[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. Thanks to Brigid Bergin for filling in for me yesterday as I was off atoning for my sins. It would really take me weeks or months to finish the job, but my religion only gives me a day so I atoned for a few of them. Thank you, Brigid for filling in. As we come to the end of the week, the headline for Democrats in Washington might be deal, no deal.

It looks like party leaders have a deal with central Senator Joe Manchin that would unify the party on voting rights. As described by Bloomberg News, the version Manchin agreed to would create an automatic voter registration system through each state's motor vehicle agency, make election day a public holiday and provide voters with at least 15 days of early voting for federal elections.

The democrats have no deal on lowering prices for prescription drugs. Have you heard this? Three democrats defected from a bill and that was enough to kill it. It would have allowed Medicare to negotiate with drug companies on price. Democrats have wanted to get that through Congress for 15 years. How many times have we talked about it on this show?

They thought that maybe they have the votes now but three of them walked away, including very much in the spotlight over this long island congresswoman, Kathleen Rice, who had run for re-election on campaign commercials like this.

Female Speaker: In times of crisis, you see what really drives someone. For Kathleen Rice, it's always been the health and safety of the Long Island she loves. Meeting the moment of this pandemic by securing billions in aid for testing and treatment in New York, taking on the drug and insurance giants to lower costs and restore coverage to those hit hardest by the downturn, and fiercely protecting a woman's right to choose no matter the politics. Kathleen Rice for us.

Kathleen Rice: I'm Kathleen Rice, and I approve this message.

Brian Lehrer: She did when she was on the campaign trail, but this week, she did not approve allowing Medicare to negotiate with drug companies for price rather than just like the companies dictated. For Democrats in DC this week, deal with Manchin, no deal with Kathleen Rice. Let's add one more, we can call it deal, no deal, maybe deal. Did you see that Alexandria Ocasio Cortez wore that dress to the Met Gala this week that had printing on it that said, "Tax the rich."

President Biden did not wear the dress himself yesterday, though it would have made a great photo op but he did say this, "The data is absolutely clear. Over the past 40 years, the wealthy have gotten wealthier, and too many corporations have lost their sense of responsibility to their workers, their communities, and the country."

Biden's $3.5 trillion plan to provide universal pre-K and other social safety net guarantees for America's oldest as well as youngest would be paid for in large measure through higher taxes on corporations-- remember they went down down under Trump, and the wealthiest among us as individuals. He made that statement yesterday in search of a deal within his own party that he doesn't yet have.

Now, one more thing before we bring in our guest, it's still no deal morning for the republicans too. Ohio congressman, Anthony Gonzalez, who voted to impeach Donald Trump after the insurrection is now losing his seat. He announced yesterday he would not seek reelection and that appears to be because reelection seemed impossible. The announcement came two days before the rally in DC tomorrow that has people there on edge known as the J6 rally.

It'll be in support of people charged with crimes in connection with a capital riot, J6 for January 6th. Is there enough that matters going on in Washington right now? With me now is Washington Post congressional correspondent Marianna Sotomayor. Marianna, welcome back to WNYC. You must be covering like six things at once right now so thanks for squeezing us in today.

Marianna Sotomayor: Of course, there's so much going on. It's hard to keep track.

Brian Lehrer: Let's work backwards on the things I mentioned in the intro and start with the J6 rally tomorrow. You have an article describing how fencing is being re-installed by the Capitol Police like it was just after the insurrection. Is it up yet? Have you seen it?

Marianna Sotomayor: Yes, it is up. It actually went up Wednesday evening and it's back once again surrounding the entire perimeter of the capital just in case. A lot of our team talking to law enforcement officials, they seem to suggest that this is not going to be as big as the insurrection. It might be a smaller crowd than expected, but if there's one lesson that was learned on January 6th, it's much better to be safe than sorry no matter the scale of a crowd.

Brian Lehrer: What other security measures are in place? Anything notable?

Marianna Sotomayor: Yes. A number of leaders have actually been briefed, and that's different from January 6th. On January 6th, a number of congressional Democrats and Republicans weren't actually kept fully abreast of the developments and what intelligence community was really seeing online. They have been briefed. They already see that as a step ahead.

