on c-span. with covid-19 relief legislation approved by congress, and coronavirus vaccines being administered, use our website, c-span.org/coronavirus to follow the federal response to the coronavirus outbreak. watch our searchable video on demand and track the spread with interactive maps all at c-span.org/coronavirus. yesterday, the house was able to override president trump's veto of a $740 billion defense authorization bill by meeting the necessary two thirds threshold with 109 republicans voting in favor. now the senate will take similar action as early as today, requiring the same two thirds majority. theuccessful, this will be first congressional override of the trump presidency. senate mayle the

consider legislation passed by the house to increase direct reallys for covid-19 from $600 to $2000 per individual. all of the senate live at noon eastern on c-span two. joining us this morning is steve ellis, the president of taxpayers for common sense, to talk about the coronavirus relief aid and the government spending bill the president signed a sunday night. mr. ellis, the headline for you of the president signing that package of bills? guest: overdue. it was a huge package bill that i heard somebody earlier in your program complaining about how so many things were jammed into it, but you have more than $900 billion in covid-19 relief, $1.4 trillion in government spending for funding government through the rest of the fiscal year, then you had a whole bunch of

other pieces of legislation to count to the package. it was finally both because the fiscal year started on october 1 when congress had not gotten their job done, and secondly, the last major covid really package was march and april, and people are hurting, and we need to do this to help roost our economy and provide a lifeline to businesses. host: what is an omnibus? guest: there are 12 separate spending bills that fund government. for the fiscal year. everything from agriculture to state and foreign operations, defense, homeland security, labor, health and human services, these variety of packages. they are supposed to be passed individually by each chamber and hammered out the differences, then passed to the president to get signed into law. what has been happening is, instead of doing these individually and on time, they

jam them together at the end of the year, or in this case, at the end of the calendar year or a whole quarter year into this clear 2021. that is an omnibus. sometimes, you would get smaller packaged bills, called minibuses. this is 12 spending bills funding the government jammed into this package along with the covid relief funding. host: what in the omnibus package that the president signed do you support? guest: we have concerns about certain parts of the omnibus. certainly, when you look at the funding for government, they have added more f-35 fighter jets to the defense department's budget, they continue to use the overseas contingency operations that avoids budget caps. we have concerns about some of the way the agricultural spending is designed. a variety of various things on

the omnibus portion. as far as the covid-19 relief portion, we are supportive and recognize there is a need here. it is an interesting place to be a budget watchdog and talking about trillions of dollars out the door, but we are also in a very unique situation amid this pandemic. host: you are the president say i was on this but i'm sending a rescission package to congress. explain what that is and how it works. guest: sure. 1974 budget control act, that really sets the budget process, one of the things a president can do is submit rescissions, line items that were in the spending bills that he would like to have rescinded, and basically removed, cut the funding. presidents have done this in the past. congress can ignore the package, which is what they have often done in the past, not that no

rescission has ever gotten through, but it is not something very common or going to result in much in the way of savings. host: what is your take on the president's opposition some of the spending? do you agree with him? guest: i'm sure there are certain areas we would agree. i would have to see where his redlines are. one of the issues here, that so much has been completed that you have two separate packages, this covid really package and a regular, annual spending bill. there's this whole talk about aid going to egypt or israel. yes, that was in the president's budget request. what he submitted to congress at the start of this whole process had a lot of this foreign aid, which is something we do as a nation, either through humanitarian reasons, human trafficking issues, counter narcotics, or in some cases, foreign military assistance.

the governments does that has some sort of international interest for the united states, that we will get something back in our relationship with these countries or prevent issues like human trafficking and narcotics coming into our borders. is the problem with having a package that has so much stuff jammed in, everything from things talking about tibet and water projects, energy legislation, tax breaks all crammed in along with the covid really funding. they should have been dealt with individually. host: can the country afford to thousand dollar checks to millions of americans? -- $2000 checks to millions of americans? guest: the recent score i saw -- $46462 $4 billion billion. we have to figure out how

that's money will be allocated. they are testing for the $600 in the bill right now. we could afford $2000 checks if they were targeted appropriately, but it is something where we have to make sure we -- it is getting to the people who need it and will be spent and used in the economy and not something that a person saves. not that i am against saving, but not when it is a handout from the government. wvir breaks down the --eshold saying you would be able to eligible that she would be eligible to receive the $600 payment. adjusted gross income up to $150,000 would receive $1200 or, if again, this cash act passed by the house is approved by the senate, $4000. they lower the threshold or increased the threshold i should say for these checks, do you

think that makes sense? itst: we want to make sure is getting into the hands of the people that need it the most and are struggling. so certainly, as you move toward upper incomes, you want to phase it out. that is what the bill does, it gradually fades out as you increase your adjusted gross income. if you are making $160,000 per year, depending on whether you have kids, where you live, that may well be important, but it also could be you would get it a little less than that. we have to keep it in context that it is $464 billion, estimated by the committee on taxation, the nonpartisan scorekeeper. that is something you have to be cognizant of, but not to play both sides, but i also think we have to have an economy for when the vaccines come through and we

