andhoma about tom cole -- oklahoma represenative tom cole. >> >> the senate, upon two articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the house of representatives, and 2/3 of the senators present not having found him guilty of the charges contained therein, it is, therefore, ordered and ajudged that the said donald john trump be and he is hereby acquitted of the charges in said articles. host: our first hour this morning dedicated to hearing from you on the u.s. senate voting to acquit president trump from those two articles of impeachment brought by the house. you can give reaction to the conclusion of the trial, the mostly party line vote of the senate, including the action of utah republican senator mitt romney, who became the first senator in history to vote to remove a president of his own party. here's how you can let us know your thoughts this morning. republican, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. if you want to text us this morning, you can do so at 202-748-8003. post on twitter, @cspanwj. our facebook page is facebook.com/cspan. the president is expected to make comments about the conclusion of the trial and his acquittal both on his twitter feed, sending out a notice saying making the public statement at noon. that will take place from the white house, in which he says on his twitter feed he'll discuss our country's "victory," and that's in all caps on the impeachment hoax. if you want to watch that on c-span, you can do so at c-span2, c-span.org, and then you can also listen to it on our c-span radio app. here are some of the headlines from across the nation about yesterday's action in the senate. out of alabama, where doug jones, the democratic senator, was being watched on how he would vote. trump acquitted is how that is posted on the paper. the arizona daily sun, where chris step sinema, another one that was, being watched yesterday, trump acquitted. the journal from maine, you'll recall that susan collins be a key person to watch during this whole process as it played outs, they choose the headline split senate aquits trump, and then in a sidebar story highlighting the votes of angus king, saying that he convicts, and susan collins aquits on both charges. and then here's the salt lake tribune, romney bucks g.o.p., votes to boot the president, and that's on the one article, article one. it was mitt romney yesterday taking to the senate floor before the actual votes took place to explain his reasoning on how he would vote. >> i support a great deal of what the president has done. i voted with him 80% of the time. t my promise before god to apply impartial justice requires that i put my personal feelings and political biases aside. were i to ignore the evidence that has been presented and disregard what i believe my oath and the constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, i fear, expose my character to history's rebuke and the censure of my own conscience. i'm aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters i will be vehemently denounced. i'm sure to hear abuse from the president and his supporters. does anyone seriously believe that i would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before god demanded of me? i sought to hear testimony from john bolton, not only because i believed he could add context to the charges, but also because i hoped that what he might say could raise reasonable doubt, and thus remove from me the awful obligation to vote for impeachment. like each member of this deliberative body, i love our country. i believe that our constitution was inspired by providence. i'm convinced that freedom itself is dependent on the strength and vitality of our national character. as it is with each senator, my vote is an act of conviction. we've come to different conclusions, fellow senators, but i trust we've all followed the dictates of our conscience. host: we'll show you more from yesterday's proceeding as the morning goes on, but your calls we start off with iris in michigan. independent line, the president acquitted by the senate yesterday. iris, you are first up, good morning. caller: good morning to you, sir. i'm very annoyed with the way the procedure even took place. the fact that the women all sat in a group, as rude as you can get. this is the one time when the presidents should be ex-pended the courtesy of getting his message across. host: well, that was at the state of the union. we're talking about the acquittal by the senate yesterday. do you have comments to that? caller: i certainly do. i think that if a president, president who preceded trump who have been sentenced in a court of law and give them a pardon or expunge their record so that they can go back and get a second chance, you can certainly do that for the president of the united states, where they brought no evidence to provide for this horrible thing that happened. it is against the people i think more than donald trump or any president when so much vile behavior and language is given that i think they were trying to put down the public that voted for donald trump, and i think that's inexcusable. they are supposed to represent the people, not tell us thousand think and do things. host: ok, that's iris in michigan. again, maine was one of those states where susan collins was being watched. our next caller, duke from stonington, independent line. go ahead, please. caller: yes, good morning, pedro. that acquittal thing yesterday was the most disgraceful, disgusting messy ever saw in my life. i have always kind of liked mitt romney, but yesterday really sealed it for me. that man has got convictions, and he's a decent man. and if we had more people like that on the republican side there in the senate, why, we wouldn't be in the mess that we're in. host: what about your own senator in this matter, susan collins? caller: i think that she's just put the final nail in her reelection coffin as far as i'm concerned. i don't think that she'll ever get reelected here again, because i am so disgusted with her, and i have voted for her in the past. i voted split ticket before. and i'll never do it again. i can tell you that. host: from massachusetts, also on our independent line, we'll hear next from mike in summerville. hi, mike, go ahead. caller: hi, pedro, good morning. yeah, i've been watching this since it started. i forget when that was, october, november. it's just really -- sad for me, whether what side of the political aisle you're on. it's really sad to me. my opinion is that this whole impeachment process has been, i don't know, influenced by just a huge level of disingenuous thought on behalf of the republicans. host: how so? caller: i feel like they're just ignoring factual information. and, you know, this is kind of the same as the tobacco companies, and it's the same as the climate change issue, and it's the same as other environmental issues. host: but when it comes to the impeachment vote itself, what do you mean as far as a lack of thought on this? caller: yeah, so i feel like the g.o.p. in the last 10 or 20 years has really just continued this train of ignoring factual information. as far as the impeachment goes -- witnesses who independently corroborated each other's, you know, facts, and they confirmed the whistleblower's acquisitions independently. and these people are public servants that are well respected on both sides of the aisle, or at least they have been until this recent administration. and i started following politics back in the bush years, bush 2,, and you know, i thought that was bad. host: ok, that's mike in summerville, massachusetts, talking about it. he mentioned the witnesses that were brought up, not only in video clips during the senate trial, but also in many times when you saw play out on c-span. marie yovanovitch, one of those witnesses, former ambassador there, has an op-ed in "the washington post" this morning, talking about her perspective in light of yesterday's vote. e writes this in part -- host: that's just part of the op-ed you'll find on the "washington post" website from marie yovanovitch. ricky in anchorage, alaska, republican line, talking about the acquittal of president trump by the senate. he's hung up. we'll go to roger. rodger in indiana, democrats line. hi there. caller: hello. thanks for taking my call. the reason i'm calling, i think the senate and congress should vote secret on the a thing like impeachment and also there's other things. the senate should be recognizing teams and people in college -- host: when it comes to a senate vote of this nature, why not a public vote? caller: well, a secret ballot, because otherwise these guys -- they get their money from the -- you know, the contributions. they'll lose it if they vote other than what they'll do. host: wouldn't up to the see how they voted in public rather than a secret ballot, especially in case of an impeachment? caller: no, i'd rather see a secret ballot. a lot of these guys would have voted a little different, but see, romney, he stuck his head in the news heel, and he's a good guy. more vote the other way. that's what i'm saying. rape ok, that's roger in indiana. the editors of the salt lake city tribune in utah have this editorial in part about senator romney's decision -- he described his decision in terms of his faith. he explained that the oath he took first as a senator, then as a juror in the impeachment proceeding, left him with no choice. all utahans, all americans regardless of politics, ideology or religion, should be impressed with romney's decision to follow his scommart his conscience and his god in doing the right thing when doing the right thing was difficult. there it is in the editorial section of the salt lake tribune. pittsburgh, pennsylvania, harry on our republican line. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. i was watching this, and i don't want to call in to the end because i knew it was going happen. ll these witness things -- then as far as everything bureau of labor statistics came out with their findings on everything. everything's way better than it was before. and there was a poll that came out that people are happier. but the bureau of labor statistics -- host: before you go down that road, what do you think the senate impeachment trial resulted with in the end? caller: it was all about trump succeeding. they don't want him to succeed. he's crushing everything they've done the last 50 years to screw this country up. and he went right against it, and it's working. they don't like it. i seen that from the beginning. i mean, why they go through this big farce they had. i mean, you had adam schiff say next is going to give alaska to russians, and then later on he's going to live down there and his son is going to be in the white house running the country. that's some of the things schiff said. i mean, it don't get any crazier than that. but the country is doing better, according to the two people i just mentioned, the two -- the b.y.u. of labor statistics and the gallup poll people are happier. host: ok, that's harry in pennsylvania. the house impeachment managers in "the washington post" as well have an op-ed that they published in light of yesterday's proceeding, saying his -- host: from florida, independent line, go ahead. we'll hear from bill, hi. aller: yeah, good morning, pedro. these republicans who voted to acquit trump, these men and women all were against him all the way. they thought he was corrupt to begin with. and he's brought them along with him and his corrupt ways, which he has demonstrated throughout his life, and they voted to acquit him knowing that he was guilty, and if they that ng in witnesses, would destroy their case. because obviously anyone who has followed this man throughout his entire life knows he's nothing more than a a y launderer and just despicable human being. as a new yorker, i followed this man my whole life. 've seen nothing positive. no character at all. the man is beneath contempt, and i just am so sorry for the country. and i'm really sorry that republicans cannot see any rational way of looking at this without their dedication to the republican party. i'm at a loss for words. i really am. host: ok. that's bill, florida. by the way, axios has a story on its website this morning about next steps after impeachment. this is a post from this morning saying in the "what e're hearing" section -- host: there's more if you want to go to the axios website if you want to see next steps after impeachment. again, the u.s. senate acquiting president trump yesterday of those two articles in the impeachment. you can comment on it in our 45 minutes that we have, 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 for democrats. independents, 202-748-8002. california is next, redwood city, democrats line. caller: good morning, pedro. how are you today? host: i'm well, thank you. go ahead. caller: good. i'm just calling to say i am so proud of my california representatives and senators today. they did a fantastic job during the hearings and the trial, and they and mitt romney are an example that should be held up in he rest of the country how to act when you have a corrupt president that cannot be trusted. i hope that the investigations continue day after day after day, because that's what president trump deserves. noip light of all that, even in the end result, you say this was a valuable process, a valuable thing that happened? caller: absolutely. look what has been revealed. look what is happening. mitt romney finally came out and said what the president has done was wrong and i cannot take it, i am voting against him. one g.o.p. there is a crack in the wall. host: well, that's on one article as well, that should be highlighted. caller: that's right, that's right. that's correct. but it's still a crack. and that's where it begins. and this is going to start snow balling now. i hope they call john bolton in. i hope he acts like a fool, like we all know he's going to, and he's going say executive privilege, executive privilege, and that will show what a farce this whole thing is, and hopefully the house of cards that the g.o.p. have built over the past three years by enabling this criminal will finally come tumbling down. host: ok, again, the president expected to make comments at noon today, and he'll talk specifically about the impeachment. you can see that on c-span2, or our c-span.org and our radio app. after the vote yesterday, it was mitch mcconnell talking with reporters, specifically asked about senator romney's guilty vote. here's the response. >> is there room in the republican party for someone who votes for the president's conviction? >> well, i was surprised and disappointed, but i still think that we have great teamwork on this. and i think we're in a good position going into our senate races and the presidential race with regard to this issue. there may be plenty of other issues between now and november, but i think we're in pretty good shape right now, yeah. host: more of that press conference available if you want to see it for yourself. i invite you to go to our website at c-span.org. when it comes to senator romney, again, you can make comments on that. you can take comments about the vote as well. it was a news editorial this morning, comments about senator romney as well saying in the end his convictions led him to make "the most difficult decision" that he has faced. that sort of discourage deserves recognition -- host: independent line,, baltimore, maryland. caller: i just want to say that nancy pelosi dropped the ball, as corrupt as trump, is as corrupt as those republican senators railroad company the ball was in her court. i kind of compare her to pete carroll and the seahawks playing the patriots, when he should have gave the ball