senate.
And it's been frustrating to watch certainly as a progressive who
wants incredibly important social spending bills to pass.
But I'm curious, do Democrats in congress fully grasp
the rage that voters are feeling toward them in their
inability to get anything done through the Senate?
Yes, I shared that extraordinary frustration.
I think this week has been a good week on two things,
when we passed the chips act to make it in America Act basically.
Which will bring back semiconductor manufacturing and
$80 billion of investment in science and technology,
including clean technology, clean steel, which is needed for offshore wind.
That endless frontiers part was my bill, I've been working on it for three years.
And it finally passed.
And so that's good news.
And then, I've been working to reach out to center mansion and some criticism from
progressives but looks like Schumer has a deal $300 billion of climate investment.
If we can get that with done, it will be huge, now we gotta be careful
because they're gonna cooperate interest that they gonna try and
get rid of the closing of the carried interest loophole.
And it is still not a done deal, but
if we can actually get through all the Senate and the House that's significant.
>> Okay, so why don't we start with that specific topic?
Because it is being celebrated, of course you have members of the Democratic Party
celebrating this negotiation and deal reached by Manchin and Schumer.
You have the media also piggybacking off of that excitement.
I've been more of a downer on the legislation.
Maybe it's because of the fact that we were promised so much more, a much
larger comprehensive bill that would have included incredibly important provisions.
Like universal child care, free public college,
money to help support elder care, the list goes on and on and on.
And when you look at the end result,
it's a whittled down piece of legislation that provides yes.
The largest amount of money ever appropriated in US history toward
combating climate change I will grant you that.
But that is an incredibly low bar [LAUGH] considering the US has never
really taken climate change seriously and
has never really appropriated much money for that cause.
And then you have the issue of expanding drilling,
which is why Joe Manchin signed on to it.
Let's not whitewash Joe Manchin's number one priority,
which is Joe Manchin and his personal profits including the $500,000
he makes every single year from his personal investments in the coal industry.
So he wants to expand, drilling for natural gas on public lands,
which will be to the benefit of these private fossil fuel companies.
Which will release more methane into our atmosphere,
which is incredibly damaging to the environment.
And I'm trying to understand how that is in any way good news and how that
doesn't counteract some of the positive climate elements of this legislation.
>> So a couple points first, as you know, I was a co-chair of Bernie Sanders
campaign obviously I support free public college.
I supported the original version, which was the Sanders
version that had Medicare expanded to have dental vision and
hearing, we needed the universal child care.
So I agree with you that the original version was much stronger on
a lot of issues.
But this is a huge win, that's why sunrise, that's why almost every
environmental group has come out for liberal progressive environmental groups.
And there are two reasons, one, it's $300 billion in investment,
in solar, in wind, in battery and the clean technology.
And that's gonna unleash trillions in terms
of the private sector industrying in clean technology.
Ryan Grim has a great piece on this about how we wanna see a speculation,
not in social media, but in clean technology.
And I grant you that the bill has one provision that is
problematic and that is for every lease that is sold for
renewables there must be a lease that is sold for fossils.
Now, that doesn't mean that it will be permitted.
And it is problematic but most of the environmental groups have looked at it
say that on balance, this is gonna reduce emissions dramatically.
30, 40% and is not just the most that we've ever invested, but
the most we've invested by an order of magnitude of 10.
Is it enough?
No, but it's a significant.
>> So, the other concern is that, and I've seen this happen so
many times where you have the one bad guy corporate
Democrat who stands in the way of the legislation.
And then he'll get all of the concessions he wants.
And then as soon as we think it's gonna pass, the other bad guy
corporate Democrat in the Senate gets involved Kirsten Sinema in this case.
And she's been on the record,
she's vociferous in not wanting to raise taxes on corporations and her donors.
And so, is there any reason to believe that the final piece of
legislation will raise taxes on corporations at all?
I know the way it's written now includes a minimum 15% corporate tax rate.
There is because Manchin won't support it if that corporate tax isn't there
because he wants something that is deficit neutral.
You simply can't raise the revenue for the climate provision if you don't have both
the end to the carried interest loophole and
if you don't have the tax on corporations.
So if Sinema opposes that, the whole deal falls apart,
Manchin won't support something that's deficit spending.
So, you never know and I share your concern, the Sinema has
tried to derail these in the past, but so far she has not criticized it.
