The Daily - The Democrats Who Might Block Biden’s Infrastructure Plan

Episode Date: September 30, 2021

The first year of a Congress is usually the best time for a president to put forward any sort of ambitious policy. For President Biden, whose control of Congress is fragile, the urgency is particularly intense.But now members of his own party are threatening to block one big part of his agenda — his $1 trillion infrastructure plan — in the name of protecting an even bigger part.We speak to Representative Pramila Jayapal of Washington State, the chairwoman of the  Progressive Caucus, about why she is willing to vote no on the infrastructure bill.Guest: Emily Cochrane, a correspondent covering Congress for The New York Times; and Representative Pramila Jayapal, the chairwoman of the Progressive Caucus.  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: Democrats prepared legislation on Wednesday to avert a government shutdown, but they were desperately trying to salvage President Biden’s domestic agenda as conservative-leaning holdouts dug in against an ambitious $3.5 trillion bill that carries many of the party’s top priorities.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 Ested Herndon, in for Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today, Congress faces a key vote on one of the president's top priorities, his $1 trillion infrastructure bill. But now, members of his own party are threatening to block it. I spoke with my colleague, Emily Cochran, about the infighting in Congress, and with one progressive congresswoman, about why she's willing to vote no. It's Thursday, September 30th.

It's Thursday, September 30th. Hey, Emily, how are you? It's another day in paradise. On the scale of 1 to 10, how bad is today? You know, the limit does not exist. I'm sure it's like wherever you are right now, you already know tomorrow will be worse. Yeah, I'm afraid if I give something specific, the Congress gods will just challenge me. Yeah. Right. Well, we do appreciate you helping us out on a crazy week. And I feel like everything I've read from the Hill over the last couple weeks has required a professional translator.

So thank you for letting us use you as a professional translator. Well, I hope I can deliver because unfortunately there's a lot of garble right now. I know that there's a lot of moving parts happening at once. So can you just lay out for me what are these moving parts? What is the current state of play in Washington? So I think the easiest way to think about this is for Democrats who control both the House and the Senate, this is a week where they are juggling two things. They are juggling the basic fiscal responsibility of governance, the basic thing Congress always has to do every single year.

And then they are juggling that with their own ambitious domestic proposal. Well, let's start with the first thing, the basic governance stuff. So the end of September is always a bit of a chaotic month for Congress because the fiscal year ends and they have to keep the government funded. On top of that, the Treasury Department has said that they are about to, in the next couple weeks, hit the limit on their ability to borrow. And should Congress fail to address that in time, that could lead to a first ever default on the federal debt, which could be fiscally catastrophic. And that is not an exaggeration. And as of Wednesday afternoon,

Democrats and Republicans are currently talking about a short-term spending bill that would not only keep the government open through early December, but provide pretty urgent emergency relief to help Afghan refugees and disaster recovery efforts across the country to pass that before funding runs out Thursday. We expect Republicans to get on board with this short-term bill. The debt ceiling, however, they have no interest in giving their votes to. The debt ceiling, however, they have no interest in giving their votes to. So on the basic functionings of government, the thing that Congress must do, there is a likelihood that they'll keep the government open in the short term. And then the question of the debt ceiling, they're going to push that argument down the road with Democrats still trying to force Republicans to come to the table to do it with them together.

Yes. But you also said that the Biden agenda is in a pretty precarious situation. What's exactly happening with that? So historically, the first year of a Congress is the best year to really try to push through any sort of ambitious policy. Because the closer you get to the next November election, the harder it is to bring people to the table while things are getting politically charged and competitive. So for President Biden, who oversees really narrow margins of a majority here, getting his agenda passed quickly is paramount. Right now, there's two main pieces of this agenda.

There's this bipartisan infrastructure bill, which moderate Democrats helped negotiate that would send billions of dollars for roads, bridges, broadband across the country. And then there's a second really ambitious package that contains a lot of the priorities that President Biden and Democrats ran on and believe helped deliver them the majority. That proposed package right now is about $3.5 trillion. It would send money to address climate change. It would expand healthcare. It would expand public education. It would touch almost every facet of American life,

and it would be paid for mostly with tax increases on wealthy businesses and wealthy individuals. In order to advance both of these pieces, congressional leaders agreed to this two-track process, in essence accommodating progressives who said they would support the bipartisan bill, a bill that they felt was inadequate and not quite what they would have written in order to pass this much larger bill and get the entire party to come along with this much bigger agenda. So as a way to keep the caucus together to sort of maneuver around these very thin margins, party leaders effectively linked the two bills. So we've been going along on this two-track process. That $1 trillion bipartisan infrastructure