to marshawn lynch to run it in, and then they intercepted it. the reason i say that is because nancy pelosi should have went to court to get those witnesses. and because she didn't, their case is weak, and i'm not a trump supporter at all. and she had a good case, because because trump's corruption was out there, but i really believe she dropped the ball by rushing it. when they had the four constitutional lawyers, i can't think of one lawyer who was representing the republicans, but he made a good point. host: jonathan turley. caller: yeah, jonathan turley. he said that they should have just slowed down and taken it to court. but by rushing it, it's making them look dumb, and he's right. i just wish nancy pelosi and the democrats just slowed down, took it to court, and forced them, forced the trump ministration to call, what's is name, bolton, pompeo, and mulvaney, and it would have made the republicans look stupid, because in the end they would have acquitted trump, but at least it would have shown how corrupt they were. and one last thing, she also messed up by not making jason amash a house manager. because it would have showed bipartisanship. it would have shown that, hey, we have somebody who's not a democrat who's for impeachment, somebody who started the freedom caucus. even though he's an independent, he used to be a republican. he's a hard-core conservative. host: ok, we'll hear from matt, mechanicsville, maryland, democrats line, hi. caller: hey, thanks for taking my call. wow, that last call started out pretty good, and i'll give him a reference. so they could have rushed it. see, i'm not a trump supporter either. they could have rushed, it but they needed to ball to lewis and charge him with the emoluments clause. they never intended on impeaching this guy. they didn't charge him with a crime, and in fact, they knocked the legs out of schiff when ted cruz said why is the bar to impeach the president so low and to impeach biden so far? and when they said that, adam schiff turned around, and all he could say was look away from this, look away from this. schiff also argued that it was a criminal trial, and then on the second one, out of the other side of his face said no, it's not a criminal trial and doesn't require a criminal offense. this was a sham from the beginning, and america needs to realize that. donald trump is a reality tv star, but what's more embarrassing is that the democratic party has no intention of impeaching this man. this is politics. if they did, they would have charged him with emoluments because that's on the record. you can follow the money. thank you very much. host: baltimore, maryland, republican line, good morning. caller: hello. i'm a world war ii veterans, a new yorker, democrat by birth, and i first voted for harry truman, and this is the biggest sham i've heard. if they had come up with a cause for impeachment instead f before he even got sworn in, then maybe i could consider it. but this was let's impeach, impeach, from day one. therefore, i have swifment i am now a trumper, and i just hope that after his second term that we keep on until the democratic party becomes what i knew it as a young man and growing up. i'm on home hospice now, so i may or may not see the election , but i have a very opt mistech view. the country is safe. if i may go off topic for a second, i would just like to say that the virus that we have w is the result of a release from a program that the chinese have. host: apologies, we'll stop include, only because it's too far for what we're talking about. for the president's part, he took to twitter on a couple of different fronts after yesterday's vote, posted videos , not in reference directly to the voter, or at least walking around, here's a bit of the first one. host: that's one of the videos that was put out there by the president. he put out another one yesterday, too. in fact, if you go to the hill, you can read about this story. this one directly targets mitt romney. under the broad theme of the video, it's that he's a democrat secret asset. here's the video from the president's twitter feed. >> he had us foosmed >> being in donald trump's magnificent hotel and having his endorsement is a life. >> posing as a republican, he tried to infiltrate trump's administration as secretary of state. >> president trump is the man who can lead us to the future. >> now his cover is blown, exposed as a democrat secret asset. >> can't believe you're going lose, yeah. >> barack obama will be reelected president of the united states. >> plan b, plan c, plan d, and now it's gone. you start looking at the romney map and you say, what's plan e? >> gloomy atmosphere as supporters left the convention center in boston following romney's concession speech. >> that was a race, i have to say, that should have been won. >> i wouldn't call anything encouraging for hillary clinton at the moment to be honest. >> hillary clinton has called donald trump to concede the race. >> president of the united states of america, donald trump. host: again, those are from the president's twitter feed, if up to the check out the feed itself, seeing how the president has responded to, it or you can wait till noon today, where he'll talk about the impeachment trial and yesterday's results. again, c-span2 is where you can see that. joyce in massachusetts, independent line. hello. caller: hi, good morning. host: hi. caller: i'm calling to say that i'm very proud of romney, what he has done. i mean, i think this man in the white house is freaking scary. he scares me to death. i wish that the rest of them would have followed romney. he has dignity. and i'm so proud of him. host: at the end of the day, it was just the first article romney voted guilty on, not the second one. caller: yes, that's true. that's true. but it was one. and he is right, the man is guilty. i mean, did he these things. he's a horrible man. i, too, have followed his career, and tried to read his book, and i never heard such nonsense. first off, he didn't write it himself because he can't. and second, he's a crook. look what he's done. he's been bankrupt six times. host: what did you think of the overall result from yesterday, especially in light of the case that the house impeachment managers brought forth? caller: well, i believe that he should have been impeached, and i trust nancy pelosi and the party, and she has proven to be thing but honest and forthright. i mean, i followed the democrat party this time around, and i'm very proud of them. host: should they have waited -- should they have waited and built a better case? caller: well, i mean, how long do you wait? look what this man is doing tpwhile one's watching. and no one cares. i mean, the republicans, they sit there and they just -- they just let all of this go on, and they make money, and they're happy, and they've got power. and then what happens to the country tpwhile one's watching? i find it really frightening myself. host: ok. caller: i mean, that's the way i feel. host: that's joyce there, and we'll go to barbara in pebble beach, california, republican line. caller: hello, thank you for taking my call. i'm in awe of some of the people that call in and say things like the lady just before me. i know everyone's entitled to what they believe. but the lies that the democrats have gotten away with amaze me. and you talked about the lady, yovanovitch, she's been shown to be a liar. the people that really wanted to come to the united states and talk about this and talk about the things that the democratic party has done in the ukraine, she did not allow them to come. she would not accept their immigration. and that's out there. i can't believe that they watched what's gone on with the impeachment as far as the democrats go, because adam schiff has lied so many times before the impeachment was drawn, and every day that he spoke he lied about the president in so many ways. so has pelosi. i have followed everything. i'm an old lady, i'm very political. i've watched every day of the impeachment. i've watched oodles before the impeachment. -- f you read what the -- read what the president talked about on the phone call which started all of this, which he to sed himself, he called tell the president how happy he was, because this new president was going to attack. host: well, we got that part only from what we've seen play out over the last few months. that's about the first half-hour of this program. again, we're talking about the acquittal in the u.s. senate of president trump on the two articles of impeachment. we've heard a lot of comment, not only about the process, mitt romney, and you can call and make those comments at 202-748-8001 for republicans. democrats, 202-748-8000. independents, 202-748-8002. you can text us at 202-748-8003. we are still getting results in as a result of the iowa caucuses. you followed the story over the last few days, as far as the latest numbers are concerned. 97% of precincts reporting, here's how it stands right now with pete buttigieg, when it comes to those votes, still having a slight, slight edge with 26.2% of that. that followed by bernie sanders at 26.1%. elizabeth warren coming in third at 18.2%. and then joe biden registering fourth at 15.8%. so that's the percentages of the vote count there. again, about 97% of those coming in. a couple of stories related to that, the president's fans at bloomberg reporting about the iowa caucus hotline, according to the democrats saying that they were flooding those lines, at least that's the reporting coming out from bloomberg on this matter. that's some of the things story-wise. we have several events taking place as part of our c-span 2020 coverage that if you wanted to you can watch and at least get a sense of how this is playing in and out new hampshire, where many candidates are there today. you can see this at 2:30 this afternoon on c-span2, c-span.org, and our c-span radio app. also, if you want to hear the comments of elizabeth warren, she will be making comments in derry, new hampshire, today. also c-span2 is where you can watch that. 6:15 this evening. follow along on the dot-org. and you can follow along on the radio app from the device and listen along. from st. paul, minnesota, lawrence, independent line. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. first off, pedro, i appreciate your efforts to keep people topic and off their diatribes. and then because of c-span, i was able to listen to quite a few. hearings, and what surfaced to me, particularly on the second -- white he house house lawyers were speaking, i had an aha moment that said the house case is falling apart, because it was just the tone of what the attorneys were saying. me personally, i think that there needs to be lot of questioning on how the articles of impeachment were prepared and how they were passed to the senate, and my last comment is i thought that people in the chamber, people outside the chamber who are calling for impeachment, how they shamelessly tried to pull chief justice roberts into the fray for what i considered to be poorly prepared articles of impeachment. host: why do you consider them poorly prepared? caller: i think that the house should have tracked along with what nixon and clinton impeachment hearings did, which was go to the supreme court and petition the supreme court to get the information or the data or the witnesses that they were looking for. that's primarily why i felt that the documents were not well prepared. host: you heard the democratic managers say that a matter of time was a factor in not making that decision. what do you think about that argument? caller: i think the argument they chose, they went out on risk doing that, and as a result, president trump was acquitted of the charges they presented with the information that they presented. host: republican line from bedford, virginia, we'll hear next from joe. good morning. caller: good morning, pedro. host: good morning. you're on. caller: i would like to say, this never should have happened. it is a corrupt socialist left have been planning this since day one before he ever had his first day in office. and they just want to drag america down, turn us into third world fool, and having a president that cares about america's people and america's problems just drives them insane. they can't stand it. that's why we have more democrats coming over to the republican side every day, because they see all the lies, corruption, hatred, and division is coming from the democrats. host: so with the conclusion of the trial, what do you think is the end result then? where do we go from here? caller: well, they never should have made these false charges in the first place. that's the best president we've had in my 56 years i've been alive. he's done more in the years he's been in office than corrupt clinton and obama combined. host: that's joe in bedford, virginia, one of the people going before cameras, and you saw him much during the senate impeachment trial was the president's personal attorney, jay sekulow, talking with reporters. >> obviously we're pleased. the real victor today was the american people, but also the constitution, the office of the president, and the president himself. we're very pleased with the result. we're glad this is behind us. we're glad this is behind the country. and it's time now to turn attention to other things. i think that's what's going happen. >> how damaging is it that this is now not a bipartisan acquittal? >> look, it wasn't a bipartisan -- it was a bipartisan opposition to the impeachment articles themselves. so there was, on one count, there was one republican that voted guilty. in the house, you had, i think three democrats that didn't support the articles of impeachment. so look, the founders were very smart. they understood the concept of how voting should go, what the requirements are, what the criteria are. it was a good day for the constitution. >> you'd not concerned about mitt romney's vote then? >> the president has been acquitted. we're not concerned about anything at this point. >> what is your treeks mitt romney's vote? >> i have no reaction to it. reaction is the president won. the office of the president won. the constitution won. that was what was significant. the process was followed through. it was completed, and it's now behind us. host: there's a few lines when it comes to the process house managers took. the reporter writing this morning despite his public attacks on the impeachment process, the president stayed at m. mcconnell's urging largely on the sideline, or the sidelines of the republican efforts to rally lawmakers against voting for new witnesses and approached his own legal team with a fairly light touch -- caller: when you can't call a witness. who pays for sekulow to sit up there and tell us that they're all wrong, schiff is all wrong and that you will stuff, and you can't even call a witness. who goes to court and does this and it's just glossed over with itch mcconnell stuff, he is -- he trip up over his own mistakes, and we're sitting here, on the republican line, talking about all this dirty stuff. host: ok, let's we'll go to robin in old forge, pennsylvania, republican line, hi. caller: hi, good morning. i am glad that he was acquitted. and as far as mitt romney goes, he got me so mad yesterday when he brings his faith into this. we all know he degraded trump before when he was running for president. then he happened to get the secretary of state job. he didn't get that. trump helped him get elected for the senate, and then he turns around and uses faith and the constitution, back. thank the lord, and the guy that just spoke doesn't know what he's talking about. what about bin -- the other senators? what do you think about those statements from those republican senators? aller: even if it was -- definitely not -- they know he's going win the election in 2020, that's all this is about. nd that's tall is. host: let's go to richmond, virginia. caller: i appreciate the time. i think romney did the right thing yesterday by voting to impeach him and say he was guilty. and also the republicans, we need to vote all of them out because they are not going to -- whatever trump do is ok with them. they will never go against trump. he is just like a straw boss with them. they are scared of him. and i think we should vote only republicans out and get a new breed of democrats and republicans in there, younger and ation who are thinking not old-time thinking like these republicans do and talking about the money that biden's got, look at the republican, they get paid $174,000 a year and make . 