announcer: coming up today, the house ways and means committee will consider proposals as part of the next step in covid-19 relief. left of his begins at 10:00 a.m. eastern. then the impeachment trial of donald continues at noon on c-span2. and on c-span3, a confirmation hearing for the white house budget director nominee. that starts at 10:00 a.m. eastern. coming up this morning on "washington journal", a preview of the senate impeachment trial for former president donald trump with is at:. -- zach cohen. then we talk about small business with of radio ortiz.

then jan schakowsky talks about covid-19 relief legislation and other news of the day. join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages and tweets. "washington journal" is next. ♪ host: good morning. it's february 10. house impeachment managers today begin making their case for impeaching former president trump on the charge of incitement of insurrection. you can listen along our free c-span radio app. today comes after republicans joined democrats in the vote on whether or not the impeachment of a former president is constitutional. you can call us at 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 free democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents.

and you can also text us at 202-748-8003. post on twitter and on our facebook page. the beginning proceedings yesterday is available on our website at c-span.org, but it was the house impeachment managers, not shortly after starting their presentation, that showed video from january 6. we will show you a portion from that. [video clip] [yelling] >> mr. speaker, can i have order in the chamber? >> the house will be in order. [yelling on the video] >> go, go. go, go. >> the house will be in order.

ok. [gavel pounds] host: that was a small portion from yesterday as part of the video that the house impeachment managers showed. shortly after that presentation, it was the lead impeachment coming to the floor and are going against allowing "a january exception" when it comes to actions from a president. here is part of that argument. [video clip] >> president trump has tried to stop the senate from hearing the facts of this case by sending lawyers here today. they want to call the trial over before any evidence is even introduced. their argument is if you commit an impeachable offense in care last few weeks in office, you do it with impunity.

you get away with it. in other words, conduct that would be a high crime and misdemeanor, in your first year as president, in your second year as president, in your third year as president, and for the vast majority of your fourth year, you can suddenly do, your last few weeks in office, without facing accountability at all. this would create a brand-new january exception to the constitution of the united states of america. a january exception. and everyone can see immediately why this is so dangerous. it's an invitation to the president to take his best shot at anything he may want to do on his way out the door, including using violent means to lock that door, to hang onto the oval

office at all costs. and to block the peaceful transfer of power. in other words, the january exception is an invitation to our founders' worst nightmare. host: that was jamie raskin, democrat of maryland, making his case yesterday. the president's team also making their case against the constitutionality of the actions from yesterday. davis shown, the attorney for the president, talking about the impeachment trial on the floor and what we do as far as how it would affect the country, should it go forward. [video clip] >> they tell us we have to have the impeachment trial to bring unity, but they do not want unity and it they know this trial will tear the country in half, leaving tens of millions feeling left out of the nation's agenda, as dictated by one

political party that holds power in the white house and in our national legislature. but they are proud americans who never quit getting back up when they are down and did they do not take dictates from another party, based on partisan for seating. the trial will pull the people apart. and to help the nation heal, we now learn that the house managers, in their wisdom, have hired a moving company and large firm to create and displace for you a package designed by experts to horrify you and our fellow americans. they want to put you through a 16 hour presentation over two days, focusing on this as if it was a bloodsport. to what end? for unity, for accountability? not for any of those, for there are much better ways to achieve each. it's for pure, raw misguided

partisanship that makes them believe that somehow is good. they do not need to show you movies to show you the riot happened. we will stipulate it happened. you know all about it. this is a process fueled by base hatred by these house managers and those who gave them their charge, and they are willing to sacrifice our national character to advance their hatred and fear that one day they may not be the party in power. host: the washington times highlights it was after those opening arguments that a vote had to take place on the constitutionality of it. six republicans voted in favor of the trial, including susan collins of maine, bill cassidy, mitt romney, and pat toomey of pennsylvania, also noting the fact that bill cassidy voted two

weeks ago against the idea of putting a former president on trial. we will hear from him in a bit. but we will hear from you in this hour on the opening arguments and proceedings from yesterday. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. 202-748-8002 for independents. go ahead, caller. caller: i do not want to be cut off. i just want to make one comment. this country will not heal until it resolves its major problem. the major problem i feel in this country is the problem of race. i do not see a lot of people in the news media actually speaking to that, not identifying the people involved in the insurrection as white supremacists, which is exactly what they were. i keep hearing them called sedition nests, rioters, but

they were actually white supremacists who refused to acknowledge of the fact that eventually they will be the majority minority. they do not want to give up power. the problem is the majority of people in the republican party acknowledge, acquiesced, and agree with that. host: do you think that is part of what you will hear in the following weeks concerning the charge against the president? caller: i don't because, you know, for this country to actually heal, mend, and to be as one, we have to acknowledge our history. that this country was built on the back of my forefathers. and we have to acknowledge that we have to have a reckoning of that. the house is only as strong as its foundation -- right now it is not very strong. host: do you think the house managers made their case

yesterday? caller: yes, but the problem is republicans are afraid of donald trump. host: let's hear from paul on the independent line. caller: i just have a couple of quick thoughts. i don't think the impeachment is really worth it, because he is already out of office. i would prefer to see criminal charges. that's what it will take to get a serious reckoning. also, for a little bit of fairness, you might have somebody talk about the times magazine article that has been making such a big splash. host: do you think the criminal charges will happen? caller: i hope so. if they're serious about this, if this is not just a political ploy because of their hatred of donald trump, then somebody will attempt to get a criminal conviction. host: michael in arizona.

line for democrats. hi. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: the republican party is destroying itself on three different fronts. the insurrection on the capitol, the affiliation with qanon and other conspiracy peddlers, and the most interesting part is republicans are destroying themselves for the senators and congressmen in the party that is acknowledging that the election was fair. host: did you watch yesterday in the senate? what did you think of them? caller: i thought that the democrats presented a very powerful case. host: how so? caller: to the direct words of the president, "we have to fight

like hell." that says it all. we can't save our country, keep our country through weakness -- fight like hell. it's obvious. host: karen is next. caller: i am from a blue state, everybody knows that. the situation in los angeles is terrible. you walk down the street and there are homeless people we are finding, giving them funding by the democrats. everybody knows democrats run the state. host: what did you think about what you saw in the senate yesterday? caller: i just barely got out of jail. host: what do you think about the impeachment? that's what we are talking about. caller: i think it is a mockery of the united states.

it's just a mockery. i respect the laws of the constitution of this country. i think we have the best constitution. i'm from a pre-soviet country -- from a former soviet country. trump was keeping it level for everybody. host: why do you think it is a mockery? caller: he is out of office. he did nothing but good for the people. the whole world was praying for him, nigeria, korea, a lot of countries. host: when it comes to the events of today, and what to expect, this is highlighted this morning in the usa today, saying house managers will elaborate on their arguments for why the former president should be convicted of inciting the insurrection and disqualification of holding future office. it says the prosecutors will focus arguments on "powerful evidence of the death and

destruction from the riot." that's according to chuck schumer, saying that when it comes to that committee evidence will -- that, new evidence will be presented. david talked about the events of yesterday, his take on that thing, in the hill, saying that the defense lawyer defended the team's performance during the senate impeachment trial, that was criticized by even some republican senators. the president's other attorney did not plan to start his argument on tuesday and he and his law firm seem to be capable people. so, i'm sure they will be prepared in the future and will do a great job in the case, adding the defense comes after castor's performance was panned, after he went on a meandering argument about democracy, only

briefly mentioning the riot on capitol hill, the center of the impeachment trial. one senator not convinced by the defense team, republican bill cassidy of louisiana. it was after the events of yesterday he went before the cameras and explained why. [video clip] >> i said i would be an impartial juror. the house managers were focused, organized and relied on the constitution and legal scholars. they made a compelling argument. president trump's team was disorganized. they did everything they could but the talk about the question at hand. and they talked about it, they glided over it, like they were embarrassed of their arguments. i'm an impartial juror and one side is doing a great job, the other is doing a terrible job. and i'm going to vote for the side that did the good job. >> what do you need for a conviction?

>> we have not gotten there yet. >> why do you think the defense team did a terrible job? >> did you listen to it? >> i did. >> it speaks for itself. >> i found it hard to follow. is that your feeling? >> if you listened to it, it speaks for itself. it was disorganized, random, they talked about many things but not the issue at hand. so, if you -- i'm an impartial juror, and if i am trying to make a decision based on the facts on this issue, then the house managers did a much better job. >> senator, what about the attack on the capitol? >> that is not the issue at hand. the issue is is it constitutional to impeach a president that has left office. the house managers made their

case. and the president's team did not. host: that statement, or those a statements yesterday from senator cassidy, garnered a response from the louisiana republican party, who says the republican party is profoundly disappointed by senator bill cassidy's logo on the constitutionality -- vote on the constitutionality of the impeachment of a former president. "we feel it is an attack on democracy, which will have unforeseen consequences for our republic." you can find more of that response on the website. rita in pennsylvania on the democrats line. caller: i just wanted to make a statement, then ask a question. i'm really ashamed of the

cowardly 44 representatives that we have in the senate, the republican representatives. i'm ashamed of them, to allow our government to be attacked like that. this insurrection was like a bunch of barnyard dogs. i just wish that things were different, but since they are not, i hope donald trump has to pay the bill. i would like to know, as president or ex-president, what is he entitled to? travel, pension? what's he entitled to? host: you can go to our website. we did a segment devoted to the topic of the perks a former president gets.

if you go to the website and type in those keywords, you will find that segment we had recently. caller on the independent line. caller: pedro, no wonder this country is going to hell in a hand basket. and i thought the house panel did a tremendous job. and when you look at the senators, it actually is an impeachment trial for the senators themselves. i have much respect for senator bill cassidy. we are supposed to look at things in truth and in clarity, that is what the jurors are supposed to do. they are supposed to get the facts and make decisions based on the facts. when you go in with preconceived ideas, drawing your line in the sand, you are not being impartial, you are being quite partial. for these state legislators to

go back and hold the six senators to censure them, what about that cancel culture? the republicans have shown themselves to be the party of cancel culture. host: to the events of yesterday, you said truth and clarity, how did they show that specifically? caller: they put it out there as it was. schoen said it was a movie company. no, those are the events that happened. host: was it the impact of the video or what they said? caller: the impact of the video and what they said. what they said was nothing but the truth that comes from history, facts that come from history. host: we will go to kate in ohio, the republican line. hi. caller: i am from stowe, ohio. thanks for taking my call. i would prefer to see criminal charges as opposed to the

impeachment. one thing that concerns me is that in this country we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, and everyone is assuming he is guilty. maybe he is, maybe he isn't. if this is a trial, then i guess he is due just reward. i do not approve of what happened at the capitol. but if he is a private citizen now, he needs a criminal trial. this is a waste of tax dollars. host: do you think they made a convincing case yesterday? caller: i do. host: how so? caller: just by reading the constitution to us and explaining the different things of what impeachment is and what it means. and who can be impeached. and who can be impeached are people holding public office now. host: ok, kate in ohio.

ronald on facebook talks about the events of yesterday, "a democratic circus. so much for them wanting unity, empty talk." joyce saying, "i'm embarrassed by this. democrats are willing to destroy america. a bunch of high schoolers running america. all the democrats should be impeached for this sham." another viewer says, "p.t. barnum could not come close to a circus like this." steve saying, "we were taught wrong in school. the senate decides on constitutionality." if you do not want to call, you can text us at 202-748-8003, or post on twitter and on facebook. we will take your calls on the events of yesterday, the opening arguments, until 8:30 a.m. you can call, text or tweet, or

even post on facebook for that period. jonathan in minneapolis, democrats line. caller: good morning from -20. if you are wondering, it is very cold. and i am awake and i do not know why. i have been listening to the callers and i find it weird the republicans on the senators, decided to say, no, it is ok to hit the vice president of the u.s., to hit the senate floor with crazy people. i do not understand, where is th e mindset with the republicans that says, this is ok? and what the heck is going on with this lawyer, because seriously i thought i was having a false stroke, because the other thing he said -- because

everything he said made no sense whatsoever. i could speak with a full bowl of cheerios with milk in it and still speak better than this lawyer. host: widget lawyer are you referencing? caller: the defense -- which lawyer are you referencing? caller: the defense lawyer. castro. it's fascinating that he was talking about absolutely nothing. and i am sitting there going, what is this? this is not even a civics lesson. he could have gone in a complete different direction. i think that he failed miserably for president crazy. i hope people realize that this is america what is -- that this is what america is about. this is where we are now. host: jonathan in minneapolis. here's the presentation from bruce castor yesterday, one of the president's defense team.

