[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. This is a dramatic day for New York city, the United States and the world. The city today is deadline day for almost all New York city employees to get at least one COVID-19 vaccine dose or be placed on unpaid leave. You know about that, right? With more than 20% of police officers, firefighters, EMTs and even more sanitation workers believed to still be unvaccinated, the city is bracing for a shortage on Monday of ambulances, might be closing one fifth of firehouses, and not to mention the garbage that's been piling up already in what Mayor de Blasio concedes appears to be a work slow down by sanitation workers to protest the mandate. We'll talk about that this morning.

Also, former governor Andrew Cuomo now faces a criminal charge, as you've heard, in connection with his behavior toward one of the women who went public this year about it. We'll discuss that and its implications for workplace codes of conduct. President Biden has landed in Europe for a high stakes economic summit followed by a higher stakes climate summit. Today he is meeting with Pope Francis in Rome, Biden probably could use some pastoral comforting after the week he's been having with Congress. Still no deal on his physical and human infrastructure package among the different factions of Democrats. A deal he was hoping all sides would embrace when he announced a revised framework for it yesterday. Key word, "I think."

President Biden: Today, I'm pleased to announce it after months of tough and thoughtful negotiations I think we have an historic-- I know we have a historic economic framework.

Brian Lehrer: "I think we have a historic economic framework." Then he changed it to, "I know." He may have the framework, but he doesn't have the agreement yet. Add to that the state of Florida suing Biden over his vaccine mandate for federal workers and contractors. The election Tuesday and the purple state of Virginia, which could be an indicator of the chances of Congress flipping next year to the GOP.

By the way, remember the GOP? What about the risk to them when Biden's bills finally do pass, which they probably will, and every single Republican has to run next year on having voted against universal preschool, a monthly child tax credit, adding hearing aids to Medicare, climate protections when we're having extreme weather events all over the country and maybe, still maybe, some amount of paid family leave. Is it good for them to have voted against all of those things once it comes to pass? With me now, USA Today Washington Bureau Chief Susan Page. Hi Susan, it's hard to know where to look first, today. Welcome back to WNYC.

Susan Page: Hi Brian, it's great to be back with you.

Brian Lehrer: Let's look first at the Republicans. If we can assume the human infrastructure social benefits bill will eventually pass, is there any hand ringing on the red side of the aisle at all or in purple states or purple congressional districts represented by Republicans about being on the wrong side of history with a light of the white working class and suburban voters about whether they will lose, the women in those families, especially even more than they did, thanks to Trump in 2018 and 2020?

Susan Page: There's not enough hang ringing to make any Republican actually vote for the bill. I think it's pretty clear this is going to be a party line vote. It'd be a surprise if it got Republican support. The question about how it plays in next year's midterms, I think depends on a couple things. Number one, have the benefits of these programs been clear to voters by the time the midterms come around? Some of these provisions will take some time to get into place. The other thing is is that the big issue or do we have a resurgence of COVID or do we have big economic problems that take precedence over the provisions of this bill? Yes, it is, to your question, I think it does pose some risks for Republicans over the long haul. Not enough though to make them vote for it.

Brian Lehrer: The tax aspects, they'll have to run on the idea, which I guess is what they're saying now, you tell me. That this eventual package for childcare et cetera is too expensive for the millionaires and billionaires who they tried to save from a tax hike that won't affect the lifestyles of those people who would've gotten the tax hike plus the corporations. Is that what the Donald Trump, Steve Bannon popular space is really going to go to the polls for?

Susan Page: Brian, I would be surprised if they pitched it quite the way you formulated it, that they protected the multimillionaires. I think it's more likely that they might say, "Look what's happened with inflation. Is inflation still a problem?" It's become more of a problem now than the Biden administration. Initially thought it would be. "How are things going in terms of job growth?" Those are the economic issues that Republicans are likely to run on. You tell me, is the economy going to look really good a year from now? Will there be problems that have concerned a lot of Americans and raised legitimate issues about leadership on a national scale of our economy?

Brian Lehrer: Before we go back to the Democrats, I saw historian Jon Meacham on TV this morning, on MSNBC, referring to the 1980s when President Reagan had his big tax cut bill that most Democrats opposed, but he did pick off enough Democrats in swing districts where members felt pressure from their constituents who thought it was a good idea. Why is today so different from that?

