providing emergency funding for u.s. capitol security. on c-span two, the senate returns at 10:30 a.m. to discuss technology research to help the u.s. remain competitive with china. 10:00 a.m., on c-span3, pete buttigieg testifies on president biden's infrastructure proposal. there is a house climate hearing on expanding the electric grid on our website. you will find this on www.c-span.org. this morning, we speak with scott perry of pennsylvania about cybersecurity and the colonial pipeline hack and the

commission to investigate the attack on the u.s. capitol. ed case joins us to discuss government spending proposals, including today's emergency supplemental bill to include security at the capitol. washington journalism next. -- washington journal is next. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> the bill is passed without objection. motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. ♪ host: that was nancy pelosi yesterday as the house approved legislation to investigate the attack on the u.s. capitol. the bill now heads to the senate, where its fate is far less certain. the phone lines are split by political parties, as usual.

(202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. you can send us a text at (202)-748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you are from. catch up with us on social media, on twitter, @cspanwj, and on facebook at facebook.com/cspan. 35 republicans joined democrats in voting for the commission bill. this was nancy pelosi before the vote. [video clip] >> the capital of the united states has always been a beacon of democracy for the country in the world. this legislation is vital, it is about our democracy, about ensuring the u.s. capitol

remains a symbol of freedom, about preserving america's role in bringing determination to the world. this sends a resounding message to terrorists home and abroad, the commitment of the congress to the constitution and the american people is unshakable. in establishing the truth of january 6, this commission will protect our temple of democracy and our democracy itself and ensure another attack will never happen again. host: that bill emerged from negotiations between democratic and gop leaders of the house homeland security committee. this is the topic of looking -- this is the top republican of the security committee. >> this is about facts. it is not partisan.

we would have never got to this point if it was about partisan politics. thanks to this partnership, this remains a bipartisan committee focused on securing the nation while leaving partisanship at the door, which is exactly what the american people expect of us. the chairman and i worked together to block out the political noise and turn this into a reasonable, nonpartisan bill. now, hr 3233 is nearly identical to hr 275 that i introduced on january 13, six days after the attack. i sincerely appreciate the chairman's collaboration and commitment, as well as his friendship, for working together on this effort. i fully recognize in a diverse body like this, members come down on different sides of

different issues. i welcome that. we all should. that is america. none of this is personal. it is about our mutual desire to keep america safe and secure. to my friends on both sides of the aisle, i vote for a civil debate. at the end of the day, i strongly believe this is a fair and necessary legislation. i encourage all members, republicans and democrats, to put down their swords for once, just for once, and support this bill. host: despite those efforts, 175 republicans voted against the bill, among them, marjorie taylor greene of georgia. [video clip] >> as a person who was a victim of the capitol attack, i am against the violence that happened that day but i do not believe a commission will achieve any resolution because we have already had our doj arrest 445 people, with 100 more

to be arrested soon. there are reports of people being held for 23 hours in solitary confinement. that should not be happening, these people have not had a court date yet. what is going to happen with the commission is the media is going to use this to smear trump supporters and president trump for the next three years and cover up the real damage happening to the real people of this country, which is tearing down our economy, ripping our borders open and hurting this country. host: marjorie taylor greene yesterday on the house floor. showing you debate and reaction after the boat and where the bill heads -- and reaction after the vote and where the bill heads to the senate, where its fate is uncertain. we want your reaction. phone lines split, democrats, republicans, independents.

caller: good morning. i'm terribly disappointed in this divisiveness. this marjorie taylor greene and other republicans did show the people at the insurrection where to go and what to do and if that is not exposed, i don't know how you get to the bottom of anything. packo is terribly divisive. he was using racist language three days after that. host: what do you think of his efforts to get both sides to vote for a fair bipartisan bill? caller: i just don't trust him at all. he is talking out of both sides of his mouth. republican all the way.

divisive all the way. what we need is an investigative body put their, completely independent. that is all. host: we will stay in florida, vero beach, stephen. caller: good morning. as much as i don't agree with everything marjorie taylor greene says, a lot of it holds true. we need an independent body to investigate what went on. classic political misdirection. look at chicago. 30 people get shot on a weekend. no one cares. there is no investigation. they move the ball so you focus on one thing, when they don't pay attention to what is going on down the street. it is more divisive on the

democratic side than it has ever been. thank you. host: from the front page of the washington post, the sub headline on this vote yesterday. mitch mcconnell saying he opposes legislation because it is slanted, saying it is not clear what additional investigation another commission could lay on top of the existing efforts by law enforcement and congress. that was mitch mcconnell on the floor yesterday. chuck schumer has promised it will go for a vote on the senate floor. they would need 60 votes to clear the filibuster. seven senate republicans voted to impeach former president trump after january 6 and those

senators are likely to back the bill but mcconnell's stance now is likely to prompt other republicans to close ranks and oppose the bill. the fate of the bill is uncertain on the senate floor. alexander, brooklyn, new york, democrat. caller: good morning. it is important the truth comes out. republicans have been backpedaling. they need to be held accountable. people need accountability. if there isn't a concrete closure -- new york city and all these other cities where republicans say, blm, all these things, trying to relate it to january 6 -- none of this will have closure until there is

accountability. republicans, real conservative republicans have to stand up. whatever people might say about packo, he is right. we need a bipartisan, independent commission, 9/11 style to get to the bottom of this. i understand republicans are wary of the fact democrats might take this and push it all the way to 2022. they need to work on grounds so they can feel there is bipartisanship but regardless of the politics, if you have people out there that think that what happened on january 6 was just tourists walking through the capital and trying to say this is not a threat, then they are very wrong.

if this is allowed to happen now, it is setting a precedent for what could happen in the future. host: terry, canton, north carolina. caller: good morning. what i hear is a lot of one-sided this. c-span, last may, when democrats stormed the capital -- are you still there? host: when did the democrats stormed the capital? caller: last may, when they stormed the capital, spray-painted the andrew jackson monument in front of the white house, where they spray-painted "kill whitey" on it? let's not forget the republican convention, where a senator was almost killed. 80-year-old women were being assaulted.

nothing was ever said. i don't hear nobody else calling in wanting to know david dorn's name either, a man who was also killed by blm. when we have some clarity and truth telling from the media, we will have some results. until that, you guys are so one-sided. host: do you think it is on the media to do an investigation here? caller: i think the media should do their job and quit lying about what is actually going on. we have homeless people all over this country in tent cities. what have the democrats done? what have the democrats done for black americans for 60 years? not a dam thing. host: 35 republicans joined 217

democrats in voting on the house floor to create this commission yesterday. 175 republicans voted against formation of commission. congressman tim ryan, democrat from ohio, with choice words for the republicans who voted against. tim ryan after the vote in a speech getting play on twitter. [video clip] >> i want to thank the gentleman from new york and other republicans supporting this, for their bipartisanship. to the other 90%, holy cow! incoherence! no idea what you're talking about! thank god he, you chased the former secretary of state all over the country, spent millions of dollars -- we have people scaling the capital, hitting people with lead pipes and we cannot get bipartisanship!

