also, syracuse university professor patrick penfield on how the conflict between russia and ukraine is affecting the u.s. supply chain. you can join the conversation by phone, facebook, and twitter. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: it is the "washington journal" for march 29. spending over $800 billion for national security, including $770 billion for the defense department. it would impose a new tax on households worth more than $100 million. for the next hour, we show you more about the proposals. you can call and tell us what you think about these. here is how you can reach out to us. democrats, (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001.

independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also post on our social media sites at facebook.com and @cspanwj on twitter. you can follow the show on instagram. the budget request has yet to be approved by congress, but it was released yesterday. you can find it online, but here are the breakdowns of the proposals, including what it does for national security. the request totals $5.8 trillion. 813 billion dollars is slated for national security. money also to ukraine through the state department and other means. 7 billion dollars to support european allies. 82 billion dollars for covid funding over five years, $18 billion for climate resilience programs, $17 billion for the justice department law enforcement programs. this new tax on certain

households of wealth, a 20% minimum tax rate on households worth more than $100 million. it would apply to income and unrealized gains and liquid assets such as stocks. that would raise 360 billion dollars in revenue over 10 years according to a white house estimate. those are just proposals. particularly when it comes to the defense spending boost and the tax on certain households. you can call in and let us know we think about that. it is (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you want to text us, that is (202) 748-8003. in making the announcement about this proposal, president biden talked about his plans for defense spending. here is some of that from yesterday. [video clip] >> this budget provides the

resources we need to keep america safe, ensuring our military remains the best prepared, best trained, best equipped military in the world. this also provides additional funding to respond to putin's aggression against ukraine and its consequences. the world has changed. in addition to dealing with terrorist organizations, once again facing increased competition from other nationstates, china and russia, which will require investments to make things like space and cyber and other advanced capabilities, including hypersonic's. this will be among the largest investments in our national security in history. some do not like the increase, but we are in a different world. america's more prosperous, more successful, and more just when it is more secure. host: when it comes to defense spinning proposals, the new york

times highlights some of what the $700 billion would do, a rise through 2022, $4 billion of that going to research. $5 billion of that would go to a space age missile warning system to detect global threats. $2 billion of that goes for a missile interceptor to protect the united states against ballistic missile threats from states like north korea and iran. that is the new york times. that was the proposal taking a look at defense. the president talked about some people not liking these proposals. that is highlighted in the washington post. they write, the release marked a departure for mr. biden's budget plan a year ago as he sought to bulk up the social safety net during the pandemic and shows less regard for physical restraint. last year's version would have race to the deficit over 10 years. this story added not all democrats were satisfied and the hours after the budget went public. it was clear some that helped

with mr. biden's agenda still existed and said they were the budget proposal would offer too much money for defense spending at the expense of other programs. do not need to raise the defense budget, tweeted the chair of the congressional progressive caucus, adding the united states needs to make investment in communities. under question by a reporter, she said there are a lot of good things in the proposal. unfortunately, presidents on both sides have continued to prioritize military spending. mr. biden also spoke about a new tax that he would use and levy against households of wealth. here is some of the proposal from yesterday from the president. >> for most americans, the last few years were hard, stretching them to the breaking point. billionaires and large corporations got richer than ever. right now quit billionaires pay an average rate of 8% on their

total income. that is the average they pay. i am a capitalist, but if you make a billion dollars, great. just pay your fair share. a firefighter and a teacher pay more than double the tax rate that a billionaire pays. that is not right. that is not fair. my budget contains a billionaire minimum tax because of that. the 20% minimum tax applies only to the top 100 of 1%. the billionaire minimum tax is fair and raises $360 billion that can be used to lower costs for families and cut the deficit. host: more of that available at our website at c-span.org and on our app. some of you texting in your thoughts this morning. this is restaurant california,

saying the defense budget is way over. taxing the rich is warranted, but will not bail out the spending problem. this is from larry in new jersey, saying the billionaires tax percentagewise is about fair compared to what the general public gives the government in taxes. again, texting us is a way you can reach out to us. (202) 748-8003. robert in california starts us off, democrats line. go ahead. caller: rein in the desert out here. i think it is a good plan to tax the billionaires. it makes sense. compared to taxing the whittle class. we need a lot of money to replace all those javelins and stinger missiles that we are

supplying. host: what do you think about the defense department request? caller: we are using a lot of our supply of stinger and javelins, so. host: let's hear from james, pittsburgh, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. my only thing is tobacco. it is a plant. where is all that money going? host: how does that relate to defense department spending or the tax on billionaires? caller: you got me there. god bless you. host: tell me why you think tobacco is important.

caller: where is all the money going? it is a plant. where is it going? host: we will hear from edward in columbia station, ohio, republican line. caller: good morning. he does enough putting his foot in his mouth every day. going over to europe was a waste. you want to talk about a hypocrite, you should talk about the budget we are talking about today. does the country know that the media's mom for years come his sun is indicted -- his son is indicted, grand juries are paying the big guy millions from ukraine. host: stick to the budget side since you called in on that. caller: you're going to cut me

off? paying a fair share to get this system who met -- melts the system for years quite ridiculous. -- milk the system for years, ridiculous. host: (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002 is how you can reach us. that takes a little more of a deep dive on issues when it comes to defense department spending. they write on their website that mr. biden's budget request is a percent more than requested last year. congress finally approved the 2022 defense appropriation. the 2023 request is $30 billion more than that. the real growth is 1.5% after inflation, going on to say this is not about making the force bigger, saying a senior defense official who spoke on a

nominative -- a nominative -- anominity. joe is next, washington, d.c. democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro. i am not against military spending at all. i think given the current situation we should be focusing on modernizing our defense systems and our technology and things like that. the more you listen to experts who analyze how that budget is spent in the pentagon and elsewhere, i think that is something we should focus on more. we should focus on how funds are allocated and whether that money is being spent in the most efficient way. the other point i wanted to make is in this proposal president

biden has asked to increase funding for title i. i do not have the numbers in front of me. the budget last year asked for an increase in funding and he only got a fraction of what he asked for. this time around, he to double the title i budget, which for those of you who do not know is used to fund low income schools. i cannot stress enough how important it is to be investing in education and our communities , as said by a representative the other day. i hope moving forward congress is able to recognize the importance of investing in education, kind of the root of everything. if you have an educated population that can think critically and hopefully vote.

host: from the wall street journal this morning, highlighting spending by department. defense to permit spending, the largest allocation current $173 billion. following that, one hundred $38 billion for health and human services, $135 billion to the department of veterans affairs. the education department, $88 billion in spending. there is more there on the wall street journal side if you want to look at comments on defense spending or the tax the president is proposing. mark and maryland, republican line. -- in maryland, republican line. caller: the thing is, the tax on millionaires, people who make more than $400 million? host: worth over $100 million, the household.

caller: one of the big problems we have in this country is we tend to other millionaires. i know that sounds look a funny thing to say, but we tend to forget. when you have somebody like a bernie sanders who proposes this kind of stuff, it is other ring people -- othering people. most americans do not realize they pay about 40% of the taxes. what do you think people do who make money like that? they do not just hide it other their mattress. they invest it. they create jobs for americans. democrats have taken this narrative of government needs to create jobs for people and government has never created jobs for people other than

federal, wasteful little projects that they have no business being involved in in the first place. millionaires and billionaires put money into people, but politicians will not have us believe that because americans are not educated. the education system -- they have basically thrust this narrative on school and college that capitalism is bad somehow. host: that is mark in maryland. cbs is saying mr. biden's budget would pledge the kind of wealth tax many republicans think would hurt the economy by diminishing private investments and causing the wealthy to put their fortunes to work abroad. republican lawmakers have said the spending over the last year has led to greater economic pain in the form of higher prices and inflation as closures from the

pandemic began to end amplified by low interest rates and now disruptions in the oil and natural gas markets because of russia's invasion of ukraine. you have heard people talk about the billionaire tax side of this, the defense spending side of this. you can comment on one of those things and other aspects. the number is (202) 748-8000 for democrats. for republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. text us at (202) 748-8003. kevin in port st. lucie, florida, independent line. caller: thank you. i wanted to say taxing millionaires and billionaires is not going to work. it is not going to work. these people have generational wealth. taxing them more is not going to fix the problem. these people are rich because they are smart, because they know better than us. these people will find out anyway to keep their wealth

inherited. as far as defense spending, it should be cut. how much more do we need? how much more military do we need? we have bases scattered all around the world while people in our own country suffer. it is ridiculous. host: do you think events in ukraine and russia have changed a philosophy toward spending? caller: i think it is irrelevant. the war has been going on since 2014. it is only relevant now because of the news. host: this is from william connecticut, saying when it comes to the budget that the tax on unrealized income seems extreme, quelling traditional investing strategies for lower income investors. other items seem more traditional. from a viewer from twitter, --

then we can talk about more money for defense. and then saying, if it is not fair that billionaires pay this in tax, why aren't you lowering taxes for middle workers so they can pay as little as the billionaires? some of you commenting on twitter this morning, some of you posting on facebook at facebook.com/cspan and texting us if you want at (202) 748-8003 . this is jaffe in michigan, democrats line. caller: can you hear me? you were talking to somebody about common sense. they do not stand for nothing. all they do is wine and one --

whine and whine. host: these proposals from the president, what do you think? caller: he should do more. some people out here need help. they just whine all the time. they have been getting away all the time. host: would you advocate for a higher defense budget? caller: no. [no audio] -- [indiscernible] the industrial military people

would waste all this money. they don't believe in abortion. host: let's go to brad in california, republican line. caller: the democrats believe the government should be in charge of all that. they believe in bureaucrats and higher taxes, more regulations, and that is the central difference between the two parties. a side note is i am a retired teacher. there is not one guest post that you have that is a conservative, not one. they are all left of center. host: as far as our guest hosts

are concerned -- you can have that perception. let's go to steve in new york, democrats line. caller: i want to say that personally i have some rather extreme beliefs when it comes to the taxation of billionaires. i believe there should be some way to work around this. the way i think it works out is when we have the 1% of the 1% kind of thing, the extreme wealthy, it just becomes that capitalism breaks because they have so much assets that they just accrue on top of themselves. it breaks how capitalism works at a certain level. i do not know what the solution is, but it needs a solution. obviously it would have to be a rather extreme one because

people have to either lose money or value of money would have to change in some way. it is not something that is easily done. host: that is steve in new york. for these proposals by the white house, and opening proposal when it comes to the 2023 budget, (202) 748-8000 for democrats. republicans, (202) 748-8001. independents, (202) 748-8002. one of the people responding yesterday to the president's budget proposal was the senate republican leader, mitch mcconnell, on the floor the senate yesterday with thoughts on that proposal. here he is. [video clip] >> our own forces may get the short end of the stick in this white house but plenty of far left domestic priorities will be swimming in cash. while they limit defense to 4% growth before inflation, nondefense spending would get a larger increase. not all domestic spending --

border security and the department of homeland security barely tread water, just like our troops. other agencies and department's that are more useful for the far left agenda like the irs make out like bandits with gigantic increases of 20% and 30% since 2021. they want to pour money into absurdities like the green climate fund for china to -- to hand free money back to china. there's plenty of money for things like anti-gun regulations, free lawyers for illegal immigrants, and something called environmental justice. this whole far left feast leaves out the reckless taxing and spending spree that democrats failed to pass last year and are now trying to revive.

