charter communications. >> charter is proud to be recognized as one of the best internet providers and we are just getting started. building 100,000 miles of new infrastructure to reach those who need it most. >> charter communications supports c-span as a blic service along with these other television providers, giving you a front row seat to democracy. >> this morning on "washington journal," your calls and comments live on the air and we will discuss this week's congressional hearings on recent bank failures, the house debate on republican energy bill and other news of the day with congressman sean casten and pennsylvania congressman dan user. "washington journal" is next. ♪ ♪ host: the strength of the

u.s.-israel relationship has been tested numerous times over the years, most times with military or national skirting news but internal is really politics, prime minister benjamin netanyahu's government moved to significantly alter the country's judicial process prompting nationwide strikes. the prime minister has halted but not canceled his move to change the judiciary and this internal is really political conflict has brought on u.s. scrutiny and criticism including from president biden. good morning and welcome to "washington journal." it's thursday, march 30 2023. what's behind the u.s.-israel tensions rising, your thoughts on those rising tensions at

(202) 748-8001 on the line for republicans. we are in facebook and twitter and instagram and we will look for your tweets as well. there are some comments on some -- from the israeli prime minister from president biden at a democracy summit at the white house. all of that is ahead on "washington journal." we start with the headline from the associated press.

joining us to help understand some of this is the associated press diplomatic reporter matthew lee and welcome. guest: good morning, thank you. host: how did this seemingly internal domestic issue become such a diplomatic flashpoint between the countries? guest: it's become a kind of flashpoint because of the massive protests that have rocked israel over this judicial reform package as well as attracting a great deal of concern from president biden's fellow democrats and many in t american jewish community w

traditionally arelwart and absoluterters of israel. there is concern i his government which is then and furthest r government israel has seen our perhaps moving down a path toward less democracy and more authoritarian rule which of course is a concern the administration has worldwide. they are seeing hints or suggestions that might be happening in such a close partner in israel is problematic for the administration and i think that's why we are seeing this kind of frosting us. host: what are some of the elements in this plan proposed by the netanyahu government that concern the united states officials? guest: the concern is not just

among the administration but among many in israel as well that this would remove one of the key checks on the executive branch in israel. as we know, democracies thrived on the idea of checks and balances. what this would do would be to allow the knesset, the israeli parliament to overturn is really supreme court decisions and it changes the way judges, the justices, are chosen to give politicians a lot more power in doing that. the concern is that an independent judiciary which the administration and many others believe is fundamental for a functioning democracy is being eroded and chipped away and will no longer be independent. host: on the international scale, we've seen treat --

street protests before in israel but this is not something we have seen before with massive strikes and protests us the country. what cause the prime minister to push the pause button on this plan? guest: these protests happen going on for some time and i traveled with secretary of state blinken in february and the protests were going on then. the ultimate cause for the delay or the decision to delay this was when his defense minister came out and said publicly that these proposed changes were splitting the country, dividing the country and posing a national security risk. after that speech, netanyahu fired the defense minister and that really ignited the protests , shutting down major highways

and the centers of israel's largest cities. host: what will you be watching for? can you tell us what's going on behind the scenes? what will you be watching for in the coming days as this conflict continues between the u.s. and israel? guest: i think what we will see is an attempt at least two cool things down. it's in neither countries interest for their to be friction. we saw a little bit of that yesterday when the white house came out to say this is what it is and we are pleased there been a delay but the problem with all of this is this plan has been put on pause. it has not been abandoned. there is a sense for fear among some that this is kind of

kicking the can down the road in the same issue is going to come up again as soon prime minister netanyahu and his government pick it back up. host: our viewers and listeners can follow matt lee reporting on the state department on the story and more on twitter. thanks as always for joining us. guest: thank you very much. host: we are "washington journal "washington journal opening a conversation here on" about the rising tensions between the u.s. and israel and in particular over this traditional land. and the pause that plan by the israeli prime minister. here are the lines --(202) 748-8000 for democrats, (202) 748-8001 for republicans and independents (202) 748-8002. and we welcome your comments via twitter.

from the wall street journal this morning, they are reporting on the issue -- that's from the wall street journal this morning. here the president yesterday asked by reporters for his views on the domestic conflict in israel over this issue. [video clip] >> what about israel?

>> like many strong supporters of israel, i am very concerned and i am concerned they get this straight. -- they cannot continue down this road. i sort of made that clear. hopefully, the prime minister will act in a way that he will try to work out a genuine compromise but that remains to be seen. >> are you inviting the prime minister to the white house? >> not in the near term. >> [indiscernible] >> i delivered a message. >> [indiscernible] how do you respond to that? >> things are exploding in america, anything can happen but so i will not speculate.

we are not interfering, they know my position and they know america's position in no the american jewish position. >> [indiscernible] >> thank you. host: opening conversation this morning on rising tensions between the u.s. and israel, these are the lines -- some comments on social media and via text --

let's hear from greg calling on the independent line and mechanics cure -- in mechanicsburg, pennsylvania. caller: good morning, my first comment on this issue -- you have not mentioned it early in this program. didn't the people you just had a clip of hunters dead trying to talk to reporters and isn't he the guy that wants to stack the supreme court? not the israeli but the u.s. supreme court because -- is not him but whoever writes the teleprompter but the people who write the teleprompter are upset with the u.s. supreme so they

wanted the congress to do exactly what they now criticized netanyahu wanting to do in israel. is that hypocritical? i think it is. host: paul is next on the independent line, go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm in connecticut, not massachusetts. my view probably doesn't differ from a lot of people in the country that have been locked out of the debate previously. if you were to criticize israel, you were anti-semitic area now, we see the local people there in israel are concerned, not only about these changes but the way that palestinians are treated. it is the unspoken truth of war and israel does not want to go to the table. they want to dispossess further

lands and property of christians in jerusalem of palestinians and arabs that have citizenship and have been marginalized in an apartheid state. peace, not apartheid, read jimmy carter's book and we have learned nothing from it. people are getting hurt from policies. yes, they have a right to defend themselves, but there mantra is for every death, we will exact a multitude of deaths on our enemies. the u.s. and israel are quick to go to war but not to the diplomacy table. host: paul mentioned palestinians and a report by yahoo! news --

larry is up next on the republican line in canton, massachusetts, good morning. caller: good morning. explain this to me. israel is a democracy.

how does it benefit america? what benefit do we get from them being a democracy? why do we put so much power and wealth into israel? i don't understand what we get out of the deal. what does america get from israel that we stay with them regardless? i don't understand that. maybe you can explain that. host: democrats line, (202) 748-8000 and republican line (202) 748-8001 and independents and others, (202) 748-8002. this is the headline this morning in the new york times --

[video clip] >> i want to thank the world leaders in president biden who's been a friend for 40 years for convening this important conference. israel and the united states have had their occasional differences but i want to assure you that the alliance between the world's greatest democracy and a strong, proud and independent democracy israel in the heart of the middle east is unshakable, nothing can change that. we work together, israel and the united states, to achieve the historic abraham records and made peace between israel and for arab states and i we're are working together to expand these peace accords further. they obviously bring increased prosperity to our peoples. host: guest: the administration inviting prime minister may netanyahu to the white house but no word on when that trip will happen.

