[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Good morning, everyone. When we last left the high stakes soap opera of the Democrats in Congress after yesterday's show, House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, was aiming for a grand bargain between centrists and progressives by last night to approve both the bipartisan infrastructure bill for roads and rails and broadband, and the human infrastructure bill to create new childcare and eldercare and family leave rights, plus climate change prevention measures. The agreement didn't come. Here's centrist Senator Joe Manchin of West Virginia.

Joe Manchin: We need a little bit more time. We're getting that time in order to do it. We're going to come to an agreement. I'm trying to make sure they understand I'm at 1.5 trillion, I think 1.5 trillion does exactly the necessary things we need to do, is to take care of our children and take care of our people at the end of life, our seniors. We're working hard on that.

Brian Lehrer: Now, you notice he said $1.5 trillion in that clip, way less than the 3.5 trillion for human infrastructure that the President's plan includes. Manchin seemed to say he might be willing to vote for more of the president's plan later, but not right now.

Joe Manchin: I'm willing to sit down and work through that 1.5 to get our [unintelligible 00:01:23] priorities. They can come back and do it later, and they can run on the rest of it later. I think there's many ways to get to where they want to, just not everything at one time.

Brian Lehrer: That position later meant no deal with House Democrats like Pramila Jayapal of Washington State. She's Chair of the Progressive Caucus, who reminds us Manchin is in a very small minority of their party.

Pramila Jayapal: Look, we are in the same place we've always been. We put out an offer for 3.5 trillion. It has all of our legislative language. In fact, 96% of Democrats in the House and the Senate support that number.

Brian Lehrer: Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal. They're back at it today. With me now, Washington Post correspondent Seung Min Kim, who covers the relationship between the Biden administration and Capitol Hill, very relevant for right now. Seung Min, thanks for coming on. In the middle of all this, welcome back to WNYC.

Seung Min Kim: Thanks so much for having me. Great to be here.

Brian Lehrer: Is there anything new to report yet today, since those clips from the stalemate going into last night?

Seung Min Kim: The only really new thing that we have to report is that they are back at work this morning. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi arrived on Capitol Hill. We do expect a little bit more flurry of action among the actual members this morning. The House Democrats, more than 200 of them with their vast ideological differences, will all meet in a caucus meeting in a little bit, at about 10:30, where they will go over-- start hashing out their differences. I would presume that Speaker Pelosi would give some sort of an update on both, where her negotiations were with Senators and White House officials last night.

In terms of a way forward at this point, obviously, they are continuing to still work, but it is unclear whether we will get that one major pillar of President Biden's domestic agenda, that bipartisan infrastructure package passed in the House. It's really a messy sausage-making that we are literally seeing unfold our eyes right now.

Brian Lehrer: That Joe Manchin clip made it sound like he'd be open to the whole human infrastructure package, the 3.5 trillion in phases, just not all at once. Did he get any more specific about over what period of time, or what he believes should come now and what should be delayed?

Seung Min Kim: He hasn't been specific on the sequencing, but he really did lay out his vision, his policy demands, how much exactly he wants to spend, yesterday, with reporters for the first time. We had known bits and pieces about what he would prefer, but we didn't know too much about his redline. We didn't really know too much about what he had directly told, for instance, that a majority leader Chuck Schumer and President Biden about his vision for this massive domestic agenda package.

Now we have a better sense. What Democratic leaders are trying to do is create some sort of a deal, some sort of a framework agreement with basically all corners of the Democratic Party, which would include Senator Manchin, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, another pivotal centrist who hails from Arizona, the leadership and obviously the progressive caucus, which makes up a significant portion of the House and Senate majorities and Congress right now. I presume that White House officials will be back on Capitol Hill today to continue the work. We'll see what can happen by the end of the day or maybe even through the weekend.

Brian Lehrer: Democratic listeners, deal or no deal? What would it take for you to get to yes on a compromise with Senator Manchin and Senator Sinema, and the progressives? 646-435-72-80. Infuriating as it may be for you, there is no human infrastructure bill without Manchin and Sinema and much less leverage on them if you pass the physical infrastructure alone today. Democrats, as you tear your hair out on one side or another of this, what should your party in DC do? 646-435-72-80.

There's no human infrastructure bill without the centrists, there's no physical infrastructure bill without the progressives. If you can see that you have to compromise on the full human infrastructure size for now, something near Manchin's 1.5 trillion over 10 years, or with smaller tax hikes on the wealthy or corporations, what's the most important part to you to keep to get into phase one of the bill today? If that's how it winds up going. 646-435-72-80. Democrats tearing your hair out, 646-435-72-80, or Tweet @BrianLehrer with Seung Min Kim who covers the relationship between the Biden administration and Congress for The Washington Post.