the biden administration still wants that spending, but they could not even budget for it honestly. host: if you go to the website this morning, there is a piece following up on the proposal on the tax on certain households. you can find this online at thehill.com. estate lawyers monday were paying attention to a technical but more powerful set of proposed revisions to a state -- he state and gift taxes that would go after inherited wealth that has long stood beyond the reach of tax collectors. the changes seep -- seek to downgrade sophisticated types of shelter that allow money worth billions of dollars to go untaxed as they accrue over centuries while the provisions in the treasury's so-called green book will be debated over several months and may not make it into law. tax attorneys describe the proposals as more expressly

targeted than similar measures. let's hear from thomas in honolulu, independent line. >> good morning. i was prodded to call by the comments of a couple folks before me. i want to address what i think is one of the biggest myths from econ 101, that rich people need to stay rich so they can create jobs for the rest of us. it is a convenient fiction for them, but as we used to tell new entrepreneurs, the last thing you do in businesses is higher people. you avoid that expense as long as you can and only hire when it is unavoidable. the idea that they go into business to create jobs is not lunacy but fantasy, i would say. if we were to balance the budget

instead of a token tax on billionaires i would suggest we look at the corporate welfare stock throughout the tax code. the federal tax code is 6000 pages long, plus rules and regulations. it does not need to be as long if there were not all the special tax breaks crammed into the small print. finally, instead of just arguing over how many crumbs we should hand out to the have-nots, we need to focus on ways to democratize the ownership of income producing wealth, beginning with things like employee stock over ship plans. host: thomas in honolulu. the journal of accountancy talks not only by the minimum income tax at when he percent but as the budget would increase the corporate tax rate from the current 21% to 28% and institute measures supporting united states participation in the

global minimum tax. this is jim in florida, republican line. caller: good morning. number one, on defense, people need to realize that when you talk about defense today it is not we have 100 destroyers and they have 150 destroyers. what it has become is a technological race. we have been caught with our pants down on hypersonic. we may be in the process of being caught with our pants down on other defense systems also, in other words underwater propulsion. so think technology. don't think of the number of tanks and how big the army is. that takes a lot of money, and we obviously have not been spending enough on it because we just got caught with our pants

down on hypersonic. number two, on billionaires, i am of two minds about billionaires. my first thought is billionaires made all these pronouncements about how they needed to be taxed more during the last election year and i am thinking, let's those democrats go. you wanted more taxes? you got them. sit it in your lap and live with it. my other mind is that with democrats and taxes, the beginning is never the end. the beginning is never the end. they are looking at billionaires today but soon they will say, that works pretty good. we don't have to just do billionaires. we will do it with everybody. this is a disastrous thing. billionaires are a very small fraction of anything happening in our country, but they focus

on it for political reasons. this is not going to pass. host: that is jim in florida. let's hear from tom, democrats line. caller: the gentleman that called prior talking about not having -- you not having conservative views, it is true. the washington journal as far to the left and i'm a democrat. host: to the budget request, what you think of that? caller: why don't we talk more about the great reset? this is not conspiracy. this is reality. this has to deal with the budget. host: we are talking about the budget today. you called in and said how it was large. explain why. caller: i am here but you cut me

off. host: you said the budget is large. explain why. caller: why aren't we talking corruption? it is because of these bs bills that they are going to line their pockets with. host: we will go to larry, maryland, independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i want to say we should -- the united state should unite and the proposal that president biden did yesterday is correct. we have to rebuild our military. china and russia, they tried to bring india and looking back now at what is happening in ukraine,

we should militarize -- update our military. it has to be spent wisely. it has to be militarized better. that is my opinion. host: when it comes to china, the website defense one takes a look at proposals. you can find it on its website, saying under pressure from congress mr. biden requested $400 million for the countering of the countering the people's republic of china malign influence fund, more than the version still awaiting reconciliation with the house. it is the largest ever, according to defense officials, and seeks to boost research into hypersonic weapons, microelectronics, and 5g wireless and biotechnology. the budget also calls for retiring more than 1000 navy

ships to fry -- free up money to buy new weapons and the air force wants to cut its plan of search and rescue helicopters, a variant of the blackrock meant to replace older helicopters from hundred 13 to 75 aircraft. more there in that story if you want to see the breakdown of the weapon systems being proposed. if you're interested in learning more about the defense side, we will be joined by todd harrison of the center for strategic international studies, specifically studying defense budgets, and we will ask him about details as far as the defense side of the budget request. you can comment on that. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. a couple things to keep in mind when it comes to the budget, he house budget committee will have a hearing today with the office

of management and budget cuts talking about the request. you can see that at 10:00 this morning on c-span3 and on our app. when it comes to matters of security, a hearing with the commander of the u.s. european command and nato supreme allied commander. you can see that if you want on our website. that will be at 9:30, but we are going to rebroadcast it at 8:00 tonight. you can see that on c-span two, c-span.org, and c-span now. later today, rep. d. young: lying in state in the statuary hall of the u.s. capitol. that is on c-span, c-span.org, and c-span now. steven in kentucky, democrats line. caller: good morning. i am a huge fan of you. you do a great job.

the budget is too high. we spend too much on military, unnecessary things. we balloon these numbers. it is too high. on the billionaire tax, what is up with americans not liking to tax billionaires? why should there be billionaires in this world? they can pay a little more for all of us to benefit. it is like trickle-down economics does not work. reagan did not know what he was talking about. host: statistically it does not work. host:back to the defense department, why do you think it is too high? caller: every year he gets higher. if we can have one year that we do not exceed or just spend less, i think we could actually make a difference. we do not need to update every single thing that is a year old. wait a year. which two years.

this technology is way more advanced than other countries. i think we are just spending too much money too fast. host: we will go to dave in minnesota, republican line. caller: how are they going to tax assets and unrealized income? tax? host: i will find a story to elaborate on that since you asked the question. what leads you to ask it? why are you curious? caller: how would that work on farmland? are they going to tax it every year, assets? host: do you fall into that category or are you just curious by nature?

caller: i am just asking. host: that is dave in new hampshire. cnbc followed up with a story. it may answer the questions you posed, but it is called the billionaire minimum income tax, and assess 20% minimum income tax rate on those worth more than $100 million. half of that revenue could come from more than one billion. it is expected to reduced the that reduce the deficit in the next decade. if a wealthy household is already paying 20% on their full income, they will not pay an additional tax. if they pay less, they will owe a top up payment. that is according to the document provided by the white house and cnbc is where you can read that story for yourself.

in alabama, independent line, this is jd. caller: i believe this biden proposed budget is a disaster. i do not know if many people are aware of this, but i was reading yesterday biden is proposing for the second year in a row, attempting to scrap the hyde amendment that has been in place as the 1970's. that has disallowed american taxpayers from paying for prenatal murdering, a.k.a. abortions. since the 1970's, americans have shown, including this year, that 70% of americans oppose spending a dime of our taxpayer money for

an elective prenatal murder. we do not pay for liposuction. we do not pay for cosmetic surgery. we do not pay for euthanasia. we should not be paying for prenatal murdering of human beings. host: let's go to andrew and virginia, independent line. caller: good morning. thank god for c-span. i am so glad we get the unfiltered news and difference of opinions. i think there should be a fair tax. i would like to see everyone taxed at a similar rate. capital gains and ordinary income. something was promoted similar to what i would like to see and maybe that could lower the tax on everybody. host: would that be

disproportionate to the income people? caller: now. if they tax ordinary income, all working people, 99%, and then they tax the very rich, that would lower ordinary income at the same rate and could lower the tax rate on everyone. i think the average working people pay about 30% of their income in taxes and the rich pay maybe half of that or last. so maybe they could lower the rates for everyone to 15% to 20%. that would be fair. it would be fair and could lower the rates for everyone. host: that is a caller talking

about the flat rate as it has been described. the washington post in their analysis takes a look at deficits and things like that, saying the white house budget including the $2.5 trillion in new tax revenue, of that roughly $1.5 trillion would go to new spending programs, the remainder going to reducing the deficit, said the senior vice president of the committee for responsible federal budgets, group that advocates for lower deficits. it says a $2.5 trillion swing last year, the white house was increasing the deficit by $1.4 trillion and now they are decreasing it by offering -- buy under $1 trillion according to him. let's go to howell in florida. , -- caller: i would like to respond to the defense budget and the taxes. we need more military, not less. you look at what russia is doing

and china is striving to do, there is no way we cannot spend money to defend ourselves. china has designs on taiwan, on the world. this is crazy, that someone says we have to lower the defense budget. someone has to stop china. someone has to stop russia. this is just the way it is. host: how do you think more spending would achieve that? caller: more spending would give more money for research and development to get what they already have met are very high-speed rockets. they have rockets that go 10 times the speed of ours. this is insane. we have to have a way to counter what they are doing. when you compare our budget with

their budgets and say we are spending more than the top five people against us combined, that is crazy. their money has nothing to do with our money and a lot of what they are doing, you cannot even say it is money. they are spending like you would not believe but they are a communist country. they can call it anything they want and just shovel money in. this is crazy, that we let taiwan fall and ukraine fall. that is why we finally got income tax and everybody swore we would go from the rich to the rich. by the end of the 1930's, it was a tax of every dollar you made over a certain amount and we are talking over 80%. this is insane. i had to have this explained by a relative when i was young.

he could not make money after a certain point because it did not matter what he made. it all went to one form of the government or another. host: when it comes to politics behind the release of the budget, politico picks that up. saying it is joe biden's budget delivered with a joe manchin floor-ish -- flourish. it is a calculated appeal to lawmakers. the proposal comes as mr. biden seeks to revive talks with democratic moderates such as joe manchin on central elements of his now defunct social spending bill, including universal pre-k, lowering prescription drug prices, and combating climate change. white house efforts to woo over those lawmakers do not mention more money for policing in the pentagon but also risk

alienating progressives. at first blush, the left appeared fine with the overture. more of that in politico if you want to read it there. in massachusetts, this is eddie, republican line. caller: the billionaires, take for instance bezos, to pay that tax he will have to sell something, whether it is stocks or property that he bought. once he sells something, it is capital gains, so it is a lose-lose situation. why would you want to hurt somebody like that who is making jobs? as far as spending money for abortions, things of that nature, it is ridiculous. thank you. host: the washington times takes a look at immigration related spending, saying the request would take $2 billion in unspent border wall funding and spend it

on cutting brush along the u.s.-mexico boundary. mr. biden seeks to expand the types of things money can be spent on. he said the money should be allowed to go to technology, eradication of vegetation, and scientific studies of past border wall construction. he called for the homeland security department to send money from the land account to management agencies from the interior and agriculture department's, saying the president wants to use that money to recur -- repair damage from wall building in the trump years. just about 15 minutes left if you want to cap -- comment on the budget but most of you commenting on defense or taxes. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independents, (202) 748-8002 . we will go to tom in pennsylvania, independent line.

