spending plan. at 9:00 a.m., north carolina congressman david price, a member of the appropriations and budget committees come on president biden's america jobs at in the recent meeting with the president. -- and the recent meeting with the president. ♪ host: we will talk about that later in the program. the president's covid-19 response team and cdc officials are also facing additional questions today on the fda's decision yesterday to pause distribution of the johnson & johnson covid-19 vaccine after a handful of blood clot cases were reported among the nearly 7 million administered. it is wednesday, april 14th, 20 21. welcome to "washington journal." we will spend the first 30 minutes or so talking about the

johnson & johnson situation. the pause in distribution of the vaccine. you can call in the eastern and central time zones on (202) 748-8000. if you are in the mountain and pacific region, (202) 748-8001. if you got the johnson & johnson vaccine, if you are to receive the vaccine, the line for you is (202) 748-8002. tell us where you are texting from and your name, you can text at (202) 748-8003. on twitter, we are @cspanwj. we welcome your posts on our facebook page. this is from stat news on the decision by the fda yesterday. the u.s. urges pause on the use of johnson & johnson vaccine. federal authorities tuesday recommended states stop using johnson & johnson's covid-19 vaccine while an investigation is conducted into six serious

cases of clotting problems. one of which was fatal. these were reported among women who received the vaccine. a blood because are similar to those reported by several european countries after the use of astrazeneca's covid-19 vaccine. they are similar to an event that occurred during johnson & johnson's u.s.-based clinical trial. an event that led to a temporary pause in the trial last fall. the case involved a man in his 20's, staff reported at the time. the clotting problem appears to be quite rare. as of monday, more than 6.8 million doses of the johnson & johnson vaccine had been administered in this country, but officials acknowledge the investigation and increase use of vaccine, which was shipped in record numbers last week, could lead to the discovery of more cases. again, our line for you if you have gotten the johnson & johnson vaccine is (202) 748-8002. 8002. we would love to hear your experience. the washington post has a bit of

information for you if you did get that vaccine. there headline if you have gotten the johnson & johnson shot. federal health officials warn patients and doctors tuesday to watch for symptoms that could indicate in extremely rare or serious form a blood clot in the brain suffered by six women who received johnson & johnson's coronavirus vaccine. what do you look for if you are one of the more than 7 million people who have received the company's vaccine or are received to -- or are scheduled to receive it soon? the symptoms include headache, abdominal pain, leg pain, and shortness of breath that occurs six to 14 days after receipt of the vaccine. officials say the symptoms are different from the flu like aches that could receive a day after the shot. of are generally harmless -- harmless symptoms against inoculation. here was the statement from the fda and cdc late yesterday

morning when the decision was made on pausing it. "as of april the 12th, more than six point 8 million doses of the johnson & johnson vaccine have been administered in the u.s.. cdc and fda are viewing -- reviewing data involving six cases of rare and severe blood clots in individuals after receiving the j and j vaccine. all six cases occurred among women between 18 and 48, and symptoms occurred six to 14 days after vaccination. the advisory committee on immunization practices will meet today and assess their potential significance -- these side effects and their potential significance. until the process is complete, we recommend a pause in the use of this vaccine out of an abundance of caution. that is from the cdc and the fda yesterday. we are interested in your thoughts and what this means for vaccination efforts in the u.s..

particularly those who have gotten the j&j vaccine but eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific, (202) 748-8001. before we get to calls, dr. anthony fauci and his thoughts -- his reaction to the criticism the decision to the criticism the decision pause was premature. [video clip] >> i believe your question is did we pull the trigger too soon on this because it was a rare event? our fda is internationally known for their capability of making sure we have the safest products out there. that is what i meant when i set an abundance of caution. you want to make sure safety is the important issue here. we are totally aware this is a very rare event. we want to get this worked out as quickly as we possibly can. that is why you see the word pause. we want to hold off for a bit and very well may go back to that. maybe with conditions, maybe not. we want to leave that up to the

fda and cdc to investigate this carefully. i do not think it was pulling the trigger too quickly. host: the cdc and fda urging states to pause the distribution of the johnson & johnson vaccine. your thoughts. let's go first to you nick, michigan, nancy. go ahead -- you nick -- eunice, michigan. nancy. go ahead. caller: i have had concerns from the beginning on the johnson & johnson vaccine. there's not enough data surrounding that vaccine. personally, i would wait until covax and is available, which is a virus activated vaccine that has been utilized in many countries around the world. with the blood clotting issue, one of the side effects of the virus itself is that it causes

blood clotting. so if you are getting the vaccine, it is not 100% guaranteed that it is going to combat the virus, and it is causing the side effects. the virus causes side effects. that is a major concern. i would personally not take johnson & johnson. host: our caller from michigan, this is a piece out of the detroit free press. the headline, representative meyer rips cdc over covid-19 vaccine. federal health regulators have damaged michigan's ability to stave off the latest covid-19 surge with their call to pause the use of the johnson & johnson vaccine. according to representative peter meijer of grand rapids, he said in a phone interview, he tweeted about his frustration with the fda on tuesday morning, noting federal regulators were not meeting until wednesday to discuss how to proceed with the johnson & johnson vaccine. in maryland -- no, make that

kentucky next to james. who got the vaccine. good morning, james. how are you doing? caller: just fine. host: when did you get your shot? caller: i got the shot last sunday. about four days ago. host: and you are doing ok? caller: yeah. we are doing ok. me and my wife both got it at the same time. host: have you heard of any people you know that have got the johnson & johnson vaccine any similar sort of reaction, along the line of what these serious reactions, these blood clots symptoms, these blood clot affects? caller: no, i have not. i have heard the news. we don't have internet, but we have television, and i heard the news about six women having blood clots, and that they were on heparin.

i am over 70 and my wife is 66. we both take a blood thinner, which heparin is a blood thinner, but we do not take heparin. we take another type of blood thinner. it is for congestive heart failure. host: anthony is next up in maryland. go ahead. caller: [indiscernible] host: anthony in maryland. you are on. go ahead. mute your volume -- volume on the radio or television and go ahead with your comment. caller: [indiscernible] i had serious headaches. over four days.

[indiscernible] it's not enough. it's not enough that there could be reaction. host: to be clear, did you get the johnson & johnson vaccine? caller: yes i did. i got it about a month ago. i had a headache about six days after. host: so far, no other reaction other than that? caller: no. no other reaction. [indiscernible] but that was not serious. host: it is likely we will hear more from the covid team at the white house.

we heard from dr. fauci and others yesterday, and they'll will likely hold a briefing again today. yesterday, jeffrey was asked about the white house involvement in the decision by the fda. [video clip] >> you had only heard about this yourself this morning. do you wish you had heard sooner? >> i had heard about it last night with the specifics of the announcement. and no, because of science. we want the science agencies to lead with science, and there is no reason for us to be involved in the scientific decisions. we bring nothing to the table. that is the fda and cdc's role. they have great teams to do the science, and this administration will be led by science. host: if you want to send us a text, 202, --(202) 748-8002. this comment is from sue in new jersey. she says, i have received the j&j vaccine last friday and so far so good. not typically a fan of vaccines

but felt it was the responsible thing to do. i hope the government and big pharma know what they're doing. jim says the eu commission will not renew covid-19 vexing contracts next year with astrazeneca and johnson & johnson, according to the italian newspaper. we go to massachusetts and hear from dean. go ahead. caller: go ahead. i -- good morning. my name is dahan. host: sorry. go ahead. caller: the serbian people have gotten the vaccine. sorry, the issue about covid-19 vaccines in my opinion, it is important to understand why people are getting vaccinated in the first place. to c-span. [speaking spanish]

host: i'm sorry, go ahead. caller: johnson & johnson. host: you are breaking up there abets. the lines are (202) 748-8000 for the eastern and central time zones. (202) 748-8001 mountain and pacific, and for those of you receiving the johnson & johnson vaccine, (202) 748-8002. this is from page of the health section from usa today. j&j vaccine pause over its time for research. federal drug safety regulators recommend the u.s. pause the use of the johnson & johnson vaccine after "extremely rare reports of blood clots and people who get the vaccine." the food and drug administration and the centers for disease control and prevention are investigating six cases involving vaccinated women who developed blood clots called

cvft in combination with low levels of blood platelets. the women were between 18 and 48 -- 16 to 48 and had symptoms six to 14 days after receiving the vaccine. one died and others remain in critical condition. about the fda decision, he says what the fda is doing with the j&j vaccine and astrazeneca vexing, they do it with every drug. the difference is now you are paying attention. in michigan, we hear from kathy who also got the j&j vaccine. good morning. caller: good morning. yes i did, probably about five weeks ago. kind of a mild fever, about 36 hours after the inoculation. i had to change my sleepwear. that means it was working, my body fought it and i'm doing well. what i have in my hand as i have a new nation -- an immunization

card from 1965 from when i was in first grade and i had to put my name on it. it was the vaccine for polio. people need to stop -- it is mildly marginalizing -- vaccinations. they have got us to where we are now as human beings, and i encounter a lot of people in northern michigan, including health-care workers, who are really hesitant of it and dodgy. i don't understand it, because we fought hard to develop vaccines. we need to use them, and there will be side effects for some people. i don't know about the vascular issues of these women and don't know what caused it, but it is a small percentage of the population that has received the vaccination. i'm sure of that. host: what is the biggest argument you hear from neighbors and friends, people who you know that do not want to get vaccinated?

johnson & johnson or regardless. caller: they don't give an explanation really. i just don't know. i think they are so uninformed and there has not been enough education through the years in terms of vaccinations area you see the things with children. i waited a while for my first child, until i had my second child. my first child was 18 months old before i did. he was with me and his father and was not exposed. but they are necessary. many of us would not be here had it not been for the vaccinations developed through the decades. host: i want to go back to the polio vaccine cardi found. i think you said from 1965, you were in first grade? caller: right. host: there must have been a reason to hold onto that. why was that? caller: my mother kept a lot of our documents and paperwork through the years. every so often, i go through the paperwork, and found this sometime last year. caller: you have rectal -- host: you have a recollection of

what that time was like or did your parents say why that time you needed to get the vaccination. caller: this was done at school i believe. i think we were vaccinated in school, a catholic school, but i'm not certain. but medicine runs in my family. my mother's grandma was a nerve thing -- nurse and midwife and her mother lived through all the pandemics and there were so many things we didn't have the medicine to treat conditions. but now we do, so people need to take it seriously, because my oldest son's close friend's mother and sister passed going to florida, not wearing a mask, within days of each other, and they were 64. that is not good. host: well now you have another card to pair with the polio vaccine. good for you. caller: yes i do. [laughter]

she kept on to them and i'm really grateful because i have memories of it. host: thanks for your call. wendy is in roseville, michigan. go ahead. caller: i was from roseville. anyway, i am supposed to get my vaccination today, and was supposed to get the j&j, and they told me i am going to get the pfizer one, which i'm very happy about. when i was a kid, we went through the surrogate cubes -- the sugar cubes. one year, they had this gone, a pressurized pain in your arm. my arm hurt for about two weeks afterwards, and it hurt so much, but i'm looking forward to getting my shocked, because i want to be protected, and it is just a good thing. when i first set up my appointment, they said you get the j&j and i say great, the one shot. when i heard all of this stuff, i called up and said -- when

they said they were canceling it, and they said you would get the pfizer one and i said that is good. so today, i will be getting my first vaccine for the covid. host: great to hear. we go to nevada and hear from her next caller. go ahead. caller: good morning. i had the j&j vaccine in march. let me just give you a little background. i am 50 years old, just turned 58 on the 21st. but 15 minutes after i got the shot, i started having a severe headache. then, about two hours later, i started experiencing a severe pain in my left upper thigh. it was so bad. whenever i stood still or set still, i called the johnson & johnson company to report this. they told me that they could

really give me any medical advice, but i said i was going to take some aspirin. i said is trumbo's is a concern i should have? she said that is not something we should look up something. it's either something -- i was really concerned about this, because i have controlled high blood pressure, but i understand that a severe pain in your thigh could represent a blood clot. so i was really concerned. my cousins mother by marriage had the j&j vaccine two days ago, maybe three to four days ago, and she had to be -- her mother is over 70, had to be airlifted to a hospital. she has blood clots now.

