tv Washington Journal 12302020 CSPAN December 30, 2020 7:00am-10:01am EST
discuss the trump administration's record on immigration, and what to look forward when joe biden takes office. nicholas turner talks about criminal justice reform under the incoming biden administration. "washington journal" is next. >> would the senator modify his request to include a unanimous consent request -- to include unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of hr 9051, bill received from the house to increase recovery rebate amounts to $2000 per individual, that the bill be read a third time and passed, the motion to reconsider be considered and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. is their objection to the modification? >> i object. >> objection is heard. ♪
senate majority leader mitch mcconnell yesterday blocked democrats from having an up or down vote on that $2000 stimulus check to many americans. in reaction to the debate as it continues this week in washington, we will take your thoughts and the first hour of this morning's "washington journal." republicans, dial in at (202) 748-8001. , andrats, (202) 748-8000 independents, (202) 748-8002. you can also text us with your first name, city, and state at (202) 748-8003, or go to c-span wj or facebook.com. we begin with the minority leader chuck schumer on the floor yesterday making an
argument for bigger stimulus checks. >> i don't want to hear that we
can afford it. i don't want to hear that it would add too much to the deficit. senate republicans added nearly $2 trillion to the deficit to give corporations a massive tax cut. publicans fought to include a tax break for three martini lunches in the covid relief bill, so i don't want to hear it that it costs too much to help working families get a check when they are struggling to keep their jobs, pay their rent, feed their families. and live halfway normal and decent life. even in our deeply divided times, madam president, this issue has united americans from coast-to-coast and bridged massive political divide in washington. public, majority of the republican and democrat strongly support to thousand dollar checks. an overwhelming bipartisan majority in the house supports $2000 checks. senate democrats strongly support $2000 checks.
even president trump supports $2000 checks. there is one question left today -- do senate republicans join with the rest of america in supporting $2000 checks? now, some of my republican colleagues have said they support the checks, but there is a major difference in saying you support $2000 checks, and fighting to put them into law. the house bill is the only way to deliver these stimulus checks before the end of session. will senate republicans fight for a vote on the house past
cash act, or will they look some other way? host: democratic leader chuck schumer yesterday. the majority leader mitch mcconnell, after he objected to senator schumer's request for a vote, he objected to independent -- the's bernie sanders
senate approved the bill after it overrides the veto. mitch mcconnell objected and then went to adjourn the senate, but before doing so, said he would tie -- made the vague mention to the $2000 checks -- high that issue to election 230,ity as well as section 1996 law that provides legal protections to social media companies. here's the majority leader.
>> i want to applaud president trump for signing the bill and getting the much needed assistance into the pipeline. during this process, the president highlighted three additional issues of national significance he would like to see congress tackle. first, as he explained, the president like further direct support for american households. second is the growing willingness to at least re-examine the special legal
protections afforded to technology companies under section 230 of the communications decency act, including the ways it benefits some of the most prosperous, most powerful big tech firms. the third subject, since every american regardless of politics should feel the integrity of our democracy is beyond reproach, is exploring further ways to protect the sanctity of american ballots while respecting the limited government role of standing by to state and local government who run elections. those are the three important subjects the president has linked together. the senate will
start a process to bring these into focus. host: the majority leader having to link those bills together after senator bernie sanders objected to the senate moving to an override vote of the president's veto on the defense bill. that has gummed up the works in
senate. senate could be in session and voting in -- on new year's and beyond. after adjourning the senate,
the minority leader put out this statement, saying senator mcconnell knows how to make $2000 checks alive and how to kill them. if he loads the bill with unrelated partisan provisions that will do nothing to help struggling families, it will not pass the house and cannot become law. senate republicans go along with senator mcconnell's senator -- cynical gambit or will they push for a vote on the standalone cash act? the debate continues in washington, romeo in maple heights, ohio, republican. what do you think? caller: i think before we put all this money on our nation's
credit card, we should consider a couple things. instance,, for myself, i am a 67-year-old retired, i get a pension. not one penny of my income was altered by all of this. i received a $1200 check. i cashed it. i wasn't really -- covid-19 didn't alter my life in any way financially, although my son and daughter just had covid over the holidays. they are 29 and 30 years old. thank goodness they are fine, they survived it, and we will move on, but i think they should target the money to the people who are really affected and hurt by this. thank you for listening. that what did you do with $1200, spend it or save it? caller: i spent it. i gave some of it to my children. but it wasn't necessary. the way i look at it was that
$1200 was taken on my grandchildren. they will have to repay that money to the country and it is just unnecessary. target the 2000, by all means make it 3000, but give it to people who lost their jobs, people who were really affected. 18 million government workers did not lose their lives. why do they get 1200 bucks? millions of teachers stayed home and will get the money. people like me, retirees that weren't affected get the money. pork out of that there, which it is, it would be fine. a kiddie, south carolina, democrat. -- acadia, south carolina, democrat. what do you think? caller: i totally agree with the previous caller, the republican,
because it should be targeted to those who truly need it. i wasn't entitled to the previous $1200 and didn't get it. i didn't need it. i was totally unaffected. i am retired, fortunately have a great retirement, and i wouldn't be entitled to this. so i think it should be targeted. i think it should be brought to the senate for a vote for just ,2000 for those who need it targeted, and move on. this is taking far too long, and it is really adding stress to those who already are stressed because they need financial aid. host: for you and the previous caller and all those listening this morning, here is the criteria as it stands for eligibility to receive these checks. single people earning up to
$75,000 will receive $600 or could be $2000 if it passes. married couples would receive 1400 -- and it would phase out entirely for single orple earning over $80,000 married couples earning more than $174,000. if you have dependents that are not college-age, an additional $600 for each dependent child. that's go to tommy in fort myers, florida, -- let's go to tommy in fort myers, florida, independent. caller: thanks for taking my call. first, second, and third what the gentleman said before. the money should be in priority for people who actually need it. i don't think government workers should see they bail out because
they did not miss work. disagree with the first caller that as a teacher, we went home but we still had to work so it was not as if we weren't working. i feel as though -- and don't take this the wrong way -- i think that you as the person hosting the show use the terms like "vague" against mcconnell but it is kind of leading that the republican -- it is the republicans' fault when this is a failure of both parties, because a senator of new york city who shut down his entire state, supported it, cannot lecture people about needing money and going hungry. purpose is to say the senators and house of representatives, they should go to a furlough until they resolve this issue for average american people. host: what i was referencing is
that the majority leader never explained why he objected to senator schumer asking for that up or down vote, or senator sanders. what he did mention was what we showed you on the senate floor. he didn't talk to reporters after. caller: in all fairness, i understand how the media operates, everything like that, so he was focusing on what he was talking about. he wasn't vague. he just wasn't focusing on why he disagreed with something. but you are doing a great job, not discrediting you. i just think that people need to stop making this a republican issue. donald trump says he will veto it. when we say it is a republican issue, the fact that we are here december 30 in these decembers -- democrats and republicans in
the house and senate have waited and dragged butt to get on the floor for a relief to for a year, and they only gave us a partial relief bill. that is it her shame to me as our society -- shame to me as our society. i wish everyone would stand up and hold both sides accountable. it was chuck schumer and nancy pelosi because they could have put a bill before the president that was assignable and didn't have initiatives like giving money to undocumented workers. thank you. host: understand your point and appreciate the constructive feedback. mark in philadelphia, democratic caller. caller: you know i think mitch is kind of making a big mistake here. the reason i say that, he is the master chess player but i think he is going to get checked and
checkmated. the reason i say that is he is sinking purdue and leffler in georgia -- loeffler in georgia. how are they going to explain this, take the senate back or keep the senate in republican hands, and here is the leader of the senate saying to american people standing in food lines, basically, forget the $2000. we will give you a paltry $600. for the colts -- callers saying, get this targeted, get in your car in philadelphia or san antonio or wherever come drive around and see what thousands of people in their cars. we don't have time to do this targeting. let's get the two grand out -- two grand out, stop playing games, and get it done. host: the president was pushing for the bigger stimulus checks
on twitter yesterday. he sent out this in the afternoon around 2:00 p.m. -- unless republicans have a death wish, and it is the right thing to do, they must approve the $2000 asap. $600 is not a lot. also, do not let big tech steel our country, and don't let the democrats steal the presidential election. he pointed out the two georgia republican senators facing a runoff from democratic opponent's support increasing relief payments, and says republicans must support the $2000 payments and must fight the crooked presidential election. take a look at drudge report's banner this morning. have this picture of the president on bills and saying, give the people 2000, quote. trillion, was 19.9
trillion when trump took office. played aernie sanders role in all of this yesterday as well, walking the majority leader from holding a vote on the override veto of the defense bill, and then he was on the floor arguing why he was making that move in an effort to pass the tax act for $2000 checks. >> madam president, as i mentioned, the house has done the right thing. by overwhelming vote, democrats and republicans voted to increase the $600 direct payment to $2000. recent poll came out. 78% of the american people think that that was the right decision. they are hurting. they want help. the leaders of our country, president trump, president-elect
biden, minority leader chuck schumer, the speaker of the house nancy pelosi are all in agreement. we have got to raise that direct payment to $2000. so that is where we are right now in this historic moment. do we turn our backs on struggling working families, or do we respond to their pain? host: senator sanders on the floor, he could play key role again today. the senate comes into session 3:00 p.m. eastern time and the majority leaders plan to hold a quorum at 5:00 p.m., and we will see what senator sanders does. the majority leader would like to move to the defense policy bill to override the president's veto. "the washington post" editorial board is against these larger
stimulus checks and they write -- as we previously pointed out, there was a case for including modest checks for the hardest hit segment of the population. inin the $980 billion stimulus that dig past, congress went well beyond that, providing six and dollar payments that will send up to $3000 for families of ase earning as much $150,000. the bill does this while extending unemployment benefits a mere 11 weeks. in short, the measure short shifted the neediest and whoered billions on those suffered little or not at all from the pandemic. run a virus vaccinations are underway. a house bill would compound the $600increasing payment to $2000. it would phase out for families
of five earning above $350,000. much of this will be saved, not spend, since restaurants are closed and air traffic limited. -- air travel limited. john, what is your take on it? caller: good morning. we have a problem on our hands, folks. it doesn't matter if you are democrat or republican. we need to open up america. this money that we are all bickering about means nothing. i don't understand why we are even speaking about this. , as theasks work vaccines are coming out, right now i am visiting in washington but i live in el paso. there is a big outbreak there, but we still open up the economy. i don't believe america needs $2000. i believe we need to open up america. that's where we are at.
host: fred in michigan, an independent. caller: how are you doing? i just want you to know that this vaccine thing of getting distributed quicker could be settled. i don't understand why the military and the national guard in citiesup tents with workers that have tables to distribute this through car lines as they do with food banks. there should be more points of distribution, and they are just hacking over the stimulus bill over and over again in congress, and this should be settled like yesterday. i just believe that the timing of everything is way off. host: you think they should be focusing on the distribution rather than the $2000 stimulus checks? caller: exactly. the $2000 stimulus can come
anytime, and i understand they keep delaying it because they can't agree with the republicans. what they need to do is come to an agreement overnight and have two separate entities. the military has to get more involved with the distribution. there has to be national guard's people in the cities. kentucky, ain democratic caller. are you opposed or and support of bigger stimulates -- stimulus checks? -- in: i am in report, support and they probably will end up passing the deal. am i still on? host: ok, wanda in pennsylvania, republican. what do you say? i want to respond to the fellow who said the people with social security do not need it.