Seung Min, another aspect that we've come back to a lot on this show is that most of the $3.5 trillion over 10 years would be paid for in the President's plan by raising taxes on corporations and people making more than $400,000 a year. It's not like they'd be depleting the treasury, if these provisions to pay for the benefits and Climate Protection also pass. Since Manchin gets specific on the amount of spending he's willing to support, is he also holding out for specific limits on the tax hikes?

Seung Min Kim: There is a little bit of a difference between Senator Manchin and most of the rest of the Democratic Party on where the party should go on taxes. For example, President Biden, the White House, and many senior Democrats have coalesced around, for example, 28% corporate tax rate. Right now, that rate is 21%, that was set by the Trump tax law in 2017. Before it was lowered to 21%, it was 35%. 28% seems-- which is what the Democrats want, seems to hit at that sweet spot. House Democrats have proposed 26.5%, Senator Manchin wants 25%. It's a little bit different, but these are all kind of workable differences.

One problem that was revealed yesterday with Joe Manchin's demand was that he wants any revenue that is raised, that is over $1.5 trillion to go into actually deficit reduction, not towards spending for new programs or other initiatives as part of this package. He's one of the few, rare deficit hawks is the Democratic Party. Frankly, in Congress, we've seen how deficits seem to have mattered little to Democrats, and especially to Republicans after the Trump tax cuts in 2017. That's one of the conditions that he laid out yesterday.

You're right, the 3.5 trillion over 10 years, first of all, it is over 10 years. Thank you for emphasizing that. It should largely be paid for. One of the House Democratic plan, which to be clear is not the Senate Democratic plan, but the House proposal has about $2.9 trillion in revenue raisers, which is a pretty significant amount, obviously not the entire 3.5 trillion, but a significant part of that.

Brian Lehrer: You know what I don't understand? West Virginia is a very poor state. I presume the people Manchin represents would benefit much more from the childcare and eldercare in this bill than they would have their taxes raised, or in any other way, harmed. How many West Virginians even make $400,000 a year? Why does Manchin think the politics of the President's version are a political threat to him?

Seung Min Kim: That's a really interesting question and frankly, an argument that other Democrats have been pressing to him. That these programs will disproportionately benefit his constituents in West Virginia, but there are positions. Oftentimes with his perspective, Senator Manchin does echo the perspectives of some of these more business-friendly Democrats, or even Republicans when he conveys his position. He has talked over and over about why he supports a 25% corporate tax rate, he doesn't want the US to be less globally competitive.

Obviously on the issue of climate, he differs a lot with the rest of his party because of the reliance of coal in West Virginia. You're right, these are programs that could very much benefit his constituents. He has talked at the same time about making sure-- he could have talked actually heavily about means testing a lot of these benefit programs so that these new benefits, these new government spending initiatives go towards and are targeted towards the people who really need them.

Some would argue that would make distributing the government aid, the government assistance, much more complicated and not save that much money in the long run. He can be a puzzle to figure out at times, and his fellow Democratic Senator, Kyrsten Sinema, even more of an enigma because she actually doesn't lay out her positions in public. It has been a challenge for the public and the rest of the Democratic Party to figure out where these two senators are at on these really important issues.

Brian Lehrer: When Manchin digs in on this work requirement to get some of these childcare benefits, is that racial code for his mostly white voters?

Seung Min Kim: I think he would say, again, that it is to make sure that these programs really are given to and distributed to the people who need it most. What I have found interesting about the means testing issue, especially when you pose that question to White House officials, is that they are trying to make it clear whether it is to Joe Manchin himself or to the rest of the Democratic Party that they are open to imposing some of those conditions. White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki has been asked about this issue several times, including as recently as this week.

She pointed out that, for example, the child tax credit that has been very popular and has been a big accomplishment of the Biden administration so far, is means tested in some way, because obviously it doesn't go to everybody in the country. Bernie Sanders argues that he believes that benefits should be universal, but you do see some others in the party trying to work with Senator Manchin on this means testing issue.

Brian Lehrer: One other thing based on your answer a minute ago, how much can we trace Manchin’s opposition to fossil fuel industry campaign donors in that coal mine heavy state that he represents or other corporate donors, as opposed to constituent voters' interests?

Seung Min Kim: If you ask him that, and he actually has been asked about not necessarily donations, but any potential financial interest in the energy industry by reporters this week on Capitol Hill, his people would tell you that obviously, as any politician would, that his financial interests and the policy positions that he takes are separate. Obviously, it is for transparency purposes, it is something worth pointing out. Senator Manchin has long made a case for protecting the coal state interests of his home state. It is certainly something that has been scrutinized, particularly this week, as his positions become more clear.