>> there is one thing i do not hear anybody talking about that i have seen going on in my city as well as across the country. i hear this talk about let's get more money from people that are working hard and paying taxes already. how about the people that are not paying taxes? i am not talking about poor people. i'm talking about illegal businesses through this country that are not registered properly . in our city alone, they could raise millions, if not a billion dollars if they just enforce and get these people on the books and collect the tax revenue that they should be paying. the other point i want to make is a good way to generate a lot of money immediately that i think would be fair would be to impose a transaction tax for every stock, bond, any type of

trade and the stock market. it does not have to be a lot of money. there are a lot of day traders and more and more people investing now, so that is a good way to raise money. the third point i want to make is we need to get back to the basics with spending. we need to prioritize. there are too many programs that we do not need. we need them, but i think it is getting too out-of-control. what we need to do is just make a list of priorities in the next five to 10 years that you absolutely need. host: the first point he made of illegal businesses, what are you talking about specifically? caller: small businesses that are operating, like contractors, that do not pay any income tax on a federal, state, or local

level. you can call them mom and pop companies or what have you, but there are millions of them out there or hundreds of thousands. if you add up all that money that they are putting in their pocket and not paying any taxes on, it is a significant amount of money. that is all i want to say. host: this is karin texting at this morning. investing in modernization and expansion of rail, access to broadband in less populated areas, improvement infrastructure and strengthening supply chains. this is ron in nashville, saying most recent will people believe in some defense spending for our safety, but the words tax on billionaires is just code word for the democratic base. this is a pro -- proposed redistribution of wealth.

the democratic party uses it to motivate their base. it is just a slogan. that is ron in nashville. part of the spending proposal from the president looks toward law enforcement. the wall street journal picking that up, saying the budget proposes $17.4 billion for law enforcement and the justice department, including $1.7 billion to fight gun trafficking and provides funding for the u.s. marshals and federal bureau of investigation to address violent crime and also would call for the funding of 300 additional border patrol. let's go to michael in maryland, republican line. caller: thank you. we are spending too much on defense. i am a big defense guy, but we need to refocus. we need to spend -- we have 160 bases around the world.

we do not need to be focusing every area of the world. china is our number one competitor that we need to be focused on. the more we spend on nato, the less they spend on themselves. they need to be upfront on this ukraine thing and we need to set up another nato type organization in the pacific with japan, south korea, australia surrounding china. so refocusing our expenditures not just throwing money at issues, which is what government wants to do. it does not provide a better result by just spending money so refocus. host: that is michael on our republican line. let's go to cliff in the virgin islands, line for democrats. caller: i agree with the last caller. we are spending too much money on the military. with the war on you -- what the

war on ukraine showing us is the weapons we have been producing over the last four years or 50 years to ensure mutually assured destruction and not get us into war, what it is showing now is we are not going to go into direct conflict with russia. or china. if china goes into taiwan, we are not going to send the military in. it will turn into nuclear war. why are we spending all this money on the military? host: part of the president's speech yesterday is his presentation about the budget, including more comments from him about comments he made in warsaw over the weekend about vladimir putin. you can see it online, but here is a portion from yesterday. [video clip] >> when you say you are not

walking anything back, you do feel that vladimir putin should be removed from power? >> i was expressing just what i said, the moral outrage i felt toward this man. i was not articulating a policy change. i think he continues on this course that he is on, he is going to become a pariah worldwide. who knows what he becomes at home in terms of support? >> are you concerned this mark -- remark might escalate the conflict? >> not at all. the other thing is that a couple people have asked me as well -- other governments have suggested this is a problem, i'm escalating things. no. has it weakened nato? it has not. nato has never been as strong as it is today. never. host: that is the president from

yesterday. gregory in california, texting us one 100th of 1% would get more out of this country. and that should be a lot bigger. this is from our twitter feed, saying she agrees with the representative that the defense department is too bloated and the last budget was more than the pentagon requested. let's hear from john in pennsylvania. you are on. caller: i get a kick out of you, pedro, and the rest of you on their -- there. as soon as a conservative says something you do not like, you hang up on them. that is not right at all. that is all i have to say. host: john, since you called

about the topics at hand, what do you think about the request from the president as far as the budget is concerned? caller: i do not think they should tax them that much money. they are the ones that make the jobs up and there going to take their money elsewhere. i think we should increase a lot more. we have to protect ourselves. thank you. host: let's hear from gary in florida, line for democrats. caller: i believe the budget is about right. i was surprised the republicans keep saying that democrats do not support police but i see a sizable increase in police budgets. most police officers are not bad. it is usually their training and

the people that train them. it can be a bad trainer. you're trying to emulate or trying to show the other person that you are tougher than they are or you can keep up with them and sometimes it is something as simple as having to make a certain amount of arrests or stops. the budget i think is about right. for the billionaires, i think billionaires are overpaid. most of them do not actually work. host: that is gary in orlando, florida. when it comes to the request for the president, saying $773 billion for the department for the 2023 fiscal year would

include 24.5 billion dollars for the u.s. space force and spaced of element agency, about $5 billion more than what congress enacted in 2022. the white house unveiled this yesterday. congress appropriated $18 billion for the space forced -- space force. it is currently under the office of the secretary of defense and will be absorbed later this year. the proposed space force funding also includes a transfer from the airport to the village terry personnel account. neil in washington, democrats line. -- military personal account. neil in washington, democrats line. caller: he is trying to help people out there. trump, he was for the rich.

biden is a good president and that is all i have to say. host: we will hear from mark and massachusetts. you will be the last call on this. caller: i want to stick up for you and say you do a great job and you are not biased at all. these callers insinuating the moderators have slant is complete baseless. as far as biden's projected budget, i wish he had dropped the space force and just made a part of the air force. i like the asset proposal, taxing the assets of individuals. there are loopholes. that is it. host: this deals with the fbi

headquarters. at the j edgar hoover building, plans to move that. the fbi's headquarters at the building can no longer support the long-term mission of the fbi. the fbi has begun the process of constructing a modern, secure suburban facility where the fbi can continue its mission. we will talk more about the defense budget side of the request yesterday with todd harrison with csis. he will break down some of what the president is proposing, how it compares to years past. you can ask them questions about that next. later in the program, supply chains, particularly when it comes to food, technology, and other things. we will visit how the russia-ukraine war is changing that with a professor at syracuse university. those conversations coming up on washington journal.

♪ >> c-span has unfiltered coverage of the u.s. response to russia's invasion of ukraine, bringing the latest from the president and other white house officials, the pentagon, and the state department, as well as congress. we also have international perspectives from the united nations and statements from foreign leaders, all on c-span networks, the c-span now mobile app and c-span.org/ukraine, where you can watch the latest videos on demand and follow tweets from journalists on the ground. go to c-span.org/ukraine. ♪ >> this year, states entered our

studentcam video documentary contest and shared how the federal government impacts their lives. the winner went to an eighth grader from mountain view, california, 10th graders from richard montgomery high school in maryland, and winston churchill lake charles louisiana. ninth graders from foothill community christian school in the first pride has go west, and the $5,000 grand prize winners, seventh graders from easter middle school in silver spring, maryland. you can watch the top 21 winning entries on c-span and all of the winning documentary anytime online.

washington journal continues. host: joining this now to talk about this budget request by president biden, mr. harrison, thanks for joining us. guest: thanks for asking me. host: this request, what are the differences? guest: interesting that congress didn't get around to passing the '22 budget until almost all the way through the fiscal year. this makes it difficult for the administration to plan what they want to ask for next year if they don't yet know what is in the current budget. i think the big difference we're seeing is that in the '23 budget, they are asking for some

substantial increases in defense, even relative to what congress ended up enacting for the current year, which was more than the biden administration request. it is driven by a lot of different factors. host: i was going to say how much is it also animated by the current conflict going on with russia and ukraine? guest: even though they just released the budget yesterday, the department of defense to finalize it a couple months ago. so they made it clear during the rollout yesterday that it is not actually informed by the russian invasion of ukraine, because that happen after they had finished this budget and it has just been in the pipeline for getting reviewed, put in the right format to be submitted to congress. really, the conflict and ukraine did not shape this budget at all. what we should expect is that

conflict, if he continues, we may see the administration come back and asked congress for a supplemental budget request, extra funding for next year to offset some of the cost of u.s. support for ukraine host: the large figure that you talked about, how much will go into specific programs, within they are new or be modernized? guest: one of the biggest areas increase is in the acquisition of new weapons, particularly funding for recent development, test ended valuation. that is up to $130 billion in this request. historically, that is going to be a historically high level even when you adjust for elation

for previous years. i think that complex part of the administration strategy, which is really to double down on investments in new technology and new military capabilities to sustain our military advantage in the future. host: can you elaborate what some of those programs could look like? guest: those investments are sprinkler around a lot of different areas around the budget. they are increasing investment in building a new stealth bomber for the air force. that is ramping up to just over $5 billion. a lot about that program is secret. they have revealed that there are six initial aircraft currently under construction, but we don't know a whole lot more about that program just yet.

the military and the space force are investing in a new generation of missile tracking satellites. we've had systems like this for decades. they keep an eye on other countries, on potential missile sites. russia, china, north korea, iran, other places, and they are constantly watching to see if they missile is fired that might on -- the on a trajectory toward the united states. one of the big problems, the space force as a small number of the satellites today that are vulnerable to attack. russia and china have various types of counterspace weapons. they could blind or disabled the missing work -- missile warning satellite which leaves us with the vulnerable. missile defense systems can't work and all if we don't have warning.

they are investing up to $4.7 billion in a hybrid missile warning satellite that would be high up in orbit, about 22,000 miles, as well as a large constellation of smaller satellites and they are just a couple hundred miles off the surface, all of which would be looking to identify missile launchers and track those missiles all throughout their flight including hypersonic souls, which currently we had a lot of trouble being able to track. host: (202) 748-8000 free democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8002 independents. mr. harrison, mitch mcconnell was on the floor of the senate

yesterday and one of the things he spoke about what the defense portion of this for rest. i want to play you what he had to say. >> first and foremost, and a dangerous time, the president's budget falls woefully short on defense spending. our commander-in-chief has failed to budget for the resources that our armed forces actually need. the biden administration proposes a 4% increase over the bipartisan bill congress just passed for this year. that is a nominal increase before any of the democrats historic inflation is taken into account, and inflation right now is about twice that. so even a you accept the rosea's predictions about where

inflation is headed, this would amount to a flat funding defense with none of the robust roads we need to keep pace with russia and china. even in the best case scenario, it would leave our armed forces simply treading water. in one of historic inflation does not plummet downwards as quickly as they would like? or if the inflation that has caused keep sticking around? in the budget would actually cut funding for the armed forces. host: mr. harrison, map of the minority leaders approach. guest: one of the biggest factors in the defense budget debate is likely to be inflation. if you look at the details of the budget request not just for defense, the overall request for the federal government, the

administration asked to make similar functions about one inflation will be not only for the rest of this year, but next year as well. it is highly uncertain, right. but what they did do is they have assumed in the budget request that inflation would be coming down and it would return to near the historic normal level of them glover 2% inflation. they had to make that back in the fall. a lot more information has come out since the fall. the consumer price index, inflation was running at 7.9%. hopefully that doesn't continue for the rest of the year, but i think that is an indication that the assumptions they made from the fall to ignore this budget

request are likely a bit too optimistic for how things are playing out. the question is ok, a much higher will inflation actually be that is something that congress is ultimately going to have to weigh in on when they ultimately enacted this budget into law. the president and requested, but congress has to appropriate the money. in all likelihood, the budget request level that we see from the department of defense, 773 billion dollars for next year, that is probably a floor that congress is likely to increase to account for inflation and for other priorities that congress has in terms of funding different weapons systems for the military. host: todd harrison, our guest to talk about the defense budget.

