[music]

Brian Lehrer: It's the Brian Lehrer show on WNYC, Good Monday morning, everyone. Here's one of the unusual things about the House passing President Biden's infrastructure bill laid on a Friday night. That's exactly when politicians usually do things. They don't want people to see, things they want to get lost, while not as many people are following the news on the weekend, but this is the biggest thing that Democrats have wanted people to see since Biden took office.

In case you took the weekend off from the news to run a marathon or something, the House passed the infrastructure bill, the House passed the infrastructure bill. Now, what will this mean for our area? A lot, by all accounts, Sophia Chang on Gothamist listed a bunch of things for around here, including upgrading the subway signals to improve trip times. Also elevator upgrades to the subway system and the extension of the Second Avenue subway line.

Also on the rail side, the long-stalled gateway tunnel project between New York and New Jersey, so more trains can go in and out of Penn Station for a faster and greener commute. Then there's the revitalization of the Port Authority Bus Terminal, bridge and road upgrades for Long Island and Westchester, upgrades to JFK and LaGuardia airports, plus water system and broadband improvements around the region two, that's a lot.

Here's another thing about the infrastructure bill, it was sort of bipartisan, which means it scrambled both parties brains a little bit, and nowhere more than right here in our area around 200 Republicans voted no on this bill, just 13 Republicans voted yes and they were concentrated in our area. Chris Smith and Jeff Andrew of New Jersey, Nicole Malliotakis of Staten Island and Brooklyn, Andrew Garbarino of Long Island, plus from upstate New York, Don Bacon, John Katko, and Tom Reed.

That's a majority of the Republican yes votes from our two states in New York and New Jersey. Guess what, they are getting vilified as traitors to their party, as helping the Democrats hold on to the Congress by some Republicans from elsewhere who are doing this vilification and we'll get to that. On the Democratic side out of 224 Democrats in the House, just six voted no, and two of them are from around here, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez of Queens in the Bronx, and Jamaal Bowman of Westchester and the Bronx.

Member AOC said in September, "Nothing would give me more pleasure than to tank a billionaire, dark money, fossil fuel, Exxon lobbyists drafted, energy infrastructure bill if they come after our childcare and climate priorities." So far, there is no deal on the childcare and climate bill so the drama over Biden's two big bills continues even as the physical infrastructure one has now been approved in the House of Representatives, and it will be approved in the Senate.

Let's start there with our lead guest, Jonathan Lemire, who has been with us many times as an AP White House correspondent. He just changed jobs and is now White House bureau chief for POLITICO and also just started hosting the 5:00 AM hour on MSNBC, the show called Way Too Early, which definitely is at 5:00 AM. He hangs around to appear on Morning Joe over there as well. Jonathan, first things first, congratulations on both your new jobs. Did you host way too early at five o'clock this morning?

Jonathan Lemire: Brian, thank you so much. I most certainly did, followed by three hours of Morning Joe so it's about bedtime so I'm sneaking you in before I call it a day.

Brian Lehrer: You are a genuine trooper and you get the Brian Lehrer Show loyalty medal for still being willing to come on here after that kind of shift. Great to have you as always. let's parse the local part of this and then we'll get to the big infrastructure picture. If we're calling this Joe Biden's bill, why did Nicole Malliotakis and Andrew Garbarino vote yes, those two area Republicans, AOC and Jamaal Bowman vote no.

Jonathan Lemire: First of all, let me just say I'm always thrilled to be here and hope that continues in the months ahead. I think politics has become extraordinarily national. We saw this again last week with the Virginia governor's race, but there are some exceptions here and there are on the local level, one thing that still matters, infrastructure, bridges, highways, tunnels, that still matters on the local level. I think we saw that here, so from the Republican's perspective, you did see a few of sort of Northeast Republicans.

Remember, there used to be a time where northeast Republicans would vote with Democrats all the time. That's not the case anymore but this was an exception because they [unintelligible 00:05:12] us and others represent regions that desperately need infrastructure improvements. Certainly, here in the New York area, that idea of another tunnel under the Hudson River connecting New York, New Jersey, the Gateway project has been talked about forever and that looks like it's probably going to get off the ground because of this funding.

