cuellar joins us to talk about president biden's immigration agenda. later, dan meuser talks about the federal response to the coronavirus. washington journal is next. ♪ host: it is the washington journal for march 10, a two hour program today, the house coming in at 9:00 to vote on the american rescue plan, which is expected to pass and be signed into law by president biden. the bill includes $1400 in direct payment, extended on a plane and benefits, and other spending. you can follow along today on this channel starting at 9:00. you can also watch it at c-span.org and listen on our free c-span radio app. for the next hour, tell us if you support this bill, oppose it, or are undecided.

if you support this bill, (202) 748-8000. if you oppose it, (202) 748-8001 . if you are undecided, (202) 748-8002. you can also text us at (202) 748-8003. post on twitter and facebook as well. the wall street journal this morning providing a chart, taking a look at some of the spending in this $1.9 trillion package. $123 billion dedicated directly to covid-19 related policy, including $47 billion for disaster relief funds, $50 billion for contact tracing, use of the defense production act buy and distribute medical supplies. if you go over, taking a look at the state and local money that will be distributed from the bill, it would provide $195 million to state governments. it would provide money for local

territories and tribes. it would create paid covid leave for federal workers and other policies. that price tag, $400 million. if you go above looking at the paper version of this chart, it highlights spending there as well. 206 billion dollars for extended unemployment programs. and then the stimulus check, that $1400 direct payment. if you go to the washington times, some of the breakdowns of who stands to get that direct payment. you can find online saying individuals earning less than $75,000 per year and couples earning less than $150,000 per year are eligible for the full payment. the checks fully phase out for individuals earning more than $80,000 per year and couples earning more than 106,000 dollars per year, a change from the original house bill.

you will remember that got changed when it went over to the senate to be amended and then going back to the house again. that vote today, expected to start at 9:00. you can see what will happen. it is expected to pass, but if you want to watch what will happen at 9:00, do so by staying on this channel. if you want to watch it online, you can do that. if you want to listen along and download our free c-span radio app app, you can do that. on facebook when it comes to this package, spending saying get it on president biden's desk and get it going. and then how much goes to the needy? the remainder is pork. and calling it a coronavirus aide to bill is misleading. adding that president biden is getting done what he said he would do. adding that competent leadership

is vitally important. those are some of the facebook posts. this is sam, who opposes the bill. tell us why. caller: my main reason for opposing this is it is only a small percentage of the money going toward the covid. the rest of the money has to be done on a bipartisan basis. there is some momentum in getting the money correctly. this way, there is a very partisan vote and i'm pretty sure this is going to be wasted and we are going to be trying to get this money back. host: from norman in monro township, new jersey, supporting this effort. caller: i definitely support it.

the only question is is it going to the right people? my income is approximately $16,000 a year, but i have -- my net worth is in the high six figures. i do not think it is going to the right people. what i also object to is how partisan it is. republicans are against it 100%. although they supported the tax increase -- tax deduction for the wealthy, but for people -- and this argument that it is not going to be a covid relief. that is nonsense. it is going for people that need it. host: but back to who should

directly get it. who are the right people that should get it if you are saying you should not get it? who are the right people and what you determine that? caller: they can be determined by people with -- that cannot afford to pay rent, people that cannot afford to pay the electric bill, people that are desperate that have children. we have no children. we are in our 90's. that should not be the factor. somehow, they should determine people who are desperate for the money. host: that is norman in new jersey. we will hear from franklin in west virginia, a viewer who opposes this effort. caller: i oppose this bill because i know this is going to be pork.

host: what makes you determine that is going to be mostly pork in your estimation? caller: i just happened to get up this morning and turned on the tv and was on newsmax. a professor said what is going to happen with this bill about there is so much money in there that is -- the government is going to be competing against small businesses for workers because they are giving out so much free money in this bill that they are going to go and these people are going to get this free money so they are not going to go back to work. host: that is david and franklin, west virginia. -- in franklin, west virginia. let's start off early and turning off your televisions to make sure there is no feedback when you get a chance to talk with us. james in washington state, a supporter of this effort, go ahead. caller: this is a bipartisan bill.

republicans will get stimulus checks. they will get welfare checks. they will get unemployment checks. they will get benefits from this. what democrats should have put in this bill was a stipulation that you do not get this unless you're governor opted in. if they do not want the money, they should not have to get it. host: it is not bipartisan in the sense of support in congress, to clarify. caller: congress has nothing to do with bipartisan. it is bipartisan by who actually gets it and benefits from it. that is republicans, democrats, independents. the republicans that feel like it is wasteful, they should have put a stipulation for governors to have to opt in in order to get this money if they did not want it. they say it is wasteful, that what you cannot talk about it and then receive it. host: that is james in washington state. if you are before asked about --

a viewer before asked about the content of the bill, how much directly is going to covid related matters. the answers provided by w maisie -- wmaz says a small part of the bill is labeled for things like covid testing, vaccines, and distribution. a large portion goes to stimulus programs addressing the economic impact of the pandemic. the nonpartisan committee for a responsible federal budget, which has been critical of the bill, estimate a little bit more than 50% of the package is spent on long-standing policy priorities that are not directly related to the current crisis, which would mean about 85% of the bill is funding toward projects related to covid relief , a cry from the 9% made in some claims -- a far cry from the 9% made in some claims. one of the people talking about the partisan nature of the vote leading up to today, at 9:00 we will go to the house, was the

house budget chair, talking about the bill and the end product and politics behind it. [video clip] >> we have come together as a party in the congress to do something monumental, something that also clearly reflects our values as a party. a commitment to using government to improve the lives of as many people as possible. i just got out of the rules committee and it was almost comical to listen to the republicans try to come up with the appropriate attack on this legislation. they are having a hard time doing it because they voted for most of this and number of times. one of the attacks was bernie sanders just said this was one of the most progressive pieces of legislation ever passed. they are trying to type bernie sanders to it. of course it is.

the reason it is progressive is because there is not a dollar in this building goes to the richest americans. not a dollar. -- bill that goes to the richest americans. not a dollar. 70% of it goes to low and moderate income americans to help them deal with the economic tragedy of this pandemic. host: the washington post takes a look at some of the agencies that will be responsible for distributing this covid relief and highlighting the irs and some of the most ambitious new programs hinging on the irs, and agency tasks with vast response built he to disperse payments -- an agency tasked with vast responsibility to disperse payments. process other changes under the rescue plan, including a fresh help to unemployed americans. the sheer volume of work that must be done while managing tax

filing season has led some staunch reporters -- supporters of stimulus to raise red flags about its and limitation -- implementation. it quotes a democratic representative from virginia saying i think the struggle is inevitable. if you want to read more of that, that is in the washington post this morning. to your thoughts on the covid bill, which is expected to be released today or past today. $1.9 trillion price tag. in san diego, california. you are on. go ahead. caller: stimulus -- i'm ok with the idea of giving families some money, right? the problem becomes when you have a bunch of people -- host: caller, you are breaking

up. can you get closer to your phone? caller: the problem becomes when you're talking about wealthy people who do not need the money eddie money. -- getting money. some is going to go toward money for preservation of native american languages and other stuff that is a waste. why do we need that now? why can't we get money to people who desperately need it and gradually reopen? they can physically distance. the healthy should be able to work. host: ok. you are breaking up a little bit. thank you for the call. the caller did mention people's habits when it comes to covid these days. it cites a recent poll taken by axios and if so's saying only -- ipsos saying only 13% of

americans are in self-quarantine. more americans are going out to visit non-grocery retail stores. 40% who said they visited friends or relatives was up 7% from a month ago. the centers for disease control and prevention who send its guideline restrictions for fully vaccinated -- loosened its guideline restrictions for fully vaccinated americans. in new jersey, opposing this effort. caller: i oppose this because listen to the remarks the democrats say. they just keep talking about the money. what about the stuff in between? they do not talk about that. then they say the majority of people are for it. the only reason the majority people are for it is because they want the money. the other stuff in between, they do not give a damn about. as far as biden, he is only

