secretary that's at 10:30 a.m. eastern on c-span. at 2 p.m., the house returns to take up an apprenticeship bill and begin the process for taking a president biden's coronavirus relief legislation. on c-span two at 9:30 a.m., washington post live hears from dr. anthony fauci on covid-19 vaccine distribution and virus mutation. at 10:30 a.m. come the senate returns for debate on nominations and at noon, members vote on the nomination of pete buttigieg to be transportation secretary. at 2:30 p.m. come a vote on the nomination of alejandro majorca to be transportation secretary. at 9:30 a.m. on c-span3, the senate hears from kathlyn hicks. coming up, the heightened domestic terrorism threat in the

u.s. with the guest who served in the justice department. at 8:45 a.m., historian and historian and author john berry on how the current covid-19 pandemic compares to seasonal and pandemic viruses seen in past years. ♪ host: good morning. it is tuesday, february 2, 2021. yesterday congressional democrats set the stage to move forward with biden's $1.9 trillion covid bill. this morning we are putting that question to you -- what should be the qualifications for getting another stimulus check from the federal government? splitting up our phone lines differently this morning, asking you to call in based on your

annual income level. if you make less than $35,000 a year, (202) 748-8000. if you make between $35,000 and $50,000 a year, (202) 748-8001. if you make between $50,000 and $100,000 a year, (202) 748-8002. if you make more than $100,000 a year, (202) 748-8003. that is also the line you can use to text in your questions. it is not often that we can put a price tag on -- stimulus checks $245 billion,

breaking down the two plans, this is the american rescue plan. biden looks to spend $465 billion on direct stimulus payments with eligibility for those checks phasing out at a $65,000 -- $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 for joint to filers. the gang of 10 plan proposed yesterday by senators to win to the white house have $1000 checks. the eligibility cap is $50,000 for individuals and $100,000 for joint filers. that is what we are talking about this morning, asking you if you were crafting these

plans, what will be the qualifications you would put to get the next round of stimulus checks from the federal government? that group of senators met with president biden. afterwards they came out to talk about how that my eating -- meeting went. they were led by senator collins of maine. >> i would not say that we came together on a package tonight. no one expected that in a two hour meeting. what we did agree to do was to follow up and talk further at the staff level and amongst ourselves and with the president and vice president on how we can continue to work together on this very important issue. all of us are concerned about struggling families, teetering small businesses and overwhelmed health care, getting vaccines out and into people's arms, and

strengthening our economy, and addressing the public health crisis that we face. i think it was an excellent meeting, and we are very appreciative that his first official meeting in the oval office as the -- the president chose to spend so much time with us in a frank and very useful discussion. let me just say we have demonstrated in the last year that we can come together on a bipartisan package dealing with the covid crisis. in fact, we have done that not just once or twice -- we have done it five times. i am hopeful we can once again pass a six bipartisan covid relief -- sixth bipartisan

covid relief package. host: senator collins of maine after their meeting yesterday with president biden. here is how jen psaki described the meeting after day left the white house. " the president and vice president had a substantive discussion with republican senators this evening at the white house. while there were areas of agreement, the president reiterated his view that congress must respond boldly and urgently. he reiterated while he is hope all that the rescue plan to pass with bipartisan support, a reconciliation package is a path to achieve that end. the president also made clear that the american rescue plan was designed to meet the needs of the moment." two paths forward right now.

you heard jen psaki mentioning the reconciliation package. that would be the path forward for democrats alone to move their legislation, the budgetary maneuver we spoke about that would allow them to pass their legislation in the senate with just a majority. we will talk more about that this morning, but we are asking you as we do it, if you were crafting the stimulus checks, and the qualifications for them, what would those qualifications be? britney out of tampa is on that line for those who make $35,000 or less a year. caller: good morning. host: who should get it? caller: i think -- lower class, i guess you would define it? host: that is pretty. wes in spartanburg, south carolina is next.

caller: good morning from spartanburg, south carolina. our household income is between the $60,000 and $100,000. my personal feeling is everyone should get this -- this is not a stimulus. this is disaster relief. i would give people instead of a lump sum $2000, i would give them $800 a month until we get to the summer. the reason i think we should give it to everyone, including bill gates, is that it eliminates stigma. that is one problem with welfare . if anyone tuned into the andrew yang campaign -- i did not need the last round of money, but i used it. i gave to some charities that i like and helped out a local soup kitchen. i think that is the best way to

go forward with it, but if i would negotiate anything, i do not know that the minimum wage increases part -- increase is part of this bill. i don't know about $15. i would put it at a level that makes more sense. $50 may be too much -- $15 may be too much. host: your comment about go bigger -- you would spend even more. are you concerned about spending in this country? the national debt right now at $27 trillion and counting. that is the u.s. debt clock that we always refer to. are you concerned about that number? caller: that sounds like a lot

of money, doesn't it? that horse is already out of the barn. i'm not sure that really matters. host: thanks for the call from south carolina. this is james from spring hill, florida. go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. i feel just like the previous caller that everyone should get the stimulus check. host: why do you feel that way, james? even folks making $1 million a year? more than that? caller: it is not about the amount of checks. everyone has been affected by it as far as, you know, relief, the stress of covid. this is something that should have been as effective as last

march. if they would have just sent everyone $2000 a month, until they realized that this is slowing down, but i think they waited too long. a lot of people were financially stressed out. that is why i think obviously people want more money, but at the end of the day, this would not be -- host: another way of looking at this is by the percentage of households in this country that would receive stimulus checks under the biden american rescue plan and under that republican proposal we spent a lot of time talking about early this week. the wall street journal with a breakdown of those numbers. " under the democratic plan,

84.3% of u.s. households would get the full payment, while 8.4% would get partial payments." that is according to a study out of the u.s. -- american enterprise institute. the republican version in addition to offering smaller payments would reach fewer people. the full payment would go to 62.8% of households while it .5% would get -- 8.5% would get partial payments. paducah, kentucky, good morning! jimmy, are you with us? you have to stick by your phone. the phone line for those -- . good morning. caller: good morning, c-span.

i have a couple points on this. all this money biden is about to give away his borrowed money. if we had money like they do in china, we can be really generous. that is number one. we -- this money should go to those who really need it. you have to make sure that people like jeff bezos and bill gates should not be getting this free money. there is absolutely no point. having said that, the third point is $100,000 in washington dc area where i live is not the same as $100,000 in kansas city. the cost of living is very high in the big city. that is another factor. the third factor is i would

support president biden to go ahead with the $1.9 trillion right away without being given the runaround by the republicans and i believe those 10 people were generous, but when mitch was in control of the senate -- biden should act. he should not runaround like obama in 2009. he should do it and do it when the country is in trouble. host: on your last point there, democrats on capitol hill already setting the stage to move out $1.9 trillion plan budget reconciliation process to allow them to skip the process

on the senate floor. senate majority leader chuck schumer was talking about how leaders will move that bill this week. >> the best thing we can do is act big according to treasury secretary janet yellen. that is what we are going to do -- act big. today speaker pelosi and i will file a joint budget resolution for the fiscal year 2021 totaling one point nine dollars trillion, which is the first step in giving congress an additional legislative -- total ing $1.9 trillion, which is the first step in giving congress an additional legislative tool. the budget reconciliation bill will be the vehicle for urgent and necessary covid relief. i want to be very clear -- there

is nothing in this process that will preclude it from being bipartisan. we welcome republican input. let me say that again -- there is nothing in this process that -- budget resolution or reconciliation that precludes our work from being bipartisan. in fact the senate has used this process no fewer than 17 times to pass a bipartisan legislation since 1980 including to expand or create landmark programs like the child tax credit, child health insurance, which together have lifted millions of americans out of poverty. covid relief to should be the work of both democrats and republicans. host: chuck schumer on the senate floor yesterday. this morning a snowy morning on capitol hill as we ask you about this plan, specifically the stimulus checks part of this

relief plan. how would you craft it? who do you think it should go to? how much should it be? this from aurora, colorado -- " i would limit the number of stimulus based on income tax." " the gang of 10 caucus it represents fewer americans than -- let corporations go bankrupt." robert wolf says " if your income has not been affected by this lockdown, you do not need it." 'stimulus checks should be for enough money to affect is substantial benefit to a family or individual. $1400 is not enough for -- $1000 is not enough for people in need. a bigger stimulus check is needed." the choice right now for the biden administration is whether

to go ahead on democratic support alone and whether they think they can hold all 50 democrats in the senate together or to go with that bipartisan plan, the gang of 10 plan, get the republican senators on board end layer that 60 boat -- and clearer that 60 vote threat -- and clear that 60 vote threshold. " republican senators should stay -- this from gerald in the wall street journal -- he writes in his column that the republican proposal leaves the president standing between his two main opening-round promises to take fast action on the coronavirus and foster more bipartisanship. in washington we will see where the choice comes down by the end of this week.

gloria is next in hammond, indiana on the line for those who make less than $35,000 a year. who should get the stimulus checks? caller: those who make less than $35,000 a year. i do not believe they need it. may be in new york city. they should start less than that. we should have $1000 stimulus checks since this began, everyone should have had $1000 stimulus check per month. host: what would be the difference for you between the biden plan, a $1400 check and the gop plan, 100 -- $1000 check? . caller: -- caller: everything.

i am a senior citizen. we buy sanitizer, and they think we do not need it. they try to overlook us. senior citizens is always been in a hole. host: this is rick out of ohio. rick, good morning. how would you craft this thing? caller: you know, $60,000 a year is not much anymore. it seems like we should be getting more than that. like she was saying, $1000 a month would be sufficient. they should worry more about people than to give other countries -- everything should be centered around us until we are ready before they start giving money to other countries and all this other stuff. the people should be the ones who come first.

host: to the tune of how much? right now we are talking $1400 or $1000. is that enough? caller: if you have a $1200 mortgage or rent, it will take care of you for month, but then you have cable, phone, no gas. i would think $2500 at least. of couple months after that, a little bit more, just to get people going. host: that is rick in ohio. chad program, the fox news capitol hill producer with the pulse on the meetings and capitol hill today noting that the senate democratic caucus today will speak with janet yellen about coronavirus relief plans. we will see what comes from that or if there is any news about what she tells the democratic caucus today.