back to the new york times analysis -- that is from the new york times. from the washington post this morning, the headline says --

let's hear from arthur, east rockaway, new york, republican line, go ahead. caller: hello? i'm not surprised that the president has sided with the people in the streets in israel. the left here and there have found in recent history that

they cannot get what they want at the ballot box because the majority don't support them so they been using the judiciary, creeping along with more and more our all the time by legislating from the bench that's going on a long time. it's become severe in israel. the purpose of this legislation is to let the people's representatives have a much greater say in what the laws that are written and that's what a democracy should be. needless to say, they are being called agi-democratic. host: you think these reforms, some elements of these reforms will be moved through the israeli parliament? caller: the elected people hope so. the majority of people voted for this government and this was very much part of the platform. 250,000 people in the streets is a lot of people but millions note for the coalition as it

exists. the majority do want this change to happen so that the people's representatives are the ones who make the legislation and not a small unelected group on the bench. host: what's your view of the way the israeli military has responded with the defense minister being fired? or resigning. caller: i see the action of those in the military decided not to show up for work is irresponsible. they figure if there are enough people in the streets, they can enjoy the noisemakers. i'm not sure what it was the general did to have him get fired. i'm not sure what he said. i really don't have an opinion on that. host: that's arthur in new york. the democrats line is (202) 748-8000, republican callers, (202) 748-8001 and independent line is (202) 748-8002.

on the changes, the proposed changes themselves from reuters -- [video clip] >> do you see prime minister benjamin netanyahu disrespectful of the president? how do you see this relationship playing a role in responding to the white house to find a compromise? >> i look at the statement he

put out. there is a lot to like about it. he talked about searching for a compromise and talking about working toward wielding a consensus with respect to these potential judicial reforms. he talked about how unshakable he knows the relationship is between the united states and israel any talked about a great respect for president biden. president biden shares that as well. they have known each other for over 40 years. the good thing about friends, you don't always agree with what your friends does or says. the good thing is you can be that candid with one another. host: from the jerusalem post on this issue --

let's hear from john in salem, oregon on the independent line, go ahead. caller: hello. host: you are on the air. caller: thank you. i just was wondering about the press briefing room when c-span is in there, sometimes they show the reporters and sometimes they don't. i was wondering why is that? sometimes they show the reporters asking the questions and sometimes they don't and the camera is st fixed on the press secretary. host: that's a good question. most time it boils down to whether or not -- there is

always a camera that's a head on view, the one shot you are talking about. is whether there is a second camera down there or available to us that weekend show the reaction shot. that's not always the case, it just depends on the date and however crews are being assigned. it does that make sense? caller: yeah, that makes sense. the other question i have is sometimes these politicians have press conferences and you cannot hear the question. why do they do that? c-span should have a microphone they can pass around. host: there again the room sometimes and whether there is a microphone for the questioner in the back from the reporters were

not and often times, there isn't, just the microphone of the person who is upfront. thanks for asking. did you want to weigh in? sheila is in oklahoma, go ahead. caller: let me turn my tv down, i'm sorry. i didn't know i was going to get on so fast. thank you for taking my call. i don't know that much about this. i don't think the united states should be weighing in on this against israel. they have everybody against it and they have all the nations around them wanting to kill them and everything. i think we need to support israel. i just go by what the bible says -- bless those that bless israel. i support israel in any way i can. i think they know what they are

doing. i like netanyahu and he's got a tremendous job because all those nations around him want to kill him and destroy them. i think we forget. they say they will destroy israel and come after the united states next. israel is the only one keeping us safe because we are not going to go in there and attack but israel will. host: this is the editorial view this morning of the wall street journal --

the prime minister yesterday at the democratic summit talking about his efforts to reform the judiciary in that country. [video clip] >> israel is undergoing a an intensive public debate. the debate is how do we ensure a proper democracy? democracy means the will of the

people as expressed by the majority and it also means protection of civil rights, individual rights. if the balance between the two. half the people are convinced that the will of the majority is expressed the legislative and executive ranch and it has been in many ways obstructed by an all-powerful judiciary that dominates them and doesn't let the public will be expressed. the other half of the people are concerned that even if this is true but if any curtailment of judiciary powers is enacted, this would somehow obstruct civil liberties. i think both considerations have to be taken into account. i think both of them are valid them up both of them are true and we have to make sure that as we shift the pendulum from one side of an ever powerful judiciary which is different from an independent judiciary, how do we ensure the judiciary remains independent and we balance the need to strengthen

the executive and the legislative and at the same time protect individual rights? i think that talents can be achieved. that's why i have promoted the pause that enables the opposition in the coalition to sit down and try to achieve a broad national consensus to achieve both goals. i believe this is possible. we are now engaged in exactly this conversation. several governments have expressed their concerns we want to assure you now of two things -- the first is that we have i think in the midst of this very robust debate, i think we have us -- eight an opportunity. an opportunity to strengthen democracy, to restore a proper balance between the three branches of government because that's what protects majority rights and individual rights. at the same time, to enshrine civil rights with an agreed national consensus.

i think this is something that is an opportunity that israel has waited for. these things are always dramatic and there additionally always engage the obligate -- the public in discourse but we have to move to agreement and i want to make sure that it the just that you know the right to protest is sacrosanct. the national leaders need to try to take these issues in contention and merge them into a happy center. host: our first our topic is on the rising tensions between the u.s. and israel, the line for democrats is (202) 748-8000 republicans, (202) 748-8001 an independent and others, (202) 748-8002. here is a tweet --

dave and orlando says -- fad is first up in pleasanton, california, democrats line. caller: thanks for c-span. i would like to briefly address

the issue of the press conferences. and their coverage. i don't understand why the reporters are never identified. how can we understand who these reporters are and what their biases are when we don't know who they are and who they are reporting for? there seems for me to be pretty simple for c-span or who's ever covering these press conferences to do that. host: did you want to comment on our topic this morning? caller: yes, i'm not really up to speed completely on what netanyahu is trying to do exactly. being here in california, the crime wave here is out of control and i try to stay up with that. as far as biden goes, if he made

some sort of statement where he is against the plo paying suicide bombers and murderers for the various acts against the israelis, that might help the situation. overall, i would have to say i do support netanyahu. host: let's hear from richard in massachusetts, independent line. caller: good morning. [indiscernible] host: your connection is real bad, sorry about that. try dialing back and you may get through and maybe the line will be clearer. overton, nebraska next, jerry on the republican line. caller: yes, i think the democrats should be 100% behind netanyahu because they want to do the same thing with our

courts. they think they've got too much power, the courts have too much power and they are out protesting the supreme court all the time. the democrats should be 100% behind netanyahu because that's what they want here. thank you. host: we will go to rose hill, north carolina, louise, you are on the air. caller: good morning and how are you? host: i'm fine, thanks. caller: i support israel but there is something about netanyahu that is not right. he's been in trouble before. people have not realized that. they do not look at his background and what he has done in the past. it seems like we have problems with our republic under president trump. there was corruption going on

over there. that's why it's not being reported. i thank you for the just for that. host: texas, the independent line, go ahead caller: thank you. i just wanted to say that everybody needs to take a step back and realize that criticizing israel is not anti-semitic. we need to watch with netanyahu is doing, he's trying to consolidate power and he has no thoughts about having a good system. he just wants apartheid and we cannot support apartheid states, thank you. host: this is the national security advisor of communications director, john kirby at the white house yesterday, responding to a reporter's question about prime minister benjamin netanyahu's

remarks after the criticism from president biden. [video clip] >> you responded to every part of benjamin netanyahu's comments. the he said israel would not make a move based on criticism. >> israel is a democracy and the sovereign state of course. sovereign states make sovereign decision. our point about this, our concern is the president said himself that we would like to see decisions made their that are in keeping with a consensus and that can be done with the broadest possible base of public support. that's one of the key components of a democracy and israel is a democracy.