They are continually being kept in the know, but something else to know is that there's certainly more Metro PD presence that was lacking, at least to a larger scale, on January 6th. They will be around the National Mall, as well as the Capitol, much more Capitol Police presence, and the National Guard can also be called upon at any time and be quickly deployed if there's any violence and it calls for such a measure to be taken.

Brian Lehrer: Organizers are using that term, J6, for January 6th. Does that mean they're actually going to protest in support of the rioters?

Marianna Sotomayor: Yes, that is exactly the case. We've actually seen since January 6th, a number of either fellow insurrectionists have been really trying to say that these people should not have been arrested, that they did nothing wrong, that they were merely protesting.

Interestingly enough, I actually went to a Trump rally in Ohio several months ago and people there were-- when you would ask them what's been happening, they very quickly, some of them would admit that they were part of the January 6th rally saying it wasn't a big deal, and were very quick to defend the people who were there alongside them saying that they did nothing wrong. That is essentially the whole point of the gathering tomorrow.

Brian Lehrer: Are they distinguishing between the violent ones and the non-violent ones? I guess there's a legitimate question for debate, at least, if their argument is simply that there are nonviolent protesters who got caught up in it who shouldn't be charged with criminal activity.

Marianna Sotomayor: Right. They're not really making a distinction. As much as you even point out to some of these Trump supporters that there was violence or there was just basic infringement like trespassing, they didn't see it as a problem. As I and many of my colleagues have asked Trump supporters of different rallies and such, they say that this was a peaceful event.

If you think about it, that's similar rhetoric that the former President Trump has used describing January 6th. That it was peaceful, there wasn't as much commotion as everyone has blown it up to be, but of course, we have seen the violence and we continue to see videos, whether it is from police officers responding or video taken by some of these insurrectionists that we did see a lot of that violence play out.

Brian Lehrer: Oh, gosh. There's so much evidence. It's another case of disinformation, it sounds like, and just making stuff up in the face of what is clearly true and not true. What are Republican leaders in Congress, like Kevin McCarthy, who was hard on January 6th until he went soft on it saying about this rally? What's the deal, no deal analysis regarding Republicans in Congress and the J6 movement?

Marianna Sotomayor: Unsurprisingly, they're actually very quiet about this. McCarthy was on the Hill on Tuesday and he didn't actually answer a number of questions that many reporters tried to ask him about. One of them was if he knew if anyone in his conference was going to be attending, and he in passing said no, he didn't think so. The House Republicans haven't really been on the Hill to ask them very quickly about whether they're attending or not.

There have been a number of members in the past who have actually held press conferences in defense of these insurrectionists who are on trial. Those people, of course, are our congressman Matt Gaetz of Florida, also Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia. They have already said that they're actually not going to be attending. There are still some others in that group who have the same ideology, who haven't said necessarily if they will be there.

It's definitely something that we will be tracking but it's worth to note that behind the scenes, privately a lot of Republicans and Republican aides are really discouraging any kind of involvement and hope that their members don't appear.

Brian Lehrer: All right. Let's go down the list of some of these other deal, no deal stories. Listeners, the phones and our Twitter feed are open for your questions or comments on the deal, no deal stories. We're talking about with Washington Post congressional correspondent Marianna Sotomayor, 646-435-7280. Deal with Joe Manchin on voting rights. Voting Rights advocates, is it good enough for you? What about the things that leaves out? 646-435-7280.

No deal with Kathleen Rice and two other Democrats on Medicare negotiating with big pharma on prescription drug prices. Are you in her district? Want to weigh in? 646-435-7280. Deal or no deal on the president's $3.5 trillion human infrastructure plan, including tax the rich just like it said on AOC's Met Gala dress, and no deal among Republicans on whether to support or denounce tomorrow's rally in support of arrested insurrectionists. 646-435-7280 or tweet @BrianLehrer.

Working our way backwards now through the deal, no deal stories that I mentioned in the intro, President Biden speaking yesterday in support of taxing the rich, though he didn't put on the tax the rich dress that AOC wore to the Met Gala. Why is the president bringing that to the forefront right now?

Marianna Sotomayor: I actually covered Biden throughout his presidential campaign and all of this really culminates to his final promise during the campaign trail, which is passing infrastructure and of course, passing a number of Democratic priorities that is going to make up this 3.5 trillion reconciliation bill. As you mentioned, yesterday, he really, really tried to impress among listeners that he wants to tax, not just the rich, but those who are so extremely wealthy just to pay their fair share.