[video clip] >> this is supposed to be the last thing that happened, the most rare treatment. in a session for impeachment, among the most rare things it does. so the slippery slope principle will have taken hold if we continue to go forward with what is happening today, and scheduled to happen later this week. and, after we are long done here. after there has been a shift in the political winds, and after there is a change in the makeup of the united states house of representatives, maybe a change in the senate, the pressure from

those folks back home, especially for members of the house, is going to be tremendous. host: you can see more of that on our website at c-span.org. again, another round of opening arguments -- the beginning of the making of the case from the house impeachment managers will start at noon today. they have 16 hours, the other side will have 16 hours. you can follow along on the website at c-span.org. or on the go, download our radio app and you can listen to the events as well. carol in panama city saying, " trump's team was pathetic. how can anyone defend the indefensible? donald trump should be held accountable. no doubt the weak senators will quit him again. " and from a viewer in georgia

saying, "mr. jump' -- trump's lawyers made a convincing argument for me. guilty as sin." now a caller. caller: you can tell that caller before was calling the president crazy. so -- but i thought for one thing the video, you were talking to some callers back about the video, and ok, it showed real scenes, but in between i kept thinking i was getting subliminal messages, because they would say donald trump's mob does this and that. they were making it look like he was inciting everything that they did. i think bruce castor did a good job. he started off kind of slow, but then he came up with a couple of good points. one of them was, you don't --

the president would not escape justice if there -- there's this january type of thing where he escapes justice. but you can go and arrest him. they do not want to do that because they know that will not fly. chuck schumer wants to keep control of this whole thing and that's the reason why they are doing it this way. but they have an option to do with the other way, but bruce castor, the point he made was the only reason they are doing this is because you do not want to face him again in the future. you see how many millions of votes he got. that was the point i thought, the two points i thought he really made that were strong. host: do you plan to watch of the proceedings this week and next? caller: i do. i watched it yesterday.

and i have the opportunity to watch it, so i definitely do. maria in washington, d.c. on the democrats line. hi. caller: hello. let me say that you just played two clips of --. why not give the other side? host: i played only one. caller: that's not mine,. about the movie company -- my comment. about the movie company spicing things together. these are not actors, this is what happened. they were referencing what came before, the incitement. they were referencing it to make the point. everything was actual footage of what happened. and, also, i agree with the previous caller who said, as jurors every senator should be impartial.

there were reports of senators who were looking away, looking at their phones, papers and stuff. now -- host: do you think that senators from both sides are going to be impartial, or do you think that they have already made their decision? caller: i hope so. that's what should be happening, an impartial jury. the president was already impeached before he left office, now he is being tried. the constitution says, oh, impeachment must be tried. there's no exception. he was already impeached, just not tried. so how hard is that to understand? host: ok, maria. mary and potomac, maryland. caller: hello. i would like to say the case

from bruce castor was very weak. this is an open and shut case. there's nothing to it. if you or i had done something like this, caused can insurrection, we would be locked up forever. but i would also like to say that when the time comes to convict, i would like to have each senator, especially the republicans, to consider what or how would i be working if the young police officer who was brutally killed in the insurrection was my son? how would my work go, if he was my son? witnesses should be called, because the lawyer for one of those who was prosecuted, or

said that the mob did what they did based only on what trump said. host: that is mary. today, the house impeachment managers will begin to make their case. they get 16 hours. the president's defense team will also get 16 hours. senators can ask questions after that. there will be a potential vote on whether witnesses will be called or not. that's part of what you can expect on a full week from the senate impeachment trial. you can follow along on c-span everyday. on c-span2 today, starting at noon. carol in missouri, on the republican line. caller: hi. i watched this yesterday and i was very disappointed. i thought i was watching on

whether the constitution called for the president to be impeached, and instead i got to watch a film about what happened at the capitol, which i've already seen 50 million times, but they changed a lot of stuff in it. i was disappointed in that. as far as impeachment goes, i do not think it should've happened. i've read the constitution and i think that everybody has taken it in a different way. so, if they are going on with the impeachment, i've come to the conclusion that maybe when -- if, which i do not know if it will, that i will make up a list of everybody i want to impeached that's out of office, so we can get all these people impeached that i haven't liked what they have done over the years. that's how i feel about all of this. host: as far as the president, or former president, reporting from the washington post on his reaction to yesterday, it's

reported it was tuesday's opening argument that did not unfold as mr. trump had hoped. that he was disappointed in bruce castor, that gave an ill fitting argument and at one point praised the managers. the former president had expected a swashbuckling lawyer and instead got a disjointed performance. doug on the line for democrats. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i have to ask the question, how did we get ourselves to this point? we got here by massive lies of the democrat machine. this goes back to hillary clinton deleting her 33,000 emails, getting away with it. a one-sided justice system that favors -- two sided, that favors

democrats. host: are you a democrat? caller: no, i'm a republican. host: you are calling on the wrong line. apologies. you can try to call back. call back on the republican line. that's 202-748-8001. brenda on the independent line. hi. caller: good morning. i think what will happen with the impeachment is basically going to go to whatever party they are, but i think that the american people have two ways to get their point across, and that is with their vote. and that is with her basic shopping. when -- their basic shopping. when americans find out that different companies, banks,

radio stations, tv stations have supported this impeachment, they have the choice to not buy anyone that has supported the. m. host: why do you think there will be an economic impact? caller: i think people will realize, are you going to put your dollars in the pocket of someone who has supported the impeachment? are you going to watch and see the senators that have turned their back on the constitution? it's the constitution. it's not just being guilty of the things he is being impeached for, but he is guilty of murder for the people who died. when you send it so many thousands of people to do your bidding, and he did not walk with them, he just sent them. i hope america realizes that there are two ways to get their point across and vote for people

and how they shop. host: we will go to mark and the democrats line. -- on the democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro. yeah, i'm thinking about when he pleads the case with his daughter, his daughter didn't want to come back to the capitol. i do not know why it is so hard to convicted donald trump. he's not our president any longer. we are past the constitutionality now. the story is this now. now is people are saying, oh, i wasn't there. i did not coincide -- go

inside. the purpose of the rally is they were rallying based on a lie in the first place. it was a bunch of misinformed, ignorant people at that rally. and they were there for the wrong reason. nothing was stolen from them. we as african-americans, i felt insulted. host: when it comes to the events from yesterday, what was the strongest argument from the house impeachment managers? caller: the video, the evidence of the actual citizens being held down and locked up in their rooms. the testimony from the managers was the most compelling thing. we have two parties, but as an african-american, this thing is hurtful because it seemed like the more minorities that got involved -- long story short, they are saying our vote did not count. even when the president said the votes are being stolen in

philadelphia, detroit, other places where you have the minorities, african-americans and others, it was a slap in the face. host: ok. frank is next up. caller: first of all, i think the impeachment is a farce. hat happened -- what happened there was the same thing that happened with all the black lives matter protests all over the united states. these radical brutes infiltrated , and what started to be a peaceful march, turned into people burning things and turning over cars at black lives matter. and that is what happened at the white house. host: what convinces you of that, specifically? caller: because the trump r allies, they were always peaceful. you could go and see wherever he went, those rallies were

peaceful. at the white house, they were told that the crowd was humongous and the needed extra help. and they were denied three or four times. even donald trump said, i will send the national guard, and they turned that down. this was a set up. host: when it comes to the events of yesterday, what was the strongest case made? caller: the strongest case the made was what they made in the other case, this is a total farce and these people are out to get him and they do not want him in their future. host: frank in delaware. now we will hear from tony on the independent line in pennsylvania. caller: good morning. the prior caller just made that nonsense up. trump rallies are not peaceful. when they are, it is only

because trump supporters there. at one of his rallies, he paid so he could slap one of them. host: are they always comprised of trump supporters, do you think? caller: yes, that is why they are peaceful. but anybody who degrees with him and attends the rallies, they get slapped around. and donald trump has claimed he would pay anybody's lawyer's fees that do something like that. host: what did you thing about the events of yesterday? caller: sorry? host: what did you think about the house impeachment managers' case and the response from the trump team? caller: i believe the first lawyer that spoke on trump's behalf was incoherent.

no one could understand what he was talking about, i do not even think he could. on the democratic side, they did a hell of a job. but it is irrelevant, because donald trump should be charged with murder. it should be a criminal case, not an impeachment case. he's already impeached. this is going nowhere. donald trump stirred this pot. he stated that there was going to be a big protest on january 6, it is going to be wild. peacefully protesting is not wild. he seen this coming. host: ok, tony and pennsylvania. this is -- in pennsylvania. this is eve. hello. caller: i am completely in agreement with the previous caller, because from the very beginning trump's rallies, he

told those people to dig deep. those people in opposition to them, that they needed to be carried out on a stretcher. on top of that, there were african-americans there at the rally, and there was a guy that hit a guy, and he said he would pay his bail. so my thing of it is, the defense yesterday that the opposition put on against donald trump, they were completely right. i do not know what his lawyer was saying. they were rambling on. and everything was right there for people to see. if you do not believe your own eyes, what do you have to expect here? host: what is it about the house impeachment managers, their argument, that was most compelling in your mind? caller: because they said that they put, they said they put

together a movie -- they didn't have to put together a movie, i was watching that day when the insurrection was going on. those people were there because of donald trump, he told them to fight like hell, and they went down there and fought like hell and killed people. he should be charged for that. yes, he should be impeached. it does not make any difference because he is out of office. no, i do not want to see him again, like a lot of people, republicans and democrats, and independents -- we do not want to see him again. host: stacy on the independent line, hello. caller: good morning, america. i think the most compelling part of the impeachment trial was donald trump's attorneys, bruce castro junior stated what i stated all along, he stated the 14th amendment, section iii,

that states no senator, republican -- i mean, no representative, no president or military person should aid or give comfort to domestic terrorists. if you dof, you have no business i -- if you do, you have no business and office. they should not even be in office. how can you be a juror when you are an accomplice to the crime that happened on january 6. ted cruz, marjorie greene, and -- host: you had six republican senators voting for the impeachment trial, saying it was unconstitutional, so not every senator believes as you think they do. caller: i agree with that and kudos to lynn for standing up for what is right and doing what is right, what they took an oath to do, to protect the

constitution and this country. the other ones in the republican party senate, they will not vote to convict this man because they are part of this insurrection. they gave aid and comfort, they gave tours to those terrorists the day before. if you have ever been to the capitol, it is like a maze. but they had maps. as far as the black lives matter protests, go look at who was arrested. the buffalo boys shot that federal police officer during the black lives matter. it was two white brothers that livestreamed burning down the police station. host: you made your point, stacy. one of the president's legal team yesterday, bruce castor, and david schoen making their case as far as the proceedings yesterday.