so i don't -- you know. i'm glad i took the vaccine, but at the same time, i'm concerned. my blood pressure is now higher. host: it's higher than -- caller: -- the blood pressure medicine. host: higher than when you got the vaccine? caller: yes. i have been dealing with higher pulse rate, blood pressure issues, so i think i'm actually going to have to go to urgent care later on today or something, because something is not right. host: good luck with that, calling from nevada. the acting fda commissioner, janet woodcock, she held a video news conference, a teleconference with reporters yesterday. she was asked about what the announcement by the fda might do in terms of vaccine hesitancy.

here's what she said. [video clip] >> we have had several questions about related to this. i think we need to reiterate we are committed to vaccination. we feel that is a really important tool to get this pandemic under control. we are also committed to patient safety, and our message, in doing this, we feel we are taking the route that will provide the most safety for the patients, by enabling health care professionals to recognize, to properly treat, and properly report any events that might happen. but the message to the patients, i think, would be, to those that have not been vaccinated, continue to get vaccines available to them. just because the risks from the pandemic are significant.

in the government is really looking into, very carefully, any safety problems, so they can be managed properly with this. host: the u.s. house coming in for a session today, 10:00 eastern, and we are likely to hear more about this from some of those speeches. comments on twitter by a couple members of the house. a tweet here that says "it appears these exceptionally rare events are exceptionally rare events but i appreciate the fda and cdc proceeding with the utmost caution. the fda has a high bar of safety review and i feel confident they will conduct a copperhead to review." a congresswoman says this, " trust and credibility are key to any public health crisis. and this is what that looks like. the two available vaccines, pfizer and moderna, are effective and safe. as cases in covid and continue -- cases of covid continue to rise, we must continue to get shots into arms."

we are hearing from you and your thoughts on the decision to pause shots from the j&j vaccination, a recommendation from the fda and cdc. hermon, good morning. caller: hello? host: you are on the air. caller: how are you doing, bill? host: i'm just reading names this morning. i am about that. caller: don't worry about that. how's it going? host: it's going fine, thank you. caller: i took the j&j vaccine last friday. -- skews me, last thursday. and there is no pain, -- excuse me, last thursday. and there is no pain or side effects. i'm happy i was able to do it because it is one shot. host: do you think it is appropriate the fda orders a pause in this or recommends states pause until they can do an assessment on cases reported of blood clots? caller: yeah, i agree with the

account made a little while ago, that is what the fda does. somebody said they do that with all drugs. -- drugs coming into the market or already in the market. so i agree, they should do that with just about every drug that comes out. because it takes time for many people to take it, and not everybody is built the same, and people have different conditions. it is kind of expected this kind of thing would happen, when you are rolling out a brand-new vaccine. host: let's hear from mike in silver spring, maryland. caller: how are you doing? host: doing ok, mike. caller: i'm kind of glad c-span did not exist during the polio vaccines, measles, chickenpox, smallpox, and all of those vaccines because you are not helping by letting these people just come on iran about all of

this crap. it is incredible. just imagine if people did not take those polio vaccinations when they came out. we would have had so many people walking around, barely walking, hobbling around or in wheelchairs. it is incredible, sir. just to hear these knuckleheads calling. the lady that was just on. ok, six people. they took the covid j&j off after six people -- i think it was one death and five other people. they took it and did the right thing, but then they are going to check it out and do what they are supposed to do. they did not do that with the polio vaccination and all of that.

they had so much to lose, and they compared those six people with 550,000 covid deaths. where we had a knucklehead as our leader and poopooing it. just poopooing it. six people over 560,000 dead. dead. it's incredible what i'm hearing. and c-span would even let these people rant about how they are anti-sirs or -- just incredible. we gotta do this. you go into the service, you get in line, you get shot in both arms. and you don't have no freaking choice.

host: caller in maryland issuing -- merit -- maryland mentioning the previous president. -- and the use of the johnson & johnson covid-19 vaccine. the results of the vaccine have been extraordinary, but its reputation will be permanently challenged. the people who have already taken the vaccine will be up in arms and perhaps all of this was done for politics, or perhaps the fda's love for pfizer. was the fda working for pfizer? we will announce the vaccine approval two days after the presidential election. they did not like me much because i pushed them hard. do your testing, clean the record, and get the vaccine back online quickly. the only way we defeat the china viruses with our great vaccine. in north carolina, this is connie who got the johnson & johnson vaccine. good morning. caller: good morning.

we had 1500 people get it and not one problem with it. all of my family got it, all of the people i work with got it. no problems, whatsoever. so yes, it is a good thing that they stopped, checked it out. it would be awful to think they would not, and just go, yes, there is a few problems. they will fix it, and they will bring it back. i have no worries with a, because i had no trouble with it, and a dozen people i worked with didn't. host: more topics ahead here on "washington journal." next up, we will be joined by arkansas representative french hill who will join us, a member of the financial services committee, and we'll talk about the state of the economic recovery, his recent trip to the u.s./mexico border, and other issues.

later, we take a look at the presidents budget royalist -- budget request from next year. first, there was a memorial service at the capitol yesterday with the fallen capitol police officer billy evans who lost his life in the line of duty earlier this month. here is a portion of what president biden had to say during remarks read -- remarks at the capitol rotunda. [video clip] pres. biden: my prayer for all of you is that a day will come when you had that memory. that smile before brings a tear to your eyes. i promise it will come. it takes a while. but when it comes, you will know , because he is still with you, still in your heart.

losing a son, daughter, brother, sister, mom, dad, like losing a piece of your soul. but it is very deep and just comes back. there is a great quote by r.g. ingersoll that was red when my son -- read when my son, the, came back from iraq after a year and died. they read this poem from r.g. ingersoll, who said, when will defies fear, when duty throws the gauntlet down to fate, when honor scorns compromise with death, this is heroism. your son, your husband, your brother, your dad was a hero.

and he is part of you, and your blood. my prayer for you is that the moment of the smile comes before the tear, quicker and longer. thank you. >> "washington journal" continues. host: next up, we are joined by congressman french hill who represents the second district in arkansas, little rock, and suburbs. well soon -- welcome to "washington journal." guest: thanks for the invitation. host: before we dive into other topics, we want to get your thoughts on other things we have been talking about this morning. come along, the presidents reported decision to withdraw troops from afghanistan in yesterday's decision from the fda. we have been talking with our viewers about pausing the use of

the johnson & johnson vaccine. quick thoughts on your part and what you are hearing from your constituents about these issues? guest: first off, on the johnson & johnson, it gives me an opportunity to encourage all americans to get vaccinated and follow cdc standards with getting our vaccination -- our country vaccinated. it is prudent to spot something that could potentially be a pattern in some basins -- some patients, like blood clots, and take a beat to better prepare patients to take the johnson & johnson vaccine. bottom line is all of these vaccines are safe, all have been effectively tested, all doing an outstanding job in protecting americans and people around the world from the ravages of covid-19. host: this is the headline from the arkansas democrat hometown newspaper about a trip you took with your colleague down to the border and mentioned this is your sixth trip to the

u.s./mexico border since 2015, your most recent trip. what did you see and what has changed from your previous trips? guest: this was the seventh trip. i went back to texas in the rio grande valley sector. i was there on april 2019, when we had a previous caravan surge of migrants coming across the rio grande river in the lower river valley in texas. there, meeting with catholic charities in the border patrol, they were concerned of 1000 migrants being apprehended per day, presenting themselves at the border, not at a point of entry but across the border illegally. that that was a problem, 1000. we went to the processing facility, where for covid-19, they should have 712 people in this facility for social distancing and cdc purposes. there are 3500 people in that facility.

an average of 2200 people are apprehended coming across the border every day. so the crisis is real, and in my view, a large portion of that is due to joe biden's precipitous decisions to do away with the trump border policy. i was in business for 40 years, and you don't change your policy without replacing it. you don't end an activity without something to take its place. i think this was a huge and -- huge mistake by the biden administration to end trumps border policies and construction of the wall and do with with -- do it with sen. tester: -- do it with precipitous action. host: you and your colleagues are calling on the president to reinstate president trump's policy, they remaining mexico policy. why do you think that policy worked? guest: i think the remaining mexico policy worked because it was a cooperative arrangement with mexico and had impact with the countries of honduras, el

salvador, guatemala for example. it allowed migrant families to stay in mexico and see if they could be eligible for asylum in our nation instead of coming in and being released into the population. that is our policy. once you cross into the american border and say you are seeking asylum, you are released into the population, pending a court hearing. only about one out of 10 of those actually have a legitimate asylum request. the remaining mexico policy in cooperation with mexico and the other countries, allowed a more orderly assessment of the families not just released into the american population. further, the public health issue, we have a public health crisis. of the 117 -- of the 2000 people that cross the border in february illegally, none were tested of covid-19 unless they are manifesting symptoms. we are hearing in korea so springs, 20% of the people at

the hhs holding facility have covid-19 after they were there. based on symptoms, in texas, it was over 10%. this was concerning. i think president biden should reinstate that. i noticed the ambassador, roberta jackson, was fired friday from her responsibilities of ordinate in response on the border. perhaps president biden is getting the message. host: the administration has paused construction on the wall under the trump administration. what are your thoughts on that? guest: this is again something congress debated and approved funding for replacing law construction between san diego and texas. also, building new sections of the wall where vulnerable crossings were key places like in arizona or south texas. in south texas, where we were, 110 miles of border were approved by congress. only 21 miles were completed. think about this, joe biden

paused the construction, everybody walked off of the job and let their equipment, all of their materials, and are still being paid, plus a fine for not pursuing the contract on the part of the government. it was a bad financial decision and i think a bad national security decision. in the rio grande valley issue, the border was being constructed on the river levy, meaning you are flood control and disrupting irrigation for crops. host: our guest, congressman franchot, with us until the top of the hour. we welcome your calls and comments. (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 for democrats, and (202) 748-8002 for independents and all others. you remember the commission, the oversight commission created last year after the passage of the cares act to oversee the spending. on that piece of covid legislation, last year,.

