>> Renee: NOW IN HIS EIGHTH TERM IN WASHINGTON, KENTUCKY'S THIRD CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT CONGRESSMAN JOHN YARMOUTH IS CHAIR OF THE POWERFUL HOUSE BUDGET COMMITTEE.

I CAUGHT UP WITH THE CONGRESSMAN AT OUR KET STUDIOS IN LOUISVILLE TO TALK ABOUT THE $3.5 TRILLION BUDGET RECONCILIATION MEASURE THAT BEARS HIS TIME, INFRASTRUCTURE, AFGHANISTAN, AND MORE.

AS WE CONTINUE OUR SERIES OF INTERVIEWS WITH MEMBERS OF KENTUCKY'S FEDERAL DELEGATION.

ON CONGRESSIONAL UPDATE.

CHAIRMAN YARMOUTH, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING US TO TALK WITH YOU.

WE ARE HERE IN LOUISVILLE IN OUR KET STUDIOS SO THANK YOU FOR MAKING SOME TIME.

YOU JUST GOT OFF THE TARMAC AT THE TIME WE RECORDED THIS INTERVIEW AND I KNOW YOU HAVE HAD A VERY LONG WEEK WHEN WE SPOKE ON WEDNESDAY, THE 25th SO I APPRECIATE YOU MAKING SOME TIME.

>> SURE.

A VERY LONG TWO DAYS, BASICALLY, BUT IT FELT LIKE A WEEK.

>> Renee: I BET IT DID.

MADAME MAYOR TIME.

LET'S START WITH THE FIN YOU JUST FINISHED THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION MEASURE, $3.5 TRILLION.

THERE WERE CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS WHO HAD CERTAIN DEMANDS.

HOW WERE THEY PERSUADED TO GO ALONG WITH THIS PACKAGE AND WHAT DOES THIS MEAN NOW GOING FORWARD FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE BILL?

>> THANKS, RENEE, GREAT TO BE WITH YOU AND GREAT TO BE BACK ON KET.

WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO IS A GROUP OF MODERATE DEMOCRATS, AND I'VE MET WITH THEM OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS, MY JOB OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS HAS BEEN CAT HERDING IN THE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS, THAT'S QUITE A RESPONSIBILITY.

IF THE SENATE IS GOING TO PASS A BABY BILL, WE HAVE TO TAKE THAT SUCCESS AND PUT IT IN THE BANK ESSENTIALLY AND NOT TIE IT TO THE OTHER PARTS OF THE BIDEN AGENDA THAT ARE LESS LIKELY TO GET REPUBLICAN SUPPORT IN THE SENATE.

AND PROBABLY IN THE HOUSE AS WELL.

SO THEY WANTED TO-- THEY WANTED TO DETACH THE INFRASTRUCTURE BILKER THE BABY ABOUT ILL TO PASS THE SENATE FROM THE OTHER INITIATIVES THAT WE ARE TRYING TO GET PASSED.

AND THE PROGRESSIVES IN THE HOUSE SAID WELL WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT.

WE WANT TO KEEP THEM TOGETHER BECAUSE WE ARE AFRAID THE MODERATES WILL VOTE FOR THE INFRASTRUCTURE BILL AND NOT FOR THE REST OF IT SO THAT WAS THE DYNAMIC THAT WE WERE WORKING WITH.

ULTIMATELY WHAT WE NEGOTIATED WITH THE MODERATES IS WE WILL GUARANTEE THEM A VOTE BY SEPTEMBER 27 BY SEPTEMBER 27 AND THAT MADE THEM HAPPY SO ALL OF THE HOLDOUTS VOLTED FOR THE BUDGET RESOLUTION AND I THINK THAT ACTUALLY IS A POSITIVE SIGN FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH THE ENTIRE PACKAGE BECAUSE ONCE YOU VOTED FOR THE LEGISLATION THAT SET THE PROCESS IN MOTION, IT'S HARD TO VOTE AGAINST IT.

>> Renee: THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION, SIR.

THIS IS THE FRAMEWORK, THE BLUEPRINT FOR THE LARGER MEASURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND THIS IS THE BIG PART OF THE BUILD BACK BETTER OF PRESIDENT BIDEN'S ADMINISTRATION.

AND IT'S ABOUT HUMAN INFRASTRUCTURE, NOT JUST PHYSICAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND I WANT YOU TO DISSECT WHAT THAT MEANS.

SO WHAT IS IN THIS $3.5 TRILLION OR COULD END UP IN THIS $3.5 TRILLION... >> LET ME GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING BECAUSE THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION PUT FORDS TWO PACKAGES.

ONE WAS CALLED THE AMERICAN JOBS PLAN AND ONE WAS THE AMERICAN FAMILY PLAN.

