this week, the summit continues work on president biden's cabinet nominations. the confirmation vote for alejandro mayorkas was moved from monday to tuesday due to winter storms in the northeast. other confirmation votes are expected later in the week. in the house, the first votes of the week are expected tuesday. they plan to take up a budget resolution that could set the stage for passage of a new round of covid of covid relief. a vote is also possible on a rules change to impose fines on members who don't comply with new screening measures to enter the house floor. watch the house live, on c-span, and the senate on c-span two. here is what's coming up next on washington journal. the fulcrum editor-in-chief david hawkins will discuss the

impeachment trial of donald trump. david wasserman of the cook political report will discuss redistricting. be sure to join the discussion with your phone calls, facebook comments, text messages, and tweets. washington journal is next. [washington journal theme plays] ♪ host: good morning, it's monday, february 1, 2021. negotiations over the next round of covid relief will take center stage in washington. a group of republican senators has unveiled a counterproposal to the president's 1.9 trillion dollar package. one key difference is president biden wants to raise the federal minimum wage. that's where we will begin. where you stand on a $15 per hour federal minimum wage? phone line split up differently. if you are under 40, (202) 748-8000.

if you are over 40, (202) 748-8001. one special line this morning for small business owners. (202) 748-8002 is that number. you can send us a text at (202) 748-8003. if you do, please include your name and where you are from. catch up with us on social media. on twitter @cspanwj, and on facebook, facebook.com/c-span. you can start calling in now. president biden talking about why he included a 15 dollar per hour minimum wage proposal in his american rescue plan, he calls it covid relief. this is president biden. pres. biden: how recovery plan calls for an increase in the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour. no one in america should work 40 hours a week making below the poverty line.

$15 gets people above the poverty line. we have so many millions of people working 40 hours a week, working, some with two jobs. they are still below the poverty line. host: we will hear more from president biden this week about his american rescue plan. one question, what is the cost of these proposals? a $15 per hour federal minimum wage, the congressional budget office looked at it, this is what they wrote about the impact of that proposal. "a $15 per hour minimum wage by 2025 would boost the wages of 17 million workers who would otherwise earn less than $15 an hour. another 10 million workers earning slightly more than $15 per hour might see their wages rise. they noted 1.3 million other workers would become jobless due to the plan. the number of people with annual income below the poverty threshold by 2025 would fall by

1.3 million. this -- 1.3 million." the job loss numbers are a median estimate, those lost numbers could be less or could rise to as much as 3.7 million workers. the 2019 cbo report has been recited by several members of congress who disagree with the federal minimum wage being $15 an hour, especially focused on that job loss number. one of those members was a republican from wyoming. this is what he had to say last week. >> president biden is calling on this body to vote to double the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. maybe the idea of national unity is national uniformity, but that does not work in wyoming or for the people of wyoming. maybe he thinks imposing top-down regulations on every american would bring us all together.

that's not the kind of unity the american people are looking for. we want to stand shoulder to shoulder, but not in the unemployment line. in 2019, well before the pandemic hit, the nonpartisan congressional budget office estimated that a mandate of $15 per hour minimum wage nationwide would lead to 1.3 million fewer americans working. 1.3 million americans. madam president, at a time where 10 million americans are unemployed due to the pandemic, 1.3 million americans more can't afford to lose their jobs. the cbo also says it would lead to higher prices for consumers. paying more wages and passing on more prices to consumers. this has hurt american small businesses across the country. talk to a small business owner from wyoming, jimmy has a

sinclair station and he called me on sunday and said $15 an hour, the station has a food court next to it. he said we would have to shut down the food court, can afford $15 an hour for the young people who are working there. putting money in their pockets, providing food and services to the people of the community. $15 an hour, shut it down. host: senator john barrasso on the senate floor. a reminder of how we got here on the federal minimum wage. here are the most recent increases to the federal minimum wage. in 1988 was $3.10. the minimum wage arose in 1990 to $3.80 per hour. three increases back in the late oughts, and 2007 595 an hour. $6.55 in 2008, in 2009 it became

$7.25 an hour. that's where it has been since then and the idea from the biden administration, more than double that, $15 an hour. according to the wall street journal, a rep of the states around the country, the federal minimum wage enforced in states that don't have a minimum wage or below the $725 an hour. those states include texas and virginia and many states would follow the federal wage late if it increases to $15 an hour. most states have a minimum wage higher including $13 and $.69 per hour in washington state. other states had higher rates based on the size of employer or location in the state. eight states including florida have adopted an eventual $15 an hour minimum wage. we want to hear your thoughts on raising the minimum wage nationwide to $15 an hour. phone line split up by age.

over 40 (202) 748-8001. that special line for small business owners. want to know what the impact will be. bob is up first from brownsville, texas. caller: good morning. we need the $15 an hour minimum wage. to pay things like rent, food, water, gas bills, you name it. the republicans don't hesitate to give trillions of tax breaks to the wealthy and the rich, their donors, the 1%. when it comes to the american people they don't want to raise the minimum wage. they don't want to do the stimulus check. that doesn't make any sense. host: bob in texas, linda in akron ohio on that line for those over 40 years old. caller: i do believe that the

minimum wage should be raised, i do however think $15 is a little too much at this time. i think it would just be horrible for small businesses. i think a lot of minimum-wage jobs go to younger folks and perhaps they don't have families , homes, rent, things like that. i think maybe a happy medium would be around $10 an hour and 15 is a little too much to keep small businesses that are open going. host: how would you feel about a gradual increase, it would not jump but would gradually increase over four or five years? would you feel better? caller: i would absolutely before that.

-- be for that. i don't think $15 an hour with the cost of food and rent, our everyday expenses, is out of line at all. right now with the pandemic and everything that is going on it just seems a little too high for me. host: here's one plan of how to get to $15 per hour over several years. it was introduced last week as stand-alone legislation and could be wrapped up in some larger covid package. it's called the raise the wage act, several democrats who have been pushing for a $15 per hour federal minimum wage pushed for this last week. it would gradually raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2025 and would index future increases in minimum wage to median wage growth so it would not grow beyond that. it would phase out subminimum wage for tipped workers, those folks for whom the federal memo wage does not apply.

here is the schedule of how they would do it going from the current $7.25 per hour upon enactment of this rage the wage act, federal minimum wage would go to $9.50 per hour. one year later $11 per hour. another year later $12.50 per hour. another year later $14 per hour. after four years we would get to that $15 per hour federal minimum wage. that was one proposal that has been put forth and backed by a lot of folks who have been pushing for the federal minimum wage to go to $15 per hour. senator bernie sanders was on the announcement zoom call last week for this rage the national rage the -- raise the wage act. sen. sanders: the overwhelming majority of americans support raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. this is not a radical idea. this is what the american people want.

as chairman scott pointed out, since 1998, every time a state has had an initiative on the ballot to raise the minimum wage, it has won whether the state was red, blue, purple. state after state understands that we have to end starvation wages in america, and that's what we in congress have to do. just last november 61% of the people in florida, a state joe biden lost by three points, voted to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. eight states and over 40 cities have adopted laws to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour. during the last session of congress the house did the right thing under the leadership of speaker pelosi and chairman scott and i applaud them and the entire house for their efforts.

they passed legislation to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour, and i have no doubt they will do it once again. at this moment in history, the issue of raising the minimum wage rests in the u.s. senate. it is my strong hope that a number of my republican colleagues, many of whom come from terribly poor states will understand the severity of the crisis facing their working people and joining us -- and will join us in raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour. this is not a democratic issue or a republican issue. this is an issue that impacts every working-class person in this country. host: senator bernie sanders last week, long time supporter of raising the federal minimum wage. among those pushing the raise the wage act, a democrat from

california. this is her tweet. $7.25 per hour since 2009, that is what the federal government expects minimum-wage workers to live on. we have a moral obligation to support families across the country with a $15 per hour wage. the raise the wage act is the first and long overdue step in that fight. on the others of the aisle, this was congressman kevin brady, a republican from texas. 170 $6,000, a texas small business with 10 employees would pay $156,000 more a year for the same workers under the biden minimum-wage mandate. no new revenue, just huge new costs. calling it devastating. getting your thoughts, phone line split up by age with a special line for small business owners. this is angela from cleveland, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. i wanted to respond to your

first collar, bob from texas, who was in favor of raising the federal minimum wage to $15 an hour. he said because everything is going up, yes it is. bob needs to realize when this wage becomes effective it's going to go up even further. they are still going to be left behind. host: what's the answer? caller: what's the answer, i don't know. i am in favor as you discussed with another woman from akron, ohio, phasing into it over period of years, that seems like the best solution. for the businesses that have to pay this wage and the people that will have to pay more for everything because of increased wages. phasing it in over a three or four year period makes a lot more sense than all of a sudden going up to $15. host: timothy out of harpers

mill, new york on the line for those over 40. caller: yes, uh, raising the minimum wage is something that i agree with his right. hello? host: i'm listening, why do you agree with that? caller: because the cost of living now has doubled, right? i can't work, i'm on disability. people that are really hurting our people on disability. we don't even make it through the month. they don't even talk about increasing our money. host: when is the last time you

saw a cost-of-living increase in your disability insurance? caller: they raised my cost-of-living increase to $11 this year. $11. host: from what? caller: from $8.50 to $8.70. i can't -- $11. $11 they raised my check up to. it's ridiculous. host: timothy in new york on that line for those under 40. don and glenn burnie, maryland. caller: good morning. i don't think $15 is a lot of

money and besides it's going to be over a gradual period of time . we pretend to care about the so-called essential workers, but a lot of those essential workers are the ones being affected by the minimum wage. let's be real, $15 is not a lot of money. people are out here working two or three jobs, they can't take care of their family. anyone working 30 hours or more -- 40 or hours -- should be able to pay their bills with one job. it shouldn't have to be working two or three jobs. host: what kind of work do you do? caller: i'm a custodian. host: have you been subject, you are on the line for those under