-- last year, what is the status of that spending and what have you seen so far? guest: i represent house republicans on the oversight commission, and it was specifically overseeing the actions of the u.s. treasury and the federal reserve, using appropriated money to help the businesses recover and markets recover from covid-19. this was a specific task about the feds interventions and treasuries interventions. that work continues. we are getting ready to release our april report and we continue to look at the decisions taken by treasury and the fat, how they were reprised, what they were doing, and we are looking at the aftermath, the loans they made, and how the loans are performing. host: in general, would you rate that piece of the cares act a success for american business? guest: two pieces of it. the fed's actions in march were extremely effective in getting the economy and markets functioning. in the aftermath of their actions, we raised an

outstanding amount of climate capital in the debt and equity markets to save american business. and to keep american business going in the face of the pandemic of the complete unknown. the fed's quick actions were important. the cares act investment they did helped the airlines, helped many people in the transportation and cargo business, helped companies that were connected to national defense, and the main street lending program helped hundreds of businesses. i think they could have made it more effective, and in that case in our report. they could have opened up that program better, helped more businesses, but the work they did was effective, and jobs were saved as a result. host: where you stand on the additional spending happening in the biden administration, most specifically the 1.9 show you dollar measure passed last month? guest: i voted against the -- $1.9 trillion measure passed last month? host: i voted against it.

we had money that i partisan the appropriated in 2020 that was not in the economy that was finding its way to the american people in rental assistance and paycheck protection and unemployment benefits. i thought the $1.9 trillion was too much and untargeted, which is why i voted against it. i believe the work we did in 2020 laid the foundation of getting this economy back and getting the virus killed. my hat is off to the scientist -- science that led to the quick adoption and implementation of the vaccines. host: let me ask you about one other issue. we are seeing reported, we have an advance of this headline, unveiled special drawing rights oversight act, a bill you introduced along with your colleagues on the hill that would "ensure a proper check on the executive branch and greater accountability regarding special drawing rights and the international monetary fund."

explain what you are trying to get accomplished here. guest: in the name of the global pandemic, covid 19 pandemic, the biden administration once the international monetary fund, the imf, created after world war ii, to issue hard currency reserves to all 100 90 members instead of targeting that relief to the poorest countries in the world, the poorest country suffering from the pandemic. i think that is a bad policy. my colleagues and i have introduced a bill to put a check on how the administration and imf that without the oversight of congress. when you do it in the way the biden administration proposes, you are giving direct money to the regimes that we have trouble with, venezuela, cuba, syria, russia, china. billions of imf reserves in hard dollars, euros, yen to those countries. i think it is a bad idea, bad economic policy, and it is not

targeted to the pandemic. host: where to those imf reserves come from? where does the money come from? guest: the imf issues the special drawing rights and allows countries to have access to the money for borrowing for collateral purposes. it is based on the capitalization of the imf, that the developed countries of the world have contributed, and the 100 90-member contributions. it is self -- 190-member contributions. it is self-funded but taxpayer money supports the american contribution to the imf. host: let's get to calls, to joann on our democrats line in maryland. good morning. caller: congressman, first, i have to say you have not had a nice thing to say about joe biden at all. that's amazing. i want to correct something you said and ask you question. first of all, the children -- unaccompanied children are the ones being allowed in the country. adults are not. children with adults are not.

i want to ask you a question now. are you suggesting unaccompanied children two years old, three years old, five years old, eight years old, 12 years old, should be thrown over the border to fend for themselves? is that what you are suggesting? host: thanks for your call. -- guest: thanks for your call. 18,000 unaccompanied minors were in that that crossed. isn't it tragic that cartels are bringing unaccompanied minors over the united states -- to the united states and charging someone for that service, either cash from a relative the united states who pays through a memo, or kids are released into the country with a telephone number. and it could be a human trafficking issue or the children are put into debt bondage. when i say children, i say, as you say, we have

18-year-old adults posing as under 18. $400 million estimated by the customs and border patrol trafficking humans across the border. so it is horrible for me that those kids are essentially dumped on the border in the middle of the night. i've watched them coming across the border last thursday night at midnight, and it is a tragedy those families are coming as well. the u.s. government, once they are in the government, does the best they can in assisting them. that is why i believe the remain in mexico policy was better for families and better for the unaccompanied minors and getting them placed and taking care of, whether they have an asylum claim or active in their country in the right way. that is why i think the remain in mexico policies are a more humane approach to taking care of these family migrants. president biden encouraged people to come across the border and are released into the

country without that. i think it has created a public health crisis, humanitarian crisis for those moms and kids, and potentially human crisis seeing crisis -- human trafficking crisis for those unaccompanied minors who are coming that we don't know who they are or who they are staying within the u.s.. host: the administration announced they asked how dora -- honduras, el salvador, guatemala to step up their military efforts in border efforts in controlling that population heading north. do you think that will help? guest: i do think that will help. this goes back to my earlier comment about the precipitous nature. the president signing executive orders to end these trump policies on his first-aid office. i would not recommend it to president biden. i recommend he leave those in place and change them over the course of time to proper -- proper communication with customs and border patrol, working with government relations with mexico and the triangle countries. i think he is on his back foot, going back to finding a way to

support the more effective trump policies. host: here is roberts, in new york on the republican line. -- robert in new york on the republican line. caller: i have a couple points. one point is isn't there such a thing as child support? and they're dumping the children over here. everybody is supposed to have responsibility for these children but nobody over there seems to give a rats ass. i don't understand why we have to be the burden of these children. why is it that they cannot be held accountable and take away some of the monetary funds that we supplied to them? guest: will this is why i understand your point. this is why i suggested the most humane thing to do is to improve economic conditions in the trying will countries, keep the families together there. for all of these families traveling 40 days on foot, bus,

or rail across mexico and gathered at the american border with cartel support, the remain a mexico policy allows a more humane way to determine who has a legitimate asylum claim in the u.s., according to u.s. law, and who should be returned to one of the countries in a safe and health-conscious way. so the kids that do come here are released into our country, they have a court date, they are released to someone's oversight, but frequently that ends poorly. and they become part of our foster care system. they can be part of a human trafficking system that is tragic. i don't want to be repetitive, but that is my best way to help these kids, to keep them at the border of mexico and ascertained with the best cause of action is. host: let's get back to federal spending. the president announcing his budget last week, $1.5 trillion budget proposal and his cabinet members testify today on

agriculture. a piece in the hill talks about inflation. their headline says inflation rears its head amid spending debate, saying the consumer price index for march released tuesday jumped to higher-than-expected .6% from february, the biggest monthly increase since 2012. prices were up 2.6% compared to march of 2020. the economist agrees some degree of inflation should be expected but the economy recovers from the worst recession since the great depression. congressman hill, you mentioned this briefly earlier. how does the rising inflation complicate the budget process on capitol hill? guest: as a good question. we had a $1.7 trillion deficit last year. we are projecting a 2.1 trillion dollar deficits in this fiscal year. that is a lot of spending generated in the economy. it is the most ever since world war ii.

we are running extraordinary deficits, adding that, and on top of that, the federal reserve is buying about $120 billion of that debt every month. they are injecting incredible reserves. that traditionally in economics breeds -- officials argue that it is not permitted, that it will not create higher inflation expectations, but i have concerns about that. you mentioned the cpi up, and that does not even account fully for about one third of the cpi in housing, which is up 12% and a percent -- 12.8%. it has a little bit a lag before it catches up to the cpi. wholesale prices were released a couple weeks ago, at their highest levels since 2011. so we don't want inflation expectations to get out of hand. that is what is concerning to larry summers, the former

treasury secretary for the democrats who thought $1.9 trillion was a mistake. that is a concern for a lot of republicans. they are pressing jay powell and janet yellen for how they will respond to on welcomed inflation expectations. host:host: how former guest is the former deputy checkered -- former deputy secretary and founder and ceo delta trust in banking in little bark -- little rock, french l. elected in 2014. we go to grovetown georgia for our next caller. democrats line. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. it representative hill, i want to ask a question that, sometimes we just sort of except politics the way they are. but there is something that has always concerned me, two things. one, why do we not negotiate for medicare? the second one is, the right to work states, for years and years

-- i'm pretty old so i remember when right to work was a big thing and would make everybody wealthier and all of the employers were make -- were going to make more money, and i'm reading right now that mississippi, louisiana, kentucky, arkansas, west virginia, arkansas oklahoma, and south carolina are all the poorest states. if the right to work was a success, they would not be poor states. can you explain to me or rationalize somehow why you guys are still poor? guest: arkansas is a poor state. there is no doubt about that. some of the state you .2 historically had a lot of poverty over the past 50 years. lyndon johnson said he would eliminate poverty with the great society program in the appellation states. for example -- and the appellation states you mentioned for example. so it has been a challenge for the governors to offer up economic policies that increase

jobs. i would say to you, what with those states, including your home state of georgia, look like without the legislation since the 1950's -- 1950's that included industrial. what would be the marginal impact? i think the right to work increases the industrialization of the south, increased job opportunities, increased wages, and did increase business profits you outlined. i see that and i look at the economic development in the south. i was just in mobile, alabama, where amazon was unionized, and the folks who work fo amazon voted three to one not to immunize. and i noted how robust the economy is with boeing moving there, and walmart, and significant business announcement. i think that is a constant process in our rule, mountainous

areas where people have migrated to the cities. those counties struggle with poverty. arkansas -- we and arkansas have been working to tackle it. host: let me ask you about that amazon vote. do you think that is a one-off election or do you think that is a broader lesson for the administration in particular, because in their spending proposal, they are calling -- in their proposal for infrastructure, rather, they are reportedly going to call for more unionized jobs. guest: yeah. if my memory is right, unionization of the private sector workforce is less than 10%. it has been declining over the last five decades. employees in this country have choice where they worker, who they work for. employers have to have fantastic employees. need more employees. everywhere i go there is a help wanted sign. they offer good benefits and good pay. we have seen rising wages over the last four years. particularly at the low end.

i think employers are responsive to market conditions and are having increasing wages and benefits. i don't know if it was one-off, but would -- but it was a belmar collection. amazon is a new powerhouse in corporate america, in the high-tech distribution wholesaling business. they have a big transportation sector in their business in logistics. i think it was a major election. i do not know if it was indicative of anything, but it was a major issue for amazon and for the folks working there. host: here is josephine on the independent line. livingston, new jersey. caller: good morning. congressman, i wanted to know what the republicans are going to be doing about the -- i might be inaccurate with the number, but i believe it is around 650 children separated from their parents, what you all are

going to be doing regarding that matter. i know catholic charity down in mexico has all of the starving people under trump's policy of keeping them there, and keeping them humane. catholic charity says the opposite. they want you to come down and look at what they have to handle. the reason i felt these children came over, i knew has soon as two hurricanes hit last summer to these three countries, i said we are going to be in a problem. when nobody in this country took initiative to send food and water, and housing, what did you expect? guest: thanks, josephine. of course we do have tremendous humanitarian support for countries ravaged by hurricanes, and we have a lot of economic a that goes to those trying look countries. president biden i'm sure will propose his own strategy on helping there as well. i visited with catholic charities in texas on the u.s. side of the border, sister norma

there, i was with her in 2019 when she was overwhelmed with 1000 people coming across the border every day. now it is over 2000 people coming across the border every day. it is a huge burden, and i recognize your comment, that the conditions in mexico are not ideal either. my point is that they are able to be taken care of there before they are able to come into the u.s.. and that that is a place where we should put health and emphasis, both with the nongovernmental sector, and our own policies that aid mexico. i think that is the right balance in helping these families but also letting people into the country that have a legitimate asylum claim or another reason to come into the country illegally, not illegally. host: capturing some of the frustration on this issue on both sides, david orlando with this text. we see the wall is not working as they drop children over the wall. let us stop ridiculing and find a way to work together and more

security on the border. next up in st. louis. go ahead. good morning. st. louis, missouri. are you there? caller: i'm here. host: you are on the air. caller: i had a question for mr. hill. my question is, why is everyone worried about outside of the country when we have property right here in the country? every state has a low property, homeless, starvation, kids, and the snap program but they don't use the snap of funds for the property in america. what about the vet that is homeless, nowhere to live, and they served and are given no benefits with no housing. what are you going to do about that? guest: that's a good question that a lot of americans talk about, which is helping our folks here at home first. both the trump administration and i'm sure the -- sure the biden administration have been

generous, particularly during the pandemic, to provide food assistance through enhanced snap eligibility, homeless benefits, and extended -- benefits are extended and more generous in the pandemic. specifically for veteran homelessness. even outside the pandemic, communities work together with the nonprofit sector and government support, local and federal government, support to provide food for those who need it, health care for those who need it, and shelter for those homeless. in my hometown of little rock, i see that every day with our homeless shelter, with our program -- our our house program, we all work collaboratively to help the least among us, and the federal dollars are important leverage. we all work together, all of us in all of our communities have the obligation. you are right, we need to be

focused on it, and i think we are every single day, but it does not take away from the challenges at the border. to the gentleman with the text, the border wall is not indicative of a -- it's only a portion of border security, it is not the first or second issue. we have technology, manpower in a better to come locations -- into better tug medications. -- and better telecommunications. i've asked the judges, priests, policeman and border patrol, does the law work? the answer is yes. because it shapes the terrain. where the rio grande needs 100 miles of fence into better shape the terrain, in my view the biden administration can complete that task and help by

customs agents who are absolutely overwhelmed. host: congressman french hill, thank you for being with us. morehead. -- more ahead. in our next segment we will be joined by caitlin emma to discuss president biden's $1.5 trillion discretionary spending plan. after that, representative david price will talk about the budget and more specifically the upcoming jobs plan. and in the meeting yesterday with the president on that -- and the meeting yesterday with the president on that. ♪ ♪ announcer: american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story. 60 years ago this weekend, more

than 1400 cia trained cuban and sounds launched a failed invasion to overthrow fidel castro's government at the bay of pigs. live on saturday on american history tv and "washington journal," we will look back at the invasion with a former cia historian and then on sunday, at 4:00 p.m. eastern, four films on u.s.-cuban relations. including the nbc report on they have pigs, the president's speech after the failed invasion, newsreels from 1959 to 1961 on the cuban revolution. and in 1960 broadcast, "cuba, the battle of america." exploring the american story, watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3.