what else has to happen in this country? this is a slap in the face to every rank-and-file cop in the u.s.! if we are going to take on china, rebuild the country, reverse climate change, we need two political parties in this country that are both living in reality! you ain't one of them! i yield back. host: tim ryan on the house floor, yesterday evening. alan, watertown, tennessee, independent. caller: got a question. when's the last time we had a legit investigation? nothing on the fast and furious. election fraud this year. nothing. russian hoax from the fbi. benghazi. the email service. origins of the coronavirus. the blm riots. you're not going to get an

investigation. the idea that this is an independent panel is a joke. host: do you think the 9/11 commission was a legit investigation? that commission is what supporters of this bill were pointing to, this would be something in that vein. caller: sure. i have got it. i have the warren report. i have all sorts of reports. that was 30 years ago. things are completely different now. you think independent is five democrats on one side and three rhinos on the other? if you took 10 people's names out of the phone book and made a commission, that might be independent. when you have politicians comprising a panel that is not an independent panel, those are politicians steeped in washington. host: to give you expectations

for what the commission would be, this is what is in the legislation. it would be a panel made up of five commissioners appointed by democrats and the chair would be appointed by democrats, five commissioners and a vice chair appointed by republicans, balanced. the commissioners are not expected to be members of congress but individuals with security, intelligence and law enforcement. the final report would be due by september 31. the commission would have subpoena authority. that is some of the makeup of the bill passed yesterday. it now goes to the senate and would have to overcome a filibuster. it would eventually go to the president to be signed into law. pam, dixon, tennessee, democrat. caller: i have a question. our members of congress required

to uphold the oath they took? there is probably something in there about defending the constitution, which they did not do. no matter how many courts say they don't have enough evidence, they keep repeating the lies about the election. they're not acting in the best interest of our country. they are acting in the best interest of the former president and themselves because they hope to get the votes they hope you can deliver. is there any kind of policing agency for congresspeople? if they want to support a conspiracy theory -- host: the mechanism by which to hold members of congress accountable -- election.

there's another one coming up in 2022. caller: the problem with that is they are continuing to brainwash the people into believing trumpism. if they are allowed to continue brainwashing people from a position of authority, that will affect the outcome of the election. host: republican, fort pierce, florida, barbara. caller: good morning. i want to know why is it that our fbi is going to people's houses that went to the capital on january 6, peacefully, peacefully, demonstrating, but the fbi are going to people's houses that were there and had nothing to do with going into the capitol? it is despicable.

host: where do you draw the line? was it entering the building for you, the difference between peacefully demonstrating and rioting? what about the video we have seen? caller: you are not showing all the videos. they are holding all the videos. that is what is deplorable. the democrats and the liberals are only showing what they want to show. show the whole entire videos. where, the capitol police, showing that, you can protest peacefully, inside the capitol. you have video showing that. host: you think there were peaceful protests among those who went inside the capital that day? caller: yes! yes. i support marjorie taylor greene. i support our former president. he was definitely definitely for

america. not what is going on in the middle east as far as what biden is saying, holding, saying, cease fire. come on! that is ridiculous. host: more from the debate for the houseboat yesterday -- house vote yesterday. some concerns about the bill. [video clip] >> how can you have a bipartisan commission within all democrats staff? how do you do that? why is it there is no willingness to look into all the riots in the arson and the violence and the burning? if we are concerned about the danger police officers in on january 6, and certainly they

were, then why don't we have that concern for the dangers, violence, the injuries, the deaths faced by officers across this country? why is one form of political violence equivalent to 9/11? when a blind eye has been turned by this congress or the majority of this congress to that same phenomenon across this country for years? where's the inquiry into that? when the images are raised, the lurid images about insurrection -- let me say this -- if it was an insurrection, it was the worst example of an insurrection in the history of mankind! it was a riot! it was a mob! it was significant! it was troublesome.

but this is not bipartisanship. i fear the gentleman from new york may find he has been played. host: dan bishop referring to john katko, the republican ranking member of the house homeland security committee that worked with congressman bennie thompson, the chairman of that committee to come up with legislation. several republicans among the 35 who ended up voting for the legislation, spoke for the legislation on the floor yesterday including katko, congressman bishop, one of four republicans who spoke against the legislation during the final hour of debate on the floor yesterday. the washington post points out today, among those missing from that final debate yesterday, the house minority leader, kevin mccarthy, did not speak

during the final debate as he normally does when important bills are being considered. jim mcgovern, the chairman of the house rules committee, democrat from massachusetts, with this comment on twitter pointed toward kevin mccarthy saying he did not have the guts to explain his opposition to a bipartisan commission to investigate the insurrection. maybe he got a call from the disgraced ex-president on the mar-a-lago prison phone telling him he was not allowed to talk? this is patsy, massachusetts, independent. caller: good morning. i'm very glad the bill passed yesterday although i have to say, all day long it said -- it went on until 6:00 at night -- anyway. i have one question. i would like people to help. on the fourth or fifth of

january, i heard that a woman from the midwest had gotten a permit for a rally on the 22nd of january on the promenade in washington where the normal demonstrations are. then president trump went and decided to help her with it and help her get people and he switched it to the time of the ballots. i believe that is the most damning thing you could hear. he switched the time and date on the permit. i heard this. i was told it was true. i have looked it up but i have not seen anything since. host: where? caller: oh my goodness, it was

either on cnn. i watched all of them. i watch fox, cnn, all of them, because i believe, democrats and republicans, for 50 years -- what i'm saying is, that was the type of thing that showed intent right from the giddy up when he change to that date. host: kingsport, tennessee, dennis, republican. caller: morning. i got one question. when did america ever become a democracy? that they're talking about? as far as i know, we have always been a republic. i would like to know where they come up with the word "democracy." host: what do you think about

the commission? caller: the riot, i don't care if they investigate it. people broken. i would like to see the records they got out of there, that come out years from now. -- people broke in. that is not the fight we need to have right now. the fight we need to have right now is against this democracy. we don't need democracy in america. we need to keep our republic. host: among the 35 republicans who joined 217 democrats in voting for the legislation yesterday, michigan congressman fred upton, some of his comments from the floor before the vote. [video clip] >> i wasn't in the chamber that day when the breach was attempted but i heard the shouts, saw the flashbangs, smelled the gas on that sorry day.

if it had not been for the brave u.s. capitol and metropolitan police men and women, who knows how many of our heads would have been swinging on those gallows that were constructed on the east front of the capital? i talked to the exhausted swat team members, the police, and watched some of the body cameras. i talked to some of our still shaken colleagues who endured that day. we need the answers. not political rhetoric. that is what this bipartisan commission can provide for all of us, for our country. let the truth shine in. host: a couple more calls this morning. shorter show than usual because the house is coming in at 9 a.m. eastern and of course we will take you live there for gavel to gavel coverage when it comes in.

among the issues it is taking up today, an effort to look at funding for an emergency supplemental in response to the january 6 attack on the capital, which would provide $1.9 billion in additional u.s. capitol security to reinforce the d.c. national guard and law enforcement as well as other federal agencies for expenses incurred in responding to the attack. you can see some of the specific line items in that capital security supplemental spending bill. memphis, tennessee, democrat. caller: what is partisanship -- [indiscernible] -- under the v.a. -- i want to say, [indiscernible] -- host: bring us to the topic

at hand. caller: the topic at hand is real. you have the commission not willing to tell the truth on the 9/11 commission. [indiscernible] -- we have to go to war after the first plane -- [indiscernible] host: lucy, florida, independent. caller: good morning. i would like to raise an alarm on the fact i think part of the problem we are dealing with here with cybersecurity, the reason i say that is because following the january 6 insurrection, when i went to report some activity online that looked to be some planning about it, i was immediately affected by a virus. i cannot seem to get out of this

virus. i have no idea how they are doing it. host: who did you try to report activity to? caller:caller: i believe to the. she was from the -- the minute i received an email bomb, and it was something similar to what she posted online, so i'm guessing she somehow threw it, that i was infected. i'm thinking based on the virus i have that it is possible that there are thousands and thousands of people in this country that are infected with the virus, but it is taking in their internet searches so they cannot access. host: that is lucian florida. this is richard, nashville, tennessee. good morning. caller: i vote independent for them i will tell you why. i have voted democrat, i have voted republican. they are all a bunch of crooks. there are some good and some of them.

