president biden's fiscal 2020 budget and economic agenda. and at 8:45, neil bradley on the administration's economic policy. ♪ host: good morning, it is tuesday, june 8. the d.c. spotlight was on joe manchin after he declared his opposition to the sweeping voting rights bill and efforts to end the filibuster to pass joe biden's major policy proposals. the democrats now says how to move forward with their legislative agenda. we start by getting your view of the senator from the mountain state. do you think joe manchin has too much influence? republicans, (202) 748-8001, democrats (202) 748-8000,

independents, (202) 748-8002. the special number four west virginia residents, (202) 748-8003. otherwise catch up on social media. a good tuesday morning to you. start calling it now. it was his op-ed in his home state newspaper that sparked the latest focus on joe manchin. this is what he wrote about the voting rights bill and the filibuster in that op-ed. "some in my party have argued now is the time to embrace election reforms and policies fully supported by one party. respectfully, i do not agree. i believe partisan voting legislation will destroy the already weakening pines of our democracy and for that reason i will vote against the act.

i will not vote to weaken or limit the filibuster as long as i've the privilege of being your u.s. senator. i will continue to seek bipartisan compromise to matter how difficult to develop -- " part of his op-ed in the charleston gazette. a renewed focus amid the latest push for joe biden's legislative agenda and it led to questions yesterday in the white house briefing room. this is white house press secretary jen psaki on joe biden's relationship to joe manchin. >> i can tell you the president and senior members of the administration are enclosed cut -- are in close touch with joe manchin and his team about issues where there is an opportunity to work forward. i am pretty sure joe manchin is proud of his independent streak and he made clear he took no

offense to the president's comments and he also noted that west virginia is not usually get this much attention. maybe that is something he does not seem to mind. >> does the presidency joe manchin as an obstacle to his agenda, if he follows through on not changing the filibuster, not infrastructure through reconciliation, that pre-much grounds the president's domestic agenda. >> we are certainly not ready to accept that i'll assess. i will say the president -- that analysis. i will say the president considers joe manchin of rent. -- considers joe manchin a friend. he will continue to reach out to him directly. host: jen psaki in the white house briefing room yesterday. you heard him say joe manchin did not take any offense to joe biden's comments, referring to joe biden's comments in tulsa.

he did not mention joe manchin or kyrsten sinema by name but made reference to them in comments about his legislative agenda. this was president biden last week. >> i hear all of the folks on tv say why doesn't biden get this done? biden only has a majority of four votes in the house and a tie in the senate, with two members of the senate who vote more with my republican friends. we are not giving up. early this year the house of representatives passed the for the people act to protect our democracy. the senate will take it up later this month. i will fight with every tool at my disposal for its passage. the house is also working on the john lewis voting rights act, which is critical to provide legal tools to combat the new assault on the right to vote. host: president biden come you heard him saying more with his

republican friends in the senate. in ap fact-check finding that not to be true. according to roll call joe manchin voted with his party 38.5, kyrsten sinema did so 33.1% of the time. doug jones of alabama who lost his election race in november was third on that list at 32.2%. this morning we are focusing on joe manchin, the senior senator from west virginia. with the amount of attention he is getting on capitol hill at the beginning of this legislative week come asking you if you think he has too much influence. (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. and a special line if you're from west virginia, (202) 748-8003.

mark from new york, republican, you are up first. caller: i do not think joe manchin has too much influence because there are many moderate senators. susan collins, mitt romney. they are moderates and they could vote for a democrat. the point is that biden's legislation is so bad you cannot even get one republican vote. they are say going out joe manchin because he is a democrat and because he is part of their side, and you see how bad bided's legislation -- biden's legislation is that they cannot get him or any other moderate. host: in a 50-50 senate any senator can be the most influential senator, any moderate senator? caller: correct. host: sandy from columbus,

democrat. you are next. caller: i would like to answer the last caller. my concern is joe manchin is not going along with the group knowing that mitch mcconnell has whatever it is they vote against. he has made a statement he will not allow any of biden's programs to go through forced up my question is -- i live in ohio. joe manchin's state is sliding into ohio. they do not have medicare, they do not have welfare, they do not have jobs. i think his time would be more to push the agenda for the biden administration as opposed to lobbying companies to stop telling them coal is coming back and do what he needs to do. it is very frustrating when you

have a group of people that are not negotiating in good faith. they have never done that under mitch mcconnell. host: mentioned mitch mcconnell. he is mentioned in this headline on the front page of the washington times. democrats woo and boo joe manchin, dubbed the new mcconnell for blocking the democratic agenda. mitch mcconnell was on the senate floor to note the discord on the democratic agenda. this was mitch mcconnell from yesterday. >> after a spring in which the senate has repeatedly passed mainstream legislation by wide margins, democrats have decided that now is the time to argue the legislative process is somehow broken. let's not forget the democrats

poster child to allow the senate to change its rule is a bill that would change the rules for elections in every state in america. let me say that again. the democrats poster child to allow the senate to change its rule is a bill that would forcibly change the rules for elections in every state in america. the question is not whether it could earn bipartisan support, the question is how wide the bipartisan opposition will be. this is the bill the democratic leader has placed at the vanguard of this campaign to destroy the filibuster, even though multiple members of his own majority are now on the record objecting to it. make no mistake, failing to sell reckless wholesale changes to our democracy is not proof the guard rail should be removed. it is a reminder that they are

there for a reason. the american people rightly expect a 50-50 senate to spend its time finding common ground, but our democratic colleagues seem to believe the most important expectations are those of their far-left branch. they put forward an agenda that is designed to fail, and fail it will. host: senator mitch mcconnell not mentioning joe manchin by name but referring to what he calls the bipartisan opposition to the democratic agenda in the senate. we are focusing on joe manchin today in light of the attention he got yesterday in the wake of that op-ed that was published in the charleston gazette on sunday, noting his opposition to the for the people act and ending the filibuster. joe manchin's agenda, today he is said to meet with the naacp

to discuss voting rights, along with a host of other civil rights groups. the national urban league, the national council of niekro women, the leadership conference on civil rights and human rights, that is the headline from the hill newspaper. one of cnn's capitol hill reporters noted in the names of people who will be in that meeting to talk about the for the people act. al sharpton, cheryl ifill, the naacp legal defense fund, others are some of the specific names of those who joe manchin is set to meet with. we are asking you about his influence on capitol hill. what you think about it, whether you are democrat, republican, independent? especially want to hear from folks in west virginia. a democrat in west virginia, you are up next. caller: good morning. joe manchin is acting like he

is, he is not my senator anymore. i am 74 years old. i have lived in west virginia. he is making things so discouraging for us democrats. i do not know how we can put him in office again. he is not worth it. this country -- host: have you voted for him in the past? caller: yes. hello? one time. i'm not voting for him forever now because i know what kind of person he is. when i was governor i would not vote for him. host: what didn't you like about him when he was governor? caller: you can see the way he does things. he sits on the fence. he goes with the wind.

mostly it is the republican wind. now he thinks he has to be republican because our state did a thing after 84 years went republican and now we are positively dark red. it is a shame that that is where our state is. i am so discouraged that i cannot put up with it anymore. i've just about quit trying. i call his number tried to leave a comment. he will not even answer the phone anymore, his staffer him, either one. host: that is milton in west virginia noting the state is a deep red shade, went for president trump in 2020, 68.6%, joe biden getting 29.7%. joe manchin has been elected three times in west virginia to the u.s. senate.

also the former governor. not up again until 2024 for his next reelection if he chooses to run for reelection. no reason to think he will not. voters will not get a chance to vote on him in 2022. dan is next out of washington. what you think of joe manchin? caller: i am 74 as well. i am relieved joe manchin is exercising his rights to follow his conscience. i do not understand the question of whether or not he is too influential. use doing his job. he is supposed to vote his conscience, not go along with the herd just because he is a democrat. i used to be a democrat but i left the democratic party because they left me as a workingman. i am totally against the

democrats now. i vote republican. i am an independent because there is no other option for me. i thank god for joe manchin and i hope and pray united states of america gets back to its founding principles and honors. host: that is dan in washington. here is joe manchin in his own words defending his op-ed and his reasoning for writing that and releasing on sunday with fox news sunday, joe manchin in his interview. >> voting is the bedrock of our democracy. secure voting. we used to go around the world and explain and observe voting procedures in a democracy. now we cannot practice what we preach and we will basically do an overhaul, and 800 page overhaul of the voting rights, or the for the people act? there are a lot of great things

i agree that piece of legislation. there is a lot of things that do not pertain directly to voting. >> just to put a button on this, you will vote against the bill if it gets to the senate floor. >> i think it is the wrong piece of legislation and i'm not supporting that because i think it will divide us further. i do not want to be in a country divided any further than right now. i love my country and i think my colleagues feel the same. if we continue to divide it will separate us more. it will not be the country we know and love. it will be hard because it will be a back-and-forth depending on who is in power. host: joe manchin on fox news sunday. alex bolton at the hill newspaper, the headline, "democrats wonder when schumer will get tough with manchin."

noting schumer has many -- schumer does not have a reputation of getting tough with his colleagues. he hardly ever criticizes democratic senators. schumer up for election next year with speculation he could be challenged in a primary. if you want to read more from that story from the hill newspaper, thehill.com. here are some democratic members of congress's tweets about joe manchin. "joe manchin, you support republican gerrymandering and filibuster bills that have a roaming bipartisan public support. you don't support what you call parson bill to make it easier for everyone regardless of already to vote. i call bs." senator jeff merkley, "i'm

disappointed by joe manchin's position on the for the people act, it is hugely popular among democrats, republicans come and independents across the country because it depends the vision of government by the people and ends the attack on a right to vote." the democrats saying "we do not need an op-ed to know you are unwilling to protect our democracy." this from congressman jimmy gomez, " if joe manchin is concerned about legislation, gop state legislators have given him plenty to worry about. if he refuses to end the filibuster, that he is complicit in the downfall of our democracy." we are asking for your views in the first hour of the washington journal. this is maureen from redwood city, california. a democrat. good morning. caller: thanks for taking my call. i am calling with two data

points i would like to point out to joe manchin, to everyone regarding joe manchin and how he is so wrong. number one, alg research did a poll in april 14th through the 18th. 79% of west virginians a proof of the for the people act. almost eight in 10 people want the for the people act. i would also like to point out the heritage foundation and their americans for prosperity pack has been lobbying joe manchin all the first quarter of 2021, and they joked in elite tape -- in elite -- in a leaked tape that they had a little fun pressuring joe manchin. joe manchin is taking heritage foundation money and that is why he is not voting for this. he is bought and paid, and he is

going against what the people of west virginia want. eight in 10 want before the people act and he is dead wrong. host: you want him to leave the democratic party? caller: p is not going to leave the democratic party. that is a false narrative. he is not going to leave the democratic party. host: what you think will happen? caller: i think chuck schumer needs to start twisting some arms and it is a shame chuck schumer -- i would prefer to see chuck schumer leave then joe manchin, frankly. chuck schumer needs to start pressuring people. chuck schumer is a weak leader. host: that is marine in redwood city, california. the for the people at, -- the for the people act, a bill to address voter access and election integrity, this is a wrap up from the congressional

research, it expands voter registration, voter access, limits to removing voters from voter rolls, establishes safe to establish independent redistricting commissions, sets forth provisions on election security, direct campaign-finance issues, including expanding the prohibition on campaign spending by foreign nationals. a lot in that bill so named because it was the first piece of legislation that democrats tried to move at the beginning of the 117th congress. now it is unclear what the fate of the bill will be now that joe manchin has said he will not support it. surely out of christian burke virginia, republican, good morning. caller: how are you today? host: i'm doing all right. what you think about joe manchin? caller: i think he is a true american. i was a democrat but i have been a republican for many years.