40, have you been subject to the minimum wage? caller: no. no. host: what is a living way? -- wage. what does that mean to you? caller: a wage that allows you to be able to pay your bills. keep food on the table and have extras for emergencies. that is minimum-wage, not living from paycheck-to-paycheck. guest: don -- host: don in glenn burnie, maryland. the wall street journal what the wrap-up of the federal minimum wage. who makes the federal minimum wage and who it most applies to. this is what they wrote. the federal minimum wage disproportionately is paid to younger people, black workers, and women. according to the labor department 8.5% of minimum-wage workers were 24 years or younger

in 2019 and those workers account for 20% of workers paid hourly wages. women account for 68 point 2% of minimum-wage workers. just over a quarter of minimum-wage workers are black workers, nearly doubled their share of the overall population. almost 75% of minimum-wage workers held part-time jobs. the story from the wall street journal looking into various aspects of the federal minimum wage battle. randy is up next out of monroe, michigan on the line for those under 40 years old. caller: good morning. if they raise it to $15 an hour they shouldn't be able to jump prices up everywhere in the country or wherever. gas prices shouldn't be able to go up and all that, so it seems like it put some stipulations in

it to $15 an hour. that would be a decent price. it's not perfect. host: what do you want price controls applied to? caller: for instance, stores like myers and stuff, but there are a lot of places that make millions of dollars and they pay employees eight dollars an hour which they can afford. mom-and-pop stores maybe not. i like places i can afford it. host: what about a place like a car dealership? should there be price controls on how much you can -- they can increase a price of a car? caller: stuff should be stipulated. it depends on how much they make off the cars. i'm not sure how they go about

their business. maybe if there is one that makes millions of dollars. host: what line of work are you in? caller: i'm a union laborer. right now i'm laid off during the pandemic. host: what kind of work were you doing? caller: labor work, masonry, anything. host: how long have you been out? caller: i have been laid-off since the pandemic hit on april 11 i got laid off. i get unemployment myself and the way they had it held up with this unemployment stuff -- host: have you been able to get the pandemic unemployment insurance, those programs that they have specifically for unemployment during this situation right now in the country? caller: i have been waiting on a

check for the last month now. it finally kicked in when i got my last two weeks. i came clean from back on the 26th. i was supposed to call last monday for my unemployment check , but they have implemented all the new changes and filing new claims and all that. getting me off two weeks of unemployment with 1200 bucks. host: thanks for sharing your story with us out of monroe, michigan. the biden and rescue plan is what it's being called. this $15 an hour federal minimum wage is just one aspect of the $1.9 trillion plan. it would include $1400 in direct payment stimulus checks, one time stimulus checks for

americans who qualify under a certain threshold. $400 a week in unemployment insurance, additional supplements happening with a program that would continue through september, a novation moratorium that would continue through september. $400 million to fight coronavirus and reopen schools. $350 billion for state and local governments. the federal minimum wage expanded paid sick leave for workers and increased tax credits for families with children. that's the american rescue plan, what democrats are hoping to move through this week. we will talk more about how this process works on our next segment of the washington journal and how democrats would be able to move that bill. a group of 10 republican senators are hoping to move it through the old-fashioned way, to get 60 votes in the senate and get the majority of house members and get the president on board with one package, they are

calling it a compromise plan, a $600 billion offer, that deal being led by 10 republican senators including senator susan collins of maine. they said they will formally introduce that package today, but details for that package coming out over the weekend. president biden spoke to susan collins and invited the republican senators to the white house. that exchange of views is expected to happen early this week at the white house, confirmed by the white house press secretary last night. we will see what happens with that proposal this week. one of those other senators on board is senator bill cassidy, a republican of louisiana. here is what he had to say yesterday on fox news about the proposal sen. cassidy: hours is $600 billion. as opposed to the extraneous things, we are very targeted. we are targeted to the needs of the american people, treating

our tax dollars as if they are our tax dollars, not just money to spend and putting it where we need to come out of the pandemic. we think there is a lot to work with, we finally start get bipartisan and with white house negotiation, so far we have not received it. >> and real quickly, the president calling for $1400 paychex for everybody who makes $75,000 a year or less. did that stay or not? sen. cassidy: hours is targeted, we have $1000 and it begins to phase out. there has been very good analysis that above eight certain income level that money is not spent. it may pay down debt and we have seen credit card and mortgage to lincoln's ego down and saving rates go up. that does not stimulate the economy. it's good but it does not stimulate the economy. our money goes to the income level where it will stimulate

the economy. host: senator bill cassidy of louisiana talking about the proposal from 10 republican senators including senator cassidy and susan collins, rob portman of ohio, lisa murkowski of alaska, mitt romney of utah, pat young of -- and jerry moran of kansas, also signing on, mike from south dakota and thom tillis from north carolina. the list from the washington post, expecting a more formal unveiling in the coming days -- let's see if there is an agreement that gets reached, a compromise bill between the biden plan and this plan or if democrats use that budget reckoned is a liege process to move the $1.9 trillion plan. the one aspect of that plan is a federal minimum wage. also out of michigan for that

line over 40. good morning. caller: what is not talked about are the many other expenses incurred by the employers. not only will the employer pay the hourly increase, but this was a huge -- this is a huge raise for government. they will collect more on income tax, social security, medicare, unemployment insurance and workmen's comp. insurance. the reason we don't pay $100 an hour to everybody is that not everybody is worth that. i think most people would agree to that. same with 50, 20 5, 15, and five dollars an hour. marginal revenue has to be greater than marginal cost of the employee. it's not the governments business to dictate the work of an employee. host: you think there should be a federal minimum wage? caller: no. it's not governments job to

dictate the worth of an employee. it's just that simple. host: what line of work are you in? caller: i quit working when obama was elected in 2008 and took office in 2009. i'm 62 years old and have not worked in 12 years. host: what kind of work did you do? caller: i was in construction. the last eight years i was self-quarantining as a caregiver for my 90-year-old father and 85-year-old mother. i was not paid one government stipend for doing so. host: that's bob in michigan. zach is next from harrisburg, pennsylvania on the line for small business owners. what kind of business is it? caller: thanks for taking my call. host: what business do you run? caller: janitorial. host: what do you pay a new employee? caller: i would have to pay them the required amount.

for 20 years i have realized, the guy from michigan is just -- he has been out of work for too long. the way i see it is, if they are going to phase in the $15 an hour the way you showed it, it's awesome by me. host: you don't think that means you would have to lay somebody off, you think you could handle that at your business? caller: yes, yes, yes. do i think that the government should call a hat and a hand or things like tax credits for that amount that they raise for all those years, that would be

perfect. i would agree that the long-term vision here is to bring folks to a living rage -- living wage. you asked earlier what a living wage was. to me it is being able to pay your bills and still cake -- take your kid to the movies. not just paying your bills, getting up the next day and doing it all over again and having nothing left. the pandemic is showing us this. i don't get you people who don't see this. the pandemic is showing us the inequalities of the system in which we are living now. when barack took over more senators came millionaires in that recession any that for in any time in american history. during this pandemic more americans have become billionaires since this pandemic. woe is to me on business and i have been doing it for 20 years.

it is disingenuous. it's totally disingenuous. host: how is the janitorial business in a time of covid? caller: the janitorial business in the time of covid is booming because we are helping to keep people safe and it pays well. host: have you been able to hire people or bring in more people since this happened? caller: my friends have, i have not. host: how many employees do you have? caller: just three. one time i was up to maybe 12 and i'm a little older now so i had to downsize. host: that is sack out of harrisburg, pennsylvania. talking about the federal minimum wage rising to $15 an hour and whether you think that would be a good idea. one plan would be gradually to move it to $15 per hour over the

course of four or five years. that's one plan democrats have proposed. we want your thoughts. our phone lines split up differently. if you are under 40 years old (202) 748-8000. if you are over 40 years old (202) 748-8001. that special line for small business owners, (202) 748-8002. having this conversation for the next half hour this morning on the washington journal. this is david, a small business owner in bloomington, indiana. what is your business? caller: my wife and i make all natural handmade soap and we sell it in a few stores. we used to do about 65 festivals a year. we have not done a single festival since the first of march last year. we had our most recent festival up in indianapolis at the fairgrounds was canceled about five days before the festival

was supposed to take place because of covid. it's kind of crazy i would say. the minimum wage ought to be in the $15 area at least. my wife and i don't make nearly that much. we do most everything. when we take a trip out to colorado every year while we are gone for three weeks we hire people to ship product for us because we do have a website, we've had it for almost 25 years now and it has gone up somewhat, but everything else has dropped off. our income is about 40% down. my biggest complaint is people that don't want to pay $15 an hour, they are having the government subsidize their workers because of all the

benefits they need to actually live their lives with minimum wage. we would not need as many food stamps or paid housing help and a bunch of other things. it's the government subsidizing employers. another thing i believe is that whenever you have somebody working for $7.25 an hour, if you are not able to make money to cover twice that in an hour and then some then you probably don't need that employee working for you. my wife and i, we work many hours at the minimum wage. we used to have big corporate jobs make a lot of money, but we got laid off in the early to thousands. this is all we have done for 20 years. it will be a nice retirement.

we retired early and there's nothing in our area that pays what we used to make. if we are not going to get rich we might as well enjoy life. host: that issue you bring up about people relying less on government subsidies if the minimum wage were higher, that is what supporters of raising the minimum wage will point to, especially in those numbers from the congressional budget office. the number of people whose annual income would be below the poverty threshold in 2025 if the minimum wage was raised to $15 an hour would fall by 1.3 million. the other side of that is the other number from that same report, the estimate that 1.3 million workers would become jobless if the minimum wage was raised to $15 an hour. you think the benefits outweigh the costs? caller: definitely i do. we have had new people file for

unemployment in the last three weeks, that's more than 1.3 million there. i am a little leery about people being laid off. maybe somebody that owns a business might not quite get as fat and happy. i believe that if you have an employee that is doing their job than they ought to be worth $15 an hour and whenever we are we take three weeks and go out west , for 20 years we paid them at least $15 an hour for the people that work for us while we are out. i don't know. i think it far outweighs the possible losses from jobs and the government could do a lot more with what money they do have. host: thank you for the call from bloomington, indiana. appreciate that. also appreciate the viewers writing and on social media.

i want to give them a shout out for some of their comments. writing from facebook "note, the federal minimum wage should be more than $15 an hour. diane saying it would hurt small businesses who are struggling right now. it's amazing to me how rich republicans have been able to convince the average republicans of their right to work for slave wages. cost-of-living keeps increasing while wages for the average worker remain stagnant. the ceo class are richer than entire countries. one more from matthew saying that the minimum wage should be determined by the economy of an area. downtown l.a. and rural nebraska are not the same. there are state minimum wages as well, many of them higher than the federal minimum wage, but if the state minimum wage is below the federal minimum wage, then the workers generally make the federal minimum wage, that is the floor that applies.

we are talking about more than doubling it from $7.25 to $15 an hour. would you support that idea? david out of missouri on the line for those over 40. caller: hello. host: good morning, what do you think? caller: let's do some math. a dairy farmer pays his workers $7.25 an hour. sales has milked to the processor -- sells his milk to the processor. they pasteurize and bottle it and sell it to the distributor, the distributor sells it to the store. the store sells it to me. by now my milk is $4.50 a gallon. at $15 an hour, now the dairy farmer has to sell his milk for four dollars a gallon and it goes up from there. it doubles every time somebody touches it. did the work or make any more money at the end of the year? no. did the farmer, no.

did the store, no. who gained, nobody. simple math, the farmer is not going to make less a gallon, -- the distributor will not make less a gallon, the store will make less a gallon. you are not moving the needle, period. host: what do you think will move the needle? what should happen? caller: if you want to make more money in our stay at your job longer than a year, learn your trade, i'm sorry but mcdonald's is not a trade. that's a stepien job. that's how you learn how to get to work on time and be responsible enough to do your job without getting told to do your job.

you are talking to a guy that made $100,000 a year working on cars. i never made it to eighth grade. don't tell me you can't do it. host: did you ever work a minimum wage job? caller: excuse me? i made $.52 an hour pumping gas. host: how did you get from there to what you do now? caller: i learned my trade. i went to work. i called into work three times. my son was born, my daughter was born, and my grandmother died. that's how i made more money. i outwork to the guy next to me

every day. host: that's david in missouri. that line for those over 40, carlton, good morning. caller: good morning. host: what do you think about a $15 per hour federal minimum wage? caller: it should be $15 an hour, gradually raised over a four-year period. when i was 17 i was making $1.90 an hour. i'm 65, now it's $7.25 an hour, and should be raised. host: what were you doing at that job where you made $1.90 an hour? caller: i worked at a rest home. for the elderly. host: what did you end up doing?

caller: i ended up going to the military, i did four years in the military and after i got out i started gradually getting jobs through the federal government until i retired back in 2010. during the time that i retired i was making an dollars $.60 an hour. host: that's carl out of louisville, kentucky. about 15 minutes left asked in your thoughts about the idea of a federal minimum wage. we mentioned states can set their own federal minimum wage. some cities as well setting federal minimum -- sitting minimum wages. the wall street journal noting

several cities including seattle at $16.69 an hour, san francisco over $16 an hour. new york city has a sitting minimum wage as does washington, d.c.. on that zoom call last week where democratic members of congress were talking about the race the wage act and one way to get to $15 per hour federal minimum wage congresswoman pramila jayapal talked about her home city of seattle and questions about how an increase in the minimum wage would impact the local economy. rep. jayapal: in january of 2014 i served on the income inequality committee made up of laborers, and community activists and we drafted the details of the seattle $15 minimum wage pozo. months later it passed making my home city of seattle the first major city in the country to enact a $15 minimum wage.