you are on with our guest, susan. caller: good morning. i don't know where to begin on this topic. the u.s. needs to catch up very quickly since china plans to pass us on supersonic weaponry and god knows what else. i've long believed that the military-industrial complex and the pentagon, there is no visibility. while they move forward with all of the urgent new priorities, are we going to the same time holland doomed other projects that are producing obsolete recommend dairy -- i just don't understand why we can't be more intelligent with the way we lost it in our complex, but i do believe they should be on a standard account, which i understand they are not.

also, ration -- we should retrench where overinvest soon -- over investing is that defeat the purpose of countering china. china also has that invented two of the united states in that they have a much stronger citizenry. their education system is better, infrastructure is faster. we are in many cases going back to wu were one. you have to have a strong, internal country where people have solid jobs, they are constantly having an education that matches the new economy needs, but they are not on standard accounting and that is for the scary to me. host: we will stop there, thank you for the call.

guest: i think what she may be referring to is when defense contractors have what they call cost reimbursable contracts where the government is allowed to have greater visibility into the actual cost incurred by the kind tracker since they are going to be reimbursing them based on this cost. they do have to meet a certain set of financial standards. it is different than my regular commercial accounting standard. that is a thorn in the side of the defense industry. black -- that actually makes it very hard for small businesses, for commercially implemented businesses that may not have a lot of resources.

it gave a very difficult and counterintuitive to get contracts with the federal government. in terms of transportation, one of the biggest roadblock is classified information. if a program or elements of a program or elements of the program are classified, i think that in many cases, you will hear senior military leaders themselves saying that we tend to over classify things at a higher level than they need to be, and that makes transparency much more difficult. that is a known problem, but it is a difficult problem to fix because you've got incentives in the system where people don't want to accidentally reveal classified information that might harm national security. they don't want to go to jail. the default is to keep things at

a higher classification level than may, perhaps, be necessary. i can tell you that members of congress to oversee the military and intelligence community, folks who are on this community and their senior staffers, they have clarence -- they are able to see behind the curtain and conduct effective oversight of these programs. it is up to congress how effective they are, but they can see that. host: john in maryland, democrats line. caller: i have a question that i would like to ask you to elaborate on. it is about the hypersonic missiles, i'm curious about that.

a smaller, maybe some sonic part that would go further to reach the continental u.s. when people talk about hypersonic missiles, it means something that goes more than five times the speed of sound. there are lots of different types of hypersonic missiles. ballistic missiles are technically hypersonic. they travel faster than five times the speed of sound. what people tend to mean is something they can travel faster than mach 5 and is maneuverable.

something that can actually fly and maneuver itself at those speeds. that makes it very difficult to track. it can invade missile-defense systems, can evade our tracking systems. what we are worried about is russia and china. we have seen them working on these technologies. they can be very long-range systems. it's not entirely clear what capabilities they have developed, they have operationalized them into each weapon system that may have an operational system. host: that threat has been there for decades. what we are war -- my worried about his use of hypersonic

missiles within the region against u.s. forces. to sink an aircraft carrier at range and it very quickly in a way that is difficult for us to intercept without missile-defense systems. the other thing to point out is just because russia and china are developing these types of maneuverable hypersonic missiles that not necessarily mean that we need to develop comparable systems because there is strategic needs, the offensive weapons may be different than what we need to have. we do have several different programs to develop the missiles. several of those are going to continue under this budget request. it looks like they have decided not to move forward in this particular case, they are going to continue testing of that serum.

mishaps are not quite ready to commit to the program yet. the biggest thing to remember is when russia and china are developing hypersonic missiles, that really means that we need to develop better defenses against these types of missiles and these types of threats. host: does the project do anything for the united states nuclear arsenal? guest: it does a lot of things. back in 2010, president obama started to put into place modernization of all three legs of the nuclear triad. the ground-based missiles, the submarine base missiles, and the bombers. those programs are continuing in this budget request before the b 21 bomber as it starts to move

into production of aircraft. the new icbm is known as ground-based strategic deterrent. the new submarines that are going to carry the submarine nuclear missiles is known as the columbia class of submarine program. that is continuing as well as we begin to manufacture the first few of those subs. the budget continues to fund all of these nuclear modernization programs. we are likely to cease and slight differences between the biden administration's approach to new gear weapons from the trump administration, but really there are slight differences, but that has not all come out yet. we are waiting for a strategy document known as the nuclear posture review. we are waiting for that to be released and it was expected it would have been released before

the budget but it wasn't, and so we are hopeful that will come out within the next month or so. host: this is james in arizona, republican line. caller: we marked $750 billion for the defense budget the other year and that sort of bill raised to one trillion. it is ridiculous that we don't have that money here for each person in the state. $750 billion is way too much money to use, even essentially when we are not fighting anybody. we are giving it all away. we are backing everybody else and not letting them get

sprouts. it's not fair. how do we earmark the money for people who need it rather than --? guest: this is one of the classic debates we have in the federal government. how much do you spend on domestic priorities, on infrastructure, on helping folks with education, transportation, all of the other things that the federal government does, health care, vs. how much do we spend on national defense? the caller did touch on something that might be surprising to a lot of people. as we've been in afghanistan for many, many years, two decades, the fact that we pulled out of those -- there does not make much of a difference in the budget at all. we had a pretty small number of troops there for quite a while and spending on afghanistan, the

true amount of spending in afghanistan was only around $15 billion per year for the last several years. it had been much higher when we had a larger number nearly a decade ago, but it was a relatively small amount of the defense budget and now that we pulled out of afghanistan, you don't really see a difference in the defense budget. that money has been reallocated to other priorities and we continue to see the budget increase. the focus now for defense is really on a long-term competition china. china is the threat for the u.s. military. that is what they are trying to build, a force that is capable of countering china, deterring china and any potential aggression we might see. such as china trying to retake taiwan by force. we have treaty commitments in the asia-pacific region

and they are trying to create a force kate will of deterring china and keeping our commitments. a more immediate threat, course, is russia and what they are doing in ukraine, but in the long term, russia is a declining power, economically and demographically. they are losing a lot of their weapons and forces and they are not performing nearly as well as a lot of people thought they would. russia still is very much an immediate threat to security in europe, but in the long term, the strategy of the united states and of this administration and quite frankly of the trump administration as well is to focus on china as that pacing threat and how do we deter china from having similar aggressive ambitions in the indo pacific region? host: brian in new mexico, independent line. caller: i'd like to point out

that china has grown powerful and wealthy from all these great western businesses and political leaders who decided to move manufacturing there, which was a huge mistake. so in my mind, if you want to do business with china, you should pay a huge tax. you can't have it both ways. it was a massive mistake to engage with china the way we have and wall street can reap massive profits which should be another source of funding for the military. we should have transaction taxes on wall street because most of the wealth has flowed to the top of the income brackets in this country. let's talk about funding air military by taxing chinese products. host: that is brian, mr. harrison? guest: he touched on something

there and it was deliberate policy of the united states that goes back to the 1990's to try to engage china and wring china into the world community and allow china to become a member of the world trade organization. really have an increasingly close financial and economic relationship with china. the hope was eventually, the system could reform from within. that has not proven to be the case, of course. china has not reformed politically, and there is potential for conflict in the future with china over some heat touch points like taiwan and the island building that china is doing in the south china sea and the triggerpoints between china and india as well, quite

frankly. i think what we are looking at right now is a shift where we realize that china is more of a threat, not a good partner economically, and because of covid, we have become acutely aware of supply chain vulnerabilities. where things are sourced, and how dependent we are economically on china. what we are starting to see is a gradual economic decoupling between the united states and to a lesser extent, europe and other western countries, a decoupling economically from china. that would be an interesting trend to watch in future years if we continue to decoupling economically. that is going to be difficult for china. it will prove difficult for the united states as well, but the question really is who is it going to hurt worse as we decouple from one another? my hunch is it is probably going

to hurt china worse, but when you have economic decoupling, that means we are not as dependent on one another, and that makes the prospect go up slightly. one of the thing that i think has deterred the conflict up to this point is we have been so dependent on one another economically. it has not been in either country interest to pick a fight in the south china sea or elsewhere, but as we become more decoupled from one another, i think the prospects of conflict do start to go up. host: we've talked a lot about the programs of the defense budget. what about others as far as salaries and the like? guest: one of the reasons we see the budget go up is to accomplish a higher pay raise for military personnel. in this budget, they are getting a 4.6% pay raise, the highest

pay raise and that the jerry has gotten in two decades. it is not anything unique that the biden administration did here. what they are doing is they're keeping up with the increase in wages and the private sector. by law, they are supposed to submit a budget request that includes a pay raise equal to the employment cost index for the year prior. as we look back, they are submitting a pay raise that is in line with what they are supposed to do according to existing law, but it is a substantial pay increase, not something they were anticipating a year ago when they started working on this budget west. it is something that they only learned about back in november, december timeframe, and then they had to figure out how to pay for it. it looks like they added money to this budget request to accommodate that higher pay raise and higher labor costs overall from the department of

defense, so i think that is something the military personnel is going to appreciate. it is something that we should expect the following year and we are likely to see a substantial pay raise, a high pay rates for military personnel as well because we are continuing to see wage growth in the overall economy right now. what we are seeing in the economy right now will impact the 2400 request. the 23 budget request is based on what we saw happen in 2021 in private sector wages. it is lagging behind, but we should expect to see pretty strong growth in military pay rates in the coming years. host: about 15 more minutes with our guest, todd harrison, defense budget analysis director. went to from craig in oklahoma, republican line. caller: thank you, c-span and mr. harrison. in military thought, the high

ground has the vantage, like a mountain. in the case of america, i believe we are still first in space, so i was curious what the budget was for protecting our satellites. you know, certain defensive measures for space. i'm a big supporter of nasa and spacex and the military. just curious, what we are spending to protect our satellites and possibly protect our country from space. guest: happy to go into that, that is one of my areas of interest as well. first, i want to note that we have got very clear divisions in the united states about who is responsible for what in space. nasa is completely separate from the military, a separate budget. the budget is growing as well. nasa's job is to do science and exploration in space. that is what it focuses on, and that is separate from what the military does.

the military, of course, provides national security and in space, that means providing the capabilities that enable our forces in the ground and on the air, intelligence gathering, satellite, including gps. gps is owned and operated by the space force. that is something that has a civilian component to it that we have all become accustomed to as well. commercial companies like spacex may do business with the military, major business with nasa, but also may do business with other commercial companies in developing what is becoming incredible commercial space systems as well. the military's focus since the space force was created two years ago, its focus has really been on trying to improve our space capabilities and make them less vulnerable to attack.

we published a report every year on counterspace weapons developments with other countries looking at russia, china, iran, north korea. the types of weapons that they are developing and testing that can negate our advantage in space. we see a real proliferation of these capabilities. not just missiles that they can fire up into space to blow up a satellite, also electronic forms of attack where they can jam the signals going to and from a satellite, cyber attacks that could be used against the ground stations that control the satellites. even things like high-powered lasers that could blind the centers on satellites without creating any debris. given all of these advancements in anti-satellite weapons, that is one of the key jobs of the space force, to make our space capabilities, military space capabilities that are protected from these forms of attack. we are seeing the space force's

budget increased substantially in this budget request. a lot of that is actually just transfers from other parts of the military. when you stand up the space force, when they did that in 2019, it's not as if they were creating something new. what they were doing is transferring existing space capabilities and space personnel from different parts of the military, and that by transition of moving things into the space force has continued. one of the reasons we see the space forced a lot this year is because they are transferring into it the space development agency, which was a separate, independent space agency within the department of defense that is now being moved under the space force next year, and so that is one of the reasons we see the budget going up. as just a transfer of funding. and then we see more investments in space capabilities.

