The Daily - A Conversation With a Virginia Democrat

Episode Date: November 9, 2021

In a bipartisan win for President Biden, Democrats and Republicans have passed a trillion-dollar infrastructure plan. Now comes the difficult part — trying to win approval for a $2 trillion social spending bill.For more moderate Democrats in swing districts, the vote will be among the toughest of the Biden era — and one that some fear could cost them their seats in next year’s midterms.To gauge their concerns, we speak to one such lawmaker, Representative Abigail Spanberger of Virginia.Guest: Representative Abigail Spanberger, Democrat of Virginia.Sign up here to get The Daily in your inbox each morning. And for an exclusive look at how the biggest stories on our show come together, subscribe to our newsletter. Background reading: After the Democrats’ poor performance in last week’s elections, Ms. Spanberger was critical of Mr. Biden’s sweeping agenda. “Nobody elected him to be F.D.R., they elected him to be normal and stop the chaos,” she said.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. 

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. To fulfill President Biden's agenda, both Democrats and Republicans have now passed a trillion-dollar bipartisan infrastructure bill. Now comes the hard part. In the coming days, Democrats will pass a nearly $2 trillion partisan social spending bill. For moderate Democrats in swing districts, it will be the toughest vote of the Biden era, and it could cost them their seats in next year's midterms. in next year's midterms. Today, I spoke with one of those moderates,

Representative Abigail Spanberger of Virginia's 7th Congressional District. It's Tuesday, November 9th. Okay, Congresswoman, thank you very much for making time for us. We appreciate it. Thank you so much for having me. And I want to apologize in advance. There's a very agitated newborn in my midst. And if it comes through, it comes through.

Well, Michael, I want to say congratulations on having an agitated newborn. I once upon a time had three, not all at the same time. So congratulations. Thank you. I would feel great joy if I heard the sound of an agitated newborn, probably more than you at least. Well, we'll see. So, Congresswoman, we talked to you on the show back in 2018, and you had recently been elected to the House in those midterms, when swing districts like yours in Virginia, which had been in the hands of Republicans, proved key to the Democrats regaining

control of the House. And you had told us that a major motivation to run for you had been to protect the Affordable Care Act. Yeah. Of course, the reason I'm bringing up the ACA and how that fits into your origin story as a lawmaker is because there is at this moment a historic attempt by Democrats, by your party,

to expand the social safety net once again, and it's unclear whether Democrats will pass it. And it seems like the Democrats whose support is in question are moderates like you. So tell me how you're thinking about this social spending bill, because even though Democrats control both chambers, as we know and have talked about many times on the show, there's a lot of disagreement within the party. And this bill may not make it over the finish line. Well, I think I would start by, for anyone who's listening, I think this bill will make it over the finish line. I think the growing pains of creating this bill has been somewhat of a challenge. I think the growing pains of creating this bill has been somewhat of a challenge.

And ultimately, this bill may not be identical to what we pass in the House when it does make it over the finish line. For me, I have always advocated for three primary components. You know, everybody's got a lot of opinions. The three that I was working for was climate change provision. So really addressing the climate crisis head on, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, and then ensuring that the child tax credit that we made refundable as part of the American Rescue Plan continues in its refundable state. So those were the three primary things that I was working towards. And those three primary things are, in fact, in this draft, in this legislation. So hopefully they'll stick in throughout the Senate.

So I'm looking forward to getting over the finish line. I think there's still some bumps ahead. But I do think that we will get there. Well, let's go back to what you described as those growing pains and the fact that this proposal will not be identical to where it started, because I think that's important. And it feels like that story really begins in 2020 with the election of President Biden. And I want you to talk about what you thought the party's mandate was after that moment, the 2020 election, where this all really starts to take shape. Well, I think what we saw in the 2020 election really, really notably was we saw Joe Biden and Kamala Harris win the presidency and the vice presidency. But we also saw massive losses in the House of Representatives. So, you know, coming out of the 2020 election, we didn't have this Democratic landslide. And notably, on average, across all House districts, we saw an average of a five-point shift to the right. So even people, and, you know, there's a lot written about this, even people who had, you know, more super blue districts who typically win by 15 points only won by 10.

And those numbers were apparent and concerning to me. You know, notably, my background as a CIA officer, like you always do an after action report. You always think, oh, what went wrong? What could have gone better? And so I spent a lot of time really digging into and just spending time thinking, what is it that created this disconnect? As I recall, as part of your efforts to understand 2020, and I know that it was meant to be a private conversation, efforts to understand 2020, and I know that it was meant to be a private conversation. There was a private conversation you had with fellow Democrats in your caucus that became public.

