we are now just hours away from the house taking its final vote on president biden's landmark $1.9 trillion covid relief legislation. final passage tomorrow expected along party lines. of course doubtful any republicans will support it. the president says that he'll sign the bill into law as soon as it gets to his desk. stimulus checks will be in the hands of needy americans over the next few weeks. and queen elizabeth releasing a statement saying the royal family is saddened at harry and meghan's bombshell allegations of racism and neglect. joining me now, cnn political analyst astead herndon and political commentator amanda carpenter. good evening to both. astead, you're first. we are likely just hours away from president biden's massive covid relief bill passing. that means $1,400 checks to struggling americans. billions of dollars for vaccines and covid testing. as biden once said to the former president barack obama, this is a big f-in' deal. >> this is a key piece of legislation they knew they wanted to kick off this administration with, and he's going to get it done. there's a couple important things here to know. one, he did not have to scale down the scope and size of this agreement. it remains at its kind of $1.9 trillion investment, which is what the president proposed. it did lose some pieces. it lost the $15 minimum wage. it pared down some of the unemployment insurance benefits. but this remains a massive victory for both the white house and to be clear, for the american people who were crying out for that covid relief. we can say kind of unequivocally that those georgia races had a huge impact on the scope of legislation that was able to be passed because this required such a democratic kind of unified effort. it would not have happened, of course, without those special elections being won back in january. >> so, amanda, this bill has the bipartisan support of american people but not a single republican lawmaker is supporting it. the gop get rolled? they just haven't realized it yet? >> yeah. i think this bill is so massive. i mean we pay attention to the $1,400 checks because that's what we think of as covid relief. but, man, you look at the details of this bill. joe biden got a lot. this is practically fdr-level type of reform that he's getting. there's $86 billion union pension bailout. there's a complete transformation of the child tax credit so it becomes sort of a direct payment in the form of a monthly allowance. there is an expansion of obamacare. i mean when you talk about a massive victory for the democrats, it is not just the relief checks that are going out. there is so much more in the details. i actually think, you know, the republicans -- because the democrats chose to pass this with a 50-vote threshold, they essentially took a pass. like where was the debate on all of these other details? they were talking about dr. seuss, and i think it's going to take them many, many weeks to realize how much they actually got rolled by not choosing to engage in this debate. >> but, listen, you mentioned dr. seuss. you know, they're complaining and calling this bill socialist. but instead of trying to amend it, right, they were busy talking about those issues like dr. seuss and mr. potato head and all the culture wars. i mean that's -- that's seemingly what's important to them right now. but instead, you know, i'm not sure if it's a fair characteristic to say that just because it's not the $1,400 checks or it doesn't have anything to do with shots going directly into people's arms, amanda, that that still has nothing to do with covid relief because a lot of businesses are struggling. there's going to be -- >> sure. >> children need help. there are many aspects of american culture and society that are going to need help recovering because of covid. >> yeah, and a lot of the bill does deal with that. but $86 billion pension bailout, the problems with union pensions far pre-dated what happened with covid. transforming the child tax credit, listen, maybe that should be done. andrew yang should be dancing in the streets. it might be a good idea to do that. is it related to covid? probably not. but this all got jammed through, stuffed in. i think democrats should be happy about it, but there's a lot to unpack here. >> yeah, maybe you're right. republicans don't realize how they, as you say, that maybe they got rolled, right, or they're -- >> big-time. >> they're going to look back and go, ooh, why were we talking about those things instead of focusing on the issues? >> astead, president biden is about to make a big push to convince americans that these benefits should be permanent, not just this onetime thing, starting with this prime-time address on thursday night. what does he need to say given that we know certain aspects of this bill are broadly popular and bipartisan? >> this is going to be the first step of democrats taking credit for these efforts. there's a couple things that the party has learned from 2009 with the stimulus package that president obama passed. one was about kind of cutting out republicans and kind of going for the full scope of reform, keeping that big price tag to make a fuller investment rather than pare it down for those trying to get the susan collins, lisa murkowski type of vote. the second is about this type of messaging. they think democrats didn't take enough credit for the good they did in 2009 for the economy, and that hurt them in the 2010 elections. we're going to hear a drumbeat of democrats say over and over and over, this is what the party gave you. it's delivering on its promises. they hope that helps them in the midterms. a quick word on the dr. seuss/mr. potato head. republicans are focused on this not just because it's an issue that motivates their base, but they think their base is motivated by that long-term question of who has societal and cultural power? that is what this stuff is really about. it's not really about the gender of the potato or the canceling of the book. it's about who gets to have a say in what is popular and what is not, what is mainstream and what is not. they think their base is worried about the long-term loss of power from the kind of traditional and white and mainstream -- what we have determined has been the power centers of america, and that is what republicans think motivates their section. that's what the kind of cancel culture debates are truly getting at. >> in these virtual times, i must say i appreciate both astead and amanda for giving us good brick wall tonight. you guys give good brick wall. thank you very much. now i want to bring in jaime