for use of force in iraq on c-span. on c-span2 at 10 a.m., the house works on the nominee for deputy interior secretary. at 8:30 a.m. on c-span3, the house homeland security committee hears from homeland security secretary on the $52.2 billion budget request for the department of homeland security. and on our website, www.c-span.org at 10 a.m., defense secretary lloyd austin testifies before the senate appropriations committee on the defense department budget. treasury secretary janet yellen testifies on president biden's full 2022 budget proposal and also a 10:00 a.m. come a hearing looking at college and university preparations for the return of students this fall. >> this morning on "washington journal," republican michael

waltz joins us to discuss president biden summit with vladimir putin yesterday in switzerland. later, we look at president biden's 2022 budget request with house budget committee chair john yarmuth of kentucky. ♪ host: president joe biden yesterday became the fifth american president to sit down with russian president vladimir putin in an effort to forge a working relationship. following yesterday's summit, what are your concerns with russia and its leader, vladimir putin? republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, dial in at (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. text us with your thoughts and include your first name, city and state, at (202) 748-8003.

you can also join the conversation at facebook.com/c-span or send us a tweet with the handle @cspanwj. good morning, everyone. taking a look at the front page of "the new york times" this morning, "summit ends with no sign of a coming thaw." here is president biden, following his three hour meeting with the russian president. [video clip] >> well i just finished the last meeting of this weeklong trip. the u.s. russia summit. i know there was a lot of hype around the meeting, but it is he straightforward to me, the meeting. one, there is no substitute, as those of you who have covered me for a while know, for face-to-face dialogue between leaders. none. president putin and i had a

shared, unique responsibility to manage the relationship between two powerful and proud countries. a relationship that has to be stable and predictable. and it should be able, we should be able to cooperate where it is in our mutual interests. where we have differences i wanted president putin to understand why i say what i say and why i do what i do. and how we will respond to specific kinds of actions that harm america's interests. now, i told him that my agenda is not against russia or anyone else. it's for the american people. rebuilding our economy, reestablishing relationships around the world, protecting the american people. that's my responsibility as president.

if the american people did not speak out to defend our democratic values, it's part of the dna of our country. human rights is always going to be on the table, i told him. it's not about just going after russia when they violate human rights. it's about who we are. host: biden from yesterday, following his meetings with the russian president. "the times," says "biden and put, positive talks, born of cyber warfare." for his part, mr. boudin held his own conference and here is what he had to say when asked about the overall dynamic between the two leaders.

[video clip] >> as for the overall assessment, there was no facility on the country to place this constructive spirit. indeed, we have the right assessment on a number of issues, but both sides expressed their intentions to understand each other and to seek common ground. talks were quite constructive. as for cybersecurity, we agreed that we would begin consultations and i believe it is extremely important. as for responsibilities and who should take them, let me brief you on matters that are common knowledge, but probably not everyone is aware of.

u.s. sources, i don't want to make a mistake here as to the name of the organization, but the u.s. sources claim that the majority of cyber attacks are made from the u.s. territory. the second is canada. then two latin american states. then the u.k.. as for russia, it is not listed in this ranking of countries that see the most significant number of cyber attacks from their territory. host: russian president vladimir putin, denying the cyber attacks came from russia. he also denied human rights violations. the invasion of ukraine and you have all seen president biden telling him that there would be devastating consequences if the opposition leader, mr. navalny,

dies. it's your turn to tell washington and the president what you think. what are your concerns with russia and the president? democratic caller, tempe, arizona, we will go to you first. [video clip] >> yes -- caller: yes, i didn't think biden got an equal chance. he's dealing with a guy that is taught to live. everything said was a lie. he sounds like a clone from donald trump. you know. they say he's a kb g agent. he proves it when he opens his mouth. host: and the new york times notes that he's a former kb g

agent that consolidated power in the hands of a small, well-heeled ruling clique. greg, independent. your concerns this morning but the russian relations? caller: yeah, i'm concerned that the biden administration is not taking the cyber attacks serious enough. i'm also concerned that russia and china might be working together. the reason i'm concerned is if they are not taking it serious enough, we may be in for a major cyber attack on one of our infrastructure. i am worried that it's an issue that is not being taken seriously enough. host: what do you make of this headline? biden gives putin a list of hacking bands -- bans and says we will respond in kind.

caller: well, that sounds good and i hope they follow through with it. that's a positive step. but again, these last couple of cyber attacks that we had on the gas and meat industry didn't seem like it was being taken that serious. if that's the case, that's a positive step. host: all right, greg. tom, brownsville, texas, democratic caller. caller: good morning, greta. hi, how are you doing? host: i'm well. caller: i just want to say that i feel more comfortable with biden than trump. we will respond in kind, that's for sure. with trumpet was basically he, i mean don't take my word for it, trump said i trust more vladimir

putin then my 17 intelligence agencies. fbi, cia, you name it. i trust more with biden that we will return with kind, like they did with the cold war. i disagree with the caller in virginia that we are not going to do nothing about it. with trump, with trump i don't trust trump when he was president. he even helped him. host: why do you trust president biden? how do you think you will approach russia that gives you confidence? guest: well, -- caller: well, like i said earlier, compared with trump, we are going to fight back. we have the ability to fight back. they want to play dirty? we can play dirty. just like in the cold war.

simple as that. host: ok. the new york times talks about the presidents's warning on cyber operations, saying that we would respond in kind. saying that that could signal a significant escalation in the daily cyber conflict now underway among major and lesser powers. they list china, iran, and north korea, as well as russia. dan, hot springs north dakota. dan? caller: thanks. i watched the build up. there's a lot of hype to this whole thing. we are not going to do anything that is going to change to vladimir putin is. -- who vladimir putin is. i don't think that president biden has the horses to make any real difference here. we are talking about a former head of the kgb for years.

i didn't expect anything for years. when you expect nothing, you can't be disappointed. i think a lot of it is for show. i truly do. i'm that cynical and i'm sorry to have to say that. host: for show? why would they do it for show. what do you think is behind it? caller: it's a big buildup for the media to run off and cover and give more favorable coverage to biden. it's been this way forever and a day when it comes to your main lame -- maine lane of siding with one or the other. they have had their thumb on the scale for years. we watched what they did to the last president, we watched what they are still trying to do to the last resident. any faith in the media has long

since passed as far as i'm concerned. host: all right, dan, south dakota, republican. take a look at the reaction from capitol hill, lawmakers tweeting out about the biden visit with russia and his first overseas trip as president, the g-7 summit, etc.. here's dick durbin, one of the leaders in the senate, saying that potus has done an outstanding job reasserting the american role as a defender of democracy and the biden administration is demonstrating what american leadership, demonstrating what american leadership, generosity, and decency look like. then you have adam schiff, chair of the intelligence committee in the house, saying it's time that we set a new tone in the relationship with russia. america is once again a strong, steadfast horse for human rights and democracy around the world. the days of turning a blind eye to the abuses of vladimir putin are over.

republican, tom cotton, saying all talk, no action, no consequences for the cyber attacks. vladimir putin loves this biden press conference. congressman shuey, biden made it clear that the u.s. will rollover for russia under his leadership. if you are concerned about u.s. russian relations, take a look at this moment when president biden was asked about putin's denials about being behind the recent cyber attacks. >> u.s. intelligence said russia try to interfere in the last two presidential elections and that these groups are behind the solar winds attack. in his news conference just now vladimir putin accepted no responsibility for the behavior. what is something concrete, sir, that you achieved today to prevent it from happening again and what were the consequences you threatened?