they are investing in new types of capabilities. the missile warning and missile tracking is one of those key areas, the largest acquisition program in the space force. they are investing in space launch capabilities, you name it. a lot of investments going on. what we are not seeing is growth in overhead and headquarters, and i think that is really important. it was one of the concerns about creating a new military service focused on space. people didn't want to see growth in the number of general officers, the number of headquarters staff. the way congress created the space force, it actually made it impossible to do a lot of that. and so we have seen hardly any increase in overhead cost. all the increases that we are seeing are going into new capabilities or they are just transferring fundings already in other parts of the defense budget. host: this is a caller from

texas, this is daniel. independent line. caller: this call is for todd about the conflict in ukraine. the defense department would be -- the defense department -- and i know when president trump was in office, he was not giving them money if they were not paying. how did these countries -- you know, nato is the protection service for them, yet we are the ones paying for their protection. can you elaborate on, you know, kind of explain to us how that works? guest: the way nato works is you don't just pay dues. it is not an organization that everyone pays dues and then nato goes out and has its own military. it just doesn't work that way.

nato is a military alliance, right? each country has their own sovereign military and what we have within nato is that every country devotes at least 2% of their gdp, gross domestic product or more to their military, so that each country would have a sizable and capable military according to their overall economic strength. what has happened is over the years, there are many native countries that were not meeting that threshold of spending 2% of gdp on their own military. germany is probably the most notable one of our nato allies. they felt well below. they have been around 1% of gdp that they have spent on the military, on their own military. so really, what we have been asking for years, and this was true under the obama

administration, under the trump administration and the bible is to ration is for these countries to increase to at least 2% of gdp on defense. what has happened with the russian invasion of ukraine is many of these nato countries that were spending less than they were supposed to have now seen the light and germany in particular has made a 180 degree turn and now it looks like they are planting and growing the defense budget so that they would actually need that 2% of gdp threshold within a few years. in that respect, if russia was trying to weaken nato, putin ended up actually doing the opposite, strengthening nato by doing something that the united states had not been able to do, and that is to get many of these allies to increase their own spending on their own defense. that looks like that is a positive development from the

u.s. perspective that these countries are going to be better able to defend themselves, and of course, the u.s. is already spending well above 2% of gdp on defense. having that additional contribution from our nato allies, i think, really goes a long way to helping the credibility of the deterrent that nato provides for conflict in europe. host: germany saying they are going to buy from us, how significant is that? guest: it is very significant that it really shows that germany has turned a corner in terms of, you know, the internal politics about defense spending. they are getting serious about building really capable forces, but we should note that this is going to take time. germany cannot just quickly turn around and build back up its military to the level it should have been for years under its

nato agreements. the decision to buy the f-35, for example, it will be years before they actually take the liberty of those aircraft and can actually have them operational and have units that are trained to employ them. honestly, it might be five or six years before they have those f-35s operational in germany. we've got to give it time. it will take time, but i think that is an example, a good, concrete example of how putin's invasion of ukraine has changed the deterrence and defense calculus in europe. host: michigan, democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro and mr. harrison. my question, i guess, statement, question, how much more do we pay for doing our military in a capitalistic system versus a communistic or socialistic system? i used to be a machinist and

then i was a salesman. i would go to a defense contractor and they would be drilling from the other side, doing the same thing. i came in with tooling that could take those five or six processes down to two or three and they told me we can't do that because we get paid per process that we do. when we have this kind of a capitalist system with raytheon, general dynamics and everybody that works making more money, how much more do we pay to get the same products versus a communistic or socialistic system? guest: i think the caller is highlighting some inherent difficulties in inefficiencies that are in our defense acquisition system and the

incentives that defense contracts can provide for industry are not always aligned with what we actually want these companies to be doing. in some cases, i think what he was talking about is what the call cost reimbursable contracts, where the government says to a company, i'm going to reimburse you your cost for doing the process, i want you to do it exactly the way i tell you to. whatever it costs, i am going to reimburse you plus a negotiated profit margin on top of it. that can create all sorts of perverse incentives were companies will do things knowing that they are inefficient or suboptimal, but because that is what the government is paying them to do. i don't know that it is a problem of our whole economic system, capitalism versus socialism, but i think that is a problem in their contracting system, and i think it is something that dod needs to work on, making sure when they do

defense acquisitions and contract the industry, make sure that the incentives, financial incentives provided in contract align with what the government actually wants to achieve from those contracts. make sure that we are not incentivizing bad behavior or inefficient behavior and in many cases, that means buying stuff under firm fixed price contracts instead of cost reimbursable where you get a company to sign up and say we can do that for this price and the government says ok, we are going to hold you to that price. if you can find a more efficient process, that is great. use that and you can make more profit because we will still pay the price that we negotiated. another way around this conundrum is, where possible, we can buy things as a service rather than a product. space is a great example of this. instead of buying launch vehicles, rockets as a product,

we are now buying them from companies like spacex as a service where you say i am not buying the rockets from you, i am giving you a satellite in saying put this into orbit. we are buying a large service. it is up to that company to figure out the most efficient and effective way to deliver that service. i think it requires a paradigm shift in defense acquisitions in many areas, but that is a gradual transformation. i think it is already starting to take root in the department. host: as this goes to congress now, what do you look for as far as how things change numbers-wise? guest: congress is going to scrutinize the 23 budget request over the coming months. we are going to hear a lot of testimony from senior military and civilian officials about this budget and the strategy that went into formulating it. i will be looking for, around summertime, we should see congress start to mark up the various defense bills, and that

will give us our first insight into how much higher congress might be thinking in terms of defense budget, but the biggest factor to watch is that this is a midterm election year. we are at a point where both the house and the senate could absolutely change control, change party control from democrat to republican, and so that could have a substantial impact, ultimately, on what congress does with the 23 budget request because it looks like if there is going to be a change in party control as we get to the election, the incentive of republicans will be to stop the defense budget from being passed on time, delay it until the new congress is sworn in, and then they might be able to get a better deal, a higher defense number. we could see this debate over the budget dragged out until perhaps this time next year before congress ultimately

enacts it. host: mr. harrison, thanks for your time today. we will do a round of open forum until 9:15 and if you want to participate, (202) 748-8000 free democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. we will take those calls when "washington journal" continuous. -- continues. ♪ announcer: c-span offers a variety of podcasts, something for every listener. weekdays, the latest from the nations's capital and every week, book notes plus has in-depth interviews with writers about their latest works. plus, audio from our archive to look at how issues of the day developed over years and

extensive conversations with historians about their lives and work. many of our television programs are also available as podcasts. you can find them all on the c-span now mobile apps or wherever you get your podcasts. first ladies in their own words. the eight part series looking at the role of the first lady, their time in the white house and the issues important to them. >> it was a great advantage to know what it was like to work in school because education is such an important issue both for a governor, but also a president. that was very helpful to me. >> using materials from c-span's award-winning biography series "first lady." >> i'm very much the kind of person who believes that you should say what you mean and mean what you say and face the consequences. >> and c-span online video

library will feature first ladies lady bird johnson, betty ford, rosalynn carter, nancy reagan, hillary clinton, maura busch, michelle obama, and melania trump. watch saturdays at 2:00 p.m. eastern on american history tv on c-span two, or listen to the series as a podcast on the c-span now free mobile app over every the podcasts. washington journal continues. host: if you want to text us your thoughts during this open forum, (202) 748-8003 is the number to do so. a meeting resulted in the committee deciding to hold two former trump aide's in criminal contempt. committee voted unanimously to recommend the charges against peter navarro. bass will soon vote on whether

to refer them to the justice department for prosecution. that news came as a federal judge in california was ordered to turn over documents to the house committee investigating january 6 in a ruling that concludes that former president trump "more likely than not committed crimes to obstruct the counting of electoral votes." wrote memos outlining options in which mike pence could change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. that decision yesterday by that california judge prompted a response from the committee chair, the january 6 committee chair. here is what he had to say. >> on the ruling to stop the select committee from obtaining certain records, as i said in their statement earlier today,

this ruling is a clear victory for the rule of law. i encourage people home to read what george carter wrote and consider his words very carefully. his warnings about the ongoing threat to american democracy should alarm every person in this country. i want to read a short excerpt from george carter's ruling. dr. eastman and president trump launched a campaign to overturn a democratic election, and action unprecedented in american history. the campaign was not confined to the ivory tower, it was a coup in search of a legal theory. the plan spurred violent attacks on the seat of our nation's government, led to the deaths of several law enforcement officers, and deepened public distrust in our political process. more than a year after the attack on our capital, the

public is still searching for accountability. i am proud to say that this committee is helping to lead that search for accountability. host: that committee hearing still available on our website if you want to see it on c-span.org. (202) 748-8000 democrats. (202) 748-8001 republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. the new york times reporting that also as a result of the meeting of the january 6 panel, a conversation they would like to have with supreme court justice clarence thomas' wife, saying in the reporting this morning that although the committee has been in possession of her text messages for months, not everyone on the documents. that prompted debate amongst the committee members who urged the panel to -- they concluded that she had relevant information

that was important for investigators to hear from that committee's interest. we will start with bob on this open forum. bob, joining us from fort lauderdale, florida. bob, thanks for calling and holding on. republican line, go ahead. caller: thanks for putting me on. just following up on the last conversation for a minute. coming out of a world war ii budget of 86% of gdp, when you trickle down to how big the country is now and everything that is going on, the air force in the army budget meeting this week, they brought something to my attention i didn't know was going on from the panama canal. it seems that china has showed up everywhere in every country down there is using lithium or oil and in fact, they are

following the fish from that area, whatever type of fish you want to talk about. the other day they were talking about to do. catching them before they are fully grown. i am glad the budget is where it is at so we can follow up on these unforeseen circumstances that are popping up at the public doesn't even really know about. host: that is bob. this is brian in nebraska. caller: i just want to encourage the government to continue to send all of the military aid that we can to the ukrainians. this is a critical mask on the russians that is time to pull back and it is time to continue and not slow down and ring this stuff to them in a timely manner because this is when they really need it. the ukrainians have stood up to a large military force and stop them, and they want to be a democratic country, we need to

support that in any way that we can. host: kevin is in spring hill, florida, republican line. caller: i want to talk about that whole defense thing. me being a neoconservative, i think it is important for us to intervene in foreign conflicts when necessary. you saw what happened when we pulled out of afghanistan. this taliban raghead terrorist fucks are back in power, and that's not good for anybody. someone just host: ask your previous guest about private contracting and how much it cost. there was a book which cited a number from congress that was

nine times the amount of using u.s. service members, but that might be an old number. so, thanks. host:host: if you are interested in hearing or seeing that segment with todd harrison, you can go to our website and view it. we talk about the mobile app a lot here, too. if you have got to go out and about and do things, you can download the free app on your phone, follow along, it provides streaming coverage live in a short archive as well if you miss something from the previous day. more information on c-span now. we will do open phones until about 9:15. (202) 748-8000 free democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. independents, (202) 748-8002. one of the people asked about ginni thomas, josh hawley talking to reporters, extending it to whether justice thomas should recuse himself from certain january 6 cases that might appear before the supreme

court. >> what is the implication, that the justice is signing off on her text messages? >> she was texting mark meadows that. >> i get that, but listen, she is an independent adult woman. it seems a little strange to me, all of these cause for her husband to be, one, minding her better? frankly, i think it is kind of misogynistic. you had better go get her under control. you are responsible for what she says. she has an independent person, you know? she has got her own political views. if you want to take issue with her, that is fine, but she is not on the bench, he is on the bench. i don't know. host: republican line, this is from dayton, ohio. caller: hello? host: you are on.