doing with the democrat party tells him. he is nothing but a puppet. host: your opposition is only because of the total price tag, because of the money spent on covid? caller: yes, it is money given out, i understand, but the stuff in between that stuff, for states and this and that, that got nothing to do with it. host: the states will make the case they have been impacted by covid because of relief efforts only within their states. why shouldn't they get access? caller: they have to prove that, not before that. they are probably going to get money from before the covid and that is not right. host: finish your thought. caller: when the year started, last year when it started, to this year, ok, but not before that. that is what they are asking for also. host: the new york times this

morning in their national session -- section highlighted a story looking at new york city and what they expect to do with some of that money that is expected to be passed. $65 billion by the mayor, bill de blasio, saying a plan to spend $65 million of the money the city expects to received help restructure the loans of drivers obtained in city permits that allow them to buy their own cabs. it would still leave them in debt with large monthly payments but could eliminate hundreds of millions of dollars owed by drivers who fell victim to abusive lending practices and were further devastated by the emergence of right hailing -- ride hailing companies and a big dip and passengers during the coronavirus outbreak. caller: in reference -- donald

trump was in the white house. he was for the upper class and paid them. he did not think about the middle class or below. what are we supposed to do? host: specifically, why do you support this legislation and money that is going to be spent? caller: i support it because it is a boost in the economy. host: ok. grace in richmond, virginia giving us her thoughts. yahoo! news post another aspect of the bill, saying it would result in stimulus checks for individuals and provide aid to families. the american rescue plan is set to increase existing child tax credit up to $3600 per child for

the federal government according to a report from the center on budget and policy priorities. this would cut the number of children in poverty by more than 40%. the rescue plan would allow families with a joint income of less than $150,000 were a single income of less than $75,000 to receive up to $3600 per child at the age of six and up to $3000 for children over the age of six. children's ages 17 and under fall under the eligible age bracket. that will last until the end of the year. that is part of the many aspects of this $1.9 trillion package. that will be voted on today and the house of representatives. -- in the house of representatives. the house is expected to come in at 9:00. if you want to follow the vote process, we invite you to stay with us on this channel. c-span.org is where you go

online and download the radio app if you want to listen along. one of the people commenting yesterday was liz cheney. she spoke to reporters tuesday, saying the covid relief bill will be a financial burden for folks who are already struggling. [video clip] >> the real tragedy come out when you look at that package, we know the result of that package is going to be middle-class tax increases. we know for sure it includes provisions that are not targeted, not temporary, not related to covid. it did not have to be this way. we could have had a bill that was a fraction of the cost of this one. it could have gotten bipartisan approval and support, but the speaker decided to go in another direction. we are going to be saddled with a burden, spending burden, and a tax burden that is really indefensible from the perspective of what it actually

accomplishes. host: when it comes to small businesses, as part of the overall package, 59 billion dollars set aside for them, including grants to restaurants and bars the lost revenue due to the pandemic, 25 billion dollars of that. kevin is next, opposing this bill. caller: i oppose the bill because, as americans, this is going to cause inflation because the economy is already coming back on its own. i do not necessarily oppose it in the park for small businesses that are hurt because of coronavirus but all the other stuff -- because they continuously do it. we keep bailing them out. eventually, at some point, we are going to pay all this money back. our children and grandchildren are going to be responsible. for those people who call in and

support it, they need to think about that, especially the lady in virginia if she has children. she needs to think about how high their taxes are going to be. as far as alt-right being for the rich man, i am a poor farmer in missouri and he did more good -- donald trump being for the rich man, i'm a poor farmer in missouri and he did more good than any other president. host: we have a line for those who are undecided about the package as it currently stands. that is where herbert is. caller: how are you? host: i am fine. caller: -- trump wanted to become -- host: you said you are undecided about this bill. why? caller: it is a burden on the

people now, people who have kids who cannot pay their rent. who cares about the tax? host: that is herbert. let's hear from keith in pennsylvania, a support line. go ahead. caller: i support it. really i have to defend it to other people i come in contact with because i say it is a stimulus bill. a lot of people are using it to play catch up. if you do not deserve the check, get that money and go out and shop locally. local shoe stores, local restaurants, and all kind of things you can do with that money that is being sent out. on the other hand, with the unemployment that has to be paid

out, things will get back online. i do not see inflation because i do not see many problems from the thousand dollars they give out last year -- the $1000 they give out last year. host: could this have been trimmed in your mind to stick to the specifics you highlighted? caller: it is too late for that. let's get on with it. that is what caused the problem at the beginning, all that back and forth. host: on our oppose line, this is tom, fort lauderdale, florida. caller: good morning. i do not really oppose the philosophy of the bill. i hate to think families feel desperate. i think that relieving a feeling of desperation is important in our society, but what i oppose is it is not the answer.

this bill is not the answer. take it at the state level and individual level. let's take the individual level first. somebody is going to get $1400. let's say they have three kids and get $5,000 as a family. once that $5,000 is gone, then what? it is not the answer. the answer is opening this economy and getting people back to jobs. at every turn, the cdc and some agency in the government stops states from getting their economies open. ask any family, what would you rather have come $5,000 or a $50,000 job? i bet they want that job. that really is the answer. host: so because some of this money is directed to businesses

themselves, do you think that spending is part of the package? caller: that is beyond my pay grade, but i will say one thing. you know what would really be nice? if the democrat party listed all the companies that kept employees on the job, even though they were not working, even though they were not needed. they kept them employed. it would be nice if the democrat party or anybody recognized what corporations did to keep the economy going. host: that is tom in fort lauderdale, florida. when it comes to states and tax revenues, axios has a piece on their website taking a look at states that got hit hardest when it comes to tax revenue drops. hawaii following next with a 17% drop.

florida, nevada, oregon, texas, and louisiana come all part of that. speaking of alaska, the anchorage daily news reporting that, when it comes to vaccine, alaska on tuesday broadened an already long list of people eligible for covid-19 vaccines, including anyone 16 years and older who lives and works in the state. the change makes alaska the first u.s. state to remove eligibility requirements for the covid-19 vaccine. find more of that story at the anchorage daily news. jimbo is undecided about the package in bakersfield, california. caller: good morning. i am only undecided because i think it would be smart for the democrats to have their next vote to repeal the $1.9 trillion tax cuts that the trump administration got through because it would show some sort

of financial responsibility that we are looking to pay for. it would quiet them up. one other thing i would like to remind everyone is that a huge amount of this expense, as well as a lot of the debt, would have been preventable if, as the bob woodward tapes so clearly indicate back in february of 2020, trump new how deadly this pandemic was going to be. host: so as far as this new spending of $2 trillion, are you concerned about impacts on deficits or inflation, as some people have brought up? caller: yellen has said pretty much -- i agree with a lot of what yellen has said. a lot of this money -- for example, my money is going to be used to pay down debt. i think that is probably a good thing, to pay down debt for individuals who can.

for others, it will be for survival. one thing this bill will do is take half of our chilled -- of all children out of poverty. this is one of the greatest achievements in terms of eliminating poverty. we should not let children go hungry. host: according to child tax credits. in homestead, pennsylvania, a supporter of this effort. >> one thing i think we should talk to the people who oppose the bill about is when they get on the air you should ask them a couple questions. are they getting any of this money? if they are opposed to it, what are they going to do with the money? if they do not want it, they can turn around and donate it to a food bank or any place that helps the homeless or people

that need it. they do not need to keep the money. i agree with the guy before it locally or donate it. there are plenty of charities they can donate to. host: do you need the money? how will you spend it? caller: not really. i am retired and my wife is working. i do not really need it. i'm going to give it to my grandchildren and help the economy with it. i'm not going to put it in a bank account and save it. all these people think money is going to go to waste. it is going to be put back into the economy. it is going to affect our economy and help it out. host: should it be more targeted? caller: how long do you want to wait to target it? it will take you months to figure out who would be targeted and who would not. that is not really a good way.