>> whether i stop it from happening again, he knows i will take action, like we did this last time out. what happened was we in fact made it clear that we would not continue to allow this to go on and the result was we ended up drawing and bat -- withdrawing ambassadors, we closed down some of their facilities in the united states, etc., he knows there are consequences. look, one of the consequences that i know, i i don't know, i shouldn't say it unfairly, i suspect you all think doesn't matter, but i'm confident it mattered to him and to other world leaders of big nations. his credibility worldwide shrinks. let's get this straight. how would it be if the united states was viewed by the rest of the world as interfering with the elections directly of other countries and everybody knew it? what would it be like? if we engaged in activities that he is engaged in?

it diminishes the standing of a country that is desperately trying to make sure it maintains its standing as a major world power. so, it's not just what i do, it's the actions that other countries take. in this case, russia, it's the price they pay. host: president biden from the news conference yesterday following a three-hour meeting with is it imprudent. it was intended to last five hours. president biden said that he came to do what he wanted to do and after three hours, they were done talking about what they needed to address. president biden becomes the fifth u.s. president to sit down with president putin. former president bill clinton was the first, calling vladimir putin tough. we want to know what your concerns are with the leader of russia and u.s. russian

relations. david, kingsburg, michigan, independent, good morning to you. caller: good morning, greta. do you think you could have wolf blitzer on your show? on the 22nd of february, 2014, he was doing an interview with dr. cohen. he was in kyiv on the day when the coup started. host: ok. your point? caller: i just wanted to know, that's all. host: ok. mark, hello, republican. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: i was listening to the thing last night and putin, not boudin, but biden, he's doing a good job. that's what i was calling about. host: ok, why do you think he's doing a good job? caller: because he's trying to

do the best he can with trying to keep russia and the united states in peace. [chuckles] if you know what i mean. host: all right, mark. from the facebook page, russia is not the concern alone. the concern is when russia, china, north korea and iran combined together in a pact to influence citizens to sway away from them. russia is similar to the u.s., we should be allies. the problem with russia is the leaders that run the show. you can send us a facebook message, facebook.com/c-span, you can send us a tweet with the handle @cspanwj, or text us and we will read those comments as well. john, independent line, bristol, connecticut, good morning. caller: yes, i think joe biden

did great. he built up the pillars for democracy with the nato countries again. like we're back, like he said. putin sees that. you know, it's going to be a long wait for russia. you can't take russia at their word, but now putin has something to worry about now, now that we have this good relationship and democracy is strong again. not like what happened at helsinki. that was a slap to america's face, when trump bowed in front of boudin. in front of the world. i think we are doing good now. host: front page this morning of "the washington post," sharp contrast with trump era, addressing hacking and human rights with the russian leader. kevin, frankfurt, what are your concerns? caller: yes, [coughing] excuse

me. the question is, again [coughing ] excuse me. host: i'm going to put you on hold, get a drink of water and we can come back to you in a minute. want to show you the front page of "usa today" biden says he came what he did to do and that putin rivals are playing a long game for his ouster. front page of "usa today," as we get your thoughts and concerns on u.s. russian relations following the summit in geneva. this moment from the end of yesterday's news conference has made quite a few waves. take a look at president biden and his testy exchange with kaitlyn collins after his remarks in geneva.

[video clip] >> i'm not confident that he will change his behavior? >> i'm not confident that he'll change his behavior. what the hell do you do over there? let's get it straight, i said he will change his behavior if the rest of the world sees the change in his standing in the world. >> given that his past behavior has not changed, after sitting down with you for several hours he denied any involvement in cyber attacks, downplaying human rights abuses. how did that result in a constructive meeting? host: now, president biden later, before leaving for the united states, apologized to the cnn reporter. that is the headline on their website. i shouldn't have been such a wise guy, he said.

the president, before departing for geneva on air force one, walked over to a group of reporters assembled on the tarmac, saying that he owed collins an apology and said he should not have acted like such a wise guy. on her part, she said that it wasn't necessary for him to apologize and said that he did not have to, though she appreciated that he did, that she was just doing her job. stephen, ohio, independent, let's go to you, steve. good morning. caller: good morning, cnn. good morning, america. host: c-span. good morning, steve. you are talking to c-span this morning. caller: yeah, i know. i said good morning, c-span. good morning, america. biden went over there around the end of march, the first part of april, putin put over 100,000 troopers over there. this goes all the way back to

when obama was in office and he drew a line on ukraine and also said something about drawing a line in crimea. let me tell you something, putin wanted the port and he took it and there's nothing we can do about it. we've got probably about 30,000 troopers and what is it, estonia, lithuania? maybe a few down there in ukraine. i don't know what we've got for military over there. host: all right. donna, vero beach, florida, republican, good morning. caller: high greta -- hi, greta. i think it's reminiscent of years back, with russia and khrushchev. host: how so? caller: it was the same

scenario. i got together, things look promising and each were going to do different things. and it's almost like looking, looking in a looking glass, seeing back to those days. i'm in my 70's. you probably don't remember these types of things. you are younger. promises are always broken. host: does that mean you can ever have a working relationship with russia? caller: well, it's going to take an awful lot of work on both parties. they both have to want it really, really sincerely. it, i mean this, it was like a puppet show. just like before with other presidents of russia.

i mean i specifically remember a scene that looked just about like this with khrushchev. and you see what has happened between then and now. that's over a good span of time. you know, i don't, i don't think this summit meant a whole lot to russia. host: and why? caller: well, they are putting up a good front, you know? the best strategies in the world are hidden behind what they do in the open. it's like history is repeating itself. it upsets me greatly, it really does. host: you mentioned you have seen this seen before and it reminded me of cnn running a

piece about geneva being the site of many u.s. russian summits in the past. 1955, khrushchev, the soviet union. 1985 you had reagan and gorbachev meeting in geneva as well. i don't know if you are recalling that as well when you think back over time. caller: essentially, i believe they are very similar. you know, it's great to shake hands and, you know, say i want good things for our country and that possibly climate control and all the different things i'm sure they discussed. but i just don't believe it at this point. host: got it, donna.

donna in florida there. mark in pennsylvania, we must stand strong towards russia, like we did in the 1980's. from facebook, my concern over russia is zero. my concern over all the patriots blindly bending over backwards to pander to the russian president, i'm concerned about that 100 percent. tom on facebook, i'm concerned that biden is not up to the task. neither is harris. they are both worse than former president obama. mark, i morse of -- more worried about the american dimwits who supported trump during the administration who are suddenly back to being anti-russian. richard? caller: i just want to say that the only thing that we as americans learned from history is that we refuse to learn anything from history. you can't appease this man.

i'm going to give you three examples on the comment i just made. i don't want to get off the track here, but this may help. the war against drugs, prohibition, making [indiscernible] out of thugs. vietnam, iraqi, we shouldn't have gone into either one of them. the third and most important one , going by the comment that i made, the thing we don't learn from history, fascism. this is the infancy of fascism, just like it was in the late 20's and 30's in germany. thank you. host: all right, sharing other news with you a from the front page of "the wall street journal" this morning, "fed flags rate hike earlier than

expected as the economy recovers and inflation heats up." listen to jerome powell yesterday. [video clip] >> the economic burden has not fallen equally on all americans and despite progress, joblessness falls disproportionately on lower wage workers in the service sector and on african-americans and hispanics. inflation has increased notably in recent months. the 12 month change in pce prices was 3.6% in april and will likely remain elevated in coming months before moderating. part of the increase reflects the low readings from early in the pandemic falling out of the calculation, as well as increases in oil prices to consumer energy. beyond these effects, we are seeing upward pressure on prices from the rebound and spending as the economy continues to reopen. particularly as supply bottlenecks have limited how

