announcer: coming up life, the senate commerce committee holds a confirmation hearing for rhode island governor to be the comer secretary, at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. at 10:00 a.m. coming considering the nomination of antony blinken to be secretary of state. then at 2:30 p.m., president pro tem patrick leahy and senators will administer the oath for proceeding with the impeachment trial for president trump. the senate will deal with agreements for equipment usage by house managers and the trump legal defense team, issuing summons to the former president, due dates for trial briefs and responses, and the date the senate will reconvene for the trial. coming up in an hour, public citizen president robert wiseman discusses ethics and lobbying

rules. at 8:45 a.m., the national federation of independent president kevin coleman on the potential impact of the biden administration's stimulus policies on small businesses. >> that things we have done have been just incredible and i have not -- could not have done it without you so a goodbye, we love you, we will be back in some form. [applause] ♪ host: president trump on his last day in office telling his followers he will return to the public arena. the question for republicans this morning -- should he done it -- do it at the helm of the republican party or should he form his own party?

eastern and central time zones, (202) 748-8000. mountain and pacific time zones, (202) 748-8001. go to twitter and facebook. start dialing in. we will get to your thoughts. "a top political aide for the former president spent the weekend reassuring republican senators the former president has no plans to start a third party and will keep his imprint on the gop. the message from trump's former political director at the white house -- knowing trump may come after them in upcoming primaries if they vote to convict him for incitement of insurrection." trump sends a message to senate republicans ahead of senate

trial is the headline. maggie haberman reported sunday that in the last 24 hours after floating by a few folks that he was thinking of starting a third party, he has made it will he is not pursuing at. she goes on to report that trump believes there are fewer votes to convict. she writes, "there is also the fact that threatening a third party while threatening primaries makes no sense. jason miller, aid to the former president put out on twitter on sunday the president has made clear his goal is to win back the house and senate for republican in 2022. there is nothing actively being planned outside of -- planned

regarding on effort outside of that, but it is completely up to the republican senators this is something that becomes more serious." chuck schumer, democrat of new york yesterday had this to say about republicans -- their concerns over going forward with an impeachment. [video clip] >> it is so obviously wrong to suggest that impeaching a former president is unconstitutional so why are some suggesting it? there seems to be a desire on the right to avoid passing judgment one way or another on former trump and his role in fomenting the attack on the capitol.

they oppose it on impeach -- process grounds rather than grappling with his conduct. let me be clear -- this will not fly. the trial is going to happen. it is clearly constitutional and if the former president is convicted there will be a vote to disqualify him from future office. there is only one question at stake -- only one question that senators of both parties will have to answer before god and their own question -- own conscience. is president trump guilty of inciting an insurrection? host: the majority leader on the upcoming impeachment trial. today there will be action in the senate on the proceedings. they will take the oath for impartial justice, but the actual proceeding will get

underway the week of february 8. questions to republicans only is should the president form his own political party or stay as the leader of the republican party? robert yorkie writes " it has reached a point where in this push to be everything to everybody, parties have lost philosophical cohesion. it in what world can you have a republican party going forward that includes both mitt romney and the people who rampaged to the capitol? and how does the average republican feel represented by that party? let's go to mike in south carolina. what do you think? caller: i find it very interesting that trump is going to try to persuade people,

republicans that he is for them, at the same time threatening he will primary anyone who were to vote against him in an impeachment trial if they are in fact voting their conscience. if that is the kind of person that we republicans want as our leader, someone who would threaten us we do whatever conches -- conscience dictates, that is a sorry state for traditional republicans who want to move forward in a traditional way. that is a conservative thought, fiscal responsibility and everything. i find it highly shocking and hopeful that people are not intimidated by the threats of what someone who is no longer president might do to them.

host: do you vote -- did you vote for president trump in the last two election cycles? caller: no because he is not a traditional republican. when he first ran it was obvious he was not a traditional republican he proved it throughout. he proved he is not for the republican party. he has for a fringe group of them and would say anything to bring them along including the whole deal he has done with fraudulent election. host: who did you vote for in 2016 and 2020? caller: i will say this -- i had a hard time, but i voted for the democratic candidate in both cases and joe biden was not my preferred choice, neither was

hillary clinton. in both cases, unfortunately i had to choose the lesser of two people -- two evils. caller: -- host: and up until 2016 you had always voted republican? caller: no. i voted for bush. i picked the person i would support by what they were saying. host: why do you consider yourself a conservative? caller: this gully i do not think we can move on the way we have -- fiscally i do not think we can move on the way we have. i am socially a liberal. i believe on liberal thoughts on helping those in our society who cannot do for themselves -- it is our responsibility. host: your volume went way down.

difficulty here you. -- difficult to hear you. let's go to dan. caller: i'm glad this last guy got on here. this is a perfect example why republicans can't do anything done. he could figure out what party he is in. i am an open minded person but he has bouncing all over the place -- is bouncing all over the place. whatever it takes -- there republicans are the problem. -- the republicans are the problem. they do not get down in the dirt with the democrats. democrats stick together. it is amazing that they just keep going the route that they

are. they need a new party. host: would you be willing to follow president trump to a new party? caller: i will be honest --this is why he got elected. people cannot understand it. the people spoke. what he ran on, he did. host: is that a yes? caller: yes, absolutely. can i say just one more thing? host: sure. caller: it is amazing how one person can get into people's heads. he's still winning. he's in there forever. that's just my opinion. i'm sure there will be a lot of people who this agree with me. host: we are talking to republicans only this morning.

should president trump formed the patriot party. we will talk to democrats only in the last 30 minutes starting at 9:30 a.m. eastern time. what should the priorities be for this new president? the washington root -- washington post reported saturday that president trump has inter-attained an idea -- the idea of starting a new party called the patriot party. "in recent -- and instructed his aides to prepare election challenges to lawmakers who crossed him in the final weeks in office. multiple people in trump's are bit who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private conversations say trump has told people that the third party

threat gives him leverage to prevent republican senators from voting to convict him ring the senate impeachment -- him during the senate impeachment trial. bill, are you there? go ahead. caller: i do not think i third-party is advisable because it would split the vote up and keep democrats in power forever. we need to stick together a little better and hopefully we will reverse this in two years. host: what would you do if the former president announced he would move forward with the patriot party? how would you vote? would you vote with his candidates? caller: i would vote with his candidates, but it would not be successful for him to do so. host: hope in philadelphia.

good morning to you. caller: good morning. host: what do you think about this? caller: i think republicans -- everybody else -- all of the all one to blame -- want to blame. host: all right. nelson, redwood city, california. you are up early, nelson! what do you think? caller: i am african-american and i have taken a lot of flak. i am obama's age. i was delighted to vote for bob dole. i voted for john kasich in the republican primary 2016 and i wrote in john kasich in november

2020. last 2016 general election i voted for the libertarian guy. i would not follow trump anywhere. i am a marine and i have lost a lot of respect from -- four senator tim scott who -- lost a lot of respect for senator tim scott. everyone is yelling " take over the capital," while trump is giving his speech. tim scott thinks it is more divisive to convict him than what trump did. what if mike pence had been killed or nancy pelosi or aoc? it is a whole different story

tim scott and these guys. they just want to forget all that happened. they totally lost their soul. especially as a christian, i am really disappointed in tim scott. as evangelicals we have lost our moral credibility. that is my opinion. host: redwood city, california. the former president has established the city in palm beach county where mar-a-lago is located to carry on the agenda of the trump administration through public activism according to a press release. donald trump has the office of the former president he has officially established according to the washington times. should he go on deformed the patriot party -- on to form the

patriot party? that is a question for republicans this morning. caller: i think trump should come back. i think he was protecting america, very much so. host: what do you mean? caller: i think he was protecting america as best you could. it is america. this is what we should live for. host: should he formed the patriot party? caller: yes. host: you would follow him? caller: yes. host: would it be good for the republicans overall? caller: is for america. he is only the one -- the only one i know so far who has protected us. host: dan, moreland, indiana. hi, dan. caller: good morning.

i was trying to talk -- i don't know when i am on the air or not. host: you are on and we are all listening to you. caller: i think trump ought to go on down and play golf and forgot about politics. i am embarrassed to even think that he was involved in anything politically. i have entrusted that man since he had the apprenticeship program. talking about running for president, i thought that was a joke. the man has a lot of people conned. the american people do not need a third party. that is just ridiculous. host: did you vote in 2020 and

2016? caller: i never voted for trump. i voted for john mccain for years. he was the last republican i thought worthy of a vote. host: dan, a republican in moreland, indiana. wall street journal with the headline " janet yellen becomes the first woman to hold the position of treasury secretary as the senate confirms her to that post." the senate is expected to confirm antony blinken today as secretary of state. in roll call, -- this is politico, portman's exit signifies uncertainty for the ohio gop. he will not run for reelection. sarah sanders is making a run for arkansas governor following

in her father's footsteps. "dr. anthony fauci is the highest paid employee in the entire u.s. federal government making more than president of the united states. you can read that on forbes.com. we are talking with republicans only. mark in milford, new hampshire. storm the -- start the patriot party or stay as the head of the republican party? caller: i am a lifelong republican voter. in 2016 and 2020i had to vote for the -- 2020 i had to vote for the libertarian candidate because president trump is not a republican. if he runs for the republican party again the republican party

will probably nominate somebody else. host: michael in california. what should happen? caller: i think you are misreading what he is trying to accomplish. i think the patriot party is a brand within the republican party that will be used in primaries to challenge incumbency does not agree with. i do not see this as a third-party like the bull moose party when roosevelt ran against taft. i think this will be a brand he will use throughout the country to go after people he thinks of -- thanks are not his kind of republican -- people he thinks are not his kind of republican. host: is that a good strategy? caller: if anyone knows about

branding it is donald trump. the patriot brand makes sense. at the same time he is not going to spend his own money. link has $70 million -- apparently he has $70 million in the bank. there are more republicans in the congress right now down there were when trump was president. you have all these pickups in the house of representatives. the republican party is not in the shape the media are reporting it to be. host: the patriot party has already been used by hillbilly socialists. just like trump's america first logo was first invoked by americans sympathetic to the nazis, the patriot party has

been used before and the associated asian -- the association may not be exactly what the former president had in mind. the original patriot party was a group of socialist radicals who sought to stoke revolutionary fervor among poor and working-class white people decking themselves in confederate flags while taking their political inspiration from the black panthers with chapters in cities nationwide. the patriot party -- caller: i opposed trump creating his own party. when ross perot ran against bush in ''88 we are still paying the price. without ross perot there would not have in bill clinton, hillary clinton, and here we are 30 years later and they are

still figuring into the conversation. i think trump overplayed his hand with his arrogance and his braggadocio. if he would have kept it in check -- covid didn't help -- , but if he had kept it in check i think you would have been reelected. host: marilyn in georgia. what do you want to see the former president do? caller: i want to see him come back and do anything. who we got in there now, biden? he ain't going to do nothing. host: steve, atlanta. caller: good morning. host: what do you think about this idea? caller: it is just as stupid as teddy roosevelt and just as stupid as ross perot.