There are certainly improvements needed for the subway system, the list goes on and on and on. I think these are moments where they were willing to defy the orders from party leaders to do this. You certainly in your intro were correct, they've been vilified, and allayed from President Trump, but also from Leader McCarthy, and other top Republicans. Then you have conversely, some Democrats who voted against this bill, now to be fair, they did so knowing that it was likely going to pass so they weren't thinking the bill but it was more of a statement vote.

I think it was a concern about what was left out of this package and what could be left out of the other one. That's how we should look at this. I'm sure we'll dive into it during the show today, Brian, but this of course, by partisan infrastructure bill, is just part one. There's the larger social service program, the larger reconciliation bill, where progressives really see their priorities.

There's still some concern, there's some concern that they have-- they won't see that become reality. There's some concern that they have given up their leverage by voting for the bipartisan infrastructure deal without getting the corresponding vote on the larger package. There's still some distrust between progressives, and they're more conservatives from the Democratic Party. I think that's what's fueling those votes.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. We'll get to a very dramatic example of that with a clip from one of the leading more conservative Democrats, Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey on Morning Edition today, as we go. By the way, listeners, I guess, I should say that Jonathan Lemire, also does know, New York politics with a sort of local and national angle that we're taking on this. He cut his teeth as a daily news reporter before he became a TV star. All right, now, both these things, yes, did you want to say something about that?

Jonathan Lemire: I was going to say I will always have one eye on Gracie Mansion. Room Nine will always be home away from home.

Brian Lehrer: There you go Room Nine, where for those who don't know where the local city hall press corps tends to congregate, at least in pre-COVID times. I don't know how much room nine density there is right now. That's sort of the reporters' room at city hall when they're covering mayor and city council and stuff like that. Both these things, this handful of dissenters from each party's majority, have started fierce internal debates within the parties, as you were just describing.

A Washington Post analysis yesterday said, "We live in this era in which delivering a political win for the other side, however popular the bill and however much your constituents might want it is seen as apostasy." Sure enough, we'll take the Republican side first. Here's what the conservative magazine national review published yesterday. This is quoting now from National Review, "Biden was headed into the 2022 election year a wounded animal, and Republicans stood to make major gains.

Now they tossed him a life raft and allowed him to put bipartisan gloss on his radical agenda. Every Republican who voted for this monstrosity, who has not already retiring should be primaried and defeated by candidates who will actually resist the left-wing agenda". Well, and so is that widespread, that feeling on the right, or in the party leadership? Are we going to see Malliotakis, and Garbarino and Chris Smith and Jeff Andrew actually primaried for this?

Jonathan Lemire: It remains to be seen. We do know that when Republicans have defied party leadership, including Leader McCarthy in the house and former President Trump, they have failed, they seem like they will be facing some primary challenges. Liz Cheyney is a great example of this. She of course, voted for Trump's impeachment. She sits on the January 6th, select committee and she's the only one who's going to be facing potentially re-election because the other Republican [unintelligible 00:09:26] is no longer running for office again.

She's facing that, we'll see if these do. These are Republicans largely who were voted in without too much trouble in their seats. There's a possibility this will fade, but I think to take a step back, the larger point here is just just how polarized things are. The nation's politics have never been more us versus them, Team Red versus Team Blue. There's so little ability to compromise on anything. It's a political truism, nothing polls better than infrastructure. Americans want better highways

and more broadband and yet even now Republicans seem willing to deprive their own constituents of improvements that polls show they desperately want in order to score political points or to try to kneecap the Biden agenda and hurt Democrats in the midterms next year.

Brian Lehrer: Although from a political standpoint, would you say national review has a point like if the Republicans had all voted no, as they do on almost all major Biden priorities, as they did previously on almost all major Obama policies when he was president, they could have sunk it because the Democrats were too divided on their own to pass it. That would enhance the Republican's chances of taking Congress next year. If you agree that that analysis is politically accurate, why didn't that usual Republican calculus carry the day?