quickly production in some sectors can respond in a limited term. the bottlenecks have been larger than anticipated and fomc participants have revised up their projections for inflation notably for this year. with regards to interest rates, we continue to expect it will be appropriate to maintain the 0% to one quarter percent federal funds rate until labor market conditions are reached and levels consistent with maximum employment with inflation rising to 2%, on track to moderately exceed 2% for some time. as evident, many participants forecasted these favorable economic conditions would be met somewhat sooner than previously projected. it now lies above the affected lower bound in 2023. of course, these projections do not represent committee decisions or plans and no one knows with any certainty where the economy will be a couple of years from now. host: the chair of the federal

reserve, jerome powell, yesterday. if you missed his comments, you can find them on our website, c-span.org. another programming of for you on capitol hill today, the homeland security secretary wilkie testifying and you can watch our coverage of that at 8:30 in one hour over on c-span3 and you can watch on our website, c-span.org, or download the free c-span radio app. your concerns about u.s. russia relations? steve, independent. caller: two things concern me and no one has said anything about that on your program. we let them have the nordstrom pipeline, which is going to put money in the pocket of russia for nefarious purposes. it's going to take germany

hostage to russia. we heard nothing from the environmentalists. yet biden shuts down our pipeline. the other thing is, biden gave putin a list of 16, 16 infrastructures that putin was not to tamper with. you know what? that sends a message to putin. an obvious message. you can tamper with everything else. why just in question mark just -- why just 16? total weakness, total weakness. host: echoing your thoughts is john on facebook, who writes that biden lost the day, allowing russia to build a pipeline, less of an impact than the pipeline he shut down here.

democrats if they only had a brain, he writes. joining us for this conversation is congressman michael will of the armed services committee, joining us next on the summit between the leaders as well as the trip to our nato allies and the g7 summit as well. later we will talk about the president's budget and spending proposals with the chair of the house budget committee, democrat john yarmuth of kentucky. we'll be right back. ♪ >> coming up today, and 9:00 a.m. the house votes to repeal the 2000 two authorization for use of force in a rack. that's on c-span. c-span2 a 10:00 a.m., returned work on nominations for the biden choice to be deputy interior secretary.

at 8:30 a.m. on c-span3, the house homeland security committee hears from the homeland security secretary on the $52.2 billion budget request for the department of homeland security. and on our website, c-span.org, at 10 a.m., defense secretary lloyd austin testifies before the senate appropriations committee on the defense department ajit. treasury secretary janet yellen testifies on the full 2022 budget proposal and at 10 a.m. we have a hearing looking at college and university preparations for the return of students this fall. >> "washington journal" continues. host: congressman michael waltz on your screen, serving 20 years in the u.s. army after ranger school was selected for the green berets. we appreciate your time and perspective this morning. your reaction to the summit

yesterday between the american president and the russian president? guest: well, i had real concerns and questions as to whether the summit should be happening at all. i believe it benefited putin far more than it did the united states. it gave him a global stage and, frankly, i just didn't see really the point at this point in the relationship, particularly in the wake of the nord stream 2 pipeline and in the wake of two now significant attacks on american infrastructure. i'm happy to talk about how we think we need to treat those very differently. a massive buildup on the border of ukraine, a massive military buildup in the arctic, where the russians want to transform the way global shipping is grounded

in the wake of, of, of the ice retreating in the arctic. they would prefer shipping go out of here -- out of northern europe and around the northern part of russia and into asia rather than through the traditional routes of the suez canal or panama canal. i think it was a bit of a shoulder shrug, to be candid. these, these types of summits tend to conclude with major deliverables. whether they are arms-control deliverables or, you know, movement forward from economic or diplomatic standpoints, i think it was just a bit of kind of taking the measure of each other, but my fear is that the administration, which by the way is largely staffed by senior officials from the obama administration, we are tending to see the same approach of, you know, hoping that we can get back to normalcy in the

relationship, but the problem is that's not the intent of putin. i think the ukrainian president, zelinski, is right, putin is a neo-colonialist. he tends to reassert the boundaries and power and position of the soviet union. if he smells weakness in washington, he is going to continue to push. if we make concessions, he's going to take advantage of them. this notion that we are kind of nice to our adversaries and they will be nice back, i think is one that leads to more instability. i did not see major movements to restoring any deterrent, particularly in the cyber realm. host: let's talk about that, the president said that he would respond in kind to future cyber attacks from russia.

how should the united states have responded to the colonial pipeline, the solar wind, and how should this country respond in the future? guest: we make very clear distinctions between criminal activity and state-sponsored activity. the russians, the chinese and others don't make these distinctions. you know, i think we need to look at it much more as a military problem and national security problem rather than law enforcement problem. that means if we do that we can utilize the tools of the united states military, which is where most of our cyber capability lies, to respond and restore deterrents. it reminds me of how we view terrorism in the 90's. if you were trying to collect evidence and arrest terrorists around the world, rather than

giving them what we did around 911, a military response, i think that when it comes to many of these attacks, we are viewing them as coming from criminal groups, but in russia, many of these criminal groups have state support or at least state acquiescence and many of the actual hackers are blended back and forth between military organizations, intelligence organizations. the bottom line is that if putin wanted to shut them down, he would, but they end up serving russian state goals, to disrupt the united states, to put us on our back foot. so you know, i think we need to actually demonstrate the capability, what many call flicking the lights in the kremlin, so to speak. until we raise the consequences, those costs, i think sadly, unfortunately, those kinds of attacks will continue.

host: describe our military cyber capabilities, congressman. can we respond in kind or much more? guest: we do have the capabilities. if you look at the difference in the disruptions we saw in the 2016 election and moving forward into the 2018 and 2020 election, where the national security agency to some degree was supported by cyber command, a military cyber command, we were able to do what was called and forward. meaning we saw these attacks brewing from various hacking groups, servers, infrastructure overseas, we were able to disrupt it and periodically take it off-line and shut it down before the attacks came into the united states. so, we do have what's called exquisite capabilities. but again, if it is viewed as a criminal problem versus a

military problem, those military capabilities are often put in a supporting role. i think we need to put them absolutely on the forefront. i don't think many americans really make the distinction that if they can no longer buy fuel, gas, for their homes, for their cars and businesses, if it was shut down by a missile, by a saboteur, or a cyber attack. i think we need to kind of step away from those distinctions and treat it as the attack that it was. host: michael waltz is here to take her questions and comments this morning. he represents florida's sixth district and is a member of the armed services committee. diane on her facebook page says that concerns are better after today. neither is going to change their stance but at least they know the strikes better. instead of a cold war, wraps we can have a cool piece.

that putin repeated a story saying something optimistic -- set -- repeated a story biden said in the presser is optimistic. guest: i think the rhetoric was optimistic and hopefully it will pass through a more stable relationship, but i'm focused on what's actually being done. if you look, for example, on the russian nuclear modernization, they have developed what's called hypersonic missiles, icbms that are maneuverable and able to evade our sensors, our missile defenses, move at speeds that are incredibly difficult for us to defend against. they have deployed intermediate range missiles in europe. why that is so significant is it cuts the reaction time to minutes in terms of being able to respond and, you know, they

have done some other things in terms of what they call low heel nuclear weapons. russia is modernizing its military in ways that are incredibly alarming. i'm sitting on armed services and we are debating whether we should have overall military cuts. debating whether we even need to , and this push is coming from the democratic side, whether we need to update our nuclear missile fleet that is now approaching 50, 60, 70 years old in some cases. so, i'm looking at the actions, the nearly 100,000 soldiers that russia amassed on the ukrainian border. again, the buildup in the arctic of cold war military bases that have rapidly now modernized is

incredibly alarming as well. i'm concerned about the actions the russians are taking and the actions we are not taking. i see them as more destabilizing. host: larry, in caldwell, new jersey. you are up first. caller: good morning representative vaults. do you feel that the previous administration's belief that putin was telling the truth and that our own intelligence was not was helpful? guest: no, i don't believe putin as far as i can throw him, to be blunt and candid. you are probably alluding to president trump's press conference. president trump had a real belief in maintaining very positive personal relationship.