i truly admire him for the way he stands up for what he believes in. i'm thankful there are still people in the world that do not stand with the party but stand for america and our rights. host: frank in clarksburg from independent. good morning. caller: how are you doing? host: doing all right. caller: i will tell you, i supported joe manchin. i helped joe manchin. i have literally worked for him. host: doorknocking? caller: yes. this is west virginia. i know his family. my dad used to go to his house. he is wrong. there is right and there is wrong. this does not have anything to do with anything.

he represents the people of the state of west virginia. when he has an issue i feel is republican, bipartisan, democratic issue, the party has nothing to do with this. this is for the people of this country so we can have a republic democracy. this is wrong. i do not know what he is doing. host: has there been a time in the past where he is made about you disagree with? caller: absolutely. host: what specifically? caller: let me think. i just got up and have not had my coffee. one, i'm trying to think, this was when they were in the minority, i cannot remember the vote specifically. usually i keep track of that. host: a few high-profile ones

from the profile of joe manchin that has been coming out in the past when he for hours since he has been in the spotlight, breaking with democrats in the midst of the supreme court confirmation fight over brett kavanaugh to vote with republicans, he also supported trump's first supreme court nominee neil gorsuch, he opposed the rest confirmation of amy coney barrett -- the rushed confirmation of amy coney barrett. he stood with president trump in a gop effort to push through the republican tax bill. those are some of his most high-profile votes. caller: with that issue, the supreme court, those people are there for life. they make their decisions. this is about the people of the country, this is a voting issue. if you cannot vote, it is crazy.

i tell you something. this country cannot keep going like this. host: this is the straw that breaks the camels back for you with him? or no? caller: if he votes against this, yes. this is the straw that breaks the camels back. i love him, but i will go against him. that is how i feel. they come from a big family and this is set. -- this is sad. where you get this? this is not a democrat, independent, republican issue, this is about democracy. caller: that is frank -- host: that is frank in clarksburg, west virginia, talking about joe manchin, former governor and three term senator from west virginia. this is randy in michigan, your

thoughts on joe manchin? caller: good morning. i would like to start by thanking you and all of the other men and women it takes to bring us this great program. doing the nation a world of good. as far as senator manchin goes, we have to be patient. that is how this democracy works. do i always agree with him? no. i do think he is bringing out, showing just how important getting out and voting at the state level is where we would not have this complaining if people would been voting in their states and putting people in that looked out for all of us, we would not be at this point. that is how democracy. our democracy is slow. i know in this age of everything being instant, it bothers everybody.

that is how things work in this country. do i agree with joe manchin on all of the stuff? no. he does have the vote for his people and he does have to vote what he feels is right and wrong. if we had people that would do that -- looks at what happened when we don't. mitch mcconnell and the supreme court. he threw everything out the window and did not get us anywhere but more divided. that is my opinion. it might not amount to more than rubbing two wet sticks together for most people, but thanks for letting me say that. host: randy in michigan. this is the editorial board of the washington journal, joe manchin plays political chest. as progressives rage against him he is helping the democratic party. especially of twos are the democrat tweeting -- as a

majority maker mr. manchin could change his party and have his pick of a seat in the gop majority. our guest is mr. manchin has already signaled privately he will support a large spending bill under the false flag of infrastructure. opposing this gives him more running room to do that. unless the left is dumb enough to drive mr. manchin to the gop, and they may be, they write, he is still a loyal democrat. this is brett in nevada. independent. you are next. caller: good morning. i believe in joe manchin. i wish our senators would have the nerve to do what he is doing. he is there to represent everyone in the united states. not just west virginia. we have two coward senators here. they jump to whatever schumer

says. i respect joe manchin. i think he's doing a great job. the federal government has no say in how states run their elections. look what harry reid did with the nuclear vote, look how that backfired on the democrats. go ahead and get rid of it. when the democrats run of power and it comes back and bites them, don't do the complaining. i don't vote republican, i don't vote democrat, i'm independent. i vote for an independent or third-party candidate. that is what a true independent does. joe manchin is a true senator who loves his country. i cannot say anymore about the man. a great man. host: that is brett in

searchlight, nevada. 7:30 on the east coast. another half-hour to talk you about joe manchin. call on phone lines, for republicans, (202) 748-8001, democrats, (202) 748-8000, independents, (202) 748-8002, and residents of west virginia, (202) 748-8003. other headlines, vice president harris's trip to central america, the headline in the washington times, calling for more spending in central america in her trip to guatemala. if you want to read the story, more in the washington times. the story breaking late yesterday afternoon. federal officials recovering $2.3 million in cryptocurrency paid to the hacker who attacked the colonial pipeline.

the justice department says the company paid nearly $5 billion -- $5 million and difficult to trace cryptocurrency. prompting the company to shut down its operations. the story noted in the amount of times people actually pay the ransom in ransomware attack's, interesting number there from a report by the institute for security and technology ransomware task force. the report saying the amount paid by ransomware victims increased by 311% in 2020 and reached nearly 350 million in cryptocurrency. the average ransomware payment last year was in the area of $312,500 according to that report cited in the washington times story as well. on the colonial pipeline, the ceo of colonial pipeline will

talk about the company's recent ransomware attack and discuss the threat to u.s. infrastructure before the senate homeland security and government affairs committee. you can watch live at 10:00 eastern on c-span. that is where we will go after our program today, online at c-span.org or listen on the free c-span radio app. elsewhere on capitol hill, you see antony blinken testified before the senate appropriations committee on the 2022 budget request at 10:00 eastern on c-span3. later today, a hearing on the sackler family, the owners of purdue pharma, the role they played in the opioid epidemic, we will join that hearing starting at noon, we are expected to join about 12:30. that hearing in progress, also on c-span3 and online at c-span.org and on the free c-span radio app. plenty to watch this morning. other news this morning. the bipartisan senate report is

out this morning on the january 6 insurrection. this reporting from zack owens, capitol hill reporter that senate report urging congress to adequately fund the capitol police staffing, training, and equipment. senators proposed legislation empowering the police chief to unilaterally request backup from the national guard. that report will be examining the u.s. capital report and security response failures on january 6. that senate report now available on our website at c-span.org. more from fox producer on capitol hill, the senate report, neither the capitol police nor the fbi, the secret service, or other law enforcement partners new thousands of writers were planning to attack the -- thousands of rioters were planning to attack the u.s. capital.

the known intelligence did not support that conclusion. we are expecting more reporters to dig into that report. we will update you on it. if you want to read it yourself, c-span.org. back to your phone calls about senator joe manchin, his role on capitol hill, do you think he has too much influence? that is the question we are asking in the first hour of our programs. a democrat out of orange park, florida. how are you? go ahead. caller: i blame chuck schumer. he is a week majority leader. i also blame manchin because what he is saying does not make any sense. if he looks at all the republican run states they are doing everything partisan, trying to block people from voting, americans from voting, and he does not know the history of the filibuster.

he needs to look at the filibuster, starting back in 1806. i blame both of them. he does have too much influence. if he is trying to do the right thing he should put his personal feelings, because the west virginians did not put him there for personal feelings, they put him there to represent them. he needs to take a look at that because he is it for personal reasons, not for his constituents. that is all i have to say. thank you for allowing me to say that. host: you mentioned s1, the sweeping voting rights bill that you wanted to go through, the white house wanting it to go through. yesterday in the white house briefing room national security advisor jake sullivan said the passage of s1 is a national security issue. this is more. >> i would say the basic notion

of democratic reform and voting rights in the united states is a national security issue. we are in a competition of models with autocracies and we are trying to show the world american democracy and democracy at large can work, can effectively deliver the will of the people come into the extent we are not updating and revamping our own democratic processes and procedures to meet the needs of the modern moment, then we are not going to be successful at making that case to the rest of the world, to china or russia or anyone else. there is a national security dimension to this today just as there was through the decades of the cold war. host: the national security advisor in the house briefing room yesterday. there'll be another briefing today. we will see if there is more about joe manchin. a second day of questions. we are taking your phone calls. this is richard out of clarksville, tennessee. how did he feel about the

senator from west virginia? caller: i am a libertarian conservative. i do a lot of good things around. my dad was a republican, the chief or an vietnam. his two sons were army discharged. this is a wake-up call for both joes. we live in the 21st century, they say. i would suggest they turn around and take time and think. i vote all three tickets. i believe in christ, i'm a christian soldier. my dad was born on election day 1930. my mom was rebecca. we must go back to the first implement, the declaration of independence.

all men, women too, equally on the decoration of independence. host: that is richard in tennessee. this is bob in texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to affirm what the gentleman from nevada, who was an independent said. he was very accurate on joe manchin. joe manchin is doing for the whole of the united states and voting for his state of west virginia which voted 70% conservative republican. some of these numbers by rachel maddow and nbc have to be suspect. joe manchin realizes as a federal employee come as a senator for the whole united states, this is nothing more than the democrats taking charge to try to extend their power for decades. that is all it is. they want to make the whole

united states california or new york or whatever. they want power. that is the way they are trying to get it. if the government takes over and denies the states rights to require voter id and clear the voting rolls of voters no longer eligible to vote, that just allows problems in the voting. that is what this bill does not do. it takes the rights of the states away, which is wrong. host: that is bob in texas. do not want to forget about viewers watching and tweeting or sending us text messages were coming on facebook. a few social media comments. this is eric saying thank you joe, at least there is still one democrat with sound reason and who can see things in the long-term. vicki saying maybe he is just representing his constituents and knows the for the people act

relies on a bad piece of legislation. this is tony from california, one man, one vote, how much influence does that imply? this is from new hampshire. if there were more moderate democratic senators we would hear less about joe manchin. i am glad the brakes have been put on the aoc wing of the democratic party. this is carolyn, who called in from mount vernon, new york. the democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. i would like to say that i think joe manchin is the obstructionist and the democratic party. he reminds me of joe lieberman, who did the same thing. they never side with their own party, they always side with the republicans. i think democrats should get a

backbone and booed him out of the party like the republicans booted liz cheney out of her position. host: and a 50-50 senate, do you want him out of the democratic party? caller: i want him out of the party. i think because what he is doing is he is holding the party back and they cannot get anything done because of him. i think he should be removed. host: let me put it this way. would you rather have the democrats be in the minority in the senate with joe manchin out of the democratic caucus would you rather him stay in and be in the majority? caller: i think what joe manchin is doing is he is holding the democratic party back. republican stay on code. they aligned together no matter

what happens. i think the democrat should do the same thing. joe manchin is there to be an obstructionist. he is not helping them at all. they are not getting anything done. host: that is carolyn in new york. this is frank in new york as well. independent. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm just waiting for democracy to collapse. yep. we are going to fail as a country. you have people running this country come it is an out of chrissy. caller: bring me -- -- people running this country, it is in a talk chrissy. -- it is an autocracy.