caller: ok. what i want to know is i am an old soldier. i was in germany in 1956, and this one today kind of reminds me of that. then, we had general eisenhower as president of the united states and he made the decision we were not going to stay there because we had been in two wars already, korea and world war ii. to me, the guy we've got in there today, ayden, i am not scared of him, he is an idiot. america has to stand up for its rights. we are taking care of too many other countries and we are not worrying about our own country. we've got people out there in the midwest with homes torn down by the storms and fires and stuff and we are worrying about a country across the water. they always fight each other

over there, they are not going to stop. on the second generation of the greatest generation because we were there after the war. the thing is, i don't know. america was the greatest country in the world, but we have to stop helping everybody who comes crying to us. i don't know anymore. host: go ahead and finish your thought. caller: i love america, i was born and raised here and i served time for it, but i am sick and tired of seeing america get used as a moneybag. i was in the army. all you see in france, yankees, go home.

host: let's hear from kathy in florida, republican line. caller: i just want to mention that we need to start at the local level and james shaw is a republican candidate running in florida for the commissioner of agriculture, and i saw an interview with him that he seems like an amazing man who could do a great job florida. and one thing we all learned as during the pandemic, a governor is more important than your president. we got to start at the local level. ron desantis, i thank god every day for him. host: what do you think about him signing that legislation into law yesterday, concerning the teaching of kids in school with the so-called "don't say gay" failed? -- bill? caller: that is all a lie. nobody wants their little children between kindergarten and third grade learning about sex and sex education. no, it has to be approved by the parents. that is how it was when i was a

child. when you went to school for any kind of health class, do your parents approve of this class you are about to have? that is the mockingbird, fake news media spreading lies. host: i did say so-called. the governor signing that into law yesterday. a couple stories on hunter biden. from the wall street journal, prosecutors looking at some of his financial concerns. in the past year they have called several of his associates to testify before the grand jury as part of their wide-ranging investigation. they are examining whether he violated tax or other laws.

prosecutors have focused in particular on payments from rosemont llc before going on to mr. biden, 2014-2019 after he held a board seat, for which he was paid $500,000 a month. they have asked about paperwork. there is more in the wall street journal. the washington times, congressional interest on the same person, carrie pickett writing that document preservation notices have been sent. members of the intelligence community were involved with the suppression of stories. more of that in the washington times. colorado, independent, fred, hello.

fred, hello. one more time for fred. he hung up. gary, dayton, ohio, democrat. caller: how are you doing? the government don't have no money to help the homeless. [indiscernible] prices keep going up. every time they give you a raise on social security, they raise the price of medicare. politicians, senators, congressmen, do they have that much invested in stock, and the pharmacy, that they cannot help the people of the u.s.? host: tom, michigan, holick, republican. caller: good morning.

it is a shame how the government protects biden andy harris -- and harris from the brain-dead things going on right now. the coverups, miss dealings. pelosi, back in the day, wanted to use the 25th amendment on trump. she thought he was losing it. biden is way past that point. both of them need to go. they are going to get into so much trouble. our economy isn't doing well. this started a year and a half ago. open borders and things like that, biden and harris are destroying our country. i don't understand how anyone

sticks up for them. with this thing with hunter -- it seems like the democrats are insulated because the doj and fbi are so tainted against republicans. not democrats. i don't get that. we are in a really weird time. it is so tainted. the coup against trump with hillary clinton and this russia collusion -- now we know what all happened. host: president biden yesterday talking about the release of the federal budget when it comes to financial matters, on his priority for reducing deficits in the budget plan. [video clip] >> fiscal responsibility. the previous administration ran up record budget deficits. in fact the deficit went up every year under my predecessor. my administration is turning

that around. last year we cut the deficit by $350 billion. this year, on track to cut by more than $1.3 trillion. that would be the largest one-year reduction in deficit in u.s. history. here's how we are achieving it. first, we are going to the economy. a record 6.6 million jobs created since i took office and we have generated 5.7% gdp growth, the best current in over 40 years. this has led to substantial increase in government revenues and dramatically improved our fiscal situation. secondly, this record job growth has made it possible for us to responsibly and significantly cut back on emergency spending. earlier in the pandemic, it was right to give people help to

make ends meet to keep this economy going. because of the progress we made dealing with emergencies, the labor market is strong and unemployment claims are at historic lows. we entered the pandemic, employment assistant programs, americans are back to work. host: rebecca, gaithersburg, maryland, democrat. caller: thank you for allowing us this opportunity. i do support ketanji. i will be heartened to see our highest court look more like the face of this country. she has a razor-sharp sense of the rule of law and a reverence for following it. i look forward to seeing her go to work on the supreme court. host: reporting in the washington post of the senate judiciary committee, monday formally scheduled a vote on the nomination for the court on april 4.

a timeline would put the judge on track to be confirmed as the 116th justice and the first black woman by the end of next week. procedural votes on the senate floor next week culminating in a confirmation vote thursday or friday. more reporting from the washington post. jackie, wisconsin, republican. caller: hi, couple quick questions. only in american politics can you have a $5.8 trillion budget and make some kind of point it would reduce the deficit. [indiscernible] the numbers don't add up. secondly, when it comes to the january 6 committee, i was talking to randy rhoads the other day. i like to get everyone's point

of view. when we were talking about january 6, she did not know the u.s. capitol had been bombed in the 1970's and '80's. somehow people think this is the first time ever anyone has gone against our government. and all hell is going to break loose because the republicans or right wing whatever you want to call them came after the capital on january 6. this has happened before. it just amazes me no one on the democratic side and i am talking, a liberal media source, had no idea the capital had been bombed previously. host: when it comes to another, more news about the january 6 committee, a story in the washington post this morning saying internal records from the day turned over to the house select committee show a gap in

president trump's phone logs of seven hours and 37 minutes, including when the building was being violently assaulted. according to documents obtained, the lack of official white house notation on the sixth means the committee has no record of his phone conversations as protesters forcibly entered the building. iris, independent, michigan, hello. caller: hi, pedro. gee, i hope everyone is able to stand up straight with everything being thrown at us. pedro, how is anything on this earth going to clean up all the rebel? we have not cleaned it up from world war ii? it is all over the place. some of it looks old. some of it looks like it is from

75 or 100 years ago. what about the death camps? are they going to stay? who is going to clean it up? is that what our soldiers will be doing? where they going to put it? how do you build on top of it? we cannot keep creating rubble all over the world and expect someone to come in and invent a way to clean it up. you cannot build on top of it. the memories are still there. this nonsense has to stop! we have to get this war culture out of our brain and start thinking about how to preserve life rather than take it. host: david, baltimore, maryland, republican. caller: thank you for taking my call, sir. just want to talk about the possible new supreme court justice, judge jackson.

people are supporting this lady, it seems like she is anti-american, she hates her country. what ted cruz was talking about the other day, poor and on the internet -- porn on the internet. it is disgusting to see that. we need someone who is hard on crime. this lady lets criminals on the street. anybody could ever vote for joe biden, -- these people just don't carry about -- just don't care about the safety of american people. they are just so anti-american. biden hates this country. that should be a requirement for presidents to love their country. host: the hill reporting signs

of hope for an end to the russian-ukraine war. a russian official said moscow would reduce military action in the north. negotiations between the sides are taking place in turkey. a little more than a month into the conflict, stating much of ukraine, stiff sanctions on moscow. they have wrapped for the day. kent, san diego, california, democrat. caller: hi. i keep listening to republicans and it drives me crazy. time after time, republicans have done traitorous things. they negotiated with the iranians. they tried to overturn the election. when that didn't work, they attacked to the capital. they say democrats hate this

country. i don't understand how they can get away with saying this stuff. anything like a straight face. that is all i want to say. [indiscernible] -- democrats hate this country. republicans are straight up traders. -- traitors. host: the new york times reporting officials will start vaccinating undocumented migrants apprehended by border officials but not expelled under the public health order in several areas including san diego, el paso and the rio grande valley. according to directions given to officials on sunday, if single adults refuse to be vaccinated, they will be detained and put into deportation proceedings. if they claim asylum, they will

be released under stringent conditions. if families refuse vaccination, they will be given monitoring devices. tina, alabama, republican, good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for this service. to jackie, who mentioned the pentagon and the capitol building in the 1960's, carol rosenberg served time for that. she was pardoned and she is now a board member on black lives matter. host: last call on this topic. appreciate all of you who participated. our last segment takes a look at supply chain issues particularly now as russia and ukraine factor in. joining us for the conversation, patrick penn field will answer your questions on it when

washington journal continues. ♪ announcer: c-span's new american presidents website is your one-stop guide to our nations commander-in-chief, george washington to joe biden. find short biographies, video resources, life facts and rich images that tell the story of their lives and presidencies. all-in-one, easy to browse, c-span website, visit www.c-span.org/presidents to explore this rich catalog of c-span resources today. ♪ announcer:. at least six presidents recorded conversations while in office here many of them on c-span's new podcast. >> you will hear about the 1964 civil rights act, presidential campaign, the gulf of tonga incident and the war in vietnam.

not everyone knew they were being recorded. >> certainly johnson secretary's new because they were tasked with transcribing many of those conversations. in fact they were the ones who made sure the conversations were taped, as johnson would signal to them, through an open door between his office and there's. >> you will also hear blunt talk. >> i want to report of the number of people who signed the day he died. if i can ever go to the bathroom, i won't go. i promise you i won't go anywhere. announcer: find it on the c-span now mobile app, go wherever you get your podcasts. announcer: washington journal continues. host: we welcome back patrick

penfield of syracuse university, here to talk about supply chain in the u.s. and how it is impacted by things like russia and ukraine. guest: thank you for having me. host: let's start with where and how the supply chain was impacted with covid. once we establish that, what do russia in ukraine add to the mix? guest: covid changed the demand patterns in the u.s. a lot of changes. people ordered more online. stay at home. they started to remodel. a lot of issues within the chain. the stimulus money went in from the government. fantastic gdp growth, 5.7%, 2021. coronavirus changed how we did business. the first two quarters of 2022,

we saw we had to recover somewhat. the big thing was quarter three, things would get better, hopefully things would go back to normal. host: that is the covid section. factor into what we see russia and ukraine, as far as what might happen to supply chains because of the conflict. guest: the analogy is when you have someone sick. we were sick with covid literally and got hit with this geopolitical situation. that caused more issues within the chain. now with this geopolitical issue, we see other problems. some of your viewers may know but the ukraine incident and russia make 3% of gross domestic product. it is not huge. what they make can impact the supply chain. 30% of our wheat, global wheat comes from ukraine. 20% of corn comes from russia and the ukraine.