we heard a lot of handwringing then just as we did when we passed the rage the weight -- raise the wage act in the house of representatives about all the terrible things that would happen if you passed an increase to the minimum wage. what actually happened in seattle in the years that followed? stronger businesses, healthy families and communities, and a growing economy. in 2019 forbes ranked us as they number one place for businesses and careers. our economy grew at three times the rate of the median u.s. city. we have one of the lowest unemployment rates in the country prior to the covid-19 pandemic and just yesterday recognizing what workers on the front lines are doing for all of us. the seattle city council also unanimously passed a four dollar crisis hazard pay increase for grocery store workers and -- at larger chains to acknowledge the risk and contributions of front-line workers who have kept our communities going.

we are a city that has learned that when we work hard to take care of the workers who take care of us it's good for all of us. host: congresswoman pramila jayapal on the identification of the race the wage act and the effort to get to $15 per hour over the course of four years. out of oshkosh, wisconsin on the line for those under 40. what do you think about a $15 per hour minimum wage? caller: i think the minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour. i don't think we should have a gradual raise, i think it should happen immediately. host: why can't we wait? caller: because we have been talking about this since 2005 or 2004. we are in 2021 right now. the minimum wage has been -- has

not increased since 2009. we have been talking about this since the obama administration. we went through trump and now we are at joe biden and we are still talking about a minimum wage increase to $15 per hour. host: that's clinton in wisconsin, this is orlando out of georgia. caller: good morning. i think we have to ask ourselves how much is an hour of your life worth? would you work for $15 an hour, no. the government really needs to work on inflation. inflation and price gouging. what is happening is it doesn't matter how much money you make. you can't buy what you need.

when they regulate the price gouging and the inflation, then the money that we get we can do something with it. it makes the community safer and it makes the world a better place because everybody deserves a quality life, not just the crooks that can scheme and inflate prices and then overwork their workers. host: that's orlando in georgia, dorothy is next out of raleigh, north carolina, over 40. caller: good morning. i agree with some of the callers, most of them. i'll tell you what i would do if i was the democrats. i would add more to the bill. i would add to thousand dollar checks, raise the minimum wage they could do it gradually if they want. i would put the social security

in there and the public option in there and do it with reconciliation. i would do it all. 15 and everything. if the republicans don't do it, then i would do another reconciliation and do infrastructure and work on climate change and do it for re-conciliation. you talk about winning, i guarantee you in four years the democrats would not stop winning because people need exactly what they are proposing. i wish they would do it all and do re-conciliation, do what mcconnell did with those judges. he didn't care, he did what he wanted to do. do it. host: you were talking not getting read of the filibuster? caller: not exactly, i think they have something called reconciliation. host: they do, budget reconciliation and we will talk about what you can and cannot do through budget reconciliation and how many bytes of that apple you can take each year coming up in about 12 minutes. david hawkins will join us as

part of our discussion about the week ahead in washington. thanks for bringing that up and we will circle back to that. darrell is waiting in birmingham, alabama on this question about a $15 per hour minimum wage. a small business owner, what kind of business are you in? caller: ace auto parts. host: what does a new employee get your company? caller: $15 an hour. host: that is higher than what the minimum is in alabama? why $15 an hour? caller: we still used car parts. in the car business it's a safety hazard so you have to make sure you pay your always a good amount of money -- pay your employees a good amount of money to live on. in some businesses is not warranted. schoolteachers make that kind of money, police officers make that kind of money in some communities. if you have no skills why would

you make $15 an hour? it should stay wherever it is, it needs to be lower in some places. host: darrell, so you are not in favor of a federal mandate, you are just saying it should apply by what your skill level is and what the job entails? caller: yes sir. if you decide not to do a certain type of job, we don't know whether you have -- if a job says eight dollars an hour on the application and you apply for that job and get it, you can complain about the job you chose get your skill level up so people can hire you. go to trade school, find a skill you have, brick mason, painting, some kind of skill where you can better yourself and stop asking for handouts. some kids are in the sixth or seventh grade, why do you want to make $15 an hour in the sixth or seventh grade?

host: how many employees do you have? caller: eight. host: this is laura in traverse city, michigan on the line for those over 40. caller: good morning. i absolutely agree that the minimum wage should be raised to at least $15 an hour. when fdr promoted the minimum wage as part of the new deal he said it should be a decent living, not subsistence -- not bare subsistence level, decent living. the federal minimum wage. and i think a lot of the hopelessness and on other shows you have talked about suicide rates going up and drug use and stuff. i think part of that is that

people are working and not making a decent living. host: what would you say to the collar before you from alabama who said if you apply for a job that says it pays eight dollars an hour you should not complain about getting paid eight dollars an hour? caller: a lot of those jobs maybe they are low skill, but they are also what we have a deemed as essential workers throughout this pandemic. we call these people essential workers and yet we don't want to pay them a living wage. host: this is mary out of pennsylvania on the line for those over 40. caller: good morning. my query is, what do you do about the people on social security? the social security when you go and prorated it comes to well less than $15 an hour.

they make it so that you cannot claim poverty, but if you go to $15 an hour your social security check will put you into poverty. another query is, what do you do about the teenaged kid that is working at a mcdonald's, around here they are making $10.86 an hour. you put them on that and all of a sudden you discover that these wages will have to be paid with the taxes at the parents rate, $19 80 six sent -- the 1986 act wear because they were putting so many kids, people were putting their money into their kids accounts and cheating the irs out of payment for their taxes.

now they put their kids account into your financial status so that if the kid pays at the parents rate, so all of a sudden you will have all these kids that will have to end up paying the irs sums of money or the parent. you have the two ends that will be hurt by $15 an hour. the kid making his first job, or this person on social security. also, in this area right now, walmart is paying $22 an hour. i think it is dependent upon where you are how much you are getting. host: mary in pennsylvania, a few comments from social media and our text messaging service. vincent and marilyn saying $15 an hour means more robots and ai taking our jobs. welcome to the great reset of

the world economic forum discussed recently. where can you live safely on $7.25 an hour. $15 is not a lot of money but you can afford the basics in some areas. peter sang a few years ago, the one per centers don't work for their billions, minimum wage should be at least $20 an hour. time for a few more of your phone calls this morning as we wrap up this first hour of the washington journal. the senate in today at 3:00 p.m., the house expected to come in for a brief pro forma session at all 3:00 p.m. on this snowy day on capitol hill. expecting members later this afternoon. dennis and marilyn on the line for those over 40. go ahead. caller: how are you doing today. i was listening to your callers, sounds like america is paying attention to something and that's good. no matter what if you are a democrat or republican, you take

people as far as a tax base and look at the super wealthy. they have things set in place where they don't have to pay taxes. jeff bezos, 100 some million dollars since covid started. that he's made. that is fine, he chose that job. maybe don't make them pay taxes, maybe give that, what would be a percentage of that tax from the wealthiest, give it to the poor in this country and pick them up. we have people in poverty and then we turn around and claim that we are the greatest nation in the world. we have the biggest murder rate in the world. everybody it's just a mind game to the government to keep playing with the people. i think $15 an hour is not a bad wage for people that want to work. that's the problem, the government keeps giving so much

a way that people don't have the incentive to work. starting off at a job when you are a young person, i'm a commercial fisherman and i have been all my life. we don't get paid by the hour. we get paid by performance. what we catch in a day, what we harvest in a day. a lot of times the weather dictates what we do. price dictates, covid has put us almost out of business because restaurants shutdown and it has hurt us. we are going to keep -- i do know this, when you say the word poverty, the word opportunity is what should be put before that. that will absorb poverty, opportunity for people. young people to get educated more than they are. get out of the house, get a job, go to work just like my father and mother told me. show up and be responsible for your own life. you are in the situation you're in because of the choices you

have made. don't blame it on the government or anybody else. stop talking and get out and get yourself a real job. get two. absorb your time was something that will benefit you down the line. have a good day. host: this is chula vista, california on the line for those who are under 40. thanks for getting up early. caller: i agree with the $15 an hour. i think that it's part of the trickle down supposedly affect that we have been promised. wall street is doing really good and so i think that people at the bottom should be able to get a decent wage. people that make $15 an hour are going to spend it, moms and young families that have kids, you know how expensive diapers are and milk and groceries, the basics.

we subsidize people that don't make a lot of money. i think a bunch of small businesses are a bunch of crybabies. you go to their homes they have mansions and second cars. they say they are losing money. maybe they have to sell their third car or their boat or something like that, but i also think it gives stability. we keep subsidizing the big business and people that have money in a hidden way. people get food stamps because it's not enough for one or two parents who make less than $15 an hour to pay the basics. they are going to spend every penny of that money. it also gives respect to people, like the gentleman said about stability, motivation to stay on the job. i think it's going to be a benefit for all of us because we do subsidize in every form, even if you don't get food stamps or

stuff like that, the government subsidizes when people can't afford something. it is well overdue. host: going to end that there. john has been waiting for a while in sumter, south carolina. go ahead. yes sir. -- caller: how are you doing? any time have a politician that can spend half $1 billion running for office, there is something wrong. this is what we should do. put a freeze on everything. when stuff starts going up, raise the wages. i can remember when a candy bar was $.10. that candy bar now is a dollar and a half. you didn't raise my wages. i remember when you can buy a brand-new car for $4000. that car today will cost you $20,000. who is making all of this money?

pay me as i work. it is simple. freeze everything. no more price hikes. every time gas goes up, raise my wage. they talk about raising the price of gas and -- on the shelf for a year going up $.50. all you've got to do is put a price freeze on thing. host: our last caller in this first segment. if you did not get in, we are going to revisit the same question at the end of our program today. up next, a look at the week ahead in washington. we will be joined by david hawking's. later, we take a deep dive into this year's redistricting process with david wasserman. we will be back. ♪ announcer: former president

trump became the first president to be impeached twice. last week, house impeachment managers delivered articles of impeachment on the former president on incitement of insurrection to the senate with maryland representative jamie raskin reading the article before the senate. >> donald john trump thousand warrants impeachment, a trial, removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the united states, so help you god. announcer: the following day, senators were sworn in as jurors. republican kentucky senator rand paul requested a point of order to dismiss the impeachment charge as unconstitutional. >> i make a point of order that this proceeding, which would try a private citizen and not a president, vice president or civil officer, violates the constitution. announcer: the motion was tabled in a 55-45 vote. afterwards, the senate approved

the rules of the trial and adjourned until tuesday, february 9, marking the start of the senate impeachment trial. watch the impeachment trial live at 1:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two, stream on c-span.org, or listen on the c-span radio app. ♪ announcer: you are watching c-span. your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's cable television companies in 1979. today, we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span to viewers as a public service. announcer: "washington journal" continues. host: on mondays we like to take time to talk about the week ahead in washington. joining us via zoom is david hawkings, editor in chief of the fulcrum. a man who has been covering capitol hill for over 30 years.