4,500 a week you know, we have to ask ourselves that question also. host: ok, that's robert in lynchburg, virginia. the previous caller brought up the matter of mitt romney's faith and decision making process. it was in the earlier part of the day yesterday where senator romney, during his time explaining how he would vote talked about how his faith actored into it. >> the articles are very serious. as a senator juror i swore an oath before god to exercise impartial justice. i am profoundly religious. my faith is at the heart of who am. i take an oath before god as enormously consequential. i knew the outset that being tasked with judging the president, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision i have ever faced. i was not wrong. host: gary, indiana, next, democrats line. caller: yes, good morning. good morning to your listening audience. i would just like to make the analogy of the republican sodom and refer you to and gomorrah. this is what they remind me of, from the senate to the white house. host: specifically how does that refer to the impeachment vote yesterday specifically? caller: i'm getting to it. i agree 100% with the senate minority that this man should have been impeached. they showed all kinds of evidence, even the republicans said he was guilty, but he should not be impeached. i disagree, and from the senate to the white house, if you know your bible at all, and i'm talking to all these evangelicals that support trump, if you know your bible at all, you know that abraham bargained with god about sodom and gomorrah. host: and how exactly does that relate to the senate impeachment trial? caller: will you hit me finish? host: go ahead. you're on, go ahead. caller: if you let me finish, i'm saying what i'm trying to say. god, he bargained from 50 to 10 people. if you find these many people out, i will free, i will not destroy sodom and gomorrah. couldn't find 10 people. they found one. they found lot. yesterday they found romney. i say kudos to mr. romney, senator romney, and mr. braun, i'm so ashamed of you. host: ok, that's darling in indiana. we'll go to grand rapids, michigan, democrats line. this is eve. hi. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i think that the whole thing was just a travesty with the republicans, because they knew, they knew that donald trump was guilty from the very beginning. and didn't even let the people bring in witness. give me a break. i'm just saying that it really degrades everything that the senate, i can't even look at it like i used to. i can't look at the people and just think that -- you know, this is what they're getting paid for. they're getting paid a good salary to sit up there and lie to this man. they know that this man is a crook, and i must say, also, can someone please tell me, why is he even on taxpayer dollars going around rallying to every city? host: well, eve, back to the senate. you said several times that they know, even though several of the senators went to the floor yesterday, making the claim that they weren't convinced by the house argument, why convince you that, according to your words, they know he's guilty? hat convinces you of that? caller: they laid it out right there when the house, when representative schiff came out. they laid everything out there. and you tell me this. like the history book said, if you were colluding with a foreign agent against your own country, that is called treason. have people forgotten that? and i don't care what they say. he was colluding with russia, and still a russia puppet. i'm just saying. host: ok, that's eve in grand rapids, michigan. the ohio democratic senator, sherrod brown, has a piece in the "new york times" talking about conversations that he had with republican members of the senate and where they were as far as before the actual vote took place. he wrote in part in the op-ed -- r -- host: sherrod brown one of many casting votes yesterday on the acquittal of the president of the united states. joy in wyoming, republican line. caller: good morning. i think a lot of people are missing the main point of this whole impeachment thing. did trump say things that were inappropriate on the line to the russian guy? certainly he did. was it impeachable? no. if biden was not a presidential candidate, if he was just another, just a regular joe now, wasn't running for office, i don't think a lot of this would have even come to happen. they wouldn't have gone after him if he had already been a vice president that was no longer running for office. and what did he was wrong. what joe biden did was wrong. and the democrats put their heads on the sand on this. i haven't talked to one democrat that can really defend that and say he did nothing wrong there. and i think the status thing that's -- i think the saddest thing that came out of this whole impeachment thing is how happy one party can be, whether it be democrat or republican, how happy i saw the democrats be when they could find one little piece of dirt, they would just jump for joy and they could find something wrong with our president. and as a nation, we all need to stand behind our president, whether we agree or disagree. a lot of us republicans stood behind obama when we didn't actually jump for joy when he was president, but as a nation, we stood behind him. and what i see with the democrats, they just jump for joy on any tiny little things that president trump can do. host: so, joy, to the charges then that was laid against the president by the house regarding the call, at the end, do you think the president was right or wrong in this matter? caller: i think what did he, i think asking them to find some stuff on joe biden, i don't see anything wrong with that. i think what did he was wrong. i think using his family to make millions of dollars is definitely wrong with his office, what he did. but i do not think that what the president did was an impeachable offense. i just do not. and if he was a democratic president, i wouldn't feel what he did was wrong either. host: ok, joy in wyoming, republican line, giving us a call about yesterday's vote in the senate, acquiting the president of the united states. one of those people on the final remarks that you can still see at c-span.org is the senate minority leader, chuck schumer, talking about the impeachment vote just before it took place. supe i direct my final message not to the house managers, not even to my fellow senators, but to the american people. my message is simple. don't lose hope. there was justice in this world and truth and right. i believe that. i wouldn't be in this government if i didn't. somehow in ways we can't predict, with god's mysterious hand guiding us, truth and . ght will prevail there have been dark periods in our dark history. the r let justice roll down like water. righteousness like an ever flowing stream. the long arc of the moral universe, my fellow americans, does bend towards justice. america does change for the better. ut not on its own. it took millions of americans hundreds of years to make this country what it is today. americans of every age and color and creed who marched and protested, who stood up and sat in. americans who defended this democracy, this beautiful democracy, in its darkest hours. on memorial day in 1884, oliver wendell holmes told his war-weary audience that " whether one accepts from fortune or spade and will look downward and dig, or from aspiration her ax and cord and will scale the ice, the one and only success, which is yours to command, is to bring to your work a mighty heart." i have confidence that americans of a different generation, our generation, will bring to our work a mighty eart to fight for what's right , to fight for the truth, and never, never lose faith. host: again, all those comments available if you want to go to the website at c-span.org. let's go to new york. kingston, new york, mike, go ahead. caller: yes, i think this goes beyond trump. i think the democrats had planned this from the start. i think as far as mitt romney goes, that was personal. host: what do you mean as far as personal? caller: romney and trump do not like each other. i think that was obvious. romney is a never trumper, and they are worse than almost the left that despises trump. host: where do you think we go from here now that trial is over? caller: i think the democrats are going to continue to investigate. i think they still can't get over the election. that they lost. trump is not a perfect person, there's no doubt, but he won. it's up to the voters in november to vote him out if he's so bad. but the domes want to get him out now because they're afraid of something, i don't know, afraid of losing. host: ok. twitter this morning, i can only speeng for myself, but i couldn't be happier at the outcome of this three-year pit bull attack by democrats to take down my president. they failed, and today we have our president speaking to us at noon eastern time. again, you can see that on c-span2. thank goodness for people who speak up about wrongdoing in government to save the country and those who report crimes in their community. they are true patriots locally and nationally. those who want to expose whistle blowers to harm are not patriots. orer twitter and facebook, text us your thoughts on the impeachment trial from yesterday and the conclusion of it from yesterday. let's go to linda in texas, democrats line. linda from texas. we'll try reggie. reggie in milwaukee, wisconsin. go ahead, you're next up. caller: hey, good morning. i am an independent -- i didn't vote for barack in 2012. i did not vote in 2016. i just did not come to a clear decision. i did not support trump or hillary enough. after impeachment, him being acquitted of all the charges, i read the previous callers. i don't think that biden should have accepted a million dollars . and trump during this investigation, you know, is not a bad thing. but i think it was all premised on the whole impeachment sham what i think it is. and i'm independent. i voted democrat. but, you know, there was premise on him winning an election. it was before. they came out with the dossier, and that was illegal. and mitt romney right now, i just think he's programmed. i think there's an opening here within the republican party, and along those lines, where he can grab some independents. that's why i say, democrats were just showing their colors and republicans defended, and i , nk that it shows a clear you know, i think conflict there with biden in that he didn't really do anything wrong. host: ok, reggie, in milwaukee, to mitt romney. this is maria saying remember in 2012 on top of his car during a family vacation. mary, another mary off of twitter, saying turns out there's one honorable republican with a conscience, it's mitt romney. the rest of them are every bit as rotten as the president. we'll go to keep in savannah, ennessee, republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i think they should have never tried to impeach our president, and what they did was wrong. if anybody should be held accountable, it's to beat schiff and his band of clowns. they're the ones at faurblingts not trump, not the republicans. it's the democrats that don't appreciate the fact that he's trying to improve this country and do what they would never do. they don't want to help the american people. they want to hold them down, get their votes, and make them feel if you don't vote for a democrat, you're going to lose. wrong answer. the twhauns voted republican did the right thing and got results and we will get results this next election. because flyers one like they said that can beat trump that's running as a democrat. host: ok, we'll go to laura, bronx, new york, democrats line. go ahead. caller: yes, i like say, it was a known fact from the beginning, because mitch mcconnell said that he was coordinating with the president on this impeachment trial. it wasn't a trial. i've served on jury duty, and a trial has witnesses documents and witnesses. it was a sham. it was a cover-up. president trump was impeached and will go down in history as the third president who was impeached. romney did the right thing. if it had been an electronic vote where no one had to give their name, i am sure we would have gotten to 67. the man is corrupt he is a bully. this an outt make in the open vote? caller: it should be, but i'm quite sure the people would have voted guilty on at least one of those charges, and that is why i said that at least -- that. at least we have them on record what they did. host: that is lauren in the bronx talking about the acquittal. ae house speaker putting out speaker in regard to the activities of yesterday, saying that the president and form -- senate republicans have normalized lawlessness. our founders put safeguards in the constitution to protect against a rogue president. they never imagined that they would have at the same time a rogue coward in the senate. passing two articles of to hold the president accountable for abusing his office for his own personal, political gain at the our -- nancy is expected to participate in the national prayer breakfast and president trump is supposed to speak. you can see both those remarks at 8:00 this morning -- just about now -- on c-span two, c-span.org, and c-span radio. we will talk about policy issues with a guest, representative rao iz about the ru trump administration's proposal to make changes to medicare. later on, tom cole will talk about the federal response to the coronavirus, those guests and more coming up on "washington journal." ♪ article two is adopted. that inu solemnly swear all things pertaining to the trial of the impeachment of donald trump trump, president -- donald john trump, president of the united states, you will do justice according to the constitution and laws, under penalty of law? >> i do. >> we have seen a descent into constitutional madness. >> we think the basis upon which this has moved forward is irregular at the least. >> donald john trump is not guilty as charged in the second article of impeachment. infor the third time history, a president has been a ph -- impeached and acquitted. c-span provided live coverage of the impeachment of president trump. you can find video and related resources at the span.org/impeachment. c-span, your place for unfiltered coverage of congress. >> during this election season, the candidates beyond the talking points are only revealed over time, but since you can't be everywhere, there is c-span. our 2020 campaign program differs from all political coverage for one simple reason, we brought you your unfiltered view of government every day since 1979. today, we are bringing you and unfiltered view of the people who will steer that government. in other words, your election future. see the biggest trip for yourself and make up your own mind, with c-span's campaign 2020, brought to you as a public service by your