he should stand politics.he should -- he should stay in politics. he should stay in the republican party. he can call it whatever he wants after he takes it over. you cannot unite behind one man when he is a 74 years old. he will be gone in four years. he may be able to run again but he won't be himself just like biden is not himself. host: finish your thought, steve. we lost steve. let's go to dylan in york springs, pennsylvania. caller: i appreciate what c-span does. in regards to the question of donald trump and the patriot party. i think it is bogus into the reason for that is because look

at what is going on. i do not support anything neo-nazi support as well. that is the wrong side of history to be on as well. host: yesterday on capitol hill the house impeachment manager, there are nine of them again to walk over to the senate side to deliver one article of impeachment against the former president fort inciting -- for inciting insurrection on capitol hill on january 6. they brought that article over, triggering the process for a senate trial that will begin the week of february 8. that's watch as they walk across the chamber of the house to the senate in the very halls where those writers were in on january 6. -- where those very rioters were

were on january 6 -- in the very halls where those right -- those rioters were on january 6. [video clip] host: nine impeachment managers on their way to the senate chamber yesterday to deliver that article of impeachment. once they arrived, jamie raskin, democrat of maryland had this to say -- [video clip] >> article one, incitement of

insurrection. the president shall be removed for conviction -- section three of the 14th amendment to the constitution prohibits any person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the united states from holding any office under the united states. in his conduct while president of the united states and in violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the office of president of the united states, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care of that the law be faithfully executed donald john trump engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors by inciting violence against the government of the united states in that on january 6, 2021, the vice

president of the united states, the house of representatives and the senate met at the u.s. capitol for a joint session of congress to vote -- count the votes from the electoral college. president trump asserted the presidential election results were the product of widespread fraud and should not be accept and the american people or certified by federal officials. before the joint session commenced president trump addressed a crowd at the in washington dc. he reiterated false claims and willfully made statements that in context encouraged and foreseeably resulted in lawless action at the capitol, such as, " if you do not fight like hell, you will not have a

country anymore." in an attempt to interfere with the joint session's solemn constitutional duty to verify the results of the election, vandalized the capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced the vice president and engaged in other violent, destructive and seditious acts. host: congressman jamie raskin, lead manager on the impeachment trial for the house yesterday. chuck schumer was on msnbc's rachel maddow last night, his first interview since becoming majority leader. there is -- here is what he had to say. [video clip] >> president trump will stand trial.

i hope he is voted guilty. the trial will be done in a way that is fair but relatively quickly. the evidence is all out there. who is the witness? the entire american people. host: that was chuck schumer on msnbc. washington post front page says the trial will focus on trump's words. that in the washington post this morning. also in the papers this morning is this reporting in the new york times -- a survey by the new york times on the people of the trial found that republican senators were opposed to holding him accountable by impeachment. most of those opposed increasingly fell back on process-based objections rather than defending mr. trump.

with few republicans willing to defend mr. trump's actions, many have turned to arguing that the process itself is flawed because the constitution does not explicitly say that x presidents can be try -- that former president -- that ex-presidents can be tried. republicans have invited jonathan turley to expand on the argument at republican' luncheon. today they will issue a summons to its the charge. senators are expected to formally agree to a schedule for the coming weeks and swear an oath to do impartial justice. that is the latest on the impeachment on capitol hill. you can follow it on c-span.org.

act to our conversation with all of you -- back to our conversation with all of you. do you think the president should form a patriot party? we go to georgia. caller: good morning, greta. just a few things. everyone over the age of 10 should know they are responsible for their own actions, not anyone else's words. if the democratic party is so afraid of donald john trump, they have been after the man for the past four to five years. they have all but put horns and a tail on him, so why should he form the patriot party? it is just a question i have.

it is just another political party. host: what should he do, wayne? caller: i think you should form it. i think he should be able to run again for president. all the people there at the rally -- i watched the rally, i watched everything i could find on -- and he said peacefully protest. make your voices heard. he didn't say storm the capitol. he did not say attack anybody. people are responsible for their own actions. he may have been the president, but when i heard him speaking, i did not interpret that as a call to arms. host: net -- from texas, " i would support the patriot party.

the gop is divided into no longer represents the conservative balls that matter to their constituents -- conservative principles that matter to their constituents." caller: i would support the patriot party. i think a lot of our representatives do not represent our views. i would have to go with donald trump again if he decides to run again. host: what about concerns you have heard from other colors that that would split -- caller s that that would split the party? caller: that's a serious thought there. there are a few others in the republican party that have been working on getting things straight in this country, while others i think have other interests that keep them from

going along with the views of people that are republican are. host: " pre-election polls consistently overcome third-party support by a third with many curious voters retreating to old habits in the voting. nontraditional presidential candidates have exceeded 15% of the vote the minimum to get into presidential debates just twice. progressive robert la follette 16.6% in 1924 and ross perot's 18.9% in 1992. neither were within even 12% percentage points." caller: i do not think we should

have any parties at all. parties are full of ideology. the person running for president should stand on his own merits or her own merits. what kind of country they think that the people really want. it is just a shame. i left the democratic already because the progressive as far as i am concerned fascists to cover the party into they destroyed -- took over the party. the republican party, the ones who have been there so long have their own agendas. i think you should stand on what the people want. tell them what you want to do for them and they can vote up or down either way. host: when did you leave the

democratic party? caller: last year. sorry, four years ago. host: so 2016 was the first year you voted for a republican? caller: yes. host: what do you do? caller: i'm retired. host: what did you do? caller: i was in retailing. host: so you voted up and down republican? caller: i have never voted strictly one party or the other already. i voted for the person i thought was best for the job. host: kim in elk grove, texas who says that trump can be good for getting truly conservative people to replace republicans.

what do you say, mario? caller: i'm not sure about starting a new party. i'm not opposed. to it either though -- not opposed to it either though. host: all right. j in virginia. caller: hi. host: we are listening to you. go ahead. caller: hey. i just want to get donald trump back in their because i think he is going -- back in there because i think he is going to save the world. i am a christian. i tried to love everybody --try to love everybody.

i think he got a raw deal because he has helped the world more than anyone other than abraham lincoln and reagan. he is in my prayers always. host: george russell posts, "libertarians have been dealing with this for years. he can start all the parties he wants until we start getting third parties on the debate stage, it is pointless." what do you think, read? patriot party or no? caller: history might repeat itself when abraham lincoln started the republican party into the -- and the whigs, the rinos of the day, moved to the

side. we will never get elected again because of this fraudulent election done i the deep state. has biden said anything about straightening out the voting machines? of course not because he was in on it. it serves the democratic party keep this cheat rolling along. president trump should do it. there are a lot of good democrats listening who would join it because they are frustrated. host: where was there enough irregularity or fraud to make a difference in this election? caller: c-span might bring on dr. shar might. i forget his first name. he testified in front of the statehouses houses of all the swing states wrought on by rudy giuliani an hour and a half -- brought on by rudy giuliani, an hour and a half each time.

he has three masters degrees. he showed in the presentation how there were three is that were impossible. i saw ballots sitting aside -- absentee ballots that did not have the computer or code on top to match -- barcode on top to match the voter. host: why did 60 different judges dismiss these cases? caller: it is hard to say exactly because i am not one of those judges but what i have gathered from the stations i watch, not the communist news network or mslsd or the washington compost, it was on procedure. they never even saw the evidence . how would anyone like to go to court being accused of some heinous crime into they prosecute you without allowing

you a representation? for instance, republicans were not allowed to observe when they take ballots up and change it. presentation showed that pollsters could bring up a ballot, change it into save it without any record -- and save it without any history. there is no history to show what that ballot was before they change it daca -- before they change it. host: what news do you watch? caller: newsmax, oann, wide-angle. they are patriots and they are continuing on showing angst that most of your aquatic colors just do -- showing things that most

of your democratic callers just do not see. democrats would have seen these things after the election and -- host: we want to give somebody else sometime. fred in kentucky. caller: i cannot add to what that guy said. he is terrific. host: you want to see the president form a patriot party? caller: the only thing is i think he would be optimistic that a third party would be able to win in this country. it would only be handing the democrats all of the offices. geewhiz. that guy was terrific. and he is right about so many things.

the media is so biased. and then we see all this corruption in the elections. people are saying there is nothing there, but there is. the people who do those things should be tried and brought to justice. you yourself said that -- well maybe you -- you said something on the order of you did not think there was enough to change the vote. host: i was posing the question. caller: i understand. there is enough to bring some people to justice for corrupting folks. host: steve in south carolina. republicans only this morning. should trump remain as the head of the republican party or form his own?

what do you think? caller: democrats are licking their chops. it will split -- dilute the republican vote. it would assure democratic three across the board. -- democratic victory across the board. the two big m's control politics in this country -- media and money. anyone who comes out and supports trump are marked men, marked women. they may lose their jobs. it is a nasty environment we live in. i would not put a trump sign in my yard. it is scary times. host: steve. let's take you back to some of

the reporting yesterday newsweek reported on jason miller, former president -- it was up to republican senators to decide on whether his bosses plans became more serious -- boss's plans became more serious. miller shared reports that trump was preparing to create a third party and challenge republican lawmakers who clashed with him, claiming there was nothing actively planned but leaving the door open to a threat gop -- the message from brian? , trump's former political director is the latest sign that republicans considering a senate conviction will do so knowing

that trump may come after them in the upcoming primaries if they vote to convict him for incitement of insurrection. caller: it is my belief that donald trump, antifa leaders, whoever they may be, if they have the resources to do so and the technology to form their own political party regardless of what our own political viewpoints are, this is america and we have every right to start a political party no matter how big or little we are. i think donald trump has done a fantastic job. he has gotten beaten up everyday for four years. i have -- i proudly fly a trump

flag in my yard. i live in new york. i have people to their horn or give me a thumbs up -- toot their horn or give me a thumbs up when they pass. host: bob says " some countries have 10 parties." we will go to you next, celia. caller: i do not know about the third party. i think trump should stay in the republican party. the democrats planned this steal four months. this -- this steal for months.