we have people bringing us food, and i have to give money and pay them. we don't get much. we are not living high off the hog here. we are lucky to have money to pay our bills with the little bit we get. some people get extra. maybe they have worked for a big pension, big company and get a lot of money. we get the bare minimum and that is the way most elderly are living. host: connie in california, independent. caller: good morning, greta. i just wanted to ask this question. on this stimulus, didn't pelosi oppose it at the beginning until the election was done? and on the stimulus money, there are people -- i've seen poor people just around, what do you call it, lying down in their tent with their dog, that is
pathetic. for us to give so much to other countries, that is not right. also, unemployment, i heard but i don't know if it's true, i heard people don't want to go back to work because they get new -- more unemployment than if they would work. go to work and the government should supplement whatever they were making. that's my comment. host: let me read from the rollcall piece this morning -- senate could be in session and voting through new year's and beyond. they note senate majority leader mcconnell informed senators that plans for a live quorum call at 5:00 p.m., followed by a vote proceeding to override president donald trump's veto of the defense authorization bill that passed the senate on december 11. while some senators may defect, the override's ultimate passage with two thirds seemed assured.
the question is when? there is some frustration about considering the pace of the override vote. james inhofe told reporters that the vote timing to all these people of living -- living here, don't care. i care. that in response to mcconnell's objections to taking up and voting the house passed bill to provide enhanced covid-19 payments, mcconnell can work around sanders by filing a closer motion to limit debate and break any filibusters once motions to proceed to that motion is agreed tonight. that sets up a closer vote an hour after the senate comes in on friday, which is new year's day. there would be enough time to get the defense measure cleared over trump's objections before the 116th congress and its
outstanding business expires at noon. at that point, the focus turns to the pomp and circumstance of a new congress and incoming legislation, and eventual executive and judicial nominations. mary in las vegas, democratic caller, good morning. caller: good morning. the only thing that's been exposed the last five years is the con in conservatism. been mcconnell, he hasn't bringing bills to the floor for about 10 years now. there is over 300 bills sitting on his desk since february. there was athing, huge package put out in may. mcconnell just brought it to the floor about three weeks ago. it all has to do with money for his lobbyists, money for rich corporations. we are in a pandemic. theleefully calls himself
grim, wants to bankrupt the states. his own state takes more money out of the government then puts into it. i don't know, people, wake up. they have a lot of money. is the richest person out there. perdue goes to a meeting on the pandemic and was out buying medical stocks to enrich himself. host: there are senate republicans who have said they would support the legislation 275-134,house passed, the cash act, to increase payments, and they include senator leffler of georgia who is facing a runoff, along with her colleague senators sonny perdue -- senator david purdue. marco rubio, republican of florida, also said he would be in support of these checks.
josh hawley and lindsey graham all saying yesterday they could support it. doug fisher republican from nebraska according to reports sounded open to the $2000 checks, but did not want it tied to the other legislation. josh hawley sent out these tweets yesterday saying he thinks they got the votes and when some republican support voiced yesterday, he said, let's vote today. he said, i will not consent to a vote on the bad defense bill unless the senate votes on the $2000 relief for working people. we will see what happens today when the senate convenes at 3:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span two, or download the free c-span radio app to listen to the floor proceedings. is expected leader to call quorum call around 5:00
p.m. eastern. david in rockville, maryland, a republican. caller: good morning. host: morning. caller: i listen to you guys ever single morning going to work. in regard of two aspects in respect to this stimulus package where the cash relief package or whatever they want to call it these days, to move it to $2000. i understand the reason being why people would need it. i am not one of those people, so i am ok with that, however you never hear the republicans or democrats or independents on how we are going to get back to work. people have been out of work for the last 10 months almost, and all they are worried about is money rather than, why don't we give ppe to the businesses to give to their employees so that they can get back to work and put food on their table?
all they are worried about is giving money to people to stay home. we know there is covid, people are sick, people die. sadly. but with ppe and correct measures, we can get back to work as a country. america was built on working force, not people sitting home and doing nothing. host: david mentions the death toll of covid-19, yesterday a record set with over 3700 deaths. news star in the louisiana has this headline -- congressman elect luke letlow dies with covid-19, 41 years old, was supposed to be sworn into office sunday. allen in milwaukee, wisconsin, democratic caller. i believe both sides [indiscernible]
sign.k $2000 is a good host: mike in montrose, pennsylvania. we will go to you next. know,:guest: i believe that, yu they aren't looking at this in the right manner, meaning the public, because these people that are voting on helping them, they get that money back tenfold with the interest on a dollar. the dollar is just a receipt that collects interest for a debt they made against us working for 70 years. now, bail us out. we -- they give themselves raises for failure, but they are not willing to help us? that is really bad. host: did you get the first round of stimulus checks? guest: yes, i did. host: what did you do with it?
guest: what did i do with it? i put food in my refrigerator, i paid bills that were behind. the cost of living is the income into a household. poverty, moree in people are going to get thrown out of the house as more people are going to be on the street. it is going to cost us more money. that pushes up the crime rate because these people that supposedly work for us, make them get to the point of go out in the street, lay down and die, or do what you have to do to survive. we could do a better job than they are doing because everything they are supposed to do, they have us do anyway. you be eligible to receive this next seamless check, whether it is $600 or $2000?
worker,i am a disabled 100% disabled, but i refuse to stop trying to work. auto accident when i was 19 years old. i never gave up. host: mike in pennsylvania. text messages from viewers. bob says a joke as usual. thanks for nothing, mitch. pat in marysville, indiana. company when he called for the stimulus check that mcconnell was not going to pass it. stop playing with people's lives. never been fore the poor people. and from wichita, kansas, just hilarious how the democrats attend about caring to give money to the american people. they fight harder for illegal aliens than they do for the
american people. all they care about is power. when are you going to get that through your head? les, a republican. int about the debate washington over stimulus checks? caller: i'm opposed to it. as far as i'm concerned, this is just a debt that my grandchildren are going to have to pay, and i think that is wrong. humongous federal tax bill, that most of them probably don't even need. -- obama item also not 26. 1800 criminals, host: karl in chicago, democratic caller. carl, support or oppose, $2000 ?hecks ech
caller: i support it. i'm going to make this simple. republicans never want to do anything for joe citizen. under george bush and trump when they had the congress, the first thing they did was massive tax cuts. the trump tax cut was the biggest i think in the history of this country. joe citizen is out there having difficulties. they don't want to do anything. the was initiated by democrats. they came back and said they knew it was going to be inspiring -- expiring. they passed another bill. mitch mcconnell past nothing. doingad no intentions of anything even now. this bill that is up, that came through his working group. they said we have to try to do something. have something possibly going forward now, but they
planned on doing nothing in january. they are not going to do anything. those tax cuts that they passed in 2016, right now those people, it was reported that businesses and the wealthy made $1 trillion during this pandemic. they don't want to do anything for joe citizen. independents and republicans, they need to realize -- one with the less time republican said we want to do something for you? it doesn't happen. host: today we will hear from the speaker of the house, nancy pelosi, or thoughts. she will hold a news conference at 10:45 a.m. eastern time. you can watch on our website, c-span.org, or you can listen radio app.span let's go to republican michael from texas. go ahead. caller: yes, ma'am.
money, and it of am on social security. -- i have ai, we friend of mine who is a cpa. home.working from and yesterday morning my wife and i went to a restaurant here in texas, and they were social distancing. they were doing very well. it is just a lot of money to throw out to everybody when there are a lot of people working from home, and there are certain places like around where i live where restaurants are open, but being safe. just look into it before you put out that kind of money. andill run the dollar down, before this hit, trump had the
country doing great. people were getting their pride back about accomplishing things. i was even milling a few yards on the side and everything. it is just a lot of money to put out there, but there are a lot of people in dire need of that money. host: on facebook, if your posted, u.s. congress has yet to learn what other country leaders know. we need lockdowns and stimulus simultaneously for coronavirus. and, this is meant to be a stimulus bill, not something we wait on for a year until they figure out who will benefit and who doesn't. it is a stall tactic. they don't mind you waiting huge food lines, homeless and stressed. we have ours. get $2000 done now. and on twitter, at the current
rate of vaccine distribution, we will still be dealing with this pandemic deep into next year. we could use this money now. the length of time it is taking is shameful. that is julie texting that. another text from a viewer who consumer leading the economy with $600 want stimulate anything. --t will go for folks helping local and small businesses like restaurants that are closing left and right. on the vaccine distribution, president-elect joe biden addressed the press yesterday. [video clip] mr. biden: we are grateful to the company scum of the doctors, the scientists, the researchers, the clinical trials for operation warp speed for developing the vaccines quickly.
but as i long feared and warned, the effort to administer and distributive vaccine is not progressing as it should. a few weeks ago the trump administration suggested 20 million americans could be vaccinated by the end of the summer. with only a few days left in december, we have only vaccinated a few million so far. the pace of the vaccination program as it moves now, as it continues to move now, it will take years, not months, to vaccinate the american people. host: you can watch all of the president elect's remarks on the pandemic if you go to our website, c-span.org. peter in pennsylvania, democratic caller. would like toi say good morning to you. i am just calling in response to some of the people that are saying that $2000 is a lot of money. they are giving us crumbs.
the rich rip us off and smile in constant.and it is these trump morand's have voted for this clown, shame on you. when will you learn. me, foolnce, shame on me twice, shame on you. wake up and smell the coffee. republicans don't give up. rs, trumphese trumpete won't let you take out his trash. thank you. ann in new york. caller: thank you for taking my call. my america should hang its head in shame. the food lines we see it going across america, and mitch mcconnell is one of the richest people in the senate. america is a disaster, a disaster. it is a country that i hate to
say that i live in at this point because i think it is disgusting. because they are not doing anything for the people. those republicans, they are the wealthiest. they could care less about john doe or jane doe. all they are worried about is their richness. that's all i have to say. host: charles and dan ridge, tennessee, a republican. support or oppose? should there be larger stim is checks? tennessee, andom this is a republican state. they have a runoff in georgia, that -- i know quite a few people in georgia, and i want democrats to vote their and get democrats and the if everybody want 's get along, mr. biden
democrat and the house is democrat and the senate is democrat, guess what, something does happen, and we get more money. , and i am disabled, chuck schumer would never say that low-income people should not get the money. we need masks, hand sanitizers. we need to pay our bills, too. it is kind of a stupidity remark from him. the guy needs to go. if i am going to still be a republican, my mom, i was raised republican. he needs to go. these people saying that they go out there and work, these are the people that are catching it. they are dying. we are dying too quickly, just like 911 when the building got
hit. bin laden only killed 5000 people. , even theok at war bombing of pearl harbor only killed 2400 some people. , i guaranteeed they were trying to say that half of america will die. host: charles, a republican there. we will see what they said it does when they convene today at 3:00 p.m. is turn. the majority leader says he will call a quorum call at 5:00 p.m. eastern time and try to move to the defense policy bill, a veto override vote is what he wants to take today. democrats led by senator bernie sanders would like to object to that, which would slow down the process for taking that vote and
could come as rollcall says in their headline, mean that the senate is voting -- could be voting and in session through new year's and beyond. senator john cornyn of texas went to the senate floor yesterday, to make the argument of why the senate needs to move forward with this override vote, veto override vote on the defense bill. [video clip] sen. cornyn: they need funding, stability, they need to be able to plan, and they need the unwavering support of the united states congress and all 330 million americans. provides that support from congress. we willg for those that
inevitably face tomorrow. early this month, this legislation passed the house by a vote of 335 to 78. and the senate by a vote of 84-13. those were rare vote margins in congress these days, and that alone is a testament to the importance of this legislation and its bipartisan support. we know the president has a constitutional authority to veto any bill for virtually any reason, and he has exercised that power with this legislation. the reasons the president has given, i don't think are frivolous at all. they just shouldn't be tagged to this particular piece of legislation. [end video clip] cornyn on the floor yesterday. with a quorum at 5:00 p.m. eastern time, it means that every senator is required to be on the floor, followed by a vote
to begin debate on the veto override of the defense bill. so tune into c-span 2. you will see all 100 senators potentially on the floor as the majority leader and republicans try to move to that veto override vote. see it all on c-span 2, how they react to that. let's go to tom in fort mill, south carolina, an independent. what do you think? to thousand dollar checks? caller: i actually think the people could use the money, and i cannot really understand why these politicians are playing games with the whole thing, and that is all it really is. opinion, a game. there are people hurting. i agree with the people who call in and say the politicians don't care. --y don't give a rat'd
never mind, i'm sorry. they don't care and they never will. my daddy always said that you can tell when a politician is lying because his mouth is moving. host: before you go, did you get the first round of stimulus checks? no, my younger brother did. he is disabled. he got it. host: do you know what he did with it? bills, he paid some trying to get a little bit ahead with it. it may have put him ahead financially, still a little ahead. they don't really care. they are playing games with it. the lady said. they've got theirs, why should they worry about anybody else? host: steve in new york sends us
this text saying, "mcconnell is giving a massive in campaign n by killing the 2000 vote. section 230 is important topic but linking that to stim two is political suicide for republicans here cap hi, bill. seems to do street it very well, and it is enhanced by the person that helps on wall street, it seems like the stock market is booming. the decisiontime to bail out wall street, i think we should make that decision painfully come and we will have probably the biggest depression the world has ever known. said to say that, but that is
the way it is. host: carol in morehead city, a republican. give you get the first round of stimulus checks? caller: we did. host: what did you do with it? caller: we give it to somebody who would help. my husband is retired. we don't get a very large income. we cannot get social security because of the people who were in the service during vietnam, ours is cut down to 100 some dollars a month. husband's.raw on my i cannot draw on my own because he was in the military. i am extremely upset with some of the people in this country that are calling and saying they are ashamed of our country. if they are not ashamed of the country, -- if they are that ashamed of the country, i would welcome them to leave. people who are
ashamed of our country. that's the thing about donald trump. he is proud of this country. he is proud of the people in it. this guy talking about wall street, the majority of the people you're talking about, their retirement is tied up in wall street, and when wall street does good, their retirement stays on track. when wall street falls, their retirement falls. somebody needs to learn a little bit. i mean, it is just ridiculous. againste you for or bigger stimulus checks? i think theally, stimulus checks are a good thing if they are sent to the right people, the people getting a full paycheck and are working, there is no need. they should give it to people that do need it. diane, mansfield, ohio, independent.