with this republican covid proposal getting so much attention, senators perhaps meeting with joe biden today, what should viewers look for when it comes to possibly the first big deal of the biden administration, if they choose to make a deal? guest: the most fundamental thing to look for is whether the president at this meeting, which i believe is at 5:00 p.m., with 10 senators who offered yesterday $600 billion covid relief bill -- the most fun a metal thing to look for is whether the president signals a willingness to counteroffer, or simple he reject what the republicans are doing. that will say a lot about whether he wants to be the joe biden -- the historic joe biden who has been cutting deals on domestic policy, confirmations,

you name it. since the 1980's. or, whether this is the new joe biden, a new joe biden who has decided as president he needs to push hard for democratic priorities. host: when he was cutting deals, was he known as a tough negotiator? did democrats ever complain he gave away too much when making a deals either as a senator or vice president? guest: they shorted. -- they sure did. to go over his career, he was judiciary chairman during the clarence thomas confirmation hearings. plenty of people did not think he gave enough time to -- a complaint to content -- potentially corroborating witnesses. the 1984 crime bill, which sort

of opened her door to what his critics say was an era of mass incarceration. he was the foreign relations chairman after september 11 and was responsible for very quickly agreeing upon a deal to authorize the use of force against iraq a year later. the left does not like that. in 2009, first year in the obama administration, he worked very hard to try and find some republicans, i believe three, to vote for president obama's economic rescue package to get us out of the recession of 2009. some people say he gave away too much for just three republican votes. most famously of all, the most recent, many veterans c-span viewers may remember the fiscal

cliff. to oversimplify a bit, the expiration of tax cuts at the end of 2012, and at the same time the imposition of sharp spending curbs. mandatory, across-the-board sequestration curbs. it was biden who cut the deal to back the country away from the fiscal cliff. his main concession was to allow many of the bush era tax cuts to continue almost indefinitely. is -- victory was to allow other spending increases to go on without across-the-board sequestration cuts. the left was angry then. the fundamental definition of a deal, politicians will tell you, is when both sides are equivalently disappointed and equivalently pleased.

in the main, that was true, but on biden's left flank several times he has gotten in trouble. host: david hawkings, our guest. as we talk about the week ahead in washington, we invite viewers to join the conversation. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000. independents, (202) 748-8002. we appreciate you having that mug. a deal is one way to move this. 10 republican senator say they want to make a deal and they come to some sort of negotiation. another way to move the package is through budget reconciliation. there are democrats already talking about moving the $1.9 trillion package, the rescue

plan, through budget reconciliation. what is budget reconciliation? guest: [laughter] there is a really long answer and less long answer. the real bottom line to reconciliation is that it budgetary measures to pass with a civil majority vote in the house and senate -- a simple majority vote in the house and senate. that is the ultimate baggage -- ultimate magic. if there is no point in negotiating between $1.9 trillion and $600 billion, no middle ground there would be worked out politically, or for the country, then he would move to advance his one financially dollar plan through reconciliation -- his one point

$9 trillion plan through reconciliation where would pass with a simple majority. reconciliation was created in 1980. the purpose of reconciliation was to push away delaying -- and -- delaying tactics and filibusters from legislation and was supposed to reconcile spending. the idea was to make it parliament terribly easier to shrink the budget deficit, which at the time was starting to get out of control. that is how it worked for about 20 years. at the time of george w. bush, early 2001, he inherited a significant surplus, bill clinton had balanced the budget and there was a big surplus, george w. bush said i want to cut taxes. he was able to persuade the --

that reconciliation could be used for any bill that altered the federal balance sheet and anyway. either to make deficits smaller or bigger. that is what happened with the bush tax cuts. it also happened most recently with the trump tax cuts. the most recent time reconciliation was used was four years ago, the trump tax cut went through on reconciliation. that is the most recent time. the first step in reconciliation , and that is why we need to talk about it this week because the first step is being taken. in order to do reconciliation, you've got to have a budget. the house and senate need to agree on a nonbinding budget plan that then gives instructions to the people who write the reconciliation bill. john yarmuth says he is going to

put out his opening salvo today. bernie sanders of vermont, new chairman of the fed budget committee, says he will follow in the coming days. those two sides, not only in the senate where there is a big ideological disagreement between -- bernie sanders and joe mansion, arguably the most fiscally conservative senate democrats would have to agree and they would have to agree with the house. only if that happens with a then move forward to write the legislation that we carry out president biden's plan. the timetable is short. essentially six weeks. until employment benefits run out. everything would have to happen just right and without too much internal bickering on the democrats side. host: ej dion in today's

washington post, "pick one, filibuster or democracy." if you are somebody who is of the opinion that filibuster is getting in the way, why not just do everything by budget reconciliation? guest: as of now, the rules are that what can be in a budget reconciliation bill has to have some affect on the federal balance sheet. at either has to affect revenue are spending. -- revenue or spending. we will hear in the coming days, there are a bunch of procedures that have the word "byrd" in them, named after robert byrd. it was his insistence that

reconciliation allowed -- made it such that any provision that got into a reconciliation bill that did not either alter spending revenue could be withdrawn on the orders of the parliamentarian. -- some holiday byrd -- some call it a byrd bath. the act of scrubbing the bill has no alter the federal balance sheet. you will hear these turns going forward. in theory, something like the minimum wage, which bernie sanders wants to have as part of the economic recovery package, raising the minimum wage to $15. there will be an argument that

raising them in them a wage does not have a direct impact on the federal balance sheet. the counterargument will be, yes it does. if you raise the minimum wage, that will raise tax revenue. sure, you should allow the minimum wage raise in reconciliation. the other argument is, that's not what were talking about. we are talking about things that are appreciably designed to alter the tax code or spending. host: if you want to talk about the ins and outs of the budgetary process, there is no better person than hawkings. -- no better person then david hawkings. bill from syracuse, a democrat. caller: good morning. i am a democrat. i am in favor of impeaching donald trump. i originally voted for senator warren for president.

but, on this budget bill, i do not understand why i should get $1400. it is nice, but i don't really need it. i think you could make adjustments so that there would be -- majority to vote for is to take the money from the individual refund to somewhere else in the bill. we really need to speed up the delivery of the vaccine. i think a lot of poor people do need the money. if we just concentrated on that, i think it would be possible to have a reasonable bill found. i think possibly 60 senators would vote for it.

host: joe biden's proposal, $1400 combined with money from the bill passed at the end of -- bringing the total to $2000 per the republican bill we are talking about does have direct payments in the realm of $1000 and a different threshold level. guest: would bill is pointing to is that there is plenty of room for compromise. it is not as though republicans are proposing an apple and joe biden is proposing a strawberry. there are talking about the same topics. as i understand, the republican bill is pretty similar to what the president's proposal is when it comes to money for speeding vaccine delivery. the amount of the check in the number of people who get the check is a huge driver of the cost. huge. these are norman's numbers of

people. there is plenty of room for scaling back the size of the check and lowering the threshold for the number of people who get the check. lots of room for compromise there. the question is, does president biden want to entertain such compromise? or does he decide that really what is in the country's interest, what he was elected to do was to govern at this maximum number? the so-called old-line you will hear is that elections have consequences. to joe biden, elections have consequences. meaning, i should get this done. i won the popular vote. on the other site, republicans will say yes, but republicans did well in congress too. the largest minority in the house since world war ii.

you should govern facing the division. host: west mifflin, pennsylvania. gordon, a democrat. caller: good morning. the thing is, we have been dealing with mitch mcconnell since the obama era. mitch mcconnell in the republican party, there has never been no compromise. they have always played hardball. as a democrat, i believe we voted for joe biden so we could get some things done. i do not think there is any compromise with the republican party, particularly after we have seen the most recent events. particularly when you have people in office like crews and green, mccarthy going down to florida. where is the compromise? i don't understand it. i do not think there is compromise.

the democrats should maximize every possible thing we can maximize. that is why we voted for joe biden. that is why we put senators in office in georgia. thank you. host: david hawkings, in dealing with mitch mcconnell, we are waiting to see the final version of the power-sharing agreement the set. -- in the senate. explain why democrats need the power-sharing agreement when they have 50 senators plus the tiebreaker? why do they need to compromise here? guest: great question. i will try not to go too far down the parliamentary rabbit hole. the senate, at the start of every congress, needs to pass a measure to adopt its own rules. they call it an organizing -- that is what sets the chairman of each committee, the budget

for each committee, the ground rules for how bills move from committees to the floor and how bills move. the organizing resolution stays in effect until a new one is adopted. in the moment, the senate is still operating on the resolution from two years ago when mitch mcconnell was in charge. now they need a new one to confront the unusual, not unprecedented from a situation of a 50-50 senate. there was a 50-50 senators six months 20 years ago. it took a while to come up with this resolution. trent lott and tom daschle did so. it makes intuitive sense if you hear the outlines of it. 50-50 senate with the vice president, 20 years ago was dick cheney, deciding who ultimately has the majority.

now, it is a democratic senate because vice president harris has the vote, but it is 50-50. why not allow the an equal number of people on each committee? an equal budget? equal staff. this is important stuff in terms of legislative functionality. expert to help senators right the bills, this is important to -- important. if anyone was on their elementary school student council, generally a tie vote is a losing vote. you do not win with a tie, you have to win with a majority. the other big exception from 20 years ago was that legislation tied in committee could go onto the floor anyway. those kinds of things are what is important to get an organizing resolution now. you also need to name new

chairman. it is not like automatically the top democrats of each committee become the chairman. in fact commit technically, the republican chairman are still the chairman of those committees until there is a new resolution. in three cases, those chairman have departed. so, there is no chairman. they can't convene a hearing. they can't even buy new toner cartridges for copy machines. all of that is quite important. mr. schumer and mr. mcconnell come to an agreement, confirmation hearings are only the start. host: giving a chance in the way back machine. 2001, the announcement of the power-sharing agreement between senators tom daschle land trent lott, here is a bit from that announcement. [video clip] >> the senator and i have said

this comes down to two words, good faith. i hope not only by our actions today, but over the course of the next two years, we can demonstrate without equivocation that that good faith was warranted. we face many challenges in the days and weeks ahead. we face many uncertainties. as we face those challenges and uncertainties, it is my hope that we can look back upon this moment and say not for the fact that we demonstrated good faith today, we could not continue to demonstrate good faith when challenges arise. >> i have enjoyed working with tom. he is generous in his remarks. we have very diverse conferences, both of us. i know for sure, some of his people are not delighted with all of the details of it. i think it is an important

point, we are going to forgot about some -- of what we did or we didn't think about any other rule. as we go along we will have to work together to deal with those problems, but i think we have had a good discussion. there have been friendly hallways. this is another step in a positive direction how we are going to get our work done. host: david hawkings, those words, are we hearing those words as often now between chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell? guest: no. daschle and lots continued to be friendly. if you're geeky out in washington, you can go to a number of web seminars where

they speak together and talk about the virtues of this. no, you do not see this from senators schumer and connell. they have a minimally functional relationship. it is tense. as the viewers may know, this power-sharing agreement was delayed for quite a while because we did not know until january who ultimately would be in the majority. subsequent to that, the twin democratic victories in georgia, we had hardball being played by senator mcconnell, for whom the filibuster is his most potent weapon, trying to ensure that agreement was -- unless schumer forced more changes to the filibuster rule.