Jonathan Lemire: No, and I think it is, I think Speaker Pelosi knew when she calls to the votes and this did happen indeed late Friday that, that she had enough Republicans. Therefore she was willing to let some Democrats defect, but that doesn't mean that had she not had Republicans, she couldn't have gotten them all on board.

The Democratic Party is pretty fractured right now, just as we were saying earlier, [unintelligible 00:11:11] distrust between the progressive and the moderates. I know that Gottheimer and Congresswoman Jayapal really made a show late Friday of standing together representing Moderates and progressives by saying, "Hey, we can work this out. We've done this, we'll do the next piece too," but they are right now they have real divides there.

I think the reason-- and Republicans made a decision that they did prioritize like some of them, local interest and over the national party's wishes recognizing that had they [unintelligible 00:11:41] said to voters on Staten Island or New Jersey or wherever those were few Republicans stand that, "Hey, I voted against something that would have changed your life dramatically for the better," that would have been a tall order when they have to face voters again, exactly one year from today.

Brian Lehrer: All right now, to the democratic side and listeners we can take a few phone calls for Jonathan Lemire, Now Politico's White House bureau chief, and host of Way Too Early, the 5:00 AM hour on MSNBC on the infrastructure bill passing Friday night, late on Friday night or anything very related to that and the Build Back Better bill, which will come next for a vote. 212-433-WNYC, 212-433-9692 or tweet @BrianLehrer.

Jonathan now to the democratic side and the story for months, as many of our listeners know has been that the Progressives would not vote for the physical infrastructure bill without a final deal on the Build Back Better human infrastructure bill because they're afraid that Joe Manchin and a few other people might sink it without the leverage of the physical infrastructure bill is still in play.

Except for six of the Progressives, all the other Democrats, even the leader of the progressive caucus, and their most public face on the social agenda as you mentioned Pramila Jayapal of Seattle did vote, yes. Why did so many, Progressives give up their bargaining position of insisting that they be linked?

Jonathan Lemire: The Progressive's here sacrificed a lot more frankly than their moderate counterparts. It just seems like Senator Manchin in particular is basically dictating the terms of this bill. To this point, we should alert the audience here, that the bring affiliation package here, there's lots of twists and turns to go. Yes, the House did vote on it, but it's going to go to the Senate. Parts are going to get rewritten. If it changes significantly, it's going to have to go back to the House for another vote.

There's a lot of work there that still needs to be done. That could be weeks that I wouldn't be surprised if that goes into December before the vote comes there. The Progressives were in close contact with the White House chief of staff, Ron Klain, according to my reporting, played a very active role talking to Congressman Jayapal and others, at times urging them to go bigger, to push more, don't give up their ground, and other times saying "It's time to come home, time to get this vote."

I think there was a recognition that from these progressives that this is their one shot that the midterm math doesn't look great for Democrats next year. Some of that is just simply historical trend. The party that's not in power tends to lose seats the following November and the margins are so slim. There's a real chance that Democrats will lose control of one if not both Houses of Congress next year.

We also know that the actual legislating really slows down during election year that certainly by springtime at the latest, most of those representatives will start thinking about their own reelection bids. [unintelligible 00:14:50] this is your one shot and at the end of the day, at least a number of progressives, there's enough progressives led by Congressman Jayapal decided to not let perfect be the enemy of the good, and they decided we need to do this. We need to get something done on both of these bills to give us a win for the midterms and also to not totally submarine the agenda of a president, of our own party in his first year in office.

Brian Lehrer: Let me get to what appears to be the new hot-button issue within the Democratic caucus, this requirement by some of the more conservative Dems that the human infrastructure bill before they take that vote, before these more moderate, more conservative Democrats are willing to vote yes, that they get a score from the congressional budget office that this big $1.75 trillion bill will not increase the deficit.