to first of all say that -- i keep hearing people say that we need to open up the country and put people back to work. the problem is, if there is not consumer confidence, the is mrs. will have little to no business. but what i really wanted to say, i wanted to ask why we the people allow the senate to think that it is ok for mitch mcconnell to add these two things that have nothing to do with the cash act. he is doing it because he knows it will not be passed with those attachments. he doesn't even believe there was fraud in the election, which is why he phrased it the way he did. he wants to make it look like he is supporting trump's demands, but he really isn't. and finally, i want to say go bernie. we have somebody pushing this for us. beforehat mcconnell did adjourning the senate, by tying the 2000 all it checks to other pieces of legislation, it means that according to roll call, the mcconnell bill would increase
direct payments to 2000, repeal section 230, and established in 18 member bipartisan member committee to study the integrity and administration of the general election for federal office held for november 2020 and make recommendations to congress to improve the security, integrity, and administration of federal elections. michigan,o scotty in republican. hi, scotty. caller: how's it going? host: good morning. what do you think? caller: i think of course the american people can use the $2000. who couldn't use an extra $2000? $75,000e people making don't really need it, but i think people under $50,000 should get it. whatever they are going to do, the bottom line is the like trump, i-- i
don't think i am a staunch republican, but the trouble is they need to give mitch mcconnell -- they need to get mitch mcconnell out of there, nancy pelosi, chuck schumer and that south carolina fool lindsey graham. he is a little weasel. -- him ands just lindsay are the old plantation boys. lindsey graham flipped out because they gave people an extra $600. he acts like it is coming out of his pocket. and theyon artist, don't care if trump -- they want trump out of office. they can't wait. host: lindsey graham come as you may have heard yesterday on the show, according to the washington post, he flew down to florida to golf with the president on christmas day and try to convince him to ultimately sign the 908 alien
dollar covid relief -- the $908 billion covid relief bill to keep the government running, and it was him along with senator runofferdue, facing a january 5, and others convinced him. so now you've got some senate republicans -- lindsey graham, josh hawley, the two georgia senators, and marco rubio -- who are saying they would support the cash act. said,: well, like i lindsey graham is a little suck up is what he is. he could care less about that. the $600.to pass he is not for the $2000. he wants to get something out there because he's got his eyes on the presidency in the future. the way trump treated him, you ,now, before trump got elected he cannot stand him, but he had to suck up to him because trump
got in because he had no choice. lindsey graham is a phony, and so is mitch mcconnell. we heard your point. you also mention for criteria for receiving the stimulus checks. we will show that again as we go in north conway, new hampshire, an independent. as we take a look at the eligibility requirements, go ahead. caller: good morning. i have a suggestion, and it is another way of helping besides $600 to $2000. people when they pass away, many have donated their hearts and -- well, it's see forgot. donateway, they
sometimes their hearts where maybe lungs and other things to pass along. i would think it would be good for the senate to say, like die, ofaid, if i should the coronavirus before a vaccine is available to me, i would like citizenship toa a dreamer. buoy, maryland, a democratic caller. i agree with the $2000 bailoutsn bailout, but to those who have lost their jobs due to no fault of their own, people who are working from home like my son and granddaughter, i mean, sure, they would love the $2000 but they don't need it because they
are still getting their full paycheck. i'm retired. , social31,000 a year security. i don't need $2000. is that they amend the bill and say the money is for those that lost their jobs. the people that are still working don't need that money. peopler child for those that have lost their jobs, that is fine. another thing, mitch mcconnell knows what he's doing. out thenot want to give $2000 to anyone. that is why he has added this crap about the election fraud sectionbill, along with 230 about the tech companies.
that's what trump wants, and mitch mcconnell knows that's not going to fly. he does not want to give up that $2000. greta, this is what i'm going to say. any election fraud, elections that should be looked at, is the one in kentucky and the one in south carolina. there is a black district in kentucky. mcconnell supposedly got 100% of those votes, and we know that is impossible. lindsey graham was on tv crying because he was thinking he was going to lose the election. he won by double digits. to me, that is where the fraud is. but people in georgia, you have to get out and vote because it is going to be the same way as for the last 10, 12 years. nothing is going to get done. people complain about nancy pelosi. house,elosi, democrats,
they passed bills, the voting rights act, bailout money, etc., 300-plus bills back in the spring. it is still sitting on mitch mcconnell's desk. host: i'm getting one last call here. bismarck, north dakota, a republican. your turn. i think the $2000 stimulus should go through. i think he just added those two bills and stuff, and trump's biggest thing was he wanted a clean bill to come out of the house, and they did on the stimulus package, so now to me that the senate cannot be asked to do the same thing that they did to try to pass a clean bill. you know, there are people that, you know, are in small businesses that don't qualify pa you package
stuff. there are people on social security and limited income that do trade shows, craft shows, stuff like that, and they don't fall into any of these categories where they can get loans and get help, and with all their income has been lost due to the pandemic because all the venues like the big craft shows, vendor shows, sports shows, all those shows have been shut down due to the coronavirus. if they are so worried about where the paychecks come from, i bet if they had to tell their spouses that they would lose their income for 2, 3 months and could not have all of their lavish stuff, i bet you the senators and representatives would pass this to dollars --mulus package so quick this $2000 tim was package so quick, it would be a shock to
the whole world because they would be without their incomes. host: we are going to return to this conversation in the last half-hour, today's washington journal. up next we want to turn our attention to the president's legacy on immigration and look forward to what changes might be in the offing for a new biden administration, that conversation with sarah peace -- sarah pierce of the migration policy later, nicholas turner with the vera institute for justice. announcer: as the year comes to a close, congress continues in session, debating whether to add more dollars to covid relief and to vote on overwriting the president's veto of funding defense programs. a new congress, the 117th, convenes sunday at noon. join us as they swear in more than 60 new members. the house elects a speaker.
and as both bodies begin their work, live coverage sunday at noon eastern time. watch the house on c-span and the senate on c-span2. watch online at c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. announcer: on tuesday, the balance of power in the senate will be decided by the winners of the two georgia runoffs. republican senators david perdue and kelly leffler are defending their seats and the party control of the chamber. follow the results and hear from the candidates in these final races of campaign 2020. live coverage on c-span, c-span.org, and the free c-span radio app. announcer: washington journal continues. host: joining us to talk about the president's legacy on amigration is sarah pierce, policy analyst at the migration policy institute.
let's begin with what the president promised to do when he ran in 20 on immigration. guest: president trump promised transformation on immigration. that is what he delivered. his policies touched every part of the immigration system and things have really changed. this other border is effectively sealed off come if not by a physical wall but by bureaucratic rules. interior reinforcement is vitalized, the courts are operating faster than ever, legal immigration has become significantly more difficult, and inflows into the united states such as refugees are diminished. that was his hope. legalwed both illegal and immigration as a negative and really wanted to restrict both. there are some things that he
did not quite accomplish. he promised to deport millions of unauthorized immigrants. he did not even deport one million unauthorized immigrants during his time in office. has maden though he legal immigration significantly more difficult, the numbers have not decreased. so the live ring on a lot of fronts, but some of his major goals did not quite get there. host: on the numbers, according to your group, the president's deportations are at 935,000. southernions at the border are at 2 million. green cards at 1.1 million per atr before covid, now 840,000. attaining citizenship. why didn't he reach those goals? guest: deportations were not as high as he expected. he had around 900,000 deportations, and during obama's
first four years in office, he had 1.5 million. it is significantly less when you think that trump is a president who came in, unlike obama, really wanting to ramp up deportations. 'se biggest issue for trump interior enforcement agenda is lack of cooperation from local law enforcement agencies. that cooperation between local police and federal immigration authorities has become really politicized. there is a lot of jurisdictions that resisted working with the administration on interior deportment, which cut off a major flow for interior enforcement operations for the president. wall,when it comes to the how much did he construct, and has it been effective? caller: he constructed a little more than 400 miles of wall. it is hard to say that it has been effective because the big flows that we have seen at the southern border during trump's time in office are humanitarian,
children and families and asylum-seekers who want to be caught by border patrol in order to apply for asylum in the united states. issue, hiszing that administration has been very effective in cutting off that flow. it is nearly impossible right now to ask for asylum at the southern border, so those numbers have significantly gone down. has really been this administration's changes on asylum. 1 423 miles -- host: 423 miles of the border the dacat, he ended application process, sped up removal of proceedings, and reduced refugee admissions. what was the asylum process like before, and how has he changed it? caller: before trump came into office -- guest: you could approach a port of entry, or even if you entered into the u.s. border between ports of entry and were caught, you could apply for asylum.