that was pretty consistent, from our allies or in the united kingdom or with our adversaries like north korea or russia. i didn't frankly always agree with that. that was his approach. but again if you look at the actions that the administration actually took in terms of pretty tough sanctions on the russian inner circle, significantly providing arms to the ukrainian military, stopping in many ways the russian incursion with the previous administration under obama being reluctant to provide any aid, or the fact that several hundred russian mercenaries were, were taken down in syria, authorized by the

trump administration to take that tough stand and stop there incursion into syria, kurdistan, going after those oil fields. i think the actions speak far louder than the words. host: here's a text from alan in west virginia. one of my main concerns is that russia and china are getting from the air. we cannot even hold our own against china economically or militarily. what happens if russia and china team up? it's becoming clear that the u.s. is fading fast? guest: i'm concerned about that as well. we have seen the moscow beijing relationship really ebb and flow over the years. there are some things where they very much are aligned. you know, i'm very concerned about their increasing cooperation when it comes to space. they both have some real capabilities there. the united states is certainly no longer alone up in space.

the russians and the chinese have agreed to put joint manned stations on the moon. the chinese next week are expected to launch astronauts to their own space station, the first module of which is recently put up. that's why i was a big proponent of the space force. our entire modern economy is dependent on what's up in space now. that constellation that is up there, the average person touches it nine times per day and doesn't realize it. agriculture to banking and real-time logistics. obviously the modern telecommunications infrastructure needs to be defended. the russians and the chinese have developed very sophisticated capabilities to take that infrastructure down. the old saying still goes. you can't be number two in

space, it truly is the high ground. that said, there are things where they don't see i eye, particularly when it comes to natural resources like oil, gas, critical minerals in the central asian states. the chinese are very aggressively working on their own belt road initiatives trying to secure those resources that russia very much sees as being in its backyard. so, there is some friction there. we need to be wide-eyed about the competition we face. the chinese communist party is the most serious threat potentially to global democracy that the united states has ever faced. what we have is our values and alliances and i think if we continue to work well and cooperatively with india, japan, australia and south korea, with the european allies we just saw with the g7 and nato summit, and

they view the chinese threat for what it is along the same lines, i think that in the end of the united states will absolutely remain the global leader. host: republican, port ludlow, washington. welcome to the conversation. go ahead, you are on the air with the congressman. caller: i thank god for the republicans in d.c. and all the americans that voted for trump. i believe that biden and his entourage are destroying america from the southern border to the pipeline, the keystone pipeline. i just feel that, i can't believe that people voted for him.

i'm just devastated, every time i hear just a couple of minutes of what he has to say to the american people. that he is, you know, restoring democracy. i think he is destroying democracy. i think that all of you that are the republicans in the senate who are standing up to the democrats, thank you. host: ok, congressman. guest: i just do not agree with the policy decisions that the biden administration is putting forward. they are incredibly progressive. and we are seeing already the results of them. unfortunately, those ideas, while they often sound very attractive, have never really worked anywhere around the world. you know, obviously there are

many, many mixed feelings about president trump as a leader and often his rhetoric or the positions he took, but i have to tell you i absolutely, completely agreed with many of the policies and if we just took a second to walk through them, pre-pandemic we were at record unemployment across every category. women, minorities, the economy was on fire. we achieved things that many republicans and democrats had been asking for for years in terms of reforms, if you look at the justice reform that was put in place that many, many people had been asking for since the mid-90's. if you look at veterans reform with the v.a. mission act where veterans were given a choice to go to their local provider rather than having to go to a government run hospital that is often hours away, with long

waiting lines, that the veterans community have been waiting for for decades, got it done. finally, the new nafta, we are still starting to see the benefits of that, returning manufacturing to the united states. he lived up to a promise with israel and the jewish american community, a promise that four presidents made before him and hadn't gotten done. and i think the pivot on china was incredibly important in terms of their theft of our intellectual property through cyber, through mergers and acquisitions and research and academic stuff. also standing up to the unfair trade policies that were going on, you know, with over half a trillion dollars in trade deficits. those flows went right through beijing and right into their military buildup. and then a shift from a military

perspective, a national security strategy that rightly labeled china as our number one threat. we need to deal with russia, deal with iran, deal with north korea and of course, deal with global terrorism. but look, don't take it for me. listen to the president's speeches where he talked about replacing america as a global superpower and replacing the american dream with the china dream. that's not a world i want my children and grandchildren growing up in. all of that happened. i could go on. a who -- a whole new branch of the military, the space force, the judges put in place, on and on and on in just four years. he was absolutely a disruptor and that rankled a lot of people, ruffled a lot of feathers. again, i focused on what got done. it really was truly incredible. host: let's go to george in

corpus christi, texas, independent. caller: good morning, congressman. good show, thank you for having me. guest: absolutely, thanks for calling in. caller: the colonial pipeline hack job, you know, to a lot of us it seems oddly convenient that this suddenly came up after colonial is responsible for the largest u.s. oil spill, but i don't hear anything from you congressman regarding that whatsoever. here today, is there anything going on with regards to that? it didn't make any of the media. i didn't hear any of you congressman speak to that and i'm just wondering, what's your position on the largest u.s. on our lands, the oil spill, what you have to do to remedy it. thank you for your time. guest: sure. well i think that's, look, it

was, it was incredibly unfortunate. we have to absolutely protect our environment. i'm a floridian. water quality in our environment there isn't just something beautiful for future generations to enjoy. it's our way of life, it's our economy. from tourism to, to fishing, you know, can go down the list of how important that is and we have to make sure those safeguards are in place. i understand a number of investigations are underway and for whomever, whether that is financial responsibility or otherwise, those responsible for it need to be held accountable. i don't know necessarily if there was anything in regards to the timing of that hack in

relation to the spill, but i do find it incredibly disturbing that the ransom was paid. i think that will only encourage future attacks. it only benefits the groups that are doing it. i am encouraged that the department of justice in the fbi have recovered much of the ransom that was paid, but at the end of the day until there is some consequences to these groups and to their state either supporters or those allowing it to happen on their soil, from their soil, unfortunately i think it's going to continue. i will say that i do think more broadly, from my understanding, the pipelines are a safer way to move oil and gas than other means. the part that really doesn't get discussed when it comes to the

keystone pipeline is that that oil and gas is still coming from canada down to houston, but it is moving by train and truck, rather than moving by pipeline. from an environmental standpoint, it's actually worse, for those who are worried about carbon emissions. and when it comes to the nordstrom pipeline, the secretary of energy recently testified that that pipeline is moving the dirtiest form of gas in the world and that she opposed the lifting of sanctions, didn't think it was a good idea. there was disagreement in the bind administration, apparently, along those lines, and she did not think that was something that should have been done. so, you know, there was certainly not agreement across the board there from the biden administration. host: connie, democratic caller,

pennsylvania, hi. caller: good morning, thank you for letting me see cons -- speak on c-span. representative waltz, you said that what we did during 9/11, we should be doing some thing similar on the cyber attacks. tell me, the big lie was going into iran and iraq. it's been proven that there were no weapons of mass destruction and we went in, we spent how much money, how many years later we are still in afghanistan? what have we gotten from that? so, tell me what we are going to get from you sending military and. it has to be something. we have to be cyber ready, attack with attacks, not troops. guest: i want to be very clear,