bill has passed the Senate. It's waiting in the wings for a House vote. But when House Democrats try to tackle just the process of beginning work on this $3.5 trillion package, a group of moderates said they would not support doing so until they got a commitment from Speaker Nancy Pelosi that she would hold a vote on the House infrastructure bill. And the date that they settled on was actually Monday. But then Speaker Pelosi pushed the date to Thursday. And then in a meeting with House Democrats, seemed to suggest that she, in essence, was going to decouple these two bills and move ahead with just the bipartisan infrastructure bill.

So in the original agreement, one side wanted the bipartisan infrastructure bill and another side was more focused on the larger reconciliation bill. And so to appease both, the speaker agreed to put them on a parallel track that they would try to be voted on at the same time. But the group of moderates who cared more about the infrastructure bill and are more skeptical of the reconciliation bill pushed the speaker to change that agreement and actually disrupt that two parallel track process. Pretty much. And as you can imagine, that was quite frustrating for the Progressive Caucus, which has close to 100 members. which has close to 100 members. But progressives now who have said for quite some time, we will not support that bill until we see progress on this bigger package with all of our desires and all of our ambitions are really hesitating to vote for that. And they're repeatedly warning leadership, we can't vote for this until we see

some progress, depending on the lawmaker you talk to and when you talk to them. That progress could be anything from a vote on a final package in the Senate, which is a long ways off at this point because of so many outstanding policy issues to just asking key moderates, particularly senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, to put forward a top line of what they would accept. Because that's been a big issue here. Moderates, particularly these two senators, have signaled for a while now that $3.5 trillion is too high. They were okay starting a process for a package of that size, but ultimately they're not comfortable with that being the final product. But what's less clear is what the moderates do want. What price tag are they comfortable with? How do they want to scale back this vision that President

Biden and liberals have laid out and have really championed for quite some time? And it seems for some progressives, they've reached a point where it's just, just give us a sign that you want to support this package and just give us some sense of what you want, what you're comfortable with at this point. They just want a guarantee from their moderate colleagues that they will back a second package of the size and scope that they think is necessary to address the needs of the country and deliver on the promises they made to voters that they say got them this majority in the first place. If they hold firm, they could bring down this piece of legislation. And I think this is an instance where people are looking to see, is this the moment where progressives really take a gamble here in holding firm?

After the break, I talked to Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal about that gamble. We'll be right back. Hello, Congresswoman. How are you? Good morning, Ested. I'm good. Thank you. Thank you for making this time out. I know this is such a busy day. I'm curious, is this your first meeting today or have you already started? I have already started with phone calls and text messages, but it's my first meeting where I'm actually seeing somebody. You know, we wanted to talk because all eyes are on you all and the House this week. There's that big bipartisan infrastructure bill that we know there will be a big vote on. And as the head of the Progressive Caucus,

you're the one in the room negotiating on the behalf of progressives. What does that look like? What are the stakes right now? How does it feel in Congress? Well, the stakes are very high, obviously, because we're talking about the president's agenda. We're talking about the Democratic agenda. We're talking about an agenda that we all ran on and are very invested in. We are doing everything that we can to make sure we deliver the entirety of the agenda that already 96% of Democrats in the

House and the Senate agree on. There's just a tiny contingent of people that are not with us yet, and we are ready, willing, and able to do everything possible to get to a final deal that gets us across the finish line. And given those stakes, where would you describe Democrats are in this moment? What is the current state of play at this point when it comes to the important piece of legislation? And we should note that we're talking to you at 9 a.m. on Wednesday, which I know these things will move quickly as the day goes on. That's right. And let me just back up and say, you know, that this moment that we're in, it's five months from April 28th, 2021, when the president came to Congress and delivered a speech on his agenda, on our agenda. And that is what we're talking about. That agenda got divided

into two bills for anyone who hasn't followed this in detail. It got divided into a much smaller infrastructure bill that is about roads and highways. It's got some important stuff in it. It's got some stuff that some of the progressives don't like because they feel it'll have a negative effect on climate. And then the rest of the agenda was put into this Build Back Better Act. And so what happened is that the Senate passed that bipartisan infrastructure bill with progressive senators there voting for it only because they were guaranteed that the reconciliation bill would go first in the House. And that's the Build Back Better Act with 70% of the president's agenda. And so when it came to the House, all of a sudden there was a switcheroo.