are able to fully open up. that is why we provide these lifelines to businesses and individuals. host: barbara in massachusetts sends us this text, i think it is disgusting anyone would save the stimulus money. into stimulus money. if you do not need it, donate to food banks. donate to small local charities. let's go to joe in ash, north carolina, independent. you are on the air with steve ellis. caller: good morning. this is about taxpayer. i like the -- i would like a yes or no answer on this one and then i would go on, one more question. do they have a law on the books that takes all of the residual money left in the social security, old age fund, and all of the other medicaid, medicare, and other funds and put it in the treasury department or go ahead and put a special bond, that they put it back on the trust fund folks and do not pay it back, and it is on a balloon

note they put 1% interest? yes or no? guest: no. i do not believe that is the case. there is the issue that we have a unified budget, so when you have surpluses in social security and medicare, that masks the budget deficit we are running this year, talking about $3 trillion. that has been happening for years. all of that money is owed, and when you'd see people talking about net interest, that is the interest we pay to the public that owns the debt or other countries, or other people, but there is growth interest. growth interest includes the interest we are paying to the trust funds. in arlington, vermont. democratic caller. caller: good morning. guest: good morning. $2000: i support the

checks people should get. host: ok? they should be -- you know, maybe -- i mean congress and senate should -- i've been hearing like they should raise it to $6,000. i think they should raise them. $2000 seems to little to me -- too little to me. guest: well right now, it is $600. as i said, doing the $2000, you are looking at $464 billion. you triple that, you are looking at $1.2 trillion. kneed out you want to the assistance. that is why it is such a tragedy the administration and congress rated until december to get something done, when something should have been done in the summer, and we could have needed the -- and it could

be done appropriately. that is not what we are getting now. host: what are earmarks? guest: earmarks are narrow provisions lawmakers insert into legislation to fund particular projects. everything from the infamous bridge to nowhere to funding for a science project in a specific area, road, museum. there are basically narrow interest items lawmakers a tribute to spending legislation. host: are there earmarks in the package the president signed sunday? whether it is the spending bills or coronavirus relief package. congresseta, in 2010, opted a moratorium on earmarks, and they basically, in the three years before that, they allowed

earmarks, but then the sponsor of the earmark, the name had to be attached. so we knew who was asking for what. that moratorium was on the same batch of projects or using the same definition, so by congress's own definition, there are technically not earmarks in here. does that mean there are places where lawmakers know where funding is going because they are getting money in the department of defense for their weapon system or getting it for a particular research item? yeah, i think there are things that have slipped in here, but not by the technical definition of what congress established as an earmark. host: new york times editorial board wrote that members in both chambers should facilitate bringing back earmarks, working to ensure the new system has maximum transparency and sufficient oversight. earmarks are not a magic cure for today'scure all

hyper-polarized politics. there are likely, for instance, to convince -- members of the taxporate squad to back breaks. compromise could provide counterbalance to the partisan forces fueling rigidity and gridlock. your response? guest: i had a response britain in the new york times. i wrote a letter to the editor that got printed. people are looking back with rose-colored glasses at some of the reforms in place, but in reality, there were not online social databases to understand who was getting what. we created that's. we used the documents congress did and created a database so people could understand that, for instance, the congressional quarterly, we used our database and award-winning story to find that the average black lawmaker

and hispanic lawmaker got half democrats the average of rank-and-file member did -- or rank-and-file lawmaker did and even more than the average of public, even though they were in the majority party. less than half of what the other democrats got. i think you can look at this data and figure out why is this the case. secondly, we should not have earmarks in programs established -- that actually have a merit-based system or formula system. those are people's projects, powerful lawmaker's projects cutting the line and getting ahead. when you also look at it, you can see the powerful lawmakers, the ones on the appropriation committee writing the spending bills, are getting the lion's share of the loot. you want to make sure you have a system in place that takes care of the needs of all lawmakers.

you should not have earmarks to private companies. that has issues there. we saw lawmakers that traded their thin stripes for prison stripes. we saw the bridge to nowhere. you need to have some of these criteria and place. we also thought -- saw the government accountability office should evaluate 5% to 10% of earmarks each year to kiev they are returning -- to see if they are returning or performing as intended. there were 9000 disclosed earmarks for fiscal year 2010. it's not like they were not -- that huge amount that went up in the early 90's from three thousand, according to congressional research service. 3000,need to get -- according to congressional research service. we need to get controls in place if we return to the earmark era. i'm -- i'm not advocating for

it, but there are problems that need to be addressed. lastly, it's important to recognize that as the editorial notes, earmarks are not magic pixie dust that makes everything go. since the 1974 budget system was created, the bill i mentioned before, all of the spending bills have been done on time, before the start of the fiscal year, four times. years,been more than 40 and only happened four times, so clearly there are other problems. in the interim of the moratorium, we have had bills passed, transportation bills, water project bills, and i don't know if earmarks would get the 2021 package done faster. the senate never passed a bill. that does not have anything to do with earmarks. host: edna in ohio. a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. guest: good morning, edna. caller: good morning. hi.