all these democrats are all on drugs. and some republicans think they can go against trump, which is not right. they are back stabbers. thank you very much. host: front page of the new york times following up on their reporting yesterday, " justice department facing inquiry over meddling. the justice department watchdog announced he would open an investigation into whether any of the departments officials tried to do the results of the elections. investigation by the departments inspector general followed efforts by mr. trump and eight top federal law enforcement official to push other leaders to assert that -- as detailed by the new york times, mr. trump is

have said to try to install mr. clark to inspector general to carry out the scheme." the judiciary committee, which will be led by dick durbin plans to launch a probe into this. democrats want information by february 8, the same day the impeachment trial is set to begin. teresa in ogden, utah. good morning to you. what do you think, teresa? patriot party or no? caller: i do not think he is going to do that after that paragraph came out from the post or whatever it was. there was also something that came out where trump denied that , that he was not going to start a patriot party.

if he does run, i think he should just stick with the republicans. there are a lot of people involved in that party now and i do not think he should start something new because he is not going to get enough votes. if i were him, after taking all the abuse he has taken and is still taking, i think he should do something else. i think he should start his own station so he can get his info out because they have him muzzled now and i think that is very unconstitutional. i wish somebody would do something about it. whether they do or not is another story. i think he has enough pull, power, to get people, but people that are going to run -- good people that are going to run in

2022 and 2024. they will keep crucifying him if he tries to run again. they want to put him in prison. i think it is horrible that i really think our country is going to go way down the two economically and -- down the tubes economically. i do not think biden will -- i think he will be out. you will not be able to take this. then you will have kamala and she is worse then widen -- then by -- wirse tga -- worse than biden. host: patrick lahey will be presiding over the proceedings and not roberts.

the constitution is unclear on who should preside when it is a former president on trial. glenn wrightson -- writes in " i would like trump to use his influence to help build conservative candidates infrastructure to run for office . we need some younger candidates to begin building influence." caller: i do not think i third-party woodwork of any kind. i think that is the one thing republicans and democrats are in lock step with. the tea party tried to get a foothold, but it just did not work. a patriot party would be to the right of the republican already -- republican party so i don't

think that would be good for the republican candidate. just like any party that would be far left of the democratic party would be beneficial to the republican party. it is sad that the media is biased. i hear vile stuff on all titles -- all channels. i would like for all of you listeners out there to look up john swinton's most famous speech. it is a minute and a half long and he tells it how it is as far as journalists are. i would challenge you as greta to read it to the -- miss greta to read it to the listeners. caller: good morning.

i do not think it is a good idea to form the patriot party. host: why not? caller: for the simple reason that it would splinter the republican party. what i think the republican party should do, i have always stated it, is it rid of rinos. they should become more praia -- more proactive. pardon dapo -- pardon? host: be more proactive why? caller: we sit back in the republican party, which i have been voting in 455 years, and take all these innuendos voting

in for 55 years and it all these innuendos from the marxist party. they call us racists, homophobes. the communist news network are the perpetrators of this. it is ridiculous. now they are trying to impeach a president that said in his speech, you will march over there patriotically and peacefully, which i am dismayed that your c-span channel has not showed that to the people on television. the republican party is impotent right now. they sit back and take all of

this accusations, all of these slurs and tate -- do nothing about it. host: phil is in port orange, florida. caller: good morning. i have an issue with calling at the patriot party -- it the patriot party. people are already split between democrat and republican. when you split the people you have already neutralized the power of the people. naming at the patriot party is -- has the connotation that you are the people who marched outside capitol on june 6. i do not like naming the parties

along the three lines you have, democrat, republican, and independent. i think the proper name would be independent party. i want to say something else about the attack on the capitol. one color said -- caller said people are responsible for their own actions. i think they should investigate the crime scene itself. that is what -- the investigation we should be looking at. who are the people and where did they come from? you go back to the nuremberg trials, where following orders was not a defense, to say that

these people were following trump's directive -- my god. go back to the crime scene. have some people on c-span who are questioning the mainstream narrative. it's like you can't even question the narrative anymore. this is not america, greta. these people that actually committed the vandalism and actually kicked in the doors. host: john, republican in virginia. go ahead. caller: we are all american. our problem is not the democrats, our problem is we keep believing in lies. we need to tell the truth to

each other. republicans stand for something and believing it -- believe in it. the problem is that we have in the morning the show, people lying in the morning and in the afternoon people coming in and lying again. in the nights we have a show with people like. i think we need to tell the truth to people. we cannot allow that this party run by congress of dropped out high schoolers -- of people who dropped out of high school. if we don't tell the truth and educate the people and tell them exactly what needs to be said, we will not go forward. that is all i have to sit. host: we will talk to democrats only in our last 30 minutes about your priorities for president biden. coming up next, a look at the

biden administration's new rule of ethics and lobbying with robert wiseman. then national federation of independent business, kevin kuhlman, talks about the biden administration's stimulus policies and how they will expect how they will affect small businesses -- how they will affect small businesses. >> donald john trump then words impeachment and trial, remove it from -- removal from office and disqualification from holding any office under the u.s. >> today, for the second time in over a year, senators will take an oath to be impartial jurors in the impeachment trial of donald j. trump. trials are begin that are expected to begin the week february 8 on if the former president should be indicted on

incitement of insurrection. what's the trial today at 2:38 -- 2:30 on c-span. >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created in 1979, today brought to you by these companies to provide c-span to viewers as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is robert wiseman of public citizen. tell us how your group functions. guest: we were founded by ralph

nader, we work on a wide range of issues to advance the public issues -- public interest and we are concerned about concentrated public power. we have done a lot focused on deepening our democracy and improving governmental ethics. that is a big area of attention for us. we are funded by individuals and foundations. we go to corporation money -- money from corporations or from the government. host: the president signed an executive order that restricts former and -- appointees for lobbying for two years has frictions on shadow lobbying, and a golden parachute been for incoming appointees. let's begin with the first, restrictions of the former appointees from lobbying their former agencies for two years. who does this apply to? guest: the up pitted -- the

political appointees to the biden official -- the up -- the biden administration. the first restriction talks about when you leave government and prohibits you from cashing in by getting a job as a lobbyist focusing on the work you had done while you were in government. host: does this apply to trump's staff? guest: it does not, it will apply to the appointees of the biden administration. trump adopted a similar executive order at the beginning of his term. unfortunately, at the end of his administration he said the deal is off. host: what is shadow lobbying? guest: it refers to things that are not technically lobbying or where people are doing things

regular people consider lobbying but are not registering as lobbyists. there is a formal process with which lobbyists have to register with congress. it is really self enforcing. you could say i'm giving strategic advice, i'm giving guidance, i'm not spending all my time meeting with members of congress. that would have been a loophole in these prior executive orders. in the biden's new rules on ethics try to solve that problem by saying you can't just say you are not lobbying and doing things that are like lobbying. host: what is the golden parachute? guest: it is a problem that has emerged in the last few decades. it affects people who work on wall street, but could be other firms. they get payments -- this is people coming from wall street going into government. they get payments from their old firm, compensating them extra

for going into government. you might leave citigroup or goldman sachs having been an executive to be in government and the contract says you go to government we will give you $2 million. that would be a golden parachute as you are jumping out of that company. it amounts to goodwill money to take care of your old employer when you go into government. it is incentive to take care of your old friends and it is a positive thing the positive -- the biden administration is prohibiting that. host: i want viewers to join in this conversation and seek your insight on ethics and lobbying in washington, d.c. what questions do you all have about this topic? start dialing in. democrats dialing at 202-748-8000, republicans at

202-748-8001, and independents at 202-748-8002. while we wait for folks to dial in, why are these rules even needed? guest: because there is rampant abuse. people are really worried, rightfully, about corruption in government. there are a lot of dimensions to corruption, but this is one of the major things because it affects people's self interests. these rules apply to where you were working and where you go to work after time in government. it puts limits on whether people can be lobbyists and come into government and work for the same interests for which they had been involved when they were a lobbyist, a really serious concern and one we saw plant in the trump administration. an oil and gas lobbyist ended up

as secretary of interior. it deals with problems of what happens when you the government, do you get paid off by interests you may served while you were in government? you are benefiting some corporate interest instead of the public interest. the prospect of that employment is corrupting people why they are serving in government and they are spending their time thinking about their next job and how they will get paid off. host: why should not these people be able to leverage their expertise in a certain area and their previous most recent experience and how government works -- in how government works? guest: the short answer is that their personal interest has to be subordinated to the public interest. you should not go to government with the idea that you are going to capitalize to make the most money you can when you get out.

if that is where you go into government, you are not likely to do a good job for the people. host: we will go to michael in pennsylvania, democratic caller. caller: i have two questions. what is the time period when you leave office that you can become a lobbyist? who actually watches this? is there a committee -- i guess ethics would come into play. who has oversight over people who leave and become lobbyists. guest: the answer to the first question is that the biden's rules will apply for two years after you leave service. the second question, it is some combination of the existing administration. it is not done by law, it is done by executive order.

and in outside groups -- and outside groups like ours that do monitor these things and tried to hold people accountable. we can only do that if the rules are in place at the get-go. host: michael in new york, independent. caller: i want to think you're guest and public citizen for the work they do. how do we as a people and the -- end the corruption? like the movie "the big short" where people were more keen to protecting their future employer and they were lobbying and overseeing as opposed to keeping their both and loyalty -- their oath to the people. guest: what you are hitting on is that this stuff matters. if you think about the wall street crash and the great

recession, why did that happen? had been a decade previous deregulation of wall street. that deregulation was tied to the exercise of political influence by wall street interests. lots of campaign contributions, lots of money spent on lobbyists, lots of jobs given to people who left government. one piece of this policy we need is this executive order dealing with this problem. it is a revolving door problem because you come from private industry, go to government, and then go back out to private industry. this order goes -- clamps down on the revolving door problem. we need a clampdown on big-money interests in politics, particularly in campaign-finance. there is important legislation called "for the people act."

different can get that legislation passed which includes substituting out money contributions for a system where politicians rely on small contributions and matching public money, it would make a world of difference for how corrupt or not corrupt politics are in washington, d.c. host: what else to think the biden administration could put into place? what is not in this order that he would have liked to have seen? guest: i would have liked to go beyond lobbyists. this focuses on people who are registered as lobbyists and it says you can't go into government unless you have a special waiver. people have other conflicting interests. that may have worked directly for corporations or they may have been attorneys, corporate lawyers working for large corporations. people come from private

industry either working as an executive or an lawyer for companies are going to have the same interests the lobbyists do. this policy does not cover them so that would be the top thing i would focus on. host: the associated press reported last week that biden family members serve on the biden institute at the university of delaware and the beau biden foundation for the protection of children. a conflict of interest is there, according to craig coleman. "as long as the biden it family -- biden family is in charge of a nonprofit, people can make large foundations -- large donations to that foundation in hopes of incurring favor." guest: this is a tricky situation, these two organizations were set up with the best of intentions.