you're given a preliminary interview. if you pass that and you are committed to go to an immigration court system where you officially apply for asylum, that process really just doesn't exist. at the beginning of the pandemic, the director of the cdc issued an order saying that any unauthorized arrival should be immediately expelled from the country, even asylum-seekers. so right now if you are caught, for example, coming in between -- coming into the country, even if you attend to apply for asylum, even if you are fleeing persecution, you are immediately pushed out of the country. back to mexicout and others back to their own countries. host: we want to invite our viewers to join in. start dialing now and we will get to your calls and thoughts in a minute. sarah pierce, what is the docket program, and where does it stand
right now? -- the dhaka program. daca was a way to bring children into the united states and now has no lawful status in the united states. they receive work authorization, temporary plan to not be deported from the country. they could also travel or seek authorization to travel outside the united states. in september of 2017, president trump issued an order to unwind daca and essentially end it. that effort was quickly caught up in the court system, and daca has been kept in place but only for people who had it before september 2017. any of the tens of thousands of people who newly qualified for daca in september of 2017 cannot
under the current structure. the supreme court officially said the way the president went about ending daca was improper, and more recently a federal court said the administration needed to reinstate daca in total. so as of right now, new applicants can finally apply to daca, but there was a good three-year period in which they were not able to, under president trump. the status pierce, of family separations. we heard a lot about that this year. .aller guest: the administration was seeing rising numbers of the border, and they were going through different policies that would deter new arrivals at the southern border come and they familyhe most draconian
situations in which they were separating parents from their children at the southern border. there was republic -- there was public outcry from this, and in june of 2018, president trump issued an executive order that officially ended family s separations. families can still be separated by only for cause. is stillparation ongoing, but it is happening at a significantly lower rate than it was in the summer of 2018, in which it was happening en masse. reunite parents who were separated from their children has been ongoing since then. there was a group identified during or quickly after the summer of 2018, mostly
reunified, but then he came to the federal court's attention that there was a significant number of children separated before that initial group, and efforts to reunite them with their parents are still ongoing. the migration policy institute says that there are possible actions by the incoming biden administration on immigration, which include construction of the southwest border wall, reinstate the daca program, raise and support -- sean, arkansas, a republican, good morning. i think they need to stop it and take a hold of what they're doing and fix it, you know? just families are unthinkable. host: i'm going to leave it there because you have got to turn down that television.
put it on mute, listen and talk through your phone. sarah pierce, i don't know if he was talking about a comprehensive approach. that has been debated over the years in washington. what is the likelihood of that happening in a biden administration? guest: it is pretty extraordinary. the president elect promised to deliver to congress a comprehensive bill that would clear a pathway to citizenship for 11 million unauthorized immigrants in the country, and he promised to deliver that to congress within the first 100 days. extraordinaryty promise because congress has really struggled with immigratione demon reform. to put it in perspective, we have had no legislation changing immigration flows into the country. we have this extremely outdated immigration system.
but whether biden's bill is taken up by congress, there is skepticism about whether or not it will be successful. and a lot of it depends on who controls the senate, and congress' appetite for immigration reform right now, considering there is a lot going on in the country. i am doubtful it will be taken he but it is promising that is stressing significant action early on. host: tony in north carolina, independent. only, good morning. oaller: happy new year two ok, larry in host: massachusetts. a republican. larry? caller: good morning. i want to say a lot of things that trump said that i do not agree with. but i am with him on immigration. , no oneck american male
has gotten hurt more than black america. and daca are still illegal. they are illegal. so again, citizenship, as well as immigration. no one has gotten hurt more behind immigration dan american-born black's, and we should really look at who has been impacted by this policy. what trump stood for, immigration -- i agree with him on that. host: has your parent group done any research on that? do you show numbers that echo what that caller was just saying? guest: sure. i think larry is bringing up a good point. that is one really unique thing about president trump, that he views not only illegal but regal immigration as a negative to the united states. and his messaging was
significantly directed at minority communities and any potential damage they received from immigration. significant economic studies show that immigration as a whole , legal immigration, is a net positive in the united states. it grows our economy. even in ways you cannot measure, contributed to this society and culture and communities. but it is true that in the short working-class lower skill jobs do tend to -- to depress or lower wages a little bit, even though in the long term immigration benefits everyone. thet is important for government to develop immigration policies that address that issue. if immigration on a whole is good for society, we should have immigration but we should have immigration bow should have policies in place that address any depression of anyone in the
short term. valerie in new york, democratic caller. greta, good morning, good morning, sarah. i don't think there is anybody who doesn't think we need immigration reform. fromk with somebody who is the republic of ireland. she is an immigrant like her parents were immigrants. legal immigration -- it is harder to become a citizen. it has been here for 20 years. he owns two vehicles. time foren a scary anybody in this country, and a lot of this is stephen miller, and it has just been a lot of poison in the air. i would like you to talk about that, how it has affected people. sorry, i'm going to sign off. i just think there is a lot of ugliness out there and people need to open their hearts a little bit more. have a good new year. thanks, valerie, i'm
really happy you brought that up because it has been a very anxiety producing four years are both unauthorized and legal immigrants in the country because the president had the viewpoint that legal immigration is a problem for the united states. a litany of policies came down that may legal immigration significantly more difficult and made life more uncomfortable for legal immigrants already in the united states. scrutiny of any applications significantly increased. in the past where the u.s. agency would defer to private approvals, so people would try to expend their time in the united states. now that difference to prior approval is gone. uncertainty on people who are trying to renew their status even if they have been in the united states for a significant amount of time. there is significantly more vetting going on in any type of application. even before president trump took
office, because we have such a significant and difficult immigration system, it was quite difficult to immigrate to the united states, difficult to become a citizen, then now the president and his administration have really tightened that already difficult bureaucratic the that the uri -- that immigration system makes up. host: paul in kansas city, missouri, independent. caller: thank you for taking my call. the past couple of callers, to follow-up what they are saying, as an african-american male, i am just on the opposite side of the gentleman i saw minutes ago because he has kind of accepted the rhetoric that is put forth from stephen miller kind of voices that are coming out of this administration. that have come into america from south of the taking jobs specifically from -- are not
taking jobs specifically from minorities. it is like what that study shows. initially it looks like that, but in the long-term term it is not. the jobs that they are taking and filling are as roofers or carpenters, and the concrete industries. those are not areas of the industries that black americans were working in. but if you listen to the rhetoric, the trump is aistration's policy great friend to black america. donald trump stood at mount rushmore and used the words of martin luther king to praise manifest destiny. you have to listen to the entire rhetoric to understand what they are saying. host: i will have sarah pierce jump in. your thoughts? guest: sure, i mean, i think paul brings up a couple of important things.
there was a huge rhetoric campaign out of this administration on immigration. i don't think we have seen anything like it before. the administration used their resources to elevate cases, one-off cases of immigrants committing crime. even though on a whole immigrants commit crime at less of a rate then nationals and the administration pushed everything they could to show examples of immigrants committing crimes, to paint immigrants as a public security threat to the united states. really hasow, that bolstered their immigration agenda and what they were trying to accomplish on immigration. and paul is right, that immigrants largely felt -- they ,ill jobs as u.s. nationals bolstering our economy in that respect as well. host: how far did the president get with a merit-based system,
what he calls build america? guest: up until the pandemic, not far. the president has extraordinary powers on immigration, but there is not a lot that he can do to radically reshape the legal immigration system, which dictates who is legally coming into the united states, without working with congress. president trump made some odd attempts to try to work with congress during his time in office, both the house and the senate making progress toward bills on daca or dreamers, and the president tried to insert his priorities on a merit basis into those negotiations and really significantly failed. and then in the background his administration was also working on a larger immigration bill that they never ended up putting forward. so those efforts largely failed. but then once the pandemic
happened, you have a president who is existing in an extraordinary period of time, and it gives the president more authority. so he issued two proclamations, one on april 22 and one on june 22. neither has gotten a lot of attention, but they are significantly reshaping who is coming into the united states. one blocks temporary workers from coming into the united states, but the other one really reshapes who is immigrating, so who is coming permanently and giving green cards coming into the united states. that is blocking a significant number of family-based immigrants and deployment based i immigrants. those proclamations alone are already significantly reshaping who is coming into the united states, even in the short amount of time they have been in place. from louisiana, a
republican. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: yes, ma'am. trump has been trying to run this country, and the day after he is elected, maxine waters is out there saying impeach, impeach. this man was already trying to do his work, and behind his back the fbi and the whole crew was already trying to push him out. immigration, he was right. in.on't know who is coming these people have no vaccinations whatsoever. we don't know what they are bringing in. we don't know what diseases they -- carrying, or if they are and much less, we also are
the drug lords coming through. what kind ofierce, immigrants are trying to come to the united states? her point on to president trump being obstructed from what he wanted to accomplish in office, i cannot speak to other areas, but for immigration that is certainly not true. the president, this period in time has been extraordinary for immigration. we have never seen an administration be so active on immigration. a report was published over the summer that categorized 400 executive actions that this administration has made on immigration, so they certainly were able to push forward their administration agenda, if nothing else. and then on who is coming to the united states, we have placeicant vetting in
regarding immigrants coming into the united states, even those that cross at the southern border. as far as their health or vaccination goes, everyone coming in has to see a doctor who has been certified by the federal government and have all the checks, have all the vaccinations. it is certainly not something we are very concerned about. we've that immigrants in a stash te that immigrants -- we ve immigrants to an extraordinary extent before they can receive benefits. host: democratic caller. caller: good morning. i was an immigration lawyer, but i lost my license in omaha, nebraska. with 1000ly dealt cases. i had a few mexican cases, and the state had a harsh view on
that because they considered mexicans not eligible. they took my license. they said that mexicans don't get asylum. what do you mean? that was about 15 years ago, around 2004. memories book called from an immigration lawyer, under my grandpa's name, clemente cruz. good political a climate to have immigrants, because it is a republican state and there are a lot of people who dislike people of color coming into the state. when i was aniced
immigration lawyer, at first in the 1990's there were actually people.ices to help but as time went on, even in the bush administration, we were thinking, you know, because he was for immigration, there may be a chance to help people in the process to get here. 9/11, everything just changed. the whole outlook on immigrant population coming and go was demonized, and it kept getting worse and worse. pierceet's have sarah weigh in on that. guest: i completely agree with what you identified as humanitarian benefits being restricted over time. any migrants who are being deported from the interior of the united states, or even those who are arriving at our borders, who are seeking asylum, they are
all placed into our immigration court system, where they go before an administration judge and they argue for why they should stay in the united states. immigration used to have significantly more discretion than they have today. that has been over the period of decades, that there are discretion has gone away to the point where even if they see a case that they believe merit stay in the united states, if that individual does not give a very -- does not meet a very specific definition of asylum, which has been extremely narrowed over the course of the trump, if that individual does not fit into that very specific benefit, then they are going to be issued a deportation order, which is why during the trump administration not only have we seen a significant increase in the number of completed immigration court cases, we have also seen a significant increase , an even higher increase in the
number of removal orders issued. host: let's go to ed of pleasant valley, new york, a republican. caller: i've just got a couple of questions for you. i am not anti-immigration. i worked in a higher education place in the early 2000's. and we had a major hiring process. they told us this was the key to hiring. it was everybody but blocks or whites. we hired somewheres around 30 some people, always -- all different levels, down to -- from secretarial down to labor. about six month later, be being a union officer, we got called in. the problem was that the new personnel director found out that all these social security numbers were not right. and they had the problem, the union didn't have the problem. the bottom line was they let most people go. some were saved, some got green
cards. i'm friends with two brothers that came into this country. back in the early 1990's, they went to a lawyer in california, $10,000, each of them paid to get papers that they thought were illegal. this debtors the problem -- that is the problem, some believe that they are citizens and they are not. the bottom line is we have to straighten out our immigration. i feel for everybody that wants to get here, but we have a lot of people in this country suffering right now, and we are going to take on more? i tell the public until this country to go to your local services office someday and see what happens. it is unbelievable. i found a wallet in the middle of a street one day, and there were three different identification kurds for one individual from three different
states. -- identification cards for one individual from three different states. we do not know who these people are, three different states and three different names on the same picture on the id. we really have a problem in this country, and i'm not against it -- there are people i know who came here, they're really good people. but we have americans who are not working. and whether we going to do with more people at this point in this country right now? host: ok, sarah? fraud, ande is individual -- issue of individuals supposedly trying to help individuals through the immigration system but really falsely doing so, and it is a huge problem because if you file a false immigration application, it has huge implications for any benefits you might qualify for. you could end up in deportation proceedings because you thought you were following the legal process from someone who
presented themselves as a rightful immigration attorney. issue, thea huge fact that the immigration system is so restricted and confusing really fosters this type of fraud going on and can be a big problem. said the extent that ed were people think their lawful immigrants in order -- and are not actually, that is a big problem. it is a huge issue that we have 11 million unauthorized individuals in the united states. more than 50% of them have actually been living in the united states for more than 10 years. it is really incredible that we are one of the most developed nations on the planet and we cannot just identify 11 million individuals in the united states, give them lawful status, recognize that they are working in the united states, and really rectify this wrong. danville,tta, virginia, democratic caller. caller: i am calling concerning
president trump. said's something a man about trump, said about us black and saidn he get up these things, he is trying to correct the black man's mind. we need to get rid of trump. i am 84 years old. in the united states when i was young, it was rough and rugged. when trump got in there, it is worse than that. we have to do something about that in the united states thank you. in schererville indiana. independent. caller: i am unusual here. i am a libertarian.