Susan Page: Because compared to today, the 1980s look like a golden age of bipartisanship. We didn't realize it at the time. At that point there were still conservative Democrats and there were still liberal Republicans and those are both species that have left the stage.

Brian Lehrer: The conservative Democrats and the liberal Republicans are now the Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema wing of the Democratic party. Would that be fair to say?

Susan Page: When you think about conservative Democrats, there's maybe just one and that would be Joe Manchin, turns out to be extraordinarily powerful in a 50/50 Senate. If [unintelligible 00:06:57] were to retire there is almost no prospect that another conservative Democrat would be elected to replace him. He almost certainly would be replaced by a Republican and that's one reason that some Democrats are willing to cut him a little slack in a way they really aren't Senator Sinema, whose motivations and behavior here has been subject to a lot more criticism.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners we're going to open up the phones here on this and a few other things. Deal or no deal, your comments or questions for Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief of USA Today, 212433 WNYC. 212433 9692. Any Republicans listening who would like to see the whole human infrastructure package defeated, as all the Republicans in Congress seem likely to vote no, 212-433-9692. Does it really your political heart sing to block the creation of a universal pre-K and childcare subsidy program and hearing aids for Grandma? To avoid tax hikes on the wealthiest among us or the prospect of potential effects on inflation down the road?

Do you want your Republican member of Congress to fight on that hill in next year's midterms as we were just discussing? Republicans, as Susan Page rightly suggests, maybe you frame the issue differently, 212-433 WNYC. 212433 9692. Anyone else may call as well, 212-433-9692. Let's play a few more clips of President Biden yesterday. He's talking here like he already has a final agreement, which he doesn't, but eventually this will probably apply. Listen.

President Biden: No one got everything they wanted, including me, but that's what compromise is. That's consensus and that's what I ran on.

Brian Lehrer: He is emphasizing that nobody got everything they wanted including him, but this is still a moving target apparently. He doesn't know exactly what people got and didn't get. Can we do the latest edition, Susan, of what's in what's out and what's still in dispute? What struck you as new on that in the framework the President released? Then I'll ask you about a few specific ones.

Susan Page: I think that they decided to focus on three priorities and that meant that anything that didn't fit in these three baskets. He had a very tough time making this package. The three things they've decided to focus on. Number one, climate change, $555 billion in climate change initiatives designed to increase the number of electric cars and move utilities away from using coal. That is a huge climate change program and the guts of this Bill. Second big element, I think involves kids. Universal pre-K. Almost half of American kindergartners do not participate in a preschool program. This is a big expansion which would be universal pre-kindergarten. Big childcare proponent, and an expansion of Pell grants for kids who are college students, that's the second focus.

The third is the affordable care act. This is one place where the rubber really met the road in these negotiations because this bill focuses on expanding and fortifying the affordable care act, not on expanding Medicare, which of course has been Bernie Sanders' big hope. It increases subsidies for the exchanges for people who haven't been quite poor enough to get the subsidies, but are still met with this requirement to buy health insurance and have had some, many of them trouble doing so. Also a work around to help poor people in the states and the 12 states, the 12 Republican red states that declined to expand Medicaid coverage. This provides a way to provide Medicaid coverage for those people. Those are the three big things that this bill would do.

Brian Lehrer: That's a lot. We'll talk about how much a lot that really is and how people should view this compromise if it comes down in that way. A couple of specifics. Earlier this week, the reporting was that the Medicare expansion that would include vision dental and hearing services was entirely out. Today I read hearing is back in, do you know if that's right?

Susan Page: Well, that is what I heard yesterday from one of the advocacy groups for hearing. They were delighted that had survived, and that is of course a less expensive-- A crucial thing for people on Medicare who need hearing aids and may not be able to afford them, but it's less expensive than, say, the dental provisions, the expansion of dental care. That was always going to be a tough thing to do once the bill got smaller. My understanding is, and as you said, there could be some tweaks in negotiations before this actually gets over the finish line. My understanding is hearing is in, dental is out.

Brian Lehrer: Now there'll be able to hear that their implants won't be covered when their teeth fall out. Also, earlier this week, it was reported that paid family leave was entirely out but Senator Gillibrand and others don't appear to be taking that sitting down. What's the status of paid family leave?