television provider. >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is representative raul ruiz, democrat from california, here to talk about a proposal by the trump administration medicaid. -- administration for medicaid. the senate vote on impeachment? guest: it is unfortunate but not a surprise. we figured the senate was not going to vote with a sense of integrity. with all the evidence that was there that the president used aidoffice to withhold conditioned to a favor that the ukraine announce an investigation into a political opponent for personal political gain, putting aside the integrity of our democratic elections. it was important we send a strong message to teacher presidents and future generations that this kind of corrupt behavior is not tolerated, and in future scenarios regardless of the partisan makeup of congress, a president will be held accountable. will forever in history be known as a president who was impeached and for the reasons he was impeached. advocate forou house democrats to continue with these investigations with the same intensity as the impeachment trial, or is there a way to do that? guest: we have passed over 400 bills in the house. bipartisan sitting in mitch connell's -- mitch mcconnell's desk. there are things we have done to lower the cost of prescription drugs, other significant legislation, so we can do both. it is a duty of every representative, every senator to defend our cons the duchenne and make sure there are no violations so we can send a strong -- defend our constitution and make sure there are no violations so we can send a strong message that it should not be used for personal gain. we should all be vigilant. this is all in the president's court. foreignntinues to ask countries for personal political gain, foreign countries to do him favors for personal political gain, we must. it is an oath we took. host: you are a doctor by training. talk about the way the federal government distributes medicaid aid and the proposal the trump administration wants to see to change that. guest: the federal government pays a certain portion of the cost for the medicaid program. the states put in their amount and the federal government puts in their amount. that gives reassurance to our most vulnerable populations, low income, some with difficulties in their lives. it is very important because they are able to get the basic care, and if they get sick, people who need it will be able to be reassured their costs will be paid. the administration and republican congress have made numerous attempts to limit that amount that states receive to help pay for the care for our vulnerable population. this one proposal is they want to block medicaid. they will tell a state, we will give you this much and that is it and you figure out what you want to do with it, and not be committed to doing their share of the total cost. that is not a good way of taking care of our patients and i will tell you why it limit -- why. it limits the amount, limits the care for these patients because states will be forced to cut eligibility, denying more expensive treatment, maybe hospital stays were chemotherapy or medication, and they were also -- will also cut the pay to physicians and hospitals. that is concerning in rural ares because physicians less likely to see medicaid patients and the will have less access to doctors and hospitals. a record number of hospitals in rural areas are shutting down. host: if someone gets medicaid from this date, that is -- the state, that is not affected? guest: under the administration's proposal, those are expanded through obamacare. the vast geordie, tens of millions -- geordie, tens of -- majority, tens of millions of people receive care, and this is roll backance to benefits the affordable care act has done for individuals. congress in their attempt to repeal the affordable care act attempted to repeal medicare into a block program, which they failed to do. host: why not let the state be the ones to distribute the money? guest: they already have flexibility in how to distribute their money. that doesn't seem to be a problem. alaskaicaid program in looks different than california. there needs to be new innovative, flexible ideas. i believe we can do both. weekend fulfill our responsibility -- we can fulfill our responsibility to take care of the most vulnerable amongst us, as well as allowing dates to have that flexibility. -- states to have that flexibility. gives the states flexibility to cut payments, to cut benefits, and cut eligibility requirement. host: not surprisingly, the wall street journal editor has a different take. democrats are rolling out their old health scare playbook. this would give the states the opportunity. it would encourage states to spend more on healthy folks and less on those who need care. trumpy loathe president more than they want to help their citizens? guest: i grew up in an impoverished community. my parents were farmworkers and my brother was the first to graduate from high school. i grew up in a trailer in a trailer park. mission toy life's become a doctor to help the poor and underserved and make sure we take care of everybody, regardless of their ability to pay. i went to harvard medical school, harvard kennedy school, the harvard school of health to fulfill that mission inspired by jesus and my faith, to ensure that everybody has the ability to mend their broken leg and get the medicine they need to live a healthy, fulfilling life. this block granting has nothing to do with whether somebody likes or dislikes the president and has everything to do with making sure that individuals who need care get their care. as an emergency medicine physician, i am doing this because i see those patients who do not kid care -- get care, who come in gasping for air because they could not afford their medicine, come in with diabetic ketoacidosis because they never got checked out for diabetes and they come in having to go to the icu, and i have seen patients i have had to resuscitate from near death because they could not afford care. this is entirely for the benefit of people. host: our guest with us, (202) for republicans, (202) 748-8000, democrats and (202) 748-8002, independents. andy from new york, independent line. caller: i think all of this started probably the day that trump got elected. we had two candidates, hillary and donald trump, and it was a question of who made it to office. office,ton made it to i'm sure the republican party would have come up with grounds to impeach her. office donald trump in and the democrats thought they had grounds. it was just a matter of who got there first. i don't think there was anything , atr. trump's background least as far as this call was concerned, that would make it an impeachable offense. i don't know what they would have dug up on mrs. clinton. she did not get there. guest: a very common message that people are hearing in order to dismiss the gravity of the president's actions in asking for a favor of a country desperately in need of military aid that had been approved by congress to defend them from the aggressions of russia, nobody goes to congress wanting to impeach a president. it is difficult to do. it is difficult for our country. regardless if you like a president or don't like a president, that should never be anybody's purpose in going to congress. my purpose was to serve mike and that you went and him -- serve my constituents and make the lives of americans more healthier and more productive. oath to when we take an defend our cons the duchenne -- constitution and when the president so clearly on the phone asks the president of ukraine to do him a favor, to get -- to announce an investigation on a political rival for personal political gain, meaning he will run off of this investigation in hopes of winning his election, that is abusing the power of the presidency. host: norman, oklahoma, independent line, lp, hello. caller: can you hear me? host: you are on. caller: a shout out to congressman mccall -- congressman cole. .e is up next the councilman just misquoted the president. he did not say i want a favor. guest: i am paraphrasing what the president was trying to say. caller: your listeners to go to c-span's website and pull up former vice president biden on u.s.-russia relations and started the 52 minute mark, and read his confession. then i want your listeners to go upc-span's website and pull december 12, 2019, the judiciary committee articles of impeachment. host: we will let the guests respond to what you brought forth. guest: what you were seeing something this administration has done. there is a lot of real life consequences to the policy changes the administration is doing. this went down in history books. we will continue to be vigilant to make sure no president abuses the office of the president the four political personal gain. what is a matter of life and death for many millions of americans are the policy changes that are happening that are not being covered in national news, not as sensational as the impeachment trial. the person who is missing out is that low income, working person struggling to make ends meet, who relies on medicaid and who will be in jeopardy of not having medicaid available for them when they get sick, and they have to take care of their children. they go to work. they have to put food on their table. if they get sick, their income goes down, they might have to go bankrupt. they cannot afford the care they need. we need to protect health care for the american people. host: we have a viewer asking you -- will hospitals be impacted by these cuts? guest: where we have seen this happen, yes, hospitals will be impacted because the states will then be -- in order to save costs will decrease payments to hospitals, their reimbursements for patients who come in for medicaid and doctors as well. that is why the hospital association is against granting medicaid. this is more important for hospitals that serve in rural and underserved areas, because they already are running a tight budget and could potentially have to stop services or close certain wings or certain departments. it will affect hospitals. us 71cms.gov tells million are enrolled in medicaid and it is about 10% of the budget. given the approach you are calling for, is a reform needed in medicaid to keep it sustainable? guest: i think that by lowering one, by of medication, lowering the cost of health care three, by theand way we change delivering care to populations, we will help make patients healthier at a lower cost. instead of focusing on very tertiary, high cost care hospitals and invest more in primary care, in mental health and the home community area, studies have shown that you improve health means last -- less costly care. patient satisfaction goes up and it lowers costs. it is important that we stop looking at that and pass a bill that would lower the cost of medication, hr three. we have it done. it will help negotiate the price of medicare, the price with the most expensive medications, and that price protection will extend into the private health insurance companies so that cost will come down. host: how much bipartisan support for it? guest: i don't believe there were any republicans who voted for it. it is sitting on the senate desk. ralphagusta, georgia, good morning -- ralph, good morning. caller: it is important to note when obama did take over, they did meet the republicans and they said they would not support him on anything. as a constitutional lawyer, he tried to speak to the grammar school kids and they were told, we want to see your speech before you write it. along, but iat all feel that you are preaching to the choir. you are not talking to the other people and trying to get other people in to support. you keep talking about the bills you have, but how do you get them off? i wish she would stop fighting and get something done. how do you go about getting this done? host: we will let our guests respond. guest: i share your sentiment. i decided to run for congress because of the dysfunction in washington, d.c., so there is a lot of opportunity to work together to get angst done. -- things done. over 260 bipartisan bills have not been passed in the senate, and the bipartisan bills are longer-lasting. because of thee, hyper-partisan dysfunction, there seems to be a different atmosphere. i am not one that will oppose a good idea if it comes from a republican member of congress. i have done a lot of work with republicans in introducing legislation. this change in the medicaid program, however, will hurt physician whos a grew up in a poor neighborhood making my life neighbor -- mission to support health care for everyone, this is something i will stand up on. something we have not talked about is the effect of this on changes to medicaid on people who are addicted to opioids. 70%cent kaiser study showed seeking addict did -- addiction treatment are on medicaid. states you have expanded medicaid have better outcomes for patients who are addicted to opioids. states who have not expanded have more people dying from the opioid crisis. clearly we are working hard moving forward in helping curb this opioid epidemic. medicaid, soely on any changes that will limit care that medicaid can give, that could costs or will decrease access, increase barriers to health care will definitely take 10 steps back in our efforts to help people addict did. -- addicted. host: did you attend the state of the union? guest: i did. host: pre-existing conditions and undocumented immigrants came up. >> over 130 legislators in this chamber have endorsed legislation that would bankrupt our nation by providing free taxpayer-funded health care to millions of illegal aliens, forcing taxpayers to subsidize free care for anyone in the world who unlawfully crosses our borders. thee proposals would raid medicare benefits of our seniors and that our seniors depend on, ehile acting as a powerful lur for illegal immigration. that is happening in california and other states. their systems are out of control, costing taxpayers vast amounts of money. they are forcing taxpayers to provide health care to illegal aliens. if you believe we should defend american patients and american seniors, stand with me to pass legislation for free health care for illegal aliens. host: representative? guest: we heard a lot of falsehoods, a lot of lies from the president during the state of the union. i think that we are really dehumanizing not only immigrants, but ourselves when this country and leadership demonize immigrants. and it just hurts the soul. it is not part of my christian to demonize and foster fear against the immigrant. it is the foreigner we should care for just as much, and there is no such proposal that will take money from health care to give to undocumented individuals. wasother line that he said he was protecting people with pre-existing conditions. it was very distressing to hear that come out of his mouth when at the same time, his administration is actively urging the supreme court to completely repeal the aca and all of its protections for individuals with re-existing conditions. -- pre-existing conditions. what is therened alternative plan? what will they do if the supreme court repeals those protections? she could not answer. there is a lot of falsehoods. host: nancy pelosi ripping up the speech, appropriate or not? guest: i would not have done it. host: state college, pennsylvania, carl, democrats line. caller: i have an observation and question about health. one is disappointment with the senate outcome. after the house members were escorted out and the senate the senate members on both sides of the aisle did not go over and shake hands in the way you would see after a game. was, theyhe outcome