but now with joe biden president of the u.s., there is a risk that some corporation may give it million dollars to the beau biden organization because they want to incur favor with the president. you will need -- those foundations will need to adopt their own ethics policies and on restrictions on the kind of money they can take while joe biden is president. host: lisa in new jersey, republican. go ahead. caller: i would like to make a political statement aiming toward the democratic congress. from the very beginning, any of this should not have happened. it is the democrats that started. it is nancy pelosi, chuck schumer, adam schiff.

they are the leaders in this conspiracy. host: lisa, started what? caller: started all this commotion with the capital. host: i'm going to move on so we can stick to our topic. marty in nebraska, republican. caller: i am kind of against congressmen and senators taking lobbying jobs after they leave office, but maybe make an exception if it is for an american interest or american company instead of foreign countries. the real problem and what i think should be looked at is how do they get so wealthy during the periods they are in office? i think we should look at everyone who has joined congress, what was their work

before joining government and what was their worth when they finished. it is unbelievable how off of 144,000 -- $144,000 a year they are multimillionaires. the money is coming from somewhere. there is lobbying going on or inside training -- inside trading. being able to afford two houses in home state and living in washington, d.c., you should not be able to get wealthy by being on the government payroll. host: robert weissman? guest: you are hitting on great points. on lobbying for foreign interests, that is a special interest besides working for corporate interests. i'm glad the executive order makes steps to restrict people's ability to go work for foreign governments.

of the other question about how people make money while in congress, and a lot of people enter congress with a lot of money. congress is overrepresented by really rich people. that is not a good thing and there is a reason for it which is our campaign-finance system. it is easier to run for congress if you start with a lot of personal money. you get a leg up because you can self fund. that is a big problem i think we could deal with by getting campaign finance reform. the other thing, you are right. there is an issue with members of congress treating on information they have -- trading on information they know in congress. we were happy during the obama administration to get legislation that made steps forward to requiring numbers of

covers to disclose stop trading while they are serving in congress. but they're not prohibited from doing it. i think a better move would be to say you are not in the business of trading stocks while in congress. do it before and afterwards, but while you are in congress you can't take the chance you are trading on special information. there is information that they do better in the market. since trading well in the market is not a requirement for getting in congress, there is worried that they are leveraging inside information. host: what rules are in place for the 117th congress and the house led by democrats? guest: they are going to have some reasonable rules. numbers of both parties in congress are reluctant to impose strong ethics rules on

themselves. we don't have strong ethics rules about what members of congress can do when they leave office. we don't have strong rules in the area we were just talking about. there are a lot of good rules prohibiting gifts and abusing thinks we have seen historically , a lot of gift acceptance and bribery that characterize that scandal. i don't think that happened as much as it did and it is prohibited now. we have seen more progress but there is more to be done. host: when it comes to the white house, how concerned are you about the story in the wall street journal, they write "steve ricchetti is a confidant of president biden and an important powerbroker. his younger brother has a growing roster of lobbying clients seeking to access those powerbrokers.

among them are amazon.com along with others." guest: it is a real concern. leaving them aside for one second, the big challenge is that with all these ethics issues, what do you do about family members? it is a tough problem because if you look at the president's family, it is difficult to say if you take a position in government your spouse can't do certain things or your siblings or cousins can't do certain things. on the other hand, there is a worry that family members leverage ties to people in government to get business jobs and financing that they maybe otherwise would not get. in this case involving the machete -- the rich eddie -- ric hetti brothers, one of them is a

lobbyist who has received a lot new clients since biden was elected. it is not illegal but raises concerns. the brothers said they want to talk about business together, but it is hard to know why jeffrey set the jeff -- jeffrey shetty -- jeff richetti is getting more business. host: democratic color, you are up next -- call,e you are up nextr -- caller, you are up next. caller: i followed ralph nader for a time and so his impact on government activities and private activities.

i didn't take him seriously when i interacted with him down in the washington area. then i saw him on the public channel for a three hour exposure. i began to realize that his approach may sometimes be unrealistic, trying to educate people in the ethical ideals both in government and in the street, but i think he is a man of amazing impact and precisely what we need. it was one thing to talk about it academically, it is another thing to apply it. i applied what you are doing and i certainly hope the effect intended, your presentation, after the prior administration

was essentially an ethical blackhole to educate people on ethics. it is an difficult thing to do. host: would you agree that there was an ethical blackhole in the last administration? guest: oh for sure, i think the trump administration was the most corrupt administration in american history. it is not just the president and his family so it starts there, that it pervaded almost everything the government did. pick an agency, the odds are pretty good if you look closely you will see deep correction problems -- deep corruption problems. let me say about ralph nader who i worked for directly for 20 organizations -- 20 years, he had a transforming effect on the country. a lot of things we count on,

whether it is the safety of the cars we drive for the food we eat is due to ralph and work he and associates did starting in the 1960's through the present. one thing i learned from him is we have to envision the world as we want and talk about what is right rather than talking about what people think is realistic. our job at public citizen is to articulate that vision and explain why the right thing is the reasonable thing and then to the advocacy to make sure it becomes law and policy. host: in tampa, florida, john. caller: this corruption goes back to a court case of buckley versus aleo which was a grafted

to -- public citizen should educate the public and said -- and say that a millionaire will give a speech -- hence we have with the reagan tax cuts, 30 to 70% no strings attached tax bracket. trump was not corrupt, he was a self funding billionaire on mike bloomberg -- unlike bloomberg. trump worked and did all those great accompaniments if you did -- if you study what he really did because he was pro-u.s. citizen and an advocate of u.s. citizens. host: hang on the line. robert weissman, where did the president in your opinion violate ethics?

guest: maintaining his business empire while he was president of the u.s., including a hotel down the street from the white house. we saw business interests take up shop and hold events at the trump hotel because they were trying to curry favor with the president and it made a difference. we saw people become members at mar-a-lago to get access to the president. it made a difference. we saw his family members come into government, his doctor and son-in-law and them -- his daughter and son-in-law and themselves maintaining business positions. we saw people in his cabinet come from the industry they regulate. the coal lobbyists running the environmental protection agency, a pharmaceutical executive head of the department of human

services, on and on. that is just the tip of the iceberg. i think john and i will disagree about the trump legacy but i think there are good points he's making about plutocracy and wealth. host: this piece and the related to this conversation, "the supreme court on monday put in and to two lawsuits that accused trump of violating the constitution by profiting from his hotels and restaurants in washington, d.c. and new york. they wiped out rulings against trump in the two cases. there were no defense notices -- noted. -- noted." guest: i think it is for the unfortunate.

trump delayed the resolution on this question which was if he would accept payments from foreign governments through his hotels and businesses and possibly through the state. the u.s. constitution prohibits those kinds of payments for good reasons. he was taking them. the big questions began -- the big questions were if anybody has the authority to challenge them in court? now the supreme court has said since he is no longer president it doesn't really matter and we are not going to take the issue up. i think it is unfortunate that trump was able to escape accountability and because we don't get a resolution over an important question which hopefully we will never see again. we might, particularly if we don't get information. host: william in cincinnati, a republican. caller: you guys have been around five decades.

we have been watching chinese money since the obama administration. you are afraid of big tech. i don't see you standing up holly or anybody else speaking against the government. you are six decades old and you are hiding under that stack of books behind you. you have out war you're welcome. -- out wore your welcome. ralph nader made the attempt but he eventually was corrupt. you lost your college liberals in the 60's and 70's and now you have a new crop of people who feel like conservatives are not worth their time. host: robert weissman, your

response? guest: there is a lot there. public citizen is a nonpartisan organization. we don't just say that, we mean it. our history has been working with democrats and republicans and independents. it has become more difficult in the past decades as congressional partisanship has become more extreme. i would not say infect the american public has become more polarized, i think that is a myth. even though party polarization israel. if you asked -- is real. if you ask americans what they care about, there is uniformity. people support raising the minimum wage across-the-board. for support taking measures to contact the environment across-the-board. the support taking aggressive

measures to lower drug prices 90% across-the-board. they support doing things against corporate criminals, take down wall street, click down executive pay, making the rich pay taxes, expanding social security across-the-board. you to third support or more among american people. -- two thirds support or more among american people. host: peter, independent. question or comment for robert weissman? caller: a little bit of both. a majority of people also support medicare for all but the democratic party won't hold a vote. they waive that in front of us every two years. as an indie co--- an independent

, he said trump was corrupt. we learned that barack obama's entire cabinet was picked by the vice president of citigroup who sent the email of the names to john podesta. when we want to look at corruption, look at what bill clinton, barack obama, and jimmy carter's net worth was when they went to office and what it was two years outside of office. it is called the backside arrived. -- the backside bribe. can you comment on that? it is correction -- it is corruption. that is why you will never see a third party, everybody makes money off of corruption. guest: i think there is issues with everybody. i don't think they are all equal. the issue you are referring to with obama, i don't think it is correct that the guy you are

referring to picked the cabinet. but he did have a lot of influence in the obama administration. there was too much wall street influence in the obama administration. he was a key figure related to that. there were significant corruption issues with the clinton administration. the issue about presidents making money when they leave office is an interesting one. obama's came through book deals which is probably the least corrupt. with the clinton foundation and all the speeches that bill and hillary if after serving in office, i think those were problematic. host: keith in ohio, independent. caller: i can understand why president biden decided to put

the $400,000 -- no tax for people that make up to $400,000 because there goes congress. that is how they make their money. is it true about trump when he was president, he and his wife taking money from the government and using it for themselves? guest: in terms of his salary, he did not accept his salary. he chose not to. he was a billionaire and did not need to take anything. it is the case that huge amounts of government money were spent at this property in terms of when he would spend time at mar-a-lago in various resorts. the secret service spent

gigantic amounts of money on lodging and paying for accommodation at those properties. that his money he probably otherwise would not have received. the secret service needed to be there with the president, of course. there were hurt huge -- huge expenditures at the trump hotel. there is a lot of political money surrounding the trump campaign where he was able to use the political campaign apparatus to funnel millions and millions into his hotel. an even bigger problem are the outside interests going to the hotel, going to mar-a-lago and the properties in an attempt to curry favor with the president. a lot of evidence suggests that was effective. host: a text from a viewer was to know if biden and his son

receiving money for china and making money during a presidential -- a vice president of term, do you think this needs to be investigated? guest: there is no evidence he made billions and that is a missed reference to some of the money involved in a fund he was connected to in china. i do think it is the case that in ukraine and china, both of those business operations hunter biden was connected to, it is hard to see what he was connected to them but for his connections to vice president biden. i think the vice president at the time should have told hunter to not do those things. that said, i'm not aware of how it had influence on president biden himself. no question, those things should not have happened.