Brian Lehrer: Let's take a call, I think on this very point. Jay in Brooklyn, you're on WNYC with Seung Min Kim from the Washington post in DC. Hi, Jay?

Jay: Hi, Brian, a longtime listener, and honored to be on your show. My question is, or my comment is, Joe Manchin has a conflict of interest here. The Guardian reported he owns millions of dollars in coal companies stock. Why should a coal buyer get to decide the future of our country, the future of our world, with the climate crisis really hitting us here? The basement in my building was flooded terribly, not as bad as in Queens, but it's just so unfair and so hypocritical. I feel like the media coverage really gives him a pass on this because his conflicts of interest are not really shown.

Brian Lehrer: Jay, thank you very much. Well, how much of that can you confirm, Seung Min, about his personal conflict of interest financial stake here? I had asked you about his political interest in having donors from the coal industry in his state either contribute to him or not. The caller raises that he has a personal financial stake in keeping the fossil fuel status quo. Are you familiar with the truth about that?

Seung Min Kim: Again, this was actually something that Senator Manchin was asked about, any personal financial holdings in a lot of these companies. He told reporters on Capitol Hill this week that he has not actually handled his own finances in his time in public office. All of his assets are in a blind trust, it's managed by outside advisors. It's a tactic that certainly a lot of members of Congress do, because a lot of these members do come in very wealthy with massive or significant financial holdings in various sectors. A lot of these financial activity is under the guardianship of outside advisors. It is certainly something to highlight.

Obviously, members of Congress are required to disclose their financial interests. They will never say that there is a direct correlation between their financial interests and how they vote, or what policies they push. It's something that's essentially impossible to prove, but all we can do is show that, "Hey, this member has a financial stake in X or Y industry, these are the policies that he or she is pushing." What we can do is to be transparent with the public about the interests of the member of Congress.

Brian Lehrer: The only rules, as it applies to this case and many others, are about transparency, disclosing what stocks and other investments you hold in particular companies or industries. It sounds like there's no conflict of interest prohibition, like if you're on the energy committee, you can't be an investor in energy stocks or something like that. Is that correct?

Seung Min Kim: In terms of conflict of interest, if there are certainly very obvious ones, like a spouse who is involved in something, oftentimes members of Congress will take proactive steps to recuse him or herself. On the whole, it's generally a transparency disclosure initiative that binds members of Congress.

Brian Lehrer: Do you think this notion that his investments are in a blind trust managed by somebody else is legitimate, or is this wink, wink, nod, nod, I know I've got a lot of fossil fuel stocks but technically I don't know?

Seung Min Kim: I'm not going to weigh in on the legitimacy. That's not necessarily my job. All we can do as a reporter is to point out his financial interests and his financial holdings and how he or she votes and what policies he or she pushes.

Brian Lehrer: Right. For Manchin and any other member of Congress, if they just say, "My financial holdings are in a blind trust, so I don't really know what my financial holdings are," then there's nowhere else you can go as a reporter with that?

Seung Min Kim: There are other ways to find out what their interests are and obviously there are various disclosure laws in terms of, for example, stock trades that they make or again like we've talked about, personal financial assets, but what our responsibility is, is to make those public. If there are sketchy patterns, then we ask the member or his or her office about it.

Brian Lehrer: Roxanne in Westchester, you're on WNYC. Deal or no deal, Roxanne?

Roxanne: Hi. Deal. My feeling is that Joe Manchin is functionally a Republican, and we need to interpret him as that. Trying to save what hair I have left, I think we need to be pragmatic now though. I fear and I've seen this happen over the years, they will stall and will get nothing through. For 2022, I think it's important that the Democrats get something passed, try and build up a little margin and hopefully you can go on and fight another day.

Brian Lehrer: Thank you very much. The caller is arguing to make the deal today on the physical infrastructure bill, the bipartisan bill and then go on to make another deal another day. Do they really lose their leverage over Manchin and Sinema if they pass the physical infrastructure alone today? Manchin is already negotiating with a number now, as we played in those clips, 1.5 trillion as a starting point. Is it really going to come out any different if they negotiate to an endpoint right now, or if they pass the physical infrastructure bill, get that through, chalk up a win and then come back and do part two?