go and shake hands. i will keep an eye out this summer for kids' sports, children or grandchildren, to see if they will shake each other's hands at the end of the game and if they don't, it will be very telling as a sort of mirror of their adult -- host: if you can direct your question. caller: with the reduction of environmental controls on people's health, will they calculate the extra expenses on health needs of the public? guest: that is a very good question. that is a very, very good question, because a lot of these don't associate environmental protections with human health. understand that when you take away the environmental protection, these regulations, there is increased pollution, increased contamination, and that clearly affects people's health. people with asthma living in more polluted areas have more morbidity, go to the hospital more, more intense treatment necessary, and elderly people with copd have a higher mortality. the point of the end of game handshaking is very important, and it really is sad that in our country, there are many people who identify with the party more than identify as being american per se, to defend their party, or to defend a president above what is the best interest of this country. it is very sad, and we need to reflect on what this gentleman just said. at the end of a baseball game, people come together, shake hands and realize, we are in the same community. we are neighbors. breathe the same air, drink the same water, and we need to act like that. when you have somebody who lambaste the other party as the enemy of the people, constant fear, vitriol, demonizing, manufacturing hate, manufacturing fear, manufacturing these sentiments, it is dividing us. what we need to do is talk about our commonality, and one thing we can all share is our health, making sure that we take responsibility to maintain our health, but also take responsibility to provide the building blocks for our neighbors to maintain a healthy life. my health affects your health. your health affects my health. we need to make sure we are all healthy to promote the common good. host: the federal response to coronavirus, how prepared are we? guest: the risk is very low in america. they are taking the appropriate steps. they have learned from the sars and mers experience, so they are developing a vaccine which phase i will be completed in record time, like two and a half months whereas before it would be 22 month. they are making the preparations, planning the worst , but working to ensure the best. host: this is representative and ruiz, member of the energy and commerce committee. we will continue the conversation on the federal response to coronavirus, representative tom cole. look on in the program, a at the economy and the state of the u.s. economy with moody all comingark zandy, up on "washington journal." ♪ >> our campaign 2020 coverage continues saturday at 6:00 p.m. eastern, live from the democratic new hampshire party dinner, featuring joe biden, pete buttigieg, tom steyer, michael bennet, bernie sanders, deval patrick, elizabeth warren, amy klobuchar, and andrew yang. c-span.orgon c-span, , or listen on the c-span radio app. ♪ isthe new hampshire primary tuesday. watch results and candidate speeches starting at 7:30 p.m. eastern live on c-span, c-span.org, or on the free c-span radio app. season,g this election the candidates beyond the talking points are only revealed over time, but since you can't be everywhere, there is c-span. our campaign 2020 programming differs from all other political coverage for one simple reason, it is c-span. we brought you your unfiltered view of government every day since 1979 and this year we are bringing in unfiltered view of the people looking to lead that government in november, and other words, your future. unfiltered,ect, and see the biggest picture for yourself, and make up your mind with c-span 2020, brought to you as a public service with your television provider. "washington journal" continues. ist: representative tom cole a republican from oklahoma, the ranking member on labor, health, administration here to talk about the coronavirus. your thoughts about yesterday's senate vote? guest: it showed how divided we are. there was very little crossover. isstrikes me that the senate a lot like the country. i have had constituents that look at the transcript where this began on one side or the other and never change their opinion. if you did not like the president and support him, this is terrible, and if you like him, i don't think there is anything there. this ended where everybody thought it would end, so it is predictable, but it left the country more divided and i am sorry for that. i think it will make it more difficult in the coming year for us to work together, not impossible because we got some big tings done at the beginning of the year -- big things done at the beginning of the year like the usmca. we are not incapable, but no question there is an aftermath that takes a while to work through. host: the previous guest says investigating the white house while the legislation is happening, do you think that can happen? guest: we think that can happen. at the end of the day for the american people, the government has to run, fund the national institute of health and centers for z's control and make sure our -- disease control and make sure our military is funded. i was proud of congress for working in a bipartisan way to get the usmca. i give them credit that. -- credit for that. the senate did the same thing. together in drug pricing and infrastructure, so we owe it to the american people to work together where we can. they will make the final decision in november about the president's fate and the appropriate distribution of power between the parties. host: to the topic of coronavirus, where are we in terms of federal response and preparedness? guest: it is a good story to tell. of thee ranking member subcommittee that funds the national institute of health, center for disease control, the stockpile where we put back metal supplies -- medical supplies and vaccines. for five years in a row, congress has put more money in those than last administration and this administration asked for. two years ago, this is something i put in a bill that had bipartisan support, we set up the infectious disease rapid refunds -- rapid response fund. million to help us with ebola. we did not wait around for politicians. we had money instantly. our health agencies are led by outstanding americans. areas,s you in these bipartisanship has trumped everything else. i feel good about where we are at. i feel good about the response. i think you will see more cases. the chinese, i wish they were a little more cooperative, but they are more cooperative than they were during sars. they have done extraordinary things, quarantines inside their country, and 97% of the deaths are in a single province of china. the community is reacting well and we are leading the way. said, weevious speaker are working hard on a vaccine. it will probably be a minimum of a year. ajay is asking for more money for the cash hhs is asking for more money -- hhs is asking for more money. guest: that have not technically ask. it is a 70 plus billion dollar budget, so they can move money around. they will get the resources they need. i have no doubt the administration comes and there is a request and there will be a bipartisan response. host: does that go through the rapid response fund? guest: it will probably go through the rapid response fund. they did this over two weeks ago so they were on top of this from the beginning. they have to move money around. if they need additional resources, i have no doubt congress will do that. we have had two excellent briefings of the infectious the -- institute, dr. ci. anthony found she -- fau was there. the and beckett -- executive jobch gave us a good informing us. we have done a good job, but you are always worried about something that is new. i would give all consign hi mark. marks. proposedmay 2019, the budget for global health is dramatically lower than it has been. guest: you have to remember, president obama's budgets were lower too. congress actually had a discussion when now chief of director,aney was omb and i consider him a good friend and a very able public servant. let me just tell you, we are not cutting nah, we are adding to it -- nih, we are adding to it. we are not cutting cdc, we are adding to it. i will show you other areas to cut and i do not think you ought to cut here. they did the first year and they came back later on with that are budget, but congress has the power of the purse. i give my chairman a lot of credit, we have worked together for five years. we saw this coming a long time ago, and she was help all in -- helpful in getting the bipartisan support when she was a minority. i have tried to help her. years at the flat national institute of health, 40% increase over five years is pretty substantial. we had to make tough decisions elsewhere. nothing in this budget does not have people think we hit starts. and titled education i funding for public schools, you have to make some important decisions but put the life and health of the population first. thes as important as defense budget. you are more likely to die in a pandemic than a terrorist attack. nobody matches what we can do at the nih and cdc. i am proud of both parties working together. host: indianapolis, indiana, democrats line, david. caller: good morning. i hear the technical talk about and things heals is trying to do, but i want to know where he stands on pre-existing conditions being destroyed by the effort to get rid of the aca, and having the president say that he is not trying to get rid of those. whered just like to know rep coal stands on protecting those pre-existing condition coverages included in the aca and where he would like to go with that. guest: this is one of those areas that has been highly politicized. at,ll tell you where i am we are not going to get rid of coverage for pre-existing conditions. i did not support obamacare but it does not mean everything was bad. there were some good republican ideas including allowing you to keep your children on until they are 26. there is a national consensus on pre-existing conditions. everybody likes to capitalize on this, but i would like you to look beckett what the president said, we are not -- look back at what the president said, we are not getting rid of pre-existing conditions. insurance rates have gone up multiple times since obamacare and there are lots of problems in the system. i don't think there is any legislation to get rid of pre-existing conditions. there are attempts to get rid of other parts of obamacare. host: east orange, new jersey, democrat line. caller: thank you for taking my call. and two questions for mr. cole. the first statement is, this president has never given obama no credit at all, none, for all that he has done, what he took us from and where he landed. never gave him one, so he started with hate and hate from a president. host: could you go straight to the questions? caller: yes, here is the question. problems tackling causing death, the number one cause of death in this country is what? cigarettes. 500,000 dyes a year at most. what is done to tackle cigarettes in this country? that is the number one cause of death. guest: actually, quite a bit. there is a line item on anti-tobacco initiatives in the labor, health and human services budget. a lot of the regulation comes out of fda. cigarettes used do not be regulated at all by the federal drug administration. they are now. usage has gone down quite a bit. the big challenge, you are right, an enormous challenge. there were lawsuits a number of years ago and many states have some anti-tobacco initiatives funded by the tobacco company. you are seeing smoking decline and i wish it declined faster and more in terms of cigarette, but it has moved in the right direction. the biggest challenge we have is on the vaping front where we have an exclusion -- explosion of underage users. the fda has been doing something, the administration we williatives, and keep working on it. that is something where literally the federal government bends on a regular -- spends on a regular basis hundreds of millions of dollars a year. michigan,t is in republican line. caller: hello, representative cole. guest: hi. caller: first a comment. as far as i can see, congress has abrogated all its powers because it gave up the power to make war to george w. bush, gave up the power of the purse because the president can divert funds wherever he wants or stop them from being delivered, and now it is giving up the power of oversight because the president can just basically give the finger to subpoenas. that is my comment. happened tois what the tea party republicans? guest: they are still there. caller: the state of the union said, look what we did for you. that is on top of a trillion dollar a year deficit. republicans only care about deficit when a democrat is in office, right? what happened to the tea party? guest: they are still there. the alternative democratic proposals are more expensive. i used to sit on the budget committee and what drives the budget is entitlement spending -- social security, medicare, medicaid makeup 60% of spending. the discretionary budget, defense, national institute of health, department of education, look at 2010, 2020, there is almost no increase in last year, there was a decrease, less on defense, less on nondefense. if you look at the entitlement programs, we were spending about $1.8 trillion in 2010, about 3.1 trillion. that is the entire deficit. what is causing this? the baby boomer generation, the largest generation is retiring. they will live longer than us -- anybody. what is driving the deficit is not changing and looking at social security and medicare. we have never cut any of those programs for people on them or close to them. the last time we looked at social security was 1983. it was about to go bankrupt and we put together bipartisan delaneyion with john and said, let's get a bipartisan commission, submit it, congress can vote up or down, but the mortality tables have changed. you have got to fund those programs differently and make reforms. president obama did not want to touch that and president trump does not want to touch that. i agree with that, but you have to change the way you finance them. old, thei was 34 years federal government said to make this fund solvent you will not 65, it willheck at be 66. you will probably live a lot longer. andill give you iras 401(k)s, things your parents did not have. we had a modest uptick in the fica tax, and increase your income subject to that tax. those are tweaks around the edges that could fund these programs. that is where the deficit comes from. congress does not deal with them manually. i wish our friends on the ways and means would deal with it. the republicans did but they could not get it through the senate. you will not get a deficit dealt with until you put entitlement programs on the table. host: i think she is talking about coronavirus. officesal physicians' been instructed to take extreme caution? guest: yes, they have we have a good health care system. let's start with .1. the danger is very low in the united date. if you haven't been to china in the last 14 days or in touch with somebody from china, you are under probably no threat. china is a big country. there is lots of interchange back and forth between our countries, so we will see an increase in cases and it is dangerous, but this is not the bubonic leg. -- plague. 