it's one of the great things we -- our two countries share is fundamental democratic institutions and principles and one of them is public support for major changes. the change would affect the system of checks and balances. host: a couple of final comments on social media -- we will open up the phone lines for another 25 minutes or so on open forum, chance for you to

call in on this issue or any other policy or political issue you are following in the news. the lines of status same, democrats, (202) 748-8000, republicans (202) 748-8001 an independent and others, (202) 748-8002. it is open forum so you can weigh in on the u.s.-israel relationship or other items in the news to clearly in the public policy and political realm you are following. news this morning of a u.s. journalist detained in russia from the bbc --

that's from the bbc. let's go first to darius in new orleans on the democrat line, open forum. good morning. caller: yes, these republicans

are calling in and talking about the democrats, we try to do the same thing that the israelis are doing. first of all, benjamin netanyahu is under criminal investigation just like his friend donald trump over here. with all the conservative justices, the republicans stacked the supreme court. netanyahu is trying to do the opposite. he's under criminal investigation and he's trying to stack the or with all of his people so they can get him out of the trouble he's in. it's the same thing that donald trump is trying to do over here in the united states. i don't buy this stuff about the democrats going along with it because we do not go along with someone who is under criminal investigation, trying to block

it. host: on to shawnee, oklahoma, the independent line, richard. caller: good morning. i just wanted to -- since this is open form, i am curious or frustrated more that we focus -- i agree we need to close their borders physically but what about digitally? why can't we use drivers license, passport? if you are required to have a passport to come into this country, physically, the same should be required digitally. host: how do you think that would work? caller: when you type in google on your computer, your computer

has no idea what the word googled means. you looked up someone's name and you get the phone number and you dial it. the computer looks up a website by name you typed in and finds the number which is the ip address and direct your computer there. why can't we at least filter not only protect our digital borders but also protect kids like under 16 or whatever? if they can't put a drivers license and, you should be able to take away their ability to look up sites and you could filter it down so it only allows you to go within a certain range

if you are below a certain age. as far as coming in and out of the country, that's easy. the internet works just like a highway system. everybody thinks the cloud is some magic thing that floats above us. that's not true. it all roams on a physical medium of some sort. it can be controlled. they do it for businesses every day. they control who can get in or out and they protect them. why can't we do that for eric kids and their country? it would cut down on trafficking of all types and cut down on so many things. i'm not talking about taking anything away from the internet,

just compartmentalizing it. host: the focus on capitol hill this week in terms of the online focus has been about tiktok. there is a series of hearings this week and it's whether or not tiktok will be banned from the united states. this is the reporting and the washington times about rand all? -- about rand paul --

you can read more about that on washington times.com. tom is in burlington, -- bennington, vermont, democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning, c-span. thank you. did morning. yes, i pray a lot for palestinian -- palestine and israel. they both started out as tribes millions of years ago and they found the lost tribe about 30 years ago and mostly what i want to say is israel is not in the near east, it's africa like morocco and tunisia and it's

africa that would be a completely different outlook on israel. they are trying to do what we did to our native american indians and they are just horrible to the palestinians. it makes me cry. i love peace but israel has like three different parties and one of them is really bad, excuse me for not remembering which. things will get better if we stop more -- stop war. don't give israel money and don't give them weapons. i thank you very much, c-span. host: open form continues with chris in hampton, arkansas, independent line. hi there. caller: hi. i would like to know the name of the tune that the washington

journal plays before they come on and sometimes on break. i would like to listen to the entire piece. host: now you're testing me. i'm drawing a blank on it. i used to know it but i may have to ask my producer to remind me what the tune is. i will try to get that for you. it just slipped my mind momentarily but i appreciate the call. greenbelt, maryland, democrats line is next. caller: good morning, c-span. i would like to comment on the gun situation. i would propose that each person that owns an automatic weapon or any weapon for that matter has to get an insurance policy that insures the public or anybody against any damage to property or person that goes along with

having a gun. if you are going to own a gun, get insurance to get it right. they will ensure liability, they will get it right. if you own a gun, you should have insurance like you have a car. if someone is killed or there is property damaged, someone needs to pay. in america, nothing happens unless someone begins to have to come out of their pocket with costs. if you own a gun, the insurance policy should cover that damage, thank you c-span. host: a headline from roll call this morning about action in the senate yesterday.

jackson calling from detroit, independent line, go ahead. caller: good morning. one thing the gets my blood flowing is the constant reference to israel as a democracy. i look at it as a theocracy where if you are not jewish, it doesn't work for you. that's all i wanted to say. host: next is gerald on the democrats line in fallbrook, california, good morning. caller: hi, good morning. two things -- we definitely have to stop is really support in their treatment of the palestinians is reprehensible. secondly, i'm sick and tired of these republicans calling in all the time and saying we are not a democracy. a constitutional republic by definition is a representative democracy. to say we are not a democracy is

to say we are a dictatorship or a monarchy. the reason why they say that is because they no longer like democracy because it no longer works for them and that's why they keep saying that area thank you very much. host: this is from the wall street journal in their business section -- [video clip] >> have you ever asked the starbucks worker, if you hate starbucks so much, why don't you work somewhere else. >> i have read in the press that quotation that that's not exactly what i said. can i tell the story, do you mind? >> i have other questions, i'm

sorry. >> i think it's important to hear the facts. >> i yield to the chairman. >> will you commit to testifying at any trial where you personally are accused of breaking federal labor laws, something you have been accused of doing nearly 100 times since 2021? >> mr. chairman, let me say under oath, these are allegations that starbucks has not broken the law. >> mr. schultz, were you involved in the decision to close all buffalo area stores in november 2021 just days before. union elections in order for starbucks employees to listen to you give a speech on why they should vote against forming a union, a meeting that was a violation of the law? >> this is another area i a chance to speak about. for the last 12 months, my