THE FIRST PART WAS LABELED AS INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO THE DEBATE BECAME WHAT'S INFRASTRUCTURE, WHAT'S NOT INFRASTRUCTURE.

THAT'S NOT WHAT THE PROPOSAL WAS DESIGNED TO DO THE PROPOSAL WAS DESIGNED TO IMPLEMENT A FUTURISTIC VISION FOR WHAT THE COUNTRY WILL LOOK LIKE AND TO REMEDY SOME LONG STANDING DEFICITS IN THE COUNTRY WHICH IF WE DON'T CORRECT THEM WILL IMPEDE THE GROWTH OF SOCIETY.

WE ARE TALKING ABOUT CHILDHOOD ACCESSIBILITY OF AFFORDABLE CHILD CARE FOR FAMILIES, SENIOR CARE 10,000 PEOPLE A DAY ARE TURNING 65 AND THERE IS A HUGE DEFICIT OF SKILLED NURSING FACILITIES, NURSING HOMES AND THIS IS NOT TO CORRECT THAT BUT TO CREATE A MUCH MORE VIBRANT HOME HEALTHCARE SYSTEM FOR SENIORS TO BE CARED FOR IN THEIR HOMES.

IT'S EXPANDING BEN BENEFITS IN MEDICAID TO INCLUDE VISION AND DENTAL SERVICES.

A LOT OF JOB TRAINING BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT NOT JUST BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC BUT BECAUSE OF THE CHANGING WORLD, THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE-- ARE GOING TO CONTINUALLY NEED TO RESHAPE THEMSELVES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF OPPORTUNITIES THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE.

>> Renee: AND CLIMATE CHANGE.

>> DEFINITELY CLIMATE CHANGE.

THINGS LIKE ELECTRIC VEHICLES.

THAT'S CLEARLY, IN MY ESTIMATION, ALSO INFRASTRUCTURE BECAUSE IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT 500,000 CHARGING STATIONS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AND CREATING INSENTIVES FOR-- INCENTIVES FOR ELECTRIFICATION FOR TRANSPORT, AS WELL ASTHMAS STRANS IT AND-- MASS TRANSIT AND HIGH SPEED RAIL AND SO FORTH.

SO ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE IN THIS PACKAGE.

YES, $34.5 TRILLION SOUNDS LIKE A LOT OF MONEY-- $.5 MILLION.

I DON'T THINK ANYBODY CAN GRASP HOW MUCH THAT REALLY IS.

BUT IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO SPEND OVER THE NEXT 10 YEARS, WITHOUT ANY NEW PROGRAMS THIS IS A 5 TO 6% INCREASE OF WHAT WE ARE ALREADY SPENDING.

IF YOU TALK ABOUT 5 TO 6% MORE, THAT WOULD YOU GET CHILD CARE, EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION, WHICH I THINK PERSONALLY IS THE MOST CRITICAL THING THAT WE NEED TO DO IN THIS COUNTRY TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERY CHILD HAS A STRONG FOUNDATION STARTING AT THREE YEARS OLD AND THAT HELPS WITH CHILD CARE AS WELL.

SO MUCH OF THIS IS I THINK WILL SET US ON A GOOD FOOTING FOR THE NEXT GENERATION AND FOR FIVE TO 6% MORE THAN WE ARE GOING TO SPEND, REMEMBER, RIGHT NOW THE ANNUAL DEFICIT IS GOING TO BE SOMEWHERE AROUND, FOR THE NEXT 10 YEARS 1.5 TRILLION TO $$3 TRILLION A YEAR.

THIS IS $350 BILLION A YEAR OVER 10 YEARS.

SO AGAIN, WHILE IT SOUNDS LIKE A BIG BIT OF MONEY IN THE AGGREGATE, IT'S REALLY NOT THAT MUCH MORE THAN WE ARE GOING TO SPEND.

AND ONE IMPORTANT OTHER THING IS WE ARE GOING TO OFFSET A LOT OF THIS COST.

>> Renee: THAT'S WHERE I WANTED TO GO NEXT.

WHAT ARE THE PAY FORS FOR THIS?

>> THEY'RE YET TO BE DETERMINED.

THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION HAS CALLED FOR A NUMBER OF TAX INCREASES.

HE IS GUARANTEED AND WE IN THE HOUSE ARE FULLY IN ALIGNMENT WITH HIM THAT NOBODY WHO PAYS WHO MAKES LESS THAN $400,000 WILL SEE THEIR TAXES INCREASED BUT THIS ON WOULD RAISE THE CORPORATE TAX RATE HOOFER-- IN 21 THE REPUBLICANS DROPPED IT FROM 35 TO 2 IS%.

IT WILL GO BACK UP TO 25 TO 28%.

STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING TAX LAWS SO THAT PEOPLE WHO OWE TAXES ARE ACTUALLY PAYING THEM.

RAISING THE CAPITAL GAINS RATE FOR PEOPLE MAKING MORE THAN A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR.

AGAIN THIS IS ALL AT THE HIGH END.

BUT IN TOTAL, THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION PROJECTS THAT WHAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED AND I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT THE HOUSE WILL ACCEPT, BUT WHAT THEY PROPOSE WILL PAY FOR ALL OF THE EXPENDITURES OVER THE NEXT-- THEY PAY FOR IT OVER THE NEXT 13 YEARS.

>> Renee: THERE ARE SOME CRITICAL AT A TIME WHEN THE ECONOMY IS TRYING TO REBOUND FROM THE PANDEMIC THAT THE JOB CREATORS THAT BUSINESSES ARE OFTEN CALLED WOULD BE PENALIZED IN THIS WAY WITH HIGHER CORPORATE TAXES.

YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?

IS IT ILL--TIMED?

>> THE REPUBLICANS MAY THE CONVERSE ARGUMENT IN 21.

THAT THEY WERE PAYING TOO MUCH TAXES AND IF WE CUT THE CORPORATE TAX, THEY WOULD INVEST MORE IN THE ECONOMY AND DO MORE R & D AND SO THEY CUT THE TAXES ON A STRICTLY PARTISAN LEVEL BY THE WAY, THE CORPORATE WORLD WAS NOT EVEN ASKING FOR THE CUT BUT THEY GAVE IT TO THEM AND WHAT HAPPENED?

THEY DID NOT INVEST THE MONEY THAT THEY SAVED ON THE TAXES IN THE ECONOMY.

THEY BOUGHT BACK THEIR STOCK AND PAID MORE DIVIDENDS TO THEIR STOCKHOLDERS.

SO IF THAT WAS THE CASE, WHEN WE CUT THEIR TAXES, BY RESTORING SOME OF THAT, IT IS ILLOGICAL TO THINK THAT IT'S GOING TO CHANGE THEIR PATTERN OF BEHAVIOR.

>> Renee: I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE PACKAGE.

ONE OF THE CRITICISMS WE HAVE HEARD, PARTICULARLY FROM RURAL LEGISLATORS IN D.C. IS THAT THE BILL DOESN'T REALLY BENEFIT RURAL AREAS AS MUCH.

IT FOCUSES ON MASS TRANSIT BUT THERE ARE OTHER AREAS OUTSIDE OF THE BELT WAY AREA AND THE METROPOLITAN AREAS THAT CERTAINLY NEED HELP WHEN IT COMES TO BEEFING UP THE INFRASTRUCTURE AND MANY FEEL THAT THAT HAS BEEN SHORT SHRIFTED.

SO YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT?

>> THE BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE BILL THAT THE SENATE PASSED THAT WE WILL VOTE ON AND PASS BY SEPTEMBER 27, FOCUSES A LOT ON THAT, ON BROADBAND IN RURAL AREAS, FOCUSES ON ROADS AND BRIDGES AND THE TYPES OF THINGS THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.

SO AND I THINK THAT'S, TO A CERTAIN EXTENT, WHY THE BILL RECEIVED FAIR AMOUNT OF REPUBLICAN SUPPORT IN THE SENATE BECAUSE IT DOES DEAL WITH RURAL AREAS AS WELL.

>> ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT WHEN THIS $3.5 TRILLION PACKAGE GOES TO THE SENATE AND YOU HAVE THE DEMOCRATIC HOLDOUTS, PARTICULARLY FORMER GOVERNOR MANCHIN AND OTHERS WHO WILL SAY, OKAY, NOT REALLY BUYING INTO THAT PRICE TAG, ARE YOU CONCERNED THIS IS JUST GOING TO BE D.O.A.?

>> I DON'T THINK IT'S D.O.A.

I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THEM AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE A LOT OF DISCUSSION WITH SENATOR MANCHIN AND SENATOR SINIMA WITH WHOM I SERVE IN THE HOUSE, AND TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT-- DEPENDING ON HOW MUCH IS OFFSET, THIS IS NOT ADDING THAT MUCH TO THE DEFICIT, IF ANYTHING.

AND THE BENEFITS-- YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE REASONS PEOPLE ASK ME ALL THE TIME, REPORTERS ARE HOUNDING ME ALL THE TIME, WHY DO YOU THINK THE DEMOCRATS WILL PASS THIS?

AND I SAID FOR TWO REASONS.

ONE IS THAT THE THESE ARE LONG STANDING DEMOCRATIC PRIORITIES.

THAT'S THE FIRST THING, AND THE SECOND THING IS THEY'RE WILDLY POPULAR.