It's 1.57 trillion over 10 years. That number is often exaggerated, but the more conservative Democrats want to know that that's going to be fully paid for within the confines of the bill, it's not going to increase the federal deficit. Is that a new condition in this month's long negotiation? Because I never heard that until last week.

Jonathan Lemire: That's because it was new as of last week. It's definitely drawn some ire from the more progressives, Senator Sanders really slammed this idea in recent days. Let's be clear, the congressional budget office score, it's certainly a useful tool but it's often ignored. War makers tend to grab it when they feel like they can justify whatever position they already held. There's also a timing issue.

These scores expected the last terms of reporting as of the other day, that it could be a couple of weeks before we get that information yet the speaker and others want this action to be done as early as next week. Congress is out this week because of Veteran's Day but everyone's back as of next Monday but the CBO score might not be ready by that.

It does feel like to some progressives, this is another almost stall tactic from the more moderates who remain leery of this larger package, perhaps and some of them have privately said fearful of the electoral climate, or Americans really going to wants to support another huge spending package at a time of inflation at a time of supply chain issues and some moderates nerves look around seeing one of their own, [unintelligible 00:17:27] hardly an [unintelligible 00:17:29] liberal go down a defeat last week.

Brian Lehrer: Yes. Let me ask you about disposition and drill down one level deeper on what the more conservative Democrats are asking for and a possible hypocrisy issue here that's being raised. Your NBC news colleagues to Sahil Kapur tweeted this, "The peculiar situation Democratic leaders now face some of the same holdouts demanding a CBO score showing Build Back Better is fully paid for are also strong supporters of the infrastructure bill, which CBO says is not paid for and adds $256 billion to the debt." Sahil is right.

That's a peculiar contradiction, and I want to play a clip of one of the leading more conservative Dems from our area, Josh Gottheimer a New Jersey Democrat and a leader in demanding zero deficit from Build Back Better while voting yes on infrastructure, even though it will increase the deficit according to the congressional budget office. This is an exchange on Morning Edition today where the host, Rachel Martin asked Gottheimer about the contradiction point-blank, and Gottheimer dances around the question. This begins with Rachel Martin's question.

Rachel Martins: Explain why this is a priority for you though, the CBO score, because you just voted to pass the infrastructure bill, and CBO says it adds $256 billion to the deficit, the infrastructure bill.

Josh Gottheimer: Well, so the way we analyze it and the information we received is that's paid for. The CBO their analysis is critically important as you'll see the tables that we get. We hope from the CBO in the coming two weeks to make sure that items that were added at the last minute which we're reviewing now to make sure that that's indeed paid for.

I think that what folks should understand is when you get this information and when legislation is updated, it has an impact on what we call the score, what something costs. At the end of the day, when you look at these investments, which are so critical from reinstating SALT or the state-local tax deduction to investing in childcare and universal pre-K, you want to make sure that it's fiscally responsible as well. We believe it will be based on the data we initially received from treasury and [crosstalk]

Rachel Martins: If you weren't worried about the deficit with infrastructure why are you worried about--

Josh Gottheimer: Of course, we--

At the end of the day, of course, we are worried about it with infrastructure and we received data that I ended up matching what our expectations are. This is all making sure that what we do receive matches our expectations and then we'll move forward.

Brian Lehrer: New Jersey Congressman Josh Gottheimer answering or not answering the question he was asked on Morning Edition today. Jonathan Lemire, generous with us. Jonathan, I think what he was saying there in all that word soup was that they don't even believe the CBO score on the infrastructure bill, the congressional budget office score. The CBO says it will increase the deficit by a quarter of a trillion dollars over 10 years. He says, "No, we have other numbers from treasury that says it won't." Is that their position?

Jonathan Lemire: Let's go back to what I said a minute ago. Lawmakers choose to embrace or ignore the CBO score, whether it helps their purposes or not. It's all about priorities in politics. For that Congressman from a moderate Congressman who's focused on infrastructure who doesn't want to potentially be associated with some of the bigger ticket items in the larger bill.