And you have now unanimity between the president, the speaker,
the Senate majority leader, you have the Progressive Caucus behind it.
So we may actually get this done and look,
this is where Progressives should celebrate this, because two reasons.
This would never have happened if it wasn't for
the Progressive movement, if it weren't for folks TYT watchers,
sunrise, activists, people who were sad, protested in offices.
That's why we're getting the big climate number.
Otherwise, that would have been long jettison.
And it shows that Progressives, I have been talking to Senator Manchin and
participating for almost a year, but
I made it clear that we can't compromise on the massive climate spending.
And this will show that it's actually Progressives are willing to get things
done in Progressive activism that's driving this.
So, if the deal looks similar to what it is now,
this is something that we actually should celebrate.
>> So, look, I'm not taking away the fact that there are some good components to it,
particularly efforts to spur more investment in renewable energies.
I am definitely concerned about expanding, drilling on federal lands.
The same federal lands that our government told us we couldn't provide abortion
services on.
The same federal lands that these for fossil fuel industries will get to profit
off of and they will get to privatize those profits off of federal lands.
And then the methane that's released into the atmosphere,
which of course is incredibly damaging to the environment.
The cost of that will be socialized.
That is what we've seen time and time again.
And I hear what you're saying, this is the first time the United States
through legislation has done something at least a little significant in
combating climate change and spurring investment in renewables.
However, I will also say that there hasn't really been much commentary or
much analysis on how much of an impact that drilling for natural gas will have.
One other thing I'll just mention.
And I wanna go to graphic five here because this line is so deceptive and
I'm so tired of politicians both on in the Democratic Party and
Republican Party repeating it.
So Manchin emphasized that it would spur American energy independence more broadly,
including by encouraging natural gas.
As the war in Ukraine has exposed domestic reliance
on petrostates fossil fuel production.
Let's discuss that for
a moment because fact of the matter is we're talking about private companies,
private fossil fuel companies specifically drilling for natural gas.
And there is absolutely nothing stopping them from exporting what they drill for
here in the United States.
In fact, the United States is already the top producer of oil and natural gas.
And the United States is the top exporter of oil and natural gas.
There's nothing in place to stop these companies from selling these products to
the highest bidder.
And was that something that was considered in this legislation, or?
No.
So I have called for an export ban.
You're absolutely right.
We had an export ban before 2015.
It would be one of the most dramatic things the president could do to
reduce price.
In fact, when you had an unfortunate explosion in Louisiana on a natural
gas pipeline, you actually saw that the price dramatically fell in
the United States because that was the facility that was there to export.
And when the export capability was destroyed,
this price suddenly fell for a while.
So you're right on the export ban,
that is something that hasn't been taken up by the administration.
I've been pushing for it, but I just want to be clear,
this legislation doesn't allow more drilling.
I mean, it doesn't do anything to actually permit drilling.
It does allow for more sale of of leases and which I oppose.
But the permitting is still with the administration and
they can deny the permitting on the drilling.
Now, the Mansion has said he wants to have expedited permitting and take that up.
But that's a fight that we can have in the fall to make sure that
the expedited permitting doesn't apply to some of the drilling and fossil fuels.
But as the current framework is that is not in there,
there's no permitting on drilling.
So since you mentioned, you know, upcoming fights, I want to ask,
you know, and moving away from this legislation to talk about
something a little different when It was already pretty much known that
the Supreme Court was going to strip women of their reproductive rights
in this country rights that they've enjoyed for nearly 50 years.
It really seemed as though the Democratic Party overall did not
get together for you know, to orchestrate some sort of
messaging some sort of collaborative response to it.
It kind of seemed like even after the leak when roe was officially reversed by
the Supreme Court, democrats appeared to be flat footed on the issue.
What was going on behind the scenes in Congress?
Were there any discussions about how to tackle this effectively?
Not enough.
I mean, we were meeting as a Progressive caucus pro choice caucus,
I was pushing the bill to have term limits on the Supreme Court justices.
We were saying, let's have abortion clinics on federal land.
We were saying let's go after this court as illegitimate as
as having been packed and stacked, let's have hearings for people who have lied and
plant announced hearings for people who live to the Senate.
Let's point out that it's already a packed court.
It's mitch McConnell who packed that court.
So I agree with you that the response hasn't been strong enough,
We've got to be much more strong against the court and saying these are a bunch
of partisan actors that it's not some judicial body entitled to great deference.