chad pergram also noting the hearings to confirm alejandra mayorkas and pete buttigieg, both of those votes expected on the senate floor today. also happening today in the senate committee hearing on the confirmation for president biden's pick for environmental secretary, tom vilsack. life coverage begins at 10:30 a.m. eastern right here on c-span. stick around after our program andd for that -- program ends for that. on our line for those who make between $30,000 and $50,000 a year, good morning. caller: my plan is to give it to

people who need it. last time we got our check, we put it in the bank. we do not need it. it went to people whose electricity is turned off, and cannot pay their rent. we are in our 90's. we have no mortgage. we have sufficient money. our children and grandchildren have money. any money we get, goes into the bank. there are people who are suffering. they're getting thrown out of their house, their electricity is getting turned off. if they gave to people based on need rather than their income, maybe they could get more money. our disposable income is in the

moderate to high six figures. we have no mortgage. what good is giving me the barney? -- me the money? host: how do you determine need? will people have to show they were impacted by the coronavirus? caller: ok. i'm sure there is a way. i don't know how. find out how people are living. can they afford their electricity? can therefore their mortgage? can the -- can they afford their mortgage? can they afford their rent? there has to be a way to give it to people in need. i get the check, i put it in the bank, and it bothers me. what we have to do is be more realistic, and just not look at how much -- my income is about

$65,000. i have no stock. when i retired -- i retired in 1988. at that time the interest rate was between 10% to 15%. we put our 401(k), rolled it over -- we got benefits. i get this check to charity, but we are not that wealthy that we could make a difference. host: thanks for the call from new jersey. some folks have advocated for putting more money in the unemployment insurance program, pointing to that as the place where those who need it most could use it.

these are the differences between the two plans when it comes to unemployment insurance. the gang of 10's plan would provide $300 a week for those who are unapplied through june. the biden plan, a larger amount of money and for longer, $400 a week through september. that is the american rescue plan you have been hearing about from the biden administration. that plan, some $618 billion from that group of 10 republican senators who had been pitching that planted the readministration earlier this week -- that plan to the administration earlier this week. jimmy from paducah, kentucky. caller: good morning to you.

if they can find out away of sending it to people getting medicaid and food stamps and stuff, they can find a way. thank you very much, sir. host: that is jimmy and paducah. -- jimmy in paducah. next is texas. caller: good morning. i think they should give -- skip us to make over $100,000 over. they are greatly affected by this. host: how have you been affected? caller: we fall under the $75,000 joint, my husband and i. right now we are getting snap.

we have more kids living with us. i field the middle-class are the ones who always get the bad end of the stick so to speak. they're the ones greatly affected. they are used to a certain income level and with job scarcity, they are the ones we have to actually apply for unemployment and have to wait so long to get the benefits from it and i know that it did not take my husband very long, but i know several in the middle-class to it took them weeks -- who it took them weeks before they got a hold of somebody. host: you are making above $100,000 before the pandemic and you have applied to this program since? caller: close.

we were around the $95,000 range. my husband was completely out of work for a while. we do not get any money at all. host: what kind of work did he do? caller: he works for the oilfield. he drives the semi's that move the drilling rigs and stuff like that. i know several families in the oilfield business to have taken a big hit. we are struggling on a month-to-month basis to make and -- ends meet. he gets personal and employment, but -- partial unemployment, but sometimes that is not enough to make ends meet. host: it is coming up on 7:30 here on the east coast, a wintry morning on the east coast. new fencing has been set up around the capitol and

security continues to be high around the capitol you can see razor ir and national guard troops out there -- razor wire and national guard troops out there. that has been since the january 6 attack on the national capital. there have been calls for -- national capitol. there have been calls for permanent fencing around the capitol. brian sicknick, who died in that attack will lie in honor in the u.s. capital. he died of his injuries sustained during that attack. you can watch the ceremony tonight at 9:30 p.m. eastern on c-span and then tomorrow at 10:30 a.m. eastern is when that ceremony begins again. you can also listen on the free c-span radio app.

backed your calls, we are asking -- back to your calls, we are asking who should be eligible for these two meals check. -- the stimulus check. caller: i don't think anyone should get it. why didn't we get the flu virus this year? where did it go? usually we have an outbreak. where did it go? i think they should send everybody $1 million, then we can be like nancy pelosi and the dang of 10. it is -- gang of 10. it is ridiculous what they are doing. host: did you get one of the earlier rounds of checks? caller: i don't want the damn check! host: what did you do with it?

caller: i spent it like everyone else. why are they sending everyone money? get a job. the coronavirus took over the flu, i guess. host: if you want to talk flu virus, stick around. in our 9:00 our, we will -- 9:00 hour we will be joined by john berry. he wrote the book on the 1918 flu pandemic and we will talk about some comparisons between that pandemic and what is happening now. charles, jacksonville, florida. good morning. caller: hi there. i was calling to endorse the -- i appreciate you pulling out at the capitol that walls work.

if the democrats pass this bill through reconciliation, there will be cuts for medicaid and medicare because of it. thank you much. host: if democrats move this bill through the reconciliation process, they would have to hold together all their votes in the senate to do it, and that is not assured. here is what the washington post has to say on that topic this morning -- noting they would not be allowed to lose a single democratic vote in the senate. joe manchin of west virginia, the democrat considered the most conservative senate democrat has been pressing the white house to reduce the size of the stimulus proposal. according to two people who spoke on the condition of anna tim -- anonymity to share

details of the private exchange. in particular, mansion -- manchin's office has expressed concern about approving more money before the funding approved in the prior relief will -- jim justice was asked about these competing relief packages, which he would support. [video clip] >> it comes down to the $1.9 trillion american relief panel in -- plan or the $100 -- $600 billion republican plan, which one would you pick? >> i will be perfectly truthful. i have not had the privilege to see the plan. i really am not versed well enough to know how much dollars

are really needed, but i have got to tell you that there is a tremendous difference between $1.9 trillion and $600 billion. how we feel is just of this -- i do not think america can go wrong being too high. i think today america has got to go to the higher number. host: jim justice of west virginia yesterday. jacksonville, florida, the line for those make between 60,000 dollars and $100,000 a year. caller: i do not see anything wrong with giving money back to the american people when they spend it everywhere in the world, but the important part is how they spend it. -- how they pass it.

if it goes through reconciliation they will have to cut medicare and medicaid proportional amounts. host: thank you, sorry i left you hanging in the line there. we have a bunch of other folks waiting to chat as well. jim in rodrick, maryland. -- frederick, maryland, go ahead. caller: thank you for your time. i think focusing on something that is undoubtably the people most affected, the people -- i will give you a funny example. my wife and i both were unemployed in 2020. for some reason, we got the

first checks even though we file taxes for 2020. i do not remember exactly -- we got a check. it made absolutely no sense. in 2020 my wife lost her job halfway through the year. i was unemployed as well, but it was not coronavirus related. the second check that went out, we did not get. what is my point? it is very argument -- it is very disorganized. it is helping, but it is also helping people who do not need it. i think focusing on people who have filed and accepted the state's unemployment. right now the federal government only provides a flat $300 per month but they do not rated based on the number of people it is covering.

a family of three, a family of one gets the same amount. they should adjusted based on needs. host: targeting that money to unemployment insurance is lust with -- less wasteful, is that what you are saying? caller: and it will be most helpful to people. let me say one other thing about that. it is targeting people who have demonstrated anyway -- it is difficult for people, it is embarrassing for people. for example, food banks. i believe some of the money that will be in this $1.9 trillion -- there is another example, putting this money towards people, it is very obvious they need it. people are going to a food bank. i can't imagine. people who are unemployed -- i can't imagine either. we are retirement age, so we

probably don't need it. it is not the right thing for us to do, is all i am trying to say. host: these two charts today might help break this down. the difference in spending between stimulus money and money targeted at unemployment insurance programs in this country. under the biden plan, that $1.9 trillion plan, that darker square there is the money that would go to the stimulus, the direct payments impacting something like 85% of american households would get some or part of that stimulus payments. 300 $50 billion for unemployment insurance -- $350 billion for unemployment insurance. the republican plan, a $600 billion proposal, direct

payments they have $220 billion for direct stimulus payments. when it comes to unemployment insurance, $132 billion. if you were crafting it, who should get a third stimulus check? clarksburg, west virginia on the line for those who make less than $35,000 a year. caller: i am on social security, so in 2020, i made 1500 -- $50,000. i had a heart attack last february -- i made $15,000. i had a heart attack last

february. i will take that $1400 check and buy a mercedes. they should have been giving people money every month if they are on fixed income. if you are unemployed, same thing. if you have been working all the time, paying into the system, you should have been getting paid all the time. in west virginia, it is tough. thank god to florida saying things about $30,000. come up here and give it a shot on $15,000. did you hear -- host: did you hear the jim justice clip we played? caller: absolutely. we do not see i. joe mentioned -- joe manchin

is wrong. jim justice is right. i'm an independent. it is different in other places. if you are living in california -- mississippi and west virginia take turns being the poorest state in the united states. when you are making $15,691, can you imagine that john? can you imagine living on that? i had to go borrow $6,000 to make my furnace work. no i have another payment. thank god -- now i have another payment. they have to help the people out here. forget giving money to the los angeles lakers and amazon. thank you, john.

host: thank you for calling it. it has been about a year since her heart attack, right -- since your heart attack, right? caller: yes. me and the dog lived by ourselves and it is tough. host: i'm glad you are doing better since then. let's make sure we talk every february! caller: thank god for c-span! host: jim, iowa, good morning. jim, you with us? then we will go to charlie in ohio, that line for those who make between $30,000 and $60,000 a year. caller: i just called to say, i understand people need the money and everything right now, but they need to go and figure out

who needs it the worst and quit giving it to all these other countries. they had money going to a place, the kennedy museum -- who needs a museum when you cannot eat? they need to figure out where the money needs to go, which is to the american people, not to foreign countries who need to check in on their race or anything else. it goes america, people, nowhere else. host: we have been talking specifically about the stimulus checks and the money in these plans for direct stimulus payments. let me break down the rest of what is in those plans, starting with the american rescue plan, the $1.9 trillion., we talked about the $1400 stimulus checks, the $400 a week unemployment insurance through

september, $400 billion to fight coronavirus and reopen schools, we talked yesterday on this program about the inclusion of $15 an hour in federal minimum wage, more than doubling the minimum wage in this country, expanded paid sick leave for workers, and increased tax credits for families with children. this other plan we are hearing about from that gang of 10, the republican plan would be $1000 stimulus payments, $200 a week in unemployment insurance supplement -- $300 a week in unemployment insurance supplement, $160 billion for vaccine distribution and testing, $50 billion for ppp

loans, for billion dollars for mental health -- four dollars -- it does not include the $15 an hour minimum wage. we are focusing specifically on the stimulus checks. frank, when it comes to those, who should get stimulus checks? out of florida. caller: hi, good morning. i absolutely agree that help is needed for people who have been affected and in my opinion the aid should be targeted through unemployment programs and programs to help small businesses like ppp. maybe these businesses who have really been impacted can continue to pay their employees.