when democracy collapse, we will know who to blame. the politicians failed us. host: that is frank from new york. more from new york, democratic congressman jamaal bowman, the congressman from the 16th congressional district of new york was on cnn yesterday. this is what he had to say about joe manchin. >> joe manchin is a no on doing anything to end the filibuster. your reaction? >> joe manchin has become the new mitch mcconnell. mitch mcconnell during obama's presidency said he would do everything in his power to stop obama. he repeated that now during the biden presidency by saying he would do everything in his power to stop president biden. now joe manchin is doing everything in his power to stop democracy and to stop our work

for the people, the work the people sent us here to do. hr-1 not only is a huge bill when it comes to voting rights, is a huge bill in terms of getting big money out of politics, protecting our elections against fraud, and ending gerrymandering. big money in politics is what is destroying our democracy, and the republican party is aiding and abetting that come and donald trump is obviously doing that. joe manchin is not pushing us closer to bipartisanship. he is doing the work of the republican party by being an obstructionist. host: congressman jamaal bowman tweeting out his appearance on cnn yesterday from his twitter page. back your phone calls. about 15 minutes left in the segment asking you for your thoughts on joe manchin.

especially want to hear from west virginia residents. bill is one of those. a republican. go ahead. caller: joe manchin is one of the two people in washington that has any backbone. i do not know whether it matters if you're a republican or democrat if you have a thought on what's right you do what's right. that is what he is doing. i thank you very much. host: have you voted for him in the past? whether his governors race or one of his three senate campaigns? caller: i did not vote for him the last election, that i have voted for him before and will vote for him again. host: because of this? caller: yes, because of this. host: that is bill in west virginia. this is gloria, upper marlboro,

maryland, good morning. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. with joe manchin, there is too hypocrisy in his version of democracy, whether he is democrat or republican, he is elected to serve the people. what he thinks is right is balderdash. if eight out of 10 west virginians is for the bill, he just got a front row seat in the hall of shame. one has to wonder why he does not want baker a pup -- does not want big money out of politics. he is a good republican. host: twitter calls joe manchin a dino, democrat in name only. another says joe manchin thinks for himself. this from stephen on twitter, saying joe manchin is not

working for our country, he is working for reelection to keep his power, country be damped. that's the problem with our elected officials, they forgot to read the constitution. folks getting in touch with us via social media which we appreciate in light of the fact of a massive internet outage reportedly going on right now. around the world going dark. trying to find out more about it. here is the c-span business story. websites went down for an hour this morning after a major content network reported widespread failures. it also provides content delivery for twitch and pinterest come hbo max, hulu, reddit, spotify, and other services. other sites including amazon and target in the u.k. government website also affected by that problem. that is happening this morning around the world.

time for a couple more calls. we still of the phone line for west virginia residents, (202) 748-8003. otherwise it is republicans, democrats, and independents as usual. this is stop in arkansas. -- this is scott in arkansas. caller: i am very much impressed with senator manchin. i am a republican but i like a senator that votes his mind. the guy bob from texas said everything i was going to say except one thing. democrats are calling in. please understand in 2020, 227 filibusters were done by the democrats. talk about hypocrites. there you go. thank you. host: john in lake geneva, wisconsin. you are next. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to agree with most of the people. mr. manchin is doing the work of

his constituents. i believe in being a moderate democrat, which is hard to find nowadays, and also the previous caller said something about eight out of 10 people support hr-1. i do not believe that. polls can be skewed anyway depending on how the sample is conducted. i support him at what he is doing as an independent. thank you. host: jesse from rosedale, maryland. you are next. caller: it might be a wolf in sheep's clothing. have a nice day. host: cassandra in fort, maryland. independent. caller: i do not think joe manchin is democrat.

he acts like an undercover recovered -- like an undercover republican. i don't know why west virginia keeps putting him in there. host: would you prefer he leave the party before hand, even if it meant losing the democratic majority in the senate? caller: not right now because we are 50-50. if we had more democrats like 53 or 54, i would say yes. host: you want him to stick around long enough to get beat and a primary in 2024? is that caller: caller: what you are saying? yes i am. -- is that what you're saying? caller: yes i am. he is not a democrat. he is undercover. he is just there for himself. the republicans do stick together. the democrats do not. host: cassandra in fort washington, maryland.

a special line for west virginia residents. this started from an op-ed joe manchin wrote and released in the charleston gazette. it came out on sunday. the conversation about that op-ed continues in the charleston gazette. here is an opinion piece from david saying as senator joe manchin started in the op-ed on sunday, the right to vote is fundamental to the american democracy. frustrating joe manchin asked for -- refused to vote for the for the people at -- if you want to read more, the column in today's charleston gazette. plenty of conversation in the national papers as well, including greg sargent in the washington post, a columnist. this is what he writes. if rewriting voting rules on a partisan basis will destroy your democratic bond, we already live in that world. gop state legislatures are

passing such changes on party lines across the country, including voter suppression to potentially overturn outcomes at the potential for extreme gerrymander's. joe manchin is not explained why democrats acting on partisan lines to blunt those changes will destroy our democracy and await allowing republican changes to proceed on party lines would not. a few more minutes for this conversation this morning. clay out of louisiana, a republican. what you think of joe manchin? caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. yes i am all for senator manchin. i think he should run for president. he is the only one that seems to take a stance on everything and his firm in his stance. west virginia is primarily a republican state.

as far as this little canard about his house, he actually paid $200,000 for it. i am firmly in support of senator manchin. host: before you go, when was the last time joe manchin was brought to your attention as somebody in louisiana? has he come up before? we'll go back to the mountain state. this is rhonda. go ahead. caller: i am a lifelong west virginia and. -- i am a lifelong west virginian. i see the problem in west virginia being an education problem. it is a deep red state, but education and people understand the issues seems to be a problem. host: what you think happens to

joe manchin in 2024? caller: either he will kill all republican or he will continue -- either he will go all republican or he will continue to be a blue dog democrat. host: the caller before rhonda mentioning the houseboat issue. this is apparently where it came from. the wall street journal editorial board giving some background on that, saying it was aid to democratic senator dick durbin, went to twitter saying i do not think our founding fathers anticipated the democratic experiment to rest in the hand of a man who lives in a houseboat. the editorial board asking what is wrong with houseboats, noting the tweet was deleted. this is joanne out of mississippi, a republican. caller: i understand mississippi is a smaller state that i would

not want to stand in a long line. there is a simple solution to this. the states need to put in more voting places closer to people to vote. it is simple. there is no need to make a big mess out of this. the problem is people have to wait so long line, that started all of this. just have more precincts for people to vote. other people should be speaking up. i don't understand why they stay silent. whether they are democrat or republican. host: how do you feel about vote by mail? should it be easier to vote by mail? caller: now. -- no. if you are an american and you are patriotic, you want to go vote. we just have to have more precincts. when you have a precinct like in

mississippi, you know who is dead, who has died. they will say they passed away on such and such a date. the precinct workers turned that in, and they take them off the roles. there not dead people voting. it is done because we have more precincts easy to get to. we have organizations that will drive someone to the polls. just be a neighbor instead of all of this frightening -- all this fighting and all of this stuff. host: rhode island, a democrat, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i want to say i agree with carolyn, the democrat from new york that he should be booted out of the party.

i belong to two democratic organizations. i helped to support the democratic party. i've been an independent until the last year about this time, that i switch to democrat. these two organizations called me up, looking for funding. what i have done over the past two or three months -- no democratic organization is going to get a dime from me until joe manchin and kyrsten sinema are expelled from the party. no more money at all. if you want to consort with the enemy you will not see a dime from me. host: i hate to keep going back to this. you want them gone even if it means losing the majority in the senate? caller: yes. we can find the senate just like the republicans can. i want them gone.

host: do you think the republicans would have qualms about illuminating the filibuster? caller: i don't know. they played dirty. the -- the way i see it, republicans want a civil war, unfortunately. host: thaad in rhode island -- tad in rhode island. this is arlene out of salt lake city, utah. your thoughts? caller: i think people need to do their homework and look into this. this is called the for the people act, but it takes away power from the people. people will no longer set their

own election policy. the rains will be handed over to whoever is controlling congress. it prohibits voter list maintenance. this is an example. our state legislatures will no longer be accountable to the people. host: that is arlene out of salt lake city, utah. our last color in this first hour -- our last caller in this first hour. up next we'll be joined by brendan boyle to discuss the president's 2022 budget request an economic agenda. later more on that with u.s. chamber of commerce executive vice president neil bradley.

stick around. we will be right back. ♪♪ announcer: coming up on tuesday, testifying on the cyberattack against colonial pipeline. at 2:15 p.m., secretary of state antony blinken talks about the administration's foreign policy into the state department budget. at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the u.s. senate continues work on nominations and will have a final vote on a science and technology bill that was held up just before the memorial day recess. at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3, secretary blinken will be at a subcommittee hearing. and then at 12:30 p.m., looking at the role of purdue pharma in

the opioid epidemic. announcer: washington journal continues. host: glad to welcome back brendan boyle, joining us ahead of the budget and ways & means committee, taking up the budget tomorrow. i wonder if your way in on the question we addressed this morning after joe manchin said he would not support the for the people act or ending the filibuster to move the legislation. is he someone that has too much influence on capitol hill? guest: it is great to be back with you and back on c-span. i a worldn in which the senate is 50-50, you could say every member of the senate has outside influence. joe manchin is obviously a moderate, moderate to conservative democrat, i believe in the middle in terms of ideological score on how he

votes. so we knew that he especially was going to have a lot of influence. on the main question about the filibuster, it's been clear for years, including when republicans controlled the senate, i think the filibuster is contrary to what our founding fathers intended. in two different parts of the federalist papers, either madison or hamilton, which everyone wrote that section, comes out clearly against a super majority vote requirement, which had been in the articles of confederation and approved that they opted against it. unfortunately, over time with senate rules, this concept of a filibuster evolved. and it is really only the last three decades that the filibuster evolved to a point where it is basically invoked on

every single vote of substance. that was not the case if you go back 40 or 50 years ago. it existed, but primarily used, i am not saying that this was a good thing, but it was reserved for civil rights legislation. southern cited -- segregationists would filibuster civil rights bills. so this is a real problem in our system. it grinds things to a halt. one other aspect of this, i just want to tackle this part, i believe joe manchin is a principal person and is doing what he thinks is right, i just do not think he is right on substance. he believes the filibuster moves -- actually leads to more bipartisanship, but i believe it is the reverse. i would point to the vote on whether to establish a january 6 commission, which passed the house with every single democratic vote and it also

passed the house with more than 30 republican votes. if you look at the senate vote, it was 54-35. it had support from some seven republican senators. in a world in which the filibuster does not exist, that would be seen as a large bipartisan vote. unfortunately, because of the 60 vote threshold it wasn't. host: in congress, is the filibuster -- if indeed it is off the table for now, what is the future for the people act and what is the future for some of these other major biden policy and expanding legislative items? guest: sp. i am -- so, i'm still hopeful that even if the filibuster was not ended that joe manchin and other democratic senators who want to maintain

the filibuster recognize it is preventing anything at all really from getting done, and that at the very least it needs to be reformed. so a couple of ideas have been out there, switching the thresholds, instead of 60 votes to break the filibuster, the side filibustering needs to always put of 41 votes to sustain it. that has been talked about and i think it would make a difference. you could potentially do carveouts on certain issues and make them so you cannot filibuster it. we have that today, budget reconciliation is a carve out and an exception to the filibuster rule. mitch mcconnell got rid of the filibuster for traditional appointments, including to the supreme court, that is another carve out. i would like to see more, if you are going to maintain the filibuster. i respect senator joe manchin, but i am frustrated.