here he is talking about the role of the writers. -- rioters. [video clip] >> you will not hear any member of the team representing former president trump say anything, but in the strongest possible way denounced the violence of the rioters and those that breached that capital, the very citadel of our democracy, the symbol that comes on television whenever you are trying to explain that we are talking about the united states. to have it attacked is repugnant in every sense of the word. the loss-of-life is horrific. i've spent many long years prosecuting homicide cases, catching criminals that have committed murders. i have quite extensive experience in dealing with the

aftermath of of those things. certainly, as a member of many police organizations myself, we mourn the loss of the capitol police officer, who i understand is laying not too far away from here. host: again, those events from yesterday, the case made by the house impeachment managers, the defense of the president's team on the question of constitutionality, all available on our website at c-span.org, if you want to watch the events from yesterday. today, you can see the events as the house impeachment managers start their case at noon, on c-span2 and on c-span.org. or you can download our radio app to listen along. a vr says it was john roberts -- viewer says it was john

roberts presiding, that should have been the end of the story. john from twitter said, "mob rule can never be justified and those who insight the mob should face consequences." a caller on the democrats line. caller: good morning. i'm of the opinion that this child is -- trial is a play from the gallery, because republicans will never convict him. he violated the constitution, he incited violence. he knew exactly that -- to validate elections. he organize things close to the

capitol. he didn't send for reinforcements to protect the -- arm of the government. he knew what was going on. he should be held responsible. but the republicans are not going to convict him. it's unfortunate. host: do you think the house democratic team will be able to make their case, and if so, why? caller: there is a lot of background evidence, evidence before the day of the incident. the whole country had been mobilizing to come down to the capitol on the day of the senate validating the election. he knew about that. if it was black lives matter, they would've put up barricades. host: the washington times highlights other reactions from the six senators that voted to

move the trial forward, saying it was constitutional to proceed with the impeachment trial of a former president. pat toomey of pennsylvania said the impeachment managers "made strong arguments." that the attorneys for donald trump had a "weaker case." lisa murkowski of alaska saying she was stunned by bruce castor's opening arguments. "i could not figure out where he was going. he spent 45 minutes going somewhere, but i do not think he helped with a better understanding of where he was coming from on the constitutionality of this." that was reaction from the washington times, six senators total, including bill cassidy, susan collins, lisa murkowski of alaska joining that group. pat toomey and mitt romney, as well.

now a caller on the republican line. caller: first of all, i want to say that the country has obviously divided in half. biden said he would unite. he could've turned this whole thing off. every republican that voted for trump knows that this is a joke, and they did cheat in the election. trump came in and turned everything upside down, calling out the swamp creatures. they art ancient. -- are ancient. it's a little club that they have run for decades, and he got in and he united everybody. nobody is seeing the real truth of these riots, how they edit everything. nancy pelosi, this is her game,

and she knew ahead of time, before all this thing happened, about the insurrection and she didn't do anything about it. she wanted it to happen. i think if they investigated, she had something to do with it. host: what do you think about yesterday's reaction from the six republican senators of that voted to move this thing forward? caller: they are the same ones that are democrats. mitt romney, he's upset because he lost, he will never be president, and people always go against this president, who helped him get in, by the way. he has a bug up his butt. host: marine fr -- maureen in new jersey. caller: i just want to comment on january 6, it's terrible, absolutely terrible, especially

for the people that got hurt and killed. but i do not really think that donald trump aggravated the situation. he might have said something, making it seem like he aggravated the situation, now it is all his fault again, like it is all his fault for everything else. i think who should be impeached is nancy pelosi and the far-left. and i do not understand why the fences all around, all around washington -- host: but to the events of the impeachment trial, did you watch and what did you think about the president's team and other performance? -- and their performance?

caller: i thought they were fabulous. and those who voted against donald trump, it's sickening. host: when you say fabulous, what do you mean? give me an example of why. caller: i do not think that they should have waited, what was it, for that police officer to die. host: why do you think the defense team was fabulous? caller: 1.i am trying to make is -- one point i am trying to make is why did the democrats wait so long to impeach donald trump? host: let's hear from barbie on the independent line in nashville. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: let's see, i have been writing my senators, which is totally useless in this red state that we live in, but i am hoping that our senators in

tennessee, plus the other 42 that decided not to proceed with this impeachment trial, i feel like they are missing an opportunity to actually turn things around, and our to senators -- two senators, i was hoping -- host: you are talking about bill hagerty and marsha blackburn? caller: correct. i feel like they have an opportunity here to become senatorial stars or something. they are missing out on an opportunity to get other voters, besides their trump -- if they are waiting, you know, for trump people to reelect them in the next election, i just do not see

that as being super valid. if they really want to get independents and democrats on their side, they may want to reconsider. host: are you suggesting they should vote to convict president trump of incitement, and if so, why is that? caller: absolutely they should. i think that that would, number one, it would make them famous. they would be interviewed by everybody. they would get way more attention. they would get the attention of people that would not normally vote for them, that probably would the next time they are up for reelection. host: why do you think that is a good reason to make those votes? caller: well, for one thing, the guy is guilty. trump is guilty and he needs to be punished.

the other thing is i think that there is a whole lot of people that really are fiscally conservative, and socially liberal, and i think if they could tap into those people instead of waiting on these trump supporters -- the trump supporters are going to be gone in two years. this fad is going to fade out. host: we will hear from california, the republican line, this is john. caller: what i want to put out there is that this impeachment trial is a sham, a naked attempt by the democrats, just like they did in the first impeachment, to silence and powerful political enemy and make sure the american people can never vote for him again. that's their stated purpose in this, we want donald trump never to be able to run for another

office. it's not make donald trump not able to run for another office, it's to make us not be able to vote for him again. and they have opened up a pandora's box and it cannot be closed, because people like me cannot wait for 2022, we cannot wait to win the midterms and impeach joe biden and harris, throw them out on the sidewalk, and install our own president, sensor nancy pelosi in chuck schumer. host: why do you think that will happen? caller: it is going to happen. they have opened up a pandora's box. they are not operating in a vacuum. this is sad commentary on our country. they have stabbed democracy in the heart. host: what do you think about the performance of the president's team? caller: they did pretty good. they did a pretty decent job. they weren't fantastic, they

were not clarence barrow or whatever, but look at the democrat side. all i saw was a bunch of fake tears. oh, we were so scared. where were these brave defenders of democracy fighting for the capitol instead of crying and getting ptsd? why weren't they fighting for the capitol? host: let's hear from another californian, larry. hi. caller: good morning. lock him up. no, it was pretty good the video that the democrats put together, and showed exactly what we saw that day. we saw it on tv. my family was calling, saying, what is going on? host: what about the video proves incitement? caller: when he was talking into sending them over. here's the deal.

host: expand on that. caller: listen to me, because i know what i'm talking about. they are not going to convict biden has to pardon him, right before they go and vote. if they pardon him, that will be it. host: why do you think that will be a possibility? caller: because they will not convict them -- convict him. the republicans are scared of the kkk and nra which run the gop. host: that is larry in california. for the hour that we have been doing this we have been getting your reaction to the start of the senate impeachment trial. the house -- of former president donald trump. you heard from both managers and the defense team. it is still available on c-span.org. if you want to see the proceedings of today, they are slated to start at noon, you can do that. c-span2, [no audio], -- c-span.org, and are radio app.

that is what you can expect, and you can expect more of the same from the house impeachment managers. they talked about the idea of holding the former president accountable. [video clip] >> the past is never dead. this is not even the past, this just happened and it is still happening, look around you as you come to work. i really do not believe that our attention span is so short and our sense of duty so frail, and fractional -- factional loyalties all presuming that the president can invoke an attack on congress itself and get away with it just because it occurred near the end of his term. after a betrayal like this, there cannot be unity without accountability. this is exactly what the constitution calls for, the framers' original understanding

of -- and this chamber's own president and the very words all confirm unquestionably, indisputably that president trump must stand trial for his high crimes and misdemeanors against the american people. we must not, we cannot continue down the path of partisanship and division that turned the capital into an armed -- the capitol into an armed fortress. senators, it falls to you. by holding this trial, and delivering justice. [end video clip] host: all of that available on c-span.org. you can call us and tweet us at 202-748-8003, and post on our twitter feed and facebook page. mark from our twitter feed staying -- saying that "the president told his followers to

fight like hell and they did that." lizzie saying "showing the videos was an attempt to inflame people and it did not work." you can give your perspective on that. we will do this for one more half-hour and then we will pick up to talk about the same subject at the end of the show. until then you can give us a call, reach out on social media or text. shawna, south carolina, the republican line. go ahead. caller: first of all, i thought in this country before you go on trial you have to be arrested. but, you know, we have -- and a lot of this started way back when those scumbags in washington and others around this country started allowing mail-in voting, which was a joke. host: take it to the events of yesterday. what did you think of the start

of what took place and what did you think of the presentations? caller: well, the democrat side disgusts me. i mean, i am a republican. they have been after trump ever since he got in, and they are after him now. i do not think he will be impeached. his lawyers, i really liked them. i think they made a lot of sense with the constitution, and, i do not think president trump will be impeached, and i hope he is not. but, i am really surprised that this has not happened long before this. people rising up. they are sick of what these politicians are doing to the american people, our country. we are sick of it. host: did you approve of the

actions of the crowd? caller: no, i do not approve of violence, no. i do not approve of violence, but i am quite surprised that that has not happened sooner. the majority of the american people are sick of it. host: that is shawna, and south carolina calling on the line for republicans as part of the discussion of yesterday's events. joining us for a preview, seth cohen joining us on the phone. good morning, thanks for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: we saw what happened yesterday, video and arguments on both sides, what do we expect from the house impeachment managers? guest: the managers have rules for today and they have eight hours starting at noon to present their arguments. yesterday was focused on the constitutionality which the senate to devote to affirm that

they have constitutionality over the impeachment trial of former president trump. today it is supposed to get into the facts of january 6 and the events leading up to it, and what role of the president's belief that he won the election played into the mob that stormed the capital on january 6. we expect to hear more from the impeachment managers and seven other house members that are part of the team. host: any preview of what evidence is going to be presented, and are we going to see more video like yesterday? guest: we could. the managers showed a rather explicit video inter-splicing video from the crowd, video from the president -- former president's speech and activity within the congress as they were

certifying the election for joe biden. we could see more of that video played. they have tv monitors and speakers set up to be able to do that, and the crux of their argument is that in the lead up to january 6, president trump was building this argument that he had lost the election and got his supporters ginned up for a potential mob at the capital and compelled people to come to washington and said it is going to be wild, which is something that they have referenced a number of times, so i expect that you will see video, tweets, some c-span footage as they make the argument that most of this case has played out in public, so the audio and visual aids will be critical. host: we saw senator cassidy go ahead and vote and continue on with this even when senator rand paul pulled a vote on the same topic, devoted with rand paul. are any other senators on the

fence after yesterday's presentation by the president's team. guest: mitch mcconnell had let it be known privately and they are reporting this on bloomberg that he has decided despite having voted that the trial is unconstitutional that there is senator kevin cramer who was talking and made the point, it takes some mental gymnastics is the word he used to go from declaring a trial unconstitutional and vote to convict somebody in the same trial, so it seems unlikely that any more than at max the six republicans that voted that the trial was constitutional devote to convict. senator cassidy's case is interesting. the vote to convict, the vote was to continue debate on the motion rather than on the motion itself and it was not to dismiss the trial per se. that was the vote today. senator cassidy said i wanted to

hear the arguments on the constitutionality and i am satisfied. and he joined these five other republicans who had previously voted with democrats to table the discussion together. host: looking at all of the senators, how effective or at least from talking to them from -- was the presentation from the video? guest: as far as we can tell, the video was moving. remember, most if not all of these senators were on the hill for the attack, and while they were in the chamber or an undisclosed location they did not see the events as it was unfolding. like many of us they have seen clips circulated on the internet and appear on tv and have gotten a better idea of how dire the situation was on january 6. it did lead to the death of at least five people, and frankly could have been worse. as senators are watching, many of them were transfixed as far as reporters have seen, taking