7% of neon gas from ukraine. we get all types of metals from russia, a lot of base materials. when the conflict started, we started to see this change. unfortunately, the big impact will be with food. the big concern is food insecurity issues that may happen later on. right now we are fine as far as food goes. the big issue is ukraine has implanted anything. the harvest in the summers is the big concern. this is where we see food insecurity issues. host: go ahead. i'm sorry. guest: ukraine is the bread basket of europe and africa and asia. without them having a summer harvest, there are big issues in the future. host: we will show a map from the usda as far as wheat production in ukraine.

is the eu most impacted? to what degree is the u.s. impacted? guest: i don't think the u.s. will be impacted much. it is about price. in the u.s. we will have food. the issue will be food prices go up. the continent i have a big concern about is africa. africa is reliant on getting food from ukraine and russia. if they are unable to get that, you will see food insecurity issues which could be leading to civil unrest. host: cecelia ralph of the council of economic advisers talked about supply chain issues. i will play you what she had to say and get your response. [video clip] >> important moment for democracy. what we know is putin's invasion of ukraine will have impacts on energy and food prices. as the president said, we can expect that while our sanctions will have their focus and most

of their impact on the russian economy, we can expect we will see a bit of impact in the u.s. as well. the first is impact on gas prices and oil prices. we can expect fertilizer and energy prices, to see impact on food. the president is focused on doing what he can to ensure increases are contained and not, doing what he can to ease it for the american people. he has worked with our partners to increase additional 60 million barrels from the petroleum reserve. he has other options on the table he will be considering as they come up. in terms of food prices, the u.s., we don't expect a shortage here because we are net exporters. we are acutely aware of the fact there are regions in the world that depend heavily on exports of wheat, in particular and other grains from ukraine and russia and we are working with partners to minimize the impact

globally. host: to that last part, you heard her talk about the efforts of the administration. for what they were doing before for supply chains, what is the result? what more can they do? guest: they can only do so much. really it is out of their hands to a certain degree. they can influence and help but for the most part they cannot do much. this is the dilemma. it is up to the corporations and supply chain professionals to figure out how do we work with constraints we have? that is the dilemma. the longer the ukraine russian war goes on, the worse our situation will become. host: sorry. (202)-748-8000 for democrats, (202)-748-8001 for republicans, (202)-748-8002 for independents. i'm sorry, we are doing regional lines. (202)-748-8000 for the eastern and central time zones.

mountain and pacific time zones, (202)-748-8001. you can send us a text at (202)-748-8003 to talk with patrick penfield of syracuse university. oil and gas. everyone was concerned for weeks about prices. as far as supply, where are we? guest: russia is the second largest exporter of oil. unfortunately, we have another situation brewing with oil. we have taken steps, eu partners have taken steps to stop buying oil from russia. that means there is less supply. unfortunately, prices will go up more. i expect, in certain states, you might see a gallon up over six dollars probably in summer if the war continues. host: if those prices start to

rise, how long could they stay that high? guest: this is a big issue. until the invasion ends, that is when we start to see price pressures go down with oil and gas. until that happens, you will see stuff go up. there is an alternative using renewable energy sources but the time to do that would take years. that is the dilemma. short-term, a lot of pain. long-term, if we move to renewable energy, we would have these, we would not have these type of issues. host: electronics, microprocessors and the like. we heard concerns about this for months. where are we? guest: it is worse. bad situation. the big problem within the electronics world is semi conductors. ukraine produces 70% neon gas

used in the process. unfortunately there is not other capacity threat the world. ukraine was almost the sole source. there are producers in china and the u.s.. unfortunately there is no one right now that can fill that gap of neon gas ukraine was supplying. right now, most of the customers probably have six months to buy. once the supply dries up, you will see more issues with electronics. host: reporting from the washington examiner on twitter. western allies will squeeze russia by directly targeting chip supply chains, according to a treasury department person. there is already a chip shortage. factor that in. guest: for russia, they are dependent, like us, on outside sources for their tips. if they cannot get chips and

produce electronics. a smart approach. it will limit what they can do. unfortunately it will not help us. we will be in similar straits, not as bad as russia. we will not have what we are accustomed to seeing from a semiconductor standpoint. host: patrick penfield. brian, tampa, florida, you're on with our guest. caller: good morning. i have to say it appears this inflation stuff is really not very truthful. i thought i heard them say we are a net exporter of foods. i think that is a big lie. a comment about used cars. all the rental companies, excuse

me, have a net decrease in their inventories. they must've had millions of cars that should have gone into the used car market, so prices should have gone down. it is really terrible there are too many people being co-opt and want to raise prices for their own gain. it is sad. the world is really going downhill. there is way too much corruption. guest: from the inflation standpoint, i understand what you're saying, brian. you are probably going to see double-digit inflation by the end of the year. we have enough food in the u.s. it is a question of supply and demand. if you are a farmer, you are going to want to get the most you can from what you harvest, which is their right from a capitalist standpoint. that is what will happen.

other countries won't be able to get supply. right now we are fine. six months from now there is no ukraine harvest. 30% of wheat, 20% of corn from the area. it is not being harvested. those folks dependent on that have to get it someplace else. what will probably happen is you will see this occur in the u.s., we will have enough food. prices will go up because there are other customers the farmers can potentially ship to. anytime you take supply out of the chain, that is what will usually happen, prices will go up. oil and gas is another example. if you take what russia contributes to the world out in europe uses a lot and so do other countries in africa, then it has to get it someplace else. they are being told they cannot get gas or oil from russia. that is what is going to happen. you see less supply because you have more demand. prices will go up again. host: to the point of getting it

somewhere else, it was in the president's budget request yesterday specifically addressing supply chain issues. setting aside $230 million for port development, $1 billion for harbor maintenance, 125 million dollars to boost domestic manufacturing, more for solar manufacturing. what can be done as far as improving the flow of things to the u.s. and from the u.s.? guest: for the past 40 years, we have been negligent in looking at infrastructure. it is in pretty bad shape. rhodes, bridges, ports. any money that goes toward that, hopefully to improving the efficiency, making that stuff better for us is going to be a huge investment helping us immensely. we need those investments. i am a big proponent of manufacturing in the u.s. the more we can manufacture ourselves, the better jobs we can offer. our standard of living goes up.

i believe it is a win-win situation when we invest in ourselves and try to get better from an infrastructure standpoint. host: the president early on saying he would talk with boards and those working at the ports to alleviate the backup. what has been the result of that? guest: it has not gone down much. unfortunately, the ports are still clogged. they did make some effort. we saw some stuff alleviated. we have another issue going on. china is not shipping as much as they have because they have covid outbreaks now. china is our largest supplier. $500 billion of trade with them last year. unfortunately the chinese look at covid differently than we do. they locked down. right now, the big ports are locked down so we are not seeing the stuff coming over. what should happen is, hopefully, the ports clean up ships there but unfortunately,

when they open, we will get another wave of ships. the unfortunate thing is the ports have been unable to catch up with demand. a lot of it is because ports are not very efficient. they are the least efficient ports in the u.s., actually the world. the other dilemma is there is a potential longshoreman strike that may happen in july. a lot of negotiations are going on now. normally, you would see a slowdown, as far ships being unloaded. that is a concern. unfortunately, we have not really seen -- really what needs to happen there, china clearing out those ports and not having any backlogs. host: the new york times saying new contracts could affect 22,000 workers employed at 29 ports along the west coast. guest: absolutely. i am concerned.

if there is a disruption, it will be 2021 all over again. the same situation we had, trying to get stuff. i would say a lot of retailers are trying to get summer stock for stores. that is because again, a lot of stuff they buy comes overseas from china and they cannot get that through the supply chain. a lot of them now don't have the summer stock they are accustomed to having on their floors. host: marilyn, you are on with our guest. missouri, i apologize. caller: no problem. professor, i have a question. one of the silliest things we can do in this world is sanction countries. the country i'm calling about is zimbabwe, who have some of the richest land in the world.

they can't sell their crops. why can't we just take the sanctions off zimbabwe and let them start selling to replace what ukraine can't? thank you. guest: that is a great point. again, i don't know what the sanctions are for. usually civil rights issues. i am a proponent of making sure -- there are sanctions on countries that violate human rights issues. i am not absolutely sure. i don't disagree. if there is a way we can look to see if they are still applicable, it may make sense to waive those if there are no violations happening. one thing i would like to add is tariffs. one of the things the biden administration wants to look at is do we still need to enact tariffs with china right now? china being one of our largest

countries we buy from? it may make sense to suspend because i don't think the tariffs have done what they were supposed to do. the help with inflationary pressures, that might be one thing to do the administration could look at is, hey, should we stop or suspend tariffs right now because of the situation going on? host: stephen, pennsylvania, good morning. let me push the button, i apologize, stephen. caller: good morning, professor and c-span. what i talked about over a year ago on c-span about the supply chain's coming into crisis, especially with the farming. the ukraine crisis and the planting season has started. i saw this morning my one friend in the middle of ukraine put up his farm and showed planting potatoes with wheat. their biggest trade partner at one time was china.

they refuse to sell to china because of what is going on with the russian conflict. i see a lot of the things that could be rectified quick would be to reconnect all the presidential mandates mr. trump put in, taken off the table from day one. that affected the u.s. more than anything with self-sufficiency. if a loaf of bread costs me $3.25, and i watch the farm market report, that brett is going to go up at least -- that is going to go up at least $.75 per loaf, at least on the market. all these other contingencies will push the prices up. from the older generations in my area, from world war ii and the depression -- i took all those

stories and put them together. the women i talked to at grocery stores in the baking area, they keep telling me, young men, buy an extra bag of flour, and extra bag of sugar and learn how to cook. you really need that in the future. host: thanks. guest: the caller brings up great points in regards to self-sufficiency. i am a proponent, it makes sense if we can but also we need to be good citizens of the world. i agree with what the caller is saying that it makes sense to be self-sufficient as you possibly can, then we are less reliant. i believe resiliency is to have multiple sources. it can help your supply chain when you have geopolitical issues like the russian invasion of ukraine. if we can take a look at both, how can we become more self-sufficient and do our part

to help the world during the situation, i think that would be the right approach. host: the house and the senate passed legislation to help competitiveness. of what has been passed, what do you think it will do? could improvements have been made? guest: it is something that should happen. i am a proponent of that. the one concern i have is government spending. if it is spending on the right stuff, it makes sense. the big issue is what going on in the world. china has this made in china 2025 rep. $1.5 trillion invested, upgrading different sectors, specifically semi conductor production and autonomous cars and ai. the reason being this, the chinese realize if they can become self-sufficient in these types of technologies, they will have a leg up on the rest of the

world. the u.s. needs to do that. we have to see what is going on in the rest of the world, start investing in some of the sectors that are vitally important to the future, such as semi conductor chip manufacturing, autonomous driving, ev's, this is the future. i think this is something the biden administration is doing the right thing, trying to get congress to pass this. from a legislation standpoint, it looks fine to me. i wish it was more focused on other sectors but for the most part, it is the right move, especially when you look at what other countries are doing. host: sectors such as what? guest: i would look at some of the stuff from the technology sector, specifically. i would focus effort and attention on semiconductor production. autonomous vehicles is another thing we need to invest more. renewable energy sources, trying

to get our arms around that. not just solar. windfarms, other things that can help us get off reliance of oil and gas. if we can do that we would not have to worry about this issue where we have to pay six dollars for gas in the summer. host: ralph, augusta, georgia, hello. caller: i would like to get something clear. supply chain, if i'm not mistaken, safety comes into play. if you lift on the crane, a certain ship, with the wind, a lot of rain could happen -- it will be back up for a while until we can actually get those loaded. the others are going to be coming in. it started, if i'm not mistaken, when we put that tariff,

