The Daily - How Washington Now Works

Episode Date: August 12, 2021

On Tuesday, the United States Senate approved a $1 trillion infrastructure bill — the largest single infusion of federal funds into infrastructure projects in more than a decade. It was a bipartisan vote, with 19 Republicans voting alongside the Democrats. Soon after, the Senate passed a more expansive budget plan  — this time along party lines. What do these two votes tell us about how Washington is working today?Guest: Emily Cochrane, a reporter covering Congress for The New York Times. 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: Approval for the $1 trillion infrastructure bill came after months of negotiations and despite deficit concerns, reflecting an appetite in both parties for the long-awaited spending package.The blueprint for a $3.5 trillion budget, with scope to expand health care, provide free preschool and community college and fund climate change programs, passed along party lines and faces an arduous path ahead.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 Bilbaro. This is The Daily. Today, in back-to-back votes, the Senate has just approved a bipartisan infrastructure bill and a partisan budget plan. I spoke with my colleague, Emily Cochran, about the complicated relationship between the two and what that tells us about how Washington now works. It's Thursday, August 12th. Hi, Emily.

How are you? What kind of incredibly small, confined space are you in? This is one of the booths in the house press gallery. It has, like, nice padding. I assumed that was helpful for recording purposes. So you have found a quiet corner of the universe on the House side.

Yes. So, Emily, walk us through what has happened so far this week, not on the House side of the Capitol, but over on the Senate side. So... It's been a long and winding road. On Tuesday.

But we have persisted, and now we have arrived. After one final round of speeches and preemptive congratulations... The Senate's about to make history. And we've heard over the years, in fact, over the decades, about the need for us to fix our infrastructure. about to make history. And we've heard over the years, in fact, over the decades, about the need for us to fix our infrastructure. Senators started to come to the floor for the final vote on a $1 trillion infrastructure package.

The clerk will call the roll. Ms. Baldwin, Mr. Barrasso, Mr. Bennett, Mrs. Blackburn. The largest single infusion of federal funds in infrastructure in more than a decade. Mr. McConnell. Mr. Menendez. There was an expectation that it would pass because it had cleared so many hurdles. Republicans had again and again crossed over to join Democrats in supporting this package. But this is the final vote. This is when it matters. This is, I support it becoming law. At the end, on this vote, the yeas are 69, the nays are 30.

19 Republicans and all 50 Democrats passed the bill. The bill as amended is passed. pass the bill. The bill, as amended, is passed. And when it passed, there was sort of this moment of silence. It almost felt like the room couldn't believe that after all these weeks, it was over. It had passed. It was through the Senate.

Once again, congratulations to all of those who worked hard, so hard, on this very significant and very important bill. So, Emily, tell us exactly what is in this $1 trillion infrastructure bill. So, in the $1 trillion package, the biggest thing is that there's about $550 billion in new federal funds. So it's not just continuing and maintaining existing programs for roads, highways, and the like. It's a ton of new money that can be distributed across the country. For the first time, there's $65 billion for broadband, for broadband, a huge sum of money to help ensure internet access. There's $110 billion for roads and highways. There's money in there to help address lead in water, so addressing lead pipes. And one of the most notable things was this is likely the largest amount of money for climate resiliency that the federal government has

approved. So it's helping to modernize the nation's electric grid. It's helping federal agencies not just counter the toll of climate change and the toll that these natural disasters bring upon communities, but helping them prepare for it. Maybe helping communities relocate, if that's an option. Helping shore up seawalls and basic infrastructure that could help communities just withstand the natural disasters better. That sounds like an enormous piece of legislation. It's pretty significant. It's something that, for for decades presidents have sought.

Barack Obama, Donald Trump. This has always been sort of the elusive last bipartisan issue standing that could get people to come out of their corners, come together, and really deliver significant aid to their communities. So far it hasn't happened for a variety of different reasons, but this became the moment that it was possible. Right. So let's talk about that, how this actually happened and how Democrats were able to pull this off

and bring those 19 Republicans along to vote for this. So I think it started after President Biden laid down his marker for an infrastructure plan. Early in the spring, after the pandemic relief package passed, the president turned toward infrastructure. He had said over the campaign that there was a priority, and he put out his own plan. It was a $2.3 trillion plan, so more than double the bill that we saw passed on Tuesday. And for moderate Democrats who are determined to prove that the Senate can work, who are determined to sort of hold off some of their colleagues who perhaps are looking to just cut out Republicans altogether, this was an opportunity to prove to those colleagues and their voters that the Senate can be bipartisan. So in April or so, Rob Portman, who's a retiring Republican from Ohio, and Kyrsten Sinema, who's a first-year Democrat from Arizona,

start talking about the ways that they could possibly reach a compromise on an infrastructure package. And over the next few weeks, they sort of get together this core group of 10 senators, five Republicans and five Democrats, who start quietly working on possible ways to bring down the price tag and sort of shape the legislation more to their liking. And was there thinking that if they could get this infrastructure proposal to a place of their liking, the liking of moderates from swing states, Arizona and Ohio, that they could possibly get it to the liking of the entire Senate? Yes.