You can also put corporations in there. Of course, I should mention for a number of House Democrats in vulnerable districts that is something that they have been really championing and really trying to sell in these reelection races, so it really is something of importance. Of course, it has become a really big cry, especially for progressives like you mentioned AOC making that message very clear earlier this week.

It is still a point of negotiation actually on the House side about just how much you should be raising taxes, how much the capital gains tax should be going up, and where you should tax or really increase the taxes on corporations.

A lot of negotiations behind the scenes and progressives actually a little bit annoyed that as of right now, some of the legislation that came out of the Ways and Means Committee, very powerful tax legislating committee, but they actually aren't necessarily closing loopholes for the ultra-rich to pay even more in taxes so a lot of negotiations still to go on that front.

Brian Lehrer: Now, it looks like the President thinks there's too much focus on the $3.5 trillion price tag for the plan, and not enough on how it would be paid for, these tax increases, on people who can afford it, and most importantly, what's in it so give us the highlights. I know it's many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many pages, but give us just the top-line highlights of what the president is fighting for substantively.

Marianna Sotomayor: Sure, like you mentioned, a lot is in there and a lot can change but a lot of the big things that you have heard both from the president and also from House and Senate Democrats is there's a provision to expand and eventually make permanent the child tax credit, something that has become popular given the pandemic and just helping families.

If you ever hear speaker Nancy Pelosi talk about this piece of legislation, she's always pivoting to how it's going to really help women, and how it's going to help families. There's also the paid family leave, extending that. There's a provision that has been very-- There's a lot of members who are passionate about that. Prescription drugs, interestingly, you had alluded to this earlier.

Many House Democrats-- it doesn't matter the ideological spectrum, really want to see this provision become law and it really would help lower the cost of prescription drugs. That's something that even frontline and moderate Democrats have been really pushing on the campaign trail for several years now. Of course, there has been some hold-up in committees, but the House had managed to add it, add that provision into the bigger piece of legislation through another committee.

I should mention a couple of other quick things as well; climate, very big for progressives. They're trying to lower carbon emissions by a certain date. There's also the debate on health care, how to make a number of Affordable Care Act tax credits permanent, as well as trying to expand Medicare to cover dental, vision, and hearing.

Those are all the things that are currently in the bill, but when you are talking about that price tag, and you have a lot of moderates hoping it doesn't cost 3.5 trillion, Democrats are now at a place where they have to try and make sacrifices and see where they can make some budgetary cuts.

Brian Lehrer: Is the elder care piece of it in there that was originally and one part of the package? More home health aides for more elderly people and better pay for those home health aides?

Marianna Sotomayor: Yes, that is definitely in there. It's worth pointing out that actually, when you ask some progressives, "What are potential red lines?" If something gets cut out completely or if you lower the specific price, and how you pay for a specific issue, what is that red line? Where would you really put your foot down? Elder care and helping caregivers generally, that is something that is an issue that they are passionate about.

At least those concerns haven't been super vocal yet, but it's worth pointing out House leadership, and also Senate leadership very much monitoring all of those concerns, trying to smooth out them all before it gets to a point where this bill heads to the floor and you could see a lot of disruption by members.

Brian Lehrer: Antonio in Bayside, you're on WNYC with Marianna Sotomayor from The Washington Post. Hi, Antonio.

Antonio: Hi, good morning, Brian. Thank you for having me on the air. Essentially, I want to say that we should just look towards a pot that never gets cut and gets added continuously. You know what I going to say; the military budget. If we would just not expend money on useless-- I forget the name of the sign of the aircraft. Something that's useless, doesn't work, and it seems like we're just subsidizing the military industrial complex just because.

Not because they produce anything that's worthwhile. Did it help us secure Afghanistan? No, that's a big no, on and on. I would be in favor of the military to be used for humanitarian reasons. If we took all our fleets and went by countries that needed it for dispensing COVID vaccines, which are woefully behind, things like that. I'm for the military in that respect only because we could easily defend ourselves.

Brian Lehrer: We can easily defend ourselves. Well, Marianna, how much does that line up with Joe Biden, who has been in the peace camp in Washington for a long time on many things, though he has voted to authorize some uses of the military to be sure? Is he talking about any defunding of the military, any significant defunding of the military, which is such a big piece of the federal budget?