notes pretty dutifully, they were moved by, -- by congressman raskin who was a day on the hill after his son's birth. the senators were pretty unimpressed with the first presentation by bruce castor of pennsylvania. he was the leadoff eternity -- leadoff attorney for president trump and he had this meandering argument that was hard to follow for me and senators in the chamber, but they were more convinced by david shown on the unconstitutionality as he sought, and that is why i think you saw 44 republicans voted to dismiss the trial outright. host: democrats were concerned as the proceedings go on, the work of the senate and president biden's efforts in making his campaign promises and fulfilling them should go on. how are they balancing that? host: on monday -- guest: on monday, they voted to

confirm the veterans affairs secretary and deputy second to secretary of defense. the trial takes up the floor time, the senate will not confirm any more nominees until it wraps up, unless they get unanimous consent, the consent of 100 senators to pop -- pause the top -- trial and let us do this nomination business quick. in the meantime you will see nominees work through the committee process. there are hearings for the office of management and budget, and a markup on thursday tomorrow to report to the floor the nominees for the department of education and labor. so those could come up for a floor vote. in the meantime, mccrights -- democrats are writing the relief package that is being hashed out behind the scenes. there is work going on behind the scenes while the trial is ongoing, this is a dual track happening. the floor itself is busy at the

minute and cannot take up any nominations or legislation. host: the nomination concerning merrick garland, what is the style -- status? guest: dick durbin and chuck grassley announced that judge merrick garland would get his hearing to be attorney general february 22 and 23rd. typically the 22nd is where the nominee testifies followed by expert with this is the day after -- witnesses the day after and agreed to have a vote on march 1 this and the nominee to the floor. merrick garland is the same judge that president obama nominated to the supreme court which republicans blocked and filled the seat with justice gorsuch. garland has a second life and is finally getting a hearing that was delayed as leaders chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell were working out an organizing resolution that would allow a hearing to go forward with just democratic cooperation. host: this is zach who reports

on the senate for "national journal." thank you for your time. guest: any time, thank you. host: back to your calls concerning the impeachment trials. robert, north carolina. democrat line. thank you for waiting. caller: i was calling because i was listening to an earlier caller talking more about the impeachment, and i believe that mr. trump is not going to be impeached. mainly, my reason why is because of the senators. there are a lot of senators, even in a divisive situation, and a lot of their supporters and voters voted for them are calling and saying not to impeach. we are in an atmosphere more where they are looking at their jobs more than the people. even though constitutionally wise i believe 45 has violated the constitution and his oath,

but because we are in a divisive situation, just as george wallace, who was never elected for president versus what is going on right now. george wallace was actually not elected, however, trump was elected mainly because of the divisive news of the situation and growing demographic in the united states. host: from stella's -- stella, in florida. republican line. caller: thank you for being with us every morning. i would just like to say that i voted for president obama and i am a republican because i wanted him over the other candidate, but i will say this. what is going on now is making a lot of people that voted for who

was best for our country to take and not do it. like the last caller said, people want whoever they voted for, republican or democrat to -- on the impeachment trial to take and back there side. well, i do not believe, me personally, that president trump was responsible for what went on. i think the people that did go in there and do the outrageous stuff that they did should be prosecuted. but i think personally that this was just what the democrats were hoping for. host: why do you think that the former president holds no responsibility? caller: because i did not see him tell them go in that white house and rack all kind -- wreck

all kinds of habit. host: the u.s. capitol. that is ok. i just wanted to clarify. that is stella in florida. let us go to joan in antioch, tennessee. democrat line. caller: my comment was, i do not understand why the people, not all of them but some of them are still defending this man? he has done everything i can think of on the basis of what he incited, this whole riot. i do not understand. i am an older lady and i have never seen anything like this, and these people are holding him some way up on a pedestal. this man is more guilty than charles manson was. host: do you think that the house impeachment managers made their case as far as why they

have charged him and voted on articles of impeachment against him on incitement? caller: on the democrat side? host: house impeachment, democrat side. yes. caller: i think they made their case. when they get through with it it will be laid out. everything, because they have not shown everything. some of the stuff i know that i saw them talk about, they have not shown that part of it. host: wasn't more powerful watching the video or what they actually said? caller: it was more powerful because what they were doing, putting it together, and you go back to when he started talking about the fraud and stuff and how he threatened -- i will not say threatened, he tried to manipulate the governors of georgia and all of that stuff, and then only one thing and i will go after i say this.

there was one guy, i forget his name, he got on there and try to show everybody that the election was not fraud, there was no fraud in it. and he pleaded with the president to stop doing the stuff he was doing because it would cost somebody's life. guess what, it did. host: we will go to ohio, independent line. this is alan. caller: how are you today? host: fine. caller: i think the american people are fed up. we have a house divided, they are not bringing people together, and if they are going to do these type of trials, they need to go back and get everybody involved in this type of thing. there were people in the democratic side who said we need to fight. we had senators who were shot on a baseball field. they should go after those individuals because that incited if you want to call it a riot, yes it was. that was wrong.

host: since it centers on the former president, what do you think about his role and what is brought against him? caller: i believe that a lot of people will remember this when.. he who speaks of himself, speaks of his own glory. i have a problem with both sides. this election it was hard to hope -- devote on either side. as soon as he got in office he makes a statement that it was black lives matter, there would've been thousands of troops there. that is not helpful to where this -- to help this country heal. you cannot say things like that. host: how does that relate to the events of yesterday? caller: because, they are making a trial and it seems to be hypocritical, because they are only going one way. they need to go further if they want to get this person. they note -- they need to hold people for accountability just like that baseball incident. host: david and concord, -- in

concord, north carolina. republican line. caller: you have got to look at it this way, the democratic party started inciting trump for five years every day. every day, and then you all come in here and he tells the american public, which was there for him to stand up and fight for what was stolen. he predicted it before it happened. and then, they just turned it around and they keep turning it around. five years they have put this man down. i have been out in public and seen it happen. i see the democratic people, somebody will be wearing a hat, a mag i had, and it was violent, and it was the democratic people who were doing the violence. host: specifically, how does that relate to the events of

january 6 and the impeachment trial we are experiencing. caller: trump told his people who were there and said we have a fight, and those people in their minds they were not there to destroy and they were not there to do it, they were there to show that we care about this country. and we are sick and tired of what is going on. the lawyer even showed it yesterday in video how it started back in 2015 and kept going. you get one day with trump and then fight for me and you turn him into a murderer. god bless her, she served our country and she was shot trying to fight for us. the police officer, he was there to protect us, but he did his job. the other three people in the

crowd, it was a medical emergency and the media said that we have people down. we have people down every day from covid and people do not seem to care about this anymore. they push it behind the door. host: that is david in north carolina. we will go to maine, independent line. this is joe. caller: good morning, thank you for taking my call. there was no democrat who had a meeting in trump tower. which democrat was that? and just go down the line. 140 contacts between november and january, between trump associates and russians. host: let us relate this to the events of yesterday, how does it relate? caller: here we are. we would not be here if trump did not say that this election was stolen. he has every right to say it,

what he needs to put proof up. 60 cases, no proof. what we heard is crab, and what i'd like to ask, and i wanted to ask the gentleman before, you think we will hear lindsey graham saying what he did after the insurrection took place at the capital of the united states of the united states. host: we will hear from house impeachment managers today, and then the president's team, and they will get 16 hours to make their case. whether both sides take all of that time, that is yet to be seen. you can see all of it if you wish. several fronts actually. c-span2 is where we normally cover the senate so that is where you can watch the senate impeachment trial starting at noon. if you are on your computer you can do that at c-span.org or the radio app. here is some more from the president's attorney yesterday.

the argument that he made about the fairness and impartiality of the case, particularly because it was not presided over by the chief justice of the supreme court. [video clip] >> with all due respect, then president trump suffered a tangible detriment from speaker pelosi's actions which violates his rights to due process of law, but also his express constitutional right to have the chief justice preside. that detriment includes the loss of the right to a conflict free, impartial presiding officer, with all due respect. the very purpose behind requiring the chief justice to preside over the impeachment trial along with the other benefits of having the two branches combined, the chief justice from the judiciary and the senate for the impeachment trial of the president represented in federalist 66. one of the reasons at the chief justice is chosen for the task. mr. trump faces a situation

where the presiding officer will serve as judge with all the powers and rules endow him with and your with a vote. and, beyond that, the presiding officer, although enjoying an honorable reputation, has been his vocal and adamant opponent throughout the trump administration and, in the very matter on trial, the presiding officer respectfully already has publicly announced his fixed view before hearing any argument or evidence that mr. trump must be convicted on the articles of impeachment for the senate, and that members in both parties have an obligation to vote to convict as well. nowhere in this great country would any american, and certainly not this honorable presiding officer consider this scenario to be consistent with any stretch of the american concept of due process and a fair trial, and certainly not

even the appearance of either. by no stretch of the imagination could any fair-minded american be confident that a trial so conducted would or could be a fair trial promised by the leader. [end video clip] host: the trial is being presided over by senator pat lahey from vermont who serves as president pro tem. you will see his presence as well as others. in reston, virginia. democrat line, this is chris. caller: good morning, the man who called covid-19 a hoax, i got hope -- covid-19 and i am isolated. for people to compare black lives matter to overthrowing our government is not fair. they were protesting brutality of the police. and all democrats condemned anyone who violated the law.

and, committed crimes. now, for the constitutionality of the trial. first of all, mcconnell said trump incited violence, and he delayed, the republicans delayed it until after january 20. it is constitutional for me. the house manager did a great job. they showed how former officials were removed from office, they showed it based on british laws, and for the republicans to complain about we are getting trump, he violated laws, norms, and ethics, everything from the beginning. there was russian collusion. host: ok, we will leave it there. bill in ohio, republican line.

caller: good morning. when the house managers got done yesterday, i was not quite sure if i was listening to the parliaments over in england, they did not quote anything out of the constitution verbatim, whereas mr. trump's team did. unless i am missing something, they did a real fine job of quoting out of the united states constitution. and, i think this whole thing is a sham. and, i cannot see where it will bring this country together. it will further divide it, and that is just my opinion. host: one more call from columbus, ohio. independent line. caller: good morning. i have a couple quick things to

say. first, i watched most of the proceedings yesterday. but i also saw when i was watching c-span, of course, when the riots broke out, and my position is anybody can say almost anything they want. it is the individuals' responsibility on what they do based on what they hear. and, the people that stormed the capital, each one of those people are responsible for their own actions. that is number one. on occasion, trump could be a real jerk, but i think he did a lot of good rings for the united states, and saying, fight like hell, ok, that is generally used, it does not mean going pound the bejeebies out of somebody.

my first point is individual responsibility for actions. my second point was that i watch the proceedings yesterday. and, what i observed was the house managers were operating on a motion and hysteria. something horrible happened, but perpetuate this emotional reaction, whereas trump's attorneys were more analytical, and a little bit more logical, and cooler heads. host: ok. i apologize only because, and i appreciate your call and all the others who participated in this hour and a half, the only reason we are taking a pause now is because there is a lot of other things happening besides impeachment on capitol hill, including work on the covid relief plan. we will get a couple perspectives from it from our

guest. we will be joined by alfredo ortiz from the job creators network to talk about small business owners and what they are looking for from president biden, and later on we will be joined by a key member of the energy and congress -- commerce committee, representative jan schakowsky. those coming up on "washington journal." ♪ >> confirmation hearings for the nominee for the director of office of management and budget -- and budget is today at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span3. watch live today. watch live and on-demand at c-span.org, or listen on the radio app. ♪ you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's table katella -- cable

television companies in 1979 and we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span as a public service. host: so, for the next half hour we will talk about the issue of small business, particularly as the president is working on a plan and part of it include specific elements toward small business, one of the topics of discussion being the $15 minimum wage and how that might impact small business owners. we will be joined by alfredo ortiz of the job creators network in a little bit. he will be joining us to talk about and getting their perspective on the impact of small business and what they are looking for from the biden administration and that elements of the minimum wage. and, if we increase the $15. you can start making your input on the topic known if you want.