At a time when Washington seems broken, this group of members behind me came together, along with others, and decided we were going to do something great for our country. For Senator Portman, he's a longtime creature of Washington. He served in the Bush administration at the top levels. He was in the House, now he's in the Senate and on his final term. He carries a lot of respect among his Republican colleagues. With this, I'd like to turn to Senator Sinema.

Thanks so much, Rob. You know, I first want to echo what Rob said about the dedication of this group. And for Senator Sinema, who's still in her first term, this was not only a chance to shape the package, narrow the scope in a way that reflected her ideology a little more. It was an opportunity for someone in their first term to assert themselves. And she's a senator from Arizona. She's often referenced the late John McCain, who, while a Republican, did sometimes buck his party, most notably with the attempt to repeal the Affordable Care Act. She cited him as a role model. And this was an opportunity to sort of carry on that legacy. Each of us are deeply committed to demonstrating to the country and to the world that our government can work and it can work for the people of the United States of America. So ultimately, the White House begins negotiating with this group in earnest. There were hours after

hours after hours of meetings on Capitol Hill where top White House officials and this group in earnest. There were hours after hours after hours of meetings on Capitol Hill where top White House officials and this group of 10 senators bounced from room to room to room to room, haggling over the details of this plan. So night after night, sometimes close to midnight, they would be in basement hideaways that were so small, aides had to bring in extra fans to make sure that the room didn't overheat. Senator Sinema actually broke her foot running a marathon and was quite literally on some form of crutches hobbling across the Capitol from one room to another. And so we would end up chasing them all over the Capitol just to figure out what was going on. Are they actually making progress?

what was going on. Are they actually making progress? And in these small, hot hideaway rooms, what exactly are Senators Sinema and Portman doing to try to get this done? So the two of them are not only coordinating and leading these meetings for the group of senators, but they're also in a way holding off the extremes of both of their parties who don't necessarily want to embrace this deal. Most notably for Senator Portman, that entails taking on former President Trump, who couldn't get his own infrastructure deal done in his term and is now telling Republicans to stay away from this deal. He's throwing all sorts of insults at the Republicans who have signaled some support. He's threatening to challenge anyone who votes for it. And at one point, Portman even calls President Trump and makes the case to him that he should actually be supporting this bill,

because had he not proposed his own big infrastructure package, Republicans wouldn't even be open to the size that they were currently discussing. Ah, trying to kill him with kindness. He was definitely using flattery. late night meetings, pizza, wine, endless Zoom calls and text message chains, Portman, Sinema, and this group of senators finally unveils this 2,702-page bill that the Senate ultimately passes on Tuesday. Right, which, as you said, passed in not just a bipartisan way, but in a remarkably bipartisan way, with nearly half of Senate Republicans supporting it, including the very partisan Senate leader for Republicans, Mitch McConnell. But that is just the Senate side, and this infrastructure bill is not yet across the

final finish line. Far from it. Because in order to win the support of progressives and liberals who said this bill wasn't enough, that more needed to be done, Senator Sinema agreed to go along with a much more partisan process that could undermine the very bipartisanship this bill represents. And that process began immediately after the bill passed. We'll be right back. So Emily, what is this second, far more partisan process you mentioned, and how exactly does it relate to the bipartisan infrastructure bill that was just passed in the Senate? So Democrats who control the House, the Senate, and the White House have always wanted more. They wanted more climate provisions. They wanted more funding to push the boundaries of what has traditionally been defined as infrastructure, what President Biden and others have started calling human infrastructure,

child care, home care, education. All of those ultimately got left out of the bipartisan deal because those were never going to get Republican votes. Right, because they're seen as social programs and often progressive social programs rather than traditional brick-and-mortar infrastructure. Yes. And Democrats also had very strong feelings about how to pay for the bill,

namely by increasing taxes on wealthy people and wealthy corporations and undoing key elements of the 2017 tax law, which only Republicans supported and were not going to support undoing. So progressives in both the Senate and the House, but particularly in the House, made very clear that they would not support a smaller bipartisan agreement unless more of their priorities, more of these priorities were passed in a separate package, passed in a process that is called budget reconciliation. A bipartisan agreement will not pass unless we have a reconciliation bill that also passes. There simply won't be the votes for it in the House unless, unless we have at the same time the reconciliation bill that has been passed. A majority of House progressives have repeatedly and explicitly said

that they will not support the bipartisan infrastructure deal until that second, much bigger, much more expensive reconciliation package clears the Senate. We've been very clear. We've got five priorities. If those priorities aren't met, there is not going to be a piece of legislation that passes. And of course, you know, it's not just progressives. Now the speaker has said the same thing. And so far, Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that that's what she plans to do, that she won't hold a vote on the bipartisan infrastructure deal until she sees the second package. What's different about budget reconciliation is that

you don't need 60 votes the way you do for the bipartisan infrastructure bill or any other piece of legislation. You just need 50. So in essence, Democrats don't need Republican votes for this package. They just need to stay united and push it through all on their own. So there's kind of a threat being issued here from progressives, especially in the House, that they won't do their part

to get the bipartisan infrastructure bill turned into law unless they get what they want in budget reconciliation. So they have kind of tethered these two processes together and said, we won't do one without the other. It's essentially a really precarious bargain between progressives and moderate Democrats. The House needs to pass this for it to become law. And in the House, where there's a really slim majority, you have progressives saying the only way you get our votes is if we get this much bigger partisan budget package.