involvement, my engagement and my return to starbucks has been primarily i would say 95% focused on the operations of our business. the customer domestically and around the world. my involvement and engagement in union activities, despite this event today has been minimal. i was not involved in any issue of closing stores. >> are you aware, mr. schultz, that an administrative judge ordered you to distribute video of yourself reading a notice to starbucks employees about their rights under the national labor relations act, how starbucks violated those rights and to assure that starbucks will not infringe upon those rights in the future? and that this notice must be posted at all starbucks stores and shared digitally to all the starbucks employees? are you prepared to read that notice? >> no, i am not because

starbucks coffee company did not break the law. host: back to your calls in open forum. jack is up next in dayton, ohio, independent line. caller: good morning. i don't know if we support the vatican with government money. we do not support private schools in ohio. i don't think we should support israel who are friends with donald trump who instigated the insurrection against this country. it should not be supported by your federal dollars. if jewish people want to support them like the catholic people support the vatican, that's fine but i don't think anybody involved in another country should have a government position. why should we the people pay for tax money to support insurrection against democracy

which men have died for for hundreds of years in this country. it's simple to me that we have to stop that. we should not fund israel with government money until we get back to democracy -- until they get back to democracy. host: republican caller, ralph, hi there. caller: good morning, i have a comment about the theme song as well. maybe his suggestion. it sounds to me like the song was taken a few years back is using a piccolo. the sound of it sounds like it's a midi file. that's a file that uses imitation instruments to record the song. my suggestion is it sounds kind of thin and weak. my suggestion is to have a

contest because there are thousands of people with home studios that could make a much better version of the song. you should have a contest and let people submit new versions of the song area host: our producers are listening, thanks for the idea. this is from politico this morning dasha morning -- in chester, pennsylvania, william is next on the democrats line, go ahead. caller: good morning. i want to answer two questions of two points. somebody raise the issue of

white israel is so important. some think they are god's children but they are not. we must remember that god is a spirit in the bible is a spiritual book. today's israel is true believers. anyone who believes is a dish is true israel. when you say something about blessing israel, that's not the israel they are talking about. that's all i want to say. host: next is al in columbus, texas on the republican line. caller: i would like to know when mayorkas is going to be impeached or take charge of what he's done to our border in texas. it's a farce. they said people to arrive at

the border and they let them in. he needs to answer, that's it. people need to write in and we need to get rid of this man, it's terrible. thank you. host: some of our live coverage this day in addition to the house and senate at 9:00 this morning, on c-span3, the house panel seeks to see if the biden administration try to censor media companies there of the desk during the covid-19 pandemic and whether that's a violation. that's the house judiciary subcommittee starting at 9 a.m. eastern on c-span3 and it's on our mobile app, c-span now and streaming at www.c-span.org. a couple of more calls in open forum, carol in camp hill, pennsylvania, there you are, go ahead. caller: i just wanted to put this out for your viewers consideration --

i would encourage them to do a deep dive into some research not using the primary online search forms like google but something more transparent. there is a fellow by the name of dane wesley howell and his name has been largely -- the original reports have been largely scrubbed from the internet. he was one of the dish he was characterized as a potential shooter at an l.a. gay pride festival and it was the same day i believe as the orlando club was shut up. he turned himself in and the initial police report said he confessed that the cia put him up to this. i just wanted to commend websites that try to keep this

and it's a shame most of the mainstream media scrubs this stuff from their reporting. host: to john calling from the british virgin islands, democratic caller, good morning. caller: good morning. thanks for having me. i wanted to make two comments on the israeli situation. it seems to me to be a bit hypocritical when president netanyahu would seek to usurp judicial authority by instrumenting such a law. if that happened in any other country in africa or anyplace else, the united states have -- almost unilaterally tried to remove him.

i find it very disingenuous when some people would just stand up, because they are free to offend or say anything bad about israel, even when they are wrong. and i think that is a hypocrisy that we have to correct. secondly, the united states has been, of course, one of the greatest allies of israel. yet, the united states, a christian nation, is now being subject to being put in prison, christians, the bill that was proposed in the house that anyone promoting christianity or in the name of jesus be imprisoned. i'm not sure how the united states, as a country, will

address such a manner if it goes forward. israel has become and is a sovereign state. i feel that they are behaving like no one can tell them anything. host: i appreciate your call, john and all of the calls this segment. there is more ahead on washington journal with the u.s. house coming in at 9:00 eastern. we will talk about this week's hearings on recent bank failures and the house republican energy bill that will be voted on later today. first up, democratic congressman sean casten and later, republican congressman dan meuser of pennsylvania. >> book tv, every sunday on c-span two features leading authors this cussing their latest nonfiction books. at noon eastern, live on

in-depth, pulitzer prize-winning biographer stacy schiff joins book tv to take your calls on american history and the lives of cleopatra and benjamin franklin. and then, matthew dittman shares his views on how americans can spread their wealth in his book "poverty by america." he is interviewed by jason the palm. find a full schedule on your program guide or watch any time online at book tv.org. fridays at 8:00 p.m. eastern, c-span brings you afterwards from book tv. a program for nonfiction authors are interviewed by journalists, legislators and more on their latest books. this week, matthew, pulitzer prize-winning author and

sociologist shares his views on how americans can spread the wealth so that everyone is prosperous in his book, poverty by america. he is interviewed by new york times author jason. >> american history tv, saturdays on c-span2. exploring the people and events that tell the american story. at 5:25 p.m. eastern on the 20th anniversary of the iraq war, historians talk about the war. president george w. bush and american foreign policy with martin -- martin decaro. and at 8:00, how puritanism and the enlightenment shaped religion in colonial america. exploring the american stories, watch american history tv,

saturday on c-span2. and findhehole schedule on your program guide or watch online anytime at c-span.org/history. >> washington journal continues. host: a conversation with congressman sean casten, democrat of illinois, representing the sixth district of illinois. also in the financial services committee. welcome to the washington journal. guest: thanks for having me. host: why a hearing yesterday, the financial services community -- committee looking at federal failures. what was your take away from the fed live chair michael bar and others? guest: there was a bipartisan consensus that this was a gross failure of management by the bank. they should have seen this risk coming. almost all of the other banks did.

number two, some concerns about why our regulators did not act sooner. the silicon valley rank was without a risk officer for nine months, which is a violation of the law under dodd-frank. they were flagged by the fed as being -- not having the risk standards up to par. almost two years before all of this went down. all of a sudden, we had this sudden seven-day period where they were talking to goldman about trying to raise more equity. they were announcing to investors they were selling farms -- firms and taking a loss. i think what the fed did was exceptional and protected our banking system and deserved a lot of praise. but why this wasn't caught sooner is a question. host: it seemed like there were red flags all the way

along, especially six months out, as you pointed out. guest: yes. i want to be careful not -- i think we are premature to assign blame or causality. too often, we underfund our enforcement agencies and we should not blame them for that. but, certainly in hindsight, there were a lot of flashing red lights that should have been addressed. host: what do you think of the missing elements in terms of federal regulation that aren't there that should have been there and could have prevented something or at least some of this? guest: i think it is premature to speak to that -- i think it is premature to speak to that. what we know is the bank had a tremendous amount of uninsured depositors, creating great risk. and we know the interest rate had exposure. all of that should have been flagged in a risk test.