people who are smart enough to take this money and do the right thing with it, they will do the right thing. people who are complaining all the time, they are going to take the money, spend it. they are complaining because they are complaining. that is all. host: that is ray in pennsylvania. the wall street journal highlights other efforts that congress has done over the last year or so when it comes to stimulus spending. $1.9 trillion of the march package being voted on today. december of 2020, $115 billion spent in december, distributed as far as direct payments earlier this year. then going back to march of 2020 , the first stimulus package that was passed, $1.7 trillion. if you want to add that to the mix of spending. this coming friday on our program, we are going to devote

to the whole show to talking about the year we have had with covid, hearing from you concerning your experiences with it, what happened, you telling us your stories and perspective of what you have experienced over the last year. if you want to start planning on giving us a call friday during the show, feel free to do that. we will take your calls, texts, and facebook postings. that will be friday, two hours of debate starting this morning, leading to a vote at 9:00 this morning. also on c-span, this channel. tomorrow, the president will give his first primetime address , talking about matters related to covid. you can see that as well on c-span, c-span.org, and our radio app. if you want to find information, you can go to the website for that. we will go to john, brentwood,

tennessee, who opposes the effort. caller: my name is john and i opposed the bill because of the pork involved in the bill. i have been online looking at all of the things, such as $100 million going to the arts. all of the money going to different countries that does not apply to the americans. i want these people that have -- that are struggling to get money, and i want them to have that. i am not opposed to that and i think we should have separate bills that would allow that to happen. host: from mobile, alabama come out this is chris. caller: -- alabama, this is chris. caller: pedro, though i do support it and nobody loves pork

more than southerners, what i'm a frayed of -- i am more of a fiscal conservative. i am more of a social liberal. if we keep printing money, i'm afraid we could possibly just print ourselves into massive inflation. gas prices are creeping up. it is hard to follow some of these callers because there were some excellent ideas. there is a possibility we are going to look at massive inflation within the next quarter. host: some calls have expressed that and i'm sure economists have thinking on that. should this be done in a different manner to prevent those things you are concerned about? caller: to be honest, i was too intellectually lazy to look at the past bills that passed. i am sure they had pork in as well.

sometimes it is not such a great idea to put a band-aid on a gunshot wound but you have to start somewhere. until we figure this thing out gary and i am hoping that, with the new president and senate being democratic -- i am still hoping we can go back to the days of tip o'neill and reagan. i pray these guys can work together and figure something out, something fiscally conservative more or less. people do need help. you don't need the money, shop locally, give it away. i am not crazy about the pork, but i hope in the future we can figure something out and hopefully work together. host: that is chris and alabama. in virginia, a caller who opposes this effort in

woodbridge, virginia. caller: i opposed the bill from the aspect that, when washington, d.c., our congress up there recognize that hundred 50 -- a couple making $150,000 a year is low income and then it seems to me i never thought of 150,000 dollars a year as being low income. or even moderate income. that is a pretty good income for a couple. so you will get the full benefits and then it peters out up to $400,000. i think in an effort to target, you should target people that need it. in addition, i would go with what everyone else has said regarding the pork. congress continually gives out pork so they can get reelected. that is the same thing they are

doing with this bill. host: what determines as far as when you said money should go to those who need it? what guidelines should determine that? caller: i think that is why we have a government and our government agencies. we have the capability, if we ask them to do that, and they have not done that. our politicians need to make some hard choices and provide guidance versus just trying to get reelected by providing levels of pork. most of this bill is another level of pork, in my opinion. we have all kinds of government agencies, the research efforts of congress that congress pays for. you have the irs, the apartment of commerce. you would think you could put those collective minds together and come out with a way that you target people that truly need

assistance to be able to stay in their house, to pay for food. if we talk about pork, my daughter and her kids and folks around here, the schools have provided -- have been providing to families breakfast and lunch for this whole period. as the giveaway the food support for kids that are underserved, they basically have a surplus they are giving to anybody that shows up. because there is a surplus. host: that is dennis. he mentioned education. the wall street journal again in that chart, when it comes to the breakdown of this package, 100 semi $6 billion slated for education. other aspects there too if you want to take a look.

then he talked about the checks themselves that many people will get the washington times highlights some of the phase outs. it adds that dependence regardless of age will qualify for the $1400 payment. a family of four with an annual income of 100 what he thousand dollars is eligible for a $5,600 -- $120,000 is eligible for a $5,600 check. the irs plans to use tax returns to determine income. then this adds that if your 2020 returns are still processing with the irs makes its calculation, your latest income would qualify you for a direct payment. again, there is a lot of breakdown out there as far as the components of the $1400. you can find them online.

michael in oregon says he partly supports this and partly opposes this. the money involved is well targeted but we are saddling our grandchildren with debt. jan adds that one person's pork is another life this -- is another's lifeline. in washington, i think a lot of republicans support the bill but will not say it. it is what they do so they have deniability of the economy tank. these are not normal times. state and mask mode so we do not overflow our hospitals. one way you can reach out is if you want to text us at (202) 748-8003. rich in maryland says he is undecided. caller: you kind of hit on the tax returns and how they are going to determine payouts. it is unfair for an individual

or couple or family that made above the maximum amount in 2019 then lost their job in april 2020. hopefully they have the ability to get returns and and qualify. wouldn't a mechanism that is already in place be someone that is a newly application for unemployment? so rather than having them get their 2020 return in and going through the process, you could identify individuals in the country that have come under stress due to the pandemic after march 2020. just another suggestion for the government to use to determine payouts. host: did you benefit from the other direct payments made and the legislation previously passed?

caller: yes. it is about past tax returns. so -- there is a cap if someone lost their job in 2020. they better get their tax return in. we keep saying this has affected people of lower income and that sort of thing. they may not have the means and ability to get a tax return in. host: what did you do with the money? caller: i saved it because i'm assuming we are going to get tax. rather than spend it, i put it in my savings. i know it is not taxable, but somehow it has to be paid in the future. the other thing about spurring the economy, the economy in most states, where are they going to spend it to spark the economy?

there are no opportunities to do that. host: in chesapeake, virginia, a supporter of this effort. caller: i totally support it because it has helped a lot of people that are in need. i have heard so many people speak about unemployment and stimulus. a lot of people still have not received unemployment benefits or gotten stimulus. with the new bill being passed, i am still waiting for the new stimulus check to come through and it has not yet. i understand it is going to help a lot of people and the food that is helping people in chesapeake and portsmouth really helps a lot. i feel like it is just a nip in

the bud when you look at the overall picture. we have always paid taxes. looking at this administration now compared to the last one we are doing better. why is it a problem when you have an all democrat system in place that republicans all of a sudden are geniuses? i think we have learned from the last election. i think we are going in the right direction and i am glad everybody is doing what they need to do. host: that is lucian virginia. one of the critics of the effort yesterday was the minority whip of louisiana, speaking with reporters tuesday, talking specifically about direct payments in the american rescue plan and adding why he thinks they are not targeted enough. >> people have concerns that speaker pelosi took advantage of the crisis to fill the bill with primarily things that have nothing to do with covid that

should have been discussed separately. our focus from the beginning was let's help families who are struggling with a targeted relief bill, not just sending everybody a check across america but to help families who are struggling as opposed to saying if somebody is making more money than they were a year ago they are also going to get a check. there are millions of small businesses that have already closed and it is devastating to see what some of these governor stitt to make it harder for small businesses to stay afloat while states like florida and texas kept things open and had different results. host: shannon from indiana said everybody needs to get off the welfare wagon. we are strong americans. we can take care of our own. we do not need handouts. this says my stimulus check pay my taxes. i was unemployed for over a month. in burlington, saying, you do not think republicans put pork in their bills? as far as other countries, we help ourselves but keeping them

healthy. so much selfishness is corroding what used to seem like civilized society. from new hampshire, this is johnny, saying totally ridiculous. i am a government worker who has not missed a check. another $1400, i will take it. let's go to kirk and alabama, who opposes this effort -- in alabama, who opposes this effort. caller: i oppose it because it is too late and too much goes to too many that should not really get it, including foreign governments. my question is why is it that c-span has not done a program that pertains to the fact that for what our representatives have crippled about for over a year in terms of supplying