2%, not a lot is worse than flu, but it is new so until we get a vaccine for it, we will treat it with extreme caution. i was talking to secretary azar about this yesterday, head of health and human services, and he made a point, some of us later on may be accused of overreacting but we are going to overreact and not risk the health of the american people. that is a sentiment shared on both sides of the aisle. your local physicians are on top of it and right now, you are more threatened by the flu. we have had 10,000 deaths in the country so if you have not gotten your flu vaccine, do that. take all the precautions, wash your hands, that part of thing, and you probably -- that sort of thing, and you probably will not have much threat from the coronavirus. martin,om wisconsin, republican line. caller: good morning. these are some very interesting political times we are in. it must be difficult to walk the tightrope between trying to legislate and be a politician. we have seen some interesting things with the fisa things being thrown out, nancy tearing up the papers, etc. what see when you talk to -- what do you see when you talk to people in congress, now that we do not have the impeachment over president trump's head, joe biden and the quid pro quo he did talking about the six hours and firing the prosecutor, how does that check out? the elephant in the room is being ignored. guest: i would agree with you on that, although i would suspect it is being talked about in democratic politics at some level. the candidates are not doing it but the voters clearly are. that is a vulnerability for the vice president where he could become the democratic candidate. at the end of the day, state your positions and cast your votes. i am interested in working together and the president laid out a couple of places, infrastructure, we can work together, drug prices, we can work together. we worked together to fund the government, and on a major trade deal, the usmca. those are things we ought to be doing. the american people will settle this thing. the fate of the president is in the american people's hands. at the end of the day, you work for the constituency. the president works for the american people and they will have a chance to choose from him and other alternatives. time and a polarized it is difficult to navigate. the american people need to look in the mirror because they don't politicians for compromising. as a country, we are driven by the american people. it is not a top-down system, it is a bottom up system. it is frustrating because the founders created a system of checks and balances that ate it hard to create changes rapidly, but i don't think congress is more devout -- divided then the american people. host: patrick from chicago, illinois, independent line. caller: i appreciate the opportunity to speak. the first thing i would like to talk to you about is joe biden. you guys used to call it a banana republic, countries that spread propaganda, and you are one of them. trueng about joe biden is and there was no ill intent when he got rid of that prosecutor. my main point is about medicare. i am a health care worker, a therapist, and the thing about not granting that you have done, republicans always stated they did not want the government to get in between the doctor and the patient. this is the worst thing that happened to home health. home health takes so much money -- saves so much money because the patient will be at home and not in the hospital. they just give a lump sum and therapy, nursing, everything in that grant, and it is so unfair to these individuals. guest: thank you for what you do. thank you for working for people's health. i disagree with you on block granting. people in oklahoma run their health system better than people in washington, d.c., and it has been a republican proposal. the block grant be every dollar you get now plus inflation-adjusted increases on every basis and the states make decisions on how to use it. what we turned out -- what we did with welfare, it turned out to be a prop 8 -- popular program and did well. people in oklahoma, illinois, new jersey make decisions in their respective states as well. home health care, i agree with you 100%, this is one of the most efficient ways to deliver health care and frankly, it is what most people want. people do not want to be institutionalized unless it is absolutely necessary. they will live longer and be happier, and their families will be as well. there is no republican proposal to get rid of home health care. quite the office it. -- opposite. i think it is bipartisan. they hear the same thing from their constituents. they want to stay home as long as possible and as comfortable as possible, as opposed to moving into an institutionalized setting that the government is paying for everything. usually if people are home, they are paying for everything. savings if you can help people stay-at-home. michigan.blican line, hello. caller: thank you for taking my , severalk to the aca republicans on the last election ran on protecting that, even though her name and several republican names are on that lawsuit to get rid of it. and, as soon as william barr jumped -- got into office he jumped on the bandwagon to get into it. donald trump lied in the state of the union and said he would going -- was going to protect it. he is not going to protect it. i would like to point out that during the lewandowski hearing that republicans -- we found out that the republicans have no problem lying to people on camera. it is under oath that they have a problem. the republican party no longer has integrity. guest: that is an unusual color on the republican line. i could not disagree with you more. you are sort of doing what i think you would accuse republicans of doing, which is painting with a broad brush. i do not think the president was lying when he said i would protect pre-existing conditions, that is what he believes. there is no indication otherwise. by the way, he has protected social security and medicare, and i think we should have these -- we should discuss these things, because they are so -- slowly going bankrupt. it is cheaper to do it now then put it off. these are policy differences that are complex, i do not think you get far, i get a lot -- i have a lot of good friends on the others of the aisle that i work with routinely. we get major legislation passed seeing the cdc, were value of the rapid response infectious disease fund, those are bipartisan cooperation, and you do not get any of that if you look at somebody and called him a croak and say they are unethical, it is ok to believe someone different -- to believe something different. it does not mean that you are dishonorable. i do not find that a common trait among people in public life, and it is bad when we allow public dialogue to descend to that level. there is a lot a blame to go around, but there are a lot of good colleagues that i can get things done with. frankly, again, even in these divided times, the president, speaker pelosi, leader mcconnell, and the two minority leaders negotiated a two year budget deal and delivered on and agreed upon levels in a compromised situation. they delivered a big trade deal in a bipartisan fashion and did that in the middle of an impeachment fight. bettery still functions than people give it credit for, but it will not function well if you assume everybody who has a different political label is not working together. i was in a meeting with a nobel plies -- prize winner and one of the guys was a democratic senator, with a profound interest in global health, and we were talking about ways that we can work together to continue to fund the national institute of health. there is a lot more of that that goes on then people recognize. a lot of people that may not agree with me on issues are still good people and i find common ground with. host: one more call in georgia, democrats' line. guest: i want -- caller: i wanted to talk to you, because one of the things that i have not heard talk about -- or talked about anywhere is what kind of precedent is not having witnesses and evidence. to give you an example, if there is a wealthy person in my community, and they go after a themer person, and accuse of something, and that smaller person says i can prove that i am innocent, i have evidence, family, and friends that can tell you i am innocent. and then, the wealthy person or corporation sevidence or any wi, because we are powerful enough to actually remove the voice and judicial system altogether in favor of the wealthy? host: i apologize, i have to leave it there. respond, this is not a judicial process, it is political. your point, go back to the beginning of the process. awas involved in that as member of the rules committee. the democrats did not give the president the right to call witnesses in the main committee of impeachment, which was a select committee on intelligence. the president had no route -- right of counsel. that was not done to bill clinton or nixon. they were all done in the nixon committee. this was all set up as a partisan witchhunt from the beginning. you could not even yield your time to another republican member to ask a question. it was a sham. we had notice of what the rules would be 24 hours before the rules committee considered them. we presented 17 amendments that failed, a big surprise. you cannot start where you do not allow the president to introduce witnesses or do not allow their attorneys, or think you get to the united states senate and get the privileges you did not give to the president. i think this has been a partisan thing on the democrats' side, and they ended up where it started. you create a partyline situation, which they did, unlike the nixon and clinton impeachment's, -- impeachments, you will end up with one in the senate. thisgest that we do not do -- i suggest that if we do this again, we look back at the nixon and clinton thing, which were agreed upon by both sides and where the right outcomes and you had more bipartisanship. host: thank you for your time. we will talk about matters of the economy. joining me next is moody zandi, thatark conversation up next. ♪ >> this weekend on book tv, discussants on race -- discussions on race, gender, a class. charles murray talks about his book "human diversity." >> for almost a century the social sciences have been held grip and in orthodoxy scared of biology. at the moment it takes the form of three widely proclaimed truths. construct, social race is a social construct, class is a function of privilege. >> at 9:00 p.m. on afterwords. howard bryant on sports and race in america. ne is interviewed by etha thomas. >> whether it is dealing with police, and school, and whatever it is, you are looking at other people, and i mean your white counterparts, be able to do things that you cannot do because there are two sets of rules. >> i noticed that my white counterparts questions their own competence. they assume that they belong, they always assume that they belong, and yet when you begin to look at the actual numbers of who gets hired and who does not, and we are talking about this in sports, over the nfl coaching, it is almost like a full dissonance moment where nfl coaches are realizing no matter how much time we put in or experience we have, they do not want us. >> watched charles murray and heart -- and howard bryant on tv on c-span2. continues. journal," host: joining us from pennsylvania, mark zandi, the chief economist from moody's analytics here to talk about the u.s. economy. thanks you for joining us. guest: thank you for having me. host: you record -- you probably heard the state of the -- state of the union and the president's claims on the economy. can the credit president take about this economy? guest: if you totaled up the impact of his economic policies on the economy since he has been in office, they are a wash. some good, some bad. the trade war has done damage. up tax cuts used up juiced growth temporarily because they were deficit financed. the regular -- the regulatory policy is neither here nor there. net zero impact on the economy. host: one of the things that he points to in the state of the union and other focht errors -- factors is the stock market. factor that in. guest: the stock market is at a record high, and that reflects a number of things. one thing is the tax cuts. there are very large tax cuts for businesses, of course we had to borrow a lot of money to pay for them, but they go to the businesses' bottom line so the after-tax profits are higher. the other is very low interest rates, and the federal reserve, which is one of the key institutions that control short-term interest rates lowered them significantly last year in response to the ill effects of the trade war, which helped juiced up stock prices as well. the stock market has a life of its own and i think it is taking on a life of its own. you have a lot of momentum players and other folks that are in the market trying to make a quick buck, and that feels like it is starting to impact the market. a lot of things coming together but the stock market is doing well. host: there are several stories including one on cnbc about taking a look at the current economic picture and protecting forward. -- ford. some say that the chances of recession are more as a year goes forward, or in the next six months. where are you in that possibility? guest: it is about even. when the president called a truce in the trade war, the odds fell significantly, what are not inconsequential, -- but they are not inconsequential. if anything meaningful goes off the rail, recession chances increase. recession odds are less than even but uncomfortable. if you said, mark,, up with a come up with a, number, i would say in the next 12 months. host: if you want to ask him questions about the economy. 202-748-8001, republicans. 