i talked to other banks were similarly situated. they said why didn't they hedge out the interest rate risk? that is banking 101. those questions need to be addressed from a regulation perspective. as a separate matter, there is a question about who knew what, when. the ubs story is not complicated. if you watched it's a wonderful life, that is what the story was. a lot of us are struggling with when you have a large number of financially sophisticated depositors and $42 billion runs out of the bank in an instant, it triggers this ruin in response to an announcement. the actions of responsible people doing the responsible -- was that the actions of responsible people doing the

responsible thing or an old man potter situation? we don't know that but understanding who knew what, when, who had inside information and who acted on that and did people look out for the greater good or look out for themselves? i think we need to understand the answers to all those questions before we move too quickly and say i know what the solution is. host: social media seemed to hyper accelerate those withdrawals. certainly in the silicon valley bank failure. guest: i don't know if it is social media as much as it was a handful of billionaires. there was a quick alert that this was -- there was big trouble in little cities and all of a sudden, all of the money went out of the door. that may be fine. i don't mean to belabor the it's a wonderful life point but there is one kind of run on the banks when all of a sudden, there is a line out the door and george bailey is bating whether to close the bank early for the day.

and then everybody hits their phone and withdraws at the same time and all of a sudden, it's gone. that is the world we live in. we won't go back to the 1940's. i think we need to understand what that means in the current banking system. host: sean casten is with us. we welcome your calls read here are the lines for democrats. (202) 748-8000. republicans, (202) 748-8001. for independents, (202) 748-8002 . u.s. ways tighter bank rules, the white house is planning as soon as this week to recommend tougher rules for midsized banks according to people familiar with the matter after the collapse sent tremors through the banking system. some things floated including the fbi see -- expanding the fbi

see -- fdic's authority. and expand fdic authority to bring civil claims. what do you think? guest: those are good things. the banking industry exists in a weird place. we don't allow our banks to go bankrupt for good reasons. we moved to protect depositors first. and that's appropriate. but it also means if you take the circumstances of svb, literally weeks before the collapse, the ceo of the bank sold $3.6 million of equity. everybody is paying a bonus and there is nobody left in the kitty. if that was a non-bank business, we would have legal recourse to say did you have knowledge and

pull assets out before bankruptcy? in the banking sector, because we can't go into bankruptcy, we can't do some of those things. i think it is appropriate asking -- i don't think we should allow banks to go bankrupt. we should have bonus payments until the information is realized. should we talk about insuring against greater deposit sizes? there is a good and robust and overdue conversation about should we undo some of the rollbacks of dodd-frank that exempted some of the protections for banks like svb. it is worth noting at least from where i sit, it is not clear that had those rules not been rolled back, the situation would have been dramatically different. because, congress passes a law and the president signs it, it is not immediately a law.

it has to be implement it. some of the changes had not been implemented. i think we shouldn't be too precious of saying but for that, this wouldn't have happened. host: you mentioned the fed's response to the svb bank failure and signature bank and talking about their cauterizing some of the damage. what is your view of the fed chair, jay powell, and his efforts on the economy in the last six months or so? guest: are you asking beyond the svb situation? host: yes. guest: i think the fed is in a difficult situation right now. because, the challenges that the economy has are not precisely addressed by fed tools. the fed has essentially two tools. well, three tools. they have interest rates, they

have the ability to move liquidity into the banking system and they have the power of rhetoric. when we are in a world where we are seeing for the first time in decades, wage inflation that is driving a lot of underlying inflation and wage inflation that for the first time is keeping up. in the 2000 and 2010s, people did not -- wages did not grow as fast as inflation, even though inflation was low. i know a lot of folks back home would rather have a raise and more money in their pockets. with respect to silicon valley bank and what they have done to inject cash into the banking system, it has been exceptional. it is a case study on how to run a bank and they deserve a lot of praise. with respect to the rhetoric, i think they have done as best as

they can, trying to calm market fears. i remember henry paulson had a wonderful line. he said it is not necessary to have a bazooka in your pocket but it is necessary for people to think you have a bazooka in your pocket. that is the power of rhetoric when you are in an unstable situation. i am pleased to see that we are seeing inflation slowdown. at the same time, the reality of a country that is creating jobs faster than it is creating workers, that is a really good place to be. we are bringing a lot of jobs back to the u.s. creates upward pressure in wages. i would like to see the fed tread a little more cautiously in how they use their tools to make sure that the gains float to people's pocketbooks. and not just lower consumer prices which is what the fed

done the last 28 years. host: we will get to calls. i have a question from jim via text. can congress explain the intrinsic invincibility in our financial institutions when their liquidity is based on treasury bonds and yields. the treasury bonds issued today, at 6%? guest: there is always interest rate volatility. the bank exists to give you your money back if you want it. when the banks put money in a treasury vehicle two years, three years, four years ago, your caller is right. that now, if you were to sell those bonds, because interest rates have gone up, you won't get as much back. the silicon valley bank had roughly $16 billion less value than they thought they had.

having said that, i would not make the point that that creates stability in the banking system. the amount of funding you want to hold for a rainy day in cash should go up in periods like this. that is what those dodd-frank stress tests do. that is why -- they are subject to higher capital requirements. the second thing, and this is what i alluded to in our initial conversation, was that the banking has to understand this. this is not new information. there are a host of products that allow you to head out the interest rate risk and protect yourself from interest rates. i think it is a question worth asking. why silicon valley bank did not have some of those hedges in place.

and to what degree regulators, a bank that was subject to a systemically important institution has to have either capital or an accommodation of sectors in place. was something suspicious happening or a lack of oversight? it doesn't mean that the system is intrinsically unstable. host: ted is in mansfield, new jersey. republican line. caller: i wanted to ask you. i hear the term crony capitalism and i see it is in play, not picking on you in particular but it seems like congress has a blind eye with a lot of these organizations that run our system. if you look back in 2000 eight, nobody went to jail and millions lost their homes. yet, the bankers all got bonuses

and payouts. they are doing sort of the same thing. they know no matter what happens , the average taxpayer will pay. they did these green deal investments which are fine. they seem to be held sacred. there is no accountability. if i am a saver, investor or worker, i know that if i put over 200,000 -- $250,000, i am not insured because you have to spread the money around. the government does not have the money to cover all of the deposits. because, to make more money, some of it has to be at risk. i think sometimes, congress needs to play politics by promising everything to everybody. but there are a few crony capitalists who do everything -- whatever they want. it discourages me that i have to work in this system to deal with it. i see some people do whatever they want, there is no accountability and they do it all the time and it is frustrating as a taxpayer out here. guest: i want to give a shout

out to, it think a book everybody should have on their reading list, jintao wrote big, dirty money. there is something around $200 billion in white-collar crime. i think when everybody says we need to fund the police, we should not lose sight of the fact that white-collar crimes have more victims on a dollar basis than other forms of crimes. it is really important to distinguish what happened between -- in 2008 to what happened in the past month. in 2008, you are right. the fed's response was to make sure the banking industry stayed solvent to protect investors and bank ceos to prevent the banks from collapsing. whether that is right or wrong, we can debate that. that is not what happened this time. what the fed did was say we are going to provide insurance for