support to citizens because of this scamdemic. every country in the world you can name in terms of wealth, power, economy, australia, great britain, germany, france, the average of what they support their citizens with because of this -- is that our congresspeople have crippled over providing the american people with stimulus an entire year will of the -- while at the very -- every other country in the world provided stimulus on a monthly basis. host: we have had previous packages last year related to covid during the course of the year but not on a monthly basis. caller: people's problems and

financial struggles, issues and bills last more than -- they are monthly. monthly issues. host: let's go to new york on our opposed line. caller: good morning. i like helping people but come like other callers, i feel there is too much pork and other countries are better. we want to make washington, d.c. a state so democrats would have more senators. i do not know what that has to do with covid relief. also, they do not want any voter id laws. all you have to do is go vote and sign a statement that you are eligible to vote, no checks,

no balances. i think this -- host: that is in new york. one of the questions being asked of the white house spokesperson was about the timing of the stimulus check that many of you have referenced this morning. here are some of that exchange. [video clip] >> you are the president have said they are going out this month. do you know any more specific timing of when people should expect them? >> it is something our treasury team is working on and working to expedite. one of the steps they are taking is working to ensure more people can get them electronically because that speed it up. i have more detail here. in terms of how it will work. so the first batch of payments will go to all taxpayers who provided direct deposit in 2019

or 2020 returns, followed by taxpayers who did not provide that information but for whom the irs has payment information from other programs. as the president said, once the bill is passed, we will be able to start getting payments out this month. in terms of more specifics, we are waiting for them to get systems in place. >> and any update on whether you want to signature on their? >> we are doing everything in our power to expedite payments and not delay them, which is why the president's name will not appear on the memo line. the checks will be signed by a career official. it is not about him. it is about the american people getting relief. >> so he did not want his name to appear on the checks? >> he did not think that was a priority or necessary staff. -- step. host: the star tribune

highlights a woman of caller and two white men were picked for the jury while six others were questioned and dismissed. chauvin is charged with second-degree murder and manslaughter. questions included could they set aside prior knowledge to the case and be impartial? do they believe police are more likely to use force against black citizens? another aid to new york governor andrew cuomo reporting harassment by the governor, this time during an encounter at new york? executive -- new york's executive mansion. gary is next on our support line. caller: hello. i support the bill because i think it is one of the smartest

things democrats ever done. it has 75% approval. what is going to happen is this economy is going to explode. i am a disabled veteran. i do not need the money. as soon as things break in atlanta, georgia, i'm going to spend my money on everything i see in the window. the economy is going to break right around midterms. president obama listened to the republicans in 2009. when he came up with a smaller package and it did not move the economy fast enough, then republicans ran against him. they said, he cannot fix it fast enough. this time, they did not listen. they did not play that partisan game. this time, the democrats did not

listen here and that is what i voted for. i voted for them to get something done. host: that is gary. we will go to eddie in ohio on our opposed line hearing -- line. caller: i opposed the bill because there's is so much stuff added in. only 9% of it goes to covid. the rest of it goes to bail out unions that stole money and some of these cities and stuff that are running themselves in debt. then you have building bridges and underground railroads and stuff like that. it just don't seem right to call it a covid bill when 91% of it goes to other things. host: joe martinez from facebook saying take the money out of your hands, your grandchildren for pork projects for election support. it is a no-brainer.

eric from twitter saying it needs to pass but it is a watered-down bill thanks to neoliberals who only care about campaign donors. from another twitter viewer, saying, as a federal taxpayer, it troubled me, the way congress spends the money we give them. and then from twitter as well saying it is not enough. jerry from mississippi on the support line. caller: i want to the people to be thankful. the reason being that we want to thank our president biden and vice president harris and the whole democratic party. we want to thank them from what -- for what they are doing for the people.

i would write president biden a love letter and tell him how much we love him and right ms. harris and tell her how much we love her for what she is doing. host: as far as the bill specifically, why do you support it? caller: it is going to help so many children that need education and food. it does so much good in this bill. i'm a 75-year-old man. i see a future for our people, a future for our young folks for the whole country. i am president of the county naacp, and i have been waiting for this for a long time. host: finish your thought. go ahead. caller: i want to thank the democratic party for all they

have done and the two senators in georgia, i want to thank them for standing up and making this thing happen. host: if you want to follow along on issues other than the covid relief bill being debated on today, if you are interested on foreign policy, the secretary of state will be testifying this afternoon on the biden administration's foreign policy agenda in front of the house foreign affairs committee. c-span3 is where you can see that, as well as c-span.org and our radio app. if you're interested in following along on what is going today -- going on today, c-span is where you can follow that. we will go to the house as they take that vote. again, the website and radio app. from william in massachusetts on our opposed line. >> i opposed the bill based on

how it is set up with most of the money already going to big cities. they take it too far with the local aid. they are going to use community development grant programs, so cities over 50,000 will get more per capita for local aid. then they altered the formula. now small towns will get less, about $.20 on the dollar per person. big cities will get more for certain reasons. why would the local aid -- why would you want a small town getting $.20 compared to one dollar per person locally? host: william in massachusetts. when you talk about hospitalizations due to covid, usa today has a story that

hospitals report more than half of patients infected with covid-19 has dropped from 193 to 10. states like california, nevada, georgia, and south carolina have experienced some drops in covid-19 oscillation. also adding the intensive care units have become less drained as well. the number of hospitals reporting icus at or above capacity has fallen since early january. jeff bennett of nbc reporting on his twitter that president biden today will announce he is going to direct the hhs team to purchase an additional 100 million doses of the johnson & johnson vaccine. administration officials say he is expected to make the announcement during a meeting with executives from j&j and mer

ck. the president is also expected to make a speech tomorrow. you can see that on c-span. in virginia, a supporter of this effort. hello? caller: hello. host: go ahead. caller: i want to say that, after the president signs this, when are americans going to receive it? host: good question. we will see if we can find an exact date or timing. why are you interested in that specifically? are you there? she hung up. go to joanna in indiana, a supporter. caller: i support this because, being a personal social security, you do not get much money, barely enough to make it

through the year. just paying your bills. things come up like your air conditioning, your driver going down, your dog meeting and operation, things that are emergencies, we do not get to cover. we just try to find something that works. this will help us. in the areas where we cannot go out and fix the drier, cannot get our air conditioning fixed, cannot help our dog that needs an operation. it is essential. in indiana, they have a cut off amount of $30,000. anymore, you do not get any help. host: for the previous caller,

if you're interested in finding out about the third stimulus check, if you go to the website there, they have a posting about when the payment could come if the bill does pass today. coming up we will talk to two members of congress. we will start our discussions with the democratic congressman from texas dan -- henry cuellar, who will talk about the relief topics and then later on dan meuser, a member of the small business committee. those coming up on washington journal. ♪ >> more than 2000 students entered this year's documentary competition and told us the issues that they want the president and congress to address. here are our winners, eighth-grader, a homeschooler from austin texas from the spectrum cable system about the

chinese, human -- communist party. high school goes to a 10th grader evelyn shou and edda chen from the comcast cable system on education and standard light -- standardized texas -- testing. the 10th grade -- first prize high school west goes to sophia from a school in california on the u.s. foreign policy our grand prize winner is a ninth grader, theo, from williamsville south high school in new york on the spectrum cable system. >> we wanted to call and congratulate you because you are our grand prize winner. >> really?