i am about the relief package because there are people that are still trying to work. by workingg to get paycheck-to-paycheck, but there is the business that they work out also cuts ours as well. so cutting hours and cutting the employee's paychecks, it is hard to keep up with rent or anything. , ande five kids of my own it is superhard. but i am making it through. but there are so many people out there so much worse off than me that it makes me upset to know that they are worried about paying money to overseas when they need to worry about the americans around here. and open their big eyes and realize and see the people on the streets, or with me, i'm barely holding on.

it's not just handing out free money to everyone. everyone is not like that. everyone is trying to get through the best they can with what they have. edna.go ahead, caller: i just wish they would open their eyes and realize it freet everyone getting a handout. not everyone is expecting that, but not everyone, it is not their fault this happened. i feel like toronto should pay us because it started from toronto in the first place. host: mr. ellis? guest: thanks, edna. i'm sorry things are tough on you, and i know things are tough on many of my fellow americans. this is a very difficult situation. congress is trying to act and trying to provide assistance through not just a lot of directon put on to the

assistance, the $600, or the $360, but there is also billion in there for programs like the paycheck protection program, which are to small businesses to help keep people employed, keep them on the payroll. loansis economic injury in there, billions of dollars for that. is also hundreds of billions of dollars -- there is also hundreds of billions of dollars for the unemployment insurance as well and an increased benefit in that area. tryingre ways they are to help people and provide a lifeline to get through this pandemic, to get to the other side, where we have an economy that can charge forward and can handle this. i think it is important to also look at scales and the difference in parts of government. i'm tackling that foreign aid issue, head-on, but we are talking about single digits, billions of dollars.

we are not talking about hundreds of billions of dollars you see for the economic assistance, which again, i think it is critical. i appreciate your call and real emotion there, and concerned about fellow americans. in georgia, a republican. caller: good morning. i'm so glad we mentioned earmarks. i am of the mindset earmarks should be a thing of the past. whether it is a democrat or republican earmarks. i wanted to mention, i saw on the news, i live in south georgia not far from tallahassee, florida. there are two universities down there. one is su and one is penn university. on the news special, they were reporting that penn you had been awarded $100 million. i would have the same reaction

with fsu. this is not a minority thing. these schools, all you have to go back to wherever you went to school and i can tell you they have overbilled, overstaffed, ade things -- spent significant amount of money making things nice, and then you have $111 million go to a school. that is too much money. i saw the dean on the school saying they would use it to refinance debt they already had. when you refinance, that means you did not have money to pay for something. i'm old school. i think you should pay more as you go and be prepared for bad things. down here, covid did not hit us until june or july. that is when it was really bad. there is no way they put $111 million in. if they did, why did we not give them some? i think that is not a good thing. thank you. guest: thanks, scott.

i graduate from the united states coast guard academy, so i don't think we were overstaffed or overbilled. but i could take your point. know the specifics of this particular instance, but there is money in the bill generally on education, including k-12 and not just universities. you have to look at the significance. host: i will let you continue but i will note for our viewers, $82 billion for schools and colleges. guest: great. so yeah, i think these are institutions that have been hit as well, though through , students notion attending because -- are attending online so they're not staying in dormitories but they still have faculty and costs.

it depends on how the money is being allocated, how it is being used. areeges and universities facing this extraordinary pandemic as well and have real challenges. in this case, one of the points by edna, she was talking about how it is not these people's fault. in some cases, we are asking universities and colleges, and businesses, to close their doors and turn away business because it is a public other emergency. that is part of the reason government is in gauging it -- in gauging in it. it's not necessarily the fault of these individuals, colleges, universities, or businesses. that put government into tier four, to provide assistance. host: the color brings up the pay-as-you-go philosophy. what is that, when it comes to congress, and does that apply to either this omnibus spending bill or the coronavirus relief package? , or pay-as-you-go,

was basically where it's meant the funding had to be offset by other cuts. basically, you are trying to make sure everything was paid for as you went forward. that paygo, went by the -- paygo went by the wayside around 2010, but there is paygo that deals with mandatory spending. i mentioned funding for all of government is $1.4 trillion. that is just the discretionary side of the ledger. that is just a side congress decides how much the state department or department a vegan she -- department of energy, or other department get each year. then there is the mandatory side, which deals with medicare and social security most notably, and that is $3 trillion. that is where you also have paygo implications. as far as this package, they exempt both of them from any budget rules, and generally

appropriation bills because congress is making the decision to spend the money. host: andrew in oklahoma city, democratic color. caller: i wanted to bring a list -- caller. caller: i wanted to bring a little reality to the show. for all the republicans calling in that are against the additional money, what would jesus do? this is -- our country has been an embarrassment to the world on the handling of covid >> c-span is live from michigan where governor gretchen whitmer is about to give an update on the state's response to the coronavirus pandemic. gov. whitmer: i had time over the holiday to relax and acknowledge what a year this has been as it comes to a close. [inaudible] our numbers have continued to improve. we have always taken