he has dropped that, so we should be on the cusp of getting something quickly. it will be grudging. i don't think you will hear those adjectives when they do a press conference. host: we will do the comparison when that happens. duane in jamaica, new york. caller: this is why a lot of us voters are so frustrated with washington. this is very simple. it may not be as simple as mr. hawkings explained, but elections have consequences. the democrats won. the democrats have an agenda. let the agenda go forward. a gentleman earlier said he doesn't need $1400. he may not need $1400, but i do. why is it that those folks in washington keep holding things up? republicans. mitch mcconnell has had power for eight years and has done

nothing but help corporations. help the little guy on main street. we are still struggling. joe biden is willing to go out what -- go out and do what he needs to do to help people. trump was no good help for new york, and he was a new yorker. host: david hawkings, how do you feel about the filibuster? guest: gosh. in theory, it is good. because in theory, it compels compromise. it make sure that -- back to high school civics, while the house is elected by the people and with districts and can be majority rule, there is another chamber in congress where the

rules are different. two senators from every state, different sets of interests and compromise required. is it working now? it is not. the filibuster -- remember, it used to be filibusters were poor rare -- filibusters were rare. people often did what you see in the movies where people gave long speeches to drag the debate out while compromise was going on. now you can some plea do it by email. and then the filibuster is on. so, it is not working now. it is the default senate minority to filibuster everything. on the other hand, no compromises happening. if you abandon the filibuster, you essentially have two

majoritarian institutions writing policy. one is the senate -- the makeup of the senate is not in any way reflective of the makeup of the country. tiny rural states have two senators, and so do big urban states. i should know these numbers by now, but i think it is something like 18 senators combined representing 5% of the american population. and then you have another similar group of senators representing -- essentially that becomes majority rule and that changes the nature of policymaking. one of the solutions, other than eliminating it, one solution you're going to hear about is reverting to the old days where if you want to filibuster

something coming actually have to put your own body and again and come to the floor and talk. sometimes that means reading the dictionary or reading a recipe book, or "green eggs and ham" as ted cruz did once. but at least in theory it means you have to put your physicality in the way of this bill and talk and talk and hope to drive company -- hope to drive compromise. there will be lots of discussion on ways to change the filibuster, but at the moment it does not seem to be working as intendant -- intended for -- intended. more often than not, the filibuster was used more often historically by segregationist southern democrats to block civil rights bills. that has been its history.

host: david hawkings with us, he has put his body in the game here at c-span some 67 times over the years. if you want to check out all of his appearances at c-span.org. what is the fulcrum? guest: the fulcrum is a nonprofit new site that is all about covering the issues of our democratic systems. we are talking about money in politics, gerrymandering. we spent a lot of time in the last year covering voting rights, election administration, efforts by states to make voting sometimes easier and sometimes harder. we have a new site, opinion pieces every day. we would love you to read it. thefulcrum. u.s. host: sarah from columbus, ohio.

caller: i think if they lower the cost of living and the taxes and maybe revisit the flat tax -- when i am in the late 70's i worked for the government. i made $3.50 an hour as a clerk. i lived in an apartment with my sister. i had a car, credit card, insurance was paid for, i was able to afford car insurance. now i'm retired. by the time i figured out all of my taxes that were taken out and deductibles, i was making $7.50 an hour. obamacare, my insurance went through the roof. i was talking to people making minimum wage, they said they couldn't afford the deductible because it was like $1500.

i had to go and get surgery for cancer. i saw my bill for outpatient. $68,000. that was ridiculous. they told me the reason was because i am paying for the people that can't afford to pay. host: thanks for sharing. david hawkings? guest: that is a dramatic illustration of some of the challenges facing the country. so long as we are as gridlocked as we are, many of those challenges will continue to not get addressed. why? president biden's allies and president biden himself has talked for unity. let me talk for a second about this discussion of unity.

the president talked in his inaugural address about unity. he did not talk about unanimity. it was not a call to get everybody on the same policy page. what he was talking about was unity in confronting the challenges of the country and at least agreeing on what those challenges are. that begins with agreeing on a shared set of fact's about what is going on in this country. the challenges are with income inequality, the state of race relations, our divide in the country. the awfulness at the capitol. unity begins with at least coming together to agree that

there are challenges that need to be worked out, not necessarily on with the workout should be. host: here in washington, d.c. a democrat. caller: good morning. i got a whole dollar raise on my social security. i need $1400. the republicans get all the breaks in the world. that they need to take all of the money, all the money they making, not paying taxes that we are paying for them, put that in a pool and see how much you can do with that. try that. thank you. host: david hocking -- david hawkings, where you want to take that? guest: people who are living on a fixed income -- well, she might not get the 1400, but she is going to get the maximum of

whatever congress agrees to. something is going to happen in the end. either to deal with republicans, or my sense is that the demo -- the president would be able to push this through. what she is also pointing to -- i'm sorry i did not hear her name, but she lives here in washington -- she has also pointing to one of your image problems the republican party has, even with former president trump gone, which is that they are perceived with some justification as the party of the rich donor. the party of the 1%. the party that is happy to preserve income inequality. the previous president's populist attempt at being more populist in governing sort of

muddied that up. i think with him gone, the future of republican populism, the old criticism of the republican party, the so-called fatcats, is something that republicans are going to need to confront. host: this is bob in atlanta, georgia. republican. caller: thank you. i am in favor of the filibuster because that is a process that essentially preserves minority rights. but, if you're going to go and have majority rule -- words mean things. do not use the word reconciliation. why don't you just say we are going to have majority rule? host: good point -- guest: excellent point. just to tease those apart, the

reconciliation -- it is complicated budget speak. it would get rid of the filibuster for certain kind of budget bills. the larger decision is whether the democrats should get rid of the filibuster on all legislation. remember, it was the democrats that got rid of the filibuster. all nominations except supreme court nominations when obama was president, than it was the republicans who got rid of the filibuster for supreme court nominations after trump took office. your remember trouble facing getting neil gorsuch on the court. now, all of the flak for the filibuster is not budget legislation. immigration, potentially some aspects of climate legislation, some of that could be budget, some could not. and then, all other manners of

legislation. criminal justice, voting rights, civil rights, legislation to clean up lobbying. there is a big package of legislation to make the governing system work better, in the view of its sponsors. republican say it would federalize too much of our system. all that is held up because of the filibuster. you are right. even after this covid really fight is done, even if somehow it is done with some bipartisan consensus and the magic of reconciliation, there is still an ocean that will confront joe biden and the republican minority that will be hard to bridge. host: a couple minutes left with david hawkings. this is joanne in newton,

illinois. independent. caller: yes. i was waiting to see what illinois had to say from david hawkings talking to different people from different states. i don't think the minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour. a lot of home health care people are not going to change their ways. -- oh, here's illinois. host: that is you. where going to be talking more about minimum-wage at the end of our program. that was our topic for the first hour today. just a couple of minutes left with david hawkings. this is cyrus in alamo, california. caller: yes. thank you for taking my call. i think --

[indiscernible] the last checks that went out got to people who didn't deserve it. they were a lot of people who had a bunch of money in the bank but do not sure their taxes. i think what they should do is raise unemployment and cut taxes, and don't just give out money like this. thank you. host: think we will have another tax cut soon? guest: i do not. -- the main topic was the budget deficit.

which used to be story number one because it is a potentially dangerous thing for the overall health of our economy. in times of emergency like we are going through now, it is traditionally the role of the federal government to put federal money to work to try and bail the country out of emergencies. but, it is going to add to the deficit. in a big way. our deficit is at record levels. over time, there will need to be reconciling of that. word of the day. the only two ways to do that is to cut spending or raise revenue. i am thinking by the end of the biden administration, there will be talk of raising taxes. not on working people, but the people at the very top. the people who have so much more wealth. there are a small number of

people who have an enormous amount of wealth and the focus will be on asking them to pay more. host: just a minute or two left. i mentioned at the top how long you have been covering capitol hill and wanted to ask you about a statement from the acting capitol police chief that came out at the end of last week in the wake of january 6. a new security posture is being considered and it looks like we will have a change of what it will look like on capitol hill. this is what the acting capitol police chief said last week. "even before september 11, experts argued that more needed to be done to protect the capitol. a 2006 assessment specifically recommended the installation of a permanent fence around the capital -- capital bank. -- capitol. in light of recent events, i must say that vast improvements need to be made to the

availability of backup forces." what do you think a permanent fence will do to the job of reporters and the openness of this building to the public? guest: a permanent fence, other than being soul crushing to those of us who have so reveled in the ability to live in this town. i started my time here with the ability to just walk up to the front door of the capitol. it won't change life for the press because we will still have credentials, but it will change life for the american who wants to come in visit his/her capital and get a close. one of the joys of the legislative branch, the joy of congress historically is that it has been by far the most open branch of government. offense will change that, symbolically at a minimum.

yes, security -- to a hammer, the world is a nail. those in favor of tighter security will want fences. more perimeters. does that stand in balance historically? could you do that differently? maybe more patrol officers? the capitol police is an enormous force and is bigger than many city police departments. almost 2000 in uniform. if you posted more of those people around the capitol, could it still be porous? could the country be able to get to the front door as they used to? i do not like to express opinions. host: david hawkings, editor in chief of the fulcrum.

coming -- come back again soon. for the next 45 minutes, we take a deep dive into this year's redistricting process. we will be joined by david wasserman. stick around. ♪ announcer: a discussion on social media and free speech with harold feld, senior vice president of public knowledge and randolph may, president of the free state foundation. >> the used to say if it bleeds it leads. therefore, the headlines were always dramatic crime stories, and that sort of thing. the same thing is true with social media. in place of if it bleeds it leads, if it enrages, it engages. we have these algorithms that

are weighted towards giving us the most extreme views first. >> i disagree with a lot of actions twitter takes. from my own perspective, as someone right of center, free-market conservative, to my way of thinking, there is a bias in their actions. against to those that have that perspective. nevertheless, i have always said that these companies have a first amendment right to put on their platforms what they wish. they have a first amendment right to take down what they wish. announcer: social media and free speech. tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on "the communicators," on c-span2.

with the biden administration no leading the federal response to the coronavirus, follow the latest at c-span.org/coronavirus. search coverage of news conferences, as well as remarks for members of congress. use the interactive maps to follow cases in the u.s. and worldwide. c-span.org/coronavirus. host: if you want to talk about the redistricting process, there is no better person to talk about it than david wasserman of the cook political report. states begin this once every tenure process where -- we are already behind. explain how covid and delays to -- delays caused in the senses have delayed this process? guest: redistricting is off to

slow start because washington has been consumed by a lot of other events, but especially because of census delays. the census missed its statutory deadline for reporting the reapportionment counts, which it was supposed to do by december 31. now it is looking like we may not have that data until the end of april. that means we won't know for sure which states are gaining or losing seats until then. but, states have to wait longer to start the process. to draw districts of equal population, the states have to have detailed census data. that is not expected until the end of july. the full big file required to look at how much population is in each and every census block, that leaves a compressed timetable. keep in mind, a number of states have fairly early primary

deadlines. texas and illinois have typically had deadlines in december of the year preceding the election. this time, it is likely we will see states pushback filing dates for midterm elections, or primary dates. with the compressed timetable, a lot of state legislatures tasked with this progress -- process are not in session by the time census data is released. it is possible the clock could run out and courts could take over the process, which is awkward, but it is done from time to time. host: you mentioned courts when it comes to redistricting, there is always concern of gerrymandering. would have the courts decided? is it legal? guest: the supreme court in 2019 issued a landmark ruling that

gerrymandering was not -- the supreme court said that federal claims of partisan gerrymandering could not be brought in federal court. there are still of course the voting rights act. this is the first redistricting cycle since shall be v holder in 2013 that invalidated some sections of the voting rights act, which means the federal preclearance process -- in the last several decades, states that were covered by section four of the voting rights act had to submit redistricting plans to the justice department to be signed off that they were not discriminatory. this time around, that is not in effect. you still do have section two of e.r.a. which desperate -- vra which does protect minority districts. there are going to be a lot of lawsuits filed over maps.