announcer: washington journal continues. host: we are joyed to next by "politico" budget and appropriations reporter caitlin emma to talk about the $1.5 trillion discretionary spending plan. good morning. guest: good morning. host: this is just called the discretionary budget, but what else makes up the rest of the president's budget and how much is that grand total expected to be? guest: what we saw released last week was what you called the discretionary spending request. that would be for fiscal 2022, which begins on october 1. essentially, discretionary spending only makes up a third of the total federal budget. so, this is funding for all federal agencies, for all domestic programs, non-defense

programs, in addition to the pentagon. this does not encompass the full federal budget, like i said it is about $1.5 trillion in this request, but in addition to that you have mandatory spending on programs like medicare and social security, tax proposals -- all that is a supposedly forthcoming in the coming weeks from the white house, may be month, but for now they released this request for federal agencies so congressional appropriators can get started writing the annual spending bills and getting the government process started. host: the headline to one of the pieces on the budget actually frames it, "biden, $1.5 trillion budget includes the 16% domestic spending boost." when is the last time domestic spending had been increased on that level or has it been? guest: this is a huge proposed

domestic spending increase. it's worth noting that the president's budget is by no means a document that congress has to adhere to, this is a proposal, what the white house wants to see. in many ways it is a messaging document. some people call it a wishlist. the president proposes and congress disposes, is a common phrase, but the president is saying he wants increases to non-defense programs, like health programs, labor programs, educational programs, things like that. that's is what we are seeing in terms of the priorities, so a 60% increase is huge, -- 16% increase is huge. he's only proposing a very marginal increase for military funding. and we have already seen that run into resistance from both republicans and progressives.

this is just a messaging document, but there is a clear emphasis here on the need for domestic investments. host: we are talking about the proposed budget. we welcome your calls. 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats, 202-748-8000. 202-748-8002 for independents. this is completely separate from what may be, or certainly from the $1.9 trillion approved for covid spending last month, and separate from any proposed infrastructure package the president is likely to propose in the coming weeks. guest: right, many different numbers floating around. congress did pass that relief package last month. and this is separate. this is proposed government funding for fiscal 2022, beginning on october 1. and then separate from that is also the president's proposed to

trillion dollar plus infrastructure plan, but what we have been told by the white house is in the coming weeks, as the president looks to release his fuller budget request, which will include proposals for tax reform, i believe that the white house is going to look to essentially tie in the infrastructure plan together with fiscal 2022 funding, in ingrained division for spending for the next year and years to come. host: let's go over to the audience. but first, let's talk about the topline numbers. the $1.5 trillion proposal includes over $69 billion for non-defense programs, $753 billion for defense programs, an increase domestically, and a 1.7% increase for the military. what has been some of the reaction to that figure on the military spending, 1.7%? guest: the military funding

proposal is probably the most controversial here. initially, we saw praise from the top spending leaders on capitol hill, like the house appropriations chairwoman, folks like that, john yarmuth, both of them said this is a great starting point, we can work with this. but the president has to sort of walk a very difficult line on defense spending and it remains to be seen how he will do it. it's one of the most fascinating narratives to me for the next year, because you have progressives in the democratic party who want to take at least a 10% cut off the top of the pentagon's budget. that's their bottom line. they want to see spending cuts. they think that there is too much military waste, that we are spending way too much on the pentagon, and we need to invest

that money into domestic programs like education, health and labor. so even a tiny increase of 1.7% over the previous year is too much for progressives. at the same time, republicans are saying, you are flat funding the military and this is never going to fly, and this is a big problem for us. and you will eventually need public -- need republican support to pass the package. so 1.7% is not going to be enough to earn that support. host: politico is reporting that the president will have an announcement this afternoon at 2:15 p.m. on withdrawing troops from afghanistan. is this a situation where he can say legitimately that there will be less of an expenditure in afghanistan, so $1.7 trillion may be more appropriate? guest: it remains to be seen. you are probably going to have to compete julie -- capitulate

the senate republicans and provide more funding for the military. the package will need support from at least 10 republicans in the senate to get through the senate. so, in my opinion, i think that progressives can be as loud as they want, but unless you want to provide funding for domestic agencies, you know, increasing budgets across federal departments, you are probably going to have to compromise by providing the pentagon with more money than the 1.7%. host: other figures. this is from the 2015 budget, $20 billion increase for title i grants for schools, $13 billion for climate change, $8.7 billion for the cdc, the department budget will rise, and no new wall money for border security,

and three point $4 billion for the office of refugee resettlement. on the cdc budget, that is their biggest increase in many years, correct? guest: that would be the biggest increase in two decades, so you are talking about a major investment in public health. an issue is the cdc has suffered from underfunding for far too long, and in the middle of a pandemic that is pretty untenable, but some other figures you mentioned, like the increase for title i schools, that is huge, massive infusion of funding for that program, which serves low income schools. i was a former education reporter, so that really caught my eye in terms of something that is big. we are also talking about an investment in climate change, historic at $14 billion, but this is again a wish list, so it remains to be seen how this will shake out. host: we will go first to john

in chicago, good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i think it is simple, we need to stop wasteful spending. how are we trillions of dollars in debt, the greatest nation on earth? i will tell you why. it's because of people like bdien and -- biden and others, they are the cause of all of this going on in the u.s. right now. god bless president donald trump. that's all i got to say. guest: well, you raised a good point. many folks are concerned about the national debt and there's a lot of a conservative people who feel like there needs to be more focus on that. it's a big topic among economists in terms of are we spending too much and at what

point does the federal debt become a problem. the only issue with that is th ere really isn't a tipping point. nobody is quite sure what it is and at what point other countries sort of lose faith in the united states in that way. so, folks would argue that we could afford this and we can afford to spend trillions on pandemic need and infrastructure. and annual government funding come in comparison to that, is a drop in the bucket, but many people say these investments are needed now in order to put the country in a more stable spot, in order to put the economy in a more stable spot, then to come back in the future and maybe talk about ways we can bring the debt down and shrink the deficit. host: beverly in richmond, virginia on the independent line. caller: i'm calling concerning senior citizens.

my concern is, if we continue to help all these other countries, what is going to end up with our , you know, our checks? i only get $1600 a year, and i do not have enough to cover my bills. we senior citizens, a lot of us want to work, but as soon as we start working, they take away from our checks, so most do not want to go out and lose anything that they are sure to get. i want to know if we can do anything to keep senior citizens that want to work, to work? host: will there be changes, any changes to social security or medicare benefits? guest: great question. so, the proposal that was released last week by the white house is a discretionary funding request, it just involves money,

simply it is money for federal agencies. discretionary spending is a third of the federal budget, it does not touch programs that are categorized as mandatory funding, like medicare, medicaid, social security. we expect to see in more fuller budget request from the white house in terms of what they would like to do there. certainly, there is pressure from advocates and folks across the country to make investments in social security that will ensure the program's sustainability. the program is facing challenges in terms of insolvency in the coming years, in the near future, and some would argue that the pandemic has made that worse. so it will be interesting to see what they propose were social security and programs like medicare and medicaid. host: the cabinet this week will begin going to capitol hill to

testify. one will testify before the appropriations subcommittee on the usda's 2022 budget. we will also hear from the transportation secretary tomorrow, and the hhs secretary. if there is a theme to the wish list, that we will hear from the cabinet secretaries in the hearings, what is it? guest: historic investment in domestic programs. the non-defense programs, programs that do not involve the pentagon or military. that's because we are now on the other side of what was 10 years of strict funding limits under the budget control act. that set limits on how much congress can spend for 10 years, a 2011 law. now that we are in fiscal 2021, 2022 will be the first year we are outside of those caps.

so folks feel like domestic programs, health programs, labor programs and education programs have been shortchanged essentially for a decade because we had to adhere to these budget caps. so now that we are beyond that, congress has an opportunity to course correct, if they want, and rein in military funding. but we are essentially in a free zone when it comes the budget policy, where congress can decide which levels are appropriate for domestic programs and what's appropriate for the pentagon. that will be the subject of a lot of upcoming spending debates. host: the committee had this to say. the president's proposal is a good reminder on the need to extend the caps that expire at the end of this year, importantly it encompasses only a third of the budget and we cannot truly evaluate the president's agenda until we know

how he will address the other two thirds of the budget and what he will do with taxes. it sounds like there is not much appetite on capitol hill for a return to spending caps. guest: there is not. that would be -- host: on both sides of the aisle. guest: on both sides. i have not heard republicans talking about reinstating the discretionary spending caps, which is a good point. when you talk about where we are at the moment, coming off or still in the middle of a global health crisis, trying to get everybody in the country vaccinated, trying to ensure that the labor market gets back to a stable place, ensuring that the economic growth that's been predicted bears itself out -- no one is really talking about the need for a new era of fiscal austerity. will that change? possibly in the next few years.

but the democrats have a slim majority at the moment and it does not seem that that is a discussion that the white house and democrats want to have. host: michael in pennsylvania, democrats line. caller: good morning. i want to say it is funny how the previous administration gives tax cuts to some of the wealthiest companies in our country and at the republicans are fine with that. now that biden wants to invest in america, and truly make it great again, there's all this pushback. we need -- we are in the middle of a global pandemic, obviously millions have lost their jobs, companies have been decimated, so this investment is needed. these are things that are here domestically that will help the economy. i do not see where investing in broadband for rural areas is a bad thing. we are trying to make transportation more efficient. our system is probably one of the worst, if you compare it to

europe or japan. these are things i feel like the government should do in cooperation with private partnerships, to make america better. so, i am for any investment in the u.s. and the one thing i believe, if all these oil workers want a job, they need to invest money in these people so they do not feel left behind. guest: you bring up a good point with the tax cuts. in 2017, republicans used the budget reconciliation process to push through this huge package of tax cuts, which contributed significantly to the federal deficit. and the budget reconciliation process allowed them to move that package through congress without democratic support because republicans at the time controlled both chambers of congress and the white house.