i know some fellow democrats are as frustrated as i am. i will not challenge his motivations, i think he is doing what he thinks is right. i'm just frustrated he has the view he has. i will say for folks who want to kick him out of the party, that would be a terrible mistake. that would mean mitch mcconnell is again set a majority leader. we just passed, with the joe manchin's yes vote, a covid relief bill. that would not have happened if mitch mcconnell was still the senate majority leader, so let's not forget that. it can be frustrating when you have a big tent party, but i am not giving up. host: you can join the conversation with brendan boyle, member of the budget committee and ways and means committee. he will be with us for the next 40 minutes. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000.

independents, 202-748-8002. you are holding a hearing tomorrow with your budget committee members to take a look at the president's budget proposal. we often hear the phrase that budget is a statement of our values. what does that mean and what is the statement that the biden administration is making with this budget? guest: that is a statement that goes back many years, actually, well before this administration. it's one thing to say what your priorities are, but when you show your budget and where you are spending your money, that speaks volumes to what your priorities actually are. for example, some of the many exciting things to me in this budget, extending the child tax credit. one thing we passed in the covid relief bill is a one year,

dramatic expansion to the child tax credit that's projected to reduce child poverty by 50% in the united states. i want to make that permanent in our budget, over the biden budget proposal. and it would do that for the following year. removing lead pipes that are in metro areas of this country and replacing them with safe pipes. that is in there. strengthening our electrical grid. those are just a few examples, money for child care is another. i believe that budgets are a reflection of our values. and i think we are showing our values by what we are choosing to spend on. so, i am vice chair of the committee. i join our chairman in supporting this budget proposal. we will begin with their hearing tomorrow.

and over the next month to seven weeks, we will see a lot of action on a number of priorities. host: you mentioned budget reconciliation, explain again what that does and how that works. guest: yes. i am shaking my head a little bit because i'm not sure -- there's folks who have spent decades on capitol hill, who i am not sure that they can fully 100% explain this arcane measure. it exists because of the filibuster. if budget reconciliation -- it essentially says that you cannot filibuster any budget proposal. so he simple majority vote is required, which is how four years ago the republicans were able to pass through thereto million-dollar -- through tax cuts for the rich. it's how we were able to pass

our covid relief bill a couple months ago. and it is how i suspect we will be pushing forward on this infrastructure bill, because in this modern age with two highly ideologically consistent political parties, and particularly on the right there is such a penalty for voting for anything that a democratic president supports, it is very difficult to see a world in which you will get a super majority vote of 60 in the u.s. senate. so, the budget can go through in reconciliation, which at its essence, its most simple level, means a simple majority vote is required, so 51 instead of 60. it does not change things in the house. you always just need a simple majority in the house. host: why does the senate parliamentarian get to say that this can only happen once more this year? and if it does happen only once

more, what else do you try to include in that? you mentioned infrastructure, does being american families plan become part of this round of reconciliation? guest: i am shaking my head because i find the senate rules maddening and very illogical, frankly. as a house member, we operate under a much more straightforward set of rules and we do not need to worry about reconciliation, although we actually end up having to worry about it because we know what the senate rules are and ultimately we wanted this to be signed by the president. i would refer to the parliamentarian on why her judgment has switched over the last several months. initially, there were indications in the spring we would be able to use reconciliation a couple more times this year. she has by all accounts essentially gone back,. but i would defer to her.

there must be some further explanation. she would be able to better speak to that. host: you are shaking your head on the senate rules, i wonder if that is part of the reason there's a center -- a senate open in 2022. i know you are not planning to run for that seat. are the rules part of you not running? guest: there are a couple reasons. me being in my fourth term, i have really enjoyed what i am doing. this is an incredibly important term in the history of congress. i think if we do everything we need to do this term, we could end up being one of the two must historic terms in congress. but there are personal reasons as well. i'm the father of a wonderful and precocious seven-year-old, and getting to do things last week like go to her first ever school play, to be honest, there

are things i would not be able to do if i was running statewide. i would be traveling to scranton, harrisburg, erie, and those are great places, but that means i am not home. 'm already gone -- i['m already gone -- i am already gone half the week when we are in session. so for personal and professional reasons, i decided to stay where i am. and i know i am in a good spot to do a lot of good, and i do not take that for granted. host: we have collars for you. out of philadelphia -- callers for you. out of philadelphia, debbie. caller: thank you. what is in the offer that is coming from the republicans in the senate? they are saying they want to use some of the money that was provided in the covid-19 bill. what money is available?

i thought all the money was already allocated to different reasons. and if that money is going to be affected, the democrats need to say exactly what the money is that the republicans want to take from them. when the republicans call them, ask them -- tell them how they will benefit from it. democrats do not fight enough for me. i do not understand it. guest: i of fighting hard that that proposal ends up looking like a final proposal. i am glad that we fought for the covid relief bill, one of the largest bills in american history, $2 trillion, which included those covid relief supplemental payments, more money for ppp. one reason why the vaccination

rollout right now has been so successful, the fact that more than u.s. -- half of u.s. adults have at least one dose, excuse me, 60% have at least one dose and 50% are fully vaccinated -- think of what a mess we were in before that covid relief bill passed, the american rescue plan. right now, we are leading the rest of the world when it comes to vaccinations. such a big contrast to the previous administration, which had one of the worst records when it came to cases and deaths. so, those are the things we are fighting hard for. as far as the senate republican proposal on infrastructure, i do not think it is a critical -- credible proposal because a lot of the figures that they are throwing around is kind of just, as george bush used to call it, fuzzy math. it is repurposing spending that has already passed, that is the

bulk of their proposal. while i do not disagree with attempting to be bipartisan, in reality i am skeptical about you will get 10 senate republicans to come on board and make this large infrastructure investment, a once in a generation investment that we need. just like the american rescue plan, we push forward -- pushed forward on a bill that was popular with democrats, republicans and independents throughout the country, yet we did not get one republican vote for it in the house or senate. i am prepared to do the same thing with the info structure bill, because i think it is about the substance of what we pass and not trying to chase this bipartisanship goal in an era in which there is very little good faith negotiating from the other side. host: do think that is specifically coming from senator o -- from the senator leading

these negotiations with president biden, do you think that the president should walk away from negotiations with her? guest: again, i think it is an admirable impulse from the president to give bipartisanship a shot, which is what we did on the covid relief bill. initially, we gave it a few weeks, even a month. we attempted to negotiate, saw it was not going to go anywhere, then we pushed forward with our own bill. i think that this approach, we will give the other side a shot, but we will not be held up by then. i think that there are a few republican senators who may be negotiating in good faith, that i just do not see 10. and that is the number you would need ultimately to make it work. host: what is the cutoff date for that shot you want to see given? guest: originally, we had the goal of the fourth of july, we are in danger of that slipping now.

one way or the other, this has to pass by late july because then we are in recess and do not come back until after labor day. this most be signed by the -- must be signed by the president by late july. host: from outside of pittsburgh, john? is that right? john, are you with us? go ahead. caller: pardon me? host: what is your question or comment? caller: it is a disgrace that we are spending billions of dollars on letting illegals into the country, yet every day of the week our veterans are begging on tv for money. host: congressman? guest: first, i have repeatedly voted for greater funding for veterans.

i think that we owe it to them, it's our moral responsibility, and we should do far more than we already do for veterans. on immigration, though, the fact is we are not letting millions of illegals into our country. we have a challenge at her border, and it did not -- our border, and it did not start with this generation. there are three central american countries, the three countries immediately south of mexico, in which the crime rates are off the charts, as well as high unemployment. those are countries where families choose, they believe that they are actually better off traveling hundreds of miles through a dangerous path than living in their current country. so, the immigration issue is complex. but the idea that we are just willy-nilly opening our gates

and allowing millions of illegals -- i know that that perception is out there, but it is false. host: sheila out of georgia, a democrat. good morning. sheila? go ahead. i can hear you. go ahead. caller: oh, ok. i'd like to know, uh, what your qualifications are for being a congressman. you look awfully young. guest: i appreciate that more and more as i get older. i'm in fact 44 years old. my daughter, who is seven, thinks i'm closer to 100. age is relative. the, you know, in the

constitution there are few stated requirements to be in the house of representatives. you have to be 25 years old, a u.s. citizen, and a resident of the state which you represent and congress. so, other than that there are not too many requirements. i'm the first in my family to go to college, have undergraduate degrees and graduate degree in government and public policy. and i have been a legislator for 13 years now.this is a very serious profession and i think that sometimes we do a disservice to our, not just our public policy folks, but we do a disservice to our country when we devalue public service because -- i will be voting on a $6 trillion budget. i have a vote on whether or not we go to war.

these are important issues and i think that certainly valuing the profession of public service is a wise thing to do because we really want as high quality people, democrats and republicans, to run for these positions. host: a generational question has come up in your party recently, when it comes to the leadership of your party. a story about it from politico, democrats start to eye what a post nancy pelosi era looks like. she has called herself a bridge to the next generation of leaders in the party, so who do you think are those leaders and when will they get to take the top rains -- reins of power in the caucus? guest: after having my question -- after having questions raised about my age on the younger

side, i will not raise questions about those on the order signed. there are some great quotes from madison and jefferson on exactly this point. speaker pelosi, as well as jim clyburn, it's true, they are a few years older than i am, one or two, you would not know it by their energy level and acumen. so, i do not -- i'm in no rush based on age. there are however -- are, however, many leaders in our caucus. they may not have a very visible roles, but they play in important job. i will not get into one or two of them because i mention four or five, i will annoy other friends of mine. but i am confident that the house democratic caucus chair will be strong regardless. host: we have a republican out of florida, good morning. caller: good morning.

a couple of questions. the first is, i would like the congressman to answer whether we saw bipartisanship the last four years of the trump administration or did we just see russia stories, ukrainian stories, all kinds of stories where they investigated and investigated, but yet i do not see you the former president being charged with anything? now, the congressman can explain why you have people dying in the streets of new york, but the new york state attorney general is investigating donald trump's business dealings from 30 years ago, maybe he could explain why we are not concentrating on the people who are being killed in new york on a daily basis. second, could he answer, if the filibuster is jim crow, why did the democrats use it over 300 times in donald trump's last

year in office? if it is such a relic of jim crow. i understand the party is the party of slavery and jim crow, and segregation, but maybe he can explain if it is jim crow to use the filibuster, why they do that. host: got your question. guest: the caller is obviously a very ardent republican, so i'm not sure how open-minded he will be to my answers, but i will go ahead and be straightforward and answer them. there's no question the history of the filibuster in terms of how it became to be, and so often invoked, was on civil rights live a solution -- civil rights legislation, segregationists who started as democrats but then left the party over time as the national democratic party came out in support of civil rights in the 1960's.

they would invoke the filibuster just to preserve segregation. obviously, over time, the filibuster then was expanded to the point where we are now. i mentioned this earlier, and now they 60 vote threshold is essentially invoked on basically every single issue. it started out frankly for jim crow reasons, obviously it has evolved over the decades and now it is invoked on basically every single issue. as i mentioned before, i think that it is bad for our system, regardless of which party is in power. it's also interesting that -- and this is probably why some of my fellow democrats, myself included, are frustrated -- when republicans have full control of government, you never heard mitch mcconnell talk about the importance of bipartisanship. he went. my head to attempt to repeal obama care, even though it was

popular. they were able to do that because of budget reconciliation, so they did not have to worry about the filibuster. same with tax cuts. same with appointing members to the supreme court, who were very conservative nominees. so this is this asymmetry that exists now in which the filibuster really applies to a lot of the things that democrats care about, but the things republicans care about my tax cuts and judicial appointments committee cannot invoke the filibuster on. so, i hope that some of my democratic friends and colleagues in the senate recognize that the longer the filibuster goes on, it puts democrats structurally at a massive disadvantage. host: the filibuster is a tool of the senate, but jim wants me to ask if you have ever voted against a democratically sponsored a bill in the house? guest: sure.