here is the bottom line. a student commission on every state capital in the state that was attacked, whether republican or democrat, but at the end of the day, this is all politics. at the end of the day they are worried about 75 million people that back donald trump. if they don't get their act together, they are going to lose the house and the senate, and they have to watch out with what happens in america. i don't agree with what happened in washington, d.c., but i don't believe in what happened -- i don't agree with what happened in portland and seattle or any other small city or town. you said -- host: you said there is good in some of them. what do you look for? caller: i will say you want to do away with the insurrections of any type in d.c. -- in the state of texas, their legislator only needs i think 1 -- meets once or twice every year or something like that. they don't meet every month or so like they do in most states.

make these congressmen go back to their districts, make them live in -- in nashville we used to have police and firemen. to be on that force, you had to live in that county. make these politicians get to drive to their office, and they have to see that everybody agrees with them or disagrees with them, and then they will do what they were voted in to do. host: richard, after today's action on the house floor, the house will go into a district work period, and members of congress will be back in their districts, the next set of votes that is scheduled, june 15, and the house will hold pro forma sessions every three days until then. so today is the last day you can see them here on the house floor. tb is next out of washington, a republican. good morning.

caller: good morning, how are you doing? i hope that the goal of the commission is to find out what motivated the insurgents to do what they did. it was absolutely wrong, and i think it is beyond just a few words and speeches, what they did. earlier callers talked about the demonstrations and the cities and in the last spring, where the statue was being torn down. it reminded me of getting back to the motivation of the insurgents, i was a nonpaid lobbyist to promote the motion picture industry in the state of washington back in 2000. in 2017, after president trump was legally elected by the laws of the country, there were massive protests all over the country that shut down town hall meetings and shut down the business of everybody in a lot

of state capitals. i was one of those people that found a way to still talk to legislators in a civil way to get the business across that we need to get done. host: how does one become an unpaid lobbyist? caller: you volunteer. you have a personal interest in supporting industry that you work in. host: what was your personal interest as a guy whose name is tv? caller: i work in the motion picture industry, overly coming back in concerts, at multiple levels, mostly at groundwork. art department, things like that. so i've had -- i know i'm killing airtime here, but the point i'm getting to is there is a reason why a lot of people are upset about the way things are

going in this country, and it is because the will -- the politicians cannot get along. it seems to me there is a lot of them and there is a lot of money that goes into selling discourse between everybody. so i hope that by the end of this bipartisan commission, it is a one thought that goes behind -- we need to get the country going forward. there is a reason why a lot of people -- host: last question before you go. a lot of people blame lobbyists for various problems in this country. do you think lobbyists are the problem? caller: i think paid lobbyists have an issue, and i think politicians that have become paid lobbyists have an issue. but if you call your senator, you are lobbying for your issue. i'm lobbying for my industry and other causes, too, not just industry i work in. it is the verb. when i lobby, i am lobbying. i'm trying to get the ear, the

attention of my legislators. host: thanks for the call from washington. time for a few more calls. jeffrey, auburn, new york, your next. caller: good morning. i would like to address a couple of the conspiracy theorist crackpots. first of all, i am a veteran, and when i was a veteran, i voted absentee. when i was active, active duty, i voted absentee. but many disabled veterans vote absentee as well. so if you oppose absentee balloting, you are in opposition of the u.s. military and all the veterans that serve, and i will guarantee you, the country is split sort of 50/50. i say it is 33/33/and 34. because 33% republican, 34%

democratic, and 33% apathetic. i would say the military is split just like that, too. if you want to call it 50/50, you are deceiving yourself. the other point is, you can fight any kind of military conspiracy theory on the internet. i have to look for the search engines feed you these lies and distortions. if you believe that, you are pretty much being unpatriotic. you really need to quit with his conspiracy theory and get back with reality, and i will make one final point. host: what is the best way to get back with reality, jeffrey? caller: the constant droning of cable news networks is counterproductive. i don't get msnbc or c-span, i get basic cable. i watch 3 in bc 5 cbs or 9 abc.

and they don't seem to steer you wrong like fox and some of the conspiracy theorists. host: i imagine c-span is on your basic cable? caller: yes, it is. unfortunately, c-span2 does not, so you guys might want to lobby the cable companies to put c-span2 as well, because that is great and should be on basic cable. host: jeffrey, i appreciate your time. we are running out of time this morning. i appreciate all the calls in the first segment of "the washington journal." two members of congress join us. up first is pennsylvania republican scott perry, who served on the transportation and infrastructure committee, and later we will leave joined by democrat and appropriations committee member ed case. stick around. we will be right back.

and i'm sick of sunday on q&a, attorney greg francis on his book "just harvest." >> this is a story that picks the plight of black farmers in america, and landmark case in the following case was dealt with -- which dealt with step -- systemic's termination by the usda against black farmers, that decimated the population of black farmers, contributed to their cash to them leaving the farms, as well as losing land, and the familiar structure that goes along with being a farmer. announcer: greg francis, sunday on q&a. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: taking your phone calls and your thoughts, and in the next 20 or 25 minutes or so of "the washington journal" with

pennsylvania republican scott perry. he is a member of the foreign affairs, infrastructure committees. yesterday's vote on that commission, it was about that split your conference. it was 35 for the commission, 175 against. what side of that line did you fall on? guest: i voted no on the measure. i think it is an important topic, and unfortunately, though, it seems like the outcome was predetermined. i had some amendments on the bill. none of those were allowed to even be heard, much less voted upon. so i think there is an interest certainly from the american people, what i think there are a lot of folks -- myself included -- that feel there has been a lot of one-sided justice, unfortunately, over the last couple of years, and even with the january 6 event, and with the almost immediately following on impeachment that was rife with misinformation, and, you

know, when the outcomes are predetermined and when the deck is stacked against finding the truth, i think that any kind of commission like that should be seeking the truth, but when it seems like it is looking for a particular outcome, that is not where we want to be. number two, this really is the purview probably largely of the entire congress, and we could certainly take a look at it, but law enforcement in particular ensures the rights of all people involved, regardless of which side of the issue you are on. their ongoing investigations in connection with those events. at this point, based on what i saw in the bill is self, it will be better off just waiting to see what the outcome of those investigations are conducted by law enforcement. host: democrats have accused republicans, leader mccarthy, of

rewriting the history of january 6. how do you describe the events of that day? guest: i described the events of that day -- i know i was in the capitol, and i just kind of hung my head. it was a sad experience, quite honestly. just very, very disappointing. i think obviously things got out of hand and, you know, one of the questions i asked at the time, and i don't know that we have ever gotten an answer to this -- but where was the speaker and where was house leadership involved in security, and what were their decisions in this regard? we have heard decisions were maced -- were based on open-source intelligence. if those requests were denied, we should know why they were denied and what the speaker's culpability is in securing the nation's capitol at that moment. we have seen many other protests and marches, etc., and

washington, d.c., and the capitol complex has been fortified with regard to that in anticipation of that on those occasions. but in this occasion, which was highly publicized, and the information was there with open source methodologies, it doesn't seem any action was taken. that is an important provision that needs to be investigated and needs to be daylighted there. with all due respect to the speaker, if the speaker is selecting the committee members on this panel, i suspect that they are not going to be very interested in investigating any culpability or shortcomings on the part of leadership in the capitol. again, that is one-sided justice. host: you talk about a fortified capitol. a bill on the house floor today, to spend another 1.9 billion dollars on u.s. capitol security . does the capital need it? how are you going to vote?