now we are on the other side, where democrats last month he used the budget reconciliation process to pass the coronavirus relief package through congress without republican support. when you are talking about the tax cuts, that is definitely a big talking point for democrats right now. republicans were comfortable pushing that through in 2017, and contributing to the deficit and giving corporations tax breaks. now the pendulum is swinging the other way, where they democrats want to raise the corporate tax rate in order to make major investments in infrastructure and other major investments in public health and what is called human infrastructure. and sort of trying to level the playing field. but one part of the president's proposed infrastructure package it would raise the rate from 21% to 28%, and that is one of the president's major payers for the

package and that he wants to move through congress. already we have seen resistance to that from moderate democrats, republicans. democrats do not need the republicans to get it through congress, but it does not look like the tax cut as proposed will bear itself out. i think we will see more from the white house in terms of where are they comfortable negotiating on a corporate tax rate, what they may propose in the fuller budget proposal. it will probably be interesting because it sort of illustrates their desire to pay for the infrastructure investments, but also there will probably be proposals there, within the 10 year budget window, how they want to find the government -- fund the government and how they want to pay for it. and i believe it will involve

increasing taxes on the wealthy and on corporations. host: a question, "how does a student loan forgiveness factor into the budget?" guest: this is one area that is very interesting to pay attention to with the biden white house. my colleagues on the education team have done a lot of interesting writing on this, but essentially the president is under pressure to unilaterally cancel student loan debt via executive order. and he is getting pressure from top congressional democrats to do that. the white house is taking a more measured approach, where they do not seem to be completely comfortable with doing that. apparently, from what i have read from my colleagues, they want to have the justice department look into the president's authority to do some of that, but there are progressive democrats and top democrats that feel like the

president can step out right now and cancel student debt. but the white house is being more cautious. host: here's rory with us from california. caller: my name is rory. two things. one, federal money is being stolen from the stimulus in california. $16 billion in the deal, and $11 billion has been hacked and stolen. the state has lousy computers. the other thing is more serious. now that everybody is talking about the federal --, on the republican side, they are about to do the same. we have 400 million californians, and womb billion

fraud votes -- and 1 billion fraud votes. the votes would be fraud for everybody. host: a little off topic. let's go to tim. caller: i appreciate your time. is there a vehicle -- the f35 has been a failure project. i was going to talk about a lot of other things, but do we have to be in for a trillion? i want to hear your response. host: did you understand the question? guest: in terms of, i think you are asking about, do we have to take action to rein in the deficit? host: yep. i wasn't clear, but on that

line, let me ask about the potential in terms of what the senate might do with the question from mike in cleveland. budget reconciliation, is it in play to get this past in congress, specifically in the senate? guest: that is the talk of the day, everyday, at least for me, because i am a budget reporter, but budget reconciliation is this really arcane wonky tool that one party in power can use to pass a major piece of legislation that affects federal spending, revenues or the debt. get that through congress, get that through the senate, without republican support. so this tool allows you to avoid the legislative filibuster, which is democrats do not have the votes currently to eliminate. so this is a key tool to get the

democrats' priorities through congress and not have to have support from 10 republicans to do that. so they have already used that to pass the pandemic aid package. that happened last month. typically, budget reconciliation is something that, when we think about it, it is limited in its use in terms of how often you can use it and exactly what you can use it for. both parties have used it to enact sweeping policy goals. earlier we talked about the republicans in 2017 using it to pass their tax cut package. so, both parties have stretched the limits of how this tool was originally envisioned to be used. what is happening now on capitol hill is interesting because the senate majority leader, chuck schumer, has asked the senate parliamentarian, a woman who is at the behind-the-scenes rules

referee in the senate -- she's an expert on senate policy and procedure, and she plays a really outside role in the reconciliation process in sort of deciding what flies with the rules guiding that process, and what doesn't -- he's asked of the parliamentarian if they can revisit the same process they used to pass that aid package and unlock another opportunity at reconciliation to pass what have you, infrastructure, immigration reform has been on the table. essentially what chuck schumer is trying to do is ensure he has another tool to pass another piece of spending legislation. so, will they revisit that process? i do not know. they also have a budget proposal that they can use. but definitely reconciliation is on the table and multiple opportunities at reconciliation

is on the table, which is unusual for a party in power. host: "politico" budget and appropriations reporter caitlin emma, talking about the discretionary spending plan. read her reporting at politico.com. thanks for being with us. still to come, we will take your phone calls next on the president's announcement coming later today on u.s. forces are leaving afghanistan by september 11 of this year. if you support that, the line is 202-748-8000. if you oppose that withdrawal timeline, 202-748-8001. for afghanistan war vets, the line is 202-748-8002. later, congressman david price will join us to talk about

budget matters, but also about the president's upcoming infrastructure plan. that's ahead. ♪ announcer: here is a look at our live coverage today. on c-span, the house is back at 10:00 a.m. for general speeches, legislative business. and members are considering several bills from the energy and a small business committees, including legislation to protect seniors and indian tribes from scams. on c-span2, the senate returns at 10:30 a.m. to consider the nomination for the chair of their securities and exchange commission and for the chair of the council on environmental equality. and then, until officials testify at a senate hearing on global threats on c-span3. then fema's role in responding to the coronavirus pandemic. and there is more streaming live

on our website, including the confirmation meeting for the to lead the civil rights division at the justice department. that's at 10:00 a.m. at the same time, the agriculture secretary will testify before a house appropriations subcommittee about the president's budget request. and at 2:30 p.m., a senate armed services subcommittee will hold a hearing on cyber security threats. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: president biden is expected to make an announcement about troops in afghanistan today. here is the reporting from the front page of the new york times. "biden sets end date. troops will leave by the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, rejecting the push to remain in afghanistan until security forces can assert themselves against the taliban. biden has stamped his views on a

policy has long debated, but never controlled. after years of arguing against an extended presence in afghanistan, the president is doing things his way, with the deadline set for the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attacks." a senior official said the president has come to believe that "a conditions based approach it would mean troops would never leave the country." the announcement is expected today. same thing, front page of the washington post. and the headline, the u.s. is set to exit afghanistan by september 11. i want to talk about the lead editorial in the washington post. the likely result, disaster. biden has chosen the easy way out of afghanistan. they say that the bargain struck by the trump administration with the taliban required it to break ties with al qaeda.

according to u.s. military officials, it has not done so, nor has it been willing to negotiate seriously with the afghan government about a peaceful settlement. it rejected a biden administration proposal for a conference in turkey to jumpstart talks and it really cool u.s. proposals for power-sharing arrangements with the government, as well as for new elections. leader reject -- leaders reject that they will rout the government once the troops leave. if the assessment proves wrong, mr. biden's decision to remove u.s. forces by the symbolic date of september 11 may simply result in the restoration of the 2001 status quo, including terrorist bases at that could force a renewed u.s. intervention. at a minimum, it will mean an abandonment of those afghans who

believe in building a democracy for guaranteed human rights and a nullification of the u.s. servicemen who were killed or wounded in that mission. the line for afghan vets is 202-748-8002. all others, if you support the withdrawal, 202-748-8000. if you oppose, 202-748-8001. let's go to lacomb, louisiana with bonnie. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. caller: i'm in total support of removing the troops. i think that biden could have kept the may 1 deadline. we have been there long enough. i think the grassroots of democrats and republicans believe that list military intervention is the direction

that the united states should take. my biggest problem with this announcement yesterday is coupling it with the 9/11 anniversary date. i think that date is sacred for the attack that was on our country and i do not think we should have them both on the same day. i find that more to be a publicity stunt than a good faith effort. but biden, you know, in your taped call when i was waiting, it said biden did not have the authority to do something in the past. that is technically not true, he was vice president and in charge of a lot of this when he was under president obama. he kept saying that they would

remove the troops and they didn't. so, i think it is a good thing and it should be bipartisan, which i think is important to bring back the respect for each sides' views. but i disagree with the date that he is planning on doing it and i wish you would change that. host: rick in missouri, opposing the move. good morning. caller: obviously, 20 years later this has been painful for our nation to be there this long. it was so divided. we have been at work for 20 years and we have not come together as a country. i oppose the fact that he has announced a precise date. and i am sure that several years ago, when we were talking about leaving iraq, and one administration was announcing a date and everybody was critical

of that, that it would create a void and the bad actors would swoop in on the next day. so i do not understand why he is giving a precise date, other than the symbolism of that date. so, i oppose it, strategically, announcing that date. host: we have heard initial word on this from jen psaki at the white house. [video clip] >> i leave it to the president to lay out his specific plans for withdrawing troops, the reasoning and his commitment to focusing on the threats and opportunities we face around the world today, but i will say the president has been consistent in his view that there is not a military solution to afghanistan. that we have been there for far too long. that's been his view for some time. he believes -- he remains

committed to supporting negotiations between the parties, which many of you may be following are resuming next week. he also believes we need to focus our resources on fighting the threat we face today, almost 20 years after the war began. so that is his approach on how he looks at this decision, but he will lay out more specifics tomorrow. host: we are expecting to hear from the president on his decision later today. this is a tweet, "the administration official says the withdrawal by september 11 is not condition based. biden has judged that 'a condition based approach is a recipe for staying in afghanistan forever.'" chris murphy says that there is no evidence that our military is leveraged to deliver stability

to afghanistan. in fact, a 20 year long war suggests the opposite is true. it is time to bring our troops home. and "great to see the president following calls to withdraw troops from afghanistan, we must end forever wars, reinvest in diplomacy in facilitate lasting peace. the next step is to finally end the use of military force, no more blank checks for war." "i'm very disappointed in the deadline to walk away from afghanistan. although the decision was made in coordination with allies, the u.s. has a sacrificed too much to leave without verifiable assurances of a secure future." from lindsey graham, the senator with this statement, "if reports are accurate that the president is withdrawing forces from afghanistan by september of this year, it is a disaster in the

making. a full withdrawal is so irresponsible it makes the policies at the border look sound." back to our calls. the line for afghan vets, we have a caller. caller: i think that going into the conflict in afghanistan we did not have a clear set of objectives, and that we didn't support the war fully and give the troops the tools they needed to be successful. and we either need to go all out , establish some firm objectives, like eradicating the taliban, and do it right, or don't do it at all. i guess the best thing is to pull out.

host: we have jay, also an afghan vet. caller: hey, how are you doing? i've been to afghanistan three times under three administrations, bush, obama and the trump administration just last year. the last caller hit on the head. there's no clear objectives, but the political views, obviously the military is headed by a civilian leader and congress holds a lot of power, and a lot of our leaders' hands were held behind their back, because every cycle has a different political agenda that is put in. they would say this is our national security outlook, our objectives, and the politics of ruined any chance to have a

positive impact in the region, one to stabilize, but also to weaken our real adversary in the area, which is iran, to the west of afghanistan if you do not know geography. the war was a missed opportunity to effectively weaken and go against our key adversary. host: how early in your service, under the three presidents, did you come to realize the mission was not clear at all in afghanistan? caller: my first deployment was when i left school, and i was in the river valley, a private e-2 at the time. and i was doing a mission that nobody really understood whatever full objective was. it was not clear. and then once president obama

took office, it's like why are the rules of engagement changing, when the effects on the ground were worsening? why are we no longer carrying high-caliber weaponry when we are taking effective fire from ied -- fire and there's ied's in the areas that we control? so, that's when i knew that politics was really messing up the war. that was seven years into it. and it was just a clear that politics was what was setting the pace for our failure. not to sound partisan, but when i was there last year under president trump, he wanted to deal with the taliban. and i think that, politically,

that was put out well and it could have been very effective if he had had a better way to get to it. the objective that came, let's get out so i can get political points, everything went out the window. the taliban now had a date, so they could hold back and not doing anything. the americans are leaving, let's wait. so they could get stronger and go in to top the afghan government. host: we appreciate your perspective, jay. a comment. "we should pull out of afghanistan. we should not be policing the world when we cannot protect her own cities from invasion." the new york times, "the

decision hopes at home." caller: can you hear me ok? i feel like this has gone on for 19.5 years and it is time to bring this over war to a close and try a new paradigm shift, one of diplomacy that would employee the state department, using very strong diplomatic skill in china, in kyrgyzstan, to pick pakistan, practiced -- to take minutes tan, pakistan, those that will be in the neighborhood of afghanistan, when they have to decide whether they will live in peace or continue their civil war. these countries have a vested interest, much more so than america, unless a terrorist attack were to emanate from afghanistan. these countries have a vested interest in seeing that we have a peaceful and safe afghanistan.

