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 viewers as a

public service. host: joining us through zoom this morning is david hawkings, editor in chief of the fulcrum. he has been covering capitol hill for years. with this covid proposal getting so much attention, these negotiations are happening, 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 we need to look for is whether the president at this meeting with the senators, the

first thing to look for is whether the president signaled a willingness to counter offer or simply reject what the republicans are doing. that will say a lot about whether he wants to be the joe biden, the historic joe biden or the joe biden that has been cutting deals on domestic and foreign policy, you name it, since the 1980's, or whether this is the new joe biden who has decided as president he needs to push hard for democratic priorities. host: when he was cutting those deals, did democrats complain that he gave away too much when he was making these deals, whether it was as a senator or vice president? guest: i would say yes. going back to, he was the

judiciary chairman during the clarence thomas confirmation hearings, and let the of people did not think he gave enough time to the complaint of anita hill, so there was anger on the left then. then the crime bill, which really opened the door to 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. two oversimplify a little bit, it was 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. his main victory was to allow other spending increases to go

on without across-the-board sequestration cuts. the left was angry then. a deal of course, the fundamental definition of a deal, politicians will tell you, is when both sides are equivalently disappointed and both sides are 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. david hawkings will be with us this morning. a deal is one way to move this.

10 republican senators 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 a slightly less long answer. i will try to give you the slightly less long answer. the real bottom line to reconciliation is that it allows budgetary measures to pass with a simple majority vote in the house and senate. that is the ultimate magic, it would allow the president, fe decides there is no point in negotiating between $1.9

trillion and $600 billion, no middle ground there would be worth it for him politically or for the country, then he would move to advance his plan through reconciliation in the hope it would pass with a simple majority. reconciliation was created in 1980. the purpose of reconciliation was pushed away delaying tactics and filibusters from legislation that was supposed to reconcile spending. the idea was to make it 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. and he was able to persuade the parliamentarian line -- parliamentarian could be used -- parliamentarian 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 end of 2017. 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 taken this week, 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. that is the first step this week. john yarmuth says he is going to put out his opening salvo today. bernie sanders of vermont, new chairman of the senate budget committee, says he will follow in a couple of days. those two sides, not only in the senate where there is a big disagreement among the senators, bernie sanders on the one hand, and joe mansion, arguably the most fiscally conservative senate democrats, they would have to agree, and they would have to agree with the house. if that happens, then they would

have to 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 democratic side for this to happen. host: ej dion in today's washington post with the headline 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 effect on the federal balance sheet. it has to affect 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 and that rule made it such that any provision that got into a reconciliation bill that did not either alter spending or revenue, could be withdrawn on the orders of the parliamentarian. some people called it the byrd rule, and things that get dropped are called the byrd bath. the act of scrubbing the bill has no alter the federal balance sheet.

you will hear these terms 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. you are talking about that in the first hour, and i was not able to listen to all of it, but 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 because 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 then david hawkings. we are taking your phone calls.

this is 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 a majority to vote for it 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. thank you. host: joe biden's proposal, with $1400 combined with money from the bill passed at the end of 2000, bringing the total to $2000. the republican bill we are talking about does have direct payments in the realm of $1000 and a different threshold level. guest: what 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. they are talking about the same talk it -- 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 --and the number of people who get the check is a huge driver of the cost. these are enormous 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 be able to get this done. i won the popular vote. on the others, -- other side, republicans will say yes, but republicans did well in congress also, the largest minority in the house since world war ii. we are really in a divided government and 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 and 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 in office like kruz and green, mccarthy going down to florida. where is the compromise? i don't understand it. i do not think there is compromise. i think 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, on dealing with mitch mcconnell, we are waiting to see the final version of the power-sharing agreement 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 on the rules of the senate? 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 resolution, and 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 organizing resolution from two years ago when mitch mcconnell was in charge. now they need a new one to confront the unusual, not unprecedented, 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. those are the 50-50 senate with the vice president, 20 years ago was dick cheney, deciding wh ultimately has the majority. now, it is a democratic senate because vice president harris has the tie-breaking vote, but other than her, it is 50-50. why not allow the an equal number of people on each committee and an equal budget? and equal numbers of staff, this is important stuff in terms of legislative functionality, the experts who help senators, this is important stuff.

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, technically, the republican chairman are still the chairman of those committees until there is a new resolution. in three cases, those chairmen have departed. so they can't convene a hearing. they can't even buy new toner cartridges for copy machines. all of that is quite important.

it is important that mr. schumer and mr. mcconnell come to an agreement, confirmation hearings are only the start. host: giving a chance in the way back machine. january 5, 2001, that was the announcement of the power-sharing agreement between senators tom daschle and 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 were it 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. it is never easy for either one of us. 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 that he made, we are going to find that we forgot about some impact that we did or we didn't think about some 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. it has been friendly. i think this is another step in a positive direction how we are going to get our work done. host: david hawkings, those words, good faith, friendly, enjoyed working with each other,

are we hearing those words as often now between chuck schumer and mitch mcconnell? guest: no. those senators continued to be friendly. if you are teaching out -- geeking 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 mcconnell. 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 5 who ultimately would be in the majority. subsequent to that, the twin democratic victories in georgia,

we had hardball being played by senator mcconnell, now the minority leader for whom the , filibuster is his most potent weapon, trying to ensure that no agreement was in the offing 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. independent. good morning. 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? basically the 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 and do what he needs to do to help people. trump was no good help for new york, and he was a new yorker. thank you for listening to my call. host: david hawkings, how do you feel about the filibuster? is it a good thing? guest: gosh. in theory it is a good thing. because in theory, it compels compromise.