biden has pledged they would not happen while he is president now. i think it is fair to say that was wrong. people who were skeptical and think there should be an investigation, that is not unreasonable. host: what lobby rules and ethics regulations are going to be involved in the senate and who is pushing more of the? -- in -- pushing more of them? guest: there are rules enacted over the past decade bringing limitations on gifts, free travel, and obligations on lobbyists to disclose what they are doing and what they're working on. as well as this modest ethics standard for stock trading. what we would want that would go beyond that is we would like

there to be tougher limits on stock trading. we would like to see the ethics -- an independent ethics committee established to handle ethical issues raised for members of congress. we would like to see some tougher rules about employment for when the members of congress leave, whether they can go want to be lobbyists or do work that relates to their former time in congress. there are a series of proposals to strengthen ethics and congress, some are improved in the -- included in the "for the people" act which we hope to be passed through the senate in the next couple of months. host: job texts this question, what is the difference between lobbyists and -- "what is the difference between lobbyists and pacs?" guest: lobbyists are people who

try to influence congress or an administration. at sun would hire a lobbyist -- exxon would hire a lobbyist to lobby congressional committees and say the biden administration is thinking about limiting oil and gas, try to stop the. or influence the department of interior and say don't do that thing. that is what lobbyists do. pacs are involved in campaign spending. they are an effort to pool money and spend it to impact elections. since the citizens united citizen, we see the rise of

"superpacs." they spent outside for candidates. they don't give it to candidates, they spend on their own supposedly without coordinating with the candidate and they can spend unlimited amounts of money and can accept unlimited amounts of money. host: nelson in florida, republican. caller: i mean don't -- i mean no disrespect, but every time i hear of a nonpartisan organization like yours i immediately realize that it is democrat. your comment about joe biden taking his son on air force two to china and ukraine and allowing his son to engage in

the kind of corruption which is clearly going on is set. i wish it had been more forceful and honest regarding what is clearly a form of corruption on the part of hunter biden through his father, the current president of the u.s. joe biden was vice president at the time that was going on. that is what i wanted to say. host: robert wiseman, you looked into this. what did you find? guest: i want to be clear, it was wrong. what hunter biden did was wrong. joe biden's version is that he did not know anything about it. it is not a very good story for joe biden because he should have been paying attention. what i think is not true that

has been reported is that hunter biden made aliens of dollars -- billions of dollars. he was making hundreds of thousands of dollars which you should not been making, but the magnitude makes a difference. the ultimate question is did it influence joe biden. there is no evidence at all that that occurred. i take your point, i don't want to make it seem like i'm soft because we do come down on democrats for this stuff. we are not trying to excuse what hunter biden did come it was wrong. -- did, it was wrong. if the money that went to hunter biden ultimately influenced or designed joe biden in some way -- just can't see that that happened. host: where did you look to see if that happened?

guest: the best deep dive into this was done by the new yorker in an expensive story. there have been quite a few -- expansive story. there have been quite a few others. it is clear what hunter biden was doing. in ukraine, he was on the board in a situation where he did not have any expertise or any reason he would have been on the board except for his ties to joe biden. at the same time, there is not evidence that joe biden was influenced by that. the things he was doing in ukraine at the time have pretty clear independent explanations on where he was trying to crackdown on corruption in that country. the thing is more murky in that i am not sure hunter biden had

understanding of what was going on with the investment from their -- there. that was a bad business he was associated with, but nothing that i have been able's -- i've been able to see connected to joe biden. host: we will go to ithaca, new york. caller: good morning. i have quite a few things i want to sit. i want to say hello to steve scully and congratulations to biden and harris. i think this is a transformative presidency and i am filled with joy. they're going to help our country immensely. a couple other quick thoughts and then i will tie my thoughts with the guest, the other thing i wanted to say -- mitch

mcconnell is so damaging. the thing you just read in the new york times about the emoluments clause, mitch mcconnell pushed two judges and the way it was done, this past administration and mitch mcconnell and the republicans that go along with it is pure meanness and unjust to push republicans and support of donald trump. it brought us to this point at the capital. that needs accountability. the second thing, there was a call or a month or so ago who said they saw an interview with howard stern about mr. trump: long time ago -- trump saying a long time ago that he became a republican because it is easy to

manipulate their minds. i hope you can find this episode and play it because that is very profound if it is true. the other thing is there is a book on trump with 40 therapists. if you can get an interview with one of the therapists about that book because i think donald trump is a pathological liar. not only is he a criminal, but he has mental health issues and it is important because the people who follow him, he has manipulated their minds. host: i'm going to go on to joy, democratic caller. get a question or comment about lobbying in washington -- do you have a question or comment about lobbying in washington? caller: it is just a mess.

donald trump, i can't even look at the man. he is a liar. he got into office after four months and the economy has never been better. then you have republicans now saying he is the best president ofthe u.s. the world does not revolve around donald trump. he is human just like us. something like a cult leader. host: do you have a question about ethics and lobbying? caller: no. host: ely in michigan, republican. caller: the democratic party of progressivism cannot govern. progressive have exclusive power for decades.

yet extreme power and crippling equality and failing schools. democrats can't govern so how did they get elected? they manufacture these bogeymen and brainwash voters. host: robert weissman, i will ask you a question. [laughter] what are you watching next on ethics in washington? guest: i think there are two things. in this biden executive order, we are happy about what is in it. getting the right rules is the first thing. the next is enforcing those rules. they trump administration has decent rules on ethics but they were not enforced so it made no difference. we will see if they had --

intend to abide by the rules they put in place. an equally huge thing is not in the space of the revolving door put campaign-finance. we have a chance to change the campaign-finance system to replace the system where politicians rely on big donors and go to one where they rely on small donations and matching public funding. that is including -- included in the bill in the senate. if we can get that past, that will transform politics. things are a mess and that sentiment is pretty widespread. people feel like washington is a corrupt mess. they are not wrong, there are reasons people perceive that. the worry is that people then get hopeless and think there is nothing that can be done about it and rules don't matter.

that is wrong. the hopelessness empowers people who benefit from corruption. when we have hope, we can make steps to make change. when we change the rules, it matters. we can affect corruption in washington, d.c.. if we do that, we will reduce inequality, lower drug prices, expand health care, on and on. the things that people actually care about. if washington dc auditions actually care for people -- if washington, d.c. politicians exit care for people, they're more likely to deliver for the american people. we are hopeful we can make steps toward this the next few years. host: thank you for the conversation. guest: thank you to you and all your viewers.

host: when we come back, we will talk with the national federation of independent businesses vice president, kevin kuhlman, on how biden administration policies will affect them. ♪ >> president biden's cabinet nominees on capitol hill for their nomination hearings. today at 10:00 a.m., the commerce secretary nominee. former michigan governor jennifer granholm, energy secretary nominee at 10:00 a.m. on c-span3. linda thomas-greenfield nominated for you in ambassador. at 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, dennis mcdonough nominated for secretary of veterans affairs.

on thursday at 10:00 a.m. eastern, one hearing for marsha l futch for secretary of housing and urban development and sicilian eelgrass nominated for council of economic advisors. watch the hearings live on c-span and c-span3 come on-demand on c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. >> "washington journal" continues. host: kevin kuhlman, vice president of national federation of independent business is joins us now -- businesses joins us not. guest: represent 300,000 small businesses across the country, we advocate in washington, d.c. and all 50 states. we are research-backed organization and we depend on

the voice and the survey information of our survey members. host: president biden has proposed $1.9 trillion in covid economic aid. for our viewers, he wants $1400 in direct payments, topping off the $600 payments in december. $400 a week in unemployment insurance supplement on top of what the state provides through september. he was an eviction moratorium until december until september -- until september. a $15 an hour minimum wage, expanded sick leave for workers, and tax credits for families with children. how would this help small businesses? guest: president biden did a good job of articulating the importance of small businesses to the national economy and their communities.

they hold communities together, sponsoring little league teams and employing half of the workforce. to that end, he proposed around $50 billion for small businesses, $15 billion which would be for equitable grants. $35 billion would be leveraged into 175 million small business loans. we need more details but we are encouraged by that. however, we are concerned that some of the other provisions may harm or stifle the fragile small business economic recovery that includes doubling the minimum wage to $15 an hour, expanded pay leave, as well as enforcements on workplace safety. host: what is the state of the small business in america right

now? guest: the state is not good according to a recent monthly survey. small business optimism to below historic levels. we have a historically bad to in september -- in september -- in december working towards january. that was taken before congress passed the economic aid act at the end of december. february we should have january figures, we will see if that proved. that did provide additional financial assistance and tax benefits for small businesses. it is still very concerning as coronavirus cases increase throughout the country and the vaccine will let seems to have stumbled in recent days. host: how many small businesses do you think would tap into the $15 billion in grants to help

small businesses and $35 billion for small business finance programs? is that enough money? you think a lot of small businesses will be tapping into it? guest: before we get to the next proposal, i think we have to figure out how many businesses are tapping into the second round of paycheck protection which is more targeted than the first round. it is for people with 300 -- less than 300 employees and 8 -- that will be telling to see how many businesses tap into that second round. there were five point 2 million businesses that tapped into the first round -- 5.2 million businesses that tapped into that first round. we hope the rollout is more smooth than the first. that information will tell us how many may tap into the

proposal of the american rescue plan joe biden has proposed. he says he wants one million grants, or grants to one million small businesses. host: we are going to divide the lines this morning by small business owners and small business employees and then all others. if you own a small business, your line is 202-748-8000. if you're a small business employee, 202-748-8001. all others dial in at 202-748-8002. we will go to judy in west virginia, republican. caller: i did not vote for biden and harris, but i honor the choice that they are our president and vice president. i did vote for trump.