Actually, let me start by saying this is off the record. Because it was published by the Washington Post. I think that we need to be pretty clear about the fact that Tuesday, from a congressional standpoint, it was a failure. It was not a success. We lost members who shouldn't have lost. And in that conversation, you made clear your concern that the Democratic brand was seen as too liberal, too progressive. The number one concern and thing that people brought to me was defunding the police. And I've heard from colleagues who have said,

oh, it's the language of the street. We should respect that. We're in Congress. We are professionals. We are supposed to talk about things in the way where we mean what we're talking about. If we don't mean we should defund the police, we shouldn't say that.

Some of your House colleagues were talking about things like abolishing ICE, the Immigration Customs Enforcement Agency, and talking about defunding the police. Yeah. Let's talk about what we are for. And we need to not ever use the word socialist or socialism ever again. Because while people think it doesn't matter, it does matter. And we lost good members because of that. You warned that, you know, any self-described socialist in the party put the party,

especially a member of the House like you in a swing district, at risk. And so I sense that as part of your after-action report, you came to the conclusion that the Democratic Party going into 2020 and this new Biden presidency needed to be careful not to be seen as too progressive, too left wing, too liberal. Well, and in my comments, I did say that, you know, the phrase defund the police was a problem. I did say that, you know, the word socialism is a problem. But what I said in my comments was we have to tell people what we're for. And in that concept of, you know, talking about defund the police, we actually passed in the House and, you know, unfortunately didn't pass the Senate, the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act. So in the House, we passed an important bill that covered an array of reforms from banning chokeholds and no-knock warrants

to investing, so funding, investing in police training and recruitment and really setting, you know, standards and reforms into the future that would be beneficial and focused on making the important justice-related reforms that, you know, the country was calling for in the summer of 2020. And so my comments at that time is, you know, why are we reducing down what it is that we're doing to something that doesn't necessarily, you know, make sense to people, that is in fact not a descriptor of what it is that we want to do because that bill, the George Floyd Justice and Policing Act, which the House passed, in fact, provides funding to police departments. But that's what it boils down to is, you know, telling people what we're for and not making them interpret what we may mean by the words we choose to use. We'll be right back. So my sense is that moderate House Democrats like you saw the president's mandate as creating a new normalcy in the country.

Yeah. And that it wasn't an expectation of major, large-scale, and very expensive social reform. large-scale and very expensive social reform. You have articulated this in an interview with one of our colleagues recently when you said that nobody elected President Biden to be the Franklin Delano Roosevelt of this moment. They elected him to be normal and to stop the chaos, end quote. And so I want to understand your thinking as the president prepares to start to govern. You know, in the comments that I made about President Biden, you know, it is, why did people elect him, right? People, and, you know, maybe people did elect him to be FDR.

Some people did, some people didn't. And, you know, maybe people did elect him to be FDR. Some people did, some people didn't. But I think that we can have a president who does that thing of ending the chaos and quieting people's worry and making people feel safe or secure. Or like our country is like almost on the precipice of getting back to normal, right? We were there in July before the Delta variant popped up. And people really felt that level of we're almost there, this level of a new normal is almost here. We can do that and put in place incredibly good policy. But, you know, I would say if you went out and asked any type of voter, you know, did you vote for Joe Biden because you wanted, you know,

insert a policy priority? Some really super engaged voters may say yes, but many will not. And so it's still incumbent upon us to say, let me tell you why pre-K is important as a national security priority, ensuring that our young people enter school, enter kindergarten, having the ability to recognize letters and their sounds and having read books and having had what we know, just the data show, is a good foundation for learning. That's going to help that child in second grade, fifth grade, 10th grade, 12th grade, and wherever they choose to go, be it into a skilled trade, be it into a four-year university, that head start in life matters to our larger community.

We shouldn't assume that people love all of these ideas just because they voted for Joe Biden. But frankly, we shouldn't assume that people know what it is that we're talking about. If we use a word like human infrastructure, what the heck does that mean, right? Well, so you're once again seeing a problem of messaging, it sounds like. Yeah. And I mean, communication, just, you know, people are busy. They have jobs, they have lives, they have worry, they have kids, they have joys. And, you know, if someone turns on the news and says, we really need to make these major investments in human infrastructure. And they say, there they go again. What the heck are those Democrats doing? Now, if we're saying, you know, we, I want to invest in the next generation of America's children, and I want to do it by ensuring every kid goes to pre-K,

like that's a different discussion, right? Like that's, now some people may like that idea. Some people may dislike that idea, but at least they're agreeing or disagreeing on the policy that we're advocating for. So I just want to pause and make sure that I understand what you're saying. Because you, Congresswoman, sound very supportive of this program. Yes. And yet you have a critique of it. Yes. And I want to make sure I understand exactly what your critique is.