Seung Min Kim: It's a lot of four-dimensional chess right now in terms of what you lose leverage if you do what, but there is a sense that if basically the bipartisan infrastructure legislation, which both senators mentioned, and Sinema had played a critical role in, particularly Senator Sinema, she was considered the lead democratic Senator negotiating that package with Republicans in the White House, that if that package is tanked, if it's allowed to fail on the floor, or if it's fate just becomes considerably a darker in the house, that it could potentially infuriate Manchin and Sinema in terms of their willingness to work on a reconciliation package.

What you've seen as democratic senators who are obviously closer to the two senators and perhaps members of the house, and also the White House, what you've seen those people try to do this week is to assure particularly Democrats in the house who don't know these two senators, who are skeptical about their motives, whether they really want to get on board with the package altogether to assure the house Democrats, that yes, these negotiations with the two Senators are real, are genuine. They do want to get to a yes, they do want to get to some sort of a reconciliation package before the end of the year.

Those are the assurances that are being worked on and conveyed from people very close in the negotiations to other members of Congress who are really worried that the broader party is about to blow the only opportunity to pass major transformational legislation in this term of Congress.

Brian Lehrer: We'll continue in a minute with the deal or no deal Dems. We have other callers who are tearing their hair out on one side or another of the party and Seung Min Kim from The Washington Post. Stay with us.

[advertisements]

Brian Lehrer: Next week on The Brian Lehrer Show, both candidates for mayor of New York City will join us. Curtis Sliwa, the Republican candidate, will be here Monday and Eric Adams, the democratic candidate, will be here Tuesday. Both major party candidates with their candidate interviews on this show next week. Plus on Monday, we'll preview the start of the next Supreme court term, which does start on Monday. Coming up on The Brian Lehrer Show--

[advertisement]

[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC, as we talk about the deal or no deal Dems back at it this morning, hoping to finish up on the physical and human infrastructure bills but no deal yet, and it is complicated. We're going to get to the precise specialty of my guest here. Seung Min Kim is The Washington Post correspondent for the Biden administration's relationship with Capitol Hill.

One of the big strengths of president Biden is supposed to be that with his long experience in Congress, he knows how to get to yes on complicated negotiations like these. Do you see those skills and that experience helping move this forward or more the President being frustrated that even he seems to be sidelined by the way this is polarized?

Seung Min Kim: We're kind of in the thick of these negotiations right now. Maybe they'll be proven to be effective at the end of the day, but right now, his legislative acumen and his negotiating skills are really being put to the test here. What's been fascinating to observe and talk to lawmakers about over the last several days, a couple of weeks as these negotiations heated up, is how much his approach, as Jen Psaki said this week, he is not an arm twisting type.

He didn't want any president to tell him what to do when he was a Senator. As president, he's not going to tell anyone to do as a member of Congress, but you do see how that approach is starting to wrangle members, particularly of The House of Representatives, where it's a place where presidential arm twisting can be more effective. Their political fates go up and down with the fate of the political or the political fate of the president himself. They are looking for more direction.

It was remarkable how many house Democrats from all ends of the-- the entire spectrum of the democratic caucus, how many people were saying, "We want to hear more from President Biden, he needs to be more personally involved in these negotiations. We want to hear from him, get a clear direction of what he wants, what his agenda is, what side he is taking in these divisions that are going through the democratic caucus."

If you talk to democratic senators, they really like the approach that he's been taking hearing out these senators, such as Machin and Sinema trying to find that common ground, not being so pushy, and pushing with a strong hand here because they say that's the approach that works the best with senators who know their states better than anyone and know their own political realities better than the President of the United States can.

There was a lot of speculation yesterday about whether President Biden might actually come to Capitol Hill to try to speak with House Democrats, to perhaps implore them to support his broader agenda. He did not do that. Obviously, open question whether he does that today, but I think it's definitely safe to say that in the House, where things are just so up in the air right now, and things are so shaky where there's a lot of mistrust among members of the democratic caucus, they really are seeking some clear direction from the president right now.

Brian Lehrer: Larry in Cortlandt Manor is calling in with something he hopes is preserved if there is a compromise on the human infrastructure bill. Larry, you're on WNYC. Hello?

Larry: Hello. Can you hear me, Brian?

Brian Lehrer: I can hear you just fine.

Larry: That's an honor. First of all, it's definitely going to be a deal. The Dems are going to get this right, hopefully. I feel that they have to get it right, and they have to work with Manchin, whether you like it or not and I agree with the other caller that I called in, he's a Republican in some way, shape, or form with all his dealings, but that's neither here nor there right now. They have to show the nation that the government can work and that they can help the middle class person. We need the pre-K, we need the climate control, and we need the expansion of Medicaid and Medicare, and they're going to get it done if they want any type of recognition in '22 and '24.