>> really. [silence] -- [laughter] >> congratulations. >> thank you guys so much. >> he won the grand prize for his documentary about trust in government and political division. >> the american experience is built on successes and failures, in order to get out of the pandemic and try to reunite a fractured nation we need to hear the truth, even when, especially when the truth is that the path ahead is going to be long and full of struggle. once we come to expect the truth, even hard truth, we the people can place our trust in a better future. >> thank you you to all who participated in the student camera documentary congress. the winning documentaries will start on c-span on april 4 -- first and you can watch all of them anytime online at

studentcam.org. ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is representative henry q yar -- cuellar and serves the 21st district in taxes. thank you for giving us your time. guest: thank you. host: what do you think about the final package being voted on, is this something that you can support? guest: absolutely, it is important to make sure that we do two things, we look at the health of the individual and economy. the health of the individual is important, we will get more money for vaccines and testing. to make sure that we get the vaccines to the arms of the individuals who need the vaccine. the way the vaccines -- the biden administration has been doing a good job, 2 million a

day, and this week i think they had about 3 million. it is looking good, and that is the health of the individual. the health of the economy is putting $1400 in the hands of the individual and money for small businesses and in the cities and counties to make sure that we get things moving again. so, the health of the individual and economy is what this bill will do. host: what is the response on republicans who describe it as a small amount for covid related matters and most of it, the way they would describe it, as pork? guest: i do not know what they are referring to, but i assume my colleague, my next colleague that comes after me will go ahead and give his distraction. let me say this. if you look at putting money is into the cities and the counties or to the schools, $130 billion to the schools or $40 billion to

universities and colleges that help students, i do not call that pork, i call that essential. if you look at this it will be the health of the individual and the health of the economy. we know that we need to get our economy -- give our economy a boost and this is what the bill will do. it is very popular among democrats and republicans, except for the republican colleagues that we have in d.c.. host: if you want to ask him questions during this half hour before the house comes in at nine. 202-748-8000, democrats. republicans, 202-748-8001. independents, 202-748-8002. you can text us at 202-748-8003 and post on social media. concerning matters of immigration, when the biden administration took place, they halted efforts on border wall construction, offered protection for dreamers including

undocumented immigrants, of those three things what do you think about that and then the overall approach that the administration has taken on amidst dutch on immigration? guest: those three things i support, dreamers are young kids who got brought here with no fault of their own. they were brought at a young age. they have to make sure that they have no criminal record, are working or getting an education. isn't that what we want? well educated young people. of course president biden did the right thing. on the census, the u.s. constitution does not say naturalized or born here people, it says all persons will be counted, so let us look at the constitution. on the wall, it is a 14th-century solution to a 21st-century problem. if you want to stop drugs, 92% of the drugs come from through ports of entry and not in between. it is not going to do that.

if you want to stop people from being here illegally that did you know in the last seven years , 63% of the people got here through illegal visa -- a legal visa but overstayed. but the number one violator of those visas are canadians. no one is asking to put a wall between u.s. and canada, those are the facts. i know president trump use that as a campaign, but he also called mexicans rapists and murderers and that is not the way to treat our neighbors to the south. there is a headline -- host: there is a headline on the fox news website talking about the biden administration's approach and saying that i am characterizing that they need to listen more to people like you who were on the border. can you talk about the interview and expand on what was said? guest: i'm against the wall. dreamers, i support dreamers. you asked me about counting folks in the senses, i support

that, and now you are shifting over to immigration. on that one, i think they need to listen to the people on the border about that, because we have a lifetime of experience. do not go to the border like a lot of people do for a few hours and think they know the border better than i do. it is like me going to the canadian border and spending a few hours and telling somebody that i know the border with canada better than i do. they have to listen to the communities down there. what i was referring to are three messages down there in central america. one, the administration that says do not come now, come later. message number two the family and friends network. guess what, i was able to cross the river, and if you come now, you will be able to do it. message number three are the criminal organizations who say pay us money because we are getting people across. you tell me if you are down there in central america which

message will you listen to? to your friends and neighbors and the criminal organizations that make all these promises, and that is why we have to have the right messaging and the right policies at the border. on that one, they need to listen to folks like mayors and judges and ngo's at the border. host: have you had direct input on these matters? guest: i have called the white house and given the my opinion and tell -- called the homeland secretary. my phone has not wrong at all, but i sit on homeland appropriations and i'm sure i will have an opportunity to talk to those officials when they come before my committee asking for money. host: there is a story in "the washington post" taking a look at the arrest saying that the number of immigrants taken into custody by officers during the first three months of the trump administration according to the washington post. it fell by nearly the same

amount according to us but -- in statistics. does this cause you concern. guest: i look at trends and i have been studying this for many years. we had a crisis in 2014 and under president trump we had a crisis in 2019. we have seen this before. it is nothing new for us who live at the border. what i saw this last year, in august of 2020 under the trump administration, i saw the numbers going up and especially in october, through january. this is all trump time, except or after january 20 at 12:01 in the afternoon. we saw the numbers going up. in february i think the numbers are 100,000 encounters. in may of 2019 under president trump it was 144,000 for the month. the numbers are going up and we

have not reached the numbers like we had under president trump, but what is a little different is that we have a pandemic and order patrol -- control facilities are only operating at 25%. what they are doing is what they have done in the past under president obama, they are coming through the lower part of texas and starting to send people through my hometown and other places. the pandemic plays a role in this. host: the representative is our guest. debbie is up first in maryland, you are on with our guest. go ahead with your question or comment. caller: i would like to ask him what he feels about the illegals that are from other countries, not mexico, coming into our country. what should we do with them? do we have a better background, better screening before we allow them in the country?

and, i am not saying too much about people from mexico, i am saying other countries, such as the middle east, india, those types of things. if people are suspected drug running, what do we do? we have to do something? host: thank you. guest: and thank you for that question. look, i feel that any country should be able to secure its border, i live on the border i drink the water and breathe the air, and i understand the border , and i do understand that as a country we need to have law and order at the border and every country should do that. we ought to keep the bad people and the drugs from coming in, and i support providing more resources to border patrol. and, the other agencies of homeland security. we can play defense on the one yard line called the u.s. border

where we spend billions of dollars every single year, or we can play defense on the 20 yard line, which is getting other countries to do more to stop countries from coming in. i have been at the detention centers in texas, but it is like -- i thought i would be looking at people who just spoke spanish, but you have people from china, vietnam, middle east, name the country and they are there, even from georgia, the country of georgia, not the state. and you have people from all over the world that are coming in, and that is why we need to make sure that we should care -- she -- secure the borders. 63% of the illegals that we had here were canadians that overstayed their stay. host: vermont, republican line. diane, hello. guest: i have two things real quick, reminding all elected

officials whether they are democrats or republicans are not elected to put food on my table or protect my health, or even put money in my pocket. you are elected to protect my constitutional rights so i can do that for myself. also, the rightful citizens are the ones who should be voting, that is it. that is our birthright. if you become a citizen then you get that right, you do not get to become one first lopping yourself across the border. those things are wrong and we feel like we are being railroaded right now. how do you answer that? guest: no one is trying to railroad anyone. i believe in the constitution and i believe that our founding fathers had a right when they drafted our constitution. and how the supreme court has interpreted that of course has given different opinions as to how we look at the constitution. are we elected to provide for the common good and common

defense as the constitution says? of scores -- of course, and i support that. as you know, we are all immigrants, and the only ones that were here where the native americans and, if you look at it, everybody came to the united states. some have been here a little longer, some just got here. but we are all immigrants in this united states, except for our native americans. host: your fellow democrats introduced do you -- the citizenship act of 2021. how much level of support do you have for this legislation? guest: i support that. it does not call for amnesty. amnesty is what president reagan did in 1986 with the democrats. this is a pathway in eight years to do that. so, right now the support is

being built. the hispanic caucus is working hard. linda sanchez and other folks are putting in a lot of time and other folks are trying to come up with something that is balanced, and certainly we have to do something. every immigration bill, comprehensive immigration bill should have three things, one, strong border security. two, a guest worker program. three, we have to do something about the 11 million undocumented people that we have. i want to know who is here, who are the bad people so we can kick them out. i want to know who ought to stay here and have them earn a pathway. but no msd like president wake -- reagan did in 19 every passion no amnesty like president reagan did in 1986. host: this bill satisfies all those concerns? guest: we will have to make some adjustments, i do not agree 100%