Susan Page: It's something that Nancy Pelosi talked about yesterday too, that she has not given up on. I think that might be one of the provisions that is still in a little bit of flux. It can be handled the way that makes it not one of the most expensive things to do. I think you might want to take a wait and see attitude on what happens at the end of the day with that.

Brian Lehrer: Here are a few lines from a New York Times analysis of where things are today. It says, "The more conservative, Democratic holdouts, Senators Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema," it says, "They delivered half-hearted statements that pointedly did not promise that they would support the President's new framework." About the more progressive members it says, "They ignored the President and treaties to vote on the physical infrastructure bill by yesterday, signaling their continued mistrust of moderate Democratic senators, whom they fear will not back Mr. Biden's larger social spending bill when it finally comes to a vote." Did you see what the Times called Manchin and Sinema's half-hearted statements?

Susan Page: They praised the deal and they said progress was being made, but they did not say, "And therefore I will vote for it." The issues that we're seeing now are we've moved from the issues of the content of the two bills to distrust between progressive and moderate Democrats toward one another and suspicion between house Democrats toward their Senate colleagues about whether they will do what they are saying they will do, where they'll do what President Biden promised they would do, which is vote for this compromise package. The debate at this moment, it's not about so much about content. It's about sequencing. If I do this first, can I trust you to do that second? One thing to note about that is that this is not a new problem.

I think back to the debate over the affordable care act, which has some similarities to what we see today. That before the house agreed to pass a compromised version of the affordable care act, Nancy Pelosi demanded that Harry Reed get a letter signed by all the democratic senators promising that they would go ahead and pass a second bill that had been promised. Just them promising it was not enough to convince House Democrats. They wanted a piece of paper with senators' names on it. Harry Reed got that, showed it to Pelosi. I think he kept it in his desk drawer, not in hers, but that was necessary to get the affordable care act over the finish line. We're seeing that same dynamic now. Forget Republicans and Democrats. This is all about Democrats and Democrats. It's all about the House versus the Senate.

Brian Lehrer: Mike in Brielle, New Jersey. You're on WNYC with Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today. Hi, Mike, thanks so much for calling in.

Mike: Thank you very much for having me. How are you doing?

Brian Lehrer: All right. What you got?

Mike: Good. My concern is that it's making it look like this increased spending package that is holding up the infrastructure bill is what people like myself who voted for Joe Biden agreed to when we voted for him. We didn't. We elected him, not Bernie Sanders. We want the infrastructure bill, not the extra stuff in the 3.5 trillion, and everyone is making it sound like people who are opposing that great expansion aren't true Democrats, or don't believe in social safety nets. That's just not true. The way this is being pushed isn't true. Joe Biden cut the pipeline and the border wall his very first day in office.

He didn't say he was going to do that. All those jobs were lost. All those people now wash jobs. They couldn't pay their mortgages. They couldn't pay their rent. He turns around and he says that he's going to create magic make-believe jobs from products that are built in China, where his son is on the board of directors. That's disgusting. We're being used again by the insiders in DC who could care less about us. Nancy Pelosi's husband made hundreds of millions of dollars on all these health care stocks you talked about with the affordable care act. She should be in jail.

Brian Lehrer: With all those things that you're bringing up, you say you've voted for Biden nonetheless, last year?

Mike: Yes. This is why so many people are upset with DC. Okay? Democrats aren't Democrats anymore. It's been getting worse and worse and worse. It's going to be interesting to see what happens in this governor's race in New Jersey.

Brian Lehrer: In Virginia really, but I guess you're in New Jersey. There too. Yes.

Mike: Yes, but in Virginia too. We're Democrats. Since we haven't agreed to the progressive what? 98 people's caucus. They're from very liberal districts. They don't represent Democrats. They're not the Democrats. It's getting a lot of us upset.

Brian Lehrer: Mike, I hear everything you're bringing up. Let's narrow it for a second to the social spending bill or build back better. Call it whatever you want to call it. In particular, you heard the way I framed the question before. Do you really not want the things that I mentioned for the price tag that's apparently involved because it's too socialist for you? Or do you think ultimately those things would benefit the families of maybe yourself and people you know?