guest: i'm taking a look at it, and i am not quite done yet. when i think about what has been done and what could be done here, over the last couple of months, the other tragic scene is seeing the fencing and the barriers, the military personnel. i served in uniform for many years, so i have great respect for the military. but that's not what the capitol of the united states of america is supposed to look like. while we could go to church because of covid lockdowns -- we could not go to church because of lockdowns, and we could not get to the capitol, that is a bad message to send to americans that your capitol is off-limits. we want the capitol to be secure, but we should be able to do it to personnel as opposed to long standing barriers. i don't think you are not welcome in the capitol is a good message sent. if it appears to be that at this

point, i will not be inclined to be supportive of that. host: congressman scott perry with us for about another 20 minutes this morning. phone lines as usual. democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. the colonial pipeline is getting a lot of focus on the national security fun. what lessons need to be learned from that? what can we do to harden our cyber national security echo guest: cybersecurity in the united states of america cannot be understated at any level. an open and democratic society like we have, it is difficult to thwart adversaries, whether they are nationstates or individual actors, what have you. they are working at the speed of crime and electricity, and we are working at the speed of bureaucracy and constitutional

rights. it is difficult, but we have to be vigilant on it. and it has to be an absolute number one priority. regarding the pipeline, one of the major lessons learned -- and it is unfortunate that it came to this -- first of all, we have a security issue that needs to be focused upon, even though it remains much in the private sector for goods and services, but it affects the national security of the country and our national economy and people's lives in a very detrimental fashion. the other thing is that we have to get real about what works in america and what our dreams and hopes and goals are. sure, we want to have an energy platform that includes everything -- all of the above, so to speak -- but we have to be realistic on what works on a day to day basis. you cannot depend upon one single source of production or

distribution for gasoline and for fuels that heat homes, that power businesses, and that run our transportation systems, and i think that is what we learned here. at the same time, we also i think now have some agreement that lines are the safest and most efficacious way of transferring this fuel, so let's quit fighting over the pipelines and have some redundancy, and let's acknowledge that the best way to do business at this time -- we can still strive for other things, but we have to live our lives day to day right now, and there is no reason to be ideological about it and put people in a circumstance where they cannot get to work, they cannot get to school, or they don't know if they can travel, and it is a huge disruption to their lives, and show our adversaries and enemies how vulnerable we are because we refuse to have redundancy based on an ideological disagreement with pipelines or with the fuels that actually power the energy

economy of our country today. host: one other national security question on israel and gaza -- the white house releasing information about president biden's conversation with prime minister benjamin netanyahu yesterday. the president telling the israeli prime minister, he expects a significant de-escalation today on the path to a cease-fire. your expectation of where this goes and what the u.s. should be doing? guest: well, i certainly hope we see less violence in the middle east. i think we all do. it is a horrific humanitarian tragedy to be sure, but i am curious -- if the calls to de-escalate have also gone out to the attackers. that's remember a very important point here, that israel is responding to being attacked, literally thousands of rockets in the past 10 days, most of those rockets or the

infrastructure to send them into innocent and unprepared civilian populations in israel. those rockets, those munitions come from hamas, which is super by iran. hamas is -- that is where that stuff comes from. so in this fight, i wonder where the biden administration is not standing with our greatest ally in the middle east and saying where is the de-escalation on the part of the attackers? instead of requiring israel to be the first one to step up and to say, look, we all want to be the first want to do the right thing, but at this moment israel is trying to make sure that the networks and the underground networks and the provisions provided by iran are continually used -- are not continually used to destroy israel's population, kill their people, and attacked them. it is unfortunate that this has to happen, but again, let's remove or that israel was

responding. what would america do if somehow we were attacked? would we not respond, and would we not respond in a way that mitigated the ability of the attacker to respond? i think that is an appropriate question, and so i am curious to know where the biden administration is on that subject. host: plenty of calls lined up for you. we will start in the keystone state. chris, a republican, good morning. you are on with congressman perry. caller: good morning, congressman. i am a registered republican from lancaster county. i worked at the rec center for lancaster county, and i really value your intelligence and the way you have helped that system. and identifying ways to be responsible. i know that interaction that you had there. but i would like to say that

unfortunately i disagree with many of the things that you have actually done to be responsible, say, four our republic and our people. and voting no on the idea of investigating what happened on january 6 i feel is not responsible, nor safe for the american people, sir. i do value you as my elected representative for my state, and i really do wish that there would be more of an independence of your leadership, considering what took place in the republican party. i really feel my republican party is -- it's values that i consider hi are being distorted. and unfortunately, there is a limited amount of republicans left that i actually have faith in. host: congressman perry, a chance to respond. guest: chris, i respect your view, and again, we all want to understand fully the events of january 6, and quite honestly the events around the rest of the country for the time, the

period, the summer, etc., leading up to january 6. many cities in the nation were burning, a federal courthouse was under siege continually for over 100 days, literally trying to burn the place down, forcing the police just day inside a building while they set it on fire. these kinds of things come all this is part and parcel of the same thing, so we should have a broader investigation. chris, i think you would agree that you don't want one side to justice. what you're interested in is an investigation that outlines and reveals the facts that decisions can be made on that when it is very apparent that some of our colleagues you are not interested in finding the truth. what am i to do, just accept that premise is the only way of doing things? let's remember, as i said, there are ongoing investigations, rightly so, by law enforcement going on right now regarding those events, and we are hopeful that there will be the sections afforded to those accused and those aggrieved in that process

to make sure that the truth is known and justice is delivered in a fair and evenhanded way, as it should be, as enumerated in our constitution. host: bakersfield, california. jimbo, independent. good morning. guest: good morning. caller: good morning, congressman perry. i would be remiss not to give a shout out to a troop republican -- to a true conservative in the republican party, david valid ao . he voted with the -- he is a very capable man who, who i will be supporting with both money and time. he is a true conservative. i just wanted to make sure i got that out there. commerce metairie, are you capable of recognizing -- congressman perry, or you capable of recognizing that an angry mob who entered the

capitol would have killed the vice president and other members of congress if they got their hands on them? in addition, the january 6 violence and the other unspeakable acts of violence which have taken place, this mob actually prevented the peaceful transfer of power. they actually did that. they prevented that. that was their intent. again, this was an attack on american democracy, which again, if you recognize it, they would have killed kevin mccarthy, they would have killed mitch mcconnell. host: got your point, jimbo. guest: the events of the day were tragic. i think i outlined my feelings of the very moment, and how disappointed i was at the circumstance. i think we have got to be careful about assigning the fact , the supposition that anybody was going to be killed by the people who came into the capitol on january 6. i remind anybody, godless of the reporting to date, there has only been one fatality that can

be attributed really to those events right there, and that is ashli babbitt, shot by security forces in the capitol. the other deaths that were treated to the mob, so to speak, and the sensational reporting, unfortunately just were not really accurate, and i think that probably most people know that now. so i think we have to be really careful with designing something that didn't happen, as hyperbole or a potential issue, and an act that did happen. just remember as well, there was no arm that came in as far as i know, other than the people who were armed at the capitol. no arms came into the capitol with the people that did walk into the capitol or break their way into the capitol, what have you. i acknowledge that certainly the events of the day were tragic and should not have happened, but let's not -- let's make sure we don't say things that did happen and act as if they did or did not.

or would have. that is a bit responsible. host: you think the shooting by -- of ashli babbitt was legitimate by a law enforcement officer? guest: there is reason to be unhappy on both sides of the equation. ashli babbitt should not have been there, but ashli babbitt was unarmed. i think we will see the light of day on that once the court proceedings or the lawsuits, so to speak, are fully vetted, and again, i don't want to assign blame to anybody -- i am not an investigator, i am not on the court. all i did was see what everybody else saw in open source reporting, and a lot of things can be left out, so it is really important that we don't come to conclusions that have not been justified or verified. host: crestview, florida, shane, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i agree with the last caller 100%.