it makes sure -- 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. it has become, the filibuster -- remember, it used to be filibusters were rarely used, and 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 do the filibuster by email. and then the filibuster is on.

it is not working right now. it is the default setting of the minority to filibuster virtually everything. on the one hand, no compromise is happening. if you abandon the filibuster, you essentially have two majoritarian institutions writing policy. one, the senate, or the makeup of the senate is not in any way reflective of the makeup of the country because the 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 they are republicans.

and then you have another similar group representing an enormous part of the population. 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, you actually have to put your body in the game 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 in hope to drive some 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

intended. and when should note historically that 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. that is not often a proud 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 our website, that is 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 during the pandemic. we have a new site, opinion pieces every day. we would love you to read it. thefulcrum.us. host: i was about to get that web address. thank you for doing that. the phone lines are lighting up for you. sarah from columbus, ohio. caller: i think if they lower the cost of living and the taxes and maybe revisit the flat tax. 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, my insurance was cheap or it was pay for. i was able to afford car insurance. now i retired from the state. by the time i figured out all of my taxes that were taken out and

deductibles, i was making $7.50 an hour. obamacare, when it came in, 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. it was $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 but great 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 off 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 facts about what is going on in this country. what the challenges are with the health system, with income

inequality, the challenges of the state on race relations, our divide in the country. the challenges with the last month with 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 what the workout should be. host: anita here in washington, d.c., a democrat. caller: good morning. i got a whole dollar raise on my social security. so i do not need that $1400 -- which is not true. i need $1400. the republicans get all the breaks in the world. 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 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. there will either be a deal with republicans, or my sense is that 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 i hear she lives near me here in washington. she was also pointing to one of the 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. it is the party of the 1%er. the party that is happy to preserve income inequality. the previous president's populist attempt at being more populist in governing sort of fuzzied 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 line. good morning. caller: thank you. i am in favor of the filibuster because that is a process that essentially preserves minority rights. but if you are going to go and have majority rule -- words mean

things. do not use the word reconciliation. that confuses everybody. why don't you just say we are going to have majority rule? guest: excellent point. just to tease those apart, the reconciliation, it is complicated budget speak and it would get rid of the filibuster for certain kind of budget bills. the larger discussion is whether the democrats should get rid of the filibuster on all legislation, remembering it was the democrats that got rid of the filibuster. all nominations except supreme court nominations when obama was president, and then it was the republicans who got rid of the filibuster for supreme court nominations after trump took office and was facing some trouble getting neil gorsuch on

the supreme court. now all that is left for the filibuster is non-budget legislation, immigration, potentially some aspects of climate change some of that , could be budget, some could not. and then all other matter 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. republicans say it would federalize too much of our political system. all that is held up because of the filibuster. you are right. even after this covert relief fight is done, even if somehow it is done with some bipartisan

consensus and without the magic of reconciliation, there is still an ocean of decisions that will confront joe biden and the republican minority that will be hard to bridge. it will keep this discussion alive. host: a couple minutes left with david hawkings. this is joanne in newton, illinois. independent. good morning. 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. we are going to be talking more about the 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, democrat. good morning. caller: yes. thank you for taking my call. i think giving out money like this is a waste of time. 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 they do not show 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: do you think we will have another tax cut soon? guest: i do not. if anything, i mean what we are

talking about here with this covert relief will add significantly to the federal deficit. you said i had been on with you 60 sometimes. i would guess at least 15 of those, the main topic was the budget deficit. it used to be story number one in washington 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. to circle back to the 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 in this country, 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. up here on capitol hill 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, 2001. 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 capitol. in light of recent events, i must say that vast improvements need to be made to the fencing and the availability of backup forces for the capitol." 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 and visit the capitol

and get up 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. a fence will change that, symbolically at a minimum. yes, security -- to a hammer, the world is a nail. somebody who is in favor of tighter security will want fences and 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 would think so. i do not like to express opinions, but i would hope so. host: david hawkings, editor in chief of the fulcrum. come back again soon. >> taking a look at live coverage of briefings today, starting at 11:00 eastern dr. anthony fauci and the covid response team with the latest on the spread and treatment of the virus. at 12:30, the white house press secretary reefs reporters on issues facing the administration. you can watch live there on c-span or listen on the free c-span radio app. former president trump became the first president to be impeached twice.

last week the articles of impeachment were delivered to the senate with one maryland representative reading the article before the senate. >> he just warrants impeachment and trial and removal from office in disqualification to hold and enjoy any office under the united states. so help you god. >> the following date senators were sworn in as jurors. rand paul requested a point of order to dismiss the charge as unconstitutional. >> i make the point of order that this proceeding which would try a private citizen and not a president, vice president or civil officer, violates the constitution. >> the motion was tabled. afterwards the senate approved the rules of the trial and adjourned until they were nine, marking the start of the trial.

watch the senate impeachment trial live at 1 p.m. eastern on c-span2 or listen on the c-span radio app. listen to the weekly, this week the paris agreement, three and half years after former president trump with you, the executive order for the u.s. to reenter the treaty, and dan michael's explains the agreement and how it is viewed worldwide and what is next for the united states. >> the first challenge would seem to be, when he meets his counterparts, to discuss the paris accord is rebuilding u.s. credibility, that no one will doubt carries the credibility on this. he helped write the accord and no one will doubt his sincerity. the u.s., 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 commit money to helping other countries address climate change? >> find the weekly for you get your podcasts. host: good monday wing. you can start calling in now. talking about why he included a $15 an hour federal minimum wage or puzzle in his rescue plan for covid relief. this is the president. president biden: our recovery plan calls for an increase in the minimum wage to at least $15 an hour.