i expect a lot of vra claims to be filed with regard to the role of race. as far as partisan gerrymandering goes, that is something that has been increasingly litigated under state constitutions. in 2018, democrats filed -- in pennsylvania to overturn the republican drawn map-based on a claim that the partisan gerrymandering republicans engaged in violated the state's constitution. the state supreme court there throughout the map aired -- the map. there are a number of other states that have tried to make this process less partisan. host: we can get into that. david wasserman, cook political report. it works great when you call in as well. republicans, (202) 748-8001. democrats, (202) 748-8000.

independents, (202) 748-8002. when it comes to redistricting, there are winners and losers. take us through, as part of your report on this, the projected 2021 reapportionment map. guest: there are going to be a number of states that gain or lose districts. the big winners we expect to be texas, gaining three, florida gaining two. these are projections, we will find out for sure in april. five other slates are -- five other states are slated to gain. those are north carolina, montana, oregon and arizona. there are 10 states -- 10 states we expect to lose the seat. those are mostly in the upper midwest. minnesota, michigan, illinois, pennsylvania, ohio, new york,

west virginia, rhode island, alabama is a state that is on the bubble. it could lose a district. same with california. if you had run the 2020 presidential election under those projections, because electoral votes are also pegged to many house seats, joe biden would have won the election with four fewer electoral votes than he did in the 306-232 scenarios we saw. this is a slight shift of power toward republican leaning states, but not overwhelming. texas and florida are both states republicans control. also north carolina, estate which is gaining a c. -- getting a seat. given how narrow the -- is now, given there is one race in new york still undecided, republicans would still likely

needs only gain five seats to win back the house. the narrow margin makes this a high-stakes process. republicans could conceivably gain all of the seats they need to bring the house to a tie in texas and florida alone. that is even before you get to factors like the larger political environment and the candidates the parties recruit. host: let's take phone calls. william in fort pierce, florida. independent. caller: good morning. i would like to bring a little bit of reasoning -- logical reasoning into the conversation about all of the money being put out by the government. the first thing is, how far do we have to go when we have just run out of money? are you willing to monetize our debt? are we willing to do that?

when we get to the point where we are using minimum-wage -- the people that hurt is far more than the people it helps. it is inflation. host: on the issues of debt and minimum-wage commit stick around. we are going to come back to that. for right now, we are focusing on redistricting. the decennial process that is getting underway. we want to focus calls on that specifically, as we have the man who is the go to source for that, david wasserman. we go to james out of ohio, republican. caller: yes. [indiscernible] don't make sense to me. host: on that topic, you have

worked around capitol hill for long time. what is your take on a permanent security barrier around the capitol? guest: it is unfortunate, but it makes sense the caller is from ohio and it is worth noting that some states have new processes in place for redrawing their maps. ohio is a mystery. it has a newer form past by visitors in the last couple of years -- by voters that implements a new redistricting commission that gears towards drawing more compact maps. for the last decade, republicans have held a 12-4 advantage in the congressional delegation. that has endured through a number of political wave this. -- waves. republican still can stroll --

controlled the state legislatures so if nor the commission nor the legislature can come to an agreement on when the map -- on what the map should look like, the legislature can still draw through simple legislation a new map that would only be in effect for four years until the process starts again. most states pass maps that are valid for 10 years. we will see whether the commission can come to any kind of bipartisan agreement. if not, ohio could be quite gerrymandered again. host: here's a map of redistricting controlled by state. ohio, one of the states in yellow, that has one of those independent commissions. the red states here, redistricting is controlled in the state legislature, and they are republican. blue states, democrats controlling state legislatures. purple come a split. why are there so many

independent commissions in the west? why does it seem like there is regional grouping of had guest: redistricting culture varies by region. the west has been in the vanguard of reform. it seems like it has been one state that passes a reform that seems to work well in neighboring states adopt similar measures. some has to do with ballot initiative laws. western states have typically had initiatives on the ballot passed by voters. not all commissions are alike. it is important to point out that it can still get quite contentious. in arizona, the five-member redistricting commission ended up passing -- that allowed

democrats to get the seats. everything is in the eye of the beholder. the republicans cried foul and said the chairperson of the commission had cited with the two democratic commissioners to pass a gerrymander that favored democrats. the legislature impeached the chair of the commission and it ended up going to the arizona supreme court. it was a huge, ugly spectacle. there are states where commissions seem to work together well. washington state is an example where the parties on that commission came to agreement. california had a new redistricting commission and that commission was able to, after many meetings, public hearing throughout the state, come to agreement on a congressional and state

legislative map. by the ballot initiative that was passed in california, they were prohibited from taken into account partisanship and where incumbents lived when drawing the map. that is the closest to reform that took power out of the hands of politicians of any of the reform efforts we have seen. host: to george, independent. caller: here in virginia i have been noticing what you have been saying. in virginia our commission is going to have an equal number of democratic and republican legislators as well as eight people -- as well as an equal number of people to redistrict. is that common among these commissions in other states? guest: it is a great question

and it is a hybrid approach virginia has taken with the latest constitutional amendment that passed creating a commission. some states that have passed reforms like california, michigan, colorado have prohibited people who have held office recently from serving on those commissions. other states, it is closely tied to the legislature. new jersey, each legislative leader, majority and minority gets to a point certain number of commissions and the end result is often times they draw maps where certain commissioners are looking at friends who are incumbents in congress. in virginia, like other states with new commissions in place, colorado, michigan, ohio, virginia is less predictable, because we are still in this new

experiment where we have to wait and see whether the commission functions well, whether these commissioners can actually work together productively. if not, a map could end up getting drawn by the virginia courts and that is something that democrats don't like. democrats took over governorship in the last few decades. a number of democratic party strategists still wish they had the authority to redraw maps. host: come back to this map. here is florida on the map about one state that is expected to perhaps gain a seat or two this round of reapportionment. tony writes this about florida. if florida gains seats, i suspect they will come from the largest counties.

these are among the bluest in the sate. should they add seats for democrats? guest: you might think so, but the highest growth rates have been the more republican areas in the state. florida is unique. it passed a fair district amendment a couple of years ago, actually right before the 2012 round, and the goal was to make part of florida statute that maps should be more compact and less gerrymandered and republicans held control last time and they help control this time. 10 years ago they drew a map that heavily favored their own party. florida through the map out in the middle of the last decade and forced the legislature to go back and impose a new map that allowed for democrats to gain a couple of additional seats. this time around, the balance of power on the supreme court in

florida has shifted and many worry the republicans could ignore that fair district amendment and drop maps that their hearts desire. but it is complicated, because in florida, republicans picked up a couple seats in the 2020 election. they picked up two seats in the miami area. i think it is likely republicans will draw the two new seats that florida is awarded for themselves, most likely somewhere in the north central florida region. the villages has experienced some of the highest growth in the country. it is possible the other seat could go to the southwest gulf coast which has also been growing very rapidly. republicans are also going to need to protect and number of their own incumbents. that means they might not be able to get so aggressive. we could beat looking at instead of a 19-8 map, we could be

looking at a 19-10 map. host: back to the buckeye state. this is tom. caller: good morning. i think this redistricting is nonsense. we have too many politicians in washington now, just like when john boehner was congressman. he covered parts of six counties. same way with jim jordan. they are always hollering, illegals, illegals. look at jordan's area, how many illegals are working on those farms? nothing ever said. same way with trump. i used to live in west palm beach and i used to see him every day, he and his buddy. he never had anybody work for him that wasn't illegals. i was stay it is still the same.

guest: there was a push by the trump administration before he left office to exclude undocumented immigrants from reapportionment counts. that was a change to long-standing policy at the census. it was a post by a number of longtime census officials and former officials. essentially the clock ran out on that push by the time the trump administration left office. this was one casualty of the delay of the census counts. now that they are going to be released under the biden administration, it is not going to be -- there is not going to be any exclusion of illegal aliens from the reapportionment counts. that is a piece of good news for states with high populations of undocumented residents,

including california, new york, and texas, all might have walked out on representation in urban areas and might've walked out had the policy change come to fruition. host: some very strange looking districts in ohio. this is the fourth district. it is a story about the worst gerrymandered districts in the country. every state is gerrymandered it says, what is the worst gerrymandered state? guest: look, it is hard to define what the worst gerrymander is. but you have to look to a couple of states as pretty guilty parties here. ohio certainly is a state where republicans went to great lengths to draw districts that

bandaged themselves in the last round and that has proven durable. in maryland, democrats drew districts, one of which was the upside down praying mantis that had succeeded in locking a 7-1 advantage for democrats throughout the last decade. host: is that the third district? guest: yes. host: there it is on the map. guest: it is possible they could try to draw and 8-0 map. in some states you have divided control between the governorship of one party and the legislature of another. and two thirds of the state, the legislature still has primary responsibility for drying districts. in maryland, maryland has a republican governor, larry hogan . they have a vetoproof in both chambers of the legislature.

in kentucky, there is a democratic governor republicans have vetoproof majorities. the questionnaire is -- can the minority party peel off if you vote the other side of the legislature who says, i don't feel right about gerrymandering to this degree. does that lead to a stalemate that pushes the progress to courts at the last minute? we have seen that happen for. that could end up preventing some of the worst excesses of gerrymandering of the time. we can still expect pretty creative maps. host: redistricting is our topics. if you want to call in, (202) 748-8001 republicans. (202) 748-8002 for democrats.

caller: i just want to mention that in the south, there is over 50% of the black people in america living in the south. the southern states are some of the most gerrymandered states in the nation. that is why we have so much gridlock in washington is because no one is interested in anything except for being primary. in the supreme court was wrong not to step in and make gerrymandering more even, because the districts are not competitive. then you have people like marjorie taylor green, and you have senators and congressmen you just can't vote out of office because they are considered, and the even say themselves they are in a state district. it is really a problem and something we really should do something about.

i don't have a question. you can look at the map you showed just a minute about and see that the entire south is read on your map -- is red on your map, and all them are extremely gerrymandered, except for congress. host: you brought up several talk -- topics. guest: the pattern throughout a number of deep south states is at the republicans in charge have more or less drawn one heavily african-american district in each of louisiana, alabama, mississippi, south carolina and preserved republican advantages in the rest of the districts in the state. in alabama, there is a 6-1 republican edge. there have not been any competitive general elections in the last decade. democrats believe

african-americans are underrepresented in those states. in alabama, black residents are 28% of the population but they only hold essentially 14% of the state districts. if you do a second african-american majority district there, that might be more proportional. democrats are planning on suing any number of these states to try and create more african-american majority districts. they have as success in overturning republican drawn maps on racial gerrymandering grounds. in virginia, north carolina, and keep in mind if they hadn't sued to overturn maps in virginia, north carolina, pennsylvania, and florida the last decade, they would not have the slim majority in the house. they would likely be in the minority. every seat matters. we will be waiting to see whether courts are sympathetic to the voting rights act

argument in this round of redistricting. host: back to ohio. this is sue. good morning. caller: good morning. host: you are on with david wasserman. caller: the districting they did in ohio was not right, because they took our main one from canton, ohio and put it up to wadsworth. it is not going according to the original ohio charter. the districts were not to be separated and strung out like they are. guest: part of the reform in ohio is actually geared toward minimizing the number of split counties and trying to make the districts more compact. i don't believe you can split stark county, which i believe is canton, more than once, in this

new redistricting regime. a number of democrats worry that it could begin to fight republicans and it is not critical anymore to draw maps that look like abstract art to achieve political gain. a big misconception about gerrymandering is that it is responsible for all of our political polarization in the house. that is not accurate when you consider that we have seen a vast self sorting of voters on the map over the last few decades. in 1992, only 38% of american voters lived in what we would call landslide counties, those that voted 20 points for either presidential nominee. in 2020, that was 58% of americans. when americans are clustered into heavily red or heavily blue areas, it makes it easier for the map vapors -- map makers drawing those to maximize the

number of winnable seats for themselves. that, more so than advances in technology, has made gerrymandering more effective. it is possible that in a number of states, republicans in particular, including in ohio, to draw maps that look reasonable on paper but end up heavily favoring their own side. host: john in pennsylvania, republican. good morning. you are on with david wasserman. caller: good morning. there are 435 districts in the united states. and each one of my believe, is to represent approximately 750,000 people. when you look at the votes that were cast, i believe -- out of washington received the most.