i have been opposed to immigration ever since i learned about it as a sophomore in union college, and i am 83 years old. host: ok. caller: i do not think we ought to have an immigration law at all. carefulwe ought to have -- of protecting our borders as people come in, but i think everybody in the world comes here because they think it is better here. my ancestry on my mother side came in the 1740's. fortunately, he was an indentured servant, but fortunately he was white because everyone else in annapolis was african, real africans at that point. and he got away. do note people i talk to
have roots like that. my webster roots go back to the 17th century. host: so what are you saying, that there should not be immigration now? caller: we have got to abolish the immigration law that we have. i think it is against any principle thathe united states was founded on. host: sarah pierce, any thoughts? guest: sure. i hardly disagree -- i disagree with evan. i think the united states as a nation of immigrants, and the principal we were founded on embraces emigration, as we have throughout u.s. history. if you want to approach it more academically, there are rigorous economic studies that show immigration is a huge improvement for our country, in particular the united states, that it grows our economy, in addition to the things you the ways itre, contributes culturally, and to our society on the ground
appeared there is also the fact that the united states is an aging economy. we need immigration, need workers, otherwise we are going to have big problems in the future with an unequal society, a significantly aged society. but i think that a lot of the discomfort for immigration comes from the idea that maybe our immigration laws are not serving the united states. there seems to be a lack of public trust in the u.s. immigration laws, and i think a lot of reason for that is the laws are very outdated, and they even dictate the numbers. for example, each -- it is said the most common type of temporary worker, it is set in that we have 81,000 new h-1b visas issued each year, and i think would foster a lot more public trust if we had an immigration system that adjusted itself and fluctuated with the
market. visasample, if the h-1b could increase when the economy is strong and then decrease in a time like now when we're going through a crisis and might not need as many workers. the onus really is on congress to reform our immigration laws in a way that would really foster public trust. kentucky, joe is watching, republican. your turn. caller: yes, ma'am. i have got a few questions for sarah. host: go ahead. caller: sarah, do you live next of these illegal immigrants that you are speaking of on tv? in an area, i live of high emigration and also used to be an immigration attorney working with immigrants. caller: right. so you have been to college, so i assume you are real educated, right? guest: yes, i have been to
college. caller: right. do you know what happens when you put a lot of -- let's see, how do i put it so i am not rude --lower educated people into the workforce, like taking smaller jobs, kids do not get to go to work when they're trying to get through high school? you know, some of these illegal immigrants you talk about that do not commit no crime, i know that is really not true. i understand you got to say it because you are on tv and that is what you are doing, that is your spiel. but some of us have relatives that we lost because of mexicans i got out. you know, whatever they do. host: hang on the line and listen to sarah pierce's response. guest: sure, so i completely agree, there are unauthorized immigrants and immigrants that commit crimes in the united states.
what i was trying to say earlier is that they do not commit crimes at the same rate as u.s. that this and i think administration has tried to change our perception of that by -- raisinging the stories of unauthorized immigrants committing crimes, but we have had many rigorous studies show that they actually commit crimes at lower rates than u.s. nationals. joe, you're touching on something i talked about earlier, too, that, yes, it is true that sometimes immigration depresses the wages or increases the competitiveness of the job market for lower wage or lower filled jobs, and that is a problem that the government needs to address. eva, now to michigan, democratic color. caller: good morning, sarah.
i live in a small community. they grow apples and peaches and things like this, and we have a lot of hispanic workers. in the other people that live in this community are not going to go out and do these jobs. i do not know what your opinion is on it, but i have been in germany before and after they tore the wall down there, and this wall on the border really concerns me. what are your opinions on it, sarah? agriculture,yes, immigration is extremely vital for agriculture, and regarding touching onu are kind of the symbolism of the wall, which is interesting on both sides, right, the trump administration and president trump supporters view the wall as kind of a subaltern gesture. we are going to wall off the
united states and attacked the united states, were individuals on the other sides see it even as a symbol of racism but also significantly concerning efforts to build a divide in our society. the wall itself really is not a very effective at what president trump is trying to accomplish. many of the flows to the southern border during president been's time in office have humanitarian where people are seeking asylum. and according to u.s. law, at least prior to the pandemic, if you are on u.s. land, you can seek asylum. so there are areas of the border where there is u.s. land in front of the border wall and migrants can come up to that land and ask for asylum and border patrol officers would be obligated to take them in. is not sense, the wall accomplishing what president trump sought to achieve. a wall can be effective in
certain areas of the border if you are trying to drive traffic in certain directions, but as a whole, the wall is definitely not the most effective tool for security. host: james is in arlington, texas, independent. caller: yeah, sarah, i just want to say that it is obvious that you're biased in this. like you said, you are a lawyer so you have been paid to represent immigrants. you said earlier that they were vetted, even illegal immigrants, i mean, even ones carrying drugs across the border, they stop and fed them and let them carry the drugs. it is obvious you are biased, and it is ridiculous. have you ever been in mexico and seen how run down it is? have you been to los angeles and seen what happens when massive amounts of immigrants come to one area and just run it down? there is a place here in arlington, the trash place, and you go there and tracked on work
in the mornings, and for some reason, if it is a black driver, they get to pick their helpers. a black person or a white person, you have a chance to go on out. but whenever it is a mexican driver, they will pick nothing else but a mexican. i cannot believe they get away with that. it is just ridiculous for you to set up there and say that the illegals are paid. we do not even know what they are carrying across the border, saying they are vetted and they do not have diseases in all this stuff. it is obvious you are lying. host: let's give sarah pierce a chance to respond. guest: i am sorry you see it that way, james. it is true that i used to be an immigration attorney. i am no longer an immigration attorney. i can seevetting, where we might have misunderstood each other. immigrants are vetted as long as they are coming through some sort of lawful pathway, including asylum, individuals
applying for asylum at the southern border are vetted before they are given any sort of immigration benefits in the united states and even before then. it is true, if someone sneaks across the southern border and evades detection, you are right, they're not getting vetted. but the fact is that our southern border is more secure than it has ever been before in u.s. history, and the vast majority of individuals approaching the southern border are not asking for asylum, they are trying to get caught by border patrol and then end up going through that vetting process. so it is true, if someone sneaks across the southern border, they are not vetted. we do not know enough about them. but the population that are successfully doing that is getting smaller and smaller. host: you can learn more about the migration policy institute if you go to migrationpolicy.org. sarah pierce, thank you. we're going to take a break. when we come back, we turn our
attention to criminal justice reform. we will talk to nicholas turner from the vera institute for justice. ♪ >> american history tv on c-span3, exploring the people and events that tell the american story, every weekend. this weekend, friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern, we visited the smithsonian american art museum states exhibited on art, nature, and culture. saturday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on lectures in history, the university of north carolina and chapel hill professor on the end of the american revolution and the 1783 treaty of paris. sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern on the presidency, a national portrait gallery senior historian on the new exhibit, every eye is upon me, first
ladies of the united states. exploring the american story, watch american history tv this weekend on c-span3. ♪ >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. america's created by cable television companies in 1979. today we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span to viewers as a public service. " washington journal" continues. president turner is and director of the vera institute of justice, here to talk about criminal justice reform. let's begin with your group. what is your goal? guest: first of all, let me again by saying thank you for having me on your show. my organization, the vera
institute of justice, works nationally to end over criminalization to black and brown and poor people, and look at the addictions and punishment in prison. we count on a strong federal leadership and have high expectations for this new administration, the biden and harris administration, to help us achieve our mission. host: before we get to the next administration, what happened under the trump administration on criminal justice? happenedfew things under the trump administration on criminal justice. should lookects, we back further and recognize that for the past 10 years, there has been significant reform at the state level and at the local level for the criminal legal system, reducing its impact on people, trying to reduce the number of people going into the system, trying to shorten
sentences and reduce the elements of punishment that exist in the system. in the obama-biden administration, the last two years of it, there was a significant push for reform to also shrink the footprint of that, and i would say that in the trump administration, we kind of held steady. on one hand, there was a lot of rhetoric from the president that is typical of fear mongering of the law and order and stuff we citiesard, talking about that are falling apart under democrat leadership, high rates of crime. this is something we have seen for decades and decades, and this is what has led to the building of the justice system. in fact, in policy terms, there were some modest reforms. the president signed in 2018 the first step act, which has some
sentencing reform and some reforms of the federal prison system. actually, just last week, the congress passed a reform that its necessity, in its making, which is to return the use of pell grant's, which is federal financial aid for low income students, make those grants available for incarcerated students. the 1994 crime bill did away with those grants. the president just signed that bill two days ago. on one hand, we have a previous administration with a lot of hot air and rhetoric in terms -- and trying to rile up the american public and make it fearful, particularly of minorities, but on the other hand, some modest reform. and still a lot of reform at the state and local level. host: i want to invite viewers to call in with her thoughts about criminal justice reform
during this administration and what they would like to see next paired republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. an independents, (202) 748-8002. if you worked in the criminal justice system or were incarcerated, there is a line for you, (202) 748-8003. i want to show our viewers with the incoming president had to say in october, before the election, and see a town hall when he was asked about the 1994 crime bill. [video clip] >> a lot of people were jailed for minor drug crimes was it a mistake to support it? >> yes, it was, but the mistake came in terms of what the states did locally. what we did federally -- remember, george, it was all about the same time for the same crime what i have done as chairman of the judiciary committee, i took the 10 circuit
court of appeals, took some really brilliant lawyers working in judiciary, we did a study and determined what happens if, for the first, second, third offense, for any crime in the theinal justice system at federal level, if you are a black man and it is the first time you commit a robbery, how long would you go to jail, and if you are a white man, how long? black man goes to jail on average 13 years, white man two years. i went down the list of every single crime. so we set up a sentencing commission. every single solitary maximum was reduced. but what happened was it became the same time the same crime. so instead -- you have to serve between one and three years, and it ended up becoming much lower. black folks went to jail a lot less than they would have before. but it was a mistake. host: nick turner, what did you make of his answer there? guest: well, i think the answer
was -- i want to say two things. one of the things is that president biden, when he was a senator, played a role in the architecting of the 1994 crime bill. i think he understates it a bit. i do not think the 1994 crime bill created this system of mass incarceration that we have, but it certainly accelerated it. and he did not talk about a lot of that. and i think the second thing that we hear in that clip is that president biden, president-elect biden, like many people, have evolved. one of the things that many politicians have recognized during the last 25 years is that this country's approach to crime and punishment, which is essentially -- i describe it as an international aberration. we are unlike any other nation in the world, incarcerate at 10
times the rate of other countries. we are extremely punitive. we do not rehabilitate people. and we do this spending $250 billion a year on the system. as a result, we put people into prisons, and the prisons do not help them to succeed when they get released, and 95% of them are going to get released, but they are so damaged in prison that when they come back out, they end up returning to prison at rates of over 50%. so we have a system that we have spent a ton of money on that damages individuals and families and their communities, and it does not work. president-elect biden, like many people, i think has recognized that fact, that very truth. i think what he was talking about was saying that his administration needs to do something different. i want to offer up two quick