i mean, it was an attack on our democracy. it was to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. and i wanted to make a correction earlier. thomas has culture a cease-fire, and israel has responded with we will keep -- hamas has called for a cease-fire, and israel has responded with we will keep bombing. they are the bigger man. they could have ceased fired with hamas when they called for it. guest: do you want a response, or -- host: i think we lost the caller. i will give you a chance to respond. guest: again, let's remember how moss is the attacker. i'm sure that israel is responding, and it is overwhelming, and that's why you don't attack your neighbors. you cannot attack your neighbor, send in thousands of rockets, and kill civilian populations

that are unarmed and innocent in this thing, and then run back to the tunnel or the safe space or your human shield, and then claim that please don't respond to that. that is just not realistic. israel is going to respond to being attacked, and they are going to make sure that they disable the ability of hamas to continue to attack, and while i am sure that thousands of rockets have gone from hamas into israel, that there are thousands more standing by, and israel wants to make sure that they disable that, and it is their right to defend themselves to do that. i will support that right. host: whose job is it to deescalate here? who has to take the first step? guest: both sides, but let's remember the -- that hamas is the attacker. both sides have the

responsibility and the duty to do that, but it seems we are asking one side to do that. i don't think that is appropriate. imagine if your home were attacked come your family were attacked, your family were injured or killed, and somehow law enforcement or your neighbor is saying, now you need to be the bigger person and stand down here. meanwhile, the neighbor that is attacking you has all the ability and the components to press the attack. you know, i think it would be -- i think that would not -- you would not appreciate that viewpoint if you were the one being attacked, and i think that is the position that israel is in right now, as they usually are. host: back to the keystone state. sharon, pennsylvania. celeste is calling in, a democrat. guest: hi, celeste from sharon. caller: hi. i want you to say, when we talk about the so-called insurrection. we saw it with our own eyes. when you say it didn't happen,

some were saying that they were staying between the -- we saw it with our own eyes. why are you so afraid, any of us, to see what happened? we have to get to it. unless this takes care of the -- why can't we do that like we are doing with this? why do we have to put it all together? this is america. go ahead. guest: we don't have to put it altogether, but i would suggest that not much has been done with the violence last summer over the 150 days or so. not much has been done with that from the federal level, and again, we should not be pre-determining the outcome. i just want to make sure that you don't think i said it -- i never said it did not happen. i was here, ma'am, when it was occurring, living right through it, so no one said it did not happen, but let's have an evenhanded approach to the whole thing. let's make sure that people who are innocent are not treated as

criminals. so if the commission is set up to be one-sided, i am not sure that any american that is looking for actual truth or justice is supportive of that, and that is what the commission was. if you look at the tenets of the commission that was offered, and it is that or nothing, right? you can either vote on that or nothing. unfortunately, you should not vote on a one-sided deal with a predetermined outcome or nothing. it is a bad choice to have for sure. but we are offered bad choices for congress every single day, and you don't hate -- you don't take the bad choices or nothing. it passed -- especially when choices or rights are involved. host: region you, independent -- can you make it quick? caller: yes is, i can. i think the reason why the republicans don't want to open a commission into the january 6

events is because they were involved. shame on the fbi for not arresting them on january 6. caller: -- guest: i'm not sure which republicans were involved. i'm assuming stacy means members of congress or what have you. i don't know of any. we are happy to have an open investigation, as i said. there are open investigations right now as far as i know. all members of congress' phones, the transmissions were intercepted by the intelligence agencies, whether the fbi or otherwise were here, and are open for investigation. if people are culpable, justice needs to be pale -- to prevail. i think the blanket charge is irresponsible, and without any foundation, unfortunately. host: congressman scott perry, i appreciate you zooming in with us this morning.

guest: thank you, sir. appreciate you. god bless you. host: or other program for them in the next half-hour, we will be joined by the second member of congress today, hawaii democrat appropriations committee member ed case. we will be right back. announcer: american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story, every weekend. tonight at 8:00 eastern on lectures in history, allison parker details activist mary church carol's 1923 fight against the united daughters of the confederacy's attempt to erect a black mammy statue in washington, d.c. she prevented the statue from being built. and explore the shaw memorial on american artifact, dedicated to

robert gold shaw. one of the war's first african-american units. sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency, a look at the george h.w. bush presidential library and museum and how the complex has entered a new phase since the death of the 40 third president -- the 41st president and his wife, barbara. this weekend on c-span3.

announcer: washington journal continues. host: hawaii democrat congressman ed case joins us now. representing a district where 80% of his constituents can trace their roots to asia or the islands. battling hate crimes against asians and pacific islanders. guest: i appreciate the opportunity to be on. this was a very important, very moving week. asian-americans in our country have had a long and incredible history, a contribution of sacrifice, moving the generations forward, contributing to the overall health in a third of our country, yet they have suffered from continuing discrimination, continuing hate up to and including violence and death, and certainly in my district come as you pointed out, i have

the highest asian american population of any of the 430 five congressional districts, and close to 80% of the folks that i represent have their heritage in asia and in the pacific. there are many around the country who share that heritage, and the fact that we are continuing to see this commission and hatred and violence against a single community as a result of their ethnicity is absolutely unacceptable in this country. this bill was authored by my colleague, senator hirono, and was passed in the house with my colleague grace meng, and it is very important not only to set up mechanisms to both prevent and prosecute these kinds of hate crimes, but to send the basic message that this is not ok in this country. host: congressman ed case this morning. the phone lines, to join the

conversation, democrats, 202-748-8000. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. your tweet from yesterday -- what did you tell them when they ask you why they were here, and what happened on january 6? guest: we told them that some of our own fellow citizens attacked the capitol on january 6 with the intention of disrupting the peaceful transition of power, disrupting the democratic process, and it was highly unfortunate that we had to ask them to come to our own u.s. capitol to help secure a democracy, help secure our ability to govern, and that was tragic in and of itself.

with the loss of life and tremendous damage to property on that day. we had an obligation collectively to assure that democracy continues, and they were a part of that. this was a different mission. many of my national guard troops deployed overseas, to afghanistan, to erect, to the sinai, two close up -- to iraq, to sinai, the kosovo. this was a different assignment. they understood. many of them, although they had been here securing our capitol, securing washington, d.c. come had not been in the capitol. they had not fully have the opportunity. i figured if you are going to come and take care of us, i want you to see feel that to see, feel, understand the fragility perhaps of democracy, and take that home with you as some measure of thanks. host: not to put you on the spot, but what are the statutes that the statuary hall has echo

guest: we have two towering figures from a history that we are proud of. people stop in front of the statue, one of the largest and most imposing of any and statuary hall. it is imposing too many of us -- it is an honor to many of us that the father of hawaii is here in his own right. host: you are overseeing a bill today, a supplemental appropriations bill to secure $1.9 billion in funding to secure the capitol complex. why do we need another $1.9 billion here? guest: first of all, the fact that there was an incredible attack on the u.s. capitol ungenerous six -- it was a tragedy but also an extra

expenditure to address that attack as well as to secure the capitol in the months since. for example, going back to the national guard, we mobilized guard troops from across the country to come to the capitol and help us secure it. it costs a lot of money. we don't think that that should be borne by the state guard. 500 million of that $1.9 billion is to basically reimburse the national guard troops. for their costs. we have many, many costs by many agencies. one thing that i don't think people focus on is how many different agencies throughout the government were involved. were needed to be involved in terms of the january 6 attack. we have the sp out -- the fbi, the u.s. capitol police. we had damage to the capitol proper governed by the architect of the capitol. we know that our capitol was not