what i think -- one of the shortcomings of just saying "let's give it to anyone who is making under $75,000 and not to anyone making -- who made over 75,000 is you are looking at numbers, income that was generated in 2019. this information is already outdated. someone, a couple who made $200,000 in 20 file their taxes in '20 then lost their jobs. you are not working with the current situation of people. if you channel this through unemployment insurance, it should have a more direct

effect, that are targeting i think -- better targeting i think. host: there is more money directed towards millis payment fan unemployment insurance -- stimulus payments than unemployment insurance. you think both american -- republicans and democrats have found that that is something their constituents want? caller: we are in a crisis. not everyone deserves money. i do not make over $100,000. neither do my kids. we do not need to get a check in the mail. give it to the people who have lost their jobs, who are really struggling. if helping those people by supplementing the unemployment insurance or give them a bigger check. what i absolutely object to are

the programs and special interests that they slip into these packages. that should not be there. things that have absolutely nothing to do with covid. host: this from today's washington times -- a group of democrats is demanding the upcoming debate on the nearly two dollars trillion -- $2 trillion covid bill include -- the caucus is proposing citizenship or those in the u.s. under the obama era dhaka program -- daca program and -- and the temporary protected status designation and those who

can claim to be essential workers. they calculated that would include 5 million people. caller: that is separate and apart from what is going on right now with covid relief, with helping people who are struggling. i get it. the immigration problem is a problem. but why -- again, this is what complicates these bills. people do not know what they are voting for or voting against. i think it is wrong to include that in this bill. immigration is a separate issue, and it should be discussed separately. host: out of pompano beach, florida, we appreciate the call. john in lorton, virginia has been waiting on the line for

those who make between $60,000 and $100,000 a year. caller: thank you for all those participating in this american debate and have something to offer. quickly, i support $65,000 to $100,000. i think this stimulus portion that goes out to people should be based somewhat like housing programs. i am in the housing industry as a realtor. i served in the military for over 20 years. housing programs are based on the income and the cost of living in the area. we have the ability to target these payments in a similar way. the information is there. in my opinion, we need to work on a better system. this is not our last rodeo. this is not our last is stimulus

needed. this is not our last pandemic. we need to get smarter. i know we need to deal with where we are right now. the $6.3 trillion package went out to those who did not need it. if you lost a job, that is important to help those people, but we do not really talk about those people who have been out of work and do not really appear in the weekly and monthly job numbers because they have an out of work so long. how do we affect those people weather in west virginia or west los angeles or southern maryland or northern virginia. host: how was the real estate business during a pandemic? caller: praise god the real estate business is booming, but then you have to have money to buy a house. we did not take care of the pandemic problem. nobody's businesses are traveling.

interest rates are so low everybody is a higher -- buyer. that is a boon to the real estate industry. host: what is the rate today for a 30 year fixed? caller: it is in the low 2's if you have excellent credit. another challenge. helping people stay in a house, helping people eat -- some people need help. they make $65,000 in northern virginia and they are a service provider to congress. they work in the senate as a support person as a capital policeman, they live in northern virginia very likely, and they may live 17 to 45 miles away and travel on a bad traffic day to get there. $30,000 a year, $50 an hour --

$15 an hour, you can probably y uy has been. -- host: marysville comic kansas -- marysville, kansas. caller: i disagree on. i -- i disagree on it. host: why is that? caller: i disagree on the stimulus checks because the more you give people, the more they want. there are jobs out there. the bars are open if they had people to work. people getting these unemployment checks lived on $600 or $800 a month before this. they want it now.

anyone should get it. the people working -- all these people do not do nothing, nothing all their lives, get four or five kids, why is that fair? they don't pay food, they don't buy nothing. i don't think it is fair. host: that is kansas this morning. if more comments from -- a field more comments from -- a few more comments from twitter and facebook this morning. " there is no way the feds -- every taxpayer should be eligible for stimulus money and there should be no reduction on children regardless of income. " no way the feds could ever

legitimately figure out who is in need. i have a niece and nephew with two kids who have done well during covid but will probably earn $4000." " they keep forgetting about those of us who have adult dependents. even though they file taxes on their wages, they are still dependent upon someone else for 50% of their support." when it comes to the gop plan, that amount for dependents is reduced to $500 for children and adult dependents. tracy, akron, ohio, the line for those who make less than $35,000 a year. go ahead, tracy. caller: hi. i was calling. i have not even received the second check.

i do not know where it went. every time i call the irs, they do not answer the phone. i disagree with anyone that is making $60,000 a year do not deserve to get no stimulus checks at all. it should be those under 30,000 or up to $30,000, $50,000 she gets stimulus checks. anybody over that does not need the stimulus checks. they need to work on that much better because there are a lot of people who do not work be cause they get those checks. there are plenty of jobs online. they need to find a different way. the people who are unemployed right now -- i have not even

received my stimulus check, the second one. host: this is millville, new jersey for those who make over $100,000 a year. caller: i agree with the ca ller who called last. i worked pretty much the whole pandemic. i was laid off for two months. i think people who were on unemployment prior to covid, they're making more money than they ever had, they are not planning on going back to work. they're not paying their rent here. they created this big bubble again for the housing market. these people are getting checks and they did not even pay their rent. most people are educated enough that at the end of all of this, they will have to come up with that money. in new jersey they have raised property taxes during a pandemic. we are considered a depressed

area here. also raised all the tolls. $4 million from the teachers union was given to governor murphy's campaign. this is always whole money. they are giving it to the unions because the unions back these people. biden does not care. teachers do not need more money. children have been out of school for a year. how are you going to raise taxes, tolls and then tell people here you care? we are one of the highest paying tax states in all the states. host: how long have you lived in new jersey? caller: all my life. and nothing has ever went down. there are no jobs here. i tell people if you do not want to work you do not have to.

these people are sitting at home collecting, and i think it is just to get votes. it is insane what they have done. can you explain our ask one of the people on your show how it is that they can raise taxes during a pandemic and then say we care? host: thanks for the suggestion. time for one or two more calls before we end this segment -- kragen huntsville, alabama, the line -- craig in huntsville, alabama. caller: $100,000 is based on 2019. thanks to the shutdown and overreaction, i think california is still hiding in the closet. my business buys a considerable amount of our parts out of california. it is one of the sold manufacturers for the parts that we need. i work in the housing industry. i watched two different builders -- the real estate industry is

great if you can get doors, lighting out of china. the parts are not there. we are sitting with nothing to do. my employee are my family. i have business 31 years. i have not gotten paid in a year. my income was close to $200,000. i did not make a penny in 2020, i went backwards. meanwhile things continued to increase. the university of alabama's tuition for virtual is the same price -- price the year before. lew cross and blue shield went up $300. i pay the average rate of inflation 1.6, and now i pay almost 140% more than 2013 when i finally made it through the courts. everything is going up. i am making no money. i will take a check. this thing based on 2019, you

know the government workers, i know a town of government moral -- workers, they sit at home and collected their check. the ones that qualified for, set at home or virtually collect their check. host: what is a brand-new employee, what is the hourly wage that they make it your company? guest: they stay with me a long time because i make a good wage, nobody makes under $20 an hour. when they come to work for me, they are part of my family and they will not starve. my average employee makes $30 an hour. host: what do you think the idea of raising the federal limit -- minimum wage? caller: i think it is asinine, because it is the federal government trying to do business. when we look at jimmy carter trying to put student loins on steroids, that is $2 trillion in the new look at obamacare, what triple -- it tripled the cost of health care. the government has no idea what

they are doing, they need to stay out of it. people will work for what they work for. i think minimum-wage jobs are for kids. there are plenty of jobs out there. we look for people all the time. you cannot find people to show up for work. i need people and i do not pay minimum wage. but, working the cash register at mcdonald's, probably should pay what it pays. it is just going to cost you more if you go up. i do not understand how we think we can tell capitalistic environment how they are going to react to a wage. all it will do is increase prices and cost you more for anything. host: thank you for calling. our last caller in the segment. two more hours to go this morning on "washington journal." up next we will be joined by alexis collins who has served in various national security positions to discuss the heightened domestic terrorism

threat the united states. later, john barry joins us to discuss the current covid-19 pandemic and how it compares to pandemic virus is the past. we will be right back. ♪ >> confirmation hearings continued this week on capitol hill for a bite nominees. today at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3, kathleen hicks, deputy secretary of defense nominee and on 10: 30, former agriculture secretary, tom vilsack before the senate agriculture committee. on wednesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3, education secretary devos and he. at 2:00 p.m. on c-span3, the environmental protection secretary nominee.