so i think what we need is a paradigm shift from covert war to a very robust diplomacy by the u.s. state department to buttress the security situation in afghanistan and make the surrounding countries say, this is in your neighborhood and it is in your interest to keep afghanistan safe from all internal threats and external threats. and i just think the u.s. does not use enough diplomatic tools at his disposal to affect peace. this is a country that has been at war for 45 years. host: other u.s. allies to be involved in the decision, and the headline here, "u.s., great britain and france to hold talks on afghanistan and berlin." joe in aurora, colorado. go ahead. caller: thanks for letting me talk. i've been trying to get on for a long time.

i wish there were some courses in war so people would understand war. you do not get into a war unless you have specific goals on what you are going to do. get in, get out, and do not start a war if you cannot win it. get the politicians out. host: manheim, pennsylvania, frank, who is opposed to the withdrawal. caller: i am opposed because of the fact that we should establish bases, like we have in korea, and maintain support for these people because if we pull out, the taliban is going to start killing every a doggone body and it is going to be like being in hell. if we go in with the outlook of taking care of business, take care of business.

you have everybody fighting in the name of the lord, but they do not care about the lord. they will wipe out everybody and establish some silly kind of government. god bless you and thank you. host: pretty page of the wall street journal, "biden to withdraw troops by september 11." "the president has decided to withdraw all troops by september 11, effectively winding down the war two decades after it began. the decision, which is expected to make public today, marks the second time in less than two years that the u.s. president has set a date for ending our involvement in afghanistan. last year, donald trump reached a deal with the insurgent taliban movement, under which u.s. troops would depart by may 1. mr. biden reset plans and

selected the 20th anniversary of the terrorist attacks by al qaeda to define the end of an era in which the u.s. has expended years of effort and a of dollars on efforts to counter extremist threats. the withdraw is likely to be completed well before the september 11 target date, possibly by this summer." mitch mcconnell yesterday after the news was announced, his reaction to the decision by the administration. [video clip] >> new reporting suggests the administration is going to turn tail and abandon the fight in afghanistan. withdrawing u.s. forces from afghanistan is a grave mistake. it's a retreat in the face of an enemy that has not yet been vanquished, an abdication of american leadership. leaders in both parties, including me, offer criticism -- offered criticism of the prior administration floated the

concept of withdrawing from syria and afghanistan. the same voices should be equally concerned about the biden administration's announcement today. a reckless pullback would abandon our afghan regional and nato partners, in a shared fight we have not yet won. it will abandon the women of afghanistan, whose individual freedoms and human rights will be in peril. host: president biden today will make that announcement at 2:15 p.m. eastern and we will have live coverage for you this afternoon, expecting that here on the c-span networks, so look for coverage here on c-span and also on c-span radio, at 2:15 p.m. your thoughts on the announcement. 202-748-8000 if you support that. 202-748-8001 if you are opposed. for those that are afghan vets, 202-748-8002.

on social media, "i will believe it when i see it. the last one who tried was threatened with removal from office, i doubt this one could withstand the same intimidation." "it was actually donald trump that called for the military to come home, and for other countries to pay their fair share for security, it was called america first." in buffalo, new york, kenneth is supporting the move. caller: yeah, i'm a korean war veteran, 88 years old. i've been around for a lot of wars. with regard to the war in afghanistan, i make the comparison to northern ireland, where the british army could not defeat the ira in a very small place. and everybody spoke the same language. and with afghanistan you have a

terrible terrain, hundreds of different ethnicities and languages, and a determined -- the lesson of the vietn war wasam -- vietnam war was if there are enough people who do not want you there and they are willing to die for that because, you are not likely to win. so it is time to end the war in afghanistan, and has been around for much too long. host: ned in maryland. hello. caller: hello. host: you are on the area. caller: i am in favor of withdrawal. i think that the people who are opposed to withdraw, such as mitch mcconnell, are doing it because the military industrial complex is behind the continuation of the war in afghanistan. the amount of money that has been spent -- the amount of

money that has been squandered, they had the inspector general looking at it, it's like, it's just mind-boggling that that is not what is discussed about this. and i do not think there is any question about it. the caller before talking about if it is winnable or not. it's not winnable, clearly. many have tried over the course of history, and it is time to get out, stop the bleeding, the financial bleeding. host: reporting from u.s. news and world report with the headline, "biden ordering withdrawal despite objections from leaders. president joe biden's decision to withdraw all forces by september 11 came over the objection of some of his closest

advisors." "and in the face of concern from capitol hill. still, the former vice president, who has repeatedly pledged to end 'forever wars'considers a withdrawal to be the least bad of terrible options." caller in oregon. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, thank you. caller: i agree with the pullout, that it is needed. i hope everything works out with that. i did 28 years total in the army and navy. i got officer. i got crippled by an ied. and i'm homeless and getting it done the best way i can. i hope everybody has that thought on the pullout. thank you for your time and god bless you. host: in texas, we hear from

joey. caller: i would like to say i am in support of pulling out of the war in afghanistan. i think that president biden has made the right decision. i think that the money we are spending in foreign wars would be better suited to be used here at home. and i thank you for your time. host: a couple comments on social media. "this would be great. i support it." carl says, "we should leave on may 1, as agreed. not living on that day would increase the chances and risk of a taliban offensive against nato." frances opposes the move. tell us where you are calling from. i'm sorry, from virginia. caller: in afghanistan --

[indiscernible] host: mute your volume, that will help. go ahead with your comment. ok. there's feedback. call back. this is the lead opinion piece in the wall street journal, "biden's afghan exit. his advisers say while the taliban is a problem, the u.s. can still strike terrorists with weapons and use resources to deter china and russia. the u.s. will maintain counterterrorism capabilities, but the rise of isis in iraq has shown the limits of what can be done without a physical presence. congress should ask hard questions of military leaders who need to level with americans about security risks of withdrawal. for beijing and moscow, the message they receive may be the

opposite of what is intended. they may see the u.s. withdrawal as a sign that bide isn -- biden is keen to retreat from commitments. the tragedy is there is an alternative, a study group said this year that 4500 american troops would be enough 'for training, advising and assisting afghan forces, conducting counterterrorism operations and supporting our embassy,' which would not keep us from dealing with those adversaries." in texas, an afghan vet. fred in mansfield. caller: i'm doing fine, how are you doing? host: just fine. caller: i think it is time to bring everybody home. it's been too long. i think both sides should come together to do that, just

because all of the guys who have served, and women, it is really time to bring everybody home. host: 202-748-8003 is our text line. a comment, "he will doom them and what is left over there monuments." in little rock, richard. caller: thanks. i have not heard yet how many, i guess you would call professional soldiers, mercenaries, whoever we are leaving over there. the other thing is, we could fight them over there or over here, when you are talking about terrorist groups. and the base has been moved -- the date has been moved for a couple reasons. the figure this story gets, the

less we talk about immigration. host: still ahead, next we will be joined by representative david price of north carolina, a top democrat on the appropriations and budget committees. we will talk about the infra-structure proposal, the president's jobs plan and his meeting yesterday at the white house. ♪ >> book tv on c-span two has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. former general electric ceo reflects on the challenges he faced after 9/11 and during the 2008 financial crisis in his book, "hot seat: what i learned leading a great american company." on afterwards, in her book, "member, the science of memory,"

the author discusses how our memory works. she is interviewed by the host of the forgetting podcast. the universal pennsylvania religion professor argues that racism has a hold and white evangelical christian is him in her book. the politics of morality in america, watch book tv in -- watch book tv this weekend. and watch them death, where a new york times columnist is interviewed on c-span2. >> washington journal continues. host: from his capitol hill office we are joined by congressman david price, a member of the appropriations and budget committee to talk about the upcoming infrastructure and jobs plan. good money, we have been talking with our viewers about the news

the president will announce to withdraw troops from afghanistan by september 11. what are your early thoughts? guest: i have been listening to some of the calls while getting set up. it is striking how wary people are of this war -- weary people are of this war. there were mistakes along the way, the biggest of them being going into the war in iraq while we were not finished with the afghanistan effort. here we are. with a plan to announce withdrawal. i am concerned about it. i know it is not a case of late military victory. there has to be some court -- some kind of solution among the

forces in that country as diametrically opposed as they are. i have a special perspective on this. i am the chairman of the house democracy partnership. which is a commission that has engaged with the afghan parliament for most of the last 15 years. if you think the afghan parliament is not a functional institution, it is an untold story that it has been a functioning parliament, with some very courageous leaders. including a number of remarkable women leaders who have led that parliament and persevered. we have engaged with them and identified with their struggle. i have a concern that we not leave all of that work and effort to ensure the rights of women, representative government

for the entire society, all of those things are in jeopardy. they are in jeopardy every day already. my preference would be for a low-level presence of american forces. not to announce an advance a withdrawal date. -- in advance a withdrawal date. a low-level presence that allows for some showing up for those representative institutions. we maintain that presence in lots of parts of the world. that should not be our main focal point. there are many other priorities as no doubt the biden administration has in mind. i have my concerns about unannounced total withdrawal. host: we will hear more from the president this afternoon, the

2:15 eastern we will have coverage on c-span.org and radio. you were in the white house for an entirely different reason, the american jobs plan and infrastructure plan. you are part of the bipartisan group, who was in that group and what did you take away from that meeting? guest: most of us are involved at one level or another in transportation policy in congress. four senators, four house members, two from each party, it was a good group. as well as the president, vice president and policy advisors. the idea was to hear about the party places and the rationale behind it and to hear from us. president biden is good at it -- is good at give and take. it lasted two hours.

the president puts a high priority on the spirit he feels this country must do this. that we cannot defer any longer investing in infrastructure. infrastructure includes housing, broadband, water and electric systems, highways, bridges, transit, rail, aviation. the president feels the country is overdue for this. our international reputation as a country that can do great things is at stake if we delay this. there was an openness to what we had to say and how broadly we should conceive of infrastructure. nobody in the room denied that each of these issues including the home care workforce was a critical issue.

there are practical questions as to how much should be in a bill. the question that has plagued this issue for a decade, how do you pay for? -- for it? host: we will open up the phone lines see your thoughts on the proposal. our guest is congressman david price from north carolina, very connected to this issue and part of one of many meetings with the president on this issue. (202) 748-8001 is the line for republicans, (202) 748-8000 democrats, all others (202) 748-8002. just a look at the plan as proposed by the president. the $2.2 trillion infrastructure plan includes money for public transportation, manufacturing, research and development,

drinking water improvement, broadband access and electrical grids, retrofitting and building affordable housing. you mentioned money for home health care and elderly -- for home health care for elderly and disabled americans. this is a big package, but this is the president's proposal. what do you think the final number will end up being to get through congress? guest: the question that will determine thought, is what is included. from these categories that you have named. no one in that meeting denied that any of these were a pressing issue. there are questions about how we conceive of this package, everybody understands that transportation is at the heart.

as the chairman of the committee thought appropriates for housing and transportation, the deplorable state of public housing stock, rental housing. lots of people paying 60% of their income in rent cannot go on. there is the question of broadband, these issues have broad support as a part of infrastructure. the figures, there are a reason for them, within those figures you have to figure out how much you devote to each item. i was pleased to see as part of the transportation number, $80 billion for intercity rail, building out rail travel in this country, especially in critical regions as a transportation alternative. we are ready to go to work on that.

the last investment in rail we had was the obama recovery plan. that was $8 billion, we got a good share in north carolina to develop the raleigh to charlotte route. now we are ready to go on to richmond and washington. it is encouraging to see that proposal. we need to get to work on it. host: this is separate -- this proposal is separate from anything that has been proposed in the budget for 2022. none of this is part of that. the $1.5 trillion package the administration announced last week. guest: that is the regular 2022 budget. we are going on parallel tracks in terms of involvement. there is going to be a five-year transportation reauthorization

that chairman defazio is working on. there is going to be interaction between these proposals. i am hard at work on that budget proposal. the budget proposal is ambitious , it envisions these efforts, these so-called transformative projects. the build program is such an important part of our transportation picture. in raleigh, north carolina and other places the themes between the regular budget and the special jobs bill are consistent. host: just to touch on that revenue part. the text part of the american jobs plan. the proposal would set the corporate tax rate 28%, it had been reduced to 21% in the trump administration.