secure in a physical sense. that was obvious from anybody who watch the images on tv, how easily folks were able to break down doors and windows. much of this is just trying to get the capitol more strengthened and secure, and then we have other agencies -- for example, not only the u.s. capitol police, the sergeant at arm's of the national park service, which has a piece of this from the mall perspective, as well as the d.c. metro police. so when you actually take all of the expenditures that were required from january 6 and add them up, it does come to a very legitimate and large amount of money, and that should be it in and of host: itself. we start in new hampshire -- that should be it in and of itself. host: darius in -- is it ossipee, new hampshire? caller: ossipee. i did not see an attack on the

capitol. what i see is a bunch of angry americans. i see the capitol police letting them in. my opinion is, if you start fortifying the capitol, that america is over. i have something important to say about israel and hamas, with the palestinians, which has been going on over 60 years. stop taking israel's land, by the international committee. they've been taking it for over 50 years, they've been killing them and moving them out. so how can the palestinians protect themselves? they don't have a right to defend themselves? and you keep calling them hamas. host: two issues there. guest: as to the capital, we are trying to find the right balance between our capitol and allowing it to continue as a beacon of democracy. nobody wants to shut the capitol down so that the public cannot

come to the capital. it is their building, there democracy, their process. nobody is interested in doing that. but the reality of genera 6 -- and i respect lee disagree -- was that our citizens did in fact invade the capital. i do not know how you can characterize that in any way, shape, or form. of course they were angry, but that's does not -- that does not excuse an attack on the capitol and a disruption of the democratic process. we have to face some realities here. many of the issues that arose from january 6, as i hope will be fully investigated by an independent, nonpartisan commission such as what we passed yesterday in the house, i hope that they will take a look at what appeared to be an assumption by many of the folks that were responsible for security our capitol that that would not have happened.

that assumption proved to be a great mistake. as to israel and palestine, i don't think any of us can disagree with the incredible tragedy there, and the frustration that we feel that after 60 years come as you pointed out, we are still where we are here today. thankfully, i'm not going to get into who was more right or more wrong in this particular situation. israel has a right to defend itself. the palestinians have a right to live in their own homeland and to be safe and secure come as any of us would want. hamas does not represent all palestinians. it represents a distinct minority of palestinians. the beef is with hamas, not with the palestinian people. so frankly, we have to come as an international community, reengage in this incredibly tragic and -- and this yo-yo of a situation there and try to

help both sides come to some lasting solution. host: georgetown, texas. this is bill, a democrat. good morning. caller: i was calling in response to the conversation this morning, and i think this insurrection of january 6 is just that, an insurrection. the purpose of it is white supremacy. if you look at what is happening with our political situation today, you will see that the republican party is no longer a political organization. by trying to pass laws and others legislation to restrict black and brown voting across the country is one of the main

things of political control of black and brown people. host: congressman case? guest: i am not going to indict every single republican with that label. with respect, sir, i do think that that element is in the republican party, what i frankly know many colleagues in congress who do not fit that profile at all, on the republican side. they feel that element in their party is a tremendous problem not only to the country but to the party itself. having said that, i also would agree with you that there was in fact, from all appearances, some elements of white supremacy participating in the a capitol insurrection, as you put it, on the capitol on january 6. that is in fact why we need an independent, bipartisan

commission, to step up above all of the details of that, for example, with u.s. capitol police or the fbi or any of the other agencies involved. step above it all, take a broad look and ask ourselves those very hard questions. why did our own citizens do that? how much of it was related to some organized effort by white supremacists obviously are in our country? how much of it was related to just generic anger that came to a focus and was incited by events. we need those answers. we did this after 9/11. the commission that we passed with bipartisan support, including an outright endorsement by the problem solvers caucus -- 29 republicans and 29 democrats committed to pragmatic solutions for our country, is exactly the same model as the post-9/11 attack

commission. it is completely bipartisan, has its own mandate. that is why we need to answer the questions that you are raising, because it is not good for the country not to have real honest answers come as difficult as they may be, and closure about why, so that we can move on together. host: just about 10 minutes left with hawaiian congressman ed case. you can join with republicans and democrats. coming back to your work as an appropriator, not your chamber today, but the senate is taking up a bill, the u.s. innovation and competition act, to authorize $110 billion for science and technology research programs to compete with china. one of the amendment's that will be voted on today in the senate 's proposed by the senate armed services committee, chairman jim inhofe. that would provide dollar for dollar parity between increases in defense and nondefense

spending. that will happen on the floor. in general, where do you see the right balance between defense and nondefense spending? should it be a 1-1 ratio? guest: i don't believe in a strict -- that is not something i think i can support. it is too arbitrary, it doesn't adjust the circumstances. i will also say that we have a very disturbing trend in many parts of our political discussion. i don't believe that recognizes the importance of national defense. i don't believe it does recognize the reality of china. i live in the indo pacific. i work in the indo pacific, and i work with china every day. if i go home to honolulu today come which i am going to do, i am already halfway from china. i'm about equidistant between

washington, d.c. and china. china is doing is real. it is a real long-term, concerted, across-the-board strategy to essentially monopolize that part of the world at least, and i think beyond. this is a real threat, and we cannot -- i don't buy into the element of the political discussion, including my own party, who wants to significantly reduce defense spending. as you know, president biden, in his initial budget proposal with congress, did propose a significant increase in nondefense spending. he also proposed a small increase of 1.7% in defense spending, but in that he said no to that element in my own party that wanted to reduce defense spending by 10%. which i don't support. and i don't think our appropriations committee

supports that either. the bottom line is as to the specific proposal -- i don't think that is the way to do it. the concept is there. we have to maintain our defense posturing. to the underlying bill in the senate, i support that because one of the reality is that folks don't focus on either is trying this incredible investment in science and technology. that is part of president biden's proposed plans that are before congress right now, to do the same thing. i am generally supportive of that. host: this is tina from pell city, alabama. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking the mantle of representation. sir, i have a question. i watch a youtube -- i watched a youtube livestream during the actual protest, the gathering

january 26 at january 6. as this fella looked along and went toward the capitol, and then i saw other feeds of the people leading that surge into the building. they used a two-word vocabulary that every protester in seattle, minnesota used the second word. and i'm thinking that is not the republican gathering of anybody that i have ever heard, but it is a mark of antifa. host: what were the words that caught your attention, tina? caller: the first word begins with f, the second word is you. when i see these fellows, i think they were masquerading as republicans, but i think they were there for a purpose. guest: first of all, i would not

-- i would observe that those words are not isolated to the parties, they are used across the entire political discourse, including in public nowadays, which is tremendously unfortunate. this is exactly why we need an independent commission. what you say, in all honesty, doesn't ring true to me, but that is not really the issue. the issue is that you have a question about this, a question that is being resonated throughout much of this country. just as is similar questions in other political spectrums. these questions need to be answered because the american people are owed an answer. otherwise, these allegations are just kind of -- they bounce around inside our political discords -- discourse. frankly they poison our political discourse. that is the point of this commission, to answer directly -- is what you are saying true or not? i am not defensive about of

commission that asks those tough questions, even if they are contrary to what i think happened or why it happened. so i think that all americans should embrace the idea of a commission that is constituted and led equally by republicans and democrats. that is exactly what we did with the 9/11 commission, and that is why we did it that way, because we owe the american people an answer across-the-board, and we didn't want that to be a political answer. that remains the gold standard for commissions. nobody doubted the commission outcome on the basis of bipartisan politics. not then, not today. that's why i want to be where we are on january 6. host: john, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. how are you? i would like to make a comment about mr. mccarthy, about he talks with a double tongue.