on the new stimulus they're trying to pass, how's that going to helphost: kevin, she is askit seniors. i'm not sure this is a question for you. do you have any thoughts? kevin: the proposal would contain an increase in economic impact payments, those checks to add-on to the $600 passed in december. it would add $1400 to bring the sum to $2000. i wish i could tell you more about if there was targeted aid toward seniors, but you are right, i've been focusing on the small business provisions. i would highlight those increased economic impact payments may be helpful. host: when you increase those stimulus checks to seniors and others in america, have you seen

that it helps small businesses? that people spend that money at small businesses? kevin: time will tell. i think there is a bit of lag. that is the thought. you provide targeted funding to those individuals who needed and will spend it, that may stimulate the economy and may stimulate the small business half of the economy. there are other variables to that one. we have state-mandated slowdowns or shutdown orders. those are beginning to be lifted. we think that will help. overall consumer confidence. consumers need to be confident to spend the money that is a part of those stimulus checks and have the experience in the service economy for small businesses to benefit. as consumer confidence builds and people go out and be more comfortable spending that money

that will help the small business half of the economy and help small business optimism increase. host: len is in california, what is your business? caller: i have a small gas station. at some point this debt is going to come due, and the first rollout was a disaster. i'm not sure this one will be any better. it just seems likely government rolls out one failed program after another. i know economists get excited because it stimulates the economy, but it's all based on artificial stimulation. at some point this debt is going to come due, and as a small business owner we are pretty fiscally responsible or else we would not be open. i've been in business for over 40 years. i'm not that excited about this even if i may qualify for some.

host: why do you say the first rollout was a disaster? caller: [laughter] because of the people got it that shouldn't have gotten it and people that needed it didn't get it. by the second day of being open your bank is running and taking any small business that -- is not taking small business applications anymore and you couldn't get a hold people in offices to talk to. the system was completely overwhelmed. that was my experience. host: kevin? kevin: thank you for that. i think we heard from many members about the initial rollout and having problems. that initial round of funding ran out within two weeks. there were many small businesses that were locked out. over the summer congress did give more money to the program and that certainly did help. when the program expired in august there was still around $150 billion left in the

program. our research says that demand was met. people needed on additional round. increasing the flexibility of the program which congress did over the summer really help to improve it. i think after overcoming those obstacles the paycheck protection program did deliver on benefits. we find ourselves in this round to at this point in time. it is our hope that there were lessons learned from the first round when there were those hiccups in the rollout and when the money was exhausted quickly. congress did work on that by targeting it and as small businesses, having pools of funds reserved specifically for businesses with fewer than 10 employees, i think that helps this round. we shall see. many of our members did share your frustrations early on, and many of our members do share

your frustration on the debt and the deficit right now. that is certainly a concern. we just need to get -- small businesses need to get through this challenging phase to the other side when the economy was humming like it was over one year ago and the small business economy was thriving. host: delina in florida. what do you do? caller: i work in the restaurant industry. i am 63 years old. my hours have been cut from 35 hours to week to 15 hours a week. i had to get a second job. my question is, are small businesses like this going to be able to get money out of this new program and is it going to be grants so they can help their employees or will it be loans? kevin: thank you for the question.

we still need to figure out more details about what is in president biden's proposal. it sounds like he has a combination of grants and loans. looking back to what congress passed at the beginning of december, that allowed for the second round of targeted paycheck protection loans. they are loans, but they are forgivable. they turn into grants. what congress did at the end of the year is they improved the interaction between the paycheck protection program and some of the other programs that were enacted last year. that includes sometimes forgiveness was reduced if a business took out a paycheck protection program loan and an economic injury disaster loan grant. congress said those interact better and businesses could take

advantage of both and the forgiveness would not be reduced. there was also a program called the employee retention tax credit. last year a business could not take advantage of the paycheck protection program and the in ploy a retention tax credit. in that december law congress fixed it so businesses could wretchedly -- retroactively take advantage of both programs. that should help with cash flow as well. that is also an improvement that did occur. tomorrow nfib is hosting a webinar. you can find that at nfib.com /webinars. there are things business owners are not aware of because they were not available until recently. host: that inspired a viewer to text us and asked, pleased to find business. kevin: there are many different definitions of small business. to be an nfib member you cannot

be publicly traded company, but the vast majority of our members have fewer than 20 employees. the small business definition or eligibility for the second round of the paycheck protection program loan is fewer than 300 employees. if you go across the federal government there are many different definitions and those increase with every new program. host: dennis in franklin, north carolina. what's your business? caller: i'm an outdoor vendor. as i talk about the definition of small businesses, i think we need to do away with this idea of how many employees it is and look at the amount of revenue, both gross and net. you can have 100 employees at a

software company and make hundreds of millions of dollars, and certainly not be a small business the way a cafe down the street with 10 employees is. and it seems to me in this last package most of the money went to those kinds of large businesses with large grosses and large nets. the smaller ones got very little out of it. i am curious your comments on that and thank you for taking my call. kevin: that's a great point. there are many different conditions of small businesses and often times they rely on the employee count. it is rough, it is not accurate to your point in many circumstances based on revenue, but either way whether you

choose the revenue definition or employee definition there will be those who view it as almost picking winners and losers. that is an unfortunate circumstance. i think the second round of paycheck protection program loans which were enacted as part of the law passed at the end of december tried to get at both of those issues. they say one you have an employee threshold of fewer than 300 employees and to you have a revenue test. you must have a reduction of 25% of your gross receipts and ache -- in the calendar quarter of 2020 relative to 2019. this is not perfect. someone suffering a 20% revenue loss or 24% revenue loss is probably struggling and they would view that as unfair. however you target a program there are going to be winners and losers. the goal is to target to those businesses that may need the most.

to your point on recipients who received loans and maybe should not have in the first round i will say that the larger the loan generally meant the more employees, you could only use the loan on certain expenses, 60% had to go to payroll and 40% could go to rent and mortgage interest and other limited business expenses. this new round, the eligibility is slightly broader and includes personal protective equipment and other things. the goal is to targeted more in the second round. we do not know yet what president biden's proposal and how it will target. we look forward to learning more about that. host: in sulfur, louisiana. what business do you own? caller: i own a very small construction business. host: go ahead.

caller: when we got a grant during the last paycheck protection program loa -- rollout, we applied for a loan, but we were denied. we got a letter saying our credit score was not high enough , for which i try to keep my business out of debt as much as possible. we had a very low income during the previous year on our tax returns. because of the hardships that we went through the previous year in 2020 we were only showing that we had $5,000 worth of actual income. we were denied and some of my employees were laid off during the pandemic. i was unable to bring employees back on and i wasn't able to take care of myself and family.

we had to rely on unemployment and stimulus checks that were not there. is there going to be anything with this next paycheck protection program that's going to help those who are truly struggling and poor? kevin: masculine question? did you apply through fba or a bank or credit union? caller: through a credit union. a bank actually. they wouldn't allow me to do that through the bank so i had to go directly to fba. kevin: there were two different programs in the cares act and those two different programs remain. what i think you applied for was an fba economic injury disaster loan. that is more truly alone, it's a 30 year term with a 3.75% interest rate and it does have

to be paid back. i think the bank directed you towards the fba and they deny more of the economic injury disaster loans based on previous revenue that may be the paycheck protection program has. i would encourage you to take a second look at the paycheck protection program. you can apply for the first one if you did not apply for the second one and it seems he would be able to demonstrate that you had the required revenue loss based on your payroll. i would encourage you to take a second look on that. the loans after the end of extend -- extended federal pandemic unemployment compensation within a supplemental $300 per week through the end of march. another program to look at. then there are these expanded

grants, these grants called the advanced emergency grants, and you may apply for those, we are still figuring out more details. if you live in what is considered a low income census tract and can demonstrate a 30% revenue loss at some point of last year which sounds like you might be able to do, that's another one, a grant of up to $10,000 for businesses. take a second look at the paycheck protection program. there is the extended unemployment insurance that was included in the december law and finally there were the advanced emergency grants of up to $10,000 for businesses located in certain areas, these are certain programs i would recommend looking into. host: does that answer your question or do you have a follow-up? caller: it does answer a

portion of my question. i just hope that what he is saying is going to be helpful. i hate to be disappointed again. it's hard to -- it's hard to -- it's hard to see companies take in millions and millions of dollars from the paycheck protection program that was supposed to help people who are struggling. to watch them not bring back their employees, not help those employees who are in need because they want to save that money as much as they can for their own purposes, and the struggling companies who would gradually help struggling employees who they know how they feel. kevin: i totally agree with you. it has been a very trying time over the past year, and we want

to help businesses like you. that's what nfib's mission has been over the past year. it's long been our mission for 77 years to help small business owners and advocate on behalf of their interest to own, protect, and grow their businesses. we've especially had a focus on our core mission and helping small businesses during the pandemic. i'm going to encourage you to email info@nfib.com we've been responding to questions at that inbox and we would love to learn more about your situation and how we may be able to help. we recommend you visit nfib.com. you can find our coronavirus resources to provide more information about these programs. i know it's a lot but the good news is that there are options.

the problem is that the more options there are the more computing it gets. -- confusing it gets. this program is tate -- catered towards separate businesses. we recognize many businesses are still suffering and we want to be a resource for businesses to help them get through the pandemic and grow and thrive. host: paul is next from texas. good morning to you. caller: i was just wondering if the philosophy of trickle-down economics has heard or helped small businesses, and do you think we will ever get back to laissez-faire capitalism? kevin: i don't know quite how to answer your question. i guess our focus right now is helping our members get through the pandemic and get through to the other side. i don't have an answer for you on specifically your question on

laissez-faire economics. host: we will go on to edward in grantville, georgia. caller: yes, i'm calling, i'm a small business owner. i run a small kennel and i'm a dog trainer. during the first cares act i didn't qualify because i didn't have any employees for any assistance. then the state unemployment set i qualified, but i draw small pension -- i lost thousands of dollars from march to july. i just won a get started again. something with all these states, responsible for seeing these people get the money. kevin: that's an excellent question.