marty walsh secretary of labor nominee. watch the confirmation hearings live on c-span and c-span3. on demand on c-span.org or listen on the radio app. listen to c-span's podcast the weekly. this week the paris agreement. three point five years after former president withdrew, the executive order to reenter the global treaty dan michaels explains the paris agreement and how it is viewed worldwide and what is next for the united states. >> the first challenge would seem to be in discussing the paris accord is rebuilding u.s. credibility. no one will doubt that it carries credibility on this and he helped write the paris accords. no one will doubt president biden's sincerity, but the u.s. as a whole, probably europe and

others will be looking at it to see if the u.s. is really going to take measures that will address climate change and also commit money to helping other countries address climate change. find the weekly where you get your podcasts. >> "washington journal" continues. host: a discussion on the domestic terror threat in this country. we are joined by alexis collins who served for the assistant for the attorney general. first, explain what the mission of the national security division is at the justice department and how much work is focused on domestic versus foreign terror threats. guest: the national security division was formed in the years following 9/11, pursuant to a

recommendation made by the commission, and the goal is to bring together all of the resources and various factions at the justice department that dear -- deal with terrorism, foreign and domestic. over the past -- i spent 13 years with the justice department starting under the bush administration and carrying through to the obama administration. while, over that period of time in the years following 9/11, there was a great focus on international terrorism, they also do a lot of work with domestic terrorism as well. host: we are having this discussion because of the events of january 6 on capitol hill. does what happened up here qualify as a domestic terror event? guest: that is an interesting question because a lot of terms have been used in the news and by politicians, and by others to

characterize the event and domestic terrorism has a legal definition under the law. and it is basically acts that are violent to -- that endanger human life and criminal law that are intended to go say population and influence the policy of government, or to stop the conduct of government through certain can assassination, mass destruction, or kidnapping. that is the legal definition. and, in this case with the capital riots, -- capitol riots, that is what law enforcement and justice department are trying to investigate. what we have seen coming out in terms of charges are in triage mode at first, because the crowd was allowed to leave without being arrested, so they are trying to track down people based on video, or statements that they made about what they did, and charging low-level

crimes, but as the u.s. attorney for district of columbia, who is leading the investigation has said, they are ultimately looking to figure out whether the violence and the attack on the capital was preplanned and organized and if so how and by who, and by what purpose, and all of that in forms whether it should be characterized as domestic terrorism versus something else. host: what should we be looking for? what would be a signal that they are going down the road of pursuing domestic terror charging and statutes in their prosecution? guest: to be clear, there is a definition of domestic terrorism in criminal law and there is no actual single statute that prohibits engaging in domestic terrorism, and that is true for international terrorism, there is a definition which mirrors domestic terrorism except for where it occurs or whether it is

a foreign state, organization or ideology. but, there is no specific statute. instead, there are certain laws that are categorized as terrorism laws, but they all reflect conduct that might be engaged in as part of the domestic terrorist attack. so, what we are seeing now and so far are primarily level -- lower level charges geared at specific conduct that can be seen at video or people admit to, for example, unauthorized entry into the capitol building, destruction of property, theft of federal property. those are the charges. recently, we have seen some of the charges start to make connections between different individuals and groups and preplanning conduct at the

attack, and those -- when investigators are looking at videos of someone going in carrying zip ties, that indicate some sort of preplanning of violent conduct, and those sorts of charges, we are seeing conspiracy charges or higher level charges, who knows how far up it will go, whether it goes to iot, -- riot, insurrection, or seditious conspiracy will depend on the evidence, but investigators will look for coordination and felipe -- preplanning. host: alexis collins talking about the issue of the domestic terrorism threat in this country. phone lines split up as usual. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002.

alexis collins will be with us until 8:45. but also people are seeing adjunct fellow for the new american center for security. explain what it is and what you do there? guest: it is an independent bipartisan think tank and the goal is to do research and analysis on pressing issues of national security, foreign policy, and defense, and the goal is to engage with policymakers and develop recommendations to advance u.s. interest in that space. host: when it comes to domestic terrorism, explain the recent history, sort of the political goals, and where along the spectrum most of these groups fall? guest: you know, it obviously varies over time, but with what we have seen in terms of intelligence and reporting coming out of law enforcement

throughout the fall and most recently last week with the bulletin issued by the department of homeland security is that the domestic, violent extremist threat is centered around white supremacists, neo-nazi extremist groups and there is a conglomeration of grievances against the government, and that can include an antigovernment view, feeling that the government is overreaching in a number of ways, you are seeing that manifested in people having concerns about the covid-19 steps to prevent the spread of the disease by restrict thing outside activities and lockdowns, and so all of that is kind of a toxic mix of the classic violence we have seen right now. host: the department of homeland

security bulletin, here is some of what you are referencing, it is longer that viewers can read online. "throughout 2020, domestic violent extremists targeted individuals with opposing views and engaging in first amendment non-violent protest agreement -- activity. it was motivated by any -- a range of interest -- issues including anger over the covid-19 restrictions, the 2020 election results, and police use of force have plotted attacks against government facilities. dhs has determined this will remain throughout the early 2021 year and some extremists may be involved didn't -- emboldened by the january 6, 2021 breach to the u.s. capitol building to target government officials and facilities." what does that mean for folks patrolling the capital behind me. we have already seen them behind

the newly constructed fence. guest: one thing, before i answer the question, i would note that that leaves out the threat that we have seen in recent years from white supremacy -- the premises, nationalists and neo-nazi groups. we saw that with charlottesville with the mass shooting and el paso, -- in el paso, and other attacks. what bulletins like this is designed to do is to alert the public and state and local law enforcement about the existence of credible intelligence relating to a general threat. what the bulletin does not seem to indicate is that there is in imminent threat of a specific attack. it does not say that tomorrow there will be an attack on the statehouse or legislatures. but they are warning of this toxic mix that i mentioned that

is leading to heightened risk of domestic extremist violent activity. host: the risk that was felt on capitol hill on january 6. we have another description yesterday in a viral video that is going around. it was an instagram life posting by alexandria ocasio-cortez of new york describing the experience of being in her office and people breaking into her office on january 6, making the rounds on instagram. i want to play two minutes of that clip. [video clip] >> where is she? where is she? and, i just thought to myself they got inside. and, so i hide behind my door like this and i am here. and the bathroom door starts going like this, like the bathroom doors behind me --

rather in front of me and the door hinge is here and i just here where is she? where is she. and this is the moment where i thought everything was over. and, the weird thing about moments like this is that you lose all sense of time. in retrospect, maybe it was four seconds, maybe it was five seconds, 10 seconds, or one second, it felt like my brain was able to have so many thoughts in that moment. between the streams and yells of where is she -- screams and

yells of where is she? i go down and just -- i mean i thought i was going to die. and, i had a lot of thoughts, you have a lot of thoughts. i think, when you are in a situation like that. and, one of those thoughts that i had was that i happens to be a spiritual person and be raised in that context, and i really just felt like you know, if this is the plan for me, then people will be able to take it from here. [end video clip] host: congress roman alexandria ocasio-cortez from an instagram live. just a reaction to that and the amount of focus you are seeing now from members of congress on

this issue of domestic terrorism. guest: it is difficult to watch and listen to a video like that and not be incredibly affected. the situation that she was treated with as well as all the congress people was dramatic and frightening. but just listening to that clip, it really demonstrates that and it shows the severity of the situation. i think that it also raises a lot of questions that all -- that congress and others will be looking at into the response by law enforcement. you have all seen the pictures in the newspaper of the police presence at the capital when protests that -- for which there was no credible evidence of

preplanned organized attack that was going to happen had a very police presence versus this one where there was a lot of construction -- discussion by experts on the likelihood that there would be violence resulting from this rally. and yet, had a very light police presence. i think that law enforcement in congress will be discussing and examining over the coming weeks and months why the response was lacking in the way that it was, and what needs to change to ensure that our domestic extremist threats are properly responded to, and prevented. host: one last note on the video, the congresswoman tweeting out last night after posting that "my story is not the only story nor is it the central story, it is just one

story of many whose lives were endangered by the lives, threats, and violence fanned by the cowardice of people who choose post -- shows personal gain above democracy." taking your phone calls with alexis collins. gene is up first out of ohio. line for democrats, go ahead. caller: i am calling about the role of the capitol police and the failure of their leadership. for example, steve -- steven sund, chief of the capitol police resigned to the next day, not a word has been heard since. he was not fired and is receiving 10 weeks sick pay while he is off at taxpayer's expense. and we had 2500 capitol police employed at the time, according

to what i can determine, only 500 were there that day. i do not understand why they have not been brought in. capitol hill leadership, and then made to answer for this failure, and why sund was not immediately fired. thank you. host: i will let you respond to that, although i would note that former chief sund did have an interview with "the washington post." it said that other house and senate security effector -- officials pointed at the sergeant and arms' offices that are part of the guard that oversee security decisions appear saying that those officials hamstrung the efforts to call in the national guard in response to that day. that came out a week after the january 6 incident. go ahead. guest: sure. as i said, i think that those

questions are very good ones about why the capitol police responded the way it did and that that will be looked at by congress. and, internally within the capitol police and other law enforcement agencies in bc. usually when there are big events of any time from the inauguration to other events that happen downtown, there is a lot of coordination among the various law-enforcement enforcement agencies that have jurisdiction in the district of columbia. and d.c. is an interesting place because there are so many different agencies that have overlapping jurisdictions. it is not clear whether that was done here, or how the intelligence and information that law enforcement had about the activities that were anticipated to occur, it is not clear what they did with the

information and how they used that to shape the response. it is not clear as the chief said, that there was some hindrances placed by directives coming from above, or outside the agency, none of that is clear at this point and i agree that it is something that congress and the agencies themselves need to look at and investigate, and figure out how to do better so that this tragedy can be prevented. host: blue-green on twitter sending a simple question, "what is the best way to prevent domestic terrorism?" guest: that is a complicated question, and one that law enforcement and the department of justice have been grappling with for the past two decades with respect to international terrorism, because in part, there is not that much of a difference.

what we are seeing in terms of how domestic extremists are using to organize, i do not -- i am not sure that we -- that they are much different than what we have seen in other areas. the justice department has traditionally used in all tools approach from prosecution, and investigation in terms of response, but also investigation to try and proactively prevent these crimes from happening. they have stood up countering violent programs to try and change the mindset of the people so they do not get trapped in that ideology that then leads them down the path to potential violence. there is lot -- there are lots of angles that government at all levels and in our society need to try and use to solve this

problem. i do not think there is one solution, criminal law, act, or one thing we can do to solve the problem. it really is an all tools approach that needs to be considered. host: ohio. david, an independent. caller: top of the morning to you. before i get started i want to make sure everyone knows i am a true independent. i have not voted for a democrat or republican since 1996. i have two points. cis -- csis had a report out october this year, october 2020 that stated that 66% of all the mystic terrorism, violence domestic terrorism was caused by the far right. 22% was caused by the far left.