yeah, you can check all of my votes online. congress.gov is a great website, i personally use it. it's a public website. i use it myself. you can look at the bills i have sponsored, my voting record. even though on the big ticket items we are talking about there is little evidence of bipartisanship, you will see on other bills that do not get as much attention, a number of bipartisan votes that take place. yes, there have been times when i voted against a bill that had a democratic sponsor. host: what is the toughest vote you have ever taken? guest: for me, in general the toughest abodes are not ones where because it is a controversial issue, the toughest votes for me are typically complex pieces of legislation that may have four main pieces where i agree with

two, but disagree with two of them. and i know if i vote for it, i am voting yes for things i dislike, and if i voted against it, i am voting against things that i like. those are the toughest for me, but also if you talk to most legislators. i would say the iran vote five or six years ago was probably the most difficult vote that i cast. i ended up voting contrary to a president of my party, a president i strongly supported. for me in my 13 years, serving in the state legislature or congress, that was the most difficult vote. host: have any of those pieces -- does the for the people act have any of those pieces? guest: i have voted for it twice, so i am a supporter of hr-1. the anti-gerrymandering provisions alone, putting federal minimum standards in our

elections -- i think we saw in 2020 how frustrating it is to have 50 different state rules and requirements. these are minimum standards, so rules would still be set at the state and local level, they would just have to exceed a federal minimum standard of when it comes to voting in elections, our campaign financing system is completely out of whack. i would like to see some other things that were not in there. i have a clean money bill which would provide free airtime for qualified candidates. you have that in most other western democracies. it would help reduce the massive need to raise funds at election time. most of the money i raise goes to paying for tv ads, that is the most -- that is the thing for most candidates. i would put a clean money act into hr-1.

but that said, i will not let that stand in the way of something i otherwise strongly support. host: back to the keystone state, vick in midway. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. congressman, i will give you a simple solution to bipartisanship in this budgetary info structure bill. put in an amendment giving federal agencies permission to prioritize which infrastructure projects wil be fundedl first. and then the support of the congressional candidate or senatorial candidate's position on infrastructure. guest: i think it is a good proposal. one of the things that is coming back in the transportation and infrastructure bill being marked up in the house this week is for the first time in over a decade, we the elected representatives

of our districts have the opportunity to direct some of the spending back home. i think that makes a lot of sense. i think congress made a mistake over a decade ago, when it got rid of that member directed spending. you have to have your name associated with it. thre's five -- there's five projects i supported and a put them on my website. it seems like those choices should be made by the people through elected representatives, rather than some anonymous bureaucrat who does not know the difference between northeast philly and northeastern pennsylvania. that is something that i strongly support. i think that congress actually worked better when that used to be the way that things were, so i am excited that is in this proposal. host: member directed spending, you do not like the term earmarks? guest: i think that member

directed spending is more accurate. as long as you have transparency. so, i mentioned that you have to have the members' names -- this is new this year, and the first time in my career that such a thing has existed. obviously, they were done away with because of scandals that took place. in my view, if you have full transparency, that is the best way to avoid that. the projects i supported are on my website, i have my name associated with them and i am proud to have fought for them. but the game is not over, i still have to get funding for them in the senate. i believe the way it will work is you do not necessarily get 100% of the projects you push for and you have endorsed, but in my view that is a better system than what we have now. those decisions are still taking place, mind you. this does not spend additional money. i would much rather the people

see what is being chosen and then either reward or punish your elected representative if you disagree with that decision. right now, you cannot do that. if a decision is made on transportation, it is made by -- i do not even know the person, at either the state or federal department of transportation, and that affects my neighborhood and community. and i do not think that that is a good system for a representative democracy. so i am glad we have brought this back the way that we have, both for transportation and for other sorts of projects. it's a relatively small amount of money compared to the overall amount that we are talking about. and i think it is the most compatible with our representative democracy. host: columbia, mississippi. ava is waiting. we have 10 minutes left. go ahead. caller: i want to know, since

you are talking about the budget, does anybody do anything about duplication of bills and programs. if a woman goes to make a pot of chili, 44 she runs out to buy the chili powder, she checks her cabinet. if she has something that is good she uses what she already has. i would hope that congress would do the same thing. if we have bills, we should not keep stacking them up. they need to clean out their cabinet and quit doing the same thing over and over and over. host: congressman, on legislating like making a pot of chili? guest: you have made me hungry as i am sitting here. yes, there are those sorts of checks. and government can be wasteful. i mean, no doubt. but i think there might be a perception that government, i am

talking about the federal government, may use more resources than it has. if you would walk through some of the agencies, you would see computers that are 20 years old and things badly in need of repair, as well. yes, there are those sorts of checks in place where you cannot have duplication, but i will not say it is perfect either. i will say, though, that every two years i hear some new candidate running and saying they will solve everything by getting rid of waste and fraud, and you always have to snicker at that because the reality is to do some of the major things we want to do, the sort of savings you can find, believe me, if you can eliminate fraud, you should certainly do it on the merits. if you could cut waste, absolutely do it. but the idea that there is enough change in the sofa cushions to fund for the entire

government or the major priorities we have, like rebuilding infrastructure, it is not so. the reality is at this kind of level you have to make hard decisions on spending. so i am a strong supporter of this infrastructure bill. by the way, somebody raised a question about bipartisanship. i was on tv for the last four years when donald trump was president saying i was a supporter of an infrastructure bill, i said it on this program, i said i wished the administration would push forward with an investor should bill because there would be support on the democratic side. i never understand why he didn't do that because it would've been a big bipartisan win for the previous president. it is unfortunate that that opportunity slipped past him, but i am glad we will finally get the job done. host: congressman boyle with hundreds of videos in the c-span library, including several on the issue of -- on this program,

on the call in program, as well as his speeches. we have a few minutes left. brian in new jersey, good morning. caller: good morning. what prompted me to call is something that i find, my friends find and so forth, very frustrating -- we've been frustrated at the reluctance of democrats and republicans to give credit where credit is due. you mentioned representative -- and you contrasted the amount of cases and deaths in the previous administration compared to now. well, it is obvious that the vaccine rollout has been successful. does the trump administration deserve any credit for the development of that vaccine? of course there were more deaths and cases when the vaccine was

being developed and was initially rolled out. host: go ahead. guest: let's be clear, the previous administration, and i would rather focus on the future, but the previous administration was a disaster on covid. we had -- and this was last year when no one had a vaccine, so all of the countries were on a level playing field. the u.s. is 4% of the world's population but we were 20% of covid cases and almost 1% of covid deaths. you compared to other wealthy -- 20% of covid deaths. you compare us the other countries, wealthy countries, and to europe and asia, we were the worst. i think it is one of the reasons why donald trump lost the election. now most countries have the

vaccine, yet only in the united states, the u.s. and countries like israel, do you see such high vaccination rates. it shows you that leadership makes a difference. the kind of people that we elect, the people managing this out of the white house, they really make such a massive difference. i have no doubt that this administration has saved lives because of the vaccinations. and the fact that we are able to reopen now, the fact that we are able to go on without masks as long as you are vaccinated, and by the way this is sooner than we expected, it shows you what a good job this administration has done when it comes to the vaccinations. i think that they deserve a lot of credit. the contrast between this administration and the sort of disaster that the last one was on covid is basically night and day. host: time for one or two more phone calls. john in farmington, connecticut, a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning, top of

them morning to both of you. i wanted to point out an issue about population. ezra klein in his book, mentioned the population is represented unequally by the senate. 70% of the population has 30 senators representing them, and 30% of the population has 70 senators. that's why the filibuster has to go. 90% of americans want gun control, but because of the way the senate is currently constructed we cannot get it. most of the damage to the people in the country, from guns, is in the city areas. therefore, we have to point out to the west virginia senator

that the population is not being adequately represented. thank you. guest: there is no question that the senate was created in an undemocratic fashion. california, the largest state, 40 million people and to senators. wyoming, closer to a half million, also has two senators, so that is patently unfair. i have to say, though, i do not see a solution to that. it's baked into our constitution and it is not amendable. the reality is i think that we, for those on my side of the aisle, are better off recognizing that that inequity exists and we just have to win in more sparsely populated states. we've been able to do that in west virginia. not long ago, in alabama. in montana. and we have two senators that

voted with us from vermont. it is unfair, but those are the rules. it's one of those rare parts of the constitution that is not amendable, so we have to push forward and hope that the candidates fit in those districts they are running. host: we touched on january 6 once or twice, but that new report from the two senate committees, and the rules and administration committee, with report examining the attack. viewers can find it on our website to read through it, but for you, what is the future right out of a january 6 commission? guest: i think that one way or the other we have to push forward and get this investigation done. we pushed forward with a bipartisan bill that got 30 house republicans to vote for it, even though their leadership was whipping in novo.

-- no vote. and senate -- seven senate republicans decided to vote with us on this. it's completely bipartisan. it was negotiated in good faith with a republican co-chairman, essentially, of the effort. so, i hope that we will take another shot in the senate. we should hold their feet to the fire and push the vote again, which is something that we are entitled to do. if that fails, we need to move forward with our own select committee. we had 800 to 1000 of our fellow american citizens attack their own government, attacking the capital for the first time since the british invaded more than two centuries ago. i want to know what donald trump was and was not doing for the hours on january 6 when the national guard was not being

sent in to aid us against this violent mob. so that and other questions exist, and we need to get it done one way or another. host: representative boyle, part of the committee that will be taking up the 2020 to budget tomorrow at 11:00 a.m. eastern. we'll be looking for your comments and questions during that, but we appreciate your time this morning. up next, more discussion on the administration's major spending and tax proposal. we'll be joined by the executive vice president of the u.s. chamber of commerce, neil bradley. we will be right back. ♪ announcer: c-span's landmark cases explores the stories and constitutional drama behind supreme court decisions, and for the next several weeks, watch episodes from our series.

on sunday and c-span, new york times v. the united states, whre richard nixon used executive authority to prevent the new york times from publishing top-secret documents on u.s. involvement in the vietnam war. watch landmark cases on sunday night at 9:45 p.m. eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. ♪

announcer: today, a hearing on the sackler family, owners of purdue pharma, and the role they played in the opioid epidemic. we'll join that live in progress on c-span3, online at c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span radio app. announcer: washington journal continues. host: we welcome neil bradley back to the washington journal, a top policy officer and executive vice president of the u.s. chamber of commerce, joining us a week after the chamber released a poll of 500 americans who were unemployed during the pandemic. here are some findings from that survey. 49% of those that lost jobs in the pandemic are not actively looking for work right now, 30% do not speak to return to work this year, 30% never expect to return to work, and a 16% say it

is not worth looking because of the benefits they are receiving right now. what should policymakers take away from those findings? guest: the job crunch is very much real. the anecdotal stories and they are hearing about the difficulty that businesses are having filling jobs is a reality that is compounded by some of the incidents of the pandemic and to some policy responses of the pandemic. you mentioned the 16% who self-reported that the income they are taking home from unemployment benefits, including that $300 enhanced weekly benefit, means they are not interested in working right now. we think that the 25 governors who have moved to end that $300, that was the right move. the job market is ready to welcome people back. and we also know that others are having difficulty because schools are not open in person or a childcare center closed.