her opponent received maybe 50,000. there were 400,000 votes cast. in some of the districts in california, there is barely 100,000 votes cast by both opponents. even in kevin mccarthy's case, i don't believe kevin mccarthy that over 100,000 votes or just a little over. is the big difference in these vote counts because there are noncitizens in these districts that are not allowed to vote? is that the count in some of the districts that keeps the vote total down, people that cannot vote? guest: that is absolutely right. there are districts that do include unusually high numbers of undocumented residents. the caller is right about the

discrepancy in vote totals crossed -- across district lines. it is believed that the reapportionment counts should be based on the total number of citizens or people eligible to be voters and become voters as opposed to those who are here in the country illegally. this has been looked at many times by courts, including the supreme court, and the prevailing policy, including all residents, the whole count, is going to be used this time for drawing district lines. host: conrad out of tampa, florida, independent, you are next. caller: good morning first i want to say -- good morning. first, i want to say to my

comrades, you can go to the v.a. and get a vaccine at the v.a. we have districts already drawn out. why don't we just use that as the basis of our districts? host: you are thinking zip codes? guest: -- caller: you are thinking of zip codes. there is an area of land for a certain area. it is there and it is finite. they know how many people are in each zip code. use the zip code as a foundation. so one county and another county, you would likely have voters independent of each other. host: david wasserman. guest: that is the first time i've heard redistricting by zip codes or that would make it difficult for election administrators because they are the ones who handle resorting

voters between precincts and election districts based on where the lines are drawn. they do not conform neatly to postal zip codes. for reformers, it is a big part of their push has been to try and get districts to more reasonably conform to municipal boundaries and cities and counties. a number of state reforms have imposed restrictions on how many splits you can make to those. part of the challenge here is under the prevailing supreme court interpretation, districts at the congressional level have to be equally populist down to one person. in most person -- cases, that requires spitting census blocks to achieve that population equity. host: staying on reformers --

the goal is more geographic and not creating the most competitive districts are more competitive districts in this country so we don't have as many what the caller was complaining about safe democrat or safe republican districts? guest: some state reforms have prioritized competitiveness as a criteria. the criteria for redistricting can vary from state to state. so in california, california has a partisan approach there the commissioners are not allowed to look at partisan data or even consider it when drawing boundaries. whereas in arizona, colorado, competitiveness is one of the criteria for redrawing boundaries. so colorado, which is gaining a seat, we might expect that is drawn anymore competitive region of colorado, like northern colorado. we will be watching how

commissions weigh these from state to state. often times they can come into contention. it is not always possible to draw compact districts that adhere to the current interpretation of the voting rights act. it is not only possible to draw the majority of districts to be competitive between the two parties. how do you judge competitiveness ? is it based on the most recent presidential election results? often times those that are considered safe or competitive at the beginning of the decade can change in character by the end of the decade. republicans last time drew a lot of districts they thought were safe in suburban areas that then became more competitive by 2018 or 2020. host: to the wolverine state. this is gary, republican. good morning. caller: i heard mr. wasserman say that in this restructuring that i guess it's crazy, but

there are undocumented americans , illegal aliens that will be included in the census count, which is going to be a driving factor or to beating factor to the redistricting of places where they reside. in my opinion, those people, if they are not from this country and they are from somewhere else , until they are documented americans, if you boil it down to me, it is having foreigners influencing our democracy. i think that is just totally wrong. they should not be included in anything to do with our elections or any decisions or the community in which they reside. if they are not documented, they don't count. host: david wasserman? guest: this is what we hear frequently from conservatives, mainly. the constitution requires a

whole count and the supreme court has interpreted that to include those who are here in the country illegally. host: five minutes left with you. i wanted to get in jimbo from akers field -- from bakersfield he says the political report says almost all the polling from last november in congressional races was way off, including yours. he wants to know why given the fact that people lie when directly asked voting questions, should data mining techniques be used as fodder preferences in the future? guest: it is valid question. we do not conduct polls as a political report, but we do work to try and uncover what the parties are finding in their polls. both political parties conduct a number of poles that are not publicly released -- polls that are not publicly released.

there is no question democrats and republicans' internal polls were off in this election and underestimated republication -- republicans, particularly down ballot. i think there are a couple of likely possibilities. the first is that the past president, donald trump, spent a long time, years denigrating polling as an institution to the point that his supporters have been less likely to even pick up the phone and answer a survey. keep in mind that response rates to live interview surveys are down in the low to mid single digits. so relying on a very small slice of the american electorate who is willing to answer the phone to model the attitudes of the other 90 plus percent who won't pick up the phone. that will be the big problem. second of all, in this era of covid, it is possible that

democrats were doing better and better among workers in the economy more able to work at home. there voters were in a better position to be able to answer a survey. this differential response had a lot to do with why the polls very systemically underestimated republican support. we need to make sure that same dynamic will be in play for 2022. president trump did enormously well with voters who are on the margins of political engagement might have been less likely to answer. it is possible those voters not show up in large numbers when president trump is not on the ballot in 2022. we are flying blind with regards to pulling in a number of ways. we will have to rely on fundamentals and what happened in the immediate past election

to try and do a better job of modeling what will happen in future years. host: this is lily in the keystone state, democrat. good morning. caller: i belong to a district in pennsylvania and along with the league of women voters, we have been working very hard to reform our redistricting here. i am calling about the quality of the numbers. i have been following this and i saw there have been millions and had so much problem with the pandemic and hurricanes and collecting the numbers that the area to curtail people was -- i am wondering if there are going to be a lot of lawsuits. mr. dilling hamby it out the door early after a whistleblower complaint and mr. trump putting his hand-picked people in the census bureau during the count. do you think there will be a lot

of lawsuits? what is the quality of the numbers when they submit them? guest: this is a question that is a hot topic right now. the census was not able to do the full timetable last fall that it was hoping for. it was hoping to continue data collection in the field and the supreme court essentially green lit the trump administration to end that early. the data that the census is working with right now and working to correct a number of errors in the count as it always does, but it is taking longer. there are privacy concerns in new privacy protocols that are being implemented to ensure that residents' individual information is not subject to

mining as easily. that is part of the reason why we are expecting these delays in the reapportionment release to extend until april 30 for the fall redistricting count to be released in july at the earliest. host: back to florida. mike, independent. caller: does anybody know exactly how many registered voters are in the united states? guest: there are around i want to say 230 million eligible voters in the u.s. there are around 190 million to 200 million registered voters in the u.s.. the census typically releases the report after the election with responses to a large-scale survey that gets a better handle on that. there were 158.7 million voters

who cast a ballot in the presidential election this time around, which was a historically high turnout. host: david wasserman is the house editor at the cook political report or you can find him covering the redistricting. i appreciate you joining us. up next, we will return in our final half-hour to the question we began our program with talking about the $15 an hour minimum wage. simply asking -- you think it should be raised to $15 an hour. if you think it should, (202) 748-8000. a special line for business owners, (202) 748-8002. go ahead and start calling in. >> listen to c-span's podcast,

the weekly. this week, the paris agreement. three and a half years after former president trump withdrew, president biden's executive order to reenter the treaty. the bureau chief, dan michaels, explained the agreement and what is next for the united states. dan: the first challenge would be in what he needs his counterparts to discuss the paris accord is rebuilding u.s. credibility. no one will doubt he carries credibility on this and he helped write the paris accord. no one will doubt president biden's sincerity. but the u.s. as a whole, probably europe and others will be looking at it to see is the u.s. really going to take measures that will address climate change and also commit money to helping other countries address climate change. >> find c-span's the weekly

where you get your podcast. >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government. c-span was created by america's cable television company in 1979. today, we are brought to you by these television companies who provide c-span to viewers as a public service. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: situational awareness on a snowy morning. the house is in for a brief pro forma session at 3:00 p.m. today. also finding out that president biden and vice president harris are set to meet today at 5:00 p.m. in the oval office with 10 republican senators who have proposed their own covid-19 relief plan.

we will look for news out of that tomorrow morning on the "washington journal." looking for something in president biden's relief plan is the raising of the minimum wage to $15 an hour. asking you if you would support that. currently it is $7.25 an hour. emma craddick plans to gradually raise the federal minimum wage to $15 -- democrats plan to gradually raise the minimum wage to 15 dollars per hour. (202) 748-8000 is the number for those who do support it. for those who do not, (202) 748-8001. business owners, we want to know how it would impact your is and is, (202) 748-8002. some numbers from the wall street journal on who in this country currently makes the

$7.25 an hour minimum wage. the federal minimum wage disproportionally paid younger people, black workers, and women according to the labor department. the worker's account for 20% of workers paid hourly wages per women accounted for 68 2% of minimum-wage workers in 2019. just over a quarter of minimum-wage employees are black workers. 75% of minimum-wage workers held part-time jobs. the numbers from the wall street journal. we will go through more pygmy want to hear from you on the phone lines. if you do support it (202) 748-8000. if you don't (202) 748-8001. what do you think about the $15 minimum-wage? caller: good morning.

i am from alexandria, virginia and an independent. $15 an hour minimum wage should be implemented. the law should be reformed. i am a person who also is a social security disability income recipient, former federal employee. this is the smallest increase. even if i went back to work, because basic things i need, i want to go back part-time. $15 an hour as a minimum-wage would be acceptable, because i know people in my state of virginia who are working three jobs just to make ends meet. it is not good. host: darwin also supports

raising the minimum wage from miami, florida. caller: i oppose raising the minimum wage. host: and why? caller: with any kind of employment, you have a ladder. people start out with no skills, no expense, track record, they have to start someplace. the business isn't going to give a job to somebody who doesn't have any of those skills or demonstrated ability to show up and be consistent. they can't afford $15 when you add in all of the taxes and benefits they have to pay for. i think this is just a job killer. it is especially harmful to low income, low skilled people who are just starting out, people who maybe have troubled records. i think the minimum wage is very antiworker. host: what do you do in miami

and have you ever worked a minimum-wage job? caller: i have when i first started out. host: what do you do now? caller: now i am a professional. i am 20 years into my career, long ways from being in minimum-wage. host: how old were you when they took the minimum job -- minimum-wage job? caller: i was in college. host: how long did you stay in it? caller: not that long, basically until i graduated. i think i even got a raise not about minimum-wage while working at job. host: what was that job? caller: moving boxes. host: heidi is next, colorado springs, supports the idea of raising the minimum wage. caller: i support the minimum wage, but i also recently was reading a book called "citizens of london," and it does a lot of

history about world war ii and different things. one of the terms they brought up which i had never heard before was family wage. i think it is interesting how our discussion talks about a minimum-wage. that is really almost for one person, as opposed to someone trying to support a family. i think that is off of our radar, how to support a family. if you are a single parent, i was, and i was a professional and able to do it, but the other thing is, just the impact of inflation. my son and he was in high school took a course and they compared the 1979 average wage to the 2012 average wage, and it was like the buying power of the 1979 wage was closer to 60 grand. i guess i have a question, what

would it do if we had the same buying power of the average worker now? so the 15 seems like it is overdue and probably not thinking about it comprehensively and the impact on families. host: thanks for the call. the last time the federal minimum wage was raised was back in 2009, $7.25 was what it was raised to from $6.55. federal increases before that were 1980 and 1990 we are talking about more than doubling it to $15 an hour. heidi from colorado springs supports that idea. one of the senators that took to the floor last week to oppose the idea, senator rick scott of florida, this is what he had to say.