I MEAN VIRTUALLY EVERY ELEMENT OF WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO PASS IN THE $3.5 TRILLION PACKAGE IS EXTREMELY POPULAR.

ADDING VISION, HEARING AND DENTAL TO SOCIAL SECURITY, PAID FAMILY LEAVE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THESE THINGS POLL IN THE TWO-THIRDS TO 85% SUPPORT RANGE.

SO THERE IS REALLY NO-- THERE IS NO POLITICAL REASON AND THERE IS REALLY NO FISCAL REASON NOT TO SUPPORT ANY OF THESE PRIORITIES.

>> Renee: FROM A PARLIAMENTARY PERSPECTIVE, THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION MEASURE, DOES IT JUST REQUIRE A SIMPLE MAJORITY BECAUSE IT'S A BUDGET RECONCILIATION MEASURE NOT THE 60, BUT THE INFRASTRUCTURE PACKAGE, WOULD IT HAVE TO HAVE THE 60?

>> IT HAS TO HAVE THE 60.

>> Renee: WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ALL 50 DEMOCRATS AND 10 REPUBLICANS DEFECT AND SUPPORT.

>> THAT'S ALREADY PASSED.

THEY GOT MORE THAN 60 VOTES.

SO WE WILL PASS WHAT THE SENATE PASSED.

WE WILL NOT AMEND THAT AND RISK GOING BACK.

>> Renee: THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION.

>> Renee: WILL THERE BE AMENDMENTS?

I DON'T THINK WE'LL RISK SENDING IT BACK TO THE SENATE AND RISK THEIR HAVING SECOND THOUGHTS.

BUT THE RECONCILIATION PROCESS WAS ESTABLISHED IN 1974 IN THE BUDGET ACT THEN AND IT ALLOWS A BUDGET RESOLUTION TO INSTRUCT COMMITTEES TO ACTUALLY TAKE STEPS TO CHANGE THE DEFICIT.

NOW, IT WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED TO REDUCE THE DEFICIT, BUT IT WAS POORLY WRITTEN.

SO IT HAS BEEN USED BY REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS ALIKE OVER THAT PERIOD OF TIME TO DO THINGS THAT ACTUALLY INCREASE THE DEFICIT, BUT THE ONE THING THAT IS VERY STRICTLY ENFORCED IS YOU CAN'T MAKE POLICY IN A RECONCILIATION BILL.

AND IN THE BIPARTISAN INFRASTRUCTURE BILL, THERE WAS-- THERE WERE POLICY CHANGES AS WELL.

SO WE CAN'T DO THAT.

>> Renee: WE CAN HAVE A LONG CONVERSATION ON WHICH-- HOW COME RECONCILIATION MEASURES NOT APPLIED MORE BROODILY.

WE CAN HAVE A PHILOSOPHICAL DISCUSSION ABOUT HOW WASHINGTON WORKS WHICH I WOULD LOVE TO HAVE WITH YOU BY THE WAY.

LET'S TALK ABOUT AFGHANISTAN.

AT THE TIME WE SPOKE MID WEEK LAST WEEK BY THE TIME THIS ACER, PRESIDENT BIDEN REASSERTED HE WAS STICKING TO THE AUGUST 31 DEADLINE.

THIS INTERVIEW WILL AIR THE 30th.

EVEN THE G7 LEADERS HAVE EXPRESSED SOME CONCERN ABOUT THAT DATE.

SAYING MAYBE MORE TIME IS NEEDED.

THERE IS SOME CONCERN ABOUT, OKAY, THE FUMBLENESS PERHAPS THAT PEOPLE SEE OF THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION IN HANDLING THIS, IT HAS BEEN CALLED THE BOTCHED KIND OF EXIT.

WHAT DO YOU SAY ABOUT WHAT IS HAPPENING AND WHAT SHOULD THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION HAVE DONE AND SHOULD HE BE MORE OPEN TO CONTINGENCY PLANS BASED ON WHATEVER COULD CHANGE BETWEEN NOW AND AUGUST 31?

>> LET ME SAY TWO THINGS.

ONE THING IS I KNOW THE ADMINISTRATION VERY ASTUTELY UNDERSTANDS THAT IF YOU CREATED A LOT OF UNCERTAIN UNCERTAINTY, THEN YOU OPEN THE OPPORTUNITY-FOR-THE TALIBAN TO DO THINGS THEY MIGHT NOT OTHERWISE DO.

THE ADMINISTRATION HAS SAID THEY'RE NOT GOING TO EXTEND THE AUGUST 31 DEADLINE BUT THEY HAVE ALSO ORDERED TINGE DIFFICULTCY PLANS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE SO THEY'VE LEFT THE DOOR OPEN TO DO WHATEVER THEY NEED TO DO OVER THE NEXT WEEK OR SO.