the other thing that i would like to bring up is that there is a law in place called title 18, chapter 19, code-3 73 that says solicitation to commit a crime of violence. and what it states inside is that whoever intends at another person that is poor needed to commit violence should be brought up on charges with this, and that would directly correspond to trump, giuliani, and don jr. i think the second impeachment is nothing more than a political theater. he is no longer president and he should be drawn up under charges. these charges along with giuliani and trump junior

thank you very much. have a great day. host: on that. guest: there is a lot that was brought up in the call. i would like to focus on the first part of what the caller said about the importance of tracking and getting information about what the threat is. there are lots of organizations like cisi -- csis and other experts tracking the information. i think that you will start to see a push for better tracking and monitoring within investigative agencies, so when you have better information about the nature of the threat and where it is coming from, then you can improve your response and track statistics and that sort of thing is very important. we have already seen this in the

national defense authorization act passed last month actually enacted a new requirement for the fbi, department of homeland security and director of national intelligence to produce a report of putting together all the instances of domestic terrorism in recent years, and also in the future to report on the type of training and coordination that they are applying to law enforcement how to how to handle domestic terrorism. that point of making sure we understand the nature of the threat and are reflecting the right information is very important to framing out a response that deals with a proactive strategy for preventing these sort of violent attacks. host: what do you make of the numbers from the report, this is the wall street journal story that came out after the numbers that were released. "67% of domestic terror incidents committed by far-right groups, 20% by far-left groups

and the remainder by islamic extreme texts -- extremists and loose knit movements including antigovernment extremists. but, on that spectrum and those numbers? guest: they seem to be consistent with numbers coming out of the government. in october of last year the department of homeland security produced a report on the threat to the homeland, which talked about various types of threats including the threat from international terrorism and domestic extremism, and they noted that, if i am getting this right, and 2019 was one of the deadliest years for domestic violent extremist attacks since 1995 was the year of the oklahoma city bombing. they noted that the vast majority of those attacks were perpetrated by people who were related to the white nationalists, neo-nazi, or kind

of antigovernment, militia type groups, or leaning within domestic discrete unit -- extremism, so those are consistent with what we are seeing. host: this is chuck, a republican. good morning. caller: hello, how are you doing? i do not understand these numbers. when all of this rioting, burning and killing in the summer, it was called a peaceful protest. is that not terrorism, when you burn down cities and destroy people's lives and destroy their livelihoods? if you want to stop a lot of this stuff, we need to have a group of people that are journalists that are actually journalists. for example, i hear trump and charlottesville all the time, and i read the whole speech that

he gave and he said nothing about -- the thing on both sides he was saying that some people were saying do not tear down the statues. those people were not bad people because they would not tear down the statues. it is ridiculous that the stuff that goes out through the media. it is crazy, but terrorism was on the streets in the summer and nobody said a word about that. the little -- the people in the white house, they got scared, what about all the people who got scared when they were tearing down the stores and cities? guest: sure. i think that this comment underscores how important it is to have accurate information about events and to track and have a formal mechanism for tracking them, and that is why congress early on this year has

focused on that. and, i think it is important because having met accurate information will then inform accurate policy responses, and will inform how law enforcement and governments should direct it to resources. and, to make the determination of what the actual threat is. host: rick out of boston, a democrat. good morning. caller: i want to make a couple of comments about this guy just did about having reporters. everybody is a journalist, that is the problem. you have facebook and other things you can go on and you can say anything they want. like this lady is all over the facebook talking about news reporters being bad. trump problem is the fact that he think everything is about him.

host: on social media and this issue of domestic terrorism. guest: social media and the role of social media has been the subject of a lot of discussion, especially since -- not only from the capitol riot's and for the past several decades because there have been a lot of information that has come out about use of social media by different extremist groups whether domestic, or foreign terrorism to organize, recruit or propagandize and spread their ideology. there has been a lot of discussion recently about a provision called section 230 of the computer communication decency act which prohibits private civil liability for social media companies based on the content that other people posted their platform.

and, often times as the civil discourse it has been framed as a first amendment issue. these are private companies. they operate private platforms. the first amendment is directed at preventing the government from respect -- restricting free speech and free association. it does not apply to private companies like social media companies. so this is just a policy question that needs to be addressed by congress and considered by congress and the industry, as well as in discourse with the public at large. there are pros and cons to how you deal with the issue of social media, and that really just needs to be discussed as a policy issue. i would also say that i think we are seeing an instance where the development of the law is

progressing much slower than technology advances. and this is an endemic problem. law moves slowly and technology explodes exponentially every day and year and it is difficult to keep up with these sorts of judgments that need to be made and it is a difficult challenge. this is playing out across a number of issues, partly in this realm in terms of extremism and domestic and foreign terrorists groups, but other areas like antitrust and data privacy all of which congress and we as a society, along with the tech industry are looking at and need to address. host: we have heard about the foreign terrorism watch list. is there a domestic terrorism watch list? guest: there are lots of ways of keeping track of whether it is

domestic extremist groups and people who participate in them. there are lots of different types of ways of doing that. there is nothing like a no-fly list or anything like that for domestic groups or individuals. but, obviously, law enforcement as well as private nonprofits and other experts are trying to track who these groups are, what their goals are, what they are trying to do, and he was involved. so, they can better understand the threat as well as try and prevent attacks violent events. host: why not have a no-fly list for somebody identified as being part of one of these violent extremist groups? guest: there are lots of -- there may be constitutional concerns about things like that. there may also be policy concerns, so those are questions

that law enforcement and the department of justice and, i am sure congress, are thinking about and what might the necessary to combat the threat. host: susan, a republican. that morning. caller: yes. i have a couple of things to say. please do not hang up. you know, black lives matter and antifa have been burning and looting all year, and camilla harris has been bailing them out of jack -- kamala harris has been bailing them out of jail. when you start arresting those people i will feel bad. my friend's son is a policeman in his 20's and he is paralyzed from black lives matter. all right? also, i am just so angry, i just see a big witchhunt calming.

-- coming. and donald trump had nothing to do with what happened on capitol hill that day. nancy pelosi do days ahead of time what was going to happen, they recommended to her that she have the national guard there and some help, and she refused it. i think you ought to look into that. host: i will let you take those up. guest: sure. as i mentioned, i think that there will be a lot of thought and reflection, and investigation into the response that we saw of law enforcement of the -- on january 6, so i do think that is something that is going to be examined and lessons are going to be learned from that. and, hopefully more facts will come out and we are already

seeing a lot of discussion about that already. in terms of activities of different types of protesters, i guess what i would say is that criminal law targets conduct. we have these definitions of terrorism, domestic or foreign that are limited to intent. criminal liability attaches to the conduct, that is occurring. so, i think, regardless of whether or -- actions are on the left or right, you saw charges coming out of any of those types of events that are charges linked to specific conduct which is what we are seeing in january 6 in respect that there was a violent conduct at earlier events as well, you saw charges

coming out of that too. host: terry out of akron, ohio. independent. caller: c-span is great, and hopefully, the lieutenant general will get to the bottom of what happened at the capital with the security problem. -- the capitol with the security problem. what i want to ask mrs. collins and will comment on the fact that those rioters, white supremacists, they went to their homes in tennessee, or missouri, and the local judge there released them on bond, which shows you that the whole society is reluctant to charge white supremacists. i think the justice department ndc had to charge these -- in d.c. had to charge these guys and hold them until their trial.

it just shows that this pervasive racism in this country will not be dealt with. so, i like your comments on that. i will hang up. guest: sure. so, the question of bond is one also that has been widely discussed. in particular since covid when there is awareness that there are people being held pretrial for very long periods of time because they could not pay bail and are now potentially at risk of covid. bond is decided by judges in the federal system based on a statute where they have to assess various factors to determine whether the person opposes -- poses a risk of violence or danger to the public, or whether they are a risk of flight, and that is done

by a judge after arguments are presented by the prosecutor and defense counsel. and, that is how that decision is made. it is hard to say that based -- and a lot of that is based on the nature of the charges. and so, it might be that there is some inherent bias in the system, given the circumstances and facts of that case and that judge's view, it meant that they felt that bail was appropriate. so, being out on bail does not mean that the charges disappear. the person has to come back and appear in court and follow the case through. if they do not, additional liability can attach for them being a fugitive. bond and charges do not -- they do not go away if bond is

granted, it is a discretionary decision by judges. host: the caller mentioned the retired lieutenant general and just for viewers that had not heard it. it was nancy pelosi who tapped the former army lieutenant general best known for coordinating military response after hurricane katrina in the gulf coast to lead a review of the security of the capital complex in the wake of january 6. this is the announcement that said "at the discretion of the speaker this is -- this task force is leading the review. the duration is from january 22 through at least march 5. it scope include security infrastructure, command-and-control, procedures, training, and exercise. it will not only examine the members thus the safety of members in congress but their

movements from washington to their districts." that announcement from late last week out of the speaker's office. mary in las vegas, a democrat, morning. caller: good morning. we have to stop with the aboutism. whatever is wrong is wrong and people should be held accountable for their actions. january 6 was just another plan in the progression of efforts to overturn the election. if you live in -- listen to steve bannon's comments. the second thing i would like to address is if you know anything about a letter that just surfaced dated january 1 by a christopher miller that has bullet points on what needs to be done before they can intervene in instances like this

insurrection that happened on january 6. i believe he was an act -- he was an acting, because i stress that, the prior administration had people serving and a lot of acting capacities, he was serving as acting national security adviser. for instance, you could not bring in helicopters to stop the insurrection, and maybe steve can google christopher miller, that is how i found out about it. thank you. host: mrs. collins. guest: i have not seen the letter that you mentioned, and i am not familiar with that person , but i do think that thinking

through, law enforcement as i said normally before any kind of big event typically coordinates and figures out what steps they will taken certain circumstances so if this letter is indicative of the nation of that preplanning, then that is something that should be assessed. so, this sort of thing that -- does not happen again. host: williams from jacksonville, florida. can you make it quick? caller: good morning. just to clarify, what differs between domestic terrorism and action of the klu klux klan to black people? guest: sure. it is an interesting question, because in many ways, the action of the klu klux klan fits the

description of domestic terrorism and it is interesting because part of the trend over the past 30 years has really been to view instances of white nationalists violence as hate crimes, which they are, but treating them as isolated incidents that were targeted at specific victims as opposed to looking at them as part of a broader movement that is towards promoting a particular vision of what the united states should look like. so, a lot of legal scholars, historians, and others have made the connection between that historical activity and domestic terrorism and, i think that is why it is so important, even though there is no domestic