And in the Senate, that means every single Democrat needs to be on board. Mm-hmm. So despite this long road we've taken, we have finally, finally reached the finish line. Of course, we Democrats believe we need to do much more. The bipartisan infrastructure bill is a very significant bill, but our country has other very significant, very important challenges. And so at the same time that the Senate passes this bipartisan bill, passes this bipartisan bill,

Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, sets up a vote to move forward with this reconciliation process. We are moving on to a second track which will make generational transformation in these areas. With a $3.5 trillion price tag and a plan to provide for all of the tax increases, health care, education, and climate provisions that Democrats want.

The two-track strategy is proceeding full steam ahead. So this is the second process, and it's about three times the cost of the bipartisan infrastructure bill. So it's an enormous undertaking. Absolutely. And it's far from over. Democrats, after prevailing over a really long, painful amendment process, did ultimately pass this budget blueprint, this $3.5 trillion blueprint, just before 4 a.m. Wednesday morning with all Democrats staying united over unanimous Republican opposition. But we've already heard from a couple of key moderates, namely Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Senator Sinema, saying that

while they were okay beginning the process of considering a package that could be this large, they may not ultimately be comfortable with a package of that size. So there's a lot to iron out. They have to actually come to agreement on the details of this package and hammer out the specifics of what the price tag and the policies are ultimately going to be. And with no wiggle room in the Senate, that's going to be a pretty heavy lift for Democrats. Got it. Let's presume for a moment, Emily, that Democrats can ultimately get on the same page when it comes to this two-pronged process. What about Republicans? They must understand that passing the bipartisan infrastructure bill this week paves the way

for Democrats to accomplish this longer wish list through the partisan budget reconciliation process, right? And so how are they able to put that aside in voting to pass the infrastructure bill? So I think it's a couple things. I think that linkage is ultimately why more Republicans didn't support the bipartisan bill. That was part of their argument for not voting for it. They kept calling it a Trojan horse because the second package was coming around the corner. But I think also for the Republicans who did get on board, like Rob Portman, like Mitch McConnell, ultimately the bipartisan infrastructure bill does have a lot of things they support. And I think many of the

members made a calculation that while in the minority trying to win back control of both chambers, they wanted to be able to point to some policy and say, this is what I stand for. This is the money I sent to you, my voters. And say Democrats are successful with this expansive overhaul of the social safety net, this big sweeping package with all kinds of tax increases and changes, for Republicans, they can then draw a really clear comparison between what they support and what they didn't. between what they support and what they didn't. And that could be a pretty good argument for them in the election. It's given them a lot to work with politically.

You know, in that sense, this all feels like a pretty clever legislative maneuver by everyone involved to split these two processes up. Yes, it's precarious, but it has also allowed for the process to get this far in the bipartisan manner that it has unfolded. Yeah, I think a lot of people are surprised that there was a successful vote on the Senate floor, that they even reached the Senate floor. And I think it shows that this was a successful vote on the Senate floor, that they even reached the Senate floor. And I think it shows that this was one of the rare moments when the legislative and political incentives

aligned across the Senate in both parties. Infrastructure was always the most likely candidate for bipartisan support. But I don't think you can discount the fact that it in part came about because Democrats decided they were going to go it alone with this typically partisan, complicated process to pass as much as $3.5 trillion on their own and intentionally avoid the need for Republican votes. Right. If you need a partisan process to get done the most likely candidate left for a bipartisan process, where does that leave you?

I think it leaves you with a really significant moment this week in a deeply polarized Congress, but not necessarily a lot of prospects for bipartisanship in the future. Thank you, Emily. We appreciate your time. Thank you for having me. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. On Wednesday, U.S. health officials urged pregnant women to receive the vaccine against COVID-19, pointing to new data that found no increased risk of miscarriage for those who are immunized during the first 20 weeks of gestation. Previously, the officials had said that pregnant women could receive the vaccine.

Now, they say that those women should receive it. And... I spoke with Governor Cuomo yesterday, and he pledged his full support for a smooth transition. And I thanked him for his service to our state. In her first public remarks since Governor Andrew Cuomo announced his resignation, New York's Lieutenant Governor Kathy Hochul said that it was time for the state to turn the page on the Cuomo era and that she was ready to replace him. I believe it is appropriate and in the best interest of the state of New York.

And while it was not expected, it is a day for which I am prepared. Hochul, who will become New York's first female leader, vowed to change the culture of the governor's office, where sexual harassment was allegedly rampant. At the end of my term, whenever it ends, no one will ever describe my administration as a toxic work environment. Today's episode was produced by Rob Zipko, Rachel Quester, Annie Brown, and Chelsea Daniel. It was edited by Larissa Anderson and Paige Cowett, contains original music by Marion Lozano, and was engineered by Chris Wood. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.