we can help these individuals as well. we need to expand childcare options. there is no one single solution but identifying the barriers people are having at least gives us a map on how to move forward. host: is the american families plan, $1.8 trillion, and a $2 trillion for structure plan, will that alleviate the jobs crunch? guest: no, the president has identified some problems we need to address, including accessibility to affordable childcare over the long-term, so we should begin looking at that, but you are talking about programs that will take a month, years to get passed, and even longer to get set up. there's actually more innovative solutions to deal with the immediate problem happening at the state level. the governors of arizona and oklahoma each announced programs to help those returning to work access childcare, if there's a

working parent. so we should turn there first and have discussions about long-term policies. it does not come anywhere near the $4 trillion in spending that the administration has proposed. host: where do you fall on the jobs plan, on infrastructure spending? as the president is looking for a middle ground, his original proposal well over $2 trillion. the republican proposal is less. is there a happy middle? guest: there should be, and we are encouraged by the negotiations going on between the president and a senator. there is a deal to be had. if you look at the original proposal from the president, $2.4 trillion, there were things in there i do not think that people would describe as and for structure. but at the same time there are infrastructure needs in this country that have been long neglected. a package that focuses on roads,

bridges, water and wastewater and broadband accessibility, in about the $1 trillion range, is probably the sweet spot. we think it can be bipartisan, funded in a responsible way that does not disadvantage american job creators and a small businesses, and relies on the mechanisms we have used since the day of the eisenhower era. there is a deal to be had, we are just hoping that republicans and democrats decide to take the deal rather than reverting to bipartisan bickering. host: you do not believe raising the corporate tax rate is a responsible way of paying for this? guest: it is not responsible because it is economically damaging. if you go back to the obama administration, one thing republicans and democrats agreed on was that the corporate tax rate, and our corporate tax structure, punished american based businesses.

so we made ourselves uncompetitive related to foreign companies in the rest of the world. the 2017 tax bill addressed that problem by lowering the corporate tax rate from the highest in the industrialized world to around the middle of the pack. so, that combined with other things was a strong signal that we are out to compete globally. taking it to 28% puts us back at the top in the industrialized world, not in a good way. at the top highest tax rate, meaning it is more advantageous in a global economy to not be an american company. i do not think anyone wants that. host: can you explain what a global corporate minimum tax does? guest: we saw the news out of the g7 on friday, and we are trying to decipher what they intend by this global minimum tax. we think we understand the intent of what they are trying to do. there's global tax arbitrage

that sometimes occurs. we want to make sure that taxes are collected fairly. we do not want discrimination against american companies. so the rules that fall underneath the headline will be much more important than the headline of the announcement. we're looking forward to learning more from secretary janet yellen and the administration as this unfolds. host: the white house press secretary yesterday in the briefing room speaking about that and the administration's support for it. [video clip] >> the finance ministers endorsed president biden's plan for a tax of 15%, a historic unprecedented progress made possible by the president, since secretary yellen's commitment to a tax system that is equitable and equipped to meet the needs of the 21st century global economy. the g7's endorsement is another example of america reasserting its leadership on the world

stage, something we look forward to doing next week, and establishing a corporate minimum tax will level the playing field for the u.s. and ensure fairness for working families everywhere and focus competition for business where it belongs. host: neil bradley, is the chamber thinking about giving its endorsement to a global minimum corporate tax? guest: we like to judge policies based on the facts and what happens if the policies that are proposed go into effect. let me tell you what we are looking at as we look to judge this policy proposal. the 2017 tax reform includes what an effect is a global minimum tax for u.s. multinational companies, it is part of what is called the guilty -- it's set at lower than 15%, but there are certain rules about how the global tax is applied country by country versus an average basis, and

what is included in the global minimum tax. those are the details that really matter. it's wanting to say headline, 15%, this will solve our problems, but it is another thing to understand the details and understand whether that puts u.s. companies on a level playing field with our international competitors or whether it puts us at a disadvantage. our concern would be a protest to a disadvantage, but we want to see the details and understand exactly how it works before we issue a final opinion. host: coming up on 9:00 a.m., we are talking with neil bradley, executive vice president and chief policy officer at the u.s. chamber of commerce. it's easy to join the conversation. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. folks are calling in, so remind viewers who they chamber

represents and how you do what you do in washington. guest: the chamber is an over 100-year-old institution, formed when chambers of commerce from across the u.s. came together and it we want to have a voice in washington and we wanted to do two things, represent the interest of the business community and also to help the government. so that is what we have been doing coming up on 110 years now. our members are all sizes from a one person shop on main street to the largest employers in america and everything in between. we are one of the only situations that represent business, irrespective of industry, so everything from agriculture to zoological sciences is within our membership. and they are from all over the united states. we work with them every day to make sure that their voice is heard. host: tim out of wisconsin, a

democrat. good morning. caller: yes, mr. bradley. thank you for taking my call. i know the chamber of commerce generally represents big corporations a lot more in the republican party than the democratic party, but if you have $15 an hour with two people working, they make $62,000 a year, and that is below the poverty level. i would like to know how the republicans -- they have the lowest wages and lowest standard of living, so how does the republican party, how did they keep getting reelected? i'm an ex-union man and i believe the chamber of commerce is pretty much antiunion. but what about the blue-collar working class people?

i do not understand why the republican party is not more involved in trying to pass these bills because they would help their constituents in the poorest states in the country. guest: let me just begin by saying the chamber of commerce is not a partisan institution, we are not republican or democrat, we represent businesses and business owners. they come in all flavors, from republican, democrat, to independent and every other flavor you can think of. we represent the free enterprise system and the interest of economic growth. our membership, over 90%, are the smallest of businesses, we are talking about 10 or fewer employees. when we think about the minimum wage, we also acknowledge that because we look at the whole country, it varies. i grew up in oklahoma. the cost-of-living and sticker shock when i moved from my small

hometown to washington, d.c. was a major difference. so, we have to take into account those types of regional differences, those local differences, and sometimes setting policies on a national level failed to recognize that life in california and new york is not the same as life in iowa, oklahoma or anywhere else. host: is the chamber antiunion? guest: we are not antiunion, we are anti-- an unlevel playing field. we are concerned about efforts to stack the deck. for example, legislation currently pending in congress at that we adamantly opposed that gets rid of secret ballot elections, the idea that rather than casting your vote for a union, or against a union in

that leads to the type of intimidation we have seen in the past. we should have relative ease between labor-management, that fostering kind of unrest is unproductive. one of the things congress did back in the 1940's was they borrowed something called second -- they barred secondary boycotts. one of your customers is in a battle with a union somewhere else in town, the union comes and decides to put pressure on the other business. that is wrong, those are the kinds of tactics we outlawed 80 years ago that this would bring back. give us a level playing field. let's let labor work together and there's a lot of things we could accomplish. good morning -- host: good morning, you are on

with neil bradley. caller: allowing corporations to move to a po box and keep their money in the cayman islands and still claim they are a united states corporation, that needs to end. the worst thing that has happened here and the reason why the republicans keep winning, citizens united. unlimited secret money. supply-side economics. the middle class is never going to gain until they do something about those two. the thing about minimum wage is it is not tied to inflation. if it was, minimum wage would be $20 an hour.

they do this to keep the lower income from losing buying power. guest: i will start with the first one and end with the last one. the idea with companies having a po box in some island and that is the way the pay their taxes. the 2017 tax reform that imposes this global worldwide minimum tax, part of the reasons for that provisions was to address abuses just like that. to make sure we do this in a way that thousand publishing company for simply being headquartered in america. the results were pretty dramatic. we had the lowest unemployment rate in more than a generation. you had to go back to the late 1960's to get an unemployment

rate as low as we had before the pandemic. we saw progress. all of that progress stalled out because of the global pandemic. that is not anyone's fault. we have to recognize the policy track we were on with respect to taxation was a good one that was lifting wages. the chamber said we are open to a reasonable adjustment. if you get adjusted for inflation it would be $10 or $11 right now, not $20. that is probably the spot where you have seen some republicans or some democrats in congress. understand that is far short of the $15 that many progressives in congress are pushing. host: campaign finances are one of the issues. when you talk about the chamber strategy and how to make contributions to candidates.

i will show the politics page on the chamber of commerce. their top 10 recipients joe biden's campaign, one of the top three recipients of funding back in the 2020 cycle. guest: i think that is looking at 2020 contributions. we only focus on races for the house and the senate. if you look at our giving over the last several cycles and include both republicans and democrats. the criteria to earn the support is to support the agenda of free enterprise. it won't surprise you that there is not a single republican or democrat that we agree with on every issue or that we disagree with on every issue. there is this temptation in washington today that you have to put everyone all on one side of the line or the other side of the line.

the truth is depending on the issue sometimes our best advocates are in the republican party. some of our best advocates happened to have a "d" after their name. we believe is our spots ability is focusing on the issues. that will lead us to support both republicans and democrats as long as they are permitted to free enterprise. host: do you have a thought on how much money you intend to spend on the 2022 cycle? guest: we don't, we will see how races unfold. our priority is going to be making sure that we elect men and women to congress who are focused on and understand what it takes to keep an economy growing, keep job creators creating jobs and to help bring back prosperity. host: do think you will play in primary? guest: we have in the past. i wouldn't be surprised if we play in them again. host: this is deborah, good

morning, your next. caller: thank you for this opportunity. i'm very interested, as an aside i would like to see you live on $10 an hour. you are one of the most behind on climate change. in terms of you didn't even admit that climate change was happening until 2019. while your statements have been more supportive lately, your actions are still fighting through lobbying and who you fund in terms of elections. we have 126 of structures of climate change in congress. you have acknowledged that climate change does exist and that it is human cost. we need to get off of the polluting fuels.

much of the infrastructure bill you just mentioned has the solution to stabilize climate and reduce pollution by choosing greener products and glowing -- going to a clean electricity standard. the compromise you talk about his $1 billion does not address those issues. when are you going to start to take the leadership role to get the climate and pollution solution that we need? caller: -- guest: i appreciate deborah acknowledging the chamber does know that climate change is real. human activity contributed to it. one of the things the chamber has done that makes a meaningful difference, it did not get a lot of attention in the press. when things don't resolve in hand-to-hand combat between democrats and republicans, too often the press ignores it. two accomplishments, one deals with eliminating more potent

carbons than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse warming gas. you find these things in refrigeration units. the u.s. chamber actually helped spearhead the negotiation. this implemented a u.s. ban that complements a global ban on these carbons. the proof is in the pudding. what is the difference? scientists tell us it will reduce future global warming by half a degree celsius. these are important changes. the second big development was energy innovation package. we know we need to into -- innovate and battery cell technology. transmission lines, new ways of harnessing noncarbon producing energy if we are going to meet our goals of reducing carbon emission. that will not happen magically. we helped spearhead the largest

that we have seen in our nations history and that r&d that will help us meet our climate obligations. we are committed to taking the prudent steps necessary to make sure we reduce greenhouse gas emissions. that we address global climate change. host: in georgia, this is amy. caller: good morning. i would like to hear your guest speak to the role of the chamber when it comes to this gross inequality in our society. many of the policies supported by the chamber basically support the status quo. the people who are trying to climb the economic ladder to move up. understand that they have a long history. our society has changed

significantly. prosperity for everyone is limited. the chamber of commerce has played a role in creating that environment. i know they are connected with the coke brothers and people like that. will they do for the american trying to become productive citizens by moving up the economic ladder? guest: i'm so glad the caller asked for this. we have taken a lot of steps over the last several years. i hope folks will go and you could google u.s. chamber and equality of opportunity. it was about a year ago that we hosted the first equality of opportunity summit. there are policies in place that prevent equal opportunity. there are long-standing divisions that are allowing people -- preventing people from