if you are a republican call 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. perhaps you are a small business owner and you want to give us input from your perspective on this topic, 202-748-8003 and you can also text us at that number too. alfredo ortiz is the president and ceo of the job creators network. tell us a little bit about your organization and can you explain how it is funded and the perspective that you take when it comes to small businesses. guest: we represent 30 million small business owners that employ about 60 million hard-working americans, and that was pre-covid and pre-lockdown. it is from all industries and different demographics and all different political preferences. it is just about small

businesses, the backbone of our country and communities. right now they are suffering, that is the biggest concern, especially as we talk about the $15 minimum wage. it is like handing an anchor to a drowning man. this is the worst time to be having this discussion, and even if we look at bernie sanders's plan of a five-year rollout. in june 2021, it goes from $7.25 to $9.50 in a matter of months. small businesses are already dying, look at what is happening in new york city in california. there barely serve -- they are barely surviving and we are looking at a collapse of our small business community, and that will not help the economy. host: what is the current aspect of the economy for those who wake the minimum wage and what would you say to those people making that minimum wage? guest: a lot of the conversation are people who lost their jobs

with the keystone pipeline cancellation. these things can be fixed when you look at the actual problem of $15 for entry-level positions. those are never intended to be the wages for those type of positions. those are for the youth. for those folks who are in those positions that have been there for a while, we need to talk about a broader education or skills assistance for these folks so that we can do that. and i can guarantee, we have done a tremendous job -- when you look at germany and their apprenticeships, we need to look at skill training to increase their output and what their actual worth is. that is the biggest problem, we are trying to fix a problem with the wrong solution. we have to give them the skill sets to earn greater rages -- wages. if you mandate the $15 minimum wage, technology will take over. the cbo said 2.7 million jobs

are at risk at a $15 minimum wage. i read through the report and they glazed over the technology issue. i can guarantee with technology coming down and the wage increase, that inflection point, we will hit and you will see technology take over entry-level jobs. host: there is a comment from the economist who talks about the minimum wage increase and says "when it comes to looking at the numbers what happens is yes, when you raise the minimum wage employers hire few low-wage workers, at the factor is offsetting is that even though lawyers are hiring fewer workers, fewer workers are leaving their jobs." how would you respond? guest: if you look at where we are, we are 10 million jobs short of where we were in 2020, including 4 million people who have left the labor force. a lot of those folks who are out of jobs are women. they have been hit hard, especially because of school

shutdowns. from an economy standpoint, this is not a one-size-fits-all solution. within the covid relief bill currently being discussed, there is a very powerful and great idea that we do support which is enhancing and expanding the earnings from tax credit. it is wonky and we call it the working americans credit because we think that is a fantastic way of addressing the lower wage earners without really sacrificing our small businesses. host: we have another perspective from the house budget committee chair john yarmuth. he talks about the biden relief plan efforts to pass it and how it would extend stagnant and unequal economic recovery and low interest rates would also include for spending in this process. you will get his thoughts and then your perspective on it. [video clip] >> past crises have made it clear that doing too little cost us far more. week support will lead to ak shaped recovery -- a k-shaped

recovery causing danger to our -- our budget outlooks. without the american rescue plan, cbo estimates it will take three years before employment turns to plant -- pre-plandemic levels. -- pre-pandemic levels. but with support we can come back to full employment within 12 months. we have the plan and ability to do this, and we can afford to do it. interest rates and inflation are at historic lows. lower than even before the pandemic, and the return on smart investments in the economy has never been higher. economists are telling us and begging us to use the physical space we have. they are warning if we do not go big, we will be responsible for a painful and unequal recovery. [end video clip] host: what was your reaction to that. guest: it is easy to spend other people's money.

if you look at the latest bill it will be a total of $6 trillion, 150% of our output. that is plenty of spending, and there is almost a trillion dollars that has not been spent for the last relief bill. we need to be smart about this. there is something called inflation, but i know democrats are pushing modern monetary theory, which janet yellen also supports, but this is the idea that because of low interest rate you can borrow unlimited levels. that is what happened to venezuela, and that could happen to us if we keep on using debt spending to finance every single socialist wishlist agenda item. host: the efforts of small business with the biden administration in power with our guest, alfredo ortiz of the job creators network. 202-748-8001, republicans. 202-748-8000, democrats. independents, 202-748-8002.

if you are a small business owner, 202-748-8003. let us start up with isaac on our line for independents. you are on with our guest, go ahead. caller: thank you. i realized that -- when i was listening to the callers, i understand why we were in this mess in the first place and just to be clear, are we still speaking about the impeachment chop dust trailer is this a new topic? a new -- host: a new topic,. if you want to give us a call in the last half hour, and try to get through, please do so. democrat line, go ahead. caller: good morning. as far as i agree that people cannot live on the present minimum wage, but the minimum wage is like corporate welfare,

because people making that have to rely on the social safety net , government food stamps, and etc.. so, one way or another the public taxpayers are taking up the slack. and, technology is going to take over regardless. the minimum wage is not going to affect that. technology, robots, that will continue, but it will cause inflation, and we are already seeing that, the way the stock market is inflated, as crazy as it may seem. the fed has said their goal is inflation, which is going to hurt everybody in the long run, and you already see it in the record highs on the stock market. they have done a great job of making the rich richer, but when it comes to the guy that is

working two or three jobs just to keep his head above water. republicans clutch their pearls and say we cannot, but what about the deficit? host: thank you for the call. go ahead. guest: i mean, i think his point is really, i can see where he is coming from. there is going to be a technology hit, i mentioned that, and an inflection point. if you remember with plasma screens and all of that, there are thick -- they are thousands of dollars and right now they are hundreds of dollars. in mcdonald's they have completely replaced the cashiers with kiosks. they only have two people working to get the food out. ultimately they will be a point where the people actually making the actual food behind the scenes, they will be replaced as well. look what doordash invested in.

the reality is that we have to keep the training wages where they are. let us bring them up a little if we need to, but we have to remember what they are for, entry-level positions and jobs, they are training. if there are people who have been there for long term, that is a bigger issue and we have to identify them and give them skills. what i do not understand is why we are raising floors when we are not raising ceilings. let us fight for $50,000 a year jobs for people who are stuck in minimum wage jobs. let us give them the skills that they want and need to be able to be whatever they want to be. but we do not need to mandate these federal mandated wages at $15 an hour to make it happen. host: there is a story in "the wall street journal" as part of building his support on the $15 in our front, mr. biden will eat -- with -- will meet with

leaders such as walmart, j.p. morgan and chase. guest: they sound like small businesses. host: they say that the business roundtable put back -- pushed back saying that "patient reflect where people live." one that something -- wouldn't that something that should be considered? guest: i would consider that over federally mandated wage. we have half the states that have implemented wage increases that are above or at $15 already. but that is applicable to their state. new york versus west virginia. there is a minute -- a reason why senator manchin opposes the $15 minimum wage because that would kill jobs in his state across the board when there are about $1625 an hour -- $16.25 an hour. we just have to do, if we are going to do this, look at the state-by-state and allow flexibility.

because even within industries, there are differences. look at amazon versus the profit margin of a restaurant, 35% profit margins for the restaurant -- for amazon and the restaurant is about 1.3%. host: jason is directing the saying "you can bet that mr. ortiz is not supportive of union jobs. if an employer cannot manage nine dollars an hour within two years should they be in business? i bet his definition of small business is bigger than mine." guest: i talked to small businesses all the time. my dyad was a tap -- my dad was a tailor and my mom was a house keeper. i am taken aback because i completely understand what it is like. i am not against union wages, i am against federal mandated rate -- wages that do not take into account running a small business. i know what it is like to sign the back and front of a check.

from that perspective we need to be sensitive to small business owners. they are the backbone, two thirds of new job growth is in the hands of small businesses. over half of our economy in terms of jobs are in the hands of small businesses. if you want to decimate our entire economy, decimate small businesses the way we are with the lockdowns and the teachers refusing to go back to schools because parent cannot go back to work. this is how we decimate our economy. i stand up for our small businesses every day. host: what defines a small business in your mind? guest: anything from one up to our sweet spot is about 65 to 100 employees. anything above that quite frankly they are doing well on their own. they have their own lawyers, they have opportunities to engage in some kind of political lobbying and stuff like that. we try to represent the smallest of the small, and from that

perspective we are proud of the work. we represent that pizza owner down the street, the dry cleaner the hairdresser, yoga instructors and fitness instructors. we represent all of that, 23 million sole proprietors and the other 7 million have employees with only about the top richest small businesses are probably about 100,000 of them. and frankly they do not need representation because they are doing fine on their own. host: mike in new jersey for alfredo ortiz calling on the line for democrats. go ahead. guest: good morning -- caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. in the beginning of the conversation, first of all the teachers have their reasons in certain areas of not going back to school that is another argument for another day. the $15 minimum wage, you said that it was -- you are to

increase it going to automation. that is going to happen no matter what, that is not a good argument. the other point -- you can make the argument in certain areas that the $15 and hour wage might not work and in certain areas it may work. but, as far as young people going into the jobs, navy they could adjust it for their. but the $15 an hour wage is not a starting -- it was originally started as a starting wage but it turned into a regular wage and a lot of areas for certain parts of labor. i think the $15 an hour wage should not be put in with a stimulus package that is being made now, but it is something that the country has to look into. seven dollars plus is not going to cut it. thank you for taking my call. host: go ahead. guest: i will start with the last part of your question, i agree. i think it should not be included in the covid relief

bill, i think it is a very important topic to be discussed. like i mentioned, the earned tax credit as a possible solution to addressing the problem, because i think you and i are in agreement that we have to make sure those who are making that entry-level wage who have been there for a while, more than six months, who have been in the jobs for more than a year, two years, or three years. that is a broader systemic issue, and that is the biggest concern. in terms of the automation point, you are right, it is going to be happening, but the pace at which it might happen will accelerate when you have these kinds of federally mandated wages. so that inflection point which might have been three or five years down the road has moved by three years further and closer to us because automation continues to go down in terms of cost and price. host: one of the elements of the american rescue plan would

include expanding paid sick leave for workers. what do you think? guest: from that perspective if we look at a short-term covid issue, i understand by it is needed. but, we need to look at all of the other aspects of social programs out there that have already been voted on, where the money is already in play, and i keep coming back to the earned income tax credit, it is efficient and effective. i like the idea of expanding that. it has problems but with tweaks we can leverage something already in place that we do not have to put a lot a bureaucracy in place. you have to let americans understand that this is applicable to them so we can give the proper support without killing small businesses. it is the backbone of our community, 30 million small businesses. i saw a report that one third of those businesses might not make it to may. how will we take care of 10 million small businesses that employ people if they are not in

business, and how will we take care of those folks, this is a real problem, by adding a $15 minimum wage we are talking a 31 percent increase in debt according to bernie sanders' plan. host: couldn't argument be made if you offer six leave a keeps a workforce in place and that helps the employer over the long run? guest: as long as we do not create a situation with the last unemployment checks where you created an incentive to actually stay home. we cannot keep creating these incentives where people make more money by staying home than they do working. this was a serious issue that are small business owners were very loud about that nobody heard that said this would be an issue to bring workers back, and it was, and it was difficult for small business owners. i am not talking an amazon type business, i am talking that pizza guy down the street, the

hair salon, it was very difficult for them to bring back their workers. host: washington state, independent line. this is pam. caller: yes. up in washington, which is home to nintendo, bellevue, and microsoft, when you go into those communities there is a lot of immigrant workers from asia. that is one issue. two, the vocational training and high schools has completely gone away. three, for technology taking over small businesses, how do we bring back the manufacturing to american people that are not getting the jobs in bellevue and redmond. technology is definitely taking over, but when you drive through small towns in america like olympia, washington and salem, oregon, you see boarded up stores and they are not technology stores.