Mike: I don't think the price tag that you mentioned is reflective of the great things that we talk about. Yes, we want hearing aids for people who need them. Yes, we want paid leave for people who need it. Yes, we want to help people to get back to work, but we absolutely positively know that people are going to make hundreds upon hundreds of millions of dollars on these companies converting all this stuff to green energy and all this stuff. This is social spending package. All right? You look at the lobbyists who are pushing these bills, writing these bills, just like the bad parts about the affordable care act.

Affordable care act, the good parts about it were great, but it cost people like myself. Working people. People that are getting sick of it, like myself, which is a growing, growing percent. It's costing us additional costs, additional inflation, additional taxes so all these lobbyists and their friends in DC can take the extra 20, 25%. Get rid of the crap from the bill and everyone would support it.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you for your call. I really, really appreciate it. Susan Page, A, how representative is Mike in your reporting and in the polls, which does show weakness with independents who voted for Biden? Regarding Biden right now, how representative is he with respect to the particular things he brings up? Alleged corruption, pipeline jobs from the canceled pipeline that Biden did cancel when he got into office. How much do we need to fact-check some of the things that he said there about who's making money off of what?

Susan Page: I think that Mike is articulating a big concern for the White House when it comes to current views of President Biden's tenure by some of the voters who elected him. He has lost support of independents. His approval rating is if you average, the national polls is down in the mid-40s and a couple of them it's dipped into the high-30s. He has the lowest approval rating at this point of his presidency of any president except Donald Trump. Now, part of that is that you're in the messiest part of the process here. The biggest provisions, the guts of his domestic agenda, they haven't been enacted yet. They're on the cusp of being passed, but they haven't been passed yet. We're still in the process where all people see when they look at Washington is the fighting.

I think it's also been, I think the administration and Democrats have failed to persuade people that this build back better bill is going to do good things for them and their families. One reason is because until last night we didn't know exactly what the bill was going to include. Maybe Democrats will now do a better job of just explaining it to people, "Here would be the impact. Here's how it would be a good thing for you." Then once it's passed, you have to see if it works. Do people in fact feel the impact on their own lives? You have to look at two other things. How does the economy do? What happens with COVID?

If job one for Joe Biden was getting control of the pandemic, and we see encouraging news now when we look at the trend lines of the United States, but we are clearly not out of this pandemic yet.

Brian Lehrer: I want to pick up in a minute when we come back from break on some of what you were just talking about. Before we go to the break, just the way the caller was framing it like, "Yes, sure. I'm for pre-K and hearing aids for the elderly and things like that but I don't believe this is really a social spending bill. Look at all the corporate lobbyists who were feeding into this and the special interest profits that are going to be made." He even name-checked Nancy Pelosi and her family. A, is this a big talking point among Republicans? He says he's an independent Democrat. B, is any of the true?

Susan Page: Well, certainly there's no shortage of lobbying on all kinds of provisions of this bill. I don't know about New York television stations, but Washington TV stations are now filled with ads for two things. One is in the governor's race in Virginia and the other is special interests lobbying for or against provisions that they thought were going to be in this big bill. Absolutely it's part of the process. There will be some winners and losers, billionaires apparently a winner, multimillionaires apparently a loser when you look at the tax provisions. It's the task of those who support the bill to explain it and defend it to people and that is a task not yet done.

Brian Lehrer: We'll continuous Susan Page and more of your calls and more clips of the president right after this.

[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC with Susan Page, Washington Bureau Chief for USA Today. Let's go right to another caller. Dennis in Montclair you're on WNYC. Hi Dennis.

Dennis: Hello. How are you?

Brian Lehrer: Good. What you got for us? Hi Dennis, can you hear us?

Dennis: Yes, I can hear you. I'm a registered Republican. I have been for a long time, but maybe I'm a New Jersey version of a registered Republican. I find it problematic that, to me, the Republican legislators in Congress, the House and the Senate, seem to have lost track of modern economy. They're sticking their heels in and refusing to negotiate or grant a single vote for a bill that, economically, I think is the thing that Republicans should support. A huge part of our economy today is human capital, human infrastructure-driven, and to refuse to do what benefits making that part of the economy productive seems to me to make no sense.

Climate change is a threat, especially to the coastlines east and west. Just imagine you wipe out 10 miles of the Eastern seaboard coastline, wipe out New York City. This bill is cheap if it helps protect against that. Economically it's a joke to think that you're being a conservative business and capital-oriented conservative Republican, and be unwilling to put an oar in the water, and promote this to protect our economy. Just forget aspects, forget your conservative social points of view, whatever they are. Just looked at as a hard-nosed business proposition. It's insane not to do this. I find it disgusting. I may switch parties.