And I understand the frustration.
The only the other thing is, I mean,
it's one thing to try to do something legislatively or strategically, you know,
through governing to mitigate the damage being done.
And I totally agree that that that needs to be a focus, but
on a messaging, you know, in a, in a, in a messaging standpoint.
It's interesting because I feel like republicans keep doing things that
are incredibly unpopular.
But for some reason the Democratic Party runs away from hammering them on it
effectively.
Right? So if the shoe were on the other foot and
democrats did something that new was unpopular with the public,
they wouldn't stop talking about.
It's the only thing they would talk about it would be incessant and
they would really drill that point home for the electorate to understand before
the midterms or before a general presidential election.
I feel like democrats are a little afraid to go after republicans on it.
I mean, it's almost like you guys have forgotten about the issue and
moved on to the next.
Well, certainly the Progressive Caucus has and I agree with you,
we shouldn't be afraid.
This is a issue that polls at 70% of people agree with us.
And it's an issue of freedom.
It's an issue of do women have rights over their own bodies?
Do we have the federal government interfere in the most private of decisions
and you have this appeals to not just democrats,
it appeals to suburban republican men and republican women.
So we ought to make this a central contrast throughout the country in
the campaign and say that this is a place where the Democratic Party stands for
non extremism of moving this country forward.
They're taking away people's rights that have been there for 50 years.
And by the way, it's a bunch of unelected elites on the Supreme Court or
taking away these rights.
I agree with you that the messaging can be stronger should be stronger and
final topic.
I'll just jump into real quick because it continues making news.
You know, there's been multiple polls now indicating that the majority of
the Democratic electorate would like to see
someone other than joe biden seek presidential election in 2024.
You were unequivocal in your support for
biden during an interview with CNN this is the first graphic where you say I plan to
support biden because of the danger that donald trump poses.
I would certainly not do do anything to weaken him.
And I hope no one else will do anything to weaken him.
He is still the safe brand in the midwestern states to make sure trump
is kept far away from the oval office Baro there are now several polls
that say if the election were held today, biden would lose to trump.
In fact a new CNN poll finds 75% of democratic and democratic leaning voters
want the party to nominate someone other than president, joe biden in 2024.
Are you maybe having a change of heart on what you previously said or
do you stand firm in your support for biden?
Well look, I support him, he's the incumbent president, but
here's the point who are the alternatives that could defeat Donald trump?
I mean if there's someone who comes to mind who would do that, Bernie Sanders,
if he were to stand, you know, I co chaired his campaign, I'd be for Bernie,
but Bernie has said that he would support Donald trump now
other than Bernie Sanders.
Yeah, I mean, Bernie would support, Yeah,
obviously Bernie would support joe biden against Donald trump would just misspoke
the point is that other than Bernie Sanders, I don't see someone who says that
kind of populist economic message and branding, who could who could win.
So look, I thought Bernie Sanders would have beaten Donald trump the first time.
That's why I co chaired his campaign, I've earlier and many times said I will be for
Bernie, if he runs unequivocally, he would have my support.
But my understanding, having talked to him and from his public comments is he will
only do that if if if joe biden decided not to run and my hope would be that if
joe biden doesn't think that he can beat donald trump that he wouldn't run.
And then I would support Bernie Sanders if, if that were the case, I don't see any
well other than Bernie Sanders who has either the brand or the populist economic
message to go toe to toe with Donald trump right now in our country.
We've been discussing it quite a bit on the show recently.
In fact, today, Katie Porter's name came up, especially considering the fact
that she seems pretty hyper focused on the economic populist message and
she's doing really well in a purple district in California.
Any thoughts on that?
Yeah, like Katie, I just don't think that would be the same as what Bernie Sanders
is able to do in rural America and places across the country on trade,
on other issues, I think, you know, I I respect Katie Porter, but
I I think Sanders had something very broad coalition of working families and broad
coalition enough labor, broad coalition against outsourcing of industrial policy.
And so, you know, I, I would feel that I think he could defeat donald trump and
again, I'm not sure that that others could, That doesn't mean,
you know that I don't respect them as, political leaders don't respect
them as people who, could be in different elective offices.
But other than Sanders, I right now don't see someone.
All right, congressman Ro Khanna, thank you for coming on the show.
Thank you for always being willing to answer the tough questions.
I really appreciate it.
Thank you, appreciate it.