facts just to help understand the context of this. right now we have 2.3 million people incarcerated in this country. a massive, massive system. like i mentioned, it does not work, does not help people to rehabilitate and be effective and constructive members of society when they are released. and the economic impact on people's profound. a recent study was done by the brennan center which showed that if someone has been incarcerated in their lives, it will reduce their lifetime income by 51%. that is a remarkable thing, a remarkable life on punishment. it does not benefit them or their families or their communities. and there is another study in 2017 that show -- this is a remarkable fact that people have
to let sink in, that one in every two families in america have had a family member -- not a distant family member but an immediate family member -- incarcerated in the last 10 years. we have created a massive system that is incredibly extensive, does not work, and burdens 50% of the american public. it suppresses lifetime income for those people. so it is contrary to what any kind of good policy we would want to have. is that theelieve new administration is committed to reversing this multi-decade experiment of failure. host: you wrote in the hill newspaper five ways biden can jumpstart criminal justice reform immediately. federalve areas are in investment and local law enforcement and incarceration,
transform conditions of confinement, end monetary injustice, improve criminal legal system transparency and accountability, as well as expand opportunities for post secondary education and training for people in prison. i want to put that out there for our viewers to think about and they can ask you about those five areas. let's get to calls. anthony in indianapolis, democratic caller. caller: i do not see the box. the box is the problem and america with criminal justice. i have not heard anybody speak of it. if you speak to the president, talk to him about that, because the box causes more problems. with it there, you cannot get a job, housing, anything after incarcerated. we will have recidivism, and that is why they keep it there. i have been through that system. i have been incarcerated. i understand -- i did not know
about the 50%, but that is correct. i have only made 119,000 dollars in my lifetime, and i am 62 years of age. also, i would like to say this again, as long as we do not talk about the box, i know there has to be common sense in taking away the box. first and foremost, people that have done criminal stuff, stealing -- no, you cannot work, you're not going to work in a bank. but it is common sense. long as we keep that box there, and i do not think anybody ever says anything about it, but that is the biggest problem in the criminal justice because it makes people go back to jail. if you cannot find any place to live, cannot get a job, you're going to steal, do what you have to do to support yourself or your family. host: ok. nick turner? guest: i appreciate anthony's comment. i began by saying that i am sorry that he has had the experience he has had, being
incarcerated and then released. ae box he is talking about is notion that employers often ask people when they are filing whetherions for jobs they have been arrested or have been convicted or spent time in prison, and that is often meant as a way to weed out people who have been touched by the system. so what anthony is talking about goes exactly to this point that -- if youat 51% of look at the lifetime earnings of people who have been incarcerated, it is 51% less than those who have not been incarcerated. because you are getting cut off from jobs, getting weeded out, being discriminated against. this is happening to millions and millions of people. the one point that i want to make is that it is a big problem sort of at the back end of the system, when people are being
released, but one of the most important things we really need to talk about and that i mentioned in my hill op-ed are efforts focused on closing the front end of the system, reducing the number of people who are subjected to the box which anthony discusses. so how do we keep people from being sent to jail? pretrial. one of the ways to do this is to get the federal government to stop sending money to states and and at these -- states localities to build jails. if you build them, they will get filled. there is a u.s. department of agriculture program that is supposed to encourage rural economic development but helps support jail building, so the federal government should get out of business like that. that are a number of bills are currently being debated in the house. the community first pretrial
reform in the jail incarceration act, which will provide incentive grants to localities to engage in pretrial reform and to shrink the number of people going to jail. jail, so so it is important to do away with the box, but you have to shrink the system by focusing on the wide end of the funnel and making sure we narrow it. host: robert, an independent caller. you are next for nick turner. caller: i am wondering are they going to do any changes for the 65%. i was incarcerated and i think the 65% should be passed. maybe that would relieve our funds for the state prison systems to maybe do a better vocation course to better train the inmates for release into society.
robert, if i understand your question correctly, and i appreciate it, i believe the 65% you might be referring to is something called truth in sentencing. truth in sentencing means that if someone has been sentenced, a number of states around the country, rather than being able in programs and readying yourself for release, you have to spend 65%, 75%, sometimes 100% of the time -- so it takes the incentives for people to succeed when they come out. -- this is something that i that a preacher of sentencing reform in the 80's and 90's that the federal government played a
huge part in expanding truth in sentencing, actually in the 1994 bill saidme that those incarcerated had to .pend 85% of their sentence the federal government within -- within give states federal money to build prisons. that.of states did so i use that as an example of the kind of incentive they gave that the federal government can do in that context, very long incentives. that is an incentive that led to huge growth of the prison population. what the government can do now is use incentives to figure out how to reduce the number of
people going to the system. the less people who have mental health challenges or substance abuse into the public health system and not into the criminal legal system. host: carly in bryn mawr, pennsylvania, democratic caller. your question on criminal justice reform. caller: i want to say thank you for mentioning that bill and looking at it now. [indiscernible] i did not know about it. as someone that is a democratic socialist, it is interesting, so thank you for that reading. i kind of wanted to talk about how policing -- not policing, coincides policing with jail, with even immigration, to intersect, and even the decriminalization and
legalization of all drugs, so it might be a minute, but you will have to follow me here. much likely believe, portugal, that we need to decriminalize and legalize all drugs, because not only does that curb immigration -- because also leads to less violence in our countries because then there's no market for dealers to actually sell. and much like in canada, what we would need to do at that point is have treatment centers for injection sites so people don't necessarily buy if they are trying between themselves off certain drugs if that is what they want -- trying to wean themselves off of certain drugs if that is what they want to do. if you want to talk about the
portugal model, what's happened in portugal is a crime has gone down drastically. drug use has gone down drastically. needt is something that we to do. if we can do that, than those things are not -- then people of color, for instance, who are largely targeted -- like, i am white. if i go out and buy a gram of weed or smoke it or whatever, i am likely not to be arrested for -- if i am black -- so if i go somewhere in philadelphia like kensington and i by agreement of weed and there is a cop around the corner or it ing, i am likely to be arrested, but we get rid of that law and make all drugs essentially legal, but the
-- put them on the market with strict regulations, not only does that person not get arrested, it is literally safer. host: we are following you, but i have to to jump in and have nick turner respond. guest: that is an important insight. from the top, i have talked to a number of callers who are democrats and independents. i am sure you have a few republicans waiting in the wings for me, but the first pretrial reform and jail requires ration actis -- jail incarceration focuses on a particular problem, which is where we see incarceration rising now in this country or in rural -- country are in rural counties and small cities. in big cities, for the past 20 years, there's been a remarkable decrease in crime and a similar
increase -- decrease in incarceration. where incarceration continues to grow is an rural counties -- in peopleounties, what might typically refer to obnoxiously as flyover country were trump country. by abill, sponsored democrat and a republican in the house, is intended to address that and slow it down into provide other opportunities for get sucked into the system. whenlly do mean sucked in they are presenting problems that her health problems, problems -- that are health problems, problems of addiction or mental illness. there is bipartisan support for the kinds of reforms i am talking about. i want to mention one last point that carly raises, which is we have a system of mass incarceration because we have a system of mass arrest.
there are to be 3 million people incarcerated in this country. 6.1 million people a year in this country. a remarkable number. every three seconds, someone gets arrested. three people have been arrested in that last sentence i spoke. some might say, well, it is a dangerous country. there are a lot of criminals, bad guys. this is what we know about america, so that's why we have the police arresting so many people. the data shows that of those 10.6 million arrests, only 5% are for violent crimes. that means you have a mass of other arrests that are connected to poverty and homelessness and to substance abuse, and the police are using the only people they are trained to use, which is enforcement interest, and they are sucking -- which is
enforcement and arrest, and they are sucking these people into the system and their lives are being destroyed in the process rather than getting the kind of help that carly mentioned you can find in portugal. so the big point that needs to be underscored, what carly mentioned, is we need to move from a system that has dealt with public health, with health problems, and move it into the public health realm. we have to be able to provide -- we should be investing about $115 billion -- not 150 billy dollars in policing. -- billion dollars in policing. we should be investing that in crisis intervention, for social workers, people trained to deal with homelessness and addiction and mental health, and not asking the police to respond to things that they are not well suited to respond to. drug addiction falls right into that category. i will make one quick note.
we are seeing progress in america on this front. there are a number of states that have decriminalized marijuana and legalized it. and also have not only done that, creating legal markets for it, but have taken the tax proceeds from those legal markets and invested them in communities that previously were burdened, specifically black, brown, and poor communities, where there were over arrests, over enforcement. and carly's point she made about being a white woman unlikely to be arrested, whereas someone who is black who is in possession of drugs is more likely to be arrested is true. black people are arrested at a rate of 2.4 times more for drug possession than white people are. this -- know -- we know
all the studies have shown that there is no difference in drug use among races. so those are enforcement choices that are made by the police. enforcement choices in where they are going to enforce and who they will arrest. really important set of points carly made. host: astoria, illinois, nancy, a republican. good morning to you. caller: good morning. my question. justice reform -- like new york. new york stops bail, their crime rate surges. california is now releasing people from jail that were sexual predators, and they are saying they are nonviolent. i am sorry. there is not nonviolent sexual predators. i understand trying to use social workers, but can you explain to me how they did what was in seattle?
they sent in a social worker. she's dead because she did not have any police backup. you know, it is ok. i understand criminal justice reform. and trump did a good job. he was bringing people out of jail that should not have been there, but then there's other people that do not deserve to have bail, do not deserve to be out. host: let's take that point, nancy. nick turner. guest: thank you, and i appreciate the concern you have. i am going to correct you -- i am sorry for being polite, correcting you in public, but your facts are wrong. for what seemed to be facts are wrong. you are saying the exact same thing that mayor bill de blasio of new york and the police commissioner said, which is that bail reform is to be blamed for increasing crime in new york city.
but when you pour into the data, and this is data produced by the nypd, there was an infinitesimal connection between people who have been released unveil and went -- released on bail and went on to commit crimes. it was negligible. the facts are wrong. what you are referring to, spent,y, his spin -- is spin thatthe kind of taps into fear, the fear that lead people to say arrest everyone, throw away the key, because they are terrified of was being released. but it is factually untrue. politicianswhat know. this is what a lot of people take advantage of. they tap into if
the fear that people have, which is often racialized, i have to say, that they are going to get people to vote for them and get people to support them in their efforts to make the system tougher than it needs to be. and what they never talk about ever, and come in the case of in thek -- ever, and, case of new york, there was a false set of facts connected to the crime wave, but what no one talked about is that thousands of people avoided going to jail as a result of bail reform, which meant that thousands of fathers and mothers were at the dining table with their children. they were not just scooped up and thrown in jail. they did not lose their jobs. they did not risk losing their homes because they were not able to pay rent. spill into a't justice -- didn't spill into the
trap the justice system so often imposes, but politicians don't effort talk about that. -- ever talk about that. havento american families an immediate family member who has been incarcerated in their lifetime. this is what most americans, black, brown, white, are experiencing, but it is not what the politicians want to take advantage of, talk about. what i am seeing around the country is people saying, look, this is the lived reality. these policies are doing terrible things and we went something different. -- want something different. i appreciate you raising the point. i think you are wrong. but i hope you will pay attention to where you get your information and try to think more broadly about that. host: texas, lisa, an independent. lisa, good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning.