A small group of nine House Democrats said, nope, all of a sudden we're going to put an arbitrary deadline of Monday, September 27th to have a vote first on the bipartisan bill. And then maybe we'll talk about the reconciliation bill. A tiny group of people decided that they didn't like the agreement. And so they went back on it and they said, we're not going to vote for the budget resolution to even move forward on the discussion of the Build Back Better Act unless you vote for the bipartisan bill first. That didn't go over too well. We have said for three months that we're doing the reconciliation bill first. That's what the Senate agreed to. And so we have still continued to be in the same place, which is we understand that there has to be a negotiation

on what is in the reconciliation bill with the small group of people that are saying they won't vote for it. We're open to doing that, but we need to hear what those people are for, not just what they're against, but what they're for. And until we get that firm commitment vote in the Senate on the reconciliation bill, half of the progressive caucus, my members,

have said they will not be able to vote for the infrastructure bill. And so the fact that the progressive caucus said we will not vote for this bill made it so that that vote got canceled on Monday. It's scheduled for tomorrow. We are all working hard to see if we can get to an agreement on a reconciliation bill. But since we want a vote in the Senate, I think it's going to be very hard to get to that place by tomorrow. So when the Speaker separated those bills, did you all read that as a betrayal or going back on your promises? I know there were some members of the Progressive Caucus who did describe those actions of Pelosi like that. I know there were some members of the Progressive Caucus who did describe those actions of Pelosi like that.

I know there are some members who described it that way. I don't yet see it that way because I have been talking to the speaker and I think she wants the same things that we do. And I think that she is, you know, working to try to get everybody moving as quickly as possible in the same direction. But I don't think that she's going to bring a

bill to the floor. And if she does, I'll just tell you, if she does, we have more than enough members to defeat the bill and show whoever's wondering whether she has the votes that it's not going to pass until we do the reconciliation bill. But do you agree that the decision to split those up does place a kind of pressure on progressives? It is now up to you all, if that bill comes up on Thursday, to make the decision about whether to doom the bipartisan infrastructure bill when it votes to House. How does it feel that that is now in you all's laps? Does it make you upset that it is now your choice instead of the Joe Manchin's and Kyrsten Sinema's in the Senate? Not really. I actually think we've been the ones who have been saving the president's agenda for months. We are the ones who have been standing up to deliver on the president's agenda for months.

And I think we will accept the responsibility of delivering to voters what we promised them, responsibility of delivering to voters what we promised them, the Democratic agenda. And so we're proud to deliver both bills. There are many, as I said, many members of our caucus who don't want to vote for the infrastructure bill because they think it's a bad bill. But every single one of them has been an adult in the room and said, we are willing to vote for something we don't like, that we actually think may not be good for our goals. But we understand we're part of the Democratic team. And that's 96 percent of the Democratic caucus, by the way, is with us. This is not a progressives versus moderates fight. This is a president's agenda versus four percent of Democrats fight. I get that. And I get that with all of these moving targets, how you all have an interest

in saying if the bipartisan bill comes to the floor, we're not going to vote for it in hopes I get that. And I get that with all of these moving targets, how you all have an interest in saying if the bipartisan bill comes to the floor, we're not going to vote for it in hopes of getting that agenda passed. But we know that most folks in the country do not follow these things as closely as we do. Are you worried at all that there is a risk of a headline that says, hey, progressives have doomed this negotiated bipartisan bill that would improve infrastructure in America? I would say two things to that. One, the bipartisan bill can always be brought up again. You know, the Senate has passed it already. If it goes down now, we give this negotiation a little bit more time and we get to a deal on reconciliation, we can always bring up the bipartisan

bill again. So whatever happens tomorrow or doesn't happen tomorrow isn't the end of the story, and it shouldn't be. These are arbitrary dates. But the second thing is, I think we have to just understand that if we leave behind what is in the reconciliation bill, the Build Back Better Act, it delays that. We are now in September, and for anyone who watches Congress, it's hard enough to get things done when you have momentum. When you don't have momentum, when it's the end of the year before an election year, or if it goes over into December, January, February of next year, nothing gets done around here. So I want everybody to understand that if we vote for the bipartisan bill, hoping and praying that perhaps there will be some agreement on reconciliation, that is not a hope that is borne out by any evidence. We have sent