i want to support the majority of that, but that is the process, we have to make adjustments as we move forward. host: what is your disagreement? guest: we have to make sure that when we talk about a guestworker plan, which is a separate bill and how we bring in the 11 million undocumented folks that are there that we follow the pathway. one of the ways i would prefer to have is to take away the bars, the legal term, where the people are here, let the system bring them in under the legal system. there is a way that we can do that, there are some adjustments to streamline this, but every bill, comprehensive whether it is separate or together should have strong border security, a guestworker plan, and we have to make sure that we also do something about 11 or 12 million undocumented aliens. we say we will not bring those people in then we are just

putting our heads in the sand and, like i said, i want to know who the people are. they will go -- they are good people, and we will find a pathway. if they are bad people, we have to say goodbye in whatever language they speak. host: we have a fellow texan from garland, texas. we are on with your guest. caller: i have three things for you. number one, i have never heard of any of your families. this is for anybody listening, you go to c-span.org and look up immigration hearing from 2015 and look up laura wilkinson. number two, -- when you said rapists and murderers, what you need to do is look up maryland pharis out of california how she was raped, beaten half to death and eight -- and died eight days later. so what excuse do you have for

that? guest: let me talk about immigration in the state of catch -- texas and garland. there was a letter written from this official that said we had a problem over here on the river, we have people coming over and taking over our properties and not respecting the law and they said we had to do something about it. the other thing was that there was written around 1832 by a mexican official where at that time texas was part of mexico talking about americans crossing the river close to garland, where you live, and taking over the land. there has been immigration issues and we have to -- from the beginning and even before texas became a state or a republic, and part of the united states. that is what i say, take a history lesson and i hope you look at my history lesson also. host: joanna in maryland. you are next up. caller: i would like to tell you

a little dreamer story, a few years ago maryland was considering their state version of the dream act that would have given undocumented young people, for example, in state do -- tuition for college among some other benefits. during that time lutheran immigration refugee services came out to talk to our church one sunday and she was a woman who was 24 years old, and her mother brought her here from columbia when she was six months old. six months old. they did not even know -- she did not even know she was undocumented until she was 12 and she had to provide her birth certificate for something. she had never been outside the country, let alone to columbia, and even though she spoke a little spanish she did not speak a lot, and i think -- i support

the dreamers. the end of the story is the dream act was passed, she graduated from the university of maryland is working, and is married and has two small children, and i think it is a wonderful story. host: thank you for the story and we will let your guest respond. guest: thank you, and i think you hit it right on the nail. those of individuals that got brought in at a very young age that do not know that they were here legally when they were brought. you mentioned the dream act. i was involved in the state of texas, and at that time it was a republican governor by the name of rick perry and democrats and republicans past the legislation. i got asked by the governor, because i was the secretary of state at that time, they asked me should we veto -- there were two different bills. i said if you will veto one

bill, veto the other one, do not know the dream act. governor. signed the bill and we have the dream act in the state of texas and i want to thank the democrats and republicans that support us. immigration is not a democrat or republican. i know it is emotional and i've heard the questions and comments. it is emotional, i understand this, but one way or the other we have to deal with immigration. host: governor greg abbott apparently says it is the federal government's responsibility to test immigrants for covid and other things. what do you think of that decision? guest: i think the governor needs to keep in mind that we have got to work on this together. the state of texas is about to get about $27 billion on this stimulus bill. i am sure he's going to take -- i think the state of texas get 16 billion plus and on the rest goes off to the cities and

counties. but we have to do this and make sure that we do the testing for everybody, but to say give me this money and i will not do that, we have to work on this together. he is talking about bringing the national guard and i support the national guard into dps. dps does not do immigration law. the national guard does not do any immigration law. by the way, the national guard for the state of texas, who pays for that? the federal government and the taxpayers. i worked with the governor and i want him to work with us on how we address this issue. host: what is the current level of testing for covid for those coming in on the border? guest: it depends on what category. if you are a male adult you will be returned under the 1944 law called title 42. you get them and return them. that is one. the second category are the kids, the kids are brought in and put under health and human

services and they are tested at that time. if you are under the mpp, you are tested in mexico before you come in. if you are a family unit border patrol does not check them, especially when they drop them off at bus station, that if they are dropped at an ngo at local cost the government, then they are tested by the local ngo's. host: there was a story today, talking about those coming, particularly children that have to be dealt with and she describes it as difficult choices for the administration. what is the administration planning to do and how does that compare from the previous administration. guest: the numbers are not as high as 20 under president trump. the numbers are not as high as they were 2014 under president obama. for us at the border we have seen this before. but what makes this more challenging is that there is a pandemic, and i have been

fighting against border patrol, and i asked them under the trump administration, in october and november, maybe it was november, that i asked the administration you need to get the border patrol agents and the men and women in blue vaccinated and they said, you have to ask the locals. have to get border patrol vaccinated and then we have to make sure we do more testing before we release anyone. host: bill in montana, republican line. caller: yes, i have one question. you stated that walls do not work and it is 14th-century technology, then what is the purpose of the wall built around the capital? thank you. guest: i do not agree with that fence around the capital. i personally do not. i do not know if you heard my comment, these are the facts. if you want to stop drugs, 92

percent of the fentanyl comes in three bridges, the land bridges and other places. if you put a wall or a fence along the rio grande, you are in montana, i do not know if you've been down to the south, but if you know, the fence and wall is put about half a mile away from the river because you do not want it washed away, and therefore the people are coming in, they touch the riverbank and watch -- walk half a mile and say here i am and it does not stop them. you've got to understand how it works, and again i said with all due respect to my friend in montana, the further you are from the southern border the more interesting the comments will come in and i say that with all due respect. host: you and other representatives on capitol hill heard from the capital security briefing and one of the things that came out was more presence of armed forces and maybe even

fencing, is that something you agree in -- agree with? guest: we have seen, first of all, we have to make sure we pay attention to intel. if they had those patriots that were coming in and broke the windows and broke the doors and vandalized and hurt and killed the police, those patriots, we should have listen to that until. if there were other folks coming in, they would have been out there full force, but they were patriots, so a different approach was taken, and we just have to pay attention to the intel that comes in, and be prepared for all circumstances. look, and i was seeing this from my office. i could see everything. in the past i've seen bigger demonstrations but they have respected the capitol. these came in and violated the capital, and we have to make

sure that we understand the next time something like that happens, no matter if they call themselves patriots, we have to be ready for them. host: ann in new york, democrat's line. caller: good morning and thank you. i would like to thank the representative for his service and i think immigrants really constitute a strength. you -- a wonderful uniqueness in our country. i am for the dreamers act, and i think we should set up an elis island type vetting situation similar to what we did centuries ago and i think it is kind of interesting and ironic that some of the same people that do not want immigrants from the southern border to come in owe their citizenship to their ancestors coming in through ellis island. and i think a lot of this is

based on xenophobia, which one political party seems to capitalize on, and tied to voter suppression. when more people vote democrats win. when fewer people vote, republicans think they win, let that sink in. guest: thank you for your thoughtful input on that. you are right talking about immigrants. a lot of people think that the first language that was spoken in the united states was english. it wasn't. a lot of people think that the first european colony was somewhere in the northeast, it was not. the first european language that was brought in was spanish and the first european community that we had was in saint augustine, florida. we have to understand that there are influences of different communities or different countries here in the united states. and we have to understand that's what makes us strong, we bring

different immigrants and. i believe in an orderly process when it comes to immigration. my father was a legal resident and then he became a u.s. citizen. he followed the right way, and that is what i want to see. host: there was a vote yesterday on union efforts to strengthen union workers. you all -- you voted against that, can you tell us why? guest: texas is a right to work place, and some of the provisions there, and i support unions, i have supported unions and i want to make sure that the right to work as there, but when you say to a small business, hey, i am going to get all of your information from all of your employees and give them to the union organizer, if i was a worker i do not want to give someone my personal information, phone numbers, email and

addresses. imagine that you have to give up all of that information and there are other reasons why. i support the right to organize, and i support the workers. my father was a migrant worker. any time we do something between small business and labor have to find a balance. if it is too much to one side i will not support it. host: he serves the 28th district of texas and a member of the appropriations committee, thank you for your time today. guest: god bless. host: we will here for another member of congress before the house comes in. this is dan meuser a member of the small business committee talking about the vote on covid relief and other matters. we will have that when we return. ♪ >> coming up today, the houses