AND YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S VERY RESPONSIBLE.

NOW CLEARLY THINGS HAVE NOT GONE AS SMOOTHLY AS EVERYONE WOULD LIKE THEM TO GO.

BUT PEOPLE FORGET THAT AS EARLY AS APRIL, THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION WAS ASKING ALL AMERICANS WHO WANTED TO LEAVE AFGHANISTAN TO LEAVE BECAUSE THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION COMMITTED US TO LEAVE IN MAY, MAY 1.

AND SO WE HAVE BEEN DEALING WITH THIS SITUATION WHERE THE TALIBAN HAD BEEN GETTING STRONGER AND STRONGER.

AS PART OF THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, THEY RELEASED 5,000 TALIBAN PRISONERS WHO WERE LAWYERS.

AND THE IDEA THAT WE WERE LEAVING AT A DATE CERTAIN WAS THEN A LICENSE FOR THE TALIBAN TO GO START NEGOTIATING WITH THESE AFGHAN SECURITY FORCES IN THE PROVINCES AND SO FORTH AND SAYING IF YOU LAY DOWN YOUR ARMS, GIVE US YOUR ARMS, WE WON'T KILL YOU.

SO YOU KNOW, THE BIDEN ADMINISTRATION WAS LEFT WITH A VERY DIFFICULT SITUATION, PART OF WHICH THEY COULDN'T CONTROL.

I THINK THERE IS NO QUESTION THAT THEY COULD HAVE STARTED EVACUATING PEOPLE EARLIER.

THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT THAT.

BUT I THINK-- YOU KNOW, I LEARNED THIS OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS I'VE LEARNED A LOT.

BUT ONE OF THE THINGS I LEARNED PARTICULARLY FROM THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION IS THAT IN A LOT OF THESE FOREIGN POLICY SITUATIONS, THERE IS NO GAD ANSWER.

THERE IS NEVER A GOOD ANSWER, THERE IS NEVER A RIGHT ANSWER.

THERE IS ONLY THE LEAST BAD ANSWER.

AND I KNOW IN SYRIA, THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, THEY DREW A RED LINE AND SAID IF ASSAD USES CEPS CHEMICAL WEAPONS ON HIS OWN PEOPLE, AND HE D. I SPOKE WITH THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION PEOPLE, ONCE THEY DID THAT, THEY STARTED GAMING OUT EVERY POSSIBLE RESPONSE AND EVERY POSSIBLE RESPONSE WAS WORSE THAN THE STATUS QUO.

I KNOW EVERYBODY NOW WANTS TO HOP ON THIS AND MAKE IT A POLITICAL ISSUE.

REPUBLICANS DON'T HAVE DON'T HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO POLITICIZE BUT THEY'RE TRYING TO POLITICIZE THIS AND SENATOR McCONNELL, FOR INSTANCE, IN HIS STATEMENTS MADE IT SOUND LIKE IF WE HAD JUST LEFT THE 2500 TROOPS WHO WERE THERE IN PLACE THAT WE WOULD HAVE HAD A STATUS QUO.

THAT'S NOT RIGHT.

THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ALL THE REASONS I MENTIONED THAT THE TALIBAN WAS ALREADY TAKING STEPS TO COMPROMISE THE AFGHANY SECURITY.

THEY AGREED NOT TO ATTACK THE AMERICAN FORCES IF WE AGREED TO GET OUT BY MAY 1, UNDER THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION.

WELL WHAT WOULD HAVE HAPPENED TO THOSE 2500 AMERICAN TROOPS?

THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN UNDER ATTACK.

>> Renee: MANY AMERICANS ARE ASKING A VERY BASIC QUESTION, Mr. CHAIRMAN, THIS WAS THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION WHO NEGOTIATED WITH THE TALIBAN IN 2019, WHAT WAS THE WISDOM IN NEGOTIATING WITH THIS TERRORIST GROUP WHO IS IN PART SEPTEMBER FOR SEPTEMBER 11, 2001.

WHY EVEN GIVE THEM NEGOTIATING ROOM?

WHAT IS THE WISDOM IN THAT AND WHY ALLOW THEM TO DRAW THE RED LINES ON WITHDRAW?

>> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION AND I THINK IT HAD SOMETHING TO DO IF NOT ALL TO DO WITH TRUMP'S NAIVETE IN THE FOREIGN POLICY ARENA.