i am not in any way advocating for a boots on the ground response. it's somewhat of a nuanced point, but the vast majority of our cyber capabilities, so we respond to cyber attacks with cyber attacks, but it is within the military. so, for example, if you see someone rob a bank, right, that's a criminal activity that will get a criminal response. right now the way our government views attacks like on the food supply, like on a meat packing plant or the colonial pipeline, as done by a criminal group, they try to respond through criminal means. that is -- the disconnect there is that most of our cyber capabilities are within the pentagon. so, it's viewed as an attack on the infrastructure, whether it is from criminal groups or a

foreign -- criminal activity or foreign military hackers, i don't think we need to make that distinction. we need to respond to the cyber attacks with military cyber attacks in response. apologies if i wasn't clear on that. i am not advocating invading with tanks, planes, ships or troops. but i will say in response to your comment on afghanistan, you know, as a veteran of afghanistan, we have prevented additional 9/11's for the last 20 years and i do see that as a success. i believe we need to pressure these terrorist groups forward in their backyard rather than waiting for attacks in our backyard. the pullout of iraq by the obama administration rather than leaving a small presence there, not hundreds of thousand, but a

that led to the rise of isis. we ended up having to deal with a caliphate the size of indiana that spurred attacks across western europe and inspired attacks on the u.s. peoples nightclub attack was on the edge of my congressional district. san bernardino, we can go down the list. there is something to be said for staying on offense. whether it is on cyber or counterterrorism, rather than witchy for this tax to happen and then respond. host: thank you for your perspective this morning. we appreciate it. guest: thank you so much. host: we will take a short break. when we come back, we continue this conversation with you.

our question continues, your concern about u.s.-russian relations after president biden becomes a fifth president america to sit down. with president putin we will be right back. ♪ >> c-span "landmark cases" show the drama behind significant supreme court decisions. watch p episodes from our series sunday at 9:45 p.m. on c-span. fred korematsu challenged the policy of turning people of japanese descent. the court voted 6-3 in favor of the u.s.. watch landmark -- watch "landmark cases" and 9:45 p.m. eastern on c-span, c-span.org, or listen on the free c-span

radio app. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: we will get back to your thoughts on concerns of u.s.-russia relations. send us a text, first name, city, and state at 202-748-8003. or go to our facebook page and post your comments there.

you can join the conversation via twitter, send a tweet at the handle @cspanwj. before we get to your calls and texts and posts, here is the president yesterday after his nearly three hours with the russian president. [video clip] pres. biden: i just finished the last meeting of this week's long trip. the u.s.-russian summit. i know there was a lot of hype around this meeting. it is pretty straightforward. there is no substitute, as those who have covered me know, for face-to-face dialogue between leaders. none. president putin and i had -- we share a unique responsibility to manage the relationship between two powerful countries, a relationship that has to be stable and predictable.

we should be able to cooperate where it is in our mutual interest. where we have for this, i wanted president to putin understand why i say what i say and why i do what i do and how we will respond to specific kinds of actions that harm american interests. i told president putin my agenda is not against russia or anyone else, it is for the american people. fighting covid-19, rebuilding our economy, reestablishing relationships around the world, protecting the american people. that is my responsibility as president. i also told him that no president of the united states could keep faith with the american people if they did not speak out to defend our democratic values, to stand up for the universal and fundamental freedoms of all men and women in argue.

that is part of the dna of our country. human rights will always be on the table, i told him. it is not about just going after russia when they violate human rights, it is about who we are. host: the president yesterday after meeting with vladimir putin. the front page of the wall street journal, "biden warns on cyber attacks." he told the russian leader that if alexei navalny died there would be consequences and anymore cyber attacks in the u.s. would respond in kind, giving a list of infrastructure he is not to try to attack. steve in roberts ville, missouri. what are your concerns with russia and the russian leaders -- and the russian leader? caller: i think biden looked kind of weak. i don't like the redline thing.

putin is good to do whatever he wants to and i will make a comment on the last -- the last guest you had. we are running a world war ii military that is bloated and russia is using 10% of that money and making high-powered, supersonic weapons. we are making a big mistake. we are going to lose in the end because it is way over tanks and ships, that is 50 years old. we need to give that up and do it discreetly, don't let them know what you are going to do. if you draw a red lines, he is going to cross it just to challenge him. host: eric in seattle texts us to say "solar winds hack happened under president trump and republicans did nothing. trump and republicans are traitors."

you can text us at 202-748-8003. for the russian leader's part, vladimir putin talking to porkers in his own news conference. he was asked about the dynamic of the leaders and he also went on to deny any involvement in the cyber attacks. [video clip] >> as for the overall assessment , our meeting took place in a constructive spirit. we have the right assessment on a number of issues. both sides expressed their intentions to understand each other and to seek common ground. we talked -- the talks were quite constructive. as for cybersecurity, we agreed

we would begin consultations in this respect. it is. extremely important as for responsibilities and who should take them, let me review on the common knowledge not everybody is aware of. u.s. sources -- i don't want to make a mistake here as to the name of the organizations -- u.s. soldiers claim that a majority of cyber attacks are made from the u.s. territory. the second one is canada and then the u.k.. as for russia, it is not listed in the ranking of countries that

see a significant number of cyber attacks from their territory. host: usa today front page, "i did what i came to do." they laid groundwork to ease tensions. jim i know -- jim in california, what do you think? caller: what i am concerned about is -- one of the weapons we have been selling the ukrainians is the jablon antitank missile. -- the jablon -- the javeline antitank missile and it is incredible. i think the biden administration picked up the sale of that and we should find out why that is happening because it was a wonderful deterrent to stop putin from this aggression and we still have not dealt with

crimea. that situation is still going on. we had serious questions about respecting the boundaries as well as democracy around the world, whether or not democracy is the better system. i think biden made a good case for american democracy and american exceptionalism. two that i am grateful. host: i'm going to hear from karen and a leesburg, virginia. as we hear from her, we will show you headlines from newspapers around the country. caller: i want to agree with the gentleman from california. i think it is interesting he called this month -- this meeting less than five months after he was in office. i think it was important for him to set the tone on american standards and democracy,

particularly when it comes to the cyber attacks as well as interference in the elections. i find it disturbing that there are people who are never satisfied with any position biden takes. i give him full credibility for taking this hands down. i want to remind people, i may be mistaken, but i don't think the trump administration anything regarding the russian hacks and anything regarding russian interference in the intellection -- interference in the election. that is all i have to sit. host: we will go on to ian. ian? caller: i am exhausted and horrified and find it hilarious that all of these trump muppets set by while trump did nothing even close to what the current president has done in maintaining america's report with the world and standing up against putin. he had conversations and cap things hidden in his own cabinet

-- and kept things hidden in his own cabinet. it is horrifying and alaris at the same time. host: billy in texas, a democratic caller, good morning. caller: i am very proud of joe biden and vice president kamala harris. president biden is doing a lot of things, bringing our nation together, bringing the people together. he is following in the footsteps of trump, a man he was a big liar and divided this country. now joe biden is doing a great thing of bringing us all back together. there was a group that was backwards in full of racism, but that did not represent america. it is just a fifth of the

world's population. if you took a step trump did, we would be going down. we have to come together. i'm not talking about these trying to build back a wall. that is what we have joe biden. thank god for c-span2 let people like me speak out against things going on across america. america is great and god has got us. host: all right, billy in texas. look at how members of congress are reacting. jody arlington saying "russia is a threat in our national security yet biden gave putin the green light to supply europe with russian gas. all the while, biden waging any assault on american energy. why is our president disarming our nation of the very energy

independence we depend on? -- we depend on." doug lamborn sing "unbelievable. the media is focusing on biden giving putin sunglasses but his biggest gift was waiting sanctions and allowing the nordstrom to write to resume." from virginia, "i am glad we don't have a president that cozies up to putin's authoritarianism. trump would cozy up to putin and pour cold water on allies. by instead extravagant structure." "we don't trust putin and we have to stand strong against's putin behavior. we must identify areas of common interest like nuclear diplomacy and preventing terrorism." mary in louisiana, republican.