202-748-8000, democrats. .ndependent, 202-748-8002 host: a lot of what debt -- what gets discussed is wages, what are those contributing to the conversation? guest: wage growth has picked up during president trump's administration, and it depends on what statistic you look at it is between three and three point 5%. inflation is about 2%, so people are getting real wage gains, which is good. havether thing is that we seen stronger growth for folks in the bottom part of the income distribution. some of that is related to minimum wage hikes, but it does reflect a strong job market. people have been disappointed about the wage growth, it has what we haven experienced historically when we have had a labor market when unemployment -- with unemployment this low. i think this goes to a very weak productivity growth. at the end of the day, are after inflation wage growth will be consistent with growth and productivity. if productivity growth is slow, and it has been, it means wage growth will be low, and that is what we are seeing. in general, wage growth has picked up as the labor market improves. host: if there is a slowing in growth, can you explain what it is? and why you see a slowness? guest: that is a complex question. producingty growth is more without working as hard. at the end of the day it goes to our standard of living. you want to produce more things but we do not have to work -- do not want to work more hours or harder. that is productivity growth. if we have strong gains, life is good. people are making money and wage growth is improving and companies are making more profits. governments are generating more tax revenue, and we need the stronger productivity growth. since the crisis, it has been about halfr annum, the growth we had experienced per annum between world war ii and the financial crisis. that is a big comedown, and there is no smoking gun answer. i think one key answer is that the aging of the population, so folks like me, i am a boomer, closer to retirement than going into the workforce, and that aging had impacts on growth and productivity. i am not adopting the technologies as quickly. i am not embracing them in the same way as the millennial generation for generation z, just coming into the labor force. that is having an impact on productivity growth. it does not augur all that well for the productivity growth in the next five to 15 years because the boomers will be in the labor market for some time, so this will be a constraint for at least the next decade. host: this is mark zandi joining us from moody's. our first call comes from baltimore. this is michelle, the democrat'' line. caller: hello, thank you for c-span and addressing the issue that we are living on borrowed money. the economy is not doing as well as they try to portray it to be. my question is about the tax cuts. i am 58 and this is the first time i will have to pay taxes. i have always gotten a refund because they take out extra. because i live in maryland and i cannot claim the full amount of my state collapse -- taxes and interest. i am actually having to pay taxes for the first time in my life, even though i have them take out additional taxes. i want to ask you about the real cutst of the so-called tax on the middle class, and about the tariffs. how do you think we are doing? because we are borrowing money to pay for the tariffs, so i would like to get your thoughts about that. guest: you make a good point about the tax cuts. the benefit is uneven, clearly the bulk and the benefits went partlks in the top -- top of the income distribution. people with high net worth relatively well flee. the real -- the lower you go down, the less the benefit. as you point out, because of changes around certain types of l.t deductions,. in some parts of the country, i think you said baltimore. in the northeast in particular, parts of florida, and these are parts of country and these are parts of the country that enjoy those benefits. those went away in a tax-cut change and that is why we are seeing the tax-cut rise. uncommon for many taxpayers. uneven,cuts were very and the tax cuts i mentioned earlier were very important, and they benefited businesses even more significantly, especially large corporations. tariffs, the tariffs are like a tax increase. or not, on the american people. we the nation, put a tariff on china and other trading partners. somebody has to pay that. it could be the foreign companies shipping the product here, or it could be american businesses buying the product, or it could be american consumers if the businesses that have to pay the higher price pass that through. so, there is a lot to state about this, but the research we are getting based on the data points we have projected since the trade points began indicate very strongly that it is the american consumer that is paying this. this is effectively a tax increase on you and i as consumers when we go down to walmart and target, or online when we shop. we are paying as much as -- more than we should have. i may not have the numbers exactly right, but we are up to 80 or $90 billion per annum in tariffs being paid by us, so the tax increase on us, so if you take the tax cuts that the president provided back in 2018, if you take the tariffs and the tax increase and bring it together, for a lot of lower and meant -- and middle income americans, the net payoff is more. it depends on a lot of assumptions, but it depends more on in us -- on an assumption on that. host: there is a story that the trade deficit has narrowed for the first time since 2013. china is in third place behind mexico and canada as far as trading partners are concerned. what do those numbers mean in terms of the economy? deficit has not budged as much in the last 10 years. it has improved a little bit. that goes to the trade where it did a number on global trade. of importsacts compared to exports. i would not read too much into that. if i showed you a graph of the trade deficit over a long period of time, it eroded sharply in the 2000s until the financial crisis. since the financial crisis, it has been flat. country to -- vary country, and it is down against china, because we have been engaged in a trade war. we jacked up tariffs on the products. what we mean is that the trade deficit will increase, because companies will redirect to they do business with starting to get around the tariffs. notnet, these tariffs result in a smaller trade deficit. but it will mean is less trade, so we will do less trade with the rest of the world, which is definitely not a good thing, because trade is very good for our economy and us as consumers, it rings down prices, gives us choices -- brings down prices and gives us choices. we want more, not less. host: houston, texas. william, go ahead. caller: good morning everyone. i'm still waiting on the tax-cut and i have not gotten it. i have family members from income levels from 10,000 to $1 million. people that earn $50,000 or less, what was the real increase or tax break that they got, and state, andof local, municipal tax increases always ending up being a net loss? $25,000 a year, do you get an increase in rages -- and wages, and you are still losing. is that -- can you tell me what the tax credit was for a person making $50,000 or less. thank you. have a blessed day. guest: it is a complex question because it depends on the individual and their circumstance. it is hard to know. broadly speaking, i think it is fair to say that the tax-cuts that were implemented back in 2018 were mainly targeted towards businesses, corporations, and high net worth households. there were tax cuts for middle income households and less for lower income households. depending onvaries what year we are looking at. the impact could be different in 2018 the and 2019, and going forward. is other thing to consider under current law, the tax cuts for all of us go away in 2025, so the way the tax-cut was designed was that it would be in place for a temporary period, and then go away. that is current law. unless some future president and congress change that law, we will have tax increases come the middle part of this decade. host: to that end, there are stories about amazon paying a 1.2% tax rate on $13 billion. can you put perspective on that? guest: these are multinational corporations and they have a lot of tools at their disposal for trying to avoid taxes. changed,re the tax law many companies were not paying much if not at all in tax. that got easier after the tax-cut. before the tax-cut, the top marginal rate was 35% of their profits were taxed. those large corporations did not pay that because they could figure out ways around it, but that was the top marginal rate. now, the top marginal rate is 21%. obviously, these companies are paying a lot less even if they do not use tools to get around it. they are still using the tools and getting around the tax payments. if you look at the effective corporate tax rates. you take all the tax revenue that you are generating by taxing american businesses and divide by all the prophets they make, that is the effective tax or 9%, so getting lower. host: massachusetts, independent line. bruce, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. my question has to do with the fact that many politicians claim that entitlement programs are the biggest driver of our deficits were government spending. as far as i understand, social andrity is funded by taxes paid by employers and employees, and is self funding. i do not understand, and perhaps your guest can explain, how you can link that to deficit spending. thank you. programs, entitlement the big ones are social security, medicare, and medicaid. with regard to social security, byt is paid for largely payroll taxes. it is not adding to the deficit. for many years up until now we were collecting more in payroll tax than we were spending out on benefits on social security. so, there is a lot of built-up savings that could use -- that could be used to help financial security going forward. if you do a little bit of arithmetic and given the demographics, social security will not have the resources. it will blow through them 10 or 15 years from now. there has to be tweaks to the program. either we change the payroll tax , and one proposal there is to increase the cap on the income level that is tax. payrollw you only pay tax up to $136,000 on an income. make a certain amount of money, you are not paying payroll tax, or you tweak the benefits. i am using the word tweak, because these are on the margin. i do not believe there needs to be a wholesale change in the benefits we provide under social security. that is something that we can solve in a straightforward way. medicare and medicaid are more difficult. that goes to the rising cost of health care. health care costs, historically, has grown rapidly for many different reasons than overall inflation -- over inflation. since obamacare was put in place that help to reduce the costs and they still grow relatively quickly, and if you do a little bit of arithmetic, there will be a problem. we have to address that. i do not do that with a problem with the entitlement program. medicare is great, medicaid works wonderfully. obviously, they are helping lots of people and people like them. i view this as a problem with our health care system and trying to address the root causes for the continued rapid growth -- growth. we have to address that. if we solve that we will solve the problem with medicare and medicaid. host: we have a viewer off of twitter asking about interest rates. and, if you think they might start to rise. anst: well, it is always intrepid thing. i forecast a lot of things, interest rates are tough. i do not think -- it depends on your horizon. caller isnow if this focused on the next year thinking they want to buy a home. you are in shape for the next six months, the economy is ok but not growing fast. there are a whole -- not a whole lot of inflationary pressures and we have risks like the ononavirus that will weigh growth. i think interest rates remain low. maybe the caller is thinking about buying a home. the 30 year fixed rate mortgage 3.5%,is going for about which is about as good as it gets. if you are thinking about buying a home it is a good time to do it. i do not think they will go up in the next six to 12 months, given all the things that are going on. i will throw into the mix the election itself. since we are a polarized country, and the president's policies are so different than any of his rivals, there will be a lot of uncertainty, which will probably weigh on the economy and interest rates. if you are thinking about buying, you have a window that extends through much of the year. host: moody's does have an election prediction unit. it predicted that the president where doeseelection, that stands today? guest: that would be me and a group of economists. we do this every four years. right now you can make three assumptions. one, the economy on election day performs as well as is -- as it is today. two, the president's approval rating is roughly the same. fore, turnout is average , so going back to the 1970's. if all three hold true, president trump will win reelection. if you are a democrat, let me just say, if you change one of those assumptions, turnout. ,f turnout is high for the d's even if the, approval rating is the same in the economy is the same, thed's -- the d's will win. this will boil down to pennsylvania, michigan, and wisconsin. it really boils down to about five counties in and -- in pennsylvania. two around pittsburgh, and purple counties. two counties in the northeast around wilkes-barre. that is trump country. and then one county in the southeast pennsylvania, where i live. chester county. i often joke that this entire election revolves around one person, my wife. host: let us go to gaithersburg, maryland, democrats' line. caller: hello, i do not know if you can hear me. my question -- i have two things. one is gdp. when president trump got elected there were predictions that the gdp would go through the roof, it would be at 5% and etc., and i was skeptical, not because of him, but because i did not understand how something as far as i understood was composed of productivity in the workplace and the number of people -- here, andave boomers it felt like there was a natural cap to gdp until the boomer generation is out of the system. then, the next thing, i am hearing a lot about liquidity being pumped into the markets to keep them artificially high, and that could result into big troubles soon enough. i want to know if that is true. host: thank you. guest: that was pretty good, very good, actually. growing,my has been gdp growth, about 2% per annum since this economic expansion began over 10 years ago. the tax cuts that were put in place in 2018 juiced things up temporarily. growth under 3%, and that was a stimulus. we went out and borrowed money from global investors and that was reflected in a larger budget deficit. we took money we borrowed and we cut a check to companies and american households. people went out and spent some of that and that juiced things up. as that benefit faded, the stimulus has gone away and the economy is growing at 2% again. in economy grew off of 2.3% 2019. by the fourth quarter, it was growing 2% on the nose. that is where we were, and that is where we are going to stay unless we make changes. the cap no natural cap, is our imagination, ability, and willingness to change economic policy. i will give you a couple of did, would, if we result in sustainable, higher, long term growth even with the boomers. that is a slamdunk. -- first, is infrastructure. that is a slamdunk. there is not an infrastructure in the project that does not have a return higher than 1.5%. we should be all in on that, because that will improve productivity because that will get productivity up. high-speed internet for everybody, that will improve product to buddy. the second thing is to have more immigrants. immigrants are not only important because they are key to filling the jobs that are going open in many industries across our nation, agriculture, leisure, hospitality, retail, more importantly they are key to productivity growth. immigrants by definition are risktakers. you do not leave a place unless you are willing to take risks, and those are the kind of people who start businesses, that innovate and drive the economic train. one thing that distinguishes the american economy from any other economy is a willingness to innovate, which goes back to immigration. if we want stronger economic growth we need to figure out a way to increase the number of immigrants, not restrict the number. host: mark zandi is the chief economist for moody analytics. thank you for your time. guest: any time. host: we will finish out our program asking for your thoughts on yesterday's senate votes and the acquitting of the president. here's how you can call us. republicans, 202-748-8001. democrats, 202-748-8000. .ndependents, 202-748-8002 you can text us at 202-748-8003. it was earlier this morning, the president addressing the national prayer breakfast used the occasion to talk about the impeachment vote. [video clip] >> my family, my great country, and your president have been put through a terrible ordeal by some very dishonest and corrupt people. they have done everything and, by to destroy us, so doing, badly hurt our nation. they know what they are doing is wrong, what they put themselves far ahead of our great country. weeks ago, and again yesterday, courageous republican politicians and leaders had the wisdom, fortitude, and strength to do what everyone knows was right. i do not like people who use forr faith as justification doing what they know is wrong. nor do i like people who say "i pray for you," when they know that that is not so. hurt.y people have been we cannot let that go on. i will be discussing that a little bit later at the white house. [end video clip] --washington >> "washington journal" continues. host: the president will make a statement about the impeachment inquiry at 12:00 noon today. you can watch that on c-span2, c-span.org and listen to it on the c-span radio app. in thesident acquitted two articles of impeachment. you can talk about that, the vote, the influence of senator mitt romney. 