sen. scott: conference national wage of $15 an hour, it is clear they have not spoken to business owners. small businesses are struggling like never before, especially in liberal states were lockdowns have exacerbated that. president biden believes now is the time to slap another mandate on their back and drive even more americans chasing the dream of their country out of business? i am not sure how you could possibly be more detached from reality. according to the congressional budget office, a federally mandated 15 dollar an hour minimum-wage would cost 3.7 million americans their job. i know what is like to be poor and live in public housing and not be able to have money for health care. i watched my family struggle forward. i ran for office because i wanted to help struggling families of -- have the chance of living the american dream. when i hear folks like ms.

yellen say the jobs loss is very minimal if anything, it leaves me at a loss. watching 3.7 million americans lose their jobs at a minimum. host: sen. rick scott from capitol hill. the discussion about a federal minimum wage increase will be a part of the covid relief negotiations that are happening. resident mind has included a federal minimum wage increase in his $1.9 trillion package. republicans are expected to meet with the president later today and they have not included an increase in the federal minimum wage in their compromised package. we will see where this comes out in the end this week. we are asking you -- would you support an increase in the federal minimum wage. this is joe out of tulsa, oklahoma. go ahead. caller: no, i would not support

the $15 pay raise. i am on social security. if we get the $15 minimum-wage, every necessity will go up. therefore, the people on social security are not going to have much money to take care of their groceries and things that are absolutely necessary. every necessity will go up if minimum-wage goes up. people that were on minimum wage, the rent will go up, probably our utilities will even go up. everything goes up when the wage goes up. i saw that when my husband was in the military paid when they got a raise, all the things around the base went up. i think that would happen with only -- with all the necessities around tulsa.

and another thing, if things go up very high, it encourages theft. therefore, groceries will go up again to cover the theft. host: this is colleen out of pflugerville, texas. the morning. caller: i am definitely for the minimum wage increase. to me, it is unconscionable we would have people working 40 hours a week and is still be low the poverty level in the united states of america. it also strikes me that it is all too similar to the arguments against freeing slaves. the economy will suffer if we have all these folks who are actually free. what is the difference today when you have people who are literally being paid slaves wage and not igniting that we are the united states of america. people have the right to be able

to work 40 hours a week and expect to live off of it. host: this is vern out of nebraska. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, sir. caller: i agree with the lady from oklahoma that if you raise it, social security people will be taking a cut in what we are making, because i am on social security. i worked in wage jobs through my life -- i worked minimum wage jobs through my life. if you are any good at your work, you are going to get a raise. i can't see where if you raise it to $15 an hour, the government is the only one who will make money on it, because you will be in a different tax bracket. that is pretty much all i have to say about it. host: one prominent voice in the rage the minimum-wage debate has been bernie -- in the raise the

minimum-wage debate has been bernie sanders. he joined a zoom call. it is called the raise the wage act. [video clip] >> the overwhelming majority of support raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. this is not a radical idea. this is what the american people want. and as chairman scott pointed out, since 1998, every time a state has had an initiative on the ballot to raise the minimum wage, it has one. no matter if that state was red, blue, or purple. state after state understands that we have got to end the ration wages in america, and that is what we in congress want to do. last november, 61% of the people in florida, a state joe biden

lost by three points, voted to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. eight states and over 48 cities have adopted laws to rage minimum wage -- to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. the last session, the house did the right thing under speaker pelosi and chairman scott and i applaud them and their entire house for the efforts. they passed legislation to raise the minimum wage to $15 an hour. i have no doubt they will do it once again. now, at this moment in history, the issue of raising the minimum wage rests in the u.s. senate. it is my strong hope that a number of my republican colleagues, many of whom come from terribly poor states, will understand the severity of the crisis facing their working people and joining us in raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour.

this is not a democratic issue. it is not a republican shoe. this is an -- republican issue. host: senator bernie sanders last week. taking your phone calls in this last 10 minutes of "washington journal," asking if you would support raising the federal and among wage to $15 an hour. jared is in washington, d.c. what do you think? caller: good morning. host: go ahead, sir. caller: i believe the minimum rate should be -- minimum wage should be raised. the last time it was raised was 2009. that is 12 years. it shouldn't be called the minimum-wage, it should be called a living wage. also i would like to make a comment about this guy, rick scott, i think that is his name from florida.

he disagrees about the minimum-wage. florida already passed a law saying they have a $15 minimum wage. so him going up on the floor arguing against it doesn't make sense. host: florida one of the most recent states to raise the state minimum wage. larry is next out of rapid city, south dakota. good morning. caller: one of the things i would like to understand is in 1976, i was looking in sioux falls, south dakota making $4.75 an hour being a manufacturer. i left there and went to pennsylvania. i immediately got a job with firestone tire company making $12 an hour, twice as much money one week later and with overtime $18 an hour.

this was in 1976. what happened at that time? what was going on at that time? unions -- unions got me the money. firestone fire company is still in business. unions help you get there. i believe in unions and i am a small business owner and i don't have many employees, but i believe in raising that up and getting it up and getting these rich guys to stop putting all the money in their pockets and go to somebody that they can actually help with all of that money. host: what d think of the state of unions in this country today? caller: -- what do you think of the state of unions in this country today. caller: the republicans don't want them around. unions can reach too far.

making $18 an hour back in 1976, maybe that was too far. maybe i should've been making $15 an hour on overtime. but that was a fact. 40 years ago, 45 years ago, i am making more than $15 an hour, 45 years ago. i just rent machinery. i wasn't a special brain either. what happened? host: very it rapid city, south dakota. one other note for you on what will be happening up on a snowy day on capitol hill, the senate was expected to have their confirmation vote, final confirmation vote on the nomination for the head of homeland security. it was noted on twitter that the vote has been postponed due to the weather. we will see what happens in the

coming days. also, later this afternoon, a note for programming note on c-span two health care professionals talking about the new covid-19 variant in a conversation at the center for strategic and international studies. our coverage of that will begin at 2:00 p.m. eastern on c-span two, on c-span.org, and you can listen to it on the free mobile app. it may be interesting to listen to today in light of the fact that travelers on airplanes and public transportation will be required to wear masks starting this week to curb the spread of covid-19. usa today story notice that the cdc issued mask wearing rules late at the end of last week, building on the executive order announced january 21 by president joe biden. it will "protect americans and ensure that we can travel

safely." back to your phone calls. just about five minutes or so left in the program. keith out of new jersey, what do you think about $15 an hour for the federal minimum wage? caller: i support it, and i particularly want to comment about the people who say intrinsically raising the minimum wage will inevitably beat the markets. there is lots of evidence to show that is not true. conversely, when they often say reducing business costs will increase jobs, employers hire as many people as they need to get the work done. if you look at a burger king and there are two people making burgers and two people at the front desk, you are not going to serve your customers properly, you can reduce one of those people and you will have huge lines or you can hire another person who would be redundant and just stand around the back. you hire as many people you need

and their salaries of the cost of doing business, just like the cost of oil and the cost of potatoes are just the cost of doing business. there is a guy at my local working who says i can't keep everybody here. he said the minimum wage is seven dollars 75 cents an hour. i can't get anyone to work for $7.75 an hour. raising it to $15 will have him with happier workers. host: one group that focuses on capitol hill looked to for running numbers is the congressional budget office paid this is their estimate from july 2019 but their estimate of what would happen in the country at the $15 an hour federal minimum wage happened by 2025. they said, it would boost the wages of 17 million workers who would otherwise earn less than

$15 and hour. in addition, another $10 million might see the workers -- wages rise as well. they say 1.3 other million workers would become jobless and the number of people with annual income low the poverty would fall by one 3 million. what do you think of those numbers? caller: i would like to ask that business owner who just got of the phone, the guy who used to be in the union in sylvania and outrunning a small business. if it costs more, would he hire more people? you wouldn't hire them if he didn't have the work. he will hire more people to get the work done. i think certainly if you double the amount, a certain amount of business costs will cause retraction, but anywhere near the degree to which the republicans say it will happen. host: cindy is undecided in

maryland and why are you undecided? caller: i guess -- thanks for taking my call. i guess i don't have enough information. personally, i am 63 and have worked my whole life since i was 13 starting at $.50 an hour cleaning houses and babysitting. i worked all the way in what i considered in the clerical jobs until i got a college degree at 50. i put my self through school and i'm still making payments. currently i have a real estate does this and i have two licenses and i work part-time for an admin who is paying me $22 an hour. i do give them 1099s. if anyone wants to come and work for me in my real estate side and want to get money and not pay their taxes, i will not use them.

i want a 1099 and i expect to get your federal id number, because if i am paying taxes, everybody should be paying taxes. there are many times when i know women go to get their nails done, they refuse to pay by credit card anymore, because they don't want to tip. people don't want to claim it. having a federal wage, i think part of that, i understand the idea and it is good that everyone wants to be able to survive, but i started working when i was 13. i wouldn't expect to be paying someone else in their 20's or even 18 years old, because they aren't raising a family. they are just learning how to work. why should that person receive that same, of money? that is why i need more information. are they being more comprehensive about age groups or something like that? anyway, thanks so much.

host: tina, good view, virginia, you are next. caller: thank you for taking my call. like the lady in maryland, why should a teenager bagging groceries make as much as somebody that's breaking their back in a warehouse? when i started out, i made $4.50 an hour. that was minimum wage then. and i worked in a warehouse for 16 years, and i had to work my way up to $14.75. that was our max pay. i tapped out at that. -- i capped out at that. i am disabled now and why should some kids now make $15 an hour that is not even trying to make a house payment? so to me, that is not right.

host: one last call. this is rosa waiting in taylorsville, north carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. i used to work in a warehouse. i do think it should be $15 an hour. these kids have the incentive to work instead of not paying them nothing. back in the 1980's when i was working in the warehouse, that was hard work but it was my choice. today's inflation as it keeps going up, i want to know how a single person living alone can live on those lower races. -- lower prices.

i was working in the 1980's and living alone, and it was paycheck to paycheck. there was no way to have a savings of any kind. host: inc. you for sharing. rosa -- thank you for sharing. rosa, our last color. have a great day bashar last caller. -- our last caller. have a great day. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] the former president became the first president to be impeached twice. last week managers developer --

delivered the article of impeachment to the senate with one representative reading the article. >> donald j. trump does warrant impeachment and trial and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor or trust under the united states, so help you god. >> the following day, senators were sworn in as jurors in the trial. >> therefore i make a point of order that this proceeding which we try a private citizen and not a president or a vice president or civil officer violates the constitution. >> the motion was tabled. afterwards the senate adjourned until tuesday, they were nine, a locking the start of the trial.

watch the senate impeachment trial i've at 1:00 p.m. c-span -- eastern -- live at 1:00 p.m. see -- 1:00 p.m. live. >> watch the cobit response team with the latest on the spread and treatment of the coronavirus. at 12:30 white house press secretary reefs reporters on issues facing the administration. you can watch live here on c-span, live online at c-span.org or listen on the free radio app. >> you are watching c-span, your unfiltered view of government, created by cable television companies in 1979. today we are brought to you by these television companies that provide c-span2