Somebody once said-- maybe you know who it is, as a congressional reporter. Somebody once said, "The United States government is like an insurance company with an army and the army takes up a lot of that spending." Is there any push among the democrats to significantly defund the Pentagon?

Marianna Sotomayor: It's actually something that many Democrats have been saying for a long time. Not just cutting spending, but also just more general oversight to make sure we know where that money is going. It's interesting because, of course, beyond this being infrastructure, reconciliation [inaudible 00:20:00] it's also the time for Congress to actually fund the government for the next year. There are a lot of debates through different committees about spending. Biden and the White House generally, earlier on in the year put out how much they would like to see or where they would like to see the spending done. He actually, at the end of the day, proposed a number much lower than Congress, at least so far as the House actually passed.

The House is currently controlled by Democrats, so you do have some more hawkish Democrats on those committees of jurisdiction, especially when it comes to foreign policy. They, in, some ways you could say, backed Biden's demand of lowering and cutting military spending, actually ending up siding with Republicans and giving them a couple $100 billion more for next year's spending.

Brian Lehrer: I want to get to this other DC Democrats deal or no deal story. No deal on allowing Medicare to negotiate with pharmaceutical companies over the price of prescription drugs because three House Democrats voted no. It looks like the one getting the most attention is from my area, Long Island Democratic Congresswoman Kathleen Rice. Why do most Democrats want this bill and why doesn't Kathleen Rice?

Marianna Sotomayor: Again, really, a number of Democrats-- it doesn't matter if they're super liberal or if they're super moderate. Many of them, in conversations, have really just been wanting to see lower drug pricing because it is something that affects all Americans in some way or the other. This really did bubble up. We didn't expect it to become such a contentious debate simply because it is such a popular thing within the majority of the House Democratic Caucus.

Of course, you mentioned Kathleen Rice from New York, and there were also two other members. One is Kurt Schrader of Oregon, who is expected to actually vote against the reconciliation bill in full at the end of the day no matter what changes are made, as well as Congressman Scott Peters. They, of course, are looking at it through spending concerns, that it could just amount to too much.

Also, there are-- and this also applies to some Senate Democrats, who are concerned about this provision. They represent areas that have pharmaceutical companies in them or they have a lot of constituents who work for pharmaceutical companies, so there is that point of contention.

However, I should say and mention that even though those three Democrats voted against it in the Energy and Commerce Committee, which meant that they couldn't add that provision into that committee's final proposal, the Ways and Means Committee took up the same thing, and they voted it through. As of right now, that provision is in the reconciliation bill. However, that bill still isn't done. Yes, it is, but the bill isn't done. This is why there's still timing and what's going to happen, whatnot.

The Budget Committee next week will be meeting and essentially putting all of these bills that have come out of the committee together so that then they can pass things on and vote on it on the floor. Of course, changes can be made. There are such things, and I don't have to get into the nuances of how things work, but there can still be changes.

If those three Democrats are vocal enough and say, "At the end of the day, I won't vote against this bill at all," well, Pelosi can only lose three House Democrats and still pass something through a majority. So far, we know of two Democrats who likely will vote against it, so there isn't any room for error.

Brian Lehrer: That's why so much focus is on Kathleen Rice, as the third one who we don't know which way she's going to vote, right?

Marianna Sotomayor: Correct. There's a number of others who have other concerns as well so definitely a lot of negotiating to be done.

Brian Lehrer: There's one thing from your answer that I really don't understand. If some of the more "moderate Democrats" are concerned about the price tag of the overall bill, because Medicare is government-funded insurance, isn't reducing the price that the government pays for prescription drugs a way to help fund the other benefits?

Marianna Sotomayor: It is indeed. That's why you saw a lot of Democrats really freaking out over the fact that that provision was not going to pass. It ended being added. A reason why Democrats also wanted to make sure it passes is because, as you mentioned, it would allow and give money for other benefits. Particularly, they were eyeing adding all of that extra revenue and putting it towards expanding Medicare.

Which is that big, progressive, really, campaign call that they constantly are trying to do and expanding it to also now include dental, vision, as well as hearing. For a minute there, there was some point of concern about whether they could even be able to do that.