Brian Lehrer: Dennis, thank you very much for your call. Susan, I think it goes under reported that in the new slimed down $1.7 trillion ish version of the bill, from what I've read 500 billion of it, almost a third of it, is for climate change prevention and adaptation.

Susan Page: That's right, $555 billion in climate change, incentives and programs. That's more than we've ever spent on climate change before. It is a huge investment. It is the biggest single element in this bill. Dennis makes a good point. I think there are probably Republicans like him and independents like Mike who just wonder where their party is at the moment. Mike is concerned Democrats have gone too far left and Dennis at the Republicans have gone too far right, so which party suits them? Maybe neither one at the moment. At this time in Washington, it's very tribal. It is very hard to, now the Democrats control the House and Senate, very hard to get any Republicans to support anything that Democrats are pushing.

It is true that the infrastructure bill, which is expected to pass as they could ever get it to the floor of the House, will have some Republican support, but we don't expect to see that with the reconciliation bill.

Brian Lehrer: I wonder if you could do one fact-check on something that Biden said in the speech yesterday? Based on the caller we just had describing as a moderate Republican, how he thinks most Republicans today have lost touch with the real economics of climate change, et cetera. Mostly what they'll talk about is the potential impact of this social spending bill on the deficit. This comment by Biden yesterday is about whether it will add to the deficit at all. Listen.

President Biden: Over the next 10 years, it will not add to the deficit at all. It will actually reduce the deficit according to The Economist.

Brian Lehrer: Susan, is that claim based on solid, independent projections?

Susan Page: Well, it's based on the democratic calculation of the impact of this bill. It includes some increased money for enforcement by the IRS. My understanding is that that when the joint tax committee does their calculation on what the bill will cost, they will not accept that as a revenue measure, although Democrats do. Yes, Democrats can show you a spreadsheet that explains how they say this will not increase the deficit, that the burden of this will go on corporations, which will face a 15% minimum corporate tax and on a surtax on multi-millionaires and on this increased enforcement by the IRS.

Brian Lehrer: Wendy in Springfield, New Jersey you're on WNYC. Hi Wendy.

Wendy: Hi. I agree with what's in the bill now. I wish they had not taken up the child tax credit. People need that kind of help. Also they're not selling this right. They keep saying how much the bill cost-

Brian Lehrer: Wendy, hang on one second. Wendy, I'm going to let you finish everything you want to say, but wait. Susan, did they take out the child tax credit?

Susan Page: The child tax credit is still there, but they only fund in for one year. That means that you depend on it being so popular in a year that whoever's in charge in Congress will feel compelled to extend it. Extends it, but just for a year.

Brian Lehrer: This is the monthly checks to most American families with minor children that have been said to reduce child poverty by 50% in the US. It gets a one-year extension, but not made permanent. Wendy, sorry, I just needed to clarify the listeners. Go ahead.

Wendy: Thank you for that. I'm glad and that's right. Just like they tried to get rid of social security by privatizing it, they're right that people will not give it up. We don't have any minor children, but I know when we did this this would've been very helpful. They are not saying also that this is over 10 years, over 10 years. If you keep saying that the amount and don't say the number of years, people think it's one year. Also, the military gets what? The last I heard, it was $738 billion. Now maybe it's more because they've given them some money they didn't ask for.

Do we ever say we don't have enough money for the military? How are we going to fund this? No. I understand there are jobs there. They put the pieces of the plane in all the states, but those are jobs that have to do with killing people. We could have jobs that had to do with cleaning up the mess we've made. There are a lot of things to be helped. The last point is that you had an interview with Heather McGhee. I've read her book, I'm reading it again with a group. The Sum of Us: What Racism Costs Everyone and How We Can Prosper Together.

During the 30 years, we had new deals in the 1970s. We had had programs that set up the white middle class. I don't have to go through all this, all the things that created the suburbs. The lowering of the interest rate, and the help, and all that. Meanwhile, they were redlining Black and brown people. All those things, the GI bill, all those things. As soon as Black and brown people were allowed to access these programs, all of a sudden they'd stop. All of a sudden, it wasn't a good idea. Who's suffering? Most white people. There are more white people in the country. Anything that hurts Black people disproportionately still hurts more white people disproportionately.