caller: i hope you will allow me to finish my statement and i would like to ask you a question. okay. list the 15 things that biden told putin. that is like giving a burglar a key to your house and telling him where your most valuables are. i want to say this, anybody who watches joe biden, that they know he has a cognitive problem. not only that, everybody that thinks joe biden is doing so wonderful, just watch what happened to the country. putin and china know they can do anything they want to do now.

the question i want to ask you, what is the name of the conservative that hosts that show? host: what are you talking about? caller: i want to know the name of the person that hosts this show yell host, i want to know which one is the conservative or the republican. host: your point is what? caller: what is wrong with knowing? host: i want to know what your point is. caller: i want to know because i was told there is a republican that hosts this show. i want to know which one it is. host: i don't know where you heard that, mary. caller: i know y'all are not supposed to show bias. i just wanted to know what the name of the republican that hosts the show. host: whoever sits in this chair

act as moderator in this conversation and our job is to hear from all of you and get all of your different perspectives and allow you to also hear from the decision-makers in washington and ask them questions. that is the role we play when we sit in this chair. we don't have opinions and we try not to, to the best of our ability, become part of the conversation. we only want to facilitate it. i'm good to go to david in oklahoma, democratic caller. hi, david. caller: thank you for taking my call. with vladimir putin and the russians made their encroachment into our election process, they had an objective. the objective was to decay american confidence in our election processes.

to that goal, they found an ally in the white house. they found a president who shared that gold and what to do decay our confidence in the election. insidiously, they found -- he found support throughout the republican party. they are continuing to carry on these conspiracy theories. my comments are, in president biden established nothing yesterday other than the fact that mr. putin now has an adversary in the white house, you don't have an ally, then i am pleased with the outcome of that meeting. host: listen to the president when he was asked about president putin denying being behind the recent cyber attacks. russian people being behind it, here's what he had to say. [video clip] >> u.s. intelligence said russia

tried to interfere in the last two elections and russian groups are behind act like solar winds and other ransomware attack's. putin accepted no responsibility for misbehavior. your predecessor opted not to demand putin stop these obstructions. what is something concrete you achieved today to prevent that from happening again? pres. biden: whether i stopped it from happening again, he knows i will take action like we did with this last time. when fact made it clear that we were not going to continue to allow this to go on. the end result was we ended up withdrawing investors, we closed down some of their facilities in the u.s., etc. he knows there are consequences. one of the consequences -- i should not say i don't -- i should not say i know. i suspect you think does not matter, but i'm confidence it

matters to him and other leaders of big nations, his credibility worldwide shrinks. let's get this straight, how the u.s. is viewed by the united -- by the rest of the world if they interfered in the -- interfered in other elections? what would that be like? it diminishes the standing of a country that is desperately trying to make sure it maintains its standing as a major world power. it is not just what i do, it is the actions that other countries take come in this case russia, that are contrary to national norms. host: president biden yesterday. teresa in illinois, republican. teresa, what gives you pause about russia? caller: i feel biden should have

never went out the first time. he already gave him what he wanted, his pipelines. i feel we are last, the u.s. he is very weak. i can look at him and say he is the weakest president we have ever had. what is he going to do for us? he has the border out of control. what more damage control can he do? we are getting a third term of obama. he comes on there and talks a bunch of lies. i don't know how dick durbin can say one thing about our corrupt politicians when we have the most people, the country club as its. we have been -- country club presidents. we have been locked down and belittled and they just want us to bow down to him. praise the lord we get another donald trump in four years.

seven years left we would be paying seven dollars or eight dollars of gas. they lied, that is why they want all of these illegals -- these illegals over here. two vote. host: steve from alabama "biden looks tired and weak and putin knows that. if the democrats continue with their current agenda, it will do more damage to the usa then putin could ever do." jason in maryland, what do you say? caller: i am curious about how democrats feel about the fact that four years they have been accusing president trump of being an asset of russia and russia hacked into our elections and now there is evidence of no chain of custody ballots in georgia. there's also evidence put forth

by mike, the pillow guy, but the guy is worth $300 million and he can afford to hire whoever he wants to investigate this stuff. if it is a snowball's chance in hell that the chinese republican -- the chinese communist party did infiltrate our elections, how would any democrats feel -- host: what does this have to do with russia? caller: this is attacks on our electoral system. the only difference between the argument of russia, i am saying that china is involved as well and nobody looks at none of this. host: larry, houston, texas. democratic caller. caller: i think he's doing a better job, better than trump would ever do.

people have got to understand that we are dealing with a dictator. this man is in power and will always be in power. host: you're talking about putin? caller: yes. all of these people talking about -- imx military. -- i am x military tech -- ex-mi litary. i saw the congressman talking about the gas pipeline and all of that. people, don't fall for the rhetoric. host: biden became the fifth president to sit down with the russian leader. clinton was the first and every president since then has set down with vladimir putin. yesterday's summit, president biden told the russian leader that we will respond in kind to cyber attacks and their desk and

there will be consequences if alexei navalny dies under his watch -- and there will be consequences if alexei navalny dies under his watch. "how can anyone have respect for him" -- respect for him?" michael in washington. go ahead. caller: i thought biden did an excellent job. the xl pipeline was proposed to run through canada and british columbia told them no. the pipeline in europe between germany and russia. germany is in ally, they can handle their own matters. i thought the president did a great job. host: michael jones, maryland. caller: you just had a video of president biden say how would we feel if another country is free with our elections. if i recall during the

obama-biden administration, we sent james carbo over to israel to try to interfere with their election. what he said i think was absolutely wrong in that we have done that, too. host: what are your concerns about russia? caller: i had some concerns but i think putin did an excellent job and made biden look weak. host: how so? caller: biden was on next up, he did not know what he was saying and he did not answer many questions at the press conference. putin was very open and answered many questions. host: dave in brooksville, florida. your turn, dave. caller: i think it was refreshing to see a president

for the first time in four years who did not bring his kneepads to meeting with putin. clearly, one of the lowest points in this country's history was the date donald trump through the intelligence community under the bus in order to suck up to putin. for anybody to support a psychopath like trump just proves how much trouble we are really in in this country. it is not even trump that is the problem. host: what is it? dave in brooksville, florida. in other news, the federal reserve chair yesterday talked about this current state of our economy. here's what he had to say. >> the economic downturn has not fallen equally on all americans. those least able to shoulder the burden have been hardest hit.

despite progress, joblessness continues to fall disproportionately on lower wage workers in the service sector and african-americans and expects. -- and hispanics. inflation has increased. the 12 month change in pce prices was 6.8% in april and will likely maintain elevated. part of this reflects the low readings early in the pandemic falling out of the calculation and the past increases in oil prices to consumer energy prices. beyond these effects, we are seeing upward pressure on prices for the rebound in spending as the economy continues to reopen. particularly, supply bottlenecks have limited how production can respond in the near-term. these bottleneck effects have been larger than anticipated. participants have revised up their projections for inflation.

notably hospice here with regard to interest rates, we expect it will be appropriate to maintain the current zero to one cent -- zero to one quarter of a percent target. inflation is on track to moderately exceed 2% for some time. as is evident, many participants forecast these favorable economic conditions will be met sooner than projected. the median projection for the appropriate level of federal funds rate lies above the lower bound in 2023. these projections do not represent a committee decision or plan and no one knows with any certainty where the economy will be certain years from now. host: the federal reserve chair, the wall street journal, their headline on his statements is "fed flags rate hike earlier than expected, the signal typing by late 2023 comes as the economy recovers and inflation heats up."