increased taxation on foreign source income of u.s. multinational corporations, making order for businesses to merge with foreign companies to avoid u.s. taxes and elevate tax rates for companies that shift resources abroad, impose a 15% minimum tax on income that corporations report to shareholders. it would collect $3.03 trillion, over how many years without be effective? -- would that be effective? guest: something like 15 years. there is a more extended period for that revenue coming in then for the money going out. the money going out is over eight years. host: is there political will to get some sort of large infrastructure package passed in both houses?

guest: yes, there is political will on the democratic side. there is great determination to do whatever it takes to get this done. the president as of that mind. i think we are with him on that. we have narrow majorities. everybody in the room on monday, they agreed with the urgency of the issue. they also agreed if we could work out a cooperative approach, that would be the desirable way. a lot of the memories -- of the member setting their heads misgiving about the revenue side of this. the history of years and years of dealing with this is that our republican colleagues would not come up with a way of paying for this. the president deferred to that in putting this plan forward. we will not even talk about gas

tax, the future vehicle smiled cool -- future vehicle smiled traveled. let's just split the difference on what people agreed was an excessive trump tax cuts for corporations and level the playing field. some of the provisions aren't leveling the playing field in terms of companies that have overseas operations and international situation. let's bring up revenue that way. that opens the door with some people and closes it with others. we are going to have to think about our position going forward on this. there is a particular responsible the on the republican side -- there is a particular responsibility on the republican side to tells what is

acceptable as a way of paying for this. internal discussion among republicans, interesting to come up with an answer. host: we have calls waiting for congressman david price. let's go to doug in oregon on the democrats line. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. caller: i am encouraged and excited about the infrastructure package. it is long overdue. i would comment on the charging stations, i would like to see those done by the private sector , much like the gas stations are now to support gas engine vehicles. there shall be a private sector endeavor to support electric vehicles they are going to the

norm. guest: there is the chicken and egg problem in terms of what needs to come first. whether the federal government should prime the pump. it is a big obstacle to widespread adoption of electrical vehicles for long-range travel. the lack of that infrastructure is a challenge. i think the time will come as it did with gasoline powered automobiles, that will be a matter for the private sector. there is a hurdle we have to overcome in terms of the national availability of charging stations. along with that, there is research on batteries and the capacity of these vehicles must've they do not have to be charged as frequently. the plant does assume -- the

plan does assume there is a jumpstarted needed, so motorists can recharge where they need to. host: we go to richard in alabama. hello there. caller: i appreciate you taking michael -- my call. if these charging stations are funded by taxpayers, will they be free? when is the government going to realize that corporations do not pay taxes, they pass it on to the people who purchase products? you hurt the american people when you raise taxes on corporations. guest: there is a logical conclusion of that point, that there should be no taxes on corporations? caller: that is not the logical conclusion.

teresa to where we are not competitive, 28% is higher than most countries we are competing with. the new ad in the extra for states, we are out of range -- then you add in the extra for states, we are out of range. guest: i disagree with. nobody that i asked for -- nobody that i know asked for the 21% rate with the trump tax cuts. they cut the efficiency standards without the manufacturer's asking for it. i do not know what rational would into that, i never heard a good one. the notion that you get back into the mid-20's range would be competitive internationally. it is where we thought we were heading with the trump tax cuts, seems to me a good basis for political consensus.

unless our republican colleagues will not entertain any tax changes. host: congressman price you mentioned housing earlier in our comments. the white house released a fact sheet on the proposed spending in the american jobs plan. specifically the need for action in north carolina. part of that money is to address the affordable housing crisis, how do you see that money spent specifically? what are the needs in your district and north carolina? guest: there are three areas that need work. very obvious is the sad state of public housing stock, something like $80 billion in deferred maintenance and backlog cost. that shows itself in ugly ways,

we had to affect an entire development because a carbon monoxide poisoning. public housing stock is in terrible shape that needs to be addressed. there needs to be a reduction of the backlog in people who need rental assistance. the president is addressing that in the budget as well as the jobs plan. the need for more rental housing, people pay 60% or 70% of their income in rent. you cannot sustain that. one out of four who needs that assistance is getting it. we need to address the supply of rental housing. that also applies to special categories of people, the elderly, disabled, veterans and so forth.

we need to develop more housing, including opportunities for homeownership as well as rental housing. the main vehicle is the home program, which partners with public and private partners and puts together opportunities for people to become homeowners. or to have affordable rental housing. without goes mortgage insurance -- with that goes mortgage insurance. we need new rental opportunities but also new housing constructed. host: roseann from minnesota, good morning. caller: good morning. my only thought is that everybody would love to see our country improve, i wish in a way that you would take it in smaller chunks.

i wish you would have more economists look at how pointing -- how pouring more money into this will affect inflation. i do not think that giving more people money for housing will cause landlords to raise rent. because if the government is paying a certain portion, if the landlord can get more, they will. i want to know how this affects of banks, the economy and inflation. in a lot of ways you are doing more harm than good and elected these projects take time and energy, we only have so much of it workforce with so much of our population being older. it is more than we can chew. guest: i am chairman of a subcommittee of appropriations, you can say without we -- that

we specialize in doing things in small pieces. which is year-to-year appropriations. we often do it in a bipartisan way. my colleague, formerly chairman, now the ranking republican member, we sometimes remark that everybody is talking about infrastructure, we are paying for it. we are paying for it in annual chunks. we have invested in passenger rail. a lot of what we have been doing has been picked up by the administration in these proposals. i take encouragement from that. i'm glad that they like our ideas. that this already has bipartisan buy-in already, investing in passenger rail, the caller does not think it is from the people are paying 60% of their income

in rent. it is a problem when thousands of people in durham and raleigh are waiting for some sort of support for their rental housing. there are protections that will not let landlords raise rent. it will mean a great deal. we do this when you're at a time. we have increased the amount of rental assistance in modest ways. we are back in the business of taking seriously the housing needs of the elderly, disabled and veterans. we have begun to move towards the investments and housing and transportation -- in housing and transportation. there are times you do not do it in a small chunk, we know that better than most. there is a backlog of need. and a competitive issue with respect to economic health and

international competitiveness. we need to address this. this has been slipping and sliding for a long time. both parties have talked about infrastructure for a long time. there's not a westward filling that we should not go big if we can figure out how to do it. but figuring out how is a challenge. host: here is edward and pennsylvania, make sure to meet your audio and go ahead. caller: i would like to ask the senator -- mute your audio and go ahead. caller: i would like to ask if the senator, what are they doing with the tax on the gasoline? i work for a highway construction company, i would like to know what they will do with the text that they receive. now they want more money to not just repair or patch these roads. what are they doing without money -- with that money.

host: will get an answer to that, we are running short on time. you touched on the transportation reauthorization, what is the latest on the gas tax? guest: the gas tax has not been raised in a long time, it is there. there is a state component of that, that very state to state. where the money goes? it goes into a trust fund, people purchase gasoline, the u.s. highways, that is how they are paid for. the trust fund is allocated on a formula basis to the states. states like north carolina, we have the state department of transportation that works out a transportation improvement plan, there is a schedule for -- it proposes new highways and maintaining and patching the old

ones. we work out eight maintenance schedule for the highways we have. and construction schedules for those we want to have. we do that just as far as the money will allow. the trust fund moneys do not allow us to make the headway we want to. in recent years, we have supplemented those trust funds in eight modest way. that has made possible additional highway and transit construction. the question is, do we need something bigger in terms of a boost? with some of this can be moved ahead -- where some of this can be moved ahead? there are bridges that are really dangerous. in north carolina, we had in the triangle region, which is pretty congested, in need of multimodal

transportation, we had to differ projects in a disappointing way. around the country, some of the minute we are talking about would augment the trust fund. it would not raise the gas tax -- one way or another it would become available. host: next up is francis in florida on the republican line, go ahead. caller: this $1.9 trillion package, only $600 billion of it is going towards infrastructure, is that not correct? guest: depends on how you define infrastructure. we think that rural broadband, that would be this century's version of rural electrification. it depends on how you define it. caller: sewers, bridges, roads, not band-aids putting them over

things to repair them. then it will go downhill in 15 years. to pay this back, the dollar will be worth nothing in 15 years. how do you plan on paying this back? guest: first of all, if you agreed the broader definition of infrastructure to include broadband, water, sewer systems, electrical grid, than it is a whole lot more than $600 billion in this package. it is the vast bulk of the package. it is not band-aids, there is deferred maintenance that needs to be done. i do not know how that can wait longer. there are a lot of new things involved. new extension to the interstate highway system.

we have big plans for net gala, if we can get the money -- for north carolina, if we can get the money. as well as to make intercity rail a serious alternative. the idea is to pay for it. that is why there is this debate over the tax. if we simply want to borrow the money, which may be where the republicans come out, i do not know. it is a problem. i think the president is correct in saying that the relief bill that we just passed the month at his emergency funding. -- that we just passed is emergency funding. when it comes to this jobs bill in the fiscal 22 budget, -- and the fiscal 2022 budget, the books need to be balanced. that is why we need to have

discussion about revenue. it is uncomfortable but necessary. host: i wanted to point out a headline that says, "represent david price is inducted into the national service hall of fame." this is in regard to your work with americorps and americorps seniors. guest: thanks for noticing that and the voices for national service for their recognition. that is an organization of former americorps volunteers. there were a great organization, if you look at habitat for humanity, literacy organizations, meals on wheels, also it's a good work you will find americorps volunteers doing the work to get those efforts together. the pandemic has been more that way, they have been redeployed to help with all sorts of relief.

we got the idea of making that part of the relief effort, helping to pay for some of that, also a modest expansion of americorps with other needs going forward including conservation and food programs. so much that americorps contributes to. i am proud to be a chair with a member from california the national service caucus. i am appreciative of the recognition. host: congratulations on that recognition and for being with us. guest: thank you very much. host: we will spend the remaining 30 minutes in the program with getting your thoughts on the announcement yesterday about the cdc and fda on the pause in distribution of the johnson and johnson paxson. here are the lines -- johnson & johnson vaccine. here are the lines. eastern and central (202) 748-8000, a mountain and pacific

(202) 748-8001 -- mountain and pacific, (202) 748-8001, if you received johnson & johnson (202) 748-8002. we will be back with your comments in a moment. ♪ >> listen to c-span's podcast, the weekly. the podcast -- the workplace after the pandemic, we'll talk about a recently released a poll that indicates most employees prefer working remotely. >> 87% of those surveyed want to work remotely at least one day per week. a lot want to work more than that. only 13% want to work full-time on site. that is a huge change for employers who are used to having everybody in the office, every day. people were commuting come up wanting to live closer to their jobs, that is no longer as important. >> find the weekly where you get

podcasts. ♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government, created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today we are brought to you by these companies who provide c-span as a public service. >> washington journal continues. host: we will get your calls momentarily on the johnson & johnson vaccine. yesterday the fda and cdc calling for a help to its distribution, asking slaves to not continue distribution for the moment as they assess the six blood clot cases reported among the nearly 7 million vaccines distributed. (202) 748-8000 on the eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8001 in the mountain and

pacific region. for those who have received the johnson and johnson paxson or plant to get it in -- or planned to get it in the coming days (202) 748-8002. we were just talking to the guardsmen from north carolina, david price, local news out of north colitis sink that former republican governor pat mccrory announcing that he is running for the senate, "i am simply the best for this job of any of the people running for it and i think i have the best chance of winning the general election." that would be richard burr's seat who is retiring. ap source, "bernie madoff has died and federal prison from natural causes." on the johnson & johnson vaccine, blood clots in covid vaccines.