So in summary and in short, what is your critique of this program? So my critique is not of the program. My critique is actually how we've pursued putting it together, which is we put every single possible thing that we could possibly move forward and said, okay, you know, there's a desire to do an X trillion dollar bill. The question becomes, why are we even talking about the dollar amount, right? And I think when we're talking about what we're for, well, who the heck is for spending $6 trillion, right? Like, many of your progressive, many of your progressive house colleagues. Yeah, yeah, yeah. So they may be ultimately for an array of provisions that ultimately add up to $6 trillion. But they're not necessarily for, like, the thing I want to achieve this Congress is spending $6 trillion. So you're saying out of the gate, the declaration

of a $6 trillion spending ambition is a flaw, is something that throws people, confuses people, and may undermine the whole idea of it. Yeah. Then talking about a $3.5 trillion or a $1.5 trillion or, you know, talking in those sorts of numbers, a trillion dollars is an extraordinary amount of money. And out of the gate, we were arguing over a number, you know, and people are still struggling financially and they're saying, what the hell are you guys doing on Capitol Hill talking about a trillion here, a trillion there? I'm still worried about how I'm going to pay my rent.

So even there where we could have been communicating, these are the programs we are for. These are the things that will impact our nation's trajectory, our competitiveness, and also benefit families. We went straight for something that was outside of the way that people normally talk about things. families, we went straight for something that was outside of the way that people normally talk about things. I was at an event and I had two women come up to me and they said, you know, Abigail, you know us. We're activists. And I do know them. I know them to be activists. And they said, just so you know, we're team infrastructure. And this was maybe about a month ago. We're team infrastructure. We want to get infrastructure passed. And I said, I know, I know, I know. We need to get infrastructure passed. And I said, I know, I know, I know we need to get infrastructure passed. And then and one of them said, you know, and I feel like 3.5

trillion. I mean, like, that's just a lot of money. What are you doing for that much money? And certainly that's two women, two people in my district. But these are people who I know to be very engaged Democratic activists. And that's how they sort of frame the conversation. Well, just to be clear, what they're saying is they're saying, Congresswoman, I can support the infrastructure, but $3.5 trillion on social spending, they seem skeptical. Yeah. Well, I want to go back to what you said earlier, because I think this is starting to connect for me. When we spoke of defund the police and abolish ICE, these phrases that you disapproved of that were conveyed by some of your progressive colleagues in Congress, you felt that the Democratic Party's failure in messaging had really undermined good intentions and in some cases good policies.

And it feels like you're seeing that again here with the way the party embraced the numbers rather than promoted and explained the policies in their substance. That's right. And in this case, you feel that the result has been that this whole social safety program has been more vulnerable to these scalebacks and these cuts and these critiques. I think that's, yeah, that is correct in my assessment. I think it is also going to make it harder for people in districts like mine where people are not automatically aligned with, oh, you know, these are proposals out of a Democratic House. I must surely like them, right?

Like that's not – for some people, that's the benefit they get in their districts. In some of our swing districts, you know, we have to work really hard to make sure people understand what we are for and explain the policy in greater detail. And I do think that we've just complicated our ability to talk about the programs because there's just a cloud of numbers kind of swirling around. Right. And the result of all of this, many believe, is that these programs are taking very significant cuts. So you're not alarmed by what's falling out of the programs. You know, I, I'm not.

And I'll say why I'm not. Because, you know, already with the Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, this bill represents the largest public works project since Eisenhower, right? Like we're going to talk about prior presidents, right? That's amazing. We should be celebrating that. You know, in my home state of Virginia, we are bringing home $100 million for broadband connectivity, which, you know, after experiencing COVID, the real challenge that exists in communities where broadband connectivity is not available has become clear. $7 billion to improve our highway system.

More than $500 million to repair our bridges across the Commonwealth that are in disrepair. More than $700 million to replace lead pipes that we have throughout Virginia, but particularly in central Virginia in the Richmond area where I live in my district. And that's just the one bill that we've now already passed. Now, the Build Back Better Act, the idea that we are investing in early childhood education, that we are making the child tax credit refundable into the future, that we're allowing for the negotiation of some drugs to lower drug costs and capping insulin prices. Like that is literally life changing for people. And I recognize that, you know, in the negotiations, like there are programs that will not be in this bill that matter a lot to a lot of people.