har harrison. thanks for joining. experts are saying that this covid relief bill could cut child poverty in half. i know this is very personal for you. you grew up in poverty. what would this bill have given a kid like you and your family? >> well, don, it's good seeing you, man. listen, i often tell stories, i remember times growing up looking for a bowl of cereal and going to the fridge to get milk and there wasn't any, not because somebody didn't get it but because we couldn't afford it. so i had to put water in my cereal. this bill is going to have a dramatic impact on the lives of low-income kids across this country. they say about 93% of children in this country will be impacted because of this. just think about it, don. we are increasing the child tax credit in this bill from $2,000 -- you've got a kid like mine that's under the age of 6. i got a 2-year-old. that will go from $2,000 to $3,600. for a poor family that is struggling right now because of covid, that's a game-changer. there's so many provisions in this bill that's going to make life easier for a lot of low-income and working people in this country. >> okay. listen, let's be specific here. what are the most concrete ways, jamie, people will see the impacts of this bill in their lives? >> money in pockets. people will get to stay in their jobs. vaccines in arms. and kids get an opportunity to go back to school. you know, there's so many provisions in here. let me even say in red states, don, where medicaid has not been expanded, states like south carolina, there's a provision in here that will pay for the next two years of medicaid expansion at 100%. so, in essence, that's $600 million to the state of south carolina. there's a lot of good in this bill that will improve the quality of lives of the people in this country. and let me tell the american people something. democrats were unified in supporting this, and not one republican voted for this. so in essence, they turn their backs on the american people in a time in which they needed the help the most. >> well, this bill also includes $5 billion in aid to pay off the debt of disadvantaged black farmers and to help fund racial equity commission in the usda. senator lindsey graham, who ran against -- you ran against in november, is calling this reparations. here it is. >> let me give you an example of something that really bothers me. in this bill, if you're a farmer, your loan will be forgiven up to 120% of your loan, not 100%, but 120% of your loan if you're socially disadvantaged, if you're african-american, some other minority. but if you're a white person, if you're a white woman, no forgiveness. that's reparations. >> well, so, jaime, that takes some mental gymnastics. just because this helps black farmers, somehow senator graham thinks this is reparations. >> well, what you got right there was an example of a senator who doesn't work for all of his citizens, don. you know, lindsey should be ashamed of himself. donald trump during his administration gave out $28 billion to farmers and asked how many black farmers in south carolina benefited from that. he was as quiet as a church mouse. this guy is reprehensible in terms of who does he actually represent? he doesn't represent all of the people that he's supposed to represent in the state of south carolina, a state where almost a third of its population is african-american. it's far time that we get rid of the dead weight in the senate like lindsey graham, and let me tell you there's plenty of it in 2022. and we are targeting them, and we're going to make sure that folks get somebody who's going to fight for all of their people, not just select people. >> jaime, thank you, sir. >> thank you, my friend. >> i'll see you soon. so talking about race may be the last taboo in britain, but it seems like everybody is finally talking about it in the wake of harry and meghan's blockbuster interview. well, not everybody. >> can i ask what did you think of the interview? to brain bett? unlike ordinary memory supplements— neuriva has clinically proven ingredients that fuel 5 indicators of brain performance. memory, focus, accuracy, learning, and concentration. try our new gummies for 30 days and see the difference. so the coinciqueen is respo to harry and meghan's interview saying the issue raised particularly that of race are concerning -- the issues, particularly of race, are concerning. while some recollections may vary, they are taken very seriously and will be addressed by the family privately. harry, meghan, and archie will always be much loved family members. but as cnn's salma abdelaziz explains, the racism meghan says she experienced after joining the royal family isn't surprising for many british people of color. >> did you leave the country because of racism? >> it was -- it was a large part of it. >> reporter: it's the interview stirring emotions across britain. reactions ranging from shock to vitriolic rants by a popular white tv host. >> this is a two-hour trash-a-thon. they portray the royal family as racist, and it's a very incendiary charge, and i don't think it actually is fair to the royal family. >> to angry and protective tabloid headlines. so why does the mention of racism provoke such defensive reactions in britain? in the months after prince harry and meghan stepped back as senior members of the royal family, britain faced its own moment of racial reckoning. >> say his name. >> george floyd! >> reporter: black lives matter protests in the u.s. spread to the uk. tens of thousands directed their anger at the country's elite institutions of power. toppling icons of bruitish colonialism that ignited a national debate. yet the topic of race is considered culturally awkward if not outright taboo. >> the british like to think of themselves as quite liberal with a small "l." and the british get quite offended if they're accused of racism. there's something about black women, i think, that some people in this country find particularly triggering. i don't know why. and meghan came into that in spades. >> reporter: from the moment meghan's relationship with a member of the royal family became public, her race become the subject of constant tabloid fodder and discontent. during the couple's engagement, the queen's cousin's wife apologized after wearing a controversial broach many considered racist when she met meghan for the first time. the couple's multi-cultural royal wedding offered hopes of societal change. but soon after, the racist backlash continued. meghan endured attacks for things as mundane as avocados while her white sister-in-law by comparison was