terrorism statute to think about how things should be classified. because it really does impact the response if you are viewing something as something isolated, then we tend to be more reactive to have about dealing with that. but if you deal -- view it as part of a broader, connected movement and goal, then you might approach that in a different matter -- manner and more proactive ways. that is why there is a decision can be very -- the decision could be very important. host: alexis collins spent years at the national security vision and as an adjunct fellow at the center for a new american security. cnas.org is their website. we appreciate your time. guest: thank you. host: up next we will be joined

by historian and author, john berry. "the great influenza: the story of the deadliest epidemic in history" his book. stick around, we will be back for that. ♪ >> listen to c-span's podcast, the weekly. this week, the paris agreement. president biden's executive order to reenter the global treaty. dan michael's explains the paris agreement and how much -- and how it is viewed worldwide and what is next for the united states. >> the first challenge when he

meets his counterparts to discuss the paris accord is rebuilding u.s. credibility. no one will doubt harry's credibility on this. no one will doubt president biden's sincerity, that the u.s. as a whole, probably europe and others to be looking at cfius is really going to take met -- if the u.s. will take measures to address climate change and commit money to help other countries address climate change. >> find the weekly where you get your podcast. >> former president trump became the first president to be impeached twice. last week managers deliver the articles of impeachment against the former president on incitement of insurrection with jamie raskin reading the article before the senate. >> donald john trump warrants

impeachment, trial, or movement from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the united states, so help you god. >> the following day senators were sworn in as jurors. republican kentucky senator rand paul requested a point of order to dismiss the charge as unconstitutional. >> i make a point of order that this proceeding, which would try a private citizen and not a president, vice president, or civil officer violates the constitution and is not in order. >> the motion was tabled in a 55-45 senate vote. afterwords they adjourned until tuesday, february ninth, marking the start of the trial. watch the senate impeachment trial live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2, stream at c-span.org

or listen on the radio app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: back with us is john berry, author of the book "the great influenza: the story of the deadliest epidemic in history -- pandemic in history." and we are coming up on 11 months of this pandemic, nearly 440 thousand deaths, 26 million cases in the united states. 11 months into the great influenza pandemic, where was the united states when it came to infection levels and deaths? guest: one of the differences between influenza and covid-19's which the speed it moves. everything with influenza is faster from mutation rate, incubation period, how long you shed the virus and how long you are sick. 11 months into it, it was almost completely over. by that time you had close to

700,000 americans dead, of course the population was much smaller than worldwide, 50 to 100 million dead which would be 225 to 450 million people today. a much more lethal pandemic. this is bad enough. host: he will be with us until about 9:30 taking your phone calls, and questions as we talk about the covid-19 pandemic comparisons the great influenza. let me give you the phone numbers. if you are in the eastern or central time zones, 202-748-8000 . more pacific time zones, -- mountain or pacific time zones, 202-748-8001. when it comes to the nonmedical pandemic responses to the mask use, and lockdowns, avoidance of large public gatherings, who did

better at it, america of 2020 and 2021 or america of 1918 or 1919? guest: they were probably better in 1918. there was certainly no partisanship. it was so very lent in -- maryland -- virilent in 1918, and a lot of people were younger, ranging from 18 to 45 years old. people died sometimes with horrific symptoms and sometimes in as little as 12 hours. so everyone took it seriously. the government, because we were at war, and was trying to keep morale up, they thought that anything that sounded bad would hurt the war effort. they outright lied and said it was ordinary influenza, no big deal.

but, nobody believed them because so many people were dying so rapidly, and in some cases so horribly. so, there was acceptance of the orders really without much resistance in 1918. when cities -- all of the decisions were pretty much made on a city by city basis back then, not statewide much less nationally. there was some resistance when cities imposed a masking order lifted them because they thought the pandemic had passed, and of course it surged back and they raised regulations, lifted them too early, and when it came back and they reimposed things like masking a second time, then there was some resistance. nothing like what we are seeing

today. host: we are betting that vaccines will end covid-19. what ended the great influenza? guest: herd immunity, which is what we are trying to reach. obviously, if you get it from a vaccine, you will have fewer people dead than if you get it from natural immunity. so, by the time -- there were three waves in 1918, and by the end of the third wave it was widely disseminated, the virus, and most people had been exposed and had natural immunity. the virus does mutate, so it did come back, but it mutated in the direction of -- this is speculation -- it mutated in the direction of all influenza viruses which is milder than it had been in the fall of 1918.

it became ordinary influenza. the descendents of that virus still circulate. host: the mutation issue is relevant as we talked about mutations. how much did they know about virus mutations? guest: they did not know anything. they did not know there was a virus -- what a virus was. they knew there were small entities that they did not know if they were tiny bacteria and functioned like bacteria or whether they were entirely different organisms. one of the scientific advances that came out of the pandemic in 1918 was defining what a virus was. but, they were certainly very familiar with bacteria and understood that bacteria could be -- what bacteria could be. but this whole thing moved so fast. the spring wave was mild and hit or miss. there were a lot of places that

did not get hit at all by it. it was also much milder. it did not attract any attention. the virus mutated in the fall, came back very deadly and, probably two thirds of the deaths over the two year period occurred in a period of 14 and 15 weeks in the fall of 1918. in any particular city, it was faster than that, six to 10 weeks. so they did not have much time to respond. they tried. the book focuses both on the politics, and on the scientific community, most of the figures in the book are scientists, and they were great scientists. again, the advances that came out of that pandemic were extraordinary and shaped the science that we are doing today, including the discovery of the

dna coal -- code and so forth. they just did not have time to react. here, the virus is sequenced, literally 48 hours after the sequence was published, people were already designing the messenger rna vaccines. the communication, and the ability to respond today is host: it's a fascinating book on the 1918 pandemic. john berry with a perspective on what is happening today compared to what is happening in the past. several callers waiting to talk to you. you're are on with john berry. caller: thanks for taking my call. the next book you should write

is biological warfare and how fabulously unique our money will possibly crash. you probably know more than anyone how the influenza in 1918 also came from china. which has been just recently exposed to us. i just wonder was the money at that time damaged by the influenza? the covid i believe will destroy the united states because the money -- it is just a piece of paper with a picture will be worth basically nothing and all the investors are going to start investing in china. i see all of this as a pandemic that was designed. i wanted to get your thought on

that. thank you so much for writing the book. i'm going to get it today. host: on china and impacts of the economy. caller: in the book -- guest: in the book i said the pandemic emerged in the united states in kansas. the evidence at the time i wrote the book was pretty good. i wrote a journal article that got a lot of traction. there has been a lot of wars since the book originally came out in 2004. it emerged in china. it could've happened anywhere. hiv is from africa. the 2009 pandemic which turned out to be nothing but it did spread came from mexico. lyme's disease from connecticut. i think it probably did happen in china.

there was significant economic impact in 1918. nothing like what we have seen in the past year. as i said earlier, it was so brief. you had a relatively brief recession. interestingly there were several studies earlier this year by some conservative economists that concluded that cities in 1918 close down earlier and stayed closed longer. actually had a faster and better economic recovery then the cities that closed for a shorter period. kind of relevant, i think. we are all living through not a good economic time. i live in new orleans.

i am in the tourism industry, that is number one in this area. that is decimated. i understand the economic devastation that this pandemic is caused. much greater actually than in 1918. host: in wisconsin, this is patty. caller: this is very personal. i am 75 years old. my dad was born in 1917. his family lost immediate family members from the influenza. it was in milwaukee, wisconsin when the shoulders -- soldiers returned. on the railroad line it hit those very badly.

my dad came down with polio. our family was hit hard with polio in the 50's. i don't like the blame game. we are international as the war brought home the virus in 1918-1920. why are we blaming? let's work on vaccinating. thank you. guest: in terms of where it started, it could've started anywhere. it probably started in china. there's a very good meteorologist -- urologist who's convinced it started in france. it could've started anywhere. you don't need a war, you don't

need airplanes for it to spread in a pandemic. in the 1600s influenza took 6-8 weeks to cross the ocean. it is second to only smallpox in terms of native americans. in 1889, there were no airplanes, no war. that probably did not come out of china. i think the war probably accelerated the spread. the spread would have occurred anyway. host: to your home state of louisiana, this is ken. caller: i'm doing my family

genealogy. by coincidence i found my grandmother. she was born in 1883 and died in 1917 in philadelphia, pennsylvania. i stumbled into this library. what is interesting about it is she died at philadelphia hospital from contagious diseases. she went in december 25, christmas day and died december 30. she was born and raised in south carolina. i'm still trying to figure out how she got to philadelphia. there it is. that was one of my biggest fines in my research. i have the death certificate in my hand. this is not the first time. i can't quite read this, something like that. anyway, i have it in my hand. it is quite a find, she was 34

years old. guest: philadelphia was one of the hardest hit cities. i don't know if he misspoke. people died from influenza without the pandemic as they could today. it was 1918, that would've been the pandemic virus. 1917, probably not. the virus was probably circulating somewhere in 1917. host: we talk about what ended the pandemic, we got to the point in this country where flu -- we took precautions but it wasn't a daily part of our lives. after the coronavirus was over,

do you think we ever go back to how we felt about the flu before coronavirus? do you think masks and some form of social distancing is here to stay? guest: i think two things. the effectiveness of the vaccine number one. i think it is pretty clear -- i'm certainly not the only one saying this. pretty much every expert is saying this. covid-19 is here to stay. this virus is going to continue to mutate. it is theoretically possible --

it will mutate in a direction to evade vaccines. we will probably need the vaccines updated routinely since it moves more slowly than influenza. we might need a new vaccine every three years. covid-19 is at least three times as deadly as ordinary influenza. it became milder so we could more or less forget about it. if we do reach a true herd immunity then we will probably get rid of masks and go back to pretty much life as we knew it before the virus surfaced.