most of my points you've done hit on. we need morethink rehabs and more training for the police to know how to deal with the mentally ill and we need more mental health services versus prisons because we are creating the world we live in by people -- filter continuing to filter people through. i have been jail ministry on and off her years and what i find is -- on and off for years, and what i find is most people are homeless, have mental illness. and also property. if you are poor and go to court and don't have an attorney, you are going to prison. host: nick turner. guest: thank you you for the work that you do. you could not be more right in
the things you have talked about, and not only do we need to make sure that we are providing services and care, investing in communities, but the people who are sick or who are addicted or who are homeless can get the help that they need and the help is not the justice system intervening. you know, we have to do that, but i want to just take your point and expand on it a little bit, on why this really matters. one of the things that we saw over the course of the past few months in the wake of the death of george floyd was a national uprising and a call for a massive transformation of policing in america. and part of what you are talking about is right. we need to be investing in
services, the pathways for communities to be able to heal themselves and thrive, and government services. folks whortant for are either experiencing mental health problems or addiction or homelessness, or in fact have done something very minor, to talk about why we don't want them in the grips of the police. 5 million arrests every year. only 5% of those are for violent crimes, which means, again, the mass of those arrests are for small offenses or behavioral things we have been talking about, but i want to talk about why this matters for black lives. i will just walk you through the number of people who have been killed by the police. castile,oyd, philando eric garner.
you know what drew the police to all of them? george floyd, the police were -- becauseuse he of a $20 counterfeit bill. three guys were called to address that. philando castile, who was shot in his car because the cop stopped him because he had allegedly a broken tail light. --c garner, cops work were confronting him because he osies, singleo cigarettes, which is a violation of the tax code. we are spending $115 billion a and it is overg criminalizing. it gets to your point. it gets to carly's point. and it puts people at great risk and black people at especially great risk because of the racism
that people carry around with them. that is why it is really important that we shrink these sentences, come up with solutions where interventions that have nothing to do with the criminal justice system. host: diane in new jersey, you are up next for our discussion on criminal justice reform. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. nicholas, you are awesome and i would work for you for free. one of the things that i would bring to the forefront is, first of all, bail is basically something that only the rich and afford. rich, someone is not devastates their families, their homes but their incomes and it puts -- their homes, and their incomes, and it puts people into poverty. this country thrives on people who are poor and it dates back to the civil war where there was
slavery. and if they were not poor, they would not be able to bring about the crime bill. my example of that is i once had a taxi. i got pulled over for my blinker being broken. my passenger had drugs. i was arrested. the judge came in and said it was ridiculous and let me go after being there all night, but i found out after i had gotten a that i pled guilty to a drug crime and i did six months probation. i had no idea. this is some of the stuff that is going on. another thing that's really important that i need to mention african american, like you were saying before, has committed a crime and wants to get on with their life, they cannot. because someone who is not
hispanic or african-american, the whites can go right back into the job market and get work. i'm not asking for $1 million. i am asking for everything to be on an even scale. if you have committed a crime, let everybody go back. i would just like to say this. i want you to investigate this for me. when you are driving on the highway and a policeman gets behind you, they can read a lot about you. what did they see? -- do they see? i have been pulled over a lot here in new jersey. on route nine, the state troopers are monstrous. pulled over for things like my handicap placard. they look at my grandson like they would like to tear into him. i will drive this young boy forever because i do not want the police to get a hold of him. in thed the police see
back of your car? what are they see on your screen? that is one of the first things we need to do to end police reality, because they are seeing things they probably don't need to. thank you. host: all right, diane. nick turner. guest: i want to thank you for calling and i want to acknowledge the trauma and the pain you spoke of and say how sorry i am about it. i am sitting here on washington --rnal and i am talking using lots of big numbers and talking about research, you know, 10.5 million arrests and 2.3 million people in jail and so on, and what you just described is important for listeners to hear, which is that the personal costs that is experienced by people who end up getting sucked into the justice system.
and it is really profound. you know, that night that you spent in jail, the fear that you have for your grandson, and it society is and should be better than that. so i appreciate your sharing your experiences with us. i want to talk a little bit about the point you made on bail, which is this is -- i'm not sure if all the listeners understand what bail is, but if you have been arrested and you are awaiting your court proceeding, the judge will often set bail as collateral. it dates back to a time when judges -- this was in england centuries ago -- set it out so you would have a reason to return for your court
proceedings other than just responsibility. saying we want you to come back, so here's $10 bail or whatever. it is intended to have people return to court to create a bit of a guarantee. america turned into in -- and this has everything to do with poverty -- is something that has insured that people are locked up pretrial while they are still presumed innocent because they cannot pay it because judges set bail at extraordinary amounts. people are not able to pay them. the prosecutors ask for bail to hold people for longer, so the average american, a study has shown, that i think it was close to half of all americans do not have $400 available to them in an emergency. those statistics, somewhere in the neighborhood.
at $500 andet bail you are one of the 50% of people, you will be sitting up in jail. you will be separated from your children. you may lose your job. you might lose your apartment because you can allegra pay rent. -- can no longer pay rent. your life is for all intents and purposes destroyed. one of the things we see from the research is that even holding people pretrial for two to three days, not only does it disrupt people's lives, it actually has negative consequences for them. they are more likely to be arrested in the future. they are more likely to spend time in prison. and they are more likely to have that time in prison be longer than before. so, again, we've created a system a little bit like a mousetrap that joe straus people, sucks them in, and produces -- that just traps
people, sucks them in, and harms people. that is something that i think folks need to understand. so when you hear politicians talking about law and order, when you hear people railing , sparingail reform people the fate i described, make sure you are not being too credulous. don't just believe what you hear. we have a system based on those kinds of false promises and what we are trying to do now is undo that system and create more liberty and more freedom and the opportunity to thrive for more americans black, brown, and white. host: tracy, woodstock, georgia, a republican. your question or comment. caller: hi. i had to mute my tv. yes. i think a lot of what is going on in society today is a breakdown of family.
i am older, and, when i was growing up, we were taught the golden rule. if we could get back to that through family, through education, and people need the learn don't do the crime if you cannot do the time. thank you all. i will hang up and listen. host: nick turner. andt: i appreciate that that is a rule i live my life according to and a rule that i teach my kids to live their lives according to. it is something i expect of my government. what i think of as incredibly important is not only should we expect this of individuals, but we should expect government to dignity,ople with with commitment to their potential to thrive and be
productive members of society, and to give them every chance to do so. i bring this back to this discussion we are having. we have a system, again, that is massive and when you get sucked into that system, the policies thatve in place do nothing we would expect of individuals in society, which is to treat them with respect and to make investments in their human potential. in fact, what we have is a system that punishes, that exact retribution, that diminishes -- that exacts retribution, that this diminishes -- that is diminishes -- that diminishes the humanity of people. they have just gone through a government system that has treated them as less than human.
so i am all for that rule. i expect it of individuals in my life. i am glad that the caller raised it. i expected of the government we have. turner, president and director of the vera institute of justice, thank you very much for your time. guest: greta, thank you. we will take a break. when we come back, we returned to our conversation from earlier about whether or not the senate should go forward with that $2000 stimulus check after the senate majority leader yesterday blocked efforts for a quick vote. we will be right back. ♪ hasook tv on c-span two taught nonfiction books and authors every weekend. coming up this weekend, friday, starting at 8:00 a.m. eastern, lynn cheney on her book the virginia dynasty. susan eisenhower, the author of ed. i lead -- how ike l
saturday, at 10:00 p.m. eastern, john fabian wet, author of american contagions: epidemics and the law from smallpox to covid-19 is interviewed by lawrence coston. watch book tv on c-span2 this weekend. use your mobile devices and go to c-span.org for the latest video, live and on-demand, to follow the transition of power. president trump, president-elect biden, news conferences, and news coverage at c-span.org. washington journal continues. host: we are back. it is your turn now to tell the senate whether or not you want them to move forward with giving millions of americans $2000
stimulus check. the president this morning a little over an hour ago sending this tweet. "$2000 asap." yesterday on the floor, senate minority leader chuck schumer moved for an up or down vote. he was blocked by the majority leader. here's that moment. [video clip] sen. schumer: i request to include unanimous consent request to include unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of hr 9051, a bill received from the house to increase recovery rebate amounts to $2000 per individual, that the bill be read a third time in pas -- and passed, the motion to be considered and laid upon the table without any intervening action or debate. >> is there objection? sen. mcconnell: object. host: after mitch mcconnell
objected to senator schumer's action, he also objected to senator bernie sanders, asking for a vote on the stimulus checks after the senate votes to override the president's veto on a defense bill. the senate majority leader came to the floor yesterday to tell senators that this week, they will now consider legislation that includes the $2000 checks, but also includes two other proposals pushed by the president. that is, election security, some language on that, as well as removing protections for social media companies, the content that is posted on their platforms. cnn is calling this a poison pill. here's the majority leader. [video clip] want toonnell: i applaud president trump for signing the bill and getting this assistance into the pipeline. during this process, the
president highlighted three additional issues of national significance that he would like to see congress tackle together. first, as he explained, the president would like further support for american households. second, the growing willingness on the -- on both sides of the aisle to re-examine the protections afforded to underlogy companies section 230 of the communications act. subject, since every american, regardless of their politics, should feel the integrity of our democracy is beyond reproach, exploring other ways to protect the sanctity of america's ballots while continuing to respect the federal government's limited role in standing behind state and local governments, run elections. those are the subjects the president has linked. the senate will begin a process to bring these into focus.
host: the majority leader from yesterday. he will call the senate back into session today at 3:00 p.m. eastern time. you can watch that on c-span2. there will be a live forum at 5:00 p.m., which requires the presence of each senator on the floor. that will be followed by a vote to begin debate on the veto override of the defense policy bill. we will see what happens then with senator bernie sanders and what motion he makes to delay that vote because he and democrats are anticipating that the senate vote on these $2000 checks. roll call says this means the senate could be in session and voting through new year's and beyond. mike in marion, iowa, a democratic caller. what do you want to send to do? caller: hi. i would like to take a look at of the criminal justice system and how much they
make for convictions. host: we are moving onto the stimulus check debate. savannah, georgia, republican. caller: i am concerned about the fact that they think $2000 will significantly help anyone. here is the other issue. the senate will be hurting republicans if they don't do that because a lot of us have issues with in its is too. it was not just the democrats that suffered from the page and make. we all have suffered from it. they could give the rich big-time money. and i understand that the people in congress are making $174,000 a year plus. $2000 is a big deal for them? it is selfish. they better get their act together because i am going to vote democrat.
a lot of us are talking about it. if these republicans cannot back us up, we are going to start voting to have the senate controlled by the democrats, because the republicans are not doing anything for us. host: maria in savannah, georgia. with those january 5 runoff races just around the corner, you are saying you would vote against senator david perdue and senator kelly loeffler on this issue, to get a democratic control senate? -- controlled senate? caller: absolutely, and the reason is we need changes -- host: we are listening. caller: we have a lot of ads right now because of the runoffs. this thing -- we are hearing this from both sides, where loeffler and perdue were doing the stock thing. this woman is a billionaire.