To your point, it could, in some ways, affect Medicare. There are some, especially even those moderates, who are in tricky situations about how do you campaign on the expansion of Medicare has become like a [inaudible 00:25:47] rally cry for Republicans in terms of expanded socialism, et cetera. There are other potential messaging issues about passing that that has some Democrats concerned.

Brian Lehrer: Here's a caller from Kathleen Rice's district, I think. Kim in Nassau County, you're on WNYC. Hi, Kim.

Kim: Hi. I am in Kathleen Rice's district, and I don't understand why she would vote against it. I was wondering if you guys knew her explanation.

Brian Lehrer: Can you go a little more into it if you know, in her particular case, Marianna? I should know this because I'm here, you're in DC, but I don't think there's a big pharmaceutical company in Nassau County.

Marianna Sotomayor: Yes, I don't believe there is. Even talking to a number of health leadership aides, a number of her colleagues, just since that vote, it's been interesting to try and figure out exactly what the deeper concern is. We have also tried to call her office to get an explanation. A lot of people at least are trying to point out and behind the scenes also reminding her that a lot of people in her district really do want to see lower costs when it comes to prescription drugs.

There's a number of polling broken down by districts that show that. It does seem that she still does represent a very wealthy area and that there are a lot of wealthy people in her district, so it might be that, defending somewhere in that area, but we ourselves are also trying to really nail down exactly where her division is.

Brian Lehrer: Well, Congresswoman Rice is a pretty regular guest on this show. We'll invite her on for next week and see if she wants to explain for herself. Terry in Westchester, you're on WNYC. Hi, Terry.

Terry: Hi, good morning. As I understand it, it's really important to get these big provisions passed through this reconciliation bill because it's not subject to the filibuster. In my mind, the top priority has to do with those provisions dealing with the climate crisis.

Anyway, if I'm correct, which I'd like confirmed, but if I'm correct, I don't think a lot of Americans are aware of this. If this process has to be started over again with a bunch of separate bills and they're subject to the filibuster which means 60 senators have to approve it, they're pretty much dead on arrival. I'd appreciate a comment on that.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you, Terry. She's exactly right, right? She nailed the analysis here. This can get through as a big whole package because it's a budget bill which is not subject to the filibuster, correct?

Marianna Sotomayor: That is exactly right. Because of that reason, that's why there's so much focus on the Senate because you need all 51 Democrats to vote and to pass it. The people who right now have concerns are obviously Senator Joe Manchin and also Senator Kyrsten Sinema. We're still trying to unpack exactly what those demands are besides just the overall price tag before the House even--

They can try and pass this reconciliation bill, but it could be amended if the Senate has concerns on a number of issues. You really have to get everyone, all House Democrats more or less, except for three, and every single Senate Democrat on the same page to pass this bill. That's why it's become so tricky and so complicated, even though it addresses a number of Democratic priorities.

Brian Lehrer: I know you've got to go in a minute. Just give us a quick thought on the Voting Rights Bill agreement with Senator Manchin. What's in? What's out?

Marianna Sotomayor: Sure. Well, Manchin for some time has been talking about the fact that he could indeed find and strike a deal on voting rights. It does amend a little bit of the John Lewis Act, which was introduced or has been introduced actually for several years. That in and of itself tries and put back into place a number of voting or from the Voting Rights Act if you remember, a couple years ago, the Supreme Court actually said that parts of it were unconstitutional.

It would try a make legal all those parts [inaudible 00:30:36] it's a little complicated about what states need to report, and to just have better oversight. That is probably the biggest part of that piece of legislation. Of course, it's worth pointing out so many things being tossed around on the Hill right now. It doesn't seem like it has the 60 votes that would be necessary to pass in the Senate. Of course, Manchin has good relationships with McConnell. We'll continue to monitor and see what happens on that front.

Brian Lehrer: Congressional correspondent for The Washington Post, Marianna Sotomayor. Thank you so much.

Maria: Thank you. Appreciate it.

Brian Lehrer: Just one last thought about Biden coming out yesterday to talk about tax the rich. It takes us back to the first stories about Biden after he was inaugurated in January. We weren't talking about the messy withdrawal from Afghanistan or confusion over booster shot policy or nuclear submarines for Australia, maybe even following that. It was Joe Biden is the new FDR. Remember that? He is trying to get his core agenda back on track.

 

Copyright © 2021 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.