HE THOUGHT HE COULD CHARM ANYBODY AND HE WALKED INTO A DEAL THINKING-- I WILL GIVE HIM CREDIT, HE WAS CONSISTENT THAT HE DID NOT WANT TO HAVE AMERICAN TROOPS ENGAGED IN HOSTILITIES OVERSEAS BUT HE WAS A LITTLE BIT TOO ANXIOUS, I THINK, TO GET OUT.

>> Renee: WHAT DOES IT SIGNAL TO RUSSIA AND CHINA?

>> I THINK RIGHT NOW IT SIGNALS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM.

AND THEY'VE ALREADY LEAPT INTO THE BREACH AND STARTED TALKING WITH THE TALIBAN ABOUT THINGS THAT THEY COULD DO FOR THEM.

GUILT-- BUT YOU KNOW, I REMEMBER WELL WHEN WE INVADED AFGHANISTAN IN 2001 AND YOU KNOW, BLESS BARBARA LEE, THE ONLY VOTE AGAINST THE AUTHORIZATION OF THAT EFFORT, BUT I WAS HERE WRITING COLUMNS AT THE TIME AND I SAID YEAH, SURE, WE ARE GOING TO BOMB AFGHANISTAN BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BOMB SOMEBODY AFTER NUN 11.

BUT-- AFTER 9/11 WHAT ARE THE LONG-TERM RAMIFICATIONS OF DOING THIS?

AND ANYBODY WHO HAS STUDIED THE HISTORY OF GAFF AFGHANISTAN IS NOBODY TAKES OVER AFGHANISTAN.

>> Renee: LESSONS LEARNED, RIGHT?

BUT IT SEEMED LIKE THE RIGHT THING TO DO AT THE TIME?

AND THERE HAS BEEN SOME BENEFIT TO OUR OCCUPATION.

>> THERE HAS BEEN AND THAT'S ONE THING.

I'VE NEVER FORGET PROBABLY THE MOST ANGRY I'VE EVER BEEN.

I VISITED WALTER REED MANY YEARS AGO AND MET A YOUNG MARINE NAMED CARLOS EVANS.

HE WAS PUERTO RICAN AND HE WAS A MARINE AND JUST A WONDERFUL GUY.

ON HIS FOURTH DEPLOYMENT IN AFGHANISTAN, HE DIDN'T HAVE A SCRATCH AFTER THREE DEPLOYMENTS.

HIS FOURTH DEPLOYMENT HE STEPPED ON AN I.E.D.

AND LOST BOTH LEGS AND ONE HAND HE HAD THREE KIDS UNDER FIVE YEARS OLD.

HIS WIFE WAS A NURSE WHO MADE A GREAT INCOME BUT SHE COULDN'T WORK BECAUSE SHE HAD TO TAKE CARE OF HIM AND THE KIDS AND IT WAS JUST LIKE, WAS IT WORTH IT?

BUT I'LL TELL YOU WHERE THERE IS SOME CONSOLATION AND THAT IS THAT 70% OF THE AFGHANY PEOPLE ARE UNDER 25 YEARS OF AGE.

MANY OF THEM, IF NOT MOST OF THEM, HAVE BEEN EDUCATED BECAUSE WE 3 ALLOWED THEM TO BE EDUCATED >> Renee: ESPECIALLY THE WOMEN.

>> ESPECIALLY THE WOMEN.

SO THOSE WHO ARE AFRAID OF WHAT MAY HAPPEN TO THE SOCIETY THAT THEY MAY REVERT TO THEIR LAW, YOU MAY HAVE ANOTHER THING COMING BECAUSE YOU HAVE A GENERATION OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE NEVER KNOWN THAT KIND OF OPPRESSION AND ARE NOT GOING TO TAKE IT VERY WELL.

>> Renee: RIGHT.

>> I THINK WE HAVE MADE A DIFFERENCE THERE AND I HOPE PEOPLE LIKE CARLOS EVANS AND THE MANY FAMILIES WHO HAVE SACRIFICED OVER THERE FEEL THAT WAY.

>> Renee: A TOUGH PIF TO THE TALK ABOUT VOTING RIGHTS, ANOTHER PIECE OF LEGISLATION THAT YOU ALL PASSED A WEEK BEFORE THIS ACER.

THE JOHN LEWIS VOTING RIGHTS ADVANCEMENT ACT.

I KNOW YOU WERE PROUD TO BE ABLE TO VOTE ON THIS.

THE WORK THAT YOU HAD DONE ALONG THE LATE CONGRESSMAN JN LEWIS.

WHAT IS SO SIGNIFICANT ABOUT THIS PIECE OF LEGISLATION.

HOW DOES IT DIFER FROM-- DIFFER FROM THE FOR THE PEOPLE ACT THAT WAS BEFORE THE SENATE.

>> WE PASSED THE "FOR THE PEOPLE" ACT.