202-748-8001 for republicans. 202-748-8000 four democrats. independent 202-748-8002. in gaithersburg, maryland, democrats' line, go ahead. caller: as i have said many times before and as i wrote in a letter to nancy pelosi, i agree 100% with what she and her colleagues did. i believe that if you see something wrong, you should do something about it. if mr. trump had worked in the wonderful company i worked for, and he performed in his job the way that he has, he would have been out before his 90 day probation was over. unfortunately, i believe we have the best white caller criminal in the world ever as our president, and it is a shame ,hat some of those people republicans, have given up their moral courage to support this man. if more people would have stood up when hitler was a nazi germany, the holocaust might not have happened. host: we will go to brian, colorado. republican line. caller: i would like to congratulate one of -- the democrats by trying to pull off one of the biggest election frauds in american history. they not only went after donald trump, but bernie sanders by keeping him off of the campaign importantng the most caucuses starting off the election season. whoseot decide on who is dupe. i hate to believe that bernie sanders is gonna get ripped off again in another election, that if they could do it to bernie they could do it to donald trump. state,ark, washington independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. independent, it looks like tit for tat on the whole acquittal thing. host: meaning what? what do you mean by that? caller: it did not seem fair to me. neither side seemed fair. they did not want to put in their witnesses or any of that, they are arguing, they do not want to work, or whatever. host: what did you think of the end result? caller: i am skeptical, very skeptical. host: why so? caller: that is about all i have to say. host: why are you skeptical? caller: because i do not know which ones to believe. host: chantilly, virginia. john is next. caller: first of all, i am very disappointed when people call in and attack you, you are too polite to ask their question. if a republican does not want to hear what you say, they will attack you. i will say this, senator susan collins saying that the president was wrong and did something wrong. there was no reason that we should impeach him. the next minute it -- the next minute the president did not respond -- responded and said that he did nothing wrong. if i do a crime and seven people are witnesses and the judge says, "i do not need the witnesses, he is not guilty." that is a crime. america needs to understand one thing. we do not know what we have until we lose everything. we have the greatest nation and greatest justice in this country. call, andntleman will attack. in this morning the president attacked mick -- mitt romney, and he is saying he did not do what he did because he is religious. he did it because he does not like me. it does not matter how you look at it. john, in chantilly, virginia. republican line from delaware. frank. hello. caller: i wanted to reply about what i was listening to. i do not understand why folks cannot understand that corporations and businesses are benefited, then employees get hired and the government can tax the employees to pay for government to provide service for the military to keep us safe. host: we are onto the senate impeachment vote. what did you think about the events from yesterday? caller: it was obvious that it was down political lines. have veryhink that we good understanding from our country. host: did you agree? caller: you know what, i think the republicans and democrats should be working towards the benefit of the country and people instead of trying to do things according to their own lines. acquittal, didhe you agree with the acquittal? caller: i think our country will be benefited much more because of it. everybody has the ability to work, unlikets to the previous benefit -- previous administration. tot: we will go on pennsylvania, independent line. caller: i have a couple of quick points concerning the acquittal. i am relieved that it is over and i am sure that the rest of the country is also because i felt like i was on trial. is reason i am saying that because after this started, the claim from the democrats was that the house republicans had to do the right things -- right thing. then it got flipped over to the senate and then the senate republicans were on trial. then the president's counsel were on trial because they were supposedly covering things up, and then they were bringing in vice president pence and in the loop, they were all on trial. the fact of the matter is that the people were really on trial are the deplorables. who is next? i think the general public is next. host: how did you draw that conclusion? caller: that the general public is on trial? host: you mentioned the deplorables and the general public, how did you draw that conclusion from everything before? caller: the deplorables was a comment made by hillary clinton. if you want to know who will steal the election, it is going to be the deplorables, that is who is going to steal it. if they run out of people to blame, they will call it something else, they will go to the general public. there are massive amounts of democrats calling c-span that are defecting from their party. i do not care where they go. they are bringing the chief justice into it, he was on trial. if they were going to bring vice president pence. c-span is on trial too. host: the senate controls the camera, we broadcast the signal. we asked for additional cameras for the coverage. as we understand it, no results ever happened. let us go to catherine in new york, democrats' line. hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. the clip you showed up the president, i think he was attacking mitt romney, and it seems clear that if you are a republican, and you do not toe the party line, they will ostracize you. and i feel he was attacking mitt romney for his faith and making fun of it. he then seemed to call out nancy pelosi, because she said she prays for the president. of hers to make fun religious beliefs. he ist sounds that threatening because he says these things cannot be allowed to happen again, and he is going back to the white house and they will discuss it. threatds like a general that i am grabbing power, and the senate hands power to him. i think they do it because they want to get reelected. mitch mcconnell needs to get reelected, and first he says i do not know where the money to the ukraine went and i cannot find out what happened. and then, that is ok, he is the president, let him do whatever you wants. host: that is catherine, in new york. the president will make more comments regarding the senate vote yesterday and acquitted him on the two articles of impeachment. those you could see on c-span2 at noon today. in terms of other elections. the latest from the iowa caucuses are still coming in, and a result of 97% of reporting. pete buttigieg on top with 26.2 percent followed by 26.1 for bernie sanders. 18.2%.th warren, joe biden at 18 point 2%. -- 18.2%. you can see not only information, but them campaigning. hampshire,k, new pete buttigieg. later on this evening, elizabeth warren in derry, new hampshire. you will see her speech and as she interacts with supporters at 6:15 on c-span2. a couple of stories from the various campaigns. when it comes from the biden campaign, the "new york times" saying that "mr. biden team carefully managed and sometimes he used teleprompters, none of that prevented a spree of verbal stumbles. according to some of his allies, it did stop him from showing off his retail politicking skills. no amount of handling could remedy a situation that his supporters found frustrating. his campaign is not a good campaign, he does not do the groundwork. she says that the campaign was not returning phone calls and no follow-up." "the washington senator warren " pulled ads that were scheduled to run to provide a fundraising bump on which her campaign had counted. it highlights some of the other aspects of the campaigns involved. those results coming in, 97% of them in. back to the topic of the vote equating the president. florida, independent line, sean. good morning. caller: when all is said and done, it is the president's inability to reach out that leaves us on the precipice of civil war. my question is is this done on purpose? host: how does this relate to yesterday? caller: none of us heard any of the information that was necessary. if you want to take the president and his representatives, esther biden's -- mr. biden's guilt or innocence was not adjudicated. host: even with all the information that the house managers put forward? caller: no, there were no witnesses. even though we could say this gentleman was guilty based on what this house brought forward, that is fine and dandy, it will not embrace the reality of the rest of the nation. i will give you the quote from president nixon. he said, "the american people need to know that there president is not a crook." and we need to know that. the only way is by going through a trial. when you come up with a discussion, but you end up with is those who are opposed to the they are quoting everything that comes out of the house. those in support keep ringing up biden. as far as i'm concerned, as far as mr. biden did anything, let us bring him forward. nevada, will go to democrats' line. hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. . out of this -- got out of this again. he raised the taxes, he has been sued 3000 times. host: back to the impeachment trial yesterday, what did you think of that act? caller: they should have had witnesses, and i applaud mitt romney for standing up and showing the difference between the states -- a statesman and a politician. ohio,brian, in cleveland independent line. independent, i am watching for the entertainment value, i will not start paying attention until around september. i am more interested in who they will surround themselves with, vice president and cabinet picks. things that affect the entire government. host: why not pay attention to the trial? caller: i have been off work since july, so i have been watching every day, pretty much. host: what did you think of the trial and the results of yesterday? caller: it was pretty much all political and a done deal from the beginning. it was people preening for the cameras, that is my opinion. there is one question i have to ask you, because it has been driving me nuts. what are they constructing outside the window behind you? host: if i recall, there is some type of work on a garage being built, if you are referring as far as that construction. i do not have the complete details. if i remember, that is the nature of what they are doing. i know that a couple people have asked about that. from maryland, the republican line. jane. hello. caller: let us move forward after this acquittal, tell all your kids to vote him for president trump, we need him for another four years in a lifetime. host: do you think it is as simple as that as far as moving forward is concerned? becausefor me, it is, it is not true what they are saying. people, butr some let us hope that we can move forward. vegas.oan, north las democrats' line. callinghello, i was concerning the impeachment. he is guilty. though reason -- the reason they voted the way he did -- they did is because they are afraid of him and for their careers. mitt romney was right, he has been a crook all of his life and continues to do the same thing. his state of the union speech, but other than that, he had that black girl and her mother up there. host: back to the impeachment trial, it was motivated by fear. what convinces you of that? caller: he bullied everybody. he said if they voted to him,over for them -- for their head would be on a pike. host: they said that that did not take place. caller: i read it in the paper. host: which paper? caller: he bullies everybody. he does not have no class or morals. he is unfit to be the president, and i hope we vote him out, and i will be one that helps. host: david, in south carolina. hello. caller: yes. one of the things that i thought about the impeachment was the house did not follow the rules like they were supposed to. and didwould have taken that, i think it would have been a better situation and we would've found out the facts. intor as it goes in going the senate with what they had, i do not see where they brought thating that would prove president trump would be guilty of. that is my feelings. host: california, dave, democrats' line. you are next. he was notst of all, acquitted because mitt romney did not vote to acquit him. host: he was acquitted overall. senator romney voted guilty on one article. caller: i do not go into that. what i wanted to tell you was about the coronavirus. host: let us go back to the impeachment trial, because that is what we are focusing on. what do you think about what happened overall? caller: all of those senators are bought and paid for, they will get a big tax break. they like getting money. host: kansas, republican line. leonard. hello. caller: thank you for taking my call. host: go ahead. withr: the problem circumstance is that this was all a partisan ploy, and the situation is that, in washington, the republicans are just as guilty as the democrats in this circumstance. and washington needs a clean out, drain the swamp. host: a couple of events to tell you about, 10:00, campaign finance, an examination of citizens united, a subject of a hearing. c-span3 is where you can see it. c-span.org or our radio app if you want to monitor it there. again, at noon, the president speaking about yesterday's impeachment vote on c-span2. the house of representatives will come in for their daily business now. at ends our program. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2020] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. february 6, 2020. i hereby appoint the honorable henry cuellar to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 7, 2020, the chair will now recognize members from the lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with the time

Related Keywords

Alabama , United States , Nevada , Alaska , Chester County , Pennsylvania , Delaware , Minnesota , China , California , Whitehouse , District Of Columbia , Anchorage , Russia , Richmond , Virginia , Ukraine , Arizona , South Carolina , Massachusetts , Wyoming , Hampshire , New York , Mechanicsville , Maryland , Chicago , Illinois , Baltimore , Georgia , New Hampshire , Texas , Washington , Florida , Boston , Indiana , Gaithersburg , Wisconsin , Canada , Michigan , State College , Oklahoma , Maine , New Jersey , Bedford , Colorado , Houston , Ohio , Kansas , Texas Well , Utah , Americans , America , Chinese , Russian , New Yorker , American , Deval Patrick , Susan Collins , Donald John , Roger Rodger , Elizabeth Warren , Nancy Pelosi , Joe Biden , Michael Bennet , Adam Schiff , Howard Bryant , Amy Klobuchar , Tom Steyer , Sherrod Brown , Barack Obama , George W Bush , Mitt Romney , Mitch Connell , Pete Buttigieg , Jonathan Turley , Mitch Mcconnell , Charles Murray , Jay Sekulow , Hillary Clinton , Ted Cruz , Tom Cole , Bernie Sanders , Reggie ,