one minute he says that trump didn't create this problem come and out today he is telling people not to vote. what is going one with this -- what is going wrong with this republican party? it is a disgrace. guest: first of all, i'm not going to try to explain leader mccarthy's words and actions in any kind of sequence. that is for you to judge. it has been a little secured is to me, and i wish he had fully endorsed other -- another january 6 commission. i think the republican has tremendous soul-searching facing it straight in the face. by the way, i'm not going to excuse my own party. we have our own questions, our own external discussions. i'm not reporting this as a bipartisan issue. i'm observing from here, and i

want a two-party system. i think that is good for democracy, for the government, and i think it is good for the american people. we should have to create policy and ideas, but it should always be focus on the overall good of the country. it should not always be constructed under an assumption that elections matter, that systems that we follow are inclusive and not exclusive. i think what the republican party faces is the existential question, whether they still buy into that. i'm sure there are people out there who would say the same thing of the democratic already, and i accept that criticism will stop the fact is that there is a day of reckoning to be coming in the republican party if it is not already here. he saw that earlier with my colleague, ms. cheney, and others. even yesterday on the vote on

the january 6 commission, which was supported by 25 republicans, that bill came to the floor because of a republican -- because a republican tried to work out an acceptable compromise deal, as he succeeded to do with the democratic side. that is the question for the republican party. what is a hard -- host: what is a hard internal question that europe party has had to wrestle with? guest: we have a couple hard ones that we are sorting through right now. one is the age-old question of the proper role of the federal government. is it a substantially ramped up role? anything -- or is it an approach that we have followed? that is a clear question that we

are asking ourselves. we have questions as to our foreign policy and i have already spoken to that. should in fact we be investing in the same level in defense of our country, or should we substantially reduce our defense budget and reinvest that elsewhere? do we care about the federal debt and deficits? that is a major question that i am facing. i am the cochair of the democratic blue dog coalition, which is a group of about 19 democrats who believe that deficits do matter, that we have to operate from a fiscally responsible and sustainable base . in all honesty, some of my colleagues in the democratic party don't -- are not particularly concerned at all on debt and deficits. i think the difference is that we are not questioning the overall construct of our country

or democracy. we are accepting that we have disagreements even within our own party, but that there is a system and a process and a structure that is set up for us to reconcile those differences. host: last call for your, tom from lancaster, pennsylvania. republican. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. first of all, sir, i really appreciate your words. i called on the republican line because i have been a republican since 1971. i will i did vote for trump. however, after seeing that this way of behavior on a daily basis , finally seeing what was so horrific on january 6 of our crown jewel being attacked.

i immediately went down and registered as a democrat, not that i necessarily support the democrats, but i will not vote for another republican. kudos to liz cheney. the only one who can speak the truth. i am so disgusted. i watched the oscar award-winning performance by scott and how he danced around the issues. host: what is your question for the congressman? caller: it is not really a question, but i am there with the democrats. guest: you are not alone. there are many people who have been dissatisfied with an absolute presentation of it and are looking for the best answer,

the most pragmatic party, the one that can actually deliver results for the american people. that is what this is about. i am a democrat and proud of it. i believe our party can do that and i welcome you, but we also need to speak to many people through this country for whom congress is not a friend. we need to deliver for them. i believe that in the democratic party, we can. host: congressman, we always appreciate your time. guest: thank you so much. host: about a half-hour before the house comes in for the day. in our final 30 minutes, a question with several appropriations bills today.

we are asking you, what is the right balance between defense and nondefense spending? go ahead and start calling in with your thoughts. we will get to them in just a minute. >> the house is back at 9:00 a.m. eastern to consider a bill for emergency funding for u.s. capitol security. the senate returns to continue work on science and technology research programs. at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3, transportation secretary pete buttigieg and others testify on the infrastructure budget proposal. efforts to modernize and expand the last electric grid.

at 10 :00 a.m., a house judiciary committee to reduce gun violence. >> saturday on the communicators , we are talking about cancel culture with randolph may. >> my concern here is that we should all agree it is within the realm of legitimate debate that is stifled or canceled. >> the cancel culture is used pretty extensively in a range of different concerns, but i typically narrow it. shame, ostracism and probably more specifically, i am concerned about areas where people are fired from their positions. >> watch with randolph may and will reinhart, saturday at 6:30

p.m.. >> washington journal continues. host: about 30 minutes left in our program. in that 30 minutes come a question on u.s. federal spending priorities. on the senate floor today, the competition act, one of the amendments that will be considered on the house floor today, by spanking member jim from oklahoma would provide a dollar for dollar parity. a 1-1 ratio. that is what the ranking member is wanting.

we are asking you this morning, what is the right balance between defense and nondefense spending. republicans, guest:. -- as you are calling in, here is him on his bill. >> that is why america is viewed as the leader of the free world. it has to be both, not one or the other. the chinese are competing against us in every area. this bill does nothing to post our national defense or to leverage our military or communities with significant research. it does not establish between

technological development that we need. china is not just investing in other things, they are investing in military. they are modernizing their military more than ever before. china is on a modernization sprint and channeling money into building weapons that we do not even have yet. about a year ago, china came out and they were displaying things that we do not even have yet. it did not use be that way. we always kept ahead. they are on track to dominate new capabilities. meanwhile, we are moving forward

. h the ranking member -- host: the ranking member with his amendment. that vote is expected to take place around noon today. you can watch it on c-span two. it would need 60 votes for passage. we will see what happens with his amendment today. what is the right balance between defense and nondefense spending? a democrat in d.c.. welcome. caller: we are in a global community at this point. however china has acquired their capabilities, because it has been alleged that they have stolen intellectual property here and there, but they are

where they are. the u.s. has been dominant in the world. the defense budget is already way over the top. this country is sort of an imperialistic country itself. it supported israel, which is a settler colony come in the last segment. there were all kinds of arguments made as to why israel is justified and a lot of our defense spending goes there as well. we need to learn how to readjust and make investments in things that matter to people here. whether it is the classic definition versus even more relevant today. we do not even have the capacity to produce certain things that are now being produced in china.

now we are making them bad guys because they are doing that. we need to increase investment in other areas that matter to the people. the defense industry has pretty much all through the 50 states. our congress is beholden to them. over 50% of our tax dollars goes to defense as it is, and they want more? give me a break. host: you mentioned infrastructure spending as part of the american jobs plan that the biden administration has proposed. there is the american families plan as well. all on top of the american rescue plan signed back on march 11. those economic proposals from

the biden administration. from richmond, virginia on the independent line. what do you think? caller: i am a retired military man. i think that the defense spending should be increased because we need to protect america. if you do not have a strong defense, then you are weak. others will take advantage of you. i would like to express that this kind of call out of north carolina about what the democratic party did for the black folk, at least they did not lie to them. host: we will stick to the defense and nondefense spending

conversation this morning. a couple tweets from a couple members of congress. some thoughts on defense spending. this is barbara lee from back on may 4, talking about the afghanistan pullout as the war comes to an end, we must re-examine our priorities and cut wasteful spending. making communities safer around the globe. one more on funding. amidst the coronavirus pandemic, we are in the midst of a crisis that has left families unable to afford food and we have built -- dumping billions of dollars into a bloated pentagon budget. cut spending and invest in our communities. that is amidst the debate over the pentagon budget.