achieving their full potential. the business meeting has a role in solving this. in terms of what businesses do themselves, where they invest, how they hire. also that government has a role in this. we outlined 38 separate different policies that could be taken by the private sector, state and local government, and the local government to help close this equality of opportunity gap. we quantify the gap around areas like employment, entrepreneurship, educational outcomes, it is a very real problem. we will be convening in a couple of weeks for our second annual equality of opportunity summit talking about the progress we have made and in all honesty, the great distance we still have to go to help close the gaps. host: some numbers behind the

topline numbers, the unemployment rate in may among whites, 5.1 percent. among blacks in this country, 9.1%. among hispanics, 7.3%. has it been an equitable recovery? guest: it was not equitable pre-pandemic. it certainly hasn't been equitable since. one of the areas we focused on a lot during the pandemic was helping small businesses survive. if you look in the black community, small business ownership tends to be sole proprietorship. think about the local black-owned barbershop or a black-owned restaurant. they tend to be smaller in nature and historically have not had access to capital and access to the financial institution that other institutions relied on to survive the pandemic. we spent a lot of time focusing on what other avenues through the paycheck protection program

could be provided to ensure those black-owned businesses have access to that capital through the u.s. chamber foundation. we set up a grant program that provides grants directly to black-owned businesses to help them survive through the pandemic. there is more to be done. we are proud of the strides we have made in the past year. we are hopeful that if we have the private sector focused in the right direction we could close that gap you just message -- mentioned. host: about 15 minutes left with bill bradley, chief policy officer taking your phone calls. this is mac, on the republican line. good morning. caller: hello and thank you c-span. first of all, i have two things to say. the equality of opportunity i

really don't think it is about equity. we should be completely equal about what they do. -- caller: i want to know why you support invasion of american people. every time you invite somebody into our country, our wages go down. our kids can't get entry-level jobs. guest: the chamber has had a long history like the united states have had of welcoming legal immigrants into this country. it is my lineage, it is many of the lineages of many americans. we know those who strive and

want to come here to build a better life for themselves and their family and do so legally tend to start new businesses, they help other businesses survive and grow. you look at all of the studies, legal immigration actually helps our economy grow faster and stronger. that helps all of us. at the chamber we don't believe this is a zero-sum game. we don't believe there is one fixed pie with that we are simply fighting over the slices. we believe that could grow just as it has grown for all of united states history. our goal is to keep that growing and illegal immigration is a key element of growing that pie in creating more prosperity for everyone. host: a headline of vice president harris's trip, have you been tracking her trip? is she saying the right things

overseas? guest: we are focused on the root causes of this. this is not a problem that is only going to be solved once the border is secure. the border is critical in curtailing you legal immigration. we have to understand some of the root causes, whether it is people coming from the northern triangle region, fleeing gang violence, or people fleeing venezuela and making their way all the way up to the u.s. border because of the oppressive communist dictatorship there in venezuela. addressing some of these root causes is good for addressing our immigration problems in the united states. it is good for global economic growth and prosperity. i think focusing on this, as did prior administrations on a bipartisan basis is a good step. host: this is lewis, a democrat, good morning.

caller: top of the morning to you guys. there's a mistake concerning the pandemic and it's no one's fault. i remember the time when it first began in january, 2019. donald trump came out and said it is like a cold. don't worry. then in april he made a statement to a news reporter and said this thing is five times worse than the flu. there was somebody who made a mistake and didn't take it seriously enough. at the same time he just came out of an impeachment. what i want to ask you is this, when you stated your organization gives money to a black organization or barbershops, on your website is there any evidence that would solidify or show that what you

are making a statement about or giving money to black organizations, is there a record on your website to show us that? guest: absolutely. i will ask you to google the u.s. chamber of commerce foundation. it is the program of our foundation. u.s. chamber foundation, you will find all of the details of the program. if you google u.s. chamber of commerce equality of opportunity on the u.s. chamber site you will find the information all about our policy programs and advocacy work about closing the inequality of opportunity. host: what was your in the chambers relationship like with former president trump. guest: like all presidents, there were areas where we found common agreement and we work very closely together. i mention the tax reform bill in 2017 a couple of times. that was a real high point in an area where a problem that has gone long unaddressed we were

able to work with the administration to solve. regulations were another important step. president trump deserves credit for the greatest deregulatory activity in terms of freeing up capital, freeing up innovation since at least the early 1980's. he may even have surpassed that. no surprise that we did not agree with the president's approach to tariffs. we didn't agree with his approach to immigration. there are areas of agreement, areas of disagreement, that is nothing new for the u.s. chamber and the president from both parties. we found areas to work together on and areas where we disagreed and take opposite sides. host: how would you say that relationship was left when he left office? guest: it was the same. we were proud of the work we did on areas of agreement. we continue to disagree about areas where where we had disagreements.

we were concerned in january about the state of our democracy and about the activities, the attack, the assault we saw on the u.s. capitol. we believe policymakers, elected officials should have done more to prevent that. it's again, that is an issue where we disagree with the former president's approach. host: in kentucky, this is randy, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. we have a worker shortage in this country it seems like a pretty major one. what attributes to that, do you think these policies that were non-since 1973 was abortion where we killed all the babies? guest: without getting into the

issue of abortion, we have demographic challenges. if you go back from world war ii all the way through the early 2000's, we had a demographic boom in the united states. the baby-boom contributed to that. women entering the workforce also contributed. the latest numbers we got out of the census department earlier last month which indicated the lower number of births in at least four decades. we are well below maintaining our current level of population. that is really problematic. we have to begin thinking about how we address these challenges. left unaddressed they are going to harm economic growth. they will need to support seniors through social security and medicare.

there is a lot of challenges associated with these demographic changes that we have to address. host: steve on twitter, does the guest support global workplace health and safety standards? businesses complain this is costly to them. how about tariffs on nations refusing to meet such standards? guest: we certainly don't support tariffs that way. the strict regulatory standards is exactly what we have saw in the last year with the pandemic. we are constantly learning how to fight public health challenges. how to fight workplace challenges. what tends to happen with strict regulatory on a global scale, they are fixed in the past. they are based off our understanding of work -- what

works best from five years ago, 10 years ago. that doesn't allow us to meet the current challenges with the best available science and evidence. caller: good morning. you had spoken about the 16%, the thing i have about that is the government pretty much authorize that extra $300 a week or something like that. i think that -- what do you think about this? they could use that as an incentive. you don't have to worry, it will end anyhow, come back to work. guest: there is something to the callers point.

i think we could look at this as two sides of the coin. on one side of it we should not have a system that compensates individuals more in unemployment than what they previously earned working. that is the problem with the $300 weekly supplement. about one in four unemployed americans take some more in unemployment benefits than they earned in their prior job. that's the reason we've never had these type of supplemental benefits during past recessions are economic downturns. the distortions that it causes. the same survey we found that 16% reported the extra benefits work causing them to not look for new employment. we also found the number one change that convince people to come back to work was a $1000 rehiring bonus. you are seeing employers offering hiring bonuses in

excess of $1000. you're seeing governors, republicans and democrats using some of their federal covid relief money to provide a bonus, a return to work bonus. there's some merit in both of these policy approaches. when you combine them together, oklahoma, arizona, montana have done you will really get the best bang for your buck. you will help on the visuals -- individuals who are unemployed. host: going back to the labor statistics report from may, digging into the job gains alleged in large part by leisure and hospitality sector last month. the professional and businesses services sector with 35,000 jobs added. the retail trade sector losing 6000 jobs last month. any factoring sector, plus

23,000 jobs last month. the question for you, what will you be watching in the june report? where should we focus our attention? guest: i will not be looking at the top level jobs numbers. those could fluctuate and move up and down. what i will be indicating -- the tightness of the labor market is what is happening with average hourly wages, particularly for a nonsupervisory employee. we have seen that on a tear of recent. really back to pre-pandemic levels. in some instances exceeding that. i will look at the number of hours worked. are people working more hours because there's more demand of those who are currently employed? i will look at the number of people who are employed part-time for economic reasons. then i will look at the workforce participation rate. our people reentering the workforce because they are looking for work? they found it is a good time?

i will look at that and none look at a different report and see hope the report which will tell us about job openings, how many job openings do we have to fill? we have record number of job openings, over 8 million today. we will be looking at something called the quick rate. how frequently someone who has a job voluntarily quit that job to go to a different job. when you do that, when that is up that is actually an indication that workers understand how tight the labor market is and how easy it is to get a new job. host: that rate that you will be looking at it, in may it was 6.6%. what is a good number in june? guest: the problem is a move down. we need the rate moving up. we need individuals reentering the workforce. we would like to see it several points higher and get a big jump

for one month. we want to be realistic about our expectations. the most important thing is that number is moving in the right direction host: time for one last call. this is sedona in oregon. caller: i am concerned about the voter suppression going on around the country. why isn't it being handled more forcefully? that is basically illegal and against the constitution. host: the final two minutes. guest: we represent the american business community. we know about lots of issues from taxes to labor force, to regulations. we are not experts in voting policy. like most americans, however, we

do believe that greater participation in our democracy is a good thing. so is trust in our electoral system. what we have set at the u.s. chamber is that we believe we are following reforms that have expanded the ability to vote while at the same time reassuring confidence. whether it was a 1985 voting rights act, or the help america vote act after the 2000 election , the one thing all of those things had in common was they were overwhelmingly bipartisan. there were reforms that both sides bought into but they trusted the system. we are seeing some states moving that direction. we think that type of approach will expand access and ensure that americans could trust in our electoral system. host: the chief policy officer

at the u.s. chamber of commerce. appreciate the wide-ranging discussion this morning. guest: thank you so much. host: about 30 minutes left in our program. in that 30 minutes, a question for you about president biden's upcoming summit in geneva with vladimir putin. asking if you believe president biden should be meeting with vladimir putin. phone lines for republicans, democrats, and independents on the screen, start calling now. we will be right back. it's>> c-span shop.org is c-span's online store. browse to see what is new. they still have time to order the congressional directory go to c-spanshop.org.