bradley, let's hear from you in marietta, georgia. your concerns with russia and vladimir putin? caller: i have had major concerns since the 2016 elections. i thought it was bad enough, they basically went after democrats to get this to not come out to vote. what is now absolute discouraging is the way the republican party. it's the what about is him -- the whataboutisms that putin does. the criminals he is locking up, he compares those to domestic terrorism. if you hear about how republicans talk about how glowing putin is, i really do see how hitler's come to power. -- how hitler's could come to power. -- how hitler could come to

power. the republican party, they are celeb traders. host: i'm going to leave it there. we will take a break. when we come back, we will turn our attention to president biden's budget. we will talk with john yarmuth. ♪ >> i remain of the view that the worst arguments made for the lockdowns where the initial ones. they said we have to protect the hospitals from overflow. who would need to be forced to avoid the behavior that might result in hospitalization at a time when hospitals were least staffed allegedly to have you? then there was the argument that the imperial college said 2.3 million americans will die unless we take away freedom. well what if they predicted 30 million?

ask yourself the question, what amount of force from government would have meant anything at that point. >> sunday night on "q&a," john tamny on his book "when politicians panicked." sunday night at 8:00 p of eastern on "q&a." you can also listen to it as a podcast, find it forever you get to your podcast. -- wherever you get your podcast. >> c-spanshop.org is c-span's store. browse it to see what is new. you have time to purchase the congressional directory. go to c-spanshop.org. >> washington journal continued --"washington journal"

continues. host: with this is john yarmuth of kentucky. the president unveiled a budget request for 2022. yesterday we had on kevin hern and here is what he had to say about the president's proposal. [video clip] we spend -- >> we spend $1 trillion a year for those who can't help themselves. many of us in america needed that help. we also ought to be helping those folks move on to jobs. the american jobs plan, as the president has pushed, anti-american family planned -- the american family plan is over $4 trillion of planning -- of spending. the american jobs plann is over $1.5 trillion. we are talking about a $6

trillion budget. even democrats are sending letters to the leaders of the house and the senate saying we have got to get our fiscal house in order. host: how can we spend $6 trillion and all the other money president biden wants to spend? how can we afford it? guest: we can afford it because we determine how much money is in the system. the federal government is not like any other user of currency, not any local state or government. we issue our own currency and we can spend enough to meet the needs of the american people. the only constraint being that we do have to worry about inflation from aspen -- from that spending. we have so much debt and our grandchildren, it is going to be on their backs.

that is not the way it works. the making need an education on how the monetary system does work. i remember when paul ryan was chair of the budget committee and even before that, all of these forecasts about gloom and doom about how we are going to iq that debt and interest rates will crowd out other spending. we basically doubled the national debt from the recession in 2009 until last year before the pandemic. none of the things that people want would happen, happened. we did not have inflation. we had record low interest rates. the dollar was trading with normal levels, vis-a-vis, other currencies. a lot of economists have begun to say maybe we have been thinking about debt in an entirely different way.

even fed chair jay powell has basically said we have the physical space to do what we need to do right now to make the investments we need to make to build the kind of economy for the future we all hope we will have. host: why are people wrong about this? how should we be thinking about debt and deficit? guest: i don't get any royalties but i would flog a work called "the deficit myth." it has become a bestseller. she says if you look at the national debt, $20 trillion right now, she said don't think of it as debt. think of it as the money the government has invested in the country over our history minus taxes. that is what it is. the 20th trillion dollars did not exist -- the $20 trillion did not exist before the federal government issued them.

the federal government has the ability to create financing and that is what we will continue to do. the thing i am so impressed about from the biden administration is that they are reversing decades and decades of our asking questions in the wrong order. historically, what we have done is said what can we afford to do? the right question is, what do the american people need us to do? that becomes the first question. once you answer that, you say how do you resource that need? that is not just money, that is also capacity. for instance, there is a $225 billion investment in childcare in the american families plan. you can't just say we're going to get $225 billion to people to pay for childcare because there is not enough capacity.

so you make a false promise and subtract the price and jack the price of existing childcare even higher. you have to spend part of that money on building capacity so there is enough childcare to service the purple who need it. again, there are different ways of thinking about money. i understand why most people don't understand this concept. they think of it in their own framework which is within their household which is you can't borrow so much money you can't pay back. that is not the position the government is in. host: are you saying we can just print more money and there are no consequences? caller: there could because -- guest: there could be consequences if there is too much information. i will give you a hypothetical. we could say we are going to give every american family at $200,000 voucher to buy a house. we could do that, but what would happen? there is not enough housing so the prices would go through the roof.

you would be creating a false promise. meanwhile, you drive up fee-market to an unsustainable level. there is a limit to how much money we can eject into the economy. the thing about the rescue plan, and this is where kevin hern makes a mistake, he said $6 trillion for the american family plan and jobs plan. it is not that much, but that is over eight to 10 years. the $6 trillion budget the president proposed actually would have been $5.7 trillion if you had no american jobs plan or rescue plan. only $300 billion is in fiscal your 22. -- fiscal year 22. these are numbers that are very large but spread out over a number of years. that is why i think the fed chair and others have said we have to fiscal space to do this

because injecting this over a period of time will not cause the kind of inflation that is dangerous. host: this headline is on fox news's website and they are quoting the tax foundation that they say found the president's budget would cause the economy to shrink by 1% over the next 10 years and cost the economy 60 500,000 -- 65,000 jobs. guest: i don't know how you shrink the economy when you are adding that much money to it. i would like to read that analysis. host: will your budget mirror president biden's budget in every way? guest: not in every way. we are meeting with all of the committee chairs and various caucuses to get their input as to what they want to see in a budget resolution. on a separate track, we are trying to decide what would go

into the reconciliation instructions that will be part of that. reconciliation instructions, that is the process by which you can pass something in the senate with a simple majority. those decisions have not been made. i suspect that a lot of what is in the president's budget will find its way into the budget resolution. there will be some definite changes. our members are independent thinkers. host: do you suspect the president's and for structure proposals make it into the budget -- infrastructure proposals make it into the budget? guest: we are assuming there will be no bipartisan agreement in the senate. we are proceeding as if the american jobs plan and american family plan will be in the reconciliation instructions we sent to the senate. we instructed our own committees to do that.

if they come up with a bipartisan deal, let's say it is $1 trillion, we would take that out of the reconciliation instructions. neither process precludes the other. we hope the senate does reach an bipartisan agreement -- reach a bipartisan agreement and the rest of it be done by reconciliation. host: we will go to tom, lancaster, california. republican line. caller: i would like to talk about the never ending deals with china. that is all you do. you work for china. everything is made in china now. you sit there and like to the american people. you're going to do a continuing resolution like you have done for the last forever. you don't work for the citizens. what about the wuhan lab?

when are you going to have a hearing on the 600,000 american citizens killed by the communist chinese party? putin and russia and china -- host: you have a lot there. john yarmuth? guest: i don't know exactly what he thought i was talking about, i was talking about budget resolution program's. that's resolution programs. nash resolution -- resolution programs. there is a very good chance that would be the case, that we would end up doing a continuing resolution before the end of the fiscal year which is september 30. we are going to pass our operations in july and totally the senate will move and we can

come to any agreement. we have been stuck over the last few years primarily because we have not had one party control over the congress and the white house. it is very difficult to get an agreement on appropriations bills and aboard. a continuing resolution -- and avoid a continuing resolution. but we are going to try. the continuing resolution would not be for the entire fiscal year, just so we have time to come to an agreement. the rest of it, i don't think i want to deal with chinese labs and those types of things. we will let tom ask that of somebody else. i am charge of the budget committee, not the cdc. host: scott, thomasville, georgia. republican. caller: good morning.