from just last week, chris stewart saying over the past decade, china's defense funding has increased by $200 billion. america cannot be outcompeted as china threatens our interest and allies. phone lines are split by political party. this is bill in washington. caller: yes, i am a democrat but former republican. i am an army veteran. my family is a family of veterans. it is just how much is appropriate. our military budget should be about a quarter of what it is now. it is way too inflated. we have more than we need for

any kind of defense that you could imagine. we are slowly becoming a thorough the world nation when it comes to our working class and infrastructure and technology because we are beholden to the industrial war machine and lobbyists. host: as a former military man, how many years did you serve? caller: five years and five months. i served in fort bennington. host: you talk about a bloated military. where do you think it is? is it the personnel size? the weapons systems or is it a carrier fleet that is several times more? caller: all of the above. our navy has a larger air force, our army has a larger air force -- we spend money just to keep

the contract going for machines that we do not even need. host: this is john from falls church, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. a lot of people are not even awake to the fact that we are already in a war with china. it is a soft war, a different kind of war, and information war and economic war. it is a biological war. it has been going on for years now. all of our defense spending is not targeted for this type of warfare. increasing more defense budget spending will not move us to where we can fight the type of war that we are already in. host: if another carrier will not do it, what should we be

spending our money on? caller: in supporting our logistics for our supply chains. our supply chains are dependent upon foreign countries and adversarial countries. as long as that is the case, as long as that is the scenario, we are doomed. host: the underlying bill on the floor today, legislation authorizing $110 billion for new science and technology research programs over five years, specifically focused on the u.s. competing with china. the bill introduced by the majority leader chuck schumer and senator todd young. reported out of the commerce committee on may 12 on a bipartisan vote.

is that calibrating the spending correctly? caller: no. it will go into elite labs that will spend the money on some magical project that will never come to fruition. the way this country has had its strength is through innovation, startups, individuals doing things and utilizing those things that come out of a private industry and applying them towards our national needs. that is where we succeed. that is where we have always succeeded. they are doing that, so spending money in these labs, all of this money disappears and nothing comes out of it. i do not see that making a big difference. host: carl is in madison, mississippi. a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning.

i would like to make a comment about the increase. it is about 72 years old, but give your callers a listen of these -- these tapes. it is good information. 600 years ago, they came to these shores of america, before slaves came. but what i am saying is the bible speaks of these things. host: bring me to 2021 and this question that we have asked about defense and nondefense spending. caller: yes. i served in the gulf war. the infrastructure started about after 30 years ago. i think that what we have been doing, infrastructure is needed. that is all i have to say.

host: we talked with the congressman, the democrat from hawaii during our 8:00 our. we asked about this legislation being proposed by the senator. to ensure that any increase that a dollar for dollar increase would happen. this is a bill that is being debated today on the senate floor as part of the larger debate on u.s. innovation spending when it comes to china. we asked the senator about this balance between defense and nondefense spending. this is what he said. [video clip] >> i do not believe in a strict formula, in all honesty.

it is not something that i think i can support. it is too arbitrary and does not adjust to circumstances. we have a very disturbing trend in many parts of our political discussion. i do not believe it does recognize the importance of national defense. it does not recognize china. i work in the indo pacific and i deal with china every day. if i go home to honolulu today, which i am going to do, i am already halfway to china. i am just about equidistant between washington dc and china. that is my world and what china is doing is real. it is a real, concerted, across-the-board strategy to essentially monopolize that part of the world. this is a real threat and i do

not buy into the element of the political discussion, including my own party. once the significantly reduced spending. president biden and his initial budget proposal to congress and propose a significant increase in nondefense spending. he proposed a smaller increase of 1.7% in defense spending. and that, he said no to that element in my own party that wanted to reduce defense spending by 10%. i do not think the appropriations committee supports that either. host: congressman ed case joined us at the top of the hour earlier at 8:00 a.m. this morning. if you want to watch the entire interview, you can watch online band.org website. we are talking about defense spending. a chart from the peterson institute. this is from last spring,

comparing the numbers at that time. the u.s. defense spending compared to other countries, making the comparison on the point that the u.s. spends more on defense than the next 10 countries combined. 730 $2 billion a year on defense. that would be the combination of the defense budgets of china, india, russia, saudi arabia, france, germany, u.k., japan, south korea and brazil. those countries adding up to just $726 billion in defense spending. mark from conway, south carolina. what is the best balance? i think we lost mark. seymour from arizona. go ahead. caller: one of the basic problems in figuring out what you should spend is

understanding if things are being spent correctly. this goes back to jimmy carter. i have been budgeting for major corporations. if you do not know why they are spending it, you cannot come up with a balance. they did not want to have it because there was so much pork belly invested interest in things. right now, if you do not get back to zero-based budgeting, what do you need? why do you need so much infrastructure in your district? you need to have the right balance. nobody is willing to do that. host: that is seymour in arizona. a few messages from our text messaging and social media. this is nelson in st. louis. i do not know what the right balance is, but we cannot use

our military to focus on our foreign enemies to the point that we lose control, lose our country from the enemy within. i think we spend too much on defense. this from joellen. defense is a priority and without security, nothing else is guaranteed. peace through strength. zach, we need to learn how to not spend on things we do not need like the green new deal. michael in portland, the balance is a moving target, but budgeteers should not underestimate the power of soft power, which flows from the mystic economic strength. rick from florida, republican. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: look, everything in life is balanced. he tried to do the middle road.

there are issues with regards -- are you there? host: when you say everything is balanced, is it a 1-1 balance that we should shoot for? caller: it depends on the situation. i spent 26 years in the military. i have seen waste and i have seen appropriate use of funds. the reality of life is, it is not always the same. having said that, i feel that our greatest threat is not only china, but the utilization of the military as an agent for social change. when i served -- i have been retired for 30 years, but when i served, it was not white, black, whatever. it was a sailor, and airmen, a marine -- what have you. we were there to protect the country. we all tried to do our best.

host: you saw waste and appropriate use of funds. what is an example of the waste and appropriate use of funds? caller: when new funding came out, we were told in the navy to take all of the stuff on the ship that we could get rid of and we would dump it over the side. it is ridiculous. if you go down to norfolk, you will find a tremendous amount of wasteful military -- not specific equipment, but things like knives and forks. they would show them -- throw them over the side of the ship. we have to get rid of this because we had to show that this equipment is worn out and of no use to us anymore. i think that we have terrible management because the money that we had at the time, that we had to use it. caller: give me --

host: give me appropriate use of funds. caller: the military. we had to update our equipment. but we have to utilize it appropriately. that was not a good example. i apologize. there are areas that we need to have funds in and areas that we did not need to waste money. host: this is jeremy in wisconsin. good morning. caller: good morning. how much does computer programming cost? when these hackers are doing -- i am grateful for the other guy talking about china, but if a hacker is going to take out an entire pipeline -- this guy probably came from what?

give me $5 million. how do we fix that? how much does it cost to make a firewall? that is it. thank you for c-span. host: a few minutes left before the house comes in for the day, coming in a bit early, nine :00 eastern. we will take you there for live gavel-to-gavel coverage. the city is coming in at 10:30 this morning to resume debates on legislation authorizing 110 billion dollars for new science and technology research programs over five years to help the u.s. compete with china. it was introduced by chuck schumer and republican of indiana, todd young. that is the debate that you will see over on c-span this morning. part of the debate will be this discussion on whether there should be a dollar for dollar increase, which is part of an

amendment. we are asking you, what is the balance time? a couple more phone calls. this is maria from new jersey on the independent line. caller: i think that it should be balanced, but to have a balance, we have to know where the money is and what it is going for. referring people to the new york post, the department of defense secret army. they have a 60,000 strong top army of soldiers and contractors who travel the world under false ids. the group that operates without the knowledge of the public or even congress was created over the past 10 years. host: you want a full audit of the department of defense? caller: yes. $11 trillion unaccounted for.

this is one of the things that congress was not aware of. host: a story from npr from yesterday. the pentagon never passed an audit and some senators want to change that. backers of accountability think that government welcomed it as a major step for the department, but the department of defense failed the audit and the next two as well. now lawmakers are introducing a bill that would impose a penalty for any part of the department, including the military, that fails to undercoat -- undergo a clean audit. if you want to read more on that story, npr.org is where you can go. that will do it for our conversation this morning as the house gets ready to come in for the day. we will be back here tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific. now we take you to the floor of the house of representatives.