Just as a side note, I wouldn't doubt, maybe, Manchin making a little play for possible run in '24, the way he's grandstanding here.

Brian Lehrer: Maybe as a third party candidate. Who knows? The things that you listed, Larry, are all the things in the bill. If they have to compromise with Manchin for now as you're advocating, what should be [crosstalk] and what should wait?

Larry: Well, if I had to say wait, it would probably be the expansion of Medicaid and Medicare, the pre-K and the climate change, that has to move forward now. I mean, California's burning up as well as a lot of other places around the globe, but the pre-K would help a lot. I was in education for 32 years, New York city and in Westchester county, public ed. I see parents, if they could get their kids into pre-K, get the early start, they can go out and work more. This whole package is for the working class people and someone has to look out for them. We need to build that safety net. That's how I feel.

Brian Lehrer: Larry, thank you so much for your call. Seung Min, when he brings up pre-K, it brings me back to what we were discussing before about why there's so much talk in the media, not just by reporters, but by members of Congress when they're on TV and on the radio that I hear and on social media, talking about the size of the bills, rather than talking about the content of the bills proportionally to what I think they should.

Look at Mayor de Blasio in New York, I don't know how much of his tenure as mayor you're aware of as a reporter in DC covering Congress and the president, but it's like at this point in de Blasio's administration, so many people dislike him on the left and dislike him on the right, but everybody loves his signature achievement, which is universal pre-K. People love it. Nobody's against it. Why couldn't the Dems, or unless you think they're doing it and I'm missing it, be really putting it out there like, "America, we think you really want this, and that's in the human infrastructure bill," is that happening?

Seung Min Kim: They're certainly trying. The White House is trying, the Democrats are trying to really message and focus on what is actually in the bill. What does make it hard is that there are just so many things in this bill. Any one of these policy sections alone in this broader package could be months of coverage, months of debate, months of newspaper articles and could consume our full attention in Washington if you talk about expanding Medicare to all these benefits. Immigration alone is a huge issue. Major changes to the tax code and Democrats are trying to stuff it all into this one package.

I had one democratic Senator say it's really hard. When you're talking about massive transformational changes to virtually 10, 12, 14 policy areas, that's really hard and complicated on many levels, but on a basic level to talk about to their constituents. You actually saw the White House trying to combat that issue earlier this week. Jen Psaki went out there talking about what is actually in the plan, the merits, just trying to get the focus away from top line this and vote this and procedure that.

Just by the sheer size of the package, it has been really hard for lawmakers, it has been hard for the media to just convey in an expeditious way, what this really means to voters. I can speak for reporters, we certainly are trying but it's just a massive, massive transformational package that Democrats are trying to do right now.

Brian Lehrer: Last question of local interest in the New York-New Jersey area. You may or may not be on top of this detail. It's fine if you're not. Are you watching New York City and Long Island Congressman Tom Suozzi among the centrist at all? He has said he would vote no if the bills don't restore the unlimited federal tax deduction for State and local taxes. That's a big issue in his relatively well off district where the state and local tax bills add up to a lot and people can only deduct the first $10,000 now under a Donald Trump reform.

It's a tax hike on mostly better off people, but that was also a political hit job on blue States like New York and California, where higher income Democrats tend to live. Are they coming to yes on repealing the salt cap, as it's known?

Seung Min Kim: There haven't been active negotiations on that that we've seen. It's really interesting because people like Congressman Suozzi, like Josh Gottheimer, who represents a Northern New Jersey district, they do have at least the tentative support from people like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and obviously leader Chuck Schumer, who both do represent these relatively high tax blue states that were hit by the salt changes in the 2017 tax bill.

The problem that Democrats face in trying to make this happen for people like Tom Suozzi, who has said repeatedly for the last several months, no salt, no deal, is that raising that $10,000 cap or eliminating it altogether is very expensive and makes the price tag of this package even higher. Either they will have to find other ways to save or say these tax provisions are so important that it's worth the deficit impact for us to be able to change these provisions.

It's not just the House members, obviously, Senator Menendez of New Jersey spoke up this week saying he needs these provisions changed as well obviously a narrow majority in the House, but no room for error in the Senate. Voices, the perspectives like Senator Menendez's on salt really do matter here.

Brian Lehrer: Seung Min Kim covers relationship between the Biden administration and Capitol hill. Seung Min, thanks for giving us so much time this early in the day. I hope you don't have to pull an all-nighter tonight as they negotiate, but I think maybe history suggests that the very powerful political force known as The Weekend might get them to yes before dinner time. I hope so.

Seung Min Kim: That could be a very safe bet.

Brian Lehrer: Thanks a lot.

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.