you made the comment that most people look through the perspective of their own household and the government does not have the same limits. i agree there is a difference between households and the government. however, the government does have limits. because the government does not have any more money than the people have. there are limits of resources. people don't like to talk about that anymore. i can tell you, inflation is here. there is a place i went to that is $300 a night and now it is $350 a night. in south georgia, we have limits as far as who we can hire. people do not want to work. you have to pay more money to give them. there is too much money supply already.

i agree, i think we need any infrastructure plan. but as far as trying to artificially pump up and have a job steel, the private sector has plenty of jobs. we don't need to create jobs. let's not just create something to just create something. guest: i agree with that last comment. if you are going to spend money at the federal level, if you're going to make investments, they need to be meaningful and important investments. they have to actually add to the economic capacity of the economy. that is what i think the american rescue plan and american family plan does -- american family plan do. let me go back to a comment you made and that is that we don't have any more money than the people have. yes we do. we do have a printing presses.

i hate to use that term -- printing money -- but we do. we have been a chelating debt in the u.s. for host of our history. how did we do that? that is because the government issued a lot of money and no one has been asked to pay off our debt, we have been able to finance our debt. the constraint on us is rampant inflation. i don't know about going from $300 to $800 per room, but a lot of the invasion you are seeing is pandemic related and not demand related. the numbers are a little distorted because the numbers we saw in april and may the last two months were compared to last april and may, that was when everything shut down. as you emerge from that pandemic, people were not going

anywhere so they did not buy gas. now gas prices are up. people were not flying and now they are. airline tickets have gone up. a lot of this is related to the comparison between last spring and now. that will continue for a while. i don't think there's any question about that. at the opening of the show, fed chair jay powell talked about bottlenecks. i hear all the time, the ships are lining up to get into ports. you can find containers to actually ship. there is a shortage of that. businesses are not able to get supplies they need to build their products. i have a general electric business in him my district and they were talking about how the supply chain has disrupted their

business because they can't get parts. we know about semi conductors. i have two ford plants in my district. they had to shut down because they can't get some conductors to build their vehicles. there are a lot of problems that i think more situational and not related to federal spending but related to other complexities around the world. hopefully, and a lot of economists inc. will play itself out and the next year we will be fairly back to normal in terms of inflation. host: charles, you are next in albuquerque, new mexico. independent line. guest: i have noticed -- caller: i have noticed this dichotomy on the left and their view of politics. on one hand, we are supposed to restrict the behavior of people for environment reasons, i.e.,

burning fossil fuels and using less energy. on the other hand, for the individual, the leftists say we are going to give you a guaranteed lifestyle. you can do whatever you want and the government will always take care of you. for example, illegitimate child birth. that is a big problem in our country, family formation. young ladies get pregnant, have a baby, they don't have any money. they are not educated. what do the let's say -- what did the leftists say? we will take care of you, we will give you education. there is a limit, i sincerely believe, that mankind is entering the era of overpopulation. we do not have unlimited resources. host: we will have the cumbersome respond. -- the congressman respond. guest: it is interesting you say

that because a lot of demographers are complaining about the fact that population growth is at low levels in the country. other countries, too, are worried about having enough people. we had the lowest growth in the birth rate in 50 or 60 years just this past year. i don't think the facts support your theory. i will say two things about what you might call social security spending. why would a woman who wants to have a child without being married not have the same support as someone who does? we educate children because they are our future population and future tax base and it is the moral thing to do. we don't educate them based on

what family they come from. i think it is a different way of thinking between democrats and others. i am comfortable being on the side that was to take care of our children and wants to treat all of our citizens, whether they are married or not, with the same level of compassion and support. host: taylor, maryland. caller: i think your answer to that question was fantastic. you guys won with a clear majority in the mandate and i'm proud of the democrats are moving away from bipartisanship. do you think with a double infrastructure bill, the second one, will you be able to get people like senator joe manchin to agree to a tax race? will you raise it -- will you

get it bipartisan and the climate related ones in the second bill, you will be trying to figure out how to do that while republicans will be cheering their win? guest: i think that is right. if there is a bipartisan deal on the republican version of infrastructure which is road, bridges, airports, and ports, but not human infrastructure, we will pass it with a great deal of satisfaction. i hope they do that. all the rest of what we call infrastructure, the human infrastructure part, things like two years of early childhood education which i think is the most important thing we can do for our future besides deal with, change. eldercare -- deal with climate change, eldercare, those types of things will have to be done by reconciliation. we will have a pearl a process.

if we get a bipartisan deal, we would be happy with that. we will do the rest of it by reconciliation. if we don't get a deal, we will do it all by reconciliation. host: shouldn't we try to live within our means or risk another bible? -- another bubble? i am not comfortable with china owning our debt. when is it due? guest: china owns roughly $1 trillion of our debt. if they said they wanted $1 trillion instead of a treasury, we would put it on their account and they could do whatever they wanted. we could do that with anybody. the emphasis on china owning our debt is overplayed. it is less than 5% of the debt. host: san diego, republican. caller: thank you for taking my

call. i am reading a treat. host: -- know you are on -- i am reading a tweet. host: no you are on the year. go ahead. caller: i am wondering, how much money do you have in your bank account? do you have any idea what $6 trillion is? guest: yes, i have an idea of what it is. it is a lot more than i have in my bank account. what i have said throughout this appearance is we are not families. at the federal level, we are not families. we have been borrowing money to service the country, to serve the people of this country for 230 years.

we will continue to do that because the needs are more. we choose to tax our citizens. if we relied on taxation, purely on taxation to fund the government, then a lot of people would supper very seriously because we could not provide nearly the services that the american people want us to provide. host: tom in florida, democratic caller. caller: i just wonder, do we have to grow and grow to be a healthier nation? we are using up finite resources. we have to stop this crazy growth. what a return to keep up with, the chinese? i think we would have had a world war and we would all be dead if the chinese did not have a one child family. now they will go to a three child family. there are over -- they are over

a one billion population over there. are we trying to compete with them with people? it just takes more resources, more pollution -- host: we understand. congressman? caller: -- guest: we actually have a declining birthrate in the country. we are not growing, we actually need to grow it. we cannot stay were be our. you know -- we cannot stay where we are. there are a lot of people like me turning 65 who are relying on social security and eligible for medical care. there are not enough people replacing them in the workforce to pay for those programs. at one point early on there were 13 people working to support every social security for sherry -- social security beneficiary. we do need more people in the workforce.

host: the book you cited earlier from the professor, what is the name of that book again? guest: it is called "the deficit myth." it is written for ordinary citizens, it is very easy to read. if it does not change her mind about thinking about money, it will make you think about it. i have talked to a lot of people about -- it is a theory she is writing about called modern monetary theory. everybody i talked to who has read the book and has thought about it has said fundamentally she is right on the basics of the theory. even the people who are skeptical of nmt say she did not get anything wrong. they may not agree with the

three, but the foundation of her theory and others is sound. host: she has appeared on c-span a couple of times. you can find her if you go to c-span.org, discussions about her book. guest: she has been on programs you can find on youtube where in 20 minutes she explains the theory. host: chairman john yarmuth of the budget committee, democrat of kentucky, we appreciate our discussion with you. guest: thanks, good being with you. host: congressman john yarmuth from a kentucky district and representing that area for many years. we want to thank you for joining us. the house will be gaveling in in just a few minutes. thank you for calling in and texting and posting. we appreciate it. we will be back with more conversation tomorrow, 7:00 a.m. eastern time.