over dozens of bills to the Senate, including voting rights bills that really need to be passed right now if we want to save our democracy. And yet those have not been passed. So delay means death. And that is why we can't let go of these two things moving together in tandem. But how do you square a delay means death on the reconciliation bill, while also saying you're willing to delay the bipartisan infrastructure bill? Do you see those things as in conflict? Yeah, it's a great question. No, because the infrastructure bill has already been negotiated. Not with us, I might add. It was negotiated by a very small group of people who then expected us to just take that. When we tried to do the same thing with the reconciliation bill and say,

this is the president's agenda, 96% agree, you should come along. They said, nope, we're not going to do that. So there's no problem with bringing the bipartisan bill up immediately if we get a deal on the reconciliation bill, because it already passed the Senate. We've already agreed and committed to doing it. We actually gave in and compromised on that. And now it's time for the 4 percent to do a real negotiation with the 96 percent and say, OK, we want to do these things, and then we're ready to go forward. And I'll just say, if we don't deliver on this agenda, we won't have control of the Senate, we won't have control of the House, and we won't have the White House back.

So you're saying that the politics of this are clear to you that the most vulnerable people in the midterms need that full agenda to be passed, and that the bipartisan bill would not be good enough for really to them go back to their voters and that the bipartisan bill would not be good enough for really to go back to their voters and say, this is what we did with the Democratic House, Senate and White House. But what if progressives get neither of those rather than both of those done? Is that a risk that you all are willing to take that in pursuit of getting both of the things done, that there could be a situation where both of them are delayed. It's always a risk. I mean, you know, negotiation does not come without risk and standing up for

things that people really need. It's time for us to stand up and deliver deeply needed investments that will transform the way that people see their lives and their livelihoods. So you're willing to take that argument to the American people that you all made this decision, even if it results in the bipartisan infrastructure bill not passing this week, because you think fighting for the full agenda is where the public is. I think that's absolutely right. There is a president now, though, that campaigned on reaching across the aisle, that campaigned on kind of bringing unity and bipartisanship back to Washington.

Is a vote against the bipartisan infrastructure bill a blow to the Democratic president's own rhetoric and words? The entire agenda not passing is a serious blow to our president. And he said that very clearly when he brought us into the Oval Office. He said it to me directly. I think that the reality is he wants both bills to pass. And he's been very clear about that over and over again. Is there any frustration from progressives then? Do you want the White House to be coming out more or engaging more publicly in pressuring Senator Manchin and Sinema? more publicly in pressuring Senator Manchin and Sinema? Well, I think they are doing that. Not all work happens in the public eye.

In fact, it's not always advisable. You know, the White House and the president have a very different role. They got to bring everyone together. You're right that that is what he ran on is his ability to reach across the aisle. I think that's important, the work that they're doing. And I do think they're very actively engaged. I will say that I told them, I don't know, three and a half months ago that they're doing. And I do think they're very actively engaged. I will say that I told them, I don't know, three and a half months ago that they needed to engage on the reconciliation bill and the Build Back Better Act and getting people to a place that they agreed. And they were

fully focused on the bipartisan bill, which, you know, I understand that was a choice they made. But you can't expect to just be able to get this thing done when we have a couple of people blocking. It is going to take some time. And putting arbitrary deadlines in just hurts the process. And going back on agreements that were made doesn't help either. Because at the end of the day, we got to start trusting each other. And right now, you know, I would say we're in the verify mode. It's not the trust mode anymore. It's just the verify mode. And I understand that. And I understand that. And I understand that you are being very diplomatic about it.

But I want to ask again, you mentioned three and a half months ago, you were saying that the White House needed to focus more on the reconciliation front on the agenda front than the bipartisan bill. And they didn't do it. You're saying that the White House has been applying private pressure on the senators, but publicly, a lot of the pressure is falling on progressives now with this Thursday vote. I am wondering how those things don't add up to a White House that has put you all in a position to be a public face of maybe a tough, tough vote that some folks, even in your own party, may not love. tough vote that some folks, even in your own party, may not love. Well, look, every one of these positions is tough. But I just think that you have to be driven by what you came here to do.