previous administration on china and other products bringing here. quickly, i had to pay extra money when my car was in the shop because they did not have the part. i don't know if it was on the ship but it took over a week to get my car back in. safety safety. if it is going to be backed up for some time. thank you, sir. guest: i am a proponent of safety too. safety is paramount. it is always the first thing you should focus on when running an operation. the problem is it is not necessarily safety. it just has to do with efficiency and productivity now. as the caller stated, this is the dilemma all are facing. leadtime for parts is getting longer and longer, due to the ports, the covid lockdowns happening in china and the

geopolitical situation in russia and ukraine. for the most part, expect to see more of that in the near term future, when we are waiting for more things. unfortunately, prices are going to be going up also. host: around the holidays we saw pictures of supply ships waiting to come to port. is that a phenomenon still happening? what is the status? guest: still happening. the ports have parked the ships further down so it is not as bad looking but for the most part, it is not as bad as it was during the holidays. 70 ships are waiting to be unloaded versus over 100. part of it is because, what is going on from a covid standpoint and china. once echoes away, you will start to see ports open up and more congestion. the big issue we have to focus on is what is going to happen in

may and june when negotiations go on for the longshoreman contract. the problem is you have 30% of freight that comes through the ports of long beach and los angeles. that is the issue. host: do you think because so much attention has been paid to the ports, longshoremen will be emboldened to hold out longer? guest: possible. from a negotiation standpoint, they have a position of power. the longshoremen are known as the royalty of unions. they are very strong, very powerful. they have a lot from a negotiation standpoint. for the most part, if i were the port authorities, i would try to negotiate fast, so that way we do not have an issue, ongoing before the holidays. host: jeffrey, pennsylvania. caller: may i ask professor

penfield what his opinion of the administration of the american government in particular mumbles biden and his peppermint patty vice president? guest: i think people believe government can do a lot from a business standpoint. it is tough. they can only do so much. they can regulate. they can help with subsidies. they contacts. for the most part it is up to companies -- they can tax. for the most part it is up to companies. we have an amazing supply chain group of professionals doing herculean things just to get stuff to folks in stores. i'm very thankful we have really

great supply chain professionals that are making things happen. the government can only do so much. republican or democratic, it is really difficult to have a government alleviate problems and issues going on right now. host: is this the commerce department taking the lead on these issues? guest: it is a combination. pete buttigieg is doing good stuff. it is a combination of efforts. they can only do so much. really it is about the corporations and companies fixing a lot of situations going on right now. they can help, but they cannot solve. host: jd, arkansas, go ahead. caller: you were talking about the price of gasoline. possibly going to six dollars per gallon this summer.

i am kind of curious about the way gas is priced. for example, let's say exxon on the corner down here sells gas for five bucks a gallon. they buy that gas from a refinery, i guess, i don't know, and the refinery buys the oil they use to refine it from individual oil producers. that is what i am not clear about. how does the chain actually work here? who sets the price to six dollars for that gallon of gas? guest: great question. throughout the supply chain, everyone gets a cut of the profits. one of the things happening now -- there are a couple things, especially with refineries. one of the things that changes prices is when they switch from winter blend to summer blend. refineries shut down, make

changes, usually takes a month between march and april, then when there is no supply, prices go up. when you see a barrel of oil go up from a cost standpoint, that means that is how much more the refineries have to pay to bring it in and process and be able to ship it to the gas stations. that is where refineries take a hit, when the barrel of oil goes up. then you have the gas station themselves. they have to make money. i am with the viewer. it almost seems like there is collusion going on when you look at corner gas stations as far as prices being similar. that has been the way the market has been. the other thing that gets under my skin is when you see the price of oil goes down quickly, then you don't see the impact at the gas station. a lot of people said they have already bought that but when you see the price of oil go up, you see the gas prices go up incrementally.

you are like, it shouldn't happen that fast. i think there are some games being played but this is a capitalistic society. everyone is looking to see how much profit we can make. that is where governance has to monitor and regulate the situations. host: gerard, georgia, hello. caller: how you doing? i was listening to you about the ports. i thought california, they outlawed people with three-year-old trucks or more from participating in shipping. that would cause a blockage. i don't hear anyone talking about that. the guy talking about gasoline -- i mean, they cut off all the sources except the tanker cars coming from canada. one of the billionaires that supports the democratic party.

they use tankers that the pipeline was going to put them out of business. i don't hear anyone talking about that. am i crazy? what do you think about that? guest: i don't know the specifics about how things get hear from certain entities. i am aware of how things are supposed to go. let me talk about the truck situation. to my knowledge, i don't know if that is really the case, as far as three-year-old trucks. i think there was something they were trying to enact, and that was to reduce pollution because you have older trucks with a lot of dirty diesel. you can see were that may help. i believe they postponed that based upon what was happening. there is an issue, when you are trucker, you go into a port, you are waiting. those port truckers don't get paid until they get to load. that has been one of the big issues. a lot of truckers are adverse to going to ports because they are not getting money and they have

to wait in a long line. that is the big issue going on as far as trucks at port. in regards to canada, there was that pipeline project that got suspended. tankers, rail, probably one of the major ways you would get oil or gas to the u.s. from canada. to my knowledge i have not heard of too many issues there or if there is a monopoly going on right now. i don't think there is but i am not sure. host: how have retailers worked around the supply chain issue? guest: it is very difficult for retailers. a lot are having a difficult time trying to get summer stock for the floor. if you are a big retailer, like walmart, home depot, they are leasing their own fleets of cargo ships to come here to the u.s. to get things through faster. your smaller retailers are having a very difficult time

trying to get stuff because they do not have the wherewithal, power or money to lease a freighter. if you are a small retailer struggling, as far as trying to get stock in, that is the problem. having stuff to sell. if you cannot sell stuff, you won't be in business long. that is the primary issue. host: a few more minutes with our guest. steve, anaheim, california, next up. caller: good morning, pedro. so many issues, so little time. on the ports, they have started to ban trucks. the price of shipping has gone up. they are charging more for shipping. as far as oil, we don't have the pipeline that goes over the rockies. we take 40% oil from overseas, has to come through other

countries. [indiscernible] the other way would be to ship it from the u.s. around the panama canal to california, which is very expensive. venezuela used to do it because they are halfway there. this is the perfect time for us to start thinking of moving to hydrogen fuel. we have an ocean out there. we haven't put in regs to make it cheap enough. we are still relying on wind and solar power. it is time for the government to think outside the box. god knows if they ever will. guest: it makes a lot of sense. there is not one renewable resource solution. you have to look at a varied

solution. that is the way we can get away from nonrenewable energy. government has been making moves. could they make more? absolutely. this is where private industry has to come into play, look for opportunities. supply and demand, those economics could make a big change. that is probably what we will see more, especially with the auto industry and the move to electric vehicles. host: you talk about sanctions. in general, how does trade policy impact supply chain? guest: it definitely is adversely impacting our chain with china because we are paying higher prices from the tariffs the trump administration enacted. they have not been repealed. it is causing issues. if your company, you may look at sourcing from china, there is a

tariff. maybe i will go some place else. tariffs were supposed to push companies to look elsewhere. unfortunately it has not happened. we bought more from china last year than the year before. it is one of those things, the government plays a big role as far as trade goes and supply chains. the tariffs, trade sanctions, all this stuff plays a big role within supply chain's. host: lynn, kentucky, go ahead. caller: i would disagree with you the lockdowns in china caused the supply chain disruption. i think outsourcing our manufacturing jobs because this -- caused this problem. putting the ships out further in the harbor for a perception shot is wrong. we need to get the men to unload those ships quicker.

and quit outsourcing american jobs to foreign countries. thank you. guest: i will not disagree, if you look over time, the 1980's and 1990's, a lot of that industry is difficult to bring back home because we do not have the skill set and resources. i am a firm proponent of manufacturing in the u.s. we need to. that is the best way to create wealth in a country. that is what the chinese are doing. they are investing much more with programs in high-tech type stuff. the u.s., it sounds like we are moving that direction. if the government can put more focus on trying to develop manufacturing jobs, that would be great for the u.s. that is what we want to push and have happened. host: you talk a lot about ports on the west coast. are there other ports in the u.s. that could compensate? guest: the ports are not big enough. that is the issue.

they do not have equipment, cranes. they are not deep enough. that has caused a dilemma. it is difficult to move mega freighters to different ports within the u.s. you can move smaller ships but the mega freighters are stuck using long beach and los angeles. if there was a focus or effort to open different ports, to expand them or judge them to handle mega freighters, that would be an option. as of today, it is very limited as to where you can go with these freighters. host: roger, great neck, new york. caller: hello good morning! how are you feeling today on this cold day? host: fine, thank you sir. caller: i have two questions on the oil and supply chain and all that stuff. during the pandemic there was a situation with the supply chain. in world war i, there was a

situation with the supply chain, oil. world war ii, korea, vietnam, there was also a supply chain. my question is, to alleviate the supply chain and all that, why don't we send ground forces and nato into ukraine? president zelenskyy wants u.s. participation. guest: i am not a political expert. i believe the reason being is if u.s. forces were to enter ukraine, that could start world war iii. that is what the u.s. has been trying to avoid by not sending our military into ukraine, specifically aircraft. that is the issue. we cannot send any personnel in because it could be considered

an act of war. unfortunately, we would be drawn into this invasion of ukraine. host: bill, albany, new york, last call. caller: just quickly, as far as china is concerned, they have been getting away with trade for years, and of course we had the tariffs on them. my concern is they create most of the supplies with pharmaceuticals. why don't we go back to trying to produce things here in our country so we don't have to be reliable on them? i think the tariffs were working and that is why china got mad. they got very upset at that. our energy should go back to the way it was in the previous administration. i think we would be better off. guest: i agree with what you

were saying about the pharmaceutical industry. it makes a lot of sense to do that here. the issue is if you are a corporation and looking to maximize profits, a lot of these pharmaceutical companies go overseas because they can produce drugs cheaply and make more money. that has been the primary reason why they have made the move. i agree with the caller. it makes sense for the u.s. to have certain sectors stay here in the u.s. more for national security issues and reasons. i think that would be a wise course of action. i think it is very difficult because lobbyists, corporations and different changes of administration. i think it makes sense and would be prudent to have sectors stay in the u.s. just from a national security standpoint. host: patrick penfield of syracuse university, here to talk supply chain issues. thank you for giving us her

time. guest: great to be on the show. host: with the release of the budget yesterday, the office of of management and budget director will testify before the house committee, starting momentarily. you can watch that on c-span3, www.c-span.org and c-span now. thank you for watching another edition of washington journal comes your way tomorrow morning at 7 a.m. see you then. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government. we're funded by these television companies and more. including wow. >> the world has changed. today, the fast, reliable

internet connection is something no one can live without so wow is there for our customers with speed, reliability, value, and choice. now more than ever, it all starts with great internet. wow. >> wow supports c-span as a public service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> this morning, we'll bring you a congressional tribute, honoring alaska congressman don young, who died earlier this month at the age of 88. he served the state for nearly 50 years, and at the time of his death was the longest serving member of the current u.s. house. watch live coverage at 11:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. online at c-span.org. or watch full coverage on our free video app c-span now. >> c-span now is a free mobile app featuring your unfiltered view of what's