they were small businesses started because of the housing crisis in 2008. people had to create a way to make money, and those jobs are gone. so, our vocational training has been swiped out of high school education. where, as a small business proponent, do you play an active role in bringing manufacturing back to this country? guest: those are great questions. the vocational training, i go back that we are big believers in that. we have a program called the fight for 50, the fight for $50,000 per year jobs, electricians, plumbers, and stuff like that. entry-level jobs there are in the $50,000 plus salary range. i am not sure if listeners are from new york, but it is impossible to find electrician or plumber across the country almost, but to the point here, vocational training has been stripped out of our schools.

we have to bring that back. it was made uncool under the obama administration. there is nothing uncool about these great jobs. we have to bring those back. in terms of what are small business is doing to bring some of those back? we are proposing as we do some of this onshoring of business, especially with the ppe and the protection equipment that people are talking about and pharmaceuticals and bringing some of that stuff back to the u.s. for manufacturing, let us give small businesses a disproportionate opportunity for some of the business. let us set up the infrastructures to be able to give these businesses that out of no fault of their own through this pandemic have lost everything that they own and the employees. let us give these folks an opportunity, a disproportionate opportunity and a shot at some of the stuff, and quite frankly,

one plug for what we are trying to do is we relaunched a program that we had a few years back. this is one of the ideas that we have to be able to try and do that, give folks an opportunity to have a shot at some of this business that we will try to bring back from china. host: we are seeing the biden administration make changes to the visa program. how much of an impact is that on small business? guest: not as much. we are talking the big tech firms, those are the ones involved in that conversation. the h1b visa does not come up top three. we are talking for small business owners, they are worried about how they will keep their doors open tomorrow and rising health care costs, and taxes going up, and the potential of this payroll tax cap being removed and that being an impact on them, and they are

worried about further regulations and rising energy costs because of the green new deal proposals being discussed. host: from baltimore, maryland. on the independent line, this is stacy. caller: good morning, a couple of points that i would like to hear your guest to address, i think automation is going to happen anyway like a couple of the other callers said. and, i think that is why your hearing more about universal basic income. your guest also talked about skilled workers, and i was a skilled worker, am a skilled worker. but a profession that was in the rest of our industry still was kind of a low wage. i mean, i was fortunate, and lotta people in that industry and the rest of our industry are not paid well.

also, i do not feel like he answer the question about sick leave. and he seems to be against sick leave. i also have a question, what do you mean by the obama administration made it uncool for trade and everything like that when i remember from that period was his crackdown on for profit schools to take advantage of lower income people who are trying to move up in this society? host: quite a list, so we will let our guest respond. guest: keep me in check and make sure i hit everything. in terms of vocational training, we are proponents of that. and under the obama administration there was not as much as i push for vocational training, it was about four your education. i was fortunate enough to be able to attend -- i was the first one in my family to finish

high school, college, and grad school through the grace of god and hard work through my mother. i love higher education, huge opportunity for folks to go into different vocations and different skilled occupations like electricians and plumbers. that was not made to be cool. it was a good idea to go to your four-year education. that's why bernie sanders is discussing forgiving $1.5 trillion in school debt, because people couldn't make those decisions well enough on their own. if you look at the endowment of these four-year colleges or universities they are booming. they are doing well. my concern is people graduating from these four-year colleges in debt and being told when they were going in that you are not

somebody unless you have a four-year degree, i don't agree with that. there are a lot of folks that don't want that. they want to be able to have a great life and we need to support that and salute that. those jobs are needed in america. our small businesses are struggling to find people with those proper skills. we need to bring that back. one of your callers mentioned it was stripped out of high schools. we need to bring that back as part of our high school education curriculum. that is critical. in terms of sick leave, i'm not opposed to it. we need to do it, but i don't want it to be something that has a never ending story. we need to address the issues of an economy that is struggling right now. we still have 10 million people who are out of jobs from february of 2020. out of 4.5 million of those

jobs, people have left the labor force. in addition to the 10 million, about 15 million people are not currently employed and have left the labor force. this is a real issue. host: one more tweet for you, mr. ortiz. "why is the viability of a business more important than the viability of a worker. no business should arrive because its workers earn less than a living wage." caller: you won't have -- guest: you won't have workers unless you have a job, you have to start with a business that employs people. the government should not be in the business of governing. the government is in the business of creating an environment that facilitates private investment and the economy. it should not be in the business of government.

i completely disagree with that. without private business, without small businesses, medium businesses, large businesses, people don't have jobs. that's the way on economy works. host: our guest's website is jobcreatorsnetwork.com. guest: thank you, have a great day. host: we will be joined by a member of the energy and commerce committee, democratic representative jan schakowsky. we will have that conversation when washington journal continues. ♪ announcer: the senate impeachment trial of donald trump resumes today at noon today with house impeachment managers having up to 16 hours over the next few days to make their case to convict donald trump. watch our live coverage of the senate impeachment trial at noon eastern on c-span two,

c-span.org, or listen live on the c-span radio app. if you miss any part of the proceedings watch at c-span.org/impeachment. ♪ >> american history tv, on c-span three. exploring the people and events that tell the american story every weekend. coming up this presidents' day weekend, saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern on the civil war and all talks about his book "every drop of blood" about abraham lincoln's second inaugural speech, considered one of the greatest speeches in american political history. sunday on all histories, virginia coleman describes her experience as a chemist for the manhattan project at oak ridge to build the atomic bomb. monday at 7:30 on american

artifacts, photographer and storyteller john on the 42 giant busts of american presidents created by a sculptor decaying on a private property in virginia. explore the american story, watch american history tv on c-span three. announcer: washington journal continues. host: this is representative schakowsky, a democrat from illinois, an energy -- a chair on the energy and commerce committee, thank you for giving us your time. rep. schakowsky: it's such a pleasure. i wanted to thank you to c-span. on january 6 when the insurrection occurred, i was in my office glued to c-span. i knew exactly what was going on. i was able to stay safe the whole time while your people were out taking pictures and in the capital putting themselves

in danger. let me start with that. c-span was a blessing to me on january 6. host: thank you for the sentiment. we do want to talk about that experience on the sixth especially when it comes to the senate and impeachment. to your committee the big push now is to get president biden's plan past. talk about the work of the ways and means committee on that and where are you on the process? rep. schakowsky: i am on the managing commerce committee, and my consumer protection subcommittee is working hard to make sure during the pandemic we are stopping the scams. i want to warn your listeners and viewers that this has unfortunately been a time when lots of different scammers have been trying to sell various carers for covid, etc., and we are working on that. we want to start holding the platform, the online platforms

responsible for some of the information that they are putting out including extremism. we are working hard, and we just heard there is a new death toll, 83% of the american people want to make sure that this legislation passes, because they know it is going to help them personally in their lives. there is a lot of activity going on on all fronts including the impeachment trial. host: thank you for pointing out the energy and commerce committee. the president's overall plan, one debate going on among democrats is the status of the $1400 checks and who should get that, with a proposal to offer a more targeted approach. where do you fall? rep. schakowsky: there is a targeted approach. we are talking about people who

make $75,000 for an individual or 150 thousand dollars for a family. this was the promise that we made. if we do not keep that promise there are going to be a lot of not only angry people, but people who are really struggling to put food on the table. these incomes are based on last year. in 2019 even. people have lost their jobs, the income they had before that they reported to the irs is no longer what they are getting anymore. there is a huge popularity and we think that it has to be at the $75,000 level. i know there are efforts to move it down to $50,000, but $50,000

for a family that may have lost a wage earner is really not enough. i think we are going to get there. host: you have heard republican arguments about the current spending, money that has been spent under previous proposals, particularly with the cbo reports about the return of the economy minus thing out stimulus plans, how do you react? rep. schakowsky: we did not hear word one from the republicans during the last administration. they passed a tax cut bill that adds up to about $2 trillion and that went to the very wealthiest people. 82% of that tax cut went to the top 1%. they did not pay for it, there was no way to make up the money. they love that and they did not say anything about it.

now that we are trying to help people who are struggling just to keep from being evicted who can put food on the table, now it is too much money? we are the richest country in the world still. and to help save individuals and families from really going under forever, no way. we are out there with the american people. 83% say these are the things that need to be done to help them. host: this is our guest, you can talk to her and ask her questions by calling (202) 748-8001 for republicans. (202) 748-8000 for democrats. independents, (202) 748-8002. if you wish to text us you can at (202) 748-8003. you can post on twitter and facebook. representative schakowsky, there

was a story this week looking at child welfare. a payment of $3600 per child per household over the course of a year. can you talk about that plan and why it's being considered as part of the package? rep. schakowsky: the majority of individuals living in poverty are children, imagine that. one out of four of our children is now what is called, euphemistically, they are going hungry. they are going hungry. food insecure is the word that is used. that is what it means, they don't know where the next meal is coming from. helping children is such a dream of ours to make sure we can lift children out of poverty with some help. we are talking about $3000, 30

$600, we will see if it gets there. it has bipartisan support. mitt romney is in favor of this plan. i would love to see that in the final package that we are able to help our kids. host: would eligibility fall under the same parameters being considered for the $1400 check discussion? rep. schakowsky: i don't know what the parameters would be. i think that is a reasonable place to go. that all the children in the family would get some sort of credit. we have increased the child tax credit, and that is a big help. recognizing the plight of our children right now, families with children i think is our top priority. host: our guest is with us, we have our first call from jerry in chester, virginia. you are on with representative schakowsky.

rep. schakowsky: -- caller: good morning, schakowsky . -- congresswoman schakowsky. i have a question and a comment. is the minimum wage in this package? rep. schakowsky: yes, right now, it is. caller: is that $1400 stimulus check a one time payment? rep. schakowsky: that one is. that one right now is one time. caller: a one time payment, ok. rep. schakowsky: and that goes with the $6,000 that went already. so together it's a one time $2000. caller: so right now that's just going to be a one-time payment, none of monthly thing? rep. schakowsky: that's correct. caller: my comment is, i think you are right, don't worry too much about what republicans

think about the threshold, you just said, they just passed a $2 trillion tax cut before, the coke brothers and all these guys that don't even need it. to me that argument is moot. forget what they said. just pass the bill please, thank you. host: guest: that's -- host: that's jerry in virginia. if you want to follow up, go ahead. rep. schakowsky: 83% of americans think we should pass this bill. with the things you are talking about. that has to mean republicans as well as democrats and independents who support this legislation. this is not about politics or party. it is about suffering out there and people who want to get out of this covid trap they are in, get back to work, and have the

things that will allow them to be able to do that. host: from queens village, new york on the republican line. you are on with our guest. caller: hello, good morning, congresswoman. i have a quick question. the hazard pay, is the hazard pay inside the bill? hazard pay? rep. schakowsky: hazard pay is in the bill. sick leave is in the bill. we will see, over the next week what things actually are able to stick. we do have those kinds of things for the front-line workers who are going out and having exposure more than others to covid, and being able to stay-at-home and have sick pay and some hazard pay as well. host: tim is up next in iowa,

democrats line, hello. caller: yeah. i want to comment on the minimum wage that was in part of the new bill. rep. schakowsky: yes. caller: the guest that was on before you said he was against a minimum wage increase, saying it would double it. , but most places pay more than the minimum wage right now. i work at a grocery warehouse making $13 an hour. i have a cow, calf farm as well. it just seems to me that is a hard argument when it hasn't been increased since when george

bush was president. can you hear me? rep. schakowsky: yes i can. caller: ok, i'm sorry. on the $2000 stimulus check, to be fair to former president trump, it seems like the only time we heard about $2000 was when he mentioned it. when you all past what you called the heroes bill last summer. which was passed by partyline democrat, you didn't have too thousand dollars and that i don't believe. host: ok we will let our guest respond? -- we will let our guest respond. rep. schakowsky: he is right, there was only $1200 in the initial, and donald trump at that time could have gotten republicans to support a larger one he says he wanted.