if it continues to mutate and evade the vaccines as it is hinting at doing. it has not done that yet. if it stays as turbulent as it is, there is the possibility that shaking hands, we are done with it. things are going to get a lot better if we get a lot of the public vaccinated. one of the problems we will be facing in a couple of months is people who were questioning the value of a vaccine. right now, everybody who wants to get vaccinated is lining up. that is not 100% of the population. we are going to need probably 75% inoculation. either vaccinated or naturally infected and therefore having

some immunity. there may be a reasonable chance that we may require a higher percent. a city of more than 2 million people in brazil, 76% of the population was infected with an earlier variant of the virus. that did reach a level of herd immunity. the infections dropped way off. the variant that emerged in brazil invaded that natural protection. things in that city are starting to surge again. it is not a good time. it is not impossible to handle. it does mean vaccines are very important. caller: thank you for taking my

call. my mother had the virus when she was a young girl and lost all of her hair. you mentioned in your book about president wilson having a stroke . you related this to his having the flu. are there any other illnesses that you think are related later in life to people who had these viruses? thank you. guest: wilson had influenza during the peace talks in 1918. you are hearing one of the most common side effects is your logical problems -- urological problems. you have comprehensive studies

of the pandemic after. it is second only to pulmonary were urological complications. it affected wilson during the peace conference. i think it affected the outcome of that peace conference. obviously that ended up setting the stage for world war ii. there were a lot of cardiovascular complications in 1918. just as there are today. the 1918 virus, unlike ordinary influenza but very much like covid seemed to affect every ordinance. whether that was because the virus itself invaded those organs, that is not clear.

it is not entirely clear. it was very common and still is, there is strong linkage between influenza and cardiovascular events. in 1919 the cincinnati health department inspected a little over 7000 people who had influenza the year before. many of them had heart problems, that is without modern scans, things like that. there was linkages to strokes. that was fairly common in 1918.

it is common even today. there is a linkage today with the influenza virus. as with the covid-19, of course. host: our conversation sparking a lot of family memories. here is mary on twitter saying the 1918 flu has long echoes in atlanta. our member listening to my grandmother and her friends talk about it. those stories terrified me. i always wondered what it would be like to live through something like that. mark in tucson, arizona is next, good morning. caller: good morning and thanks for this program. i really appreciate it. the book is absolutely fascinating and rich. it doesn't just cover the influenza it covers the modern medicine. thank you for all the research.

that kind of brings up my question as far as the research goes. seems like there is very little information out there about the 1918 pandemic. must have spent a lot of time in a library in old newspapers or something. doesn't seem like there is very much on it. seems a was pushed aside or ignored. they were chasing the wrong rabbit. they thought it was a bacteria. when did they figure out, what year did they figure out it was a virus? thank you. guest: that is a lot at first. thank you for your comment about the book.

a couple of things. you didn't get really anything from newspapers in 1918 because of the war. there was fake news in 1918. there is not today. it was fake because they were printing what the government wanted people to read. at the beginning, because we were at war, the government wanted to keep morale up. they passed laws when newspaper -- one newspaper in wisconsin tried to print the truth about the pandemic, they were threatened with prosecution. a congressman was sentenced to more than 10 years in prison for violating the sedition act. these things were not a good source for information. i spent a lot of time reading lab notes from scientists and

red cross archives, things like that. when they figured out the virus, that was isolated in 1933. in 1925 they defined what a virus was. as i said earlier, they were these really small entities. i didn't know if these were just -- they didn't know if these were just tiny bacteria or a virus. bacteria is alive. a virus is not alive. it could only reproduce by invading another cell and taking over its machinery. having that cell make copies of itself. it is a piece of information that creates almost like a chemical reaction when it goes into a cell.

that is the big difference. they could not grow it in 1918. they only know how to grow bacteria. you need a cell, you need something alive for it to grow, a virus. they were trying to provide nutrients and they could not culture the virus. in 1933 it was isolated. host: about 10 minutes left this morning with john berry. he has joined us before on "washington journal." with us for about 10 more minutes. this is sheila in west virginia. caller: another question. all of this back to being what is happening today. why did they blame it on the

person? we know that is not right. guest: i'm not sure what the question is about. host: could you ask your question again please? caller: we are going back through all of these viruses. at the beginning when biden got into office he was talking about community because we are so divided. now there is unity but it is like revenge. you don't even have to have an impeachment. host: the topic is political unity. guest: i would say one thing. there are countries -- the

united states has been badly compared to countries around the world in handling the virus. places like taiwan, south korea, japan have done incredibly well. people think that is a different culture. they are asian countries and we would not accept that in the united states. i would say look at australia. australia is very much a western country. even cowboy culture. australia has 909 deaths today. their population is about 25 million. about 1/13 of the united states.

western country, individualistic, if you were judged for population, that would be the equivalent of fewer than 13,000 deaths in the united states. we have 440,000 deaths. it is the same virus, they have the same tools that we have. they have the equivalent of fewer than 13,000 deaths. we have 440,000 deaths. there is only one difference. that is leadership. that is a stone cold facts. if you want to interpret that is political, go ahead and do so. that is a fact. i don't need to be overly passionate. the reality is there are many americans dead who should be alive if we had handled this pandemic better. host: you talk about the tools

available. a new tool coming online, a fact asking -- fact that -- fast acting covid-19 test. the senior advisor saying the white house announced this effort. here's what he had to say yesterday. >> i want to start with an exciting announcement. the department of defense made an announcement today of what will be the country's first over-the-counter out home -- at home covid test. it is made by a company called ellume. it is on a platform that was developed in the initiative. these are over-the-counter test kits that could detect covid with 95% accuracy within 15 minutes. they could be used if you feel symptoms of covid-19 and also

for screening for people without symptoms so they could safely go to work, school, and events. they are perfect for people ages two and older. the test is performed in what is called a mid nasal swab. it is less evasive then the swab people may have seen on the news. after you take the swab, you put the sample into a digital analyzer which will send the results to your smartphone in about 15 minutes. making easier to use test available to every american is a high priority with obvious benefits. you loom --they will send 100,000 test kits through july. that is good but obviously not where we will need to be.

host: on the announcement yesterday and at home testing? guest: that is very important. it is a tool that people have been looking for since this pandemic started. even though it is not perfect, it is extremely useful. controlling cases, if you test yourself and find that you are positive, stay home. call your contacts, let them test themselves. that is the kind of thing that in combination with the vaccine could make us much safer and get us back to normal. obviously they said 100,000 a month. production, it will be a long time before that is useful.

i imagine they will be ramping that up. we will get a lot more of those things out there. that is a very important tool. it is great news. i know people have been working on things like that for a long time. it is not the first test that has been developed but it is rapid. host: katie in california, thanks for waiting. caller: our french teacher when i grew up in new orleans said i would open up the window and i had no idea -- i since learned that was a saying they had during the pandemic that we learned about. i was wondering, if there's any truth to the fact that this

recent pandemic was engineered in a laboratory, perhaps with function research. would that make the virus potentially more lethal because they say that in nature it is against a virus's best interest to go and kill everyone in the population. guest: first, there is no evidence of any kind, anywhere that this is an engineered virus. no one except the conspiracy theory that it was engineered. the two lane football coach i have been exchanging emails with , there is a good scientist who helped track down the original sars and demonstrated pretty

convincingly that this virus is natural. it is theoretically possible, extraordinary, unlikely, no evidence supported. it is almost impossible. the other idea that it may be escaped in a laboratory accident from a lab. you can't prove that this did not happen. it is very unlikely. they have pretty good scientists over there. the idea that this was engineered makes no sense. as viruses go, as much of a problem as this has caused. if someone were trying to engineer a deadly virus, we would have millions dead. i said at the beginning of the 1918 influenza virus, still be

equivalent today adjusting for population of 220 5,000,000-450,000,000 people. the worst projections for covid-19 don't begin to talk about a death toll worldwide like that. if someone engineered a bioterrorism weapon, it would be a lot more lethal than this. it would be something like smallpox which killed about one third of the population. the influenza virus that surfaced in 1997 and more recently than 2009, those two viruses in the last 15-20 years impacted 2500 people and killed 1500 of them. a lot more deadly than covid-19. if someone were actually forging

a bioterrorism weapon you would see a death toll something like that. host: in michigan, this is bonnie, good morning. caller: good morning. i want to start by saying i am a nurse. i am interested in virology. a friend i know recommended your book to me. she is an immunologist. i am still reading it. i am processing so much of the information. one thing that stuck with me in your book is the section where you are talking about leading up to the institution of hopkins. in 1876, what a crucial year that was. there was an issue with the election being reversed, a lot had to do with division over the

south wanted to secede and it was science denying. that was one of the main tenants, that it would be based on science and religion would not be in it. how far have we come since 1876 after watching what is happening in this country this year? not that far. i have recommended your book to so many i work with. i have recommended your book to so many people. it is a good read at so many levels. thank you for taking my call. guest: howard runs the center for the history of medicine. he is on a tremendous amount of influenza research. he did good studies that helped

lead to the nonpharmaceutical interventions, what do you do when you do not have drugs that we use today? in the bush administration, when bush started the pandemic preparations, we would attend meetings together to figure out what to do to mitigate a pandemic in the absence of therapeutic drugs or a vaccine. hello, if he is watching. host: akron, ohio. caller: thank you for taking my call. the lady in front of me asked about it, i want to know if the coronavirus has always been around and it somehow started

affecting people. from the past, the same thing. did people study viruses back then as they study them now? i believe they tried -- if they add something to it or take something away from it. i want to say something about -- you think our leadership is why the virus affected us the way it did or maybe all humans are different and it affects different races differently. every but -- everything doesn't affect everybody the same way. guest: a couple of things. i do think -- australia,

racially, is primarily caucasian. we are a primarily caucasian country, but we have great diversity of races. asia, the japanese, chinese -- they have all handled this virus much better than the united states has. a lot of african countries have handled it much better than the united states. it is a function of leadership. australia, even more than canada in terms of culture, may be more like the united states than any other country in the world. canada has handled this much better than the united states. it is leadership.

in terms of the other part of the question, the viruses -- there are a lot of viruses out there that infect not just animals, but plants. there are no plant viruses that i know of that have jumped species to humans. there are a lot of animal viruses that have jumped species to humans. influenza, the natural reservoir is birds. they jump from birds to humans. the natural reservoir for coronaviruses tend to be bats. it is a lot easier to jump from one mammal to another than it is from a bird to a mammal. whether it is hiv, which came

from an animal reservoir, that is the threat we are facing, not only with the coronavirus, but going forward. there will be other pandemics. the expectation before this had been we would face in influenza pandemic. that seemed like the biggest threat and is still a threat. there are two influenza viruses from birds in the last 15 to 20 years, killed 1500. if they require the ability -- if they acquire the ability to transmit person-to-person, we would be in trouble. there are many coronaviruses out there. they have the ability to affect humans with or without mutations. it is an ongoing threat.

it is something the world has not invested in adequately to prepare for. both in terms of basic research and public health infrastructure , as we are discovering this year. host: the book is "the great influenza: the story of the greatest pandemic in history." we appreciate your time. about 20 minutes left in our program, we are going to return to the question -- asking you who should be eligible for stimulus checks. we split up our phone lines by income level. if you made under $30,000, (202) 748-8000.

if you made 30,000 to 59,000, (202) 748-8001. start calling in. we will be right back. ♪ >> trump became the first president to be impeached twice. impeachment managers delivered the articles of impeachment to the senate with jamie raskin reading the article before the senate. >> he warrants impeachment, trial, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the united states. >> senators were sworn in as jurors in the trial. rand paul requested a point of

order to dismiss the charge as unconstitutional. >> i make a point of order this proceeding, which would try a private citizen violates the constitution and is not in order. >> the motion repealed. the senate approved the rules of the trial and adjourned until tuesday, february 9. watch the senate impeachment trial live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. listen to c-span's podcast. this week, the paris agreement. president biden's executive order to reenter the global treaty. dan michaels explains the agreement and how it is viewed

worldwide and what is next for the united states. >> the first challenge would be when he meets his counterparts, to discuss the paris accord, is rebuilding credibility. no one will doubt president biden's sincerity. the u.s., as a whole, europe and others will be looking at it to see if the u.s. is going to take measures that will address climate change and commit money to help other countries address climate change. >> c-span, where you get your podcasts. host: two competing coronavirus relief plans. one, the biden plan.