THAT DEALT WITH A NUMBER WHAT HAVE WE THOUGHT WERE STEPS THAT WOULD HELP MAKE IT EASIER TO VOTE FOR PEOPLE.

SO THAT BILL MANDATES SAME DAY REGISTRATION, AND, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN DAYS OF EARLY VOTING AND A LOT OF THINGS THAT KIND OF NUTS AND BOLTS OF VOTING.

THE JOHN LEWIS ACT TRIES TO RESTORE THE PROTECTIONS OF SECTION 4 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, WHICH THE SUPREME COURT BASICALLY VALIDATED AND SAID IF YOU ARE A STATE THAT HAS A HISTORY OF DISCRIMINATORY VOTING PRACTICES, THAT HAVE YOU TO CLEAR ANY CHANGES-- YOU HAVE TO PRECLEAR ANY CHANGES THAT YOU MAKE IN YOUR VOTING LAWS BEFORE YOU CAN IMPLEMENT THEM.

AND SO, FOR INSTANCE, I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY THE HISTORY OF TEXAS OR GEORGIA OR ARIZONA OR MANY OF THE STATES THAT ARE TRYING TO MAKE THESE CHANGES, BUT IF THEY HAD A CERTAIN NUMBER OF VOTING RIGHTS VIOLATIONS UNDER THE JOHN LEWIS ACT, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO PRECLEAR THOSE CHANGES WITH THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT AND IT JUST ADDS ANOTHER LAYER OF PROTECTION TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DON'T HAVE SYSTEMATIC VOTER SUPPRESSION IN A STATE OVER TIME.

>> Renee: DOES THE "FOR THE PEOPLE ACT" TAKE AWAY SOME OF THE RESPONSIBILITIES FROM STATE ELECTION OFFICIALS?

IF YOU TALK ABOUT EARLY VOTING AND OTHER THINGS, WHICH SEEM TO ALREADY APPLY-- I KNOW THE JURISPRUDENCE OF THE SECRETARIES OF STATE.

>> THE CONSTITUTION HIVE HEIST THE U.S.-- THE U.S. CONSTITUTION SAYS THAT CONGRESS THAT WILL PRESCRIBE THE TIME AND MANNER OF ELECTIONS FOR FEDERAL OFFICIALS FOR MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

HOUSE AND SENATE.

IT DOESN'T SAY ANYTHING ABOUT STATE ELECTIONS.

BUT THEN HAVE YOU THE 14th MMED AND THE 15th AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION WHICH BASICALLY DEAL WITH DUE PROCESS AND THOSE DUE RELATE TO STATE ELECTIONS.

CLEARLY THERE ARE FAR MORE STATE AND LOCAL ELECTIONS THAN THERE ARE FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

IN A FOUR-YEAR PERIOD, EVERYBODY IN AMERICA VOTES FOR A PRESIDENT, A SENATOR AND THEIR HOUSE MEMBER BUT THAT'S IT AND THEN YOU'VE GOT NUMEROUS SCHOOL OFFICIALS AND STATE LEGISLATURE AND CITY OFFICIALS AND SO FORTH.

AND SO THAT'S KIND OF ONE OF THE INTERESTING SEPARATION OF POWERS.

HOW FAR SHOULD THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GO TO REGULATE ELECTIONS WHEN ACTUALLY THEY'RE FAR MORE NON-FEDERAL ELECTIONS THAN FEDERAL.

SO I MEAN I UNDERSTAND THAT DEBATE, BUT AGAIN, THE CONSTITUTION SAYS TO US, WE HAVE THE POWER TO DETERMINE THE WAY OUR MEMBERS ARE ELECTED.

AND YOU DON'T WANT TO HAVE A SYSTEM IN WHICH YOU HAVE FEDERAL ELECTIONS ON ONE DAY AND EVERYTHING ELSE ON ANOTHER DAY.

BUT AGAIN, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE DON'T GET INTO THE TRAP WHERE WE SEE A REVERSION TO THE JIM CROW ERA WHERE YOU HAVE STATES THAT ARE BLATANTLY DISCRIMINATORY, WHETHER IT'S PARTISAN DISCRIMINATION OR RACIAL DISCRIMINATION, WHICH IS THE MOST FREQUENT VIOLATION.

SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE ARE ON VERY SOUND CONSTITUTIONAL GROUND AND VERY SOUND MORAL GROUNDS.

>> Renee: WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS IN THE SENATE UPPER CHAMBER AS WE OFTEN CALL IT.

>> WE CAN'T DO THAT BY RECONCILIATION.

THAT'S GOING TO HAVE TO-- UNLESS THE SENATORS DO SOMETHING WITH THE FILIBUSTER, IT IS UNLIKELY IT WILL GET ACTED ON IN THE SENATE.