If you think about the reason that people don't want some of these things, the underlying reason is they are afraid of losing their status. Not just their economic status, but their, "I am white, therefore, I'm better." You have to look underneath, look at what's actually going on. None of this is going to hurt anybody. It's going to help everyone. As King said, "We came on different ships, but we're all in the same boat now." That's all I have to say.

Brian Lehrer: Wendy, thank you so much. Please keep calling us. Susan, how much of the Republican resistance to the social spending bill is consistent with what Wendy brings up, which are real facts from history? When other social programs that targeted poor people were opposed in Congress, it's largely by the white Republican Party, the overwhelmingly white Republican Party, and in no small measure, because they think, "This is going to take my money and give it to undeserving Black people." How much is that going on this time?

Susan: First of all, if the Democrats want to sell this package, they should put Wendy on the air because she's making the case for what it's supposed to do and why it's important. I think she makes a fair point that when we talk about the price tag which we think is going to be about $1.85 trillion, we should say that's over 10 years. I think that's a fair point. We shouldn't shorthand it and just assume people know that. I think the impact and influence of racism is something that is a big part of our history but I feel presumptuous in assuming that that's what's behind some of the opposition to this bill.

You could legitimately feel that this is an expansion of the federal role in American life that you don't support philosophically. There's a philosophical debate in this country that is legitimate and not racial. I don't want to assume that every opponent of this bill is motivated by feeling like it's going to help Black and brown people too much.

Brian Lehrer: There's so much else I wanted to get to. We're going to run out of time. Let me at least get to this one more clip of Biden because all the drama over these negotiations, that is how these things get done. Here's Biden trying to remind people to focus not on the normal divisions along the way, but the likely result in the larger context of American history.

President Biden: I know it's hard. I know how deeply people feel about the things that they fight for, but this framework includes historic investments in our nation and in our people. Any single element of this framework would fundamentally be viewed as a fundamental change in America. Taken together, they're truly consequential.

Brian Lehrer: Susan, how are you approaching this as a journalist, as a Washington bureau chief? The drama and divisions are real, but any version of the bill as it's now being discussed is still epic. Can we report both things at once? Can we hold those two thoughts in our brain and communicate them to the public?

Susan: We could do our best. I think it's true. This is a big consequential package. Assuming it gets through, and we think that is likely but of course nothing's guaranteed until it's done, it's going to create a big legacy for President Biden. That's over the long-term. You look at the short-term, it looks pretty messy. His leadership has sometimes not been as sure-footed as some people assumed. One person is especially dismayed by the short-term and that would be Terry McAuliffe who is running for governor of Virginia in a race Democrats thought they were going to win. At this moment it looks like he may win, but may well lose in a loss that will be seen, fairly or not, as a sign of the concern of voters like Mike, who we heard from, who voted for Biden, voted for Democrats, but are unhappy where things stand now.

Brian Lehrer: I will say that I'm skeptical about any election that takes place before these bills are passed as indicators of what the politics of 2022 are going to be in congressional elections after these bills have passed, assuming they do. I tend to think the implications of Virginia are being over-reported, but you're much closer to this than I am. How do you see the importance of Virginia's elections in this bubbled moment where this bill is on the verge, but it's not yet enacted?

Susan: The thing is if you look at history, Virginia can certainly signal what's going to happen in a year. A lot of Democrats and a lot of Republicans point back to 2009, the off-year Virginia election after President Obama took office. Republicans won that election. That was followed the next year by Democrats losing 63 seats in the House and control of the House of Representatives. You've got a much tighter situation in both the House and the Senate looking at next year. You don't need to lose 63 seats to lose control of the House if you're a Democrat. You need to lose five.

History says that next year's midterms are going to be tough for Democrats and that's one reason I think there's so much attention on what's going to happen in the next couple of weeks because, after that, everything just gets harder.

Brian: Susan Page, Washington bureau chief for USA Today. You know what? I should have mentioned your book that you were on for recently. I'm going to let you give the title, your wonderful biography of Nancy Pelosi.

Susan: It's called Madam Speaker: Nancy Pelosi and the Lessons of Power and you see her applying those lessons day and night this week.

Brian Lehrer: Susan, thanks as always.

Susan: Thank you, Brian.

 

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.