$1.9 trillion plan, it includes $1400 stimulus checks for americans. the other plan we are hearing about, the gang of 10 republican plan includes stimulus checks, but those would be $1000 checks and lower caps ineligibility. we are asking you who should receive the next round of checks from the government and how much would you make those for? phone lines are split up by income level. if you made under (202) 748-8000. if you made six 2000 to $100,000 last year, (202) 748-8002. if you made over $100,000, (202) 748-8003.

the phone lines are yours until 10:00 a.m. eastern. sylvester, georgia, on the line for those who made under $30,000. good morning. who should be eligible for the next round of stimulus checks? caller: yes, sir. host: what would your requirements be and how much should they be for? caller: at least $2000. for people who make under $30,000. host: you would only give it to people who make under $30,000 a year? caller: yes, sir. host: sam, leesburg, virginia. caller: it is interesting they have us fumbling over how much these checks should be when a

lot of countries in the world were giving these checks more regularly. they are keeping us distracted arguing over how much these checks should be rather than giving us the checks regularly. to answer the question, it is tough. $2000 goes further in wyoming as compared to northern virginia or san francisco. to accommodate for folks who have higher costs of living, under $120,000 would be an ok number for those checks and i think it should be the full $2000 at least. host: for individuals or joint filers? caller: for individuals, or at least for households. the median comfortable income for san francisco they say is

$120,000. at least to accommodate for the higher cost of living folks, it needs to be higher than the rest of the country. if they are making $120,000 in bradford, virginia, that will buy you a lot of property. some people will not need it, but it will be worth it. host: the difference between the biden proposal versus the republican proposal is $245 billion. the biden plan would spend $465 billion on stimulus claimants -- stimulus payments. are you concerned about the amount of money we are spending here? caller: i am not. i am a bernie guy. i hope as biden gets farther

left, we can make cuts in other programs that have been receiving extravagant numbers for decades, it will be fine. people need the help, i know the individual checks would help. if they can get more ppe to small businesses -- ppp to small businesses. host: are you worried about biden cutting a deal with republicans? caller: no. it would be a positive thing if they can bring more people to the table. let's work together. host: two routes for a coronavirus package. democrats preparing the budget reconciliation route, it would allow them to move a covid relief bill through the senate on a majority vote.

the more regular way to move bills is with 60 votes and those 10 republican senators have reached out with this bipartisan bill. it is a question of what will happen here. will democrats go the budget reconciliation route or make a deal with republicans to get the 10 votes needed? that is one question that remains this morning as we talk about covid relief. bill is in mclean, virginia on the line for those who made over $100,000 last year. who should get the checks? caller: target the checks to the people impacted. it is challenging because the last stimulus was based off 2019 earnings, where people did not show impact. if you earned over the maximum in 2019, you did not receive

anything for the early stimulus. people with kids, where the schools are closed and one parent has to take off to do the schooling, there has been a huge impact on those families. the more appropriate mechanism might be to do a comparison between 2019 and 2020 and if you have been impacted, you get stimulus. i don't understand why, if you earn under a certain amount but your earnings have not been impacted, why would they provide a stimulus check for those individuals if they have not been impacted. host: one question is getting this out the door. are you talking about waiting until april 15 until everybody files 2020 taxes and making that comparison?

we are talking several months down the road then. caller: it is two months, i don't think several is appropriate. you can file your taxes and if you have been impacted by it, you can receive stimulus. otherwise, you are blowing out money to people who have not been impacted. senior citizens, my parents received stimulus checks, but they have zero impact. they actually saved money and spent fewer dollars than they have in the past. we lost approximately 50% of our income because my wife is home doing homeschooling. host: we had a caller saying move this money to unemployment insurance. those people have definitely been impacted by this.

that is a better way to avoid waste. what do you think about that effort, rather than putting it in checks out to people, putting more in unemployment insurance? caller: i agree 100%. arguments that unemployment -- unemployment payments should be commence or it with what they -- should match what they earned. if you are earning under $30 an hour, you made more being unemployed. if they are trying to get the economy going, people would rather stay unemployment. -- are staying -- people would rather stay unemployed. host: the gang of 10 plan includes $300 a week.

the biden plan is $400 a week. that is unemployment insurance. we are talking about direct stimulus checks, asking how you should craft those, who they would go to. essex, maryland, folks who make under $30,000 a year. caller: i listen to you all the time. i am glad you keep your bias down. i am going crazy listening to people talk about giving away this money. you cannot keep printing money. i have seen pictures of people in other countries carrying wheelbarrows full of money. how long before that happens here? i did not catch what australia did right and we did wrong when the virus -- i do not know where we went wrong. this talk about money, money, money -- it is making my head

spin. how far is this going to go before we crash? host: the current national debt in this country is 27 trillion dollars and counting. if you break that out per taxpayer, it is 222 thousand dollars per taxpayer, or $84,000 per citizen. caller: what are they going to do? how are they going to pay it? host: paula, deer park, texas. good morning. caller: i would be curious on how they judge the salary for this. in 2019, i made over $100,000. in 2020, my salary was reduced

by $75,000. if i file my taxes february 13, they will see my payroll deduction. they should base it on the 2020 salaries and not the 2019. host: you think folks who have had that impact would get their taxes into show that impact? caller: correct. i do not foresee my industry turning around anytime soon. host: what is your industry? caller: travel. plus, it is in oil and gas. host: bobby, tuscaloosa, alabama, on the line for those who make under $30,000 a year. caller: good morning. host: go ahead.

caller: i agree with the gentleman from virginia and the lady from maryland. i am way tired. -- i am retired. when i retire, i want to have my home paid for, my home is paid for. i get social security and a pension. there are so many people that it will. there is an answer. the republicans and the democrats should give the money to the people impacted by this virus. it did not affect me and my family. my home is paid for, i have an automobile paid for. i have insurance. it did not impact me. we need to look at how we spend money.

the government has so much waste. when they pass a bill, there are other things tacked onto the bill. i do not understand the government. they should make a bill where if they are going to give stimulus, unemployment, deal with those items and leave the other stuff they tack onto it. one day it is going to crash. i don't know when and i hope i don't be here. i plan. i am good. these people working, this may be a good lesson for them. you have to start planning. you do not know what is going to happen. working with this virus should have taught us something, we should plan ahead. thank you. that is all i have to say. host: this is deborah -- under $75,000 is fine as a cut off

level. anything more targeted will be slow to get out. this is lynn, the caps should be lower for couples married with children. i am tired of people saying they did not need the money so they put it into home improvements for their house. this is francisco out of monterey park, the line for under 30,000 dollars. francisco, good morning. caller: i am calling regarding the bill. i don't understand how this works. i just went to --. i have to pay myself. host: are you talking about bail? a topic for another time. we are talking about stimulus checks. who should be eligible for the next round. scott, massachusetts, between

$60,000 and $100,000. caller: individually, if you made between $60,000 and $100,000, they should get checks if they are impacted. they should take away some of the other stuff in there, the garbage they are throwing into it and make this about the covid relief. getting shots to people and paying stimulus to people who need it the most. people making over $100,000 do not need a 12 hundred dollars, $1400, or $200 check. they do not need it. i don't see why we are giving it to those types of people when it is rising our debt and hurting our economy. host: you do not want things

that are not about covid relief. let's go through biden's $1.9 trillion plan. tell me if you think this has to do with covid relief. $350 billion for state and local governments. are you ok with that? caller: no. that should be a separate plan congress should vote on. host: $15 an hour federal minimum wage? caller: that should be pulled out. that is not a covid issue. host: expanded paid sick leave for workers. caller: that is not a covid issue, either. these are a wish list. host: increased tax credits for families with children. caller: if it is related to covid. otherwise, we are adding in debt

to our country that we do not need to add. a dollar use to mean something. it used to be the strongest money out there in the world. now, you go to other countries, our dollar is worthless in some countries. you have to go to third world for our dollar to mean something. host: we are out of time. thank you for the call. scott, our last caller. we will be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern and 4:00 a.m. pacific. have a great tuesday. ♪ [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

♪ announcer: you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of the government. c-span was created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today, we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span as a public service. announcer: tom vilsack has been chosen by president biden to be agriculture secretary. he testified before the senate -- testifies before the senate agriculture committee and about half an hour. congress members are hoping to work on a covid-19 response plan. president biden has proposed nearly $2 trillion. republican senators have their own plan.

also in the house, federal programs to encourage apprenticeship training. live house coverage, here on c-span. announcer: former president trump became the first president to be impeached twice. last week, impeachment managers deliver the articles of impeachment on incitement of insurrection to the senate, with marilyn representative jamie raskin reading the article. >> donald trump warrants impeachment and trial. removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the united states. so help you god. >> agreed. announcer: the following day, senators were sworn in as jurors for the trial. senator rand paul requested a point of order to dismiss the impeachment charge as unconstitutional. >> i make a point of order that this proceeding, which would