i think many ran into that situation as well. the cares act did give -- it might've been the family's first coronavirus response act did give state unemployment agencies money to improve their operations, but those state unemployment agencies were overwhelmed and in fact a lot of their software goes back to 1970's technology. they were unfortunately not prepared, many were not prepared for the demand that came through. it's my hope that they might have used that money to improve their system. i don't know whether they have, i understand that any sort of appeal would be extremely frustrating from that regard and many people were on phone lines for hours only to get hung up on . state unemployment insurance agencies were very stressed. it was good to see that small

business owners or self-employed individuals could be eligible for unemployment insurance perhaps for the first time. i apologize that your particular situation ran into trouble. i don't have the answer for that. the other concern on the uninsurance employment from a small business owner perspective is many of the state unemployment trust funds have been taxed or exhausted and had to borrow meaning they have to pay it back. our concern is as small businesses try to grow out of the pandemic that they may be hit on the backside with significant unemployment insurance tax increases. if congress is going to give money to state and local governments we are advocating that money go to prevent tax increases on small businesses. host: ed in titusville, florida. caller: good morning, i

appreciate your program. why do businesses want to socialize losses and capitalize profits? the reason is it feathers their nest. what we should be doing is enhanced employment benefits, not giving money to any size business owners, and that would spur demand. you touched on that earlier, greta. the big problem is, he just touched on unemployment insurance for businesses. for a long time they sought to take people off employment tax rules and classify as unemployed -- independent contractors, consultants, what have you, workmen's comp. and on that uta tax. now he wants people to bail them out on that. the issue is they shouldn't be loans -- they shouldn't be grants, they should be loans to businesses.

if they don't have enough capital to secure it personally other businesses will take care of that. classify people as employees and have robust employment insurance and that will take care of things. host: your response? kevin: we just talked about how many unemployment insurance systems are overwhelmed. from a small business owner perspective the number one problem with small businesses is finding qualified employees. the logic behind the paycheck protection program and those forgivable loans was for businesses to hang on to employees for as long as possible and not overwhelm the unemployment system both the employee benefits by continuing to receive a paycheck and not having that be disrupted and the small business owner is benefited. they don't have to lose an employee they trained. there is concern about further overwhelming unemployment insurance systems, there is some

mutual benefit to the employee and employer to keep them on payroll. i push back and say that the vast majority of businesses do treat their employees says w-2s and not 1099s. host: daniel in new jersey. what's your business? caller: i am a small farmer. i have a small farm, i am the employee unless i hire somebody part-time. i don't know where that would fall in. the farm is preserved, in perpetuity you cannot build houses on it. you have a set amount you have to recover each year to qualify for the tax reduction that you receive. however, this year, very few people -- we are the garden state where the tomatoes or anything, i

guess because of the pandemic. it is a very i guess you would call it small business. when i read on the website, i'm 63, i'm a veteran. i really don't know all these ins and outs. i did get to hear another fellow who was a mechanic who owns a shop who basically received $60,000 and bought a new truck and invested in a new home. it rubs me wrong. what have you got for me in that? kevin: if someone used one of these paycheck protection program loans to invest in a home and buy a truck, that loan would not be forgiven, those are not qualified expenses for the paycheck protection program loans. you have to do 60% towards payroll and the 40% could go for rent, utilities, mortgage interest. you can't use the loan for those

purposes, and that individual may struggle on the forgiveness side. i know for farmers there was some difficulty with the program when it first opened. they have made some revisions to the program, i understand it still may not be perfect for farmers, but farmers are supposed to be able to use the paycheck protection program loans if -- there are caps on how much can be paid to themselves but i would encourage you to look into that program. that's the thing that comes to mind at this time. host: mary in texas. mary, good morning to you. what do you do for a living? caller: i own an automotive shop. host: go ahead with your question or comment. caller: my first question is,

we've been in business for 41 years, and we have paid our employees with 1099s and w-2s. the first round of ppp, they did not allow us to use our 1099 or our payroll records showing that we actually paid folks. my question is, on this second round, would we be able to use our 1099s as well as our w three showing that we paid employees? kevin: these questions are best directed at your bank or your lender, because they can answer specifically. eligibility, when you take into account your payroll you cannot use 1099s or independent contractors. it is only those w-2 employees that are eligible. unfortunately you would not be able to use your 1099s for that.

on the very specific paperwork that might be necessary or could be incorporated in the calculations i would encourage you to ask your lender about that specifically. your lender may not be participating in this second round. there are certain online lenders that have been helpful as well so i would encourage folks to take a look at those options. host: kevin, thank you for the conversation. our viewers and learn more. thank you again. kevin: thank you, i appreciate it. host: up next we will talk with democrats only, what is your priority for the biden administration. ♪

announcer: listen to c-span's podcast "the weekly." this week the former chief of staff or the george h bush administration and deputy chief of staff in the george w. bush administration. >> i told him to pay attention to decisions being made by the president. you don't want the president making just government decisions. the government -- the president should be making presidential decisions not just government decisions. he will be blamed for the government decisions, but his precious time should be making presidential decisions, rather than making government decisions. it's your job to make sure people are making government decisions the right way. host: joined c-span's -- washington journal continues.

host: democrats only this morning. what do you want this president to work on first? if you live in the eastern or central part of the country you can dial in at (202) 748-8000. if you live in the mountain pacific area, your line (202) 748-8001. if you are a democrat text us with your first name, city, and state at (202) 748-8003. you can also go to twitter and facebook. president biden tweeting that america has never lived up to its founding promise of equality for all, but we have never stopped trying. today i will take action to advance racial equity and push us closer to the more perfect union we have always thrived to be. -- strived to be. the executive orders that have been signed on this topic include, if we can put those up, rescinding the diversity training order.

president trump barred this diversity training at federal agencies, president biden taking actions to rescind that. you are -- they are launching a whole of government initiative to advance racial equity, launching an inequitable data working group, and rescinding trump's 1776 commission which according to government executives was an effort by the trump administration to limit public education curriculum discussion of slavery and other racial injustice in u.s. history courses. that's on the agenda today for president biden. yesterday he signed an executive order requiring federal government to buy more goods made in america. let's listen to what the president had to say on how this will work. pres. biden: we are setting clear directives and clear explanations. we are going to the core issue

with a centralized coordinated effort. today i am creating a director of made in america at the white house office of management and budget who will oversee our all of government made in america initiative. that starts with stopping federal agencies from waving by in america -- buy america requirements with impunity. if an agency wants to issue a waiver to say they are not going to buy an american product as part of a project, they are going to buy a foreign project, they have to come to the white house and explain it to us. we are going to require that waivers be publicly posted, that is if someone is seeking a waiver to build a particular vehicle or facility and it's going to buy the following foreign parts. that waiver and the request will be posted. then we will work with small american manufacturers and

businesses to give them a shot to raise their hand and say "i can do that in my shop in my town." i used to have a friend who was a great athlete who said you have to know how to know. these small businesses don't know they can compete for making the product that is attempting to be waived and to be able to be bought abroad. i'm directing the office of management and budget to review waivers make sure they are only used in limited circumstances. when there is an overwhelming national security, humanitarian, or emergency need in america. this has not happened before, it will happen now. host: president biden on his buy america order yesterday. the washington times front page story this morning, "union workers lose jobs as biden -- tens of thousands of oil and gas jobs thrown into jeopardy by mr.

biden's first day order canceling the keystone xl pipeline permit and the interior department's 60 day freeze on approval for oil and gas leases on federal land, fueling an outcry from union and industry advocates, and republicans. we returned to democrats only this morning. what are your priorities for the new president. walter in butler, indiana, go ahead. caller: thanks for taking my call. one of the biggest priorities with mr. biden and the presidency now that we have democrats running the house, senate, and the white house is to make sure that we don't, how do i say this, we don't get so lockstep that we don't listen to other voices. i've been listening and it's breaking my heart. so many different democrats are now calling for removing fox news and not having different opinions and different voices heard, and that is lockstep with communist china.

i think we have to embrace and be able to agree to disagree and have open dialogue with people we disagree with and to remember that the most important speech to defend is the speech we disagree with wholeheartedly. we are going down a rabbit hole where everyone has to have the same back. you turn on the news channels, every word is all identical. they get their marching orders. we have to remember that america is different, but we are all americans and we have to be able to sit down at the diner and disagree with things and shake hands and say you go your way i go mine. it's really frightening me to see what is going on and i hope that we remember that john f. kennedy and great democrats and great republicans all said we might not agree with what you say but i defend your right to say it. it's something we have to address.

host: the washington post noting the president is open to stimulus negotiation. the presidents focus as congressional democrats prepare for a go it alone strategy on the proposal that could bring initial votes in the house and senate as soon we with or without gop support. biden insisted at an event at the white house that he is courting republican support for his proposal, that 1.9 trillion dollar coronavirus relief proposal, saying "i prepared these things to be bipartisan." walter, is that encouraging? caller: my dad always said never listen to the words they are saying but watch what they are doing because actions speak louder than words. the united states government is bankrupt, there is no money in the coffer, we are printing money, it's monopoly money. we are 26 trillion in debt, the government holes and 3.9

trillion in revenue and spends 6.5 trillion. there is no money left so it's a moot point. just keep adding zeros and playing pretend with money. we don't have any and the idea of saying we are going to give, all we are going to do is print money. host: i understand your point. where would you put addressing the debt in your priority list for president biden? caller: it would have to be the number one thing, but nobody wants to hear the truth. nobody wants to have a president or people come on the tv and say because we squandered money on the left and right for the last 70 years we have no money and we are going to have to go on an austerity budget and everybody is going to have to line up in soup lines and do the best they can for 10 years until we get this under control. host: let me go to albuquerque, new mexico. caller: hello, thank you for taking my call. the priority that i want to make sure stays is something chuck

schumer mentioned last night in his interview with rachel maddow that i have regarded as very important for quite a long time. that is the basic restoration of democracy issue. such as gerrymandering and campaign-finance reform in order to restore the real functioning of our democracy, especially congress because congress has been so dysfunctional for such a long time. also to make sure that in whatever is done in education that [indiscernible] is included in all that. there is a proposal that i have looked at that i have never heard talked about by anyone else and that is to set up a system so that the president appoints, just like under the current cabinet appointments approach, the president can appoint the cabinet, but that

the president cannot unilaterally fire either the attorney general or secretary of state. in other words that there is some bipartisan mechanism to review any attempt by the president to fire especially the attorney general. we have seen what happens in the recent scandal that's been revealed about mr. jeffrey rawson and mr. clark and so forth and that is probably going to be investigated in the impeachment trial. one of the things that ought to be able to happen is to prevent the firing of an attorney general. we have seen president trump do things similar to what was done by president nixon. host: let me ask you, where does impeachment rank on your to do list? caller: i would say, i'm thinking of it as an unfortunate

necessity. that the standard has to be established about how deeply and horribly unacceptable the action of the president was. it's very regrettable that it's gotta be done but it has to be done. host: an update on the impeachment proceedings. the house of representatives sent their impeachment managers to the senate yesterday with that article of impeachment. what is going to happen today in the senate when they convene at 2:30 eastern. they will issue summons to mr. trump to answer for that charge and senators are expected to agree to a schedule for the coming weeks and take the impeachment oath dating back to the 18 century to do impartial justice. the new york times is reporting that a survey by the paper on the eve of the trial found that