any depositor. if you had more than $250,000 in the bank, all of your posits were insured. to the extent that the bank you had invested those in had federally backed security. if you had a treasury paying 1% with a value that is significantly higher than the market to market value, the fed provided that bank with cash up to be full value. all of those deposits were protected. the fed is saying i am back by things i'm providing. no risk to the taxpayer. the fed provided no protection to bank equities. svb is gone as a bank. they are in receivership. people who had equity in those banks, it is completely wiped out. what the fed did this time is protect people like you, the

depositors, doing it in a way that is clever, that has no exposure to the taxpayer. now, we need to think about making sure we don't have to have the fed open a discount. i think in this situation, the way that you characterize, it is the opposite. people like you were the ones protected this time. the bank, the owners and the executives were wiped out in this transaction. host: we will go to james in kentucky on the democrat line. hey, james. caller: hello? i'm calling about the svb bank in california. they gave $73 million to black lives matter. they put that money in their pocket. they did not help the black people. is there any way the government can get the money back that the svb bank gave to them?

and the ceos and the top dogs of the bank should be held responsible and take everything they've got to pay back to the people. that's my comment. guest: james, i think it is important to completely separate anything related to black lives matter or this fantasy of woke capitalism being a problem and what happened to svb. what happened was a systemic failure of securities. a failure of management to manage that risk. that is why they lost money. as a completely separate matter, do we aspire to live in a world where all people have equal opportunity to succeed and we recognize that we had slaves in this country and that there is a need for all of us, if we want to live in a country where people can live to their full potential and be the country

that everybody wants to be in, we can't do that if everybody doesn't have equality. not just equality of opportunity but being at the same starting line before the race starts. let's not tie these things to the banking industry. host: you and your house colleagues will begin or continue debating hr one. a major energy bill, the lower energy cost act, a bill that would promote natural g exports among other things. it would ease so o the permitting required minerals. it would repeal the methane fee. and used section 401, the clean water act. what are your views on the legislation, congressman? guest: i am a hard know on this bill. -- no on this bill.

it is not solving a problem. we are, in the last dozen years, our economy has grown by about 50%. we have also largely decoupled economic growth from fossil fuel use in our country. we grew by 50% in the economy. natural gas use is up 25%. coal use is down by 40%. the oil and gas industry in the united states has gone from an industry that was tethered to the economy and domestic use and now their growth is dependent entirely on exports at this point. that means there is good news that we have become energy independent. it means that folks who want to have cheaper energy, who want to

have more reliable energy over the last dozen years have bought electric vehicles. they have invested in energy efficiency. we generate more power from renewables in this country than from coal. that is a good thing because it means we can grow and get cheaper energy without all of the environmental destruction of fossil fuels. and, the fossil fuel industry, like any industry, and i am not beating them up for this, if you're losing market share, if you are failing to keep up, if other people are consistently delivering a cheaper product than yours, you are not a cheerleader for capitalism. capitalism is hurting you. they have come to washington and said can somebody put the interest of energy and exporters above the interest of energy consumers. they got hr one. that is the bill that is on the floor. the tragedy is we need to have a conversation about -- reform.

-- is building out our transmission system. we need program reforms to make it easier to build those wires. to better align the interest of utilities who don't have an economic interest in selling things cheaper. we need to fix all of that stuff. i think there is an opportunity for a serious energy consumer focused conversation about permitting reform. this is a bill that is focused on money for the u.s. so that we can sell oil and gas overseas. that is not benefiting energy consumers, it is benefiting folks overseas. host: you come to this issue with a background in energy issues and emerging recycling technology.

tell us a little about that, now that you are in a republican house. you are in the minority party. are there areas where you think you can make progress on the issues you are talking about? guest: yes. i went into industrials, essentially getting paid to lower their energy cost deploying capital. we regularly found all sorts of ways to make them more efficient. figure out ways they could make more paper, more steel and have more healthy patients in a hospital with less energy output. we were looking out for people's economic self interest. we were fighting against the industry to do that for reasons that i noted. the genesee for collaboration in the house is better understood not as a republican versus democrat debate. but an energy consumer versus energy producer debate. the part of our country where the entire economy, think about

parts of appalachia, where they have been dependent on energy and mining. those parts of the country have been left behind as we move to cheaper energy. think about your stereotype of a west virginia coal town. it is tragic, it hurts for those people. we owe those people the dignity, the same dignity we owe any other american. if you are a member of congress representing those energy extracted regions of the country, you may not be pushing hard to get cheaper, energy onto the grid because it only accelerates the demise of that system. opportunities for collaboration are, number one, collaboration between those districts where there is no conflict between the national interest and the interest of your constituents. there are a lot of republicans who represent wind heavy parts of iowa and kansas and texas.

and they are benefiting from this. we saw the announcement that there is a big easy manufacturing industry going into georgia. -- marjorie taylor greene's district in georgia. to recognize the folks being left behind this transition, host communities in mining towns or on the gulf coast, who depend on their own gas, we owe them dignity. how do we work together to make sure that as we create more wealth, because there is cheaper energy, how do we make sure that some of these gains help them transition? that should be an area for decent collaboration. it is not there yet. maybe i am naive but i hope we can get there. host: give me your views and

your background. what was your view of the biden administration opening up the willow project on the northwest slope in alaska? guest: i was disappointed, to be candid. it is a perennial challenge between energy consumption and energy extraction. i give the biden administration tremendous credit for the inflation reduction act. the single biggest climate bill that has been passed by any government anywhere. it is cutting u.s. co2 emissions by 40% and cutting the deficit. that is a big deal. and it is not enough. doesn't in any way undo that but i view -- willow doesn't in any way undo that but i view it as taking 10 steps forward and one step back and i don't want to take any steps back. host: mike says it seems shady

to me that companies with $400 million would deposit everything in a small bank. then, no one in their company had accounts to see what happened? i think they purposely turned a blind eye to profit. guest: well, the -- we are still gathering the facts. svb, it is true that people had more than the 200 $50,000 in insured deposits there. it is also true svb was doing some things to retain people, do all of your banking with them, rather than spread it around. i don't fault any company seeking to grow and maintain as many customers as they came. a board member of mine used to like to say, capitalism isn't

immoral, it is a moral. it is the regulators job to make sure that they don't get concentrated. we can accuse the bank's owners of being immoral and maybe that makes us feel good. but, the opposite of free markets is not anarchy. host: sean casten is the congressman of the sixth district of illinois. we appreciate your time this morning. guest: thank you. host: more ahead. coming up next after a break, our discussion will continue. our discussion on the bank failures. we will hear more about hr one, the legislation coming on the house floor today. our next guest is republican dan meuser of pennsylvania. ♪ >> live, sunday.