praised. when meghan became pregnant with her first child, a wave of racist online abuse followed from social media trolls. after her son was born, one television presenter was fired for liking him to a picture of a chimpanzee. through the barrage of racist attacks against his wife, harry says he came to terms with his role in historically white institution. >> my upbringing in the system of which i was brought up in and what i've been exposed to, it wasn't -- i wasn't aware of it to start with. sad as it is to say, it takes living in her shoes. >> reporter: there is only one person in the world who knows what it means to be a british royal of color -- meghan. >> growing up as a woman of color, as a little girl of color, i know how important representation is. i know how you want to see someone who looks like you in certain positions. >> cnn's salma abdelaziz joins us now. hello, salma. so what was the response -- what has the response been to the palace's statement? what's that been like from the public? >> reporter: hello, don. in some ways, it is finally a relief to see a statement. many people had been waiting for them to break the silence. this is coming directly from the queen, so that is significant. and it seems to show a sense of understanding, that there's something there that needs to be discussed. but for those who want to criticize the statement or those who might see the view of meghan and prince harry, they will tell you this is not a familial matter, don. this is an institution. there is a reason why prince harry and meghan did not name any specific individuals. they talked about a system, about an institution, about a firm, about the day-to-day life of the lived experience of meghan markle as the first royal of color. and so you have to ask, what does that mean for this larger institution that holds on to these traditions so dearly? how are they going to address these questions of systemic racism entrenched within that institution, and how do they begin to adapt to that, especially when, again, it is an institution that prides itself on that colonial tradition? so the question is does the monarchy, by putting out this statement -- is it saying that it is starting a conversation that could lead to change, diversity, an adoption of a more inclusive mind-set, or will they remain steadfast? will they remain tied to the past, and how will they fit with the modern britain if they do, don? >> salma, thank you for your story. put it all into context for us. i appreciate that. joining me now is cnn royal historian kate williams. thank you so much for joining. this is a very carefully worded statement from the queen claiming that they didn't know the full extent of what meghan went through. but meghan says that she spoke up and even went to buckingham palace h.r. about it. this was not a secret. >> yes, exactly, don. well, the statement is so short. it's 61 words, and what it's aiming to do, of course, is to draw a line under the conversation gooabout the revelations in the interview, particularly about the concern raised about archie's skin tone that you were just discussing there with salma, and also meghan's revelation that she had this severe mental health crisis. she was in real distress, particularly about the racist coverage of her. she went to the palace h.r. she wanted to go to hospital, and she was told, no, it will make the institution look back. and this statement really, i think, is significant for what's not said. there's a lot not said, and that i think is quite ironic, isn't it, because the couple said they couldn't speak. and oprah said, were you silent, or were you silenced, is it the latter? and meghan couldn't speak out about her mental health, about how she was suffering from this barrage of racist abuse she was getting. this has not really been dealt with because the institution was told. the institution was begged for help. it wasn't given to her. and, you know, in the 1980s, diana was desperate. she was isolated. she too had a mental health crisis. no one helped her. you know, the question we're asking now is that if in 20 years' time, one of the younger royals, the children of will and kate, charlotte or george or louis, wishes to marry a person of color, is this going to happen all over again? the racist abuse, the isolation, and indeed the lack of recognition just as you and salma were saying? is this going to happen again in. >> you mentioned the statement. i said it was masterful earlier because it addressed the problem without really addressing the problem. it acknowledged it was aware -- that they're aware of the problem, but it didn't really address it. thank you, kate. i appreciate it. so i wrote something that i hope can help a lot of people, especially with these issues. it's my new book. it's called "this is the fire: what i say to my friends about racism." it is coming out next week, so you can pre-order it now. i hope you will check it out. so we've got a lot more on the royal family fallout and which famous host predicted trouble ahead before the wedding. that's next. - grammarly business turned my marketing team into rock stars. (diana strums guitar) maya swears by grammarly business because it keeps her work on brand and error-free. fast and easy. - [announcer] learn more at grammarly.com/business. the statement by queen elizabeth acknowledges harry and meghan's allegations about racism, but the statement is short and very carefully worded. joining me now to discuss is tv presenter trisha goddard. trisha, good to see you again. thanks so much for jouining us once again. what do you think of buckingham palace breaking their silence? they aren't denying what prince harry and meghan alleged. they seem to chalk it up to a difference of interpretation on how things went down. >> i'll tell you what's very scary. i did an interview first thing this morning, and i was asked what the queen -- you know, how the royal family should deal with this. and i actually said, this whole thing is about pain. it's about a couple who have been literally screaming out for help from the word go and haven't had any help. i said, the first thing you need to do is bite your tongue, whether you think they're right, wrong, whatever, and say, i hear you. i feel your pain. and we might remember things differently, but let's sit down and talk. and i'm not saying i advise the queen, but we were absolutely gobsmacked as we say in england when that came out. this is pretty quick for the queen. i know in america and especially in this day of digital, you know, and online responses, you might think it's a long time. this