"scientists are starting to unravel the rare side effect of the johnson & johnson and astrazeneca vaccines. a picture is starting to emerge between the types of vaccines and rare blood clots. the johnson & johnson vaccine which has been delivered to more than six point 8 million americans has been associated with six cases of severe and uncommon blood clots in women ages 18 to 48. it does not happen in healthy people out of the blue and that is what is happening according to a hematologist and clinical investigator at massachusetts general. the food and drug administration called for a pause in the use of the vaccine. " here is the statement from yesterday. "as of april 12, more than 6.8 million doses of the johnson &

johnson vaccine have been administered in the u.s., they cdc and fda over reviewing data involving six reported cases of a rare and severe type of blood clot in individuals after receiving the vaccine. these happened in women aged 18 to 48, from six to 13 days after vaccination. there'll be a meeting of the advisory committee on immunization practices on wednesday to review these cases and assess their significance. the update will review that analysis and investigate the cases. until that is complete we arrived making -- we are recommending a positive use of this vaccine." for this issue got the j intake or are planning on getting it, that is (202) 748-8002. greg is on that line. good morning. caller: good morning. i received it five days ago.

besides the arm pain, i threw up like seven times the day after. host: no other issues? caller: today i had some stomach pain. host: when you heard the news, did you have the oh my gosh moment? or were you confident things will be okay. caller: pretty confident things will be okay. host: thanks for calling. we will hear from amber in new york, hello there. caller: my brother got the shot, he had all the symptoms that they had on the tv about it. before all of this happened, the seneca lived in the falls, their motherland was taken from them by scorched-earth with sullivan under george washington.

host: okay to st. paul, minnesota, good morning fred. how are you? caller: i am good. host: your comment. caller: what did you say. host: go ahead with your comment. caller: shout out to david price, a pleasure to listen to some of the in congress who knows how this country works and where the money goes. -- listen to somebody in congress who knows how this country works and where the money goes. on the light rail, you hear criticism about it, how they spent all of this money on light rail and you do not see many people using it. host: fred that was our previous topic, we were talking with david price about infrastructure. any thoughts on the johnson &

johnson story? caller: i just had a test yesterday, before that i had my first vaccination -- one of my boys does not want the vaccination because he is scared he will get the virus from it. i think it is good. i try to talk him into it, you should just get at. host: was he hesitant for any vaccine or because of the johnson & johnson issue? caller: before that came out about the johnson & johnson. it goes way back, discussions about vaccinations and that things happening. host:-- bad things happening. host: the today, in the third week. this is from usa today.

"the prosecution rested its case to state the defense began calling witnesses to the stand in the trial of former police officer derek chauvin charged in george floyd's death. a former police officer and use of force expert who trained officers for 35 years told jurors that their chevette was justified in his use of force, the first witness to make the statement. i felt that the interactions with mr. floyd were following training, current practices in policing and reasonable he said. many minneapolis police officers including the police chief and national use of force experts have testified for the actions were not justified." that trial resumes in about 20 minutes or so, our coverage will as well. that will be online at c-span.org. the trial will re-air tonight at 8:00 eastern on c-span2.

neil is in arlington, virginia, got up j and j vaccine. caller: i have not received the johnson & johnson, i was scheduled to get it. i was notified of the change in plans. i am kind of disappointed. host: what is plan b? caller: i live in arlington, from my understanding they will provide with a certain amount of vaccines for pfizer and moderna. i was excited for johnson & johnson, because all of the information i got was that they were better against the additional strains. this sounds similar to the astrazeneca situation from a month and a half ago. it sounds overcautious when we

are talking about six cases in 7.8 million. i've spent the need for an abundance of caution to increase confidence. it does seem excessive. host: six reported cases in 6.8 million according to the cdc. thanks for the call. erin in california, hello there. caller: how are you? unfortunately i got the j intake -- j&j vaccine on the seventh. i had a terrible reaction. my headaches were so bad, i had to have an ice pack on the top of my head and back of my neck. i drank volumes of water and bits of aspirin. unusual burning fever, with my

fingertips ice cold. this is not normal. i did research about the vaccine. i got misinformation. they try to say that they were similar to the rna vaccines but used dna. i did not realize it was a killed covid virus, they said it was from a monkey, which does not make sense. since they said it was a cross species contamination that caused it. host: in terms of your symptoms and for the others who got it recently, there is a piece about what you need to know. "federal health officials warned doctors and patients to watch out for symptoms that could indicate extremely rare but

serious form of a blood clot in the brain, six women who receive the johnson & johnson vaccine suffered at. what to look for if the artwork -- what to look for if you are one of 7 million people who have received the vaccine, headaches, leg pain, abdominal pain, shortness of breath six to 13 days after receipt of the vaccine. those are different from the flulike aches and lethargy that can occur at day after receiving the shot which are generally harmless side effects of inoculation." wisconsin, jim good morning. caller: good morning, i cannot see how you are not tempted to not turn around and look at the fabulous dome. host: do not make me do it. [laughter] caller: i am 72 and have had an

irregular heartbeat. i have been on blood thinners and i am concerned about the concept of the vaccines. the earlier ones are from older embryonic tissue but this j&j is from more recent embryonic tissue from abortions. i went through abc, nbc, warfare in the navy. for a lot of the nerve gas and pain and things that are happening from this gift from china, they would jab atropine

into your thigh. that is the biggest muscle you could get at the battlefield. i am not saying that china is set work with us. how could they allow this to get out to all of these countries in the world? if they're working on it or it came from a marketplace, they will be the first to come up with a vaccine. host: ed next in maryland. caller: i got it on march 7 in yankee stadium. no side effects whatsoever. a little bit of soreness and tenderness, about a day or so after. after that no adverse reaction. my primary care physician stated

it was better against the variants than the other vaccines. that is all i wanted to say. host: yesterday -- thank you for the call. after the announcement came out from the fda and cdc, president biden said that this would not slow down efforts to get every american vaccinated. [video clip] pres. biden: i told you all, i made sure that we had 600 million doses. not of either johnson & johnson or astrazeneca, there is enough vaccine that is 100% unquestionable for every american. thank you. host: president biden commented yesterday on the halting of the vaccine. today he will make an announcement about the withdrawing u.s. troops from afghanistan. we expect that at 2:15 eastern,

we will have live coverage at c-span.org and on c-span radio. zeke miller from the associated press, president biden will stay in his comments that we went to afghanistan for a horrific attack 20 years ago but will not explain why we should remain there. a reporter from the washington post, "i am now the fourth american president to preside over a true presence in afghanistan, two, two democrats, --two republicans, two democrats, i will not pass this to a fifth." guest: i have a medical supposition, i can remember years ago in that age range, women taking oral contraceptives had to be careful for blood clots.

i would be curious investigating these cases if they also take oral contraceptives. i am not medically trained. this is guesswork. i would be curious. host: wall street journal on the johnson & johnson vaccine from this morning. "the vaccine issue poses a new threat for johnson & johnson, they are faced thorny issues during the 135 euros history. from cyanide poisoning of its tylenol headache remedy to call to palms with several other over-the-counter products and cancer concerns about their talcum powder. the handling of the tylenol poisoning burnish their reputation as a high-minded corporation and became a case study in how to handle a crises. was response to the over the quality -- over-the-counter quality palms herded standings

-- hurt its -- over-the-counter problems occurred its standings. their relative newcomer to the vaccine business, navigating additional scrutiny. however the clods issue is resolved but regulars, the company will need to respond to concerns held by many in the public about vaccine safety." this is chris in arizona, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. as a veteran, went to afghanistan, i know about nokia relations. -- about inoculations. this is being blown out of proportion. if you look at the numbers.

i hope they go back to giving this out again, they really need to. that is all. host: comment on social media, sensor taxed at @cspanwj. "i received the vaccine easter, i would take it again, i am not convinced the issues were caused by the vaccine. women are generally predisposed to blood clotting." dr. fauci as part of the daily briefing on the covid response, responding to a question about whether it was premature to make the decision. [video clip] >> your question is do do we pull the trigger too soon? the hazardous such a rare event. our fda is known -- because it was such a rare event. our fda is internationally known for its response. we want to make sure that safety

is the important issue. we are aware that this is a rare event. we want to get this worked out as quickly as we can. that is why you see the word pause, we might hold on for a bit and go back to that with some conditions were not. we want to leave that up to the fda. i do not think it was pulling it to quickly -- too quickly. host: april in colorado, go ahead. caller: california. host: i am not reading correctly this money, california. caller: good morning. i got my vaccine today, i got a moderna. i have experienced blood clots in the past, i am concerned about johnson & johnson.

were they not in a class-action lawsuit about the talcum powder? when did they become pharmacists? i hope that everybody can get the vaccine and we can heal our nation. host: we will go to david in washington, d.c. caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. i received the j&j vaccine in march, i had significant symptoms over the evening. i was grateful to it was part of a development of an immune response. i am concerned about the reaction to suspending the vaccine when the chances are one in one over -- are one in over one million. how much of a risk is the vaccine? how many more women aren't likely to be a victim of

spousal abuse compared to this? host: are you still there? caller: i am. host: what do you think johnson & johnson has to do in terms of reassuring the public when they start reassuring -- reissuing the vaccines? what do they have to do? caller: ed is going to be important that they are transparent about the blood clots -- it is going to be important that they are transparent about the blood clots. make sure that they are putting up more into the public distribution, the statistics. nearly 7 million vaccines are distributed. everybody's health is important, only six instances, the likelihood is small. i do not want to speak for females, i would want to hope

that as a female receiving this vaccine that they could be competent -- confident in the safety. host: news items breaking on another health issue. reporting of data reporting of a tweet from politico. "the buy demonstration is looking to scrap restrictions on title x family planning program and bands on abortion referrals. they will remain in place until a new policy is finalized later this year." "the buy demonstration looks to resend the family-planning rules, story is coming." irene in pennsylvania, good morning. mute your volume, go ahead. caller: good morning. host: hello there. caller: perhaps the

pharmaceutical companies should consider making vaccines without embryonic stem cells. as a program of having great respect for human life, i will not take the vaccine that has any connections with embryonic stem cells. we have had abortions pushed down our throats for too long and now it is being pushed through a needle. host: do you know that the johnson & johnson vaccine was developed that way? caller: exactly. it was that way. host: linda in texas, hello there. caller: yes? host: you are on the air. caller: i had the vaccine march 11, three weeks later i had a heart attack.

host: so sorry to hear that. caller: i had to have five stints put in my heart. host: you received johnson and johnson? caller: yes. on march 11. april the second, i had to go into the hospital. i spent six days in the hospital. i think it was caused by the jm j-- j&j. host: how do you feel? guest: i am recuperating, not up to par, but okay. host: sorry to hear about that. reporting of the washington times this morning. "halt of that johnson & johnson vaccine disrupt schedule for shots.

the sudden halt which should last at least a few days is an unexpected blow to the rollout amid fears of viral variants and sparked a debate about whether the clouds were common enough to merit any pause in the fight against the pandemic that has killed more than 560,000. the one-shot vaccine was fairly efficient. federal health officials said they needed to investigate clotting to make recommendations to people seeking the vaccine. the clotting has resulted in one death. " this is susan. caller: hello. 908 young man who had the vaccine one week ago on saturday, the next day he had all of the symptoms, fatigue, felt like you feel like after a typical flu shot. but just not recently has

developed -- on his lower back. he is young. i am not saying that is going to go any further, but i am thinking that there could be other symptoms that are not being reported. host: was a johnson & johnson? -- it johnson & johnson? caller: yes. host: how old is he. caller: 30. host: one more call on the topic, in texas, we say hello to linda. caller: hello. host: turn down your volume or you are going to feedback. caller: okay. host: i am sorry. have to let you go, i apologize. call us another day.