>> secretary of state antony blinken testifies this morning before the appropriations committee on the 2022 budget request. live at 10:00 eastern on c-span three. online at c-span.org, or listen for free on the c-span radio app. this morning, the ceo of colonial pipeline will talk about the company's recent ransomware attack and threats to the u.s. infrastructure before the homeland security and governmental affairs committee. watch live at 10:00 a.m. eastern or listen on the free c-span radio app. >> washington journal continues. host: in the coming days, president biden is expected to meet with plenty of little -- world leaders. it is a week from tomorrow that

is getting a lot of attention. president biden said to hold the summit with russian president vladimir putin june 16 in geneva. head of that trip and visit we are asking you in these last 25 minutes or so, should president biden meet with vladimir putin? the questions on that topic in recent days, since that announcement was made about that summit. the issue came up yesterday in the white house briefing room. this is national security advisor jake sullivan on that meeting. >> meeting face-to-face is not just something you do with vladimir putin. it is something you will do somewhere approaching 35 or 36 liters just on this one trip alone. he has welcomed the prime minister of japan, the president of korea because face-to-face engagement is just a different

order of magnitude. second, on this notion of deliverables, at the end of the day what we are working to do is for the two presidents to be able to send a clear signal to their teams on questions of strategic stability so we can make progress in arms control and other nuclear areas to reduce tension and instability. second, being able to look president putin in the eye and saying this is what america stands for, this is what america is all about. this we believe is an essential aspect of diplomacy. president putin is a singular kind of personalized leader. having the opportunity to come together in a summit will allow us to manage this relationship and met -- defend american values.

host: jake sullivan yesterday, our question to you, do you think it is worth meeting with vladimir putin, should he meet with vladimir putin? the schedule will happen next week on june 16 in geneva. some of those concerns about the meeting, the new york post editorial board in an editorial recently titled biden keeps rewarding the world's villains. the president had seen fit and waved sanctions on the nordstrom pipeline, which will increase dependence on russian natural gas. quite a favor for a guy who biden calls a killer and whose interference most democrats believe put donald trump in the white house. soon after russian hackers created a major back -- gas shortage followed by an assault by hackers linked to russian

intelligence. the biden doctrine is starting to look like a simple process. one, identify the globe's worst actors and two, reward them for their crimes. the new york post editorial board from their recent piece. we are asking you, should president biden meet with vladimir putin. republicans, 20274 eight 8001. -- nathan, arizona republican, you are up first. caller: good morning, again congratulations to justice barrett on her ascension to the supreme court. i think it is a waste of time for biden to meet with putin. i think biden has run his course. a lot of people believe he has already run out of steam in the honeymoon is over.

putin is an official elected government leader. we still don't know whether or not biden won arizona. i think it would be a waste of time. joe biden will be a one term president, thank you. host: to do the gibbs waste of time when former president trump met with vladimir putin? caller: trump won his electors in the electoral college. host: rather than re-fighting the 2020 election, do think it was worth meeting president putin when president trump met president putin? caller: absolutely. the two were on the same page. i don't think joe biden has the right administration or write policies to make putin interested. host: this is daniel from newsweek writing about this

upcoming summit. as nauseating as it may be to watch a u.s. president shake hands with an autocrat like putin, a man who is likely responsible for forging a campaign against alexei navalny among others, they don't get to pick their spot -- foreign partners. they could write off diplomacy altogether. a rational dialogue with competitors is not a reward but an essential component preventing problems from spiraling into crises. some more on that upcoming meeting is june 16. that's what we are asking you about. do you think it is worth it? should president biden be meeting vladimir putin? republicans it is (202) 748-8001 . democrats is (202) 748-8000.

independents, (202) 748-8002. one of the issues that has come up related to russia is where those hackers from the colonial pipeline hack were based? it is likely to come up today in the homeland security and governmental affairs committee hearing on the hacking of the pipeline. the ceo of the colonial pipeline , joseph blount will talk about the ransomware attack, the threats to u.s. infrastructure. you can watch live at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. you could watch live on c-span.org or listen to it on the free radio app. we are expecting a very brief pro forma session right at 10:00 a.m. we will take you there to watch that. it is not expected to take more than a minute or two. after that we will bring you over here on c-span two.

linda, you are next. caller: my name is linda, i'm from midland, texas, i don't like this president. host: i don't -- why don't you like this president? guest: he's dangerous, he wants to bring in all of these mexicans in the cartel start shooting. host: we are talking about meeting with putin. do you think the meeting is worth it? caller: we put up with four years [indiscernible]

-- yes, biden should meet with him. this is a horrible human being, he has done horrible things. we are not going to put up with it anymore. host: do see joe biden is the kind of president who could do that? who could tell him often that meeting? caller: i hope so. i hope so.

host: this is fred in louisville, kentucky, good morning. caller: i think biden is too weak to go to russia. that's all i have to say. host: if you comments from social media, this question from our text messaging service, when president biden talks with proven i'm sure there will not be notes of the meeting, unlike his predecessor did with no one else in the room. it is a silly question, are people worried about this giving putin credibility? maybe biden could find out what was discussed when trump and putin met in private. obviously they should meet, he is a world leader, he shouldn't do is have some secret meeting with no agenda and no coverage

of it. good morning americans and good morning to c-span. that was about everything i had to say. when biden does meet with putin, he needs to let putin know that we are not going to standby with the hacking of the pipelines and things like this. i think over 100 some odd days, god bless this country, god bless america. eric -- host: eric in michigan, good

morning. caller: i don't think it will make a difference if he meets with him or not. i don't think the president knows what they of the week it is. that is just my opinion. host: continue to call in, phone lines, republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. we know the news about a major internet outage that happened around the country and possibly around the world as well. noting several major sites including the new york times, spotify, cnn have all been hit by that outage this morning. it sounds like the impacts are happening on capitol hill as well. some reporting from punch bowl news, if you work in a capitol hill office, chances are you are

familiar with constituent. it helps manage constituent communication and it is hugely important as we reported in punch for news, it was the subject of a ransomware attack going on in offices from both sides of the aisle. this is not connected to today's outage. working with the chief administration officer of the house to clear up the situation. the i.t. system has been compromised. this is another sign that the hill and its vendors are susceptible to attack. jake sherman reporting that this morning. back to your phone calls about this upcoming meeting. we were wondering if you think the president feeding is worth it, what do you think you should

tell vladimir putin? what would you like to hear if they stand together and take question at this meeting. what do you want to hear them be asked about? caller: thank you for taking my call. as i hear these republicans kissing up to this bimbo that was so-called president, i think about the knowledge joe biden has. i know is demonic mindset. host: bring me to the summit,

what do you want joe biden to say? caller: we are not going to tolerate that. we have the capabilities to do the same thing. host: do you think the gloves should come off when it comes to cyber attacks? caller: i think so. joe was a guy that believes in god, love, peace. i don't think this fight that i feel should happen will go down. i think joe will be patient. he has the right people in the right places to know how to deal

with russia. we have been dealing with this russia thing for a long time. host: this is jesse in albuquerque, republican, good morning. caller: good morning, sir. i wanted to say, i think joe biden kind of needs to talk to putin right now just along with everybody else. i think america's economic strength is going down unfortunately. our median age population is going up. that is not good for economics. we will need to start cutting some big, international deals right now. clearly with this discussion, microchips, all of this technology, the whole autonomy, we think about the

infrastructure that just happened. ransomware, the technology is not the answer for america moving forward. we need to get back to some hard work ethic and some focus on educating ourselves and investing in ourselves. we will have to cut some deals. have a good day. host: a few more comments from social media. this is steve. putin should have the same standing as kim jong-un or bolsonaro. they will not stand on a stage with them. this from universal saying of course you should meet with putin, even if we don't like to in he is the leader of the world's largest -- it is important he says that we coordinate on global activity. if you think it is legitimizing

a dictator, that is not an argument, he's a world leader. from kentucky, i think joe should meet with president putin. everything should be in the open. should tell him we will not tolerate what he has been doing. none of this kissing up to dictators with love letters. this is sam in new jersey, you are next. caller: i think it is a terrible idea. he will be punching above his weight class. he has already showed his hand with the sanctions. he just put all of the negotiating power in putin's corner. the american president should project american strength. it cannot happen at this point. host: are you a democrat who supported biden in 2020? caller: i am an independent that voted for biden, the same reason

i voted for trump in 2016. i don't care who was president. i may disagree with them but there is the president. he has no good game to play. putin is a bully and a dictator, a very strong man. i think the best course is to avoid this. it will only get worse by going. i couldn't not call in. host: calling in from the gym, we appreciate that on the issue of the u.s. national security in the pipeline issue that you and some other callers have brought up. a recent column on it, republican senator kevin cramer in his fox news piece from four days ago, his decision puts

national security at risk. he notes that president biden booked a permit for the keystone xl pipeline talking about the international ramifications of the decisions when it comes to tariffs on the european pipeline. this is maureen, good morning. caller: just a brief comment. i firmly believe biden is behind all of this. as far as the pipeline, the meat prices, the cyber attacks. host: why would the president be behind all of that? caller: i just don't believe -- first of all a while back they were talking about getting rid of meats and things like that.

host: what would be the president -- what would be the benefit to the president being behind that? caller: he destroys the pipeline -- i don't trust him, i don't believe him. i don't believe he is all there. host: this is jerry in florida, democrat. good morning. caller: i do believe that biden should be speaking directly with putin, face to face. i do believe he should have not only one but three people in there with him so he could take notes and not be anything like trump. trump has destroyed this all around the world.

we need somebody like president biden who will get in there and actually listen. he is an experienced political person. he's sweet and he is not only religious but he has a family who went to war. who has -- he has children in the army and armed forces. he knows what he is saying. he will save america from dictatorship. host: his sweetness and love something you think will benefit him when he meets with vladimir putin? caller: yes. let's put it this way, you have to be able to take a deep breath when you look in the face of somebody you know would do damage and danger to america. you have to be able to be sweet,

generous, and kind in order to be able to sit there and listen to what somebody like that has to say. after that person speaks it has to be for the world, not for yourself. everything america does is going to be all over the world. if americans do not notice, americans that do not notice this, biden is trying to pull it all out we are in a sad world right now. host: that is jerry, this is a text message from dave in orlando, i think president biden should be on five level alert when he meets with putin. i have never trusted either one. a couple minutes left here before this session in the house

live when it does come into session. we will take you to that hearing over on the senate side on the colonial pipeline hack. that is taking place with the senate homeland security and cover mental affairs committee. it is expected to start right at 10:00. you could keep calling in, phone lines for republicans, democrats, independents. good morning. host: i would like -- caller: i am a fifth-generation chicagoan. i know how the democratic party works and operates. is it worth for biden to meet with putin? of course it is worth it for biden. he has to meet him to get the envelope for canceling the keystone pipeline and taking the sanctions off the pipeline they

built in russia. host: ok, this is leap. caller: why are you such a biased democrat in this program. that guy who was just speaking, you cut him off and you let the other lady talk for 20 minutes. she didn't say anything. host: i didn't cut him off, he stopped speaking and i wanted to get to you. should president biden meet? caller: quit asking all of these democrat driven things you guys are doing. let's talk about real things? that's talk about real issues. every democrat you have on here, all they could say is orange man bad. do you know that google is ran by the democrats? democrats getting all of this information, it is pure democrat propaganda.

host: should president biden meet with vladimir putin? caller: yes and putin should tell of thank you for all of the horrible policies. the democrat followers, look it up. look up the policies, not the propaganda. host: are you finished? caller: no, why are you a democrat biased person? host: i don't want to cut you off and we have a couple minutes. robert in rally, north carolina. caller: hello, sir, i used to like watching c-span, it is becoming a show where a lot of people call in the don't seem to have much research on what they are saying. u.s. the host.

i feel like you might be a strong trump supporter. whenever people say bad things about joe biden you have this silly little smirk on your face. i'm sorry if i misjudged you. i think it is horrible and you should resign from being the host on the show. host: glass too calls got -- two calls -- last two calls got criticism for being a democrat and being a trump supporter. we are trying to create a forum where you could call in and do this every day. not many places where you could do this. that is what we are trying to do here. caller: morning. host: go ahead. you have to turn down your television. go ahead with your comment. caller: my comment is joe biden

is a clown. putin is going to eat him alive. they are all laughing at biden. he is a joke. he is a damn joke, get him out of there. caller: for the record, i think you are pretty impartial. i don't always like c-span scheduling but you are doing a good job. on your question, which nobody seems to want to address or few people want to address, of course biden, the president of the united states should meet with putin, the president or whatever he is called. he should have someone in the room, unlike trump. he should try to pressure russia on things like hacking and so on. i'm sure he will. thank you.

host: our last caller today, we will of course be back here tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. eastern, 4:00 a.m. pacific, we take you to the house floor. a brief pull -- pro forma session about to gavel in.