in any case we finally got to the $2000 with the additional check that is going to be coming. as far as the minimum wage goes, what it is with the federal government is $7.25 an hour. you cannot live on that. a person can work full time and still not get out of the poverty level. that is wrong in the united states of america, and it really burns me that the wealthiest people seem to have the most trouble with raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour, which by the way is phased-in. unfortunately it doesn't begin at $15 an hour, it is phased-in. if you want to know the truth, i think $15 an hour, you're still only getting about $30,000 a year for a full-time job.

i just believe that we can do better. when we do do better, everyone does. people go out and spend the money. that is what we need to open up our economy and put some money in people's pockets, so they can get out and shop and buy things. that will make those businesses much more robust. host: representative schakowsky, when it comes to that minimum wage, you saw the cbo figures of 900,000 people being lifted out of robert he but at the cost of 1.4 million jobs. how do you justify that way? rep. schakowsky: this is only part of what president biden has outlined. we will be doing a major infrastructure program, and that will be coming up very soon, that is projected to create 10 million new jobs. by keeping people living below the poverty line, earning below

the poverty line is not a strategy for us to open up these businesses and to put people back to work. that is how cbo works. they look at one issue by itself and not the whole picture of what is going to be going on to create millions of jobs we need in our country. host: when it comes to the stimulus payment was it supposed to be $2000 not $1400 plus $600 from the previous administration? rep. schakowsky: that's what they talked about but they were not there to add it to the bill. democrats went to republicans and said they were for that, they were for what donald trump had said. let's make sure it's in the bill. they weren't there when push came to shove. they went ahead with the $6,000 with the promise that they would come back with the rest.

host: ron in new hampshire on the independent line, you are on with our guest. caller: i have a few suggestions. one is to make it monthly. if you do this thing like this $1400 that was supposed to happen back in september and now we are two months. if you added up all the subsidies it would only be $300 a month up to this point. it needs to be a monthly amount. the other suggestion is to set the income requirement very low, and for the people who are above that limit who are in some sort of situation where they lost their job they can apply for it. the lower income people get it right away because they need it right away because they are on the streets. the higher income people if they need the money they can send in a form to do it. the third thing with the child subsidies, that needs to have an income limit. we don't want to pay to have

kids of millionaires. that is my suggestion. rep. schakowsky: i certainly agree that we are not going to send checks to people, the very wealthy people. they did point out before that the income levels are from past years, when people aren't really making that kind of money right now. what we have promised and what i think we need to deliver is this idea that $75,000 for an individual is the top limit. when you made a promise and you break it, the american people don't forget that. as far as making a check monthly many of us would agree with that , and we think that a one time check is not really substantial enough and that is why we are doing a whole bunch of other

things to help people who are unemployed or help people who have to get some sick leave in order to not go to work sick. it's a comprehensive plan, but even now, at $1.9 trillion it is still just beginning. we have a lot more to do to get the economy going and people to be living not an abject poverty. host: republican line from florida, michael. caller: good morning, miss schakowsky, how are you? rep. schakowsky: i'm good. caller: i'm concerned about your work with energy and consumer protection, can we talk about that? rep. schakowsky: sure. caller: on energy, i have a couple of questions. in my state, since president biden was inaugurated, gas prices have already gone up over

10%, oil is going up every day, and everybody knows that you would like to move towards a more green economy. in the time between now and when we moved to that green economy, are we going to experience the same attitudes towards energy that we had during the obama administration where he publicly announced to the contrary that maybe we need five dollar gasoline to push the country towards a green economy, or are you going to be more interested in protecting the consumer, because 99% of us are still driving gasoline powered vehicles as our primary mode of transportation. any increase in the price of fuel for our vehicles equals a tax. i wanted to ask you about that. host: letter respond to that,

thank you. rep. schakowsky: i understand the pressure on consumers when prices of gasoline go up. the main reason the industry is in trouble is because people aren't driving. i'm one of them. when i am home in the district i am rarely going out, not only because it's nine degrees, but because i have been staying home because of covid. we certainly need to have affordable energy, but we are also in a climate crisis right now where we absolutely need to reduce the use of fossil fuels as quickly as possible to more green jobs which is part of our big infrastructure program that will put people to work. balancing all these things.

i said at a hearing yesterday, it was actually on the environment. we talked about having a transition for the workers who are in the fossil feel industries, and never -- we not only don't want to overburden drivers, but we don't want to put lots of people out of work with no hope. and i think when we put together our infrastructure program we have to have an answer for all of those people who work in the fossil fuel industry as well. that was beyond your question just about the drivers, but i wanted to add that and i thank you for that. host: the wall street journal had an editorial talking about president biden's decision on keystone. they write, "it was on tuesday senator joe mansion wrote to

biden to ask him to reconsider the executive order. he introduced a first keystone xl bill, noting that pipelines are a safe transporter for natural gas and oil resources and they said or high paying union jobs." how do you respond to that in light of the president's decision. rep. schakowsky: i for a long time have been against the keystone pipeline, many of the states through which it would run were also opposed to that. bills continuing to increase the use of fossil fuels is going in the wrong direction in my view. there are plenty of leaky pipelines that i hope that we can get our workers to be fixing. there is lots of underground work, all of our municipalities are begging for help for aging water systems underground to be updated.

that's a job. i think that encouraging the transfer of this oil and perhaps the export of that oil is going in the opposite direction of a planet that is threatened right now, our whole humanity is threatened, and we have to right now reduce the use of fossil fuels. host: how would you address the senator's concern about the impact on jobs. rep. schakowsky: let's look at where other pipeline jobs need to be done. not only just leaky pipelines, which we have seen in the past, but all the underground work that needs to be done to deliver other things like water to communities. host: from wisconsin, timothy is next calling on our republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning, thank you

for c-span. to the congresswoman, thank you for being here. i work in health care as a nurse, you have been a longtime champion for advanced practice nursing. under the pandemic many states and the federal government have authorized advanced practice nurses to practice their full -- to meet the needs of the pandemic. i was wondering if this covid bill would address that and make some of those modernizations permanent for advanced practice nurses do, thank you for your support. rep. schakowsky: -- for more than 20 years, closer to 30 years when i was in the state legislator advocating for the full scope of practice for advanced practice nurses of all sorts. i know there has been a lifting of the requirements that you operate under, during this

pandemic. we need to have more providers and people who are skilled. i sure hope that those exemptions that are going on during covid will continue on. all of the data is in. advanced practice nurses have equal success at providing health care and as doctors and requiring this kind of supervision is just putting another step that might delay the giving of quality health care to the people of this country. i will be with you and advanced practice nurses of all sort always. host: democrats line from michigan, scotty is next. caller: yes, i want to make a comment about the stimulus,

$1400 there they are bragging about. they few calculate per day and a year it's about $3.84 in american pocketbooks. come on, they are going people are behind on their rent and mortgages, and that is not going to pay anything. with the minimum wage they should -- these congress people, they should put them on $15 an hour. if you do a yearly 40 hour a week, they are making $84 an hour, then they sit up there on capitol hill and brag about all the stuff they are going to do. they are laughing all the way to the bank. they have made it in this country to wear those jobs, they just want them for the money and the security, and the medical

system and everything. host: we will let our guest respond. rep. schakowsky: let me just say, i agree with you, and many ways. another $1400, we know that. we hope that is going to help for a short period. that is why we have so many other things added, making sure that there are no of fictions or foreclosures during the pandemic. more money for sick leave, for individuals. raising them in room wage. as you said, $15 an hour, when we started fighting for 15 -- we are still fighting for 15 and still phasing it in.

those people who complain that $15 an hour is going to be a burden to business, people cannot live less than that. i understand your frustration. we get calls in our office all the time. all kinds of people who cannot afford their health care care, who cannot afford to send their kids to college. we are going to do something about that and this bill. some forgiveness, especially for the local schools. we are trying to meet the need and provide an economy that is going to be able to provide higher wage jobs and to respect people who are in those so-called low-wage professions which they are now, especially in the caregiving professions to

be able to raise people out of poverty. host: we saw congress come together to pass the $600 previously. when do you expect passage of the $1400 proposal and other elements? rep. schakowsky: this is so far in the bill, if it doesn't get taken out of our reconciliation bill, the biden plan for rescue, the biden rescue plan, that it will be soon. we are working on this now, and hoping we are going to see it coming up soon. host: representative jan schakowsky, thank you for giving us your time. rep. schakowsky: it's been such a pleasure, thank you. host: we will finish the remainder of the program getting your thoughts from the second impeachment hearing of donald trump. you saw the events of the first day that will continue on today starting in 12:00.

you can comment on what you saw yesterday at (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 four democrats, and independents (202) 748-8002. if you want to text us do that (202) 748-8003. you can always tweet us [video clip] best @cspanwj >> confirmation for neera tanden, nominee for director of the office of management and budget is on today on c-span3 before the senate budget committee. watch live on c-span3, live on demand on c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. >> visit c-span's new online store to check out the new c-span products.

with the 170th congress in session we are taking preorders for the congressional direct every. it helps support c-span's nonprofit operations. shop today. >> washington journal continues. host: we are going to take your thoughts on the second impeachment trial with the house impeachment managers making their case yesterday as well as the president's team. you can give us your thoughts on what you saw. (202) 748-8001 for republicans, (202) 748-8000 four democrats, and independents (202) 748-8002. you saw part of yesterday with a trump attorney talking about the impeachment trial and the impact it might have on the country. >> they tell us we have to have this impeachment trial to burning about unity. they don't want unity. they know this so-called trial will tear the country in half. leaving tens of millions of

americans feeling left out of the nation's agenda. as dictated by one political party that now hold power in the white house and in our national legislature. they are proud americans who never quit giving backup -- getting back up when they are down and they don't take dictates from another party. this trial will tear this country apart, perhaps like we have only seen once before in our history. and to help the nation heal we now learned that the house managers, in their wisdom, have hired a movie company and a large law firm to create, manufacture, and splice a package designed by experts to chill and horrify you and our fellow americans. they want to put you through a 16 hour presentation over two days focusing on this as if it were some sort of bloodsport. and to what end? for healing? for unity? for accountability? not for any of those.

for surely there are a much better ways to achieve each. it is for peer, raw, misguided partisanship that makes them believe playing to our worst instincts somehow is good. they don't need to show you movies to show you that the riot happened here. we will stipulate that it happened and you know all about it. this is a process fueled by base hatred by these house managers and those who gave them their charge and they are willing to sacrifice our national character your to advance their hatred and fear that one day they might not be the party of power. host: the attorney for donald trump, one of two that will be representing him. three representing him on capitol hill this week. the senate also heard from one of the impeachment managers, a democrat from colorado taking -- making his case and talking about why the case against

donald trump should proceed. >> lead manager raskin explained that impeachment exists to protect the american people from officials who abuse their power. who betray them. it exists for a case just like this one. honestly, it is hard to imagine a clearer example of how a president could abuse his office , inciting violence against a coequal branch of government while seeking to remain in power after losing an election. sitting back and watching it unfold. we all know the consequences. like everyone of you, i was in the capital on january 6. i was on the floor with lead

manager raskin. like everyone of you i was evacuated as this violent mob stormed the capitals gaetz. -- capital's gates. what you experience, what we experienced, what our country experience that day is the framers worst nightwear -- worst nightmare come to life. presidents cannot inflame insurrection in their final weeks, and then walk away like nothing happened. and yet that is the rule that president trump asks you to adopt. i urge you, we urge you, to decline his request, to vindicate the constitution.