And so I understand, I understand that heartbreak, but I just don't want it to cloud or overshadow just how substantial this legislation that we will pass next week. It's extraordinary what we're going to vote on. So you think it's enough? You know, I'm excited about what it is that we are going to deliver. It certainly isn't everything that's been on people's minds or it doesn't represent every single person's priority or every single person's legislative focus. I think a shared point of pride that we have achieved what we, well, we vote next week, that we are on our way to achieving what we've achieved, and that we'll just continue on this path towards progress across the board. So let's return, Congresswoman, to where we started this conversation, which is with the Affordable Care Act. Do you believe that this will be on the scale of the Affordable Care Act,

of that thing which helped you get elected back in 2018? Will this bill be regarded, do you think, by constituents in your district as something like the ACA over time, despite all the cuts? Or will this, because of the cuts and the fact that programs like paid leave or child care won't reach that many people for that long, according to critics of this bill, will that mean that this is instead regarded as a big expensive

number in people's heads that doesn't change their lives and that they can therefore see as something they might vote against you for. The ACA was different in that it was kind of a singular pillar, which is healthcare, making healthcare more affordable, accessible, and then protecting certain aspects of access to care. And I think that's where the challenge comes in with this piece of legislation is that because it is different pillars, different buckets,

it is going to be a little bit harder for people to kind of link back the direct impact on their lives. And frankly, you know, our efforts to fight climate change, you know, if this is not an issue that's already in your mind as a priority, if you're, you know, a busy person with a job and kids and, you know, you're not necessarily focused on the fact that climate change is an extraordinary threat, like you may not see the day-to-day impact of the major investments we're making. So I think to get back to your question, this bill will be felt by different people in different ways. And some of the aspects of it, like our climate change provisions, may not be directly felt by some folks, which is all the more reason

why we need to be clear on what it is that we've prioritized through this legislation and what is the ultimate, you know, impact that this legislation will have towards the security and the trajectory of our country, be it as a larger community or in the lives of individuals. as a larger community or in the lives of individuals. I feel like I would be remiss if I didn't ask about the election last Tuesday and how it bears on what we're talking about. Yeah. This is, of course, the governor's race in Virginia and the victory of the Republican candidate by a large margin,

and especially in your district. Glenn Youngkin carried your part of Virginia by double digits. Yes. And knowing that, I wonder if you are worried that voting for this bill and knowing that it might be hard for voters to connect this bill and its numbers with their life changing, as you just described, could end up having serious political repercussions for you if you don't quite sell it the right way. And if people don't feel like they appreciate its role in their life, could this, combined with what we just learned last Tuesday, mean that come the next midterm election, which is only a year or so away, you might have a very hard time getting reelected? Well, to be clear, I'm going to have a hard time getting reelected anyway,

because that is the nature of my district. But I think you're right. But I also came to Congress to do right by people and to enact good policy. This is policy that I believe in. This is policy that I believe in this is policy that I think is important good policy is good politics I can tell you there's you know there will be so many attacks based on this bill I could probably write some of them myself you know this piece of legislation is a result of months and months of negotiation and I don't I don't have to love every single piece of it certainly you know folks in my district may love some pieces and dislike some pieces. But ultimately, it's on me to make sure that people know why it is that I am voting for this, the investments I think it makes in our communities, why it's important. And so I'll make those arguments till I'm blue in the face because I believe in them.

But to be very clear, this could be the vote that costs you the seat. You know, I thought I'd previously taken votes that cost me my seat before, and I'm still in Congress. So there's a lot of times where, you know, a single vote could in fact be the fodder for enough attack ads that my demise has begun. But the benefit to that is when someone's always mad at you, you can just focus on doing what's right, what you believe is right. And when a lot of people are inclined to disagree with you, I just have to work that much harder to explain myself.

Right. Well, you are pretty well known for your town halls in your district. And so when you do them over the next year and you explain this vote, perhaps we can come with you and we can watch you explain this vote and see how it all plays out. That sounds absolutely lovely. Well, you definitely want the microphones rolling there. Yeah.

Well, Congresswoman, thank you very much for your time. You've been very generous and we really appreciate it. Thank you. Well, Congresswoman, thank you very much for your time. You've been very generous and we really appreciate it. Thank you. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. We've been separated for eight months. I have two kids here with me that cannot see him for months. On Monday, for the first time since the start of the pandemic,

Sunday, for the first time since the start of the pandemic, the U.S. reopened its borders to fully vaccinated travelers from dozens of countries, creating scenes of emotional reunions at airports across the country. So we had to cancel our wedding. Oh, goodness. My colleague, Kevin Armstrong, witnessed one of them at Newark Liberty International Airport in New Jersey, where Natalia Eberhau was waiting for her fiancé, Mark Ogerschnig, who lives in Amsterdam. And we were, like, waiting for the borders to open. And it was like the first day they open, I'll be there, I promise. I was almost like, if you're not here the first day, I'm done with this long relationship. I just can't handle it anymore. Around noon, Natalia and Mark were finally reunited.

Oh, there he is. And they shared a kiss in Terminal B. So we're really happy, really happy that Hughes Customs is opening, and really happy that we can be together and build our lives together. We're getting married. You're kidding me. Finally! Today's episode was produced by Austin Mitchell,

Robert Jimison, and Michael Simon-Johnson, with help from Rachel Quester and Aastha Chaturvedi. It was edited by Lisa Chow and Paige Cowett and engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonderly. Special thanks to Heather Murphy. That's it for The Daily.

I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.