>> Renee: IN THE MINUTE 30 WE HAVE LEST, I'M GOING TO ASK YOU ABOUT THE CHALLENGE IN 2022.

AT CUSS SCOTT, WHO WAS A STATE REPRESENTATIVE, STILL IS UNTIL THE END OF THE YEAR, RUNNING AGAINST YOU IN THE PRIMARY IN THE MAY OF 222.

YOUR THOUGHTS, I'VE HEARD YOU SAY AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS THAT PRIMARIES ARE HEALTHY.

MAKES GOOD CANDIDATES COMING OUT I HAVEN'T HAD SERIOUS PRIMARY CHALLENGES BUT A COUPLE OVER THE YEARS.

I HAVE A GREAT DEAL OF RESPECT FOR ATICUS SCOTT, WE PROBABLY AGREE ON 90% OF THE ISSUES AND YOU KNOW, IF I DECIDE TO RUN AGAIN, WHICH I HAVE NOT YET DONE.

I MEAN I DON'T KNOW WHAT REDISTRICTING IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE.

WE STILL HAVE TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE LEGISLATURE DOES WITH THE 3rd DISTRICT.

AND BUT I'M CONFIDENT THAT I HAVE SIGNIFICANT SUPPORT IN THE COMMUNITY PARTICULARLY AMONG DEMOCRATS.

>> Renee: SO ARE YOU HINTING THAT YOU HAVEN'T DECIDED IF YOU ARE GOING TO SEEK REELECTION?

>> I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO DOMENT.

>> Renee: THE RUMOR LAB THAT THEY'RE-- HAS BEEN THAT THEY'RE NOT REALLY GOING TO MESS WITH... >> I DON'T THINK THEY WILL BUT YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT IS GOING TO HAPPEN.

AND-- >> Renee: AND THAT WOULD BE WHAT WOULD INFLUENCE YOUR DECISION?

>> IT WOULD INFLUENCE MY DECISION.

PEOPLE ASK, WELL IF THEY DO THE ONE PLAN WHICH IS TO BREAK UP THE DISTRICT NAH THREE DISTRICT, I SAID I JUST WOULDN'T RUN THEN BECAUSE I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO -- WHAT CLEARLY IS TOWARD THE END OF MY CONGRESSIONAL CAREER, TO THE GOING TO TRY TO LEARN A PREDOMINANTLY NEW STRIGHT.

>> Renee: WHICH WOULD BE THE SAME FOR THE REPUBLICAN CONCERNS, THAT THE THEY WOULD HAVE TO LEARN A WHOLE NEW DISTRICT OR THE PEOPLE OF THAT DISTRICT AND WHAT THEIR EXPECTATIONS ARE.

>> I'VE TALKED TO THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE KENTUCKY DELEGATION, ALL REPUBLICANS, AND I THINK THAT'S HOW THEY FEEL.

THEY DON'T WANT TO LEARN A BUNCH OF NEW DISTRICTS EITHER.

>> Renee: THE EAST AND THE WEST COULD BE FACING SOME MANEUVERING THERE.

THE 5th AND THE 2nd CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.

>> YEAH, BUT IF I RUN AGAIN AND ATICUS SCOTT FOLLOWS UP ON HER ANNOUNCEMENT TO RUN, THEN WE'LL HAVE A GOOD PRIMARY.

AGAIN, IT WILL BE HEALTHY AND YOU HAVE A PRIMARY'S PRIMARY TO GO ALONG WITH THAT AND THAT WILL BE INTERESTING AS WELL.

>> Renee: A LOT TO KEEP OUR EYE ON.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN JOHN YARMOUTH.

I KNOW YOU LIKE TO HARE IT SAID Mr. CHAIRMAN.

>> FEELS PRETTY GOOD.

>> Renee: THANK YOU.

>> I WON'T HAVE MY GRANDSON CALL ME THAT.

>> Renee: THAT'S PROBABLY WISE.

GOT TO KEEP YOU HUMBLE SOMEHOW, RIGHT?

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

I KNOW IT HAS BEEN AN EXTREMELY BUSY WEEK AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR TALKING TO US.

>> GOOD TO BE HERE.

>> Renee: THANK YOU FOR WATCHING CONGRESSIONAL UPDATE.

I'M RENEE SHAW.

TAKE REALLY GOOD CARE.

SEE YOU SOON.

TOMORROW NIGHT WE WRAP UP OUR SERIES OF INTERVIEWS WITH MEMBERS OF KENTUCKY'S FEDERAL DELEGATION WITH U.S. SENATE MINORITY LEADER MITCH McCONNELL FROM OUR LOUISVILLE STUDIOS WE TALK ABOUT COVID, INFRASTRUCTURE AND MORE.

THAT'S 6:30 EASTERN, 5:30