what does she want government for? why doesn't she get out into the society and help the poor people? get rid of some of those billions if she is really for poor people? host: did you over president trump? caller: yes. david perdue and kelly loeffler yesterday said they are for a vote and would support raising the stimulus checks from $600 that was in the bill signed by the president sunday to $2000. they said they would support a come along with marco rubio and josh hawley of missouri and lindsey graham of south carolina. after some republicans voiced their support, josh hawley tweeted he thinks they have got the vote. let's vote today is what he had to say yesterday. he also said i will not consent to a vote on the bad defense bill, which should stay vetoed, unless the senate votes on $2000 covid relief for working people. you can watch it all play out
today when the senate comes in at 3:00 p.m. eastern. that quorum call takes place around 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2, c-span.org, or you can follow along with the c-span radio app. don in michigan, democratic caller. hi, don. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: happy new year. greta, you have been looking great all this week in your tresses. -- dresses. i think they should pass the stimulus bill, but mitch mcconnell has shown the american people that he will take politics with people's lives than passing a bill. it took paul ryan and mitch mcconnell a week to pass a tax corporations and the top
1% of the richest people in the country. it took them a week to get that done. and it has taken them over four to five months to get this second stimulus out to people that need it. i don't need it, but people out there need help. it is the same. republicans have got to stop interest.inst their have a great new year. host: you said you did not need it, but did you get the first stimulus check? dollars thate two i adopted and they get social security. -- daughters that i adopted and they get social security. that money went to their college funds. me and my wife are blessed. both of us have been given $100 every paycheck through our local food bank, so, you know, god bless and happy new year. host: same to you.
anthony in butler, pennsylvania, republican. anthony? caller: yes. host: hi, anthony. go ahead. caller: yes. i would like to know why the situation where people are wanting stimulus checks that voted for joe biden that were doing a lot of damage as far as protesting and damaging property, public property, why they should even bother getting a stimulus check? i mean, that should go back to paying for the damages that were due to what was caused. host: all right. ok. anthony there. washington post editorial board this morning has this take. "as we have pointed out, there is a case for including modest checks to the hardest hit, low
income segment of the population. in the 908 billion dollars stimulus, did pass, congress went beyond that, providing $600 payments that will provide payments to families earning as as $350,000. the bill does this while extending unemployment benefits a mere 11 weeks. in short, the measure short trip to the neediest and showered billions on people who suffered -- the measure short shrifted the neediest and showered billions on people who suffered the least. the $2000 will increase all those errors at a total cost of $464 billion. it would phase out completely only families of five earning about $350,000. much of this will be saved, not spent, since restaurants are closed and air travel limited."
we want to hear from you this morning if you want these checks and, if you got it the last time around, what do -- did you do with it and what do you plan to do with these next checks? robert, go ahead. caller: why would anybody suggest that, in america, we have enough money? trust me, americans will never have enough money. you may be good now, bless now, a good job now, but if you live long enough -- and this covid has allowed us to understand that -- you will hit a wall one way or another and you need to be prepared. , just in general, don't count my money. you have no idea what i need to
do with $2000 or $4000 for 6000 or whatever -- or 4000 dollars or $600 or whatever. eventually it is going to be spent. it could be two years from now. i may want to send my kids to school, i may want to put a down payment on a house or a car, i may want to donate to a charity, do something for myself in terms of health, go to the dentist, take my wife to a movie, go on vacation. this is america. america is built on the idea that we have to spend money. that's why we have credit cards. that's why we do not work out the gold standard anymore. that's why we have checks. money has two flow for this economy to work -- has to flow for this economy to work. even the chinese understand this. host: the treasury department is
saying that they are already moving forward with the $600 payments. it has delivered payments to the federal reserve for americans. these payments may begin to andve as early as tonight will continue into next week. this is from yesterday. paper checks will be mailed tomorrow. youran check the status of payment at irs.gov/getmypayment. according to steven mnuchin, the checks could be on their way as the senate continues to debate this week whether or not to increase the payments from $600 to $2000. here are the eligibility requirements. you have to be making up to $75,000 to receive this as a single person. if you are a married couple, earning up to $150,000, you receive double, whether that is $1200 or $4000 depending on what happens this week.
the payment is reduced by $500 -- five dollars for every $100 of income above those thresholds, and phased out entirely for people earning certain amounts. an additional $600 for each dependent child under 17. scott in gilbert hill, massachusetts, a republican. hi, scott. caller: how are you? host: good. what do you think you should happen? caller: this is where i guess i have an issue. we are printing money, which is fine. weare borrowing money, but are talking about $600 over $2000. that is what we're are talking about. when we are giving so much money away to foreign governments. this is supposed to be a cares act for the american people. that is the way i am looking at it. we are supposed to be supporting the american people. we are not doing that.
i mean, if we took and gave every adult american that made under $75,000 a year even 500 hundred thousand dollars, it would not reach the amount of money we are giving away in foreign aid. i do not understand why we are complaining about $2000 for americans when we could get them a lot more and cut the foreign spending and people would actually have some money in their pocket and spend it in america the way it should be done, not spend it in foreign countries. so i do not understand why we are actually arguing about $2000 and $600. i don't understand what the difference is. host: scott, did you get a check the last time around? caller: i did. host: what did you do with it? caller: i paid bills, exactly what i had to do with it. when you are tied up with having no money coming in and the government is holding you back from working and you have to be able to pay your bills, every
little bit counts. i mean, i am collecting cans. i am selling aluminum. i am selling everything i can to just make it through every single day, and i cannot understand why the philharmonic needs more money than american people do. i do not understand why people that are making $75,000 a year need $2000. cut your costs if that is the issue. cut your costs. if you cannot live on $75,000 a year, you have a problem. you need to cut your costs. host: scott, roll call says because of the objections of democrats to move to the veto override on the defense bill, the senate could be in session and voting through new year's and beyond. that get -- they write mitch mcconnell informed senators of a plan for a live quorum today followed by a vote on proceeding to the effort to
override president donald trump's veto of the defense authorization bill. bernie that senator sanders is leading objections on behalf of democratic caucus members over the timing of the vote in response to mcconnell's objections to taking up and voting on the house passed bill to provide enhanced covid payments. mcconnell can work around sanders by filing a cloture motion to limit debate of the defense veto override and break any filibusters once the motion to proceed to that measure is agreed to wednesday evening, tonight. that sets up a cloture vote an hour after this and it comes in friday, new year's day. that would be just about -- enough time to either get the bill cleared over trump's objections before the 116th congress spires at noon. at that point, the focus turns to the pomp and circumstance of a new congress and new slate of legislation and eventual executive and judicial
nominations. morgan in reading, pennsylvania, a democratic caller, we are talking about these bigger stimulus checks. do you agree? caller: yes, i do agree. thank you for c-span. real quick. we have no problem with billionaires and multimillionaires getting billions of dollars, but when it comes to helping out the average worker, who have had their lives turned upside down because of this pandemic, to give them a little help, a little relief, we have to go through all this bull crab. this is immoral. it is disgusting. america is supposed to be so great and you won't even help out the working class people that need help without all this bs? come on, people. how anyone could be a republican is beyond me. that's all i have to say.
thank you for c-span. have a good day. host: all right, morgan. yesterday, a record was made in the amount of deaths due to the pandemic. yesterday, including representative elect luke 41,ow, who, at the age of succumbed to complications of covid-19 yesterday. he was supposed to be sworn into office sunday. there's a picture too of the late mr. letlow with his wife and children, two small children. he was supposed to be sworn in on sunday. alley in lawrenceville, georgia, independent. good morning. caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we can. what do you think should be done. caller: they should give the american people more than $2000. $5,000 apiece to start.
i voted for trump. i think he has done a good job and i think if it was not for the fact that they shut down america, i would not be for giving people money. i think you should work. i have always worked. i put the last stimulus in the bank. i've been working. we have not missed a day, but everybody is not that fortunate. they need to give people enough to live on, and $2000, it is wrong. it is not right. they put all that stuff on that bill and put it on the president 's desk and gave us $600. it is not right. people need to start looking at the issues and stop voting democratic and republican. i am a black woman and i know black people will vote democratic is because they are democratic. that a look at the issues. they look at me and say, why do you vote republican?
i say, the issues. we need to than america first. 5000 to $10,000, i don't see why not. it's not right. you need to put america first, get us back on our feet. if we have anything left over, then you give it to the other countries. host: ok. allie in georgia. drudge report had this as their banner on their website this morning. give the people $2000. then saying, debt nears $28 trillion. wilson in south carolina sends us this text. "stimulus checks should be approved, but what is the plan after this expires? we give out more money, tighten their belts? what is the next plan?" ron in ohio, a republican. hi, ron. caller: how are you? host: good morning.
guest: caller: i don't understand -- caller: i don't understand what the squabble should be over this matter. they really under -- they originally settled on an 1.9 trillion dollars at the onset of this discussion. they are down to what would $460lly be approximately billion to cover the $2000 checks given to everyone making less than $75,000 a year. so if we look at numbers, they are still ahead, saving ifroximately $350 billion they go ahead and vote it in for the amount of 1,000,316,000,000 -- $1,316,000,000,000. they have already agreed upon that, and then the additional
$460 billion to make up the difference. mcconnell needs to get on his calculator if he cannot do simple mathematics. [indiscernible] host: we have got to let you know. a dog barking. the house approved this act monday evening after the president spent the evening pushing more money. 40 republicans join democrats to vote for it. bud in tennessee, democratic caller. hi, bud. caller: hi. thank you. i would like to offer my condolences to representative utlow's family. happy new year. i think mcconnell is holding things up. each state has two senators. just put it to a vote. each state has equal representation. most republicans are for this,
pretty much all democrats, and the president is for this, so put it to a vote. i did some math. senator mcconnell has 1.2 million votes. wereral america, there 159.8 million votes. mcconnell has .0075% of the vote, but he is controlling america, so he needs to put it to a vote. thank you and happy new year. host: ok, but. democratic caller. hi. caller: hi. host: by. -- hi. caller: good morning. host: will you get this check? caller: probably. host: what will you do with it? caller: pay my mortgage. host: you are behind on your mortgage because of the pandemic? caller: definitely. i got sick.
i am in the nursing field. jobs, are losing their people are losing their homes. i went into work seven days a week. i have arrested in over two weeks. it is hard. and people don't care. it is not about the money. it is about making sure these children are ok, these people are ok. people are so selfish. they don't care. it's a joke. families, losing breadwinners, their homes, and you all are fighting over $2000 make our congressmen over $19,000 a month take-home, and nobody says anything about that. we find a way to pay them and
nobody says nothing about that. when the government shut down, guess what? they still get paid, while we have to figure it out, how to make a wage. it is not fair. it is not what america is about. the golden rule is treat people the way you want to be treated. and i do not see why that is so hard for americans to understand that. we pay taxes. we put money in the budget. everybody gets mad because everybody do not put money in the budget, but who cares? everybody cannot afford to put money in the budget. when we can come if we help each other, we can make it. -- can, if we help each other, we can make it. like i said, it is important to make sure everyone is able to eat. we will see when the vote comes in today. host: some breaking this morning from bbc. brexit trade deal
is approved by members of parliament by 521-73 ahead of the december 31 deadline. you can hear that debate on pmq's --ter with the excuse me, the debate over that trade deal happening today. kevin insane antonio, democratic caller. hi, kevin. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. -- philosophy of politics top-down.icans are it is a lot of money out there. how it would benefit all of us is maybe the difference in politicians. do you know what i'm saying? and all giving amazon these big cats, you have no prom
bigger dollars. so when it comes to politics, people have to understand that this is what these people are all about, and it is for the which and the poor. -- rich and poor. you don't need $2000. if you are working, you will qualify for that, you don't need $2000. host: heard your point, kevin, and we have to leave it there. we will end today's "washington journal" and be back tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. enjoy the rest of your day. ♪ >> you're watching c-span, your