stacy shift will be our guest on in-depth to take your calls on american history. her latest book on samuel adams, one of the organizers of the boston tea party and a leader of the american revolution. join us sunday at noon eastern on book tv on c-span2. >> the name of america, which belongs to you and your national capacity, fourscore and seven years ago. >> asked not what your country can -- ask not what your country can do for you. >> presidents have delivered pivotal speeches during the inauguration. speeches that defined the presidency on american history tv, through the words of george washington and abraham lincoln, ronald reagan and barack obama.

this week, we will feature george w. bush's 2002 state of the union address, after the 9/11 terror attacks. >> as we gather tonight, our nation is at war. our economy is in recession and civilized world faces unprecedented dangers. yet, the state of our union has never been stronger. >> watch our 10 part series, speeches that defined a presidency, saturday at 9:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> sunday on q and a. in his new book, american ramble, neil king reflects on his nearly 300 mile journey, walking from washington, d.c. to new york city. we interviewed mr. in 2020 one,

shortly after he -- mr. king in 2021, shortly after he completed the walk. >> doing it after all of us being shut in and walking behind masks, the long covid winter. the events we saw play out on january 6, at the u.s. capitol, which i live nearby. there was a lot of bad blood in the air. it made my desire to go out and walk in the spring and see it unfold and look closely and slowly at the country, meeting people along the way, trying to understand where were we as a country. >> neil king and his book, "american ramble." sunday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> washington journal continues.

host: with us next is dan meuser, congressman, republican congressman from pennsylvania, from the ninth district of pennsylvania. welcome to washington journal. guest: great to be with you. host: we will continue our conversation as we did with sean casten on the five hour hearing of the federal regulators and the bank collapse. what did you learn from that hearing, congressman? guest: it was a good hearing. informative. vice chair barr was doing everything he could to be understanding and hearing him out. he was agreeable to the fact that we know that number one, svb was terribly managed. they took a lot of seriously bad risks. particularly with their overweight in treasuries. 57%.

as well, the overall regulation by the fed was subpar. the fact that last year, november 21, through the 26th, 2022, there was a report of the problems that existed at svb and nothing was done. at the same time, the fed continued to raise interest rates, which continued to erode and crush the treasuries, the assets of svb. this thing was a train wreck developing. and it should have been seen. and a lot more should have been done. the other thing that we talked about with the fdic chairman where the fees for the fdic fund and who would bear the brunt of that. it is a big concern for my district, me and america, will banks have increased fees

because of the terrible management of a couple of banks? a couple of banks that were very unique. you won't find these banks in my district or in pennsylvania. the average deposit at svb was $2.5 million for one depositor. the average deposited pnc bank's $21,000. a big difference in the style of banks. this cannot be allowed to be systematic. i didn't like how the fed handled this. as long as things get stabilized, that is what we need in the end. fortunately, i think that is happening. it is largely happening because 98% of the banks out there are well-run. the regional, large banks as well. and the community banks. i hope we are out of the woods. we will be keeping a close eye on it, however. host: our phone lines are

opened up. (202) 748-8000 is the line for democrats. (202) 748-8001 for republicans. for independents and others, (202) 748-8002. your concern on the fdic, echoed in a text message by richard from the villages in florida. like everything else, the governor promises today's taxpayers to be the backup, not our grandchildren's credit card as is done now. guest: i reminded both gentlemen, the fdic chair that the banks are taxpayers too. if their costs go up, i.e. fees or taxes, the general taxpayer will, in the end, bear the brunt of that. this is only a bailout if the

assets of svb don't pay for the deposits. anything more than that, it can be defined as a bailout. frankly, the biden administration ought to be truthful about that. and the fed. host: a recent wall street journal opinion piece said their view was the fed's policies, their monetary policies over the last decade helped create the situation for a failure at svb to happen. what is your view on that? host: you are getting to the root of it. the excessive quantitative easing of the fed, which many believe as i do, that it went on way too long. a balance sheet that increased $4 trillion to $9 trillion post-covid, by the way, and coupled that with the excessive spending of the biden administration and the democrat majority in the house built up our overall currency levels to

-- that were unsustainable and forced inflation. once inflation kicked in, of course, the fed's main response is to raise interest rates. while you also have a biden administration of on american energy, forcing gasoline prices and heating oil prices and such way up, those contributing factors along with the fed, those are the three main factors that are part of inflation, which the response would be interest rate increases. rapidly. the fastest rate of increases ever. the value of the treasuries go down. silicon valley had 57% of its portfolio in those bonds. and the implosion took place. host: here is the chair of the

subcommittee on financial, economic growth. what is your concern? do you have a concern that bank failures like this can cause potential, potentially cause lenders to be harder on people who want businesses, in particular people who want to apply for credit or extended lines of credit? guest: great question. small businesses and banks -- a business can't operate without a good relationship with the community or a regional bank. particularly small businesses. and so, by any response of over regulating community banks, banks who do the right thing or are well-run or well-managed, heavily regulated and follow those regulations on a -- on their own, if we increase regulations, it will definitely

add another burden, another hindrance and another weight on the backs of small businesses. while they are struggling already, with workforce issues and the threat of new taxes, with inflation and supply issues and workforce shortages, the biden administration is assuring a downturn in small business activity and will virtually assure a recession. we need stability and we need common sense, frankly. we have to stop the excessive spending. the fed has got to slow itself down from an interest-rate standpoint. we have to keep the banks stable and the biden administration needs to stop meddling with our economy. host: on the bank business side of things, do you think a collapse of these, not small but regional banks in svb and the signature bank, does that bode well for small banks across the country? guest: it could if they pay the

price for the malfeasance of a few bad players. if this is looked at, take elizabeth warren. she talks about high regulations on all banks with a gleam in her eye. like it is an exciting opportunity. that is wrong. government needs to get out. i get it. maintain and enforce regulations that have been passed by laws over the years. probably the most regulated industry in the country. 98% of banks, if not more, abide the rules and regulations because they want to last. they want to last for their own good. they want to last for the good of the depositors and the good of their community and the small businesses they support. host: we will get to calls in a moment. 15 more minutes with our guest. the u.s. house is coming in at 9:00.

hr one, which republicans are calling the low-energy cost act. among the elements ar promoting natural gas exports. it would ease some permitting according to critical minerals. it would repeal the democrats methane fee and limit states abilities to brought -- block projects using section 401. debate ahead on the house floor. congressman, your view on hr one. guest: it is saying if you want to build a bridge or a dam or something of that nature, epa needs to do its review and finalize it within a two year period. now that that has been reneged, it could be five years. it could be incredibly expensive and detrimental.

it is a very, very good bill. hr one, amend hr one because it is our most important bill, because energy right now is the most important factor in our economy and in my constituents lives. right, because of the price of gasoline and a couple of things i mentioned. the price of heating oil. and with natural gas, we have great reserves in the united states. in pennsylvania, we have the second, maybe third largest natural gas reserve in the world. it is a clean energy. it is a transitory -- a transitional. it is the best transitional to renewables. it is half the carbons of oil, for instance. oil is not going anywhere, either. the fact is natural bast --

natural gas is bad. we drilled oil in the united states. we admit 30% less, if not 40% less carbons in the entire process than they do in venezuela or the middle east. and yet, the biden administration wants to put all of these regulations and taxes on american energy and keep us importing from those who very often don't really like us. and keep us under their thumb, when it benefits them as well. and forces a geopolitical event or military intervention, as we saw in the ukraine. when we are dependent on other countries, that is what escalates the price of gasoline and the price of oil. why would we leave ourselves in such jeopardy? it makes no sense, because the biden administration's outlook is ideology over results. there ideology comes first.