back at 9:00 a.m. eastern to debate and vote on the $1.9 trillion covid-19 relief package. if past it heads to president biden for his signature. on c-span2, the senate returns at 10:00 a.m. to vote on marcia fudge as housing secretary. merrick garland, as attorney general, and michael regan as epa administrator. on c-span three the senate foreign collate -- relations committee votes on state department nominees wendy sherman and brian mccann and then also hold the state -- a hearing on the state of the micro see around the world with madeleine albright. then at one: 30 we hear from the current secretary of state, tony blinken, as he testifies against the bride and -- biden administration's foreign policy. there is more live coverage on our website. the senate environment committee is looking at ways to address

climate change and the energy sector. that is live at 10:00 a.m. eastern. at the same time the how small business committee meets to make -- two make next steps for the paycheck protection program which was established one year ago. 3:00 p.m. the senate judiciary subcommittee examines whether special interest groups have influence on the federal courts. you will find them streaming live at c-span.org. ♪ >> book tv on c-span2 has top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. sunday night at 9:00 p.m. eastern on afterwords, editor charles kessler talks about his book "crisis of the two constitutions: the rise, decline, and recovery of american greatness" interviewed by an author and george merrick -- george mason university professor. then at 10:00, walter isaacson

looks at the developer of the crisper mecca -- method for genome editing in his book "the code breaker." at 11:05, in her book "the daughters of cobani" she writes a book about female kurdish warriors, watch book tv on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: representative dan meuser serves the state of pennsylvania and is a member of the business and foreign affairs committee. thank you for giving us your time. let me start with what your thoughts on the current version of the american rescue plan and if you plan to vote for it. guest: i think it is excessive. over the course of a last year the house and senate have passed

over $3.7 trillion of relief for our economy and to bring our smith -- small businesses, to help families with major money and stimulus dollars, well over $600 billion already. unemployment compensation, supplements from $600 to $400, to $300. we have done a lot over the past year, and much of that was essential and necessary, and i voted in favor of it. we are now in recovery mode. unemployment is down to 6.1%, and in my state it is 6.7%. we are working on that. gdp forecasts are well above 4% if not five or 6%. we are moving forward. this initiative, the so-called rescue plan would have been appropriate six months ago.

now, it is not. as i stated, it is excessive. if we were targeted on vaccine distribution, on rapid response testing, on continued movement forward on growth in the economy. on families and unemployment, that still exists, and on vaccine distribution. this $1.9 trillion spending has less than one percent for vaccine distribution, regardless of what anybody wants to say, it is $16 billion. even the testing and all adds up to not much more than that. it is not in line with the results that we are looking for, which is combating and defeating the virus, getting our economy back and getting schools open, which is a whole other issue. host: our guest is with us until the house comes in at 9:00.

if you want to ask questions, 202-748-8000 free democrats. 202-748-8001, republicans. 202-748-8002, independents. text us at 202-748-8003. $60 billion directed at small business, was it hard to say no to that money specifically for the businesses? guest: we set up the ppp program that i was involved in, small businesses received in the neighborhood of $6 billion of forgivable loans. there is still $100 billion sitting in that fund for small businesses. what i am for is extending the march 31 deadline which is coming up rapidly and we need to biden administration and democrats get on board to extend that. that is $100 billion that will not be utilized if we do not extend that. so, again, if it is targeted, restaurants and those businesses on the brink of going out of

business, i can work with. but to add on another trillion dollars, we have absolutely calculated estimates for what state and local would need to be whole for the revenue loss in the neighborhood of 150 billion dollars or $160 billion. this gives state and local 350 billion dollars. whoever is doing the math has an exaggerated sense of humor. the problem is it is not funny because this will lead to problems. sometimes i compare this to the bill making the frankenstein monster. be careful what you are doing. we will have inflation concerns, clearly skyrocketing deficits and payments necessary on our debt out of the general fund in the neighborhood of $500 billion a year. so, this is a very dangerous game being played. also to add this quickly, the

unemployment compensation. we did what was needed to be done for a long time. small businesses' biggest problem, many and most that i talked to in my district, getting people to come back to work. that is part of the recovery. there is a demand. there is a shortfall of worker availability. and by us continuing to extend unemployment diminishes the demand to go back to work, and the desire to, and it kills opportunity. one things democrats do not understand. a job means opportunity, it means growth, it means future income, career development and skills development. it means you will be better off six months with a job than six months on unemployment. and, this continued supplement is simply not in the interest of our economy right now. host: from tony in michigan,

that crotch line, you are on. i am saying your name correctly, i hope? you are on with our guest. caller: hello, speaking of opportunity. i work with a company that makes totally legal products. and, bank of america closed our account, gave us a check that we cannot cash anywhere. other banks are not allowing accounts to be open, so can you get together with your democratic colleagues and come up with legislation to allow a legal business to be able to function? guest: much of that has been passed and there is bipartisan support. i am favorable to it, in -- many states that we are referring to,

very cannabis are -- various cannabis are. we want the banking industry to be able to operate within that industry without being overregulated. without fears of infringing on state laws. this is -- we need legislation to permit those kind of transactions and loans and such in banking business to take place. that is in the works. the whole situation should be smoothed out sometime in the near future. host: republican line from fayetteville, north carolina. this is jim. caller: star, is it true that the illegal immigrants -- sir, is it true that the illegal immigrants get backpay from the coronavirus, and when is the cutoff date. and if they get across the border today do they get the checks also? guest: illegal immigrants are

not getting stimulus checks directly. what they are, the family of an illegal real -- will receive it for that spouse, if you will. indirectly, or somebody could argue directly that there is stimulus checks in this bill being paid to illegals if they are in the household with a legal spouse. so, they made it kind of complicated but it does occur. we have very serious issues at our border, once again. largely, that situation was corrected, not entirely, but it was improved as well as it could have been. we have had 15,000 illegals coming across where a couple of years back there were 120,000. we are ramping up quickly to that higher level again simply because the biden administration is sending out incentives for those two, legally across the

border as a 100 day moratorium issued in an executive order and allowing asylum to take place where president trump moves it to mexico, and they moved it back to the u.s.. the minors coming across unaccompanied, largely just allowing them to enter, which is causing many to take that dangerous path to the u.s.. we are for immigration, we are for legal immigration, we are for high fences but wide gates, frankly. and we need to have a lot of order at the border, and unfortunately the biden administration has really made a mess of things in a short period of time, and it leads to many other things. many come here with covid, many are coming here and are going to gain access to all of those huge amount of money going out such as stimulus dollars,

unemployment compensation, and with what the democrats are trying to pass right now, the hr one, the federalized of -- federalizing of elections with automatic registrations, what is owing to stop illegals from getting a drivers license and getting automatically registered? it is a disorderly approach and it seems like that is the definition of extreme liberalism, frankly. host: there is a hearing today that is going to take place at 10:00 with the small business committee focusing on the paycheck protection program and a story saying that the it was changes made in the small business administration that is causing some concern. i think he referenced in earlier. guest: the small business administration has done a good job. we worked with them hand-in-hand in pennsylvania and throughout my district. the level of loans that they extend has been 100 times what

it normally is if not more than that, yet the staffing remains at the state -- the same level as before. they have a lot of partners at community banks and small businesses is working as effectively as possible and it has been pretty effective. but yes, we need to provide the sba with support and we need to analyze closely what you are doing and what they need in order to continue to facilitate in an efficient manner and we need to ensure of course that the loans going out that are forgivable are appropriately deemed forgivable and reviewed. we have a lot work to do, we need it to be organized, but we have to be there to support the small businesses and that is what we are going to do. i am ranking member on the small business committee for economic growth, taxes, and asset allocations.