27 republican senators had expressed opposition to charging mr. trump or otherwise holding him accountable by impeachment. 16 republicans indicated they were undecided and seven had no response. most of those opposed increasingly fell back on process-based investigate -- reasons rather than defending mr. trump. the few looking to defend them have argued the process itself is flawed because the constitution does not explicitly say that x presidents can be tried. republicans invited a george washington university law professor to expound on the argument at a republican luncheon today and some were bracing for senator rand paul a senator from kentucky to force a vote to toss out the case for that region during a tuesday session. such vote would fail but could gauge republican views on that trial.

they will take a vote and action by rand paul. henry and montrose, virginia. we are talking with democrats only. your priority for the biden administration? caller: my priority is the covid. nothing else matters if everyone is dead. i think we should hop on that and once we get it handled on that covid everything is going to fall in line. president trump is gone, we need to get him out of our veins and put the needles in our arms. if there's nobody left it doesn't matter whatever happens down the road. that's just my thought. host: as we go to george maybe we can take a look and show you what the president is proposing to tackle the coronavirus pandemic. it's called the american rescue plan. some of the specifics on your screen. george in illinois, what is your priority? caller: i believe we really need

to focus on the commission to study and better reparations for african americans act. i think this is the perfect time and the only time that we have a real chance of getting this bill on president biden's desk. hr 40, do not pass this by. host: why do you say this is the only time? caller: this is it. if we don't do it when else are we going to get it? a step for helping the african-american community. the average african-american -- the average of any race is average. we are going to focus all of our

efforts on [indiscernible] but the average african-american [indiscernible] especially small business. we need a national weight of focusing on helping the average. host: you and others may be interested in the washington reporting this morning "civil rights leaders say they won't let up pressure on the biden administration." "women of color gathered to strategize for the first 100 days of joe biden's strategy but the president and ceo on black civic dissipation which helped organize the conference spoke of the first female vice president taking the oath of office. they quickly admonished each other to quell their emotions and too much focus on the moment might distract from the pressure they need to exert on biden and

hit his administration including vice president harris. the important thing stressed the president of the philip randolph institute was not to do what we did with barack obama which is sit back and think we have it fixed, it's not fixed, or to sit back and think that the work has been done, it's only started." more in the washington post. sabrina in douglasville. caller: hello, how are you? host: doing well, what do you want this president to work on first? caller: let's take a look at the big picture. the problem is, let's give him a chance. he has experienced -- experience in the government for many years. let's give him a chance. he is talking 1.5 a day.

that's a lot. let him start with his program. the republican -- they set the bar low, that's not a low bar. to tackle covid first is not a low bar, people have died from this. millions across the world. now it has dropped, thank god. what i would like to add, i am a bipartisan citizen. i agree with republicans when they say let's not just hand that money out willy-nilly, let's not do that. let's look at the families that really need it, working families. in the neighborhood i am in we are working middle class citizens. we had it hard. it ate us up. because we cared for each other we were able to end we are still able through the grace of god to

make it through. we need to not just hand this money out and if we do have to help those -- host: i want to show you and others what the president had to say yesterday. he spoke about negotiations and the need for the next round of covid relief, but also when he might use budget reconciliation on some of these proposals. pres. biden: the decision to use reconciliation will depend on how these negotiations go. let's make it clear about negotiations. i've always believe that part of negotiations, whether a president, or a chairman of a committee trying to get legislation passed is about consultation. it's not enough for me to come up to me and say "i like this, i expect you to support it."

i want you to explain why you think it is so important in this package that we have to provide money for additional vaccines and why i think it's so important while we provide for money to extend unemployment benefits and why it's so important that we provide money to provide for the ability of people not to be thrown out of the apartments during this pandemic because they can afford the rent. to make the case for you why i think and what i think the priorities within -- what we think the priorities are, within this legislation. i don't expect we will know whether we have an agreement and to what extent the entire package will be able to pass or not pass until we get right down to the end of this process which will be in a couple of weeks. this is just the process beginning. host: that was president biden yesterday. washington post says "democrats are making plans to use a

budgetary tool known as reconciliation which would allow the package to pass with a simple majority vote in the senate instead of the 60 votes required for major legislation. this could amount to an abandonment of biden's calls for bipartisan unity but many democrats say the matter is too urgent to wait." willie is a democrat from jackson, mississippi. good morning, go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm going to get straight to the point. i think that president biden should first speed up the impeachment, prosecute all those involved with the capital break-ins. i think he should go on with the stimulus package. i think you should make sure all the people that need the money get relief.

for the last 16 years, the last term of president bush, the senate hasn't done anything. what barack obama, when president obama was in office they vowed not to do anything. now they want to say all this and i don't want the democrats to be soft at all. they need to play hardball from now on. they are not sincere in their words, they know they are not sincere in their words. i want us to move forward and also get this corona under control. host: dale from redwood city, california. caller: hello. host: good morning, dale. what is on your to do list for this president? caller: i would like to see him try to improve the services of government. i dealt with the irs and for the

last several years it barely operates and the same thing with social security. if they could hire more people and provide better services i think people would have more confidence in the government. i think president biden has done an excellent job, he seems to have hired good people and i think we will get back to a more normal environment. host: luis in connecticut. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i just feel president biden is trying to do a great job, he's trying to have the republicans and democrats work together, it seems like the republicans never seem to help the democrats get things passed. i don't know [indiscernible] because they seemed to do everything he wanted. i have never seen the president do so many things wrong and

attack our country, our capital. host: what about the question, what do you want president biden to do first? caller: i think he is trying to do a great job. there are so many people in need of help. host: robert in montana. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. i consider myself a blue dog democrat, i'm fiscally responsible and also a former union member, and i was disappointed in his decision on the xl pipeline. those are good union jobs where people are going to be laid off. i think it is going to damage our national security, it will go back to the 70's when we depended on foreign oil through

our energy crisis -- prices are going to increase. i always thought he was a strong supporter of unions and this action was i considered a slap in the face to union workers and union families. i would hope he would reconsider. host: we will take a look at as climate and environment agenda. rejoining the paris climate accords, $2 trillion for clean energy transition, cut carbon emissions by 2035, net zero emissions by 2050. also stopping the keystone xl oil pipeline. imposing a moratorium on oil leasing in the arctic national wildlife refuge and implementing new car fuel economy and emissions standards. denise in florida, good morning to you. what are your priorities for the biden administration? caller: good morning. the first thing they need to

work on is the stimulus package. i think covid-19 is important, racial inequality, police brutality, definitely the economy. i think they need to get rid of all of the congresspeople that have been affiliated with that riot on the capitol hill. any kind of racial inequality needs to be out they need to be recognized that this country has changed and it's not all white. you have a lot of minorities here and they need to be included. host: ok, denise. dave in irvine, california. caller: i think they should work on social security. the average person who gets social security only gets about 1200 a month. they need to raise that. they need to pass that stimulus through now. i wish they could raise social

security. i took my social security at 62 because most people don't live to be 62. the congressman they get a paid pension after four years and make 170,000 a year. why do people on social security that paid into it don't? i'm getting sort of confused here. they don't get theirs, people that paid into it don't get them until they are 62, most of them are dead by that time. i wish they'd raise social security. host: jeff in massachusetts. caller: hello. host: what do you want this president to work on first? caller: i was hoping they could take a social security disability check and make it the same as a retirement check where they could save as much as they want without canceling our check

after $20,000. if they cancel that check we get no money, we are screwed for nothing. we lose our insurance. they should make it the same as a retirement check where you can save as much as you want in a savings account in the bank. without reducing or canceling a check. host: ok. coming up on c-span, we will bring you to the senate commerce committee, holding a nomination -- a confirmation hearing for gina raimondo to be commerce secretary. the governor will face the senators as she looks to become the next commerce secretary. she will appear at 10:00 a.m. eastern time. after president biden nominated her to succeed wilbur ross running the u.s. commerce department. diana from woodburn, oregon.

hello, diana. caller: hello. let me put it on mute. host: we are all listening, go ahead. caller: i am 83 years old. my taxes were so high to me that i almost lost my house, but i have my daughter helping me take care of my social security -- i just barely get by. i have diabetes. the vice president, i can think with her because i am all that

-- i am native american and i am all the races like spanish, french, italian, portuguese, and japanese. i'm black and white. anyways, i worry about my taxes, to me i think they are a little bit high. i think that president obama -- i mean [laughter] biden, excuse me. [laughter] host: we know what you meant, president biden. caller: ways, yes, thank you so much. host: thank you, diana.

orlando, good morning. caller: good morning, i wanted to talk to you about the buy american. biden is saying a lot of the stuff trump said, the only thing is that biden is going to jack up taxes so high on industry our products are going to cost so much overseas, that they won't have to have a tariff, they won't have to have nothing. our companies won't be able to compete. that's the way he is saying by american. -- buy america, we can't compete when our taxes are so much higher than the rest of the world. if he closes down the keystone pipeline he has killed 11,000 jobs. there is so much about him that you don't have to say. he hadn't got along with none of the -- everything he is doing is

by presidential fiat. he's not doing anything with the other party. it's a scam just like his son when he was working in china. you don't think that's going to go away i hope. host: the president tweeted at 9:53 saying "it's simple when we spend taxpayer money we should use it to buy products made in america and support jobs at home. the buy american executive order does just that." marvin in willmar, minnesota. what's on your to-do do list? caller: good morning. thanks for taking my call. my question is, when are they going to quit playing the blame game and start doing what is good for this country and not what is good for the democrats

or republicans. this country has been blessed and we are thankful we got it. host: victoria from fairborn, ohio. hello, victoria. caller: i would like to see the democrats and the biden administration work fully in the first three months or so on health care, we need to do what we can to lower premiums, put more people on health care and i know several people who are not insured right now, they can't afford their health care premiums, it's crucial for the economy. i would like to see them pass the comprehensive covid bill legislation and hopefully within the next few weeks they can get that on the floor and we can get cash payments and money to the local and state government that

needed so badly for vaccination distribution. those are the two main things i hope they work on. host: from this commerce hearing we are about to bring to you on c-span the new york times says there are things to watch for in this hearing, countering china's growing technological reason, jumpstarting the economic recovery, and enforcing trade rules and tariffs set by the trump administration along with counting the american electorate without political influence. we bring you now to the senate commerce committee, rhode island governor set to testify for the top post at the commerce department. live coverage here on c-span.