Is some of this not about policy, but politics? Is some of this a progressive caucus saying, you know, you can't take us for granted anymore? Well, I don't think that that position is ever just about politics, like separated from policy. I think it's always tied to policy. I'm not one to pick every single battle. I'm one to pick our fights carefully because I think it is challenging to explain what's going on to the American people. And you do have to win the narrative. And I feel like we're winning the narrative right now. What gives you that confidence? I'm curious. Because I think if you look at the

polling on the Build Back Better agenda, it's so darn good. And actually, it's not only the 70% of Americans support it. But on top of that, if you add that you're going to tax the wealthiest individuals and the wealthiest corporations to pay their fair share, that number goes even higher. You mentioned how you find the deadlines arbitrary, but this window will close eventually. When do you think that is? By what point do Democrats need to be able to say this agenda has been passed, the infrastructure bill has been passed, and turn to the other things, which we're not even talking about, that haven't been resolved, like voting rights, like other parts that were key portions of what Biden pitched to the American people? Well, I don't know what the answer is to that.

I don't think we have a lot of time. I think maybe we have a month or two to finish this all off. Hopefully it's just a couple of weeks. But your point about voting rights is really important. If we allow a couple of people to derail the Democratic agenda on the Build Back Better Act, what does it say about our ability to get voting rights? What does it say about our ability to get police reform? What does it say about our ability to get anything that we want? Because we know that that is the block in the Senate. In my time as an activist, I spent 20 years as an organizer on the outside. I had something I would always tell young organizers that came in. Two things, actually. One is that if politics is the art of the possible, because people always used to say that to me, Pramila, you have to be realistic. Politics is the art of the possible. And I would say to organizers, if politics is the art of the possible, then it's our job as organizers and activists, wherever we sit, whether it's inside government or outside, to push the boundaries of what is seen as possible, because the possible is not static. It moves all the time. And the second is that courage is born

out of crisis. And it is a muscle. You have to learn to flex it. When people see courage, the more it's exhibited, the more other people demonstrate it. And I think it's important for us to stand up for working people and for poor people across this country who desperately need us to do that. At the end of this is a stripped down reconciliation bill that you all are forced to compromise even further from six trillion down. Has that been a failure of that vision? How's that been a failure to expand what is possible even among a unified Democrat Congress and White House? Well, we're only going to agree to something that we think is not a failure, something that really allows us to claim

success. But I would just say the entire conversation has changed. I mean, the fact that we're even talking about these things as the democratic agenda was not the case 10 years ago, as you know. And so I feel like this moment is a success because the party has adopted core progressive platforms and ideas, including that the rich need to pay their fair share. And it's coming straight from the president of the United States who was elected in a phenomenally stunning victory and a mandate from Black women and poor people and immigrants in states that he never thought he could win. We delivered that victory. We delivered that mandate. And I believe he is absolutely with us, 100% with us on this set of issues. absolutely with us, 100% with us on this set of issues.

But it is a great kind of twist of what you're saying, that you're describing the success as getting the Democratic Party and the president to kind of agree on these baseline issues. But the fact that it's 96% and not 100% is currently stopping you all from making that happen and making that a reality. Yes, that is exactly right. The 4% are stopping the 96%. And that's why we are holding strong because we've got the majority with us, not just of Congress, but of the American people. So what do you think happens on Thursday? Do you think the bill comes to a vote? And if so, what's your caucus going to do? If I had to bet, I would say the bill doesn't come to a vote. And we continue negotiating on the reconciliation bill. If it does come to a vote, it will go down. And we will go back to the drawing board. So you're saying that either way, you are confident that the progressive caucus

will hold and that either the bill will be delayed because of that, or it will fail on the floor because you all will stick together. That's correct. Well, thank you, Congressman. We really appreciate your time, and we know it's a busy day. So thank you. Thank you so much. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. On Wednesday, United Airlines announced that it would fire nearly 600 workers for refusing to comply with its vaccine mandate, one month after it became one of the first large corporations to issue such a requirement. The airline indicated that the 600 people

were a small fraction of its 67,000-person workforce in the United States and said that 99% of its U.S. employees had been vaccinated. And after a Wednesday hearing, a judge suspended the legal arrangement that gave Britney Spears' father oversight of her estate,

creating a path to ending the 13-year conservatorship that had controlled her finances and personal life. Free Britney Spears! Free Britney Spears! Free Britney Spears! Nearly 100 people gathered to support Spears outside the Los Angeles courthouse. Jamie Spears is no longer a conservator. And erupted into cheers after the news of the judge's decision. Today's episode was produced by Jessica Chung, Soraya Shockley, and Austin Mitchell.

It was edited by Rachel Quester, Paige Cowan, and Dave Shaw. It was engineered by Rachel Quester, Paige Cowett, and Dave Shaw. It was engineered by Chris Wood. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonderland. That's it for The Daily. I'm Ested Herndon. See you tomorrow.