host: all those presentations available on our website, now we will hear from you. luis in south carolina on the democrats line, you are first. caller: top of the morning to you, nice program, c-span. i watch some of it. when it got to the point where the trump attorneys, they were just talking like they were trying to give you a fairytale story, which everybody in america who has a cable television or television with c-span, they saw what happened. they saw exactly what donald trump directed. a lot of people might say no he didn't. you have to look at it. for four years he already stated that there is going to be something wrong with the election. he threw monkeywrench is that the election and the post offices, he tried to stop the sorting machines.

they wondered why pennsylvania extended their dates to collect ballots. because he caused that. if he would've let everything go on like it's supposed to, who knows, it could have been a closer race than it is. i do know that right now, trump attorneys do not know what they are saying. the managers were all on it. what more can they say? everybody saw it. host: that is lewis in north carolina. rich in illinois on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. the consequences of this impeachment, if you believe trump saying that we are not responsible for whatever happened because we are no longer the president, but we can come back and be a president and try this stuff again, and that's what's on the line here. that the people, their need to

see them saying that he is not accountable for his actions while he was in office because he is no longer in office is ridiculous. if you take that further -- host: finish your thought. caller: if you take that further, this is going forward, is this the kind of government you would want to have? the man was not being held accountable for the lies and the deceit that he was spewing out. if you have a problem with the president and you say his son is taking kickbacks, prove it and charge him. this is what these charges are all about. host: that is rich in illinois. brian in johnstown, pennsylvania

on the republican line. caller: for the last four years we heard democrats saying that he rigged the election back in 16, and throughout the summer you saw these democrats saying how there should be unrest in the streets as long as there is unrest in the heart area it's a shame what happened to george floyd and at the capitol building. these democrats need to be held to the words that come out of their mouth's as much as they are trying to say about donald trump. host: what did you think about your own senator voting to advance the trial, pat toomey? caller: he is going to be retiring this year, so when they replace him with a better republican senator. pennsylvania is -- you have our governor putting covid patients in nursing homes. my grandmother died the day after christmas to covid because of his call.

host: tommy in kentucky on the democrats line. caller: i keep hearing these people calling dam democrats, dam republicans. i'm an american first. and i do not believe that these senators that are voting the way they vote and everything else -- they are more -- on jeffrey epstein if they check in on him. they will find out how many republicans. host: how does that relate to yesterday? caller: how can they vote the right to vote if they are knowing that they've had dealings with jeffrey epstein. host: we go to david in california on the independent line. caller: freedom and justice for all is in one of our anthems. and i think what is being

manifested in this impeachment trial is something that is coming home to roost in regards to, like say for example, crime committed on videotape where the world can see it, started with latasha harlan's and rodney king. we saw what happened. but you have a segment of our community who actually took doughnuts to the perpetrators of the severe beating against rodney king and supported him. host: to bring it up today, how does that relate to yesterday? caller: it's a segment of our community that has this weird propensity to overlook reality, to the degree that you can literally see the most egregious crimes being committed with your own eyes, and then you turn a

deaf eye to it, or you support the perpetrator of the crime, that's the point. host: pamela in auburn, washington state, republican line. caller: on the impeachment, it's unconstitutional number one. we have been going through a whole year of riots, and burning, and peaceful burning. how does it feel? host: we had six republicans yesterday saying it was constitutional. caller: well it's not constitutional and they know it. collins and murkowski are twins. in the first place. host: you can add bill cassidy to the list of republican from louisiana who voted with those other five republicans to advance the trial based on constitutionality.

here is his justification. >> i said i would be an impartial juror, anyone listening to those arguments, the house managers were focused and organized, they relied upon precedent, the constitution, and legal scholars. they made a compelling argument. president trump's team were disorganized, they did everything they could to talk about the question at hand. -- to not talk about the question at hand, and when they talked about it they glided over it, because they were embarrassed of their arguments. i'm an impartial juror, one side is doing a great job, and one person is doing a terrible job, as an impartial juror i will vote for the side that's doing a good job. >> [indiscernible] >> we haven't heard that yet, impartial juror. >> why did you think the trump team did a terrible job? >> did you listen to it? >> [indiscernible] is that your feeling of things? >> if you listen to it speaks

for itself. it was disorganized, random, they talked about many things but didn't talk about the issue at hand. if i'm an impartial juror and i'm trying to make a decision based upon the facts as presented on this issue, then the house managers did a much better job. >> how about the video of the mob attack on the capital? >> that was not the issue at hand. the issue at hand is is it constitutional to impeach a president who has left office. the house managers made a compelling, cogent case, and the president's team did not. host: this is tim from kansas on the line for democrats. caller: all these republicans, they need to get the constitution and read it. because i own it and i read it.

this is a constitutional hearing. host: give me an example of why from the constitution it's constitutional? caller: it's like the guy said yesterday, he read it word for word from the constitution. that's what they need to do. they need to get the constitution and read it word for word. then they will understand what this court hearing is about. host: mimi in texas, independent line. caller: good morning. i feel that it's a grave shame that there was only one senator that truly listens to the case yesterday. i feel that it was presented, i feel that the american people seen it, and i also feel that there is somehow, that the other senators, i don't know, maybe they feared that trump or someone knows something about them, but the whole world seen

what happened. host: kathleen in colorado, democrats line, you are next up. caller: hi, i'm with the previous caller. if you watched representative jamie raskin's presentation from 25 minutes and 55 minutes and you see that compilation of the coverage of the violence that the people who siege to the capital on january 6, the violence that was used in the breaking in of the capital and you see it, raskin didn't know may job with a lineup of what was going on in the capital with our representatives. i think about when i have protested in vietnam and protested the invasion of iraq

and we were holding signs or blocking traffic and doing it peacefully because we thought it would hopefully stop more violence being perpetrated on others around the world, we look like waves, i don't want to call myself a wimp, but we were using violence like that, and i've leave the violence used in the blm marches, people should be prosecuted for destroying property. when you are entering the capital for goodness sakes, entering the capital with brutal violence, trump and then raskin showed what trump was saying minute by minute at that speech and what he did prior. the guy incited an insurrection, there's no question about it. host: that's kathleen in colorado. it was the lead impeachment manager, democrat from maryland part of this presentation talking about reasons why he was bringing a

case, still dealing with the death of his son recently. here is jamie raskin from yesterday. rep. raskin: our new chaplain got up and said a prayer for us and we were told to put our gas masks on, and then there was a sound i will never forget. the sound of pounding on the door like a battering ram, the most haunting sound i ever heard, and i will never forget it. my chief of staff was with us locked and barricaded in that office, the kids hiding under the desk, placing what they thought were their final text and whispered phone calls to say their goodbyes. they thought they were going to die. my son-in-law had never even been to the capital before. and when they were finally arrested over an hour later by capital officers and we were

together i hug them and apologized and i told my daughter, who is 24, and a brilliant algebra teacher in teach for america, i told her how sorry i was and i promised her that it would not be like this again next time she came back to the capital with p. you know what she said? she said "dad, i don't want to come back to the capital p or can -- capital." of all the terrible, brutal things i saw and heard on that day, and since then, that one hit me the hardest. that and watching someone use an american flag pole, the flag still on it, to spear and pummel

one of our police officers ruthlessly, mercilessly, tortured by a poll with a flag on it he was defending with his very life. people died that day. officers ended up with head damage and brain damage. people's's eyes were gouged. an officer had a heart attack. an officer lost three fingers that day. two officers have taken their own lives. senators, this cannot be our future. this cannot be the future of america. we cannot have presidents inciting and mobilizing mob violence against our government and our institutions because they refuse to accept the will

of the people under the constitution of the united states. host: on miami florida on the republican line. caller: i just heard jamie raskin doing his presentation, and it really is quite touching, but i would like to say, where was he throughout the entire year when he never spoke up regarding the violence going on where all the police officers were being murdered by the black lives and nt for movement. where was he when his own party was putting up their money to take those people out of jail. host: how does that relate to this impeachment trial? caller: it relates because the entire year the democratic party has been inciting violence, and

everyone that is right now doing the hearings should have had -- including joe biden, kamala harris, and everyone else that was part of the democratic party. host: jan in oak brook, illinois on the independent line. caller: most of the republican party is made up of racists, entire racists. all they want to do is make this a white country only run by christians only. host: how did you get that from the previous caller? caller: by her attitude, you can tell she doesn't want this world in this country to change. they are worried about becoming the minority in this country. host: to the second impeachment trial, your thoughts? caller: my thoughts are if

barack obama had stood up there instead of trump, and if all the people around him were brown and black, there would be a revolution right now, and they'd be burning barack obama at the stake. host: roseanne from wisconsin rapids, wisconsin. watch the rhetoric that way, and the rest of you callers. roseann from wisconsin. caller: as far as ex-president mr. trump being charged, he was charged while he was in office, and it went through the house, and it seems like if you want to bring it down to a smaller scale, if someone got stopped for a traffic stop and got charged and ticketed at the time , and the court hearing is not until two months later, would your argument be, that happened two months ago so i should not be held accountable for what i did? that was very serious and words matter and intonation and this

voice really seem to call for an insurgency. this man is a very sore loser. we have a country of 330 million people, and of these people act like the republican vote is the only vote that matters. he lost, he went in there as a pay for play in georgia, find these folks, let's get real. host: in irvington, kentucky on the independent line, you are next up. caller: i have a question more for the people who attacked the capital, my question is, if they would have been successful, how would they ever get him out of office, you can't vote them out, he can't be impeached out? wouldn't that make him a dictator? host: how does that relate to yesterday? caller: i'm talking about invading the capital. host: that's part of the reason

we are having this trial. how does that relate to yesterday echo -- to yesterday? caller: it's been a question i've been asking and no one has been able to give me an honest answer. host: grade and is in southpoint, ohio on the democrats line, good morning. caller: i noticed from yesterday . the republican party signed on wholeheartedly, point fingers, blaine someone else, and even the callers today, they want to blame look at this and look at that. acknowledging that wrong is ok and your party that doesn't make it any better, i don't understand the reasoning behind that. you are supposed to look at the evidence, it seems to be quite clear, and this goes from there. common sense isn't that common. host: when you say evidence, what evidence did you see

yesterday ? are you talking about the video or what was said as far as arguments? caller: both, the video everyone is aware of, built constitutionality of it is quite clear i think. the intent of our founding fathers was clearly written in the constitution, you don't have to guess. the more complicated you make things, you are usually trying to hide something. host: next to michael in new hampshire on the republican line. caller: i would like to say the arguments made yesterday, i was surprised that the democrats made a compelling argument that in fact the framers did foresee impeachment after someone left office. the rebuttal was weak. i didn't even hear that addressed properly. if this trend continues i think more republicans will flip and we may see the senate impeach

the president. host: that's michael. we appreciate all the calls that have come in. we will remind you that at noon today the senate picks up on the second impeachment trial of president trump, the former president of the united states. you can see that at noon on c-span two and follow along on c-span.org or listen along on our free c-span radio app. we now take we now take it to the longworth building where the house ways and means committee will meet to debate the budget resolution. you can see the meeting when it starts shortly. [chatter]