so, we are going to focus on this very much. host: the story highlights the fact that there was a deadline pending and you referenced march 31. what happens at the -- what happens then? guest: the applications being received can no longer be facilitated, and that is a big problem. we will leave 80 billion to maybe 100 billion in the fund that small business is desperately needed, because we still have even with all the money that was put into the economy, perhaps one in five small businesses is still on the brink of potential closure. a lot of that is due to the continued arbitrary and capricious honestly actions taken by certain states regarding closures and other requirements that do not allow businesses to maintain a level of revenue that keeps them in business. but what has also because this

is the biden administration instituted a two week period where only businesses of less than 20 employees and minority owned could apply and receive the ppp loans. i was not completely against that, because maybe they were not getting the attention that they needed, so that is fine. but, let us compensate for the others by extending that date from march 31 at least another couple of months. host: from shelby, north carolina. bill on the independent line. caller: i agree with your speaker that what people need our jobs, not a $1400 check to sit there and get a by. but what i wonder is that we seem to be directing our focus on the immigrant population coming into this country when we have always had a migrant workforce that has been a part of it. why are we not addressing the issue that wages themselves have

not kept up with gdp growth in over 75 years? and these corporations keep outsourcing jobs or face any type of tax penalty. when are we going to address some of these issues? they do not seem to want to do anything about it. they keep undercutting labor, like your speaker on before where they pass the laws that you can undercut labor's ability to organize. why aren't we addressing these things? guest: i want to. and, in many ways wages over the last six years, four to six years have gone up pretty significantly. maybe in the neighborhood of 10%. but, i hear you. there are disparities that exist . and, what we have to do is we need economic growth. we need an economy and a

government that allows an environment for growth, for business to expand, and to become more efficient and productive and more profitable. as that occurs, the demand for employment increases, which increases wages. there is no question in my district, i drive down route 81 starting at $18 an hour or $14 an hour. that is happening. as far as jobs going, i would like it to happen faster. as far as the trades, i am supportive of the trades and the proactive, yesterday the problem with that is that it is only about the trades. we need to be about all workers. i am not sure what percentage of workers are in the trades and god blessed them, i am on their side, but we cannot create initiatives and programs and all for legislation that only

beneficial to the trades, it has to be beneficial to everyone, like a state has the right to determine if it is a right to work state or not. and, that bill what have eliminated and nationalized and federalized states rights. so i do not think that is right either. you know, we need to continue to be competitive, we need to allow businesses to thrive and to be entrepreneurial, land of opportunity. as far as jobs go overseas, we need to look out for u.s.'s interests, and what that means is being the most competitive place for businesses or at least close, at least close when it comes to taxes and regulations and all, because this is where business is usually prefer to be , and it is where they should be. host: the $15 met -- federal dollar minimum wage did not make

it in its package. but what is your level of support for increasing it? guest: i am for increasing the maximum wage, that i mentioned that i see signs for $17 or $18. i am not for all of this government meddling. i would certainly like to put that issue so that it stops being so political where republicans do not want minimum wage increases in democrats say that we want to do is help people. the reports i read, you raise the minimum wage to $15 over the next two years and every report i read says it will hurt far more than it helps. it will cost according to the cbo, a very objective organization well over one million jobs. the number of people that are at the minimum wage tend to be there for a short time period, many of them are seasonable, a lot of them are kids and young people. at $8.50 an hour, they come in

for the summer and they love it. they work at an amusement park and at the end of the week they have $300 to show for it. those jobs could be cut in half, or you would lose perhaps one quarter or one third of them. if you made such strong moves. so, i would be ok with finding the right number, i do not think $7.25 is the right number, but i do not think government getting into this is where it should be. since we already got into it i would be fine with looking at where if 725 -- seven dollars 20 five cents was set back in 2009 and if we continue to adjust it at cpi, i do not think that would hurt. but, liberalism and big government moves usually do not have the intended result or the result they intend. even like with this whole rescue plan. we are going to see some very

serious unintended consequences coming from it, inflation, higher interest rates, less competition. issues, right? and, higher debt. those are real issues, real fundamentals of economics, and if anybody remembers back in the 70's, the late 70's, higher gasoline prices. commodities going up, what prices are doubled where they were a year ago. so, there are unintended consequences and we have to be careful about, and i do not think my colleagues on the others of the aisle pay much attention to that. more short-term, rather than long-term understanding. host: loretta, on the democrats line, go-ahead please. caller: good morning, america. representative, why wasn't the

trump tax cuts targeted? all millionaires and billionaires are not at the same level, and there was no restrictions or means tests for the trump tax cut. the things that you want to implement on biden's rescue plan are the same things that you let go and did not care about. just give the billionaires the money again. they will not create any jobs. they are the job creators. you know, i sit and i listen to you guys and i just go and pop me a bag of popcorn, because it is a comedy show. every time the democrats get in

office we have to listen to you moan about the debt. host: i have to stop either because we are running short on time. go ahead. guest: i think everybody shares in creating our debt. that is clear. at least republicans talk about the fact that we need to be fiscally responsible and i act in that way, and i am sorry you feel that way, you know what, that is a fair policy discussion. that is what makes and should make the right legislation. how you feel about something and how someone else feels about something, let us come to the middle. regarding the tax cuts. i can sit here and explain to you, and you may know it. the wealthy did get a reduction, it was .5 i believe. the middle income received 3.5 and i might be off either way, but the middle income did get

much more of a significant tax cut. it was also automatic tax credits were increased. so, in the end, middle and lower income received a higher percentage of their income and lower taxes, but the dollar level, because someone makes $1 million and they get a 2% income tax reduction it adds up to a lot more than 3.5% of $55,000. i can appreciate what you are saying. but the corporate tax rates being reduced in the small business tax rates being reduced, even the higher income being reduced. when you do that people stay where they are more, they do not look for tax shelters. they drive the money more so into the economy, in my case pennsylvania. i get concerned about income tax in pennsylvania because we have a 3.0 seven income tax in florida does not have one, so a

lot of people move there. so, we have to keep those things in mind. i hear what you are saying. we have to work for all americans, and i will do my best to do that and i know there are a lot of good people that want to do that as well. host: karen, in ohio, we are running short on time, so go ahead. caller: ok. since the stimulus checks are processed by the irs, the truth of the matter is that anybody receiving stimulus money must have a social security number. so how are illegal immigrants without social security numbers going to receive this money? that is an out and out lie. if you do not have a social security number you are not going to get a stimulus check. let us be truthful. guest: i am always truthful. i might be wrong, but i am always truthful. i did not say illegals are getting stimulus checks

directly, but if their spouse is legal and they are illegal, they can be put down as a dependent, and therefore receive the same level with this plan, $1400. so, that is what can occur. host: before the house comes in, representative. one of the discussions is about school reopening. where do you stand as far as the most effective way to get schools reopened? guest: so important. i am not sure -- we have a lot of important issues happening but this is crucial. throughout pennsylvania and the country you have one district in the same rural and suburban area that is open, and or three days a week or half days, and in the adjacent district has not been open all year. that is not right. we need to get this straight, congress has put over $80 billion towards schools opening stay fit -- safely.

they have plenty of money. this next bill, this $160 billion is a bit excessive, but maybe we will not argue about how much schools get. there should be a requirement that requires them to be open. and, in the strongest manner that they can. there is a lot of wrong taking place here. i do not get it. state governors, state education departments. our federal secretary of education have to weigh in. we have a lot of upset parents and we have children who are missing out that are having depression issues, having all kinds of issues and it is wrong and it needs to be corrected immediately. host: our guest serves the state of pennsylvania. he has a republican of pennsylvania and member of the small business committee. at 10:00 the hearing taking a look at ppp in relation to covert release. thank you for your time.

to several hours of debate and a vote on the american relief plan as the house of representatives comes in. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2021] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, whic the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's room, washington, d.c., march 10, 2021. i hereby appoint the honorable henry cuellar to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by chaplain kibben. chaplain kibben: would you pray with me. almighty god, as these lawmakers take their sides on this fractional bill before them, we pray your mercy. forgive them. all of them. for when called upon to respond to a once in a century pandemic that has