we have to check our ideology at the door. we have to do what is right and what is responsible for our constituents and the health of our country. this bill does that. it provides energy independence. it allows more natural gas and removes the biden tax on natural gas. a lot of good measures. again, in a responsible way. it is a great bill and it would be very meaningful if we could turn it into law. host: the line for democrats is (202) 748-8000. for republicans, (202) 748-8001. and all others, (202) 748-8002. joseph is in akron, ohio. democratic color. go ahead. -- democratic caller, go ahead. caller: i'd like to ask the guest, do you have a deposit in

a bank? guest: sure, as most adults do. caller: how much interest do you get on your deposit? guest: not much. caller: why is that? guest: good question. well, because banks stay as competitive as they can. they have to be in the realm of what other banks provide. when the interest rates -- the fed rate was near zero, 1%, they would -- our deposits would receive back may be .5% as the fed rate goes up. that will -- that means the deposit interest rate goes up as well. right now, they've got deposit rates that are competing with treasuries. that is the reason there is a lot of movement in the

treasuries right now. it is a competitive marketplace. they provide you the interest rate that they need to in order for you to keep your money there. host: to albert in chicago on the democrats line. excuse me, anthony in chicago, democratic caller, go ahead. caller: good morning, everybody. i wanted to challenge a couple of things here. first, regulations will end up hurting banks. we are in the situation we are in right now because the administration deregulated those banks specifically, the trump administration deregulated those banks specifically. i am not confident in the underlying strength of the banking system. guest: the regulations that were in place -- in place were not enforced. caller: thank you.

i'd like for you to go deeper into that. secondly, inflation, i read an article that eight suppliers are pulling 600% profits. if we had an inflation issue, their cost of business would also be going up. a lot of these suppliers right now are gouging people. if you care about your constituents, you would be talking about placing price tags on the durable, essential goods that people need to buy so that people are not telling themselves do i pay the rent this month? host: we will get a response. guest: i only do this job, this role as a member of the u.s. house, because i care about my state, my country, my constituents, number one. number two, you're speaking like a socialist.

who's going to determine the price? the government? capitalism is about competition. capitalism is the market sets the prices. if you want to set price caps on something like a bicycle at $100, what happens when somebody gets innovative and is able to make as good of a bike or -- and sell it for $80. or sell features for it that people are willing to pay for because they want it and it is safer and faster. when you speak like that, you crush ingenuity, which was done in socialist countries. you crush competition. innovation will evaporate. and you have a very stagnant society that won't last. look, capitalism, their is a reason -- there is a reason billions of people are trying to enter our control -- country illegally. there is a reason millions are

trying to enter our country legally. you don't see them fleeing capitalist countries, you see them fleeing socialist countries. it is a bad idea. it was a bad idea when our founding fathers wrote the constitution and it is a bad idea now. host: to our independent line, we will hear from donald in omaha, nebraska. caller: good morning, guys. have you ever heard of the loan debacle? also, my question is we had a kid on here the other day explain oil, how it is all shipped out by the oil company because it goes into the international pool. we have to buy it back because the oil companies ship it out. guest: yes. the savings and loan debacle, i am aware of it. that is the fed's job, to be keeping an eye on -- as well as the fbi see -- fdic.

it wasn't done with svb. there were blinking red lights, like on your dashboard on your car, you are out of oil. your car is going to cease. those point -- red lights were blinking for svb and nothing was done and then they were bailed out. that is not the case. regarding the oil companies, they are big. i know they are gaining a lot of profits right now. oil and energy is -- prices are determined by the world futures market. but, you know, nobody cried for them when oil was at $30 and they were losing billions of dollars. it is not a devious industry. if it were, a good player would come in and we would all just want to operate with them. businesses don't work that way. energy is pretty darn important for our farmers, for our food.

for our travel. for our homes. they are working at it. in some cases, maybe there is an image issue. they are also, now, energy just doesn't mean oil, natural gas, coal. all very important. but these energy companies are taking some of those profits and building for the future. getting into renewables. getting into methane -- excuse me -- reducing emissions. that is the key. if we could reduce emissions, then fossil fuels, organic fuels, whatever you want to call it -- we wouldn't have the carbon emission issues. they are working on those technologies. host: we are hearing from albert calling from chicago, democratic

line. go ahead. caller: i wanted to challenge the congressman's assertion that inflation was the cause of the true bank collapse -- the two bank collapses. we have had periods of inflation before. i remember the inflation of the 1970's and not a single bank collapsed during that period. a bank is supposed to be able to withstand inflation. a bank in a capitalist economy is supposed to be able to withstand inflation. it's not that maybe we should rethink our commitment to -- if not, then maybe we should rethink our commitment to capitalism. not a single bank other than the ones that have collapsed have collapsed. guest: i didn't say inflation caused svb's collapse. inflation caused the fed to raise interest rates. inflation was caused by the high level of excessive spending and

the quantitative easing placed by the fed, as well as the increase in energy costs. obviously, if your gasoline prices go up, that causes inflation. inflation is caused by too many dollars chasing too few goods. we had supply-side issues. what i said is that the bank did not respond properly to not just the inflation but primarily the interest rate increases. thankfully, 99% of banks out there, just as you said, did manage themselves in spite of the inflation. host: i want to ask you about the upcoming budget debate and the debt ceiling deadline coming up this summer. house gop faces the budget plan. patrick henry said don't see how

we get there, talking about a deal on the debt ceiling. patrick mchenry saying i've never been more pessimistic about where we stand about the debt ceiling and we have been in bad situations before. what are your thoughts on the issue? guest: patrick mchenry is one of the brightest, most capable members of this u.s. house. i am glad to be on his committee. he is the chairman and he is very deliberate in his assertions. what i believe troubles him most is the biden administration. when you have the president of the united states saying there is no negotiation to take place and we will not cooperate with you and we are not going to compromise, that was said by the biden administration seven or eight weeks ago. and their position hasn't changed. that is what is troubling. now you have speaker mccarthy

saying i want to sit down with the president. he sent him a letter, yesterday. mr. president, we need to sit down. we have a debt ceiling coming up and we need to work this through. because, i believe well over 90%, if not 90%, it should be. but a good 60 plus percent of america knows that the government wastes a lot of their taxpayer dollars. particularly over the last few years. trillions in excessive spending. more than we bring in. we are bringing in a lot. our revenues are very high. we have increased our national debt by 6 trillion -- $7 trillion over the last 2.5 years. host: we will have to let you go there as we are getting underway shortly on the house floor. thank you for being with us. dan meuser of pennsylvania, things for being here. guest: thank you. host:he