This is something they're going to hide behind. It doesn't mean he won't eventually support it, the reconciliation package but it shows that well, there's still work to be done, and certainly, and let's be clear about this. We haven't underscored this or not. This is an absolute victory for Democratic party and particularly this White House.

President Biden came to office pledging that he could bring at least on some occasions Republicans and Democrats together and he could prove the government could still work and could deliver for the American people. As a contrast, try to show the United States democracy as something, it can still be an effective force for its citizens and as a global example, as a counter to what we see as autocracies across the globe, China in particular.

He wanted to restore a sense of confidence and competence in the government. That was what his election campaign was all about, the contrast from Donald Trump. It certainly was messy and still is going to be messy for a few more weeks here, but this is a victory for the president. It is one that is going to have real-world dividends for most Americans in the years ahead.

Brian Lehrer: Political question from Matthew in Great Neck. Matthew, you're on WNYC. Hello?

Matthew: Hi, good morning. I just wanted to ask if as the guest insinuate or it was reported that Pelosi knew that she needed the help of local Republicans. I assume she knew that before last Tuesday, and if she knew that she had a fractured Democratic party and relied on these Republicans, then why did we need the blood sacrifice of last Tuesday?

Why did we have to wait? At that point, there were no progressives to a switch. Why did we need last Tuesday where [unintelligible 00:22:52], pretty much all of Long Island is now red where I live. I'm just wondering when did she-- essentially, when did she know what she knew, and then why did we need last Tuesday?

Brian Lehrer: Good question. Jonathan, is there a good answer?

Jonathan Lemire: The calculation kept changing. The headcount wasn't fluid. She certainly had, according to our reporting and colleagues who cover the Capitol, certainly knew that it was a situation-- what was falling in and out of the bill changed by the day where she reinserted paid leave there at the end, for example, even though Senator Manchin said he opposed it. That's something they're going to have to work out. I also think the calculation changed here because I think in fact it was the counter. Tuesday was what forced this to happen later this week.

They had come close. Let's recall several times before, we thought we were going to get a vote on this and it kept falling through because they didn't have enough. It wasn't clear precisely where the Republicans stood that whether we knew McCarthy was whooping the votes on the GOP side, they were still sorting out how many Republicans defections there may or may not have been. It was the defeat on Tuesday of McCullough Democrats elsewhere, the close call Governor Murphy had in New Jersey that forced action here to make this happen.

Something that a senior White House aide put to me in just the last 48 hours or so was recalling that President Biden had made two different trips to Capitol Hill during this process to talk to Democrats, to talk to houses of Democrats there and neither time did he urge them to vote. That was what strikes me at the moment because usually when a president goes to Capitol Hill, that vote is baked in. It is done.

He's there just to put the exclamation point on the sentence and then take the victory lap but that didn't happen because they knew they didn't have the votes yet. He was there still listening, still part of the process. It was only on Friday after furious negotiations in the wake of McCullough defeat did President Biden, not only did he work the phones privately exhorting Democrats to vote for it, but he put out a public statement. For the first time said, "I'm calling you to vote for this and I'm calling you to vote for this tonight," and within the hour or two, they did.

Brian Lehrer: One more. Barbara in Bay Ridge. That's Nicole Malliotakis' district, the Republican Congresswoman. Barbara, has the constituent seen the statement from her on her yes vote on infrastructure?

Barbara: Yes. In Newsweek, I'm reading from Newsweek now. It says, she said, "I weakened their hand, they have no leverage now. I voted against AOC and the squad tonight." That's her justification for voting for the bill saying, well, this now that the progressive will have less leverage now to get the social spending bill passed.

I found that very interesting. The other thing I noticed is that I follow her on Instagram and she posts everything that she does, everything. Anyway she can get any [unintelligible 00:26:02] she posts it on Instagram. There is nothing on Instagram about her voting for this bill, no email saying, "Well, this is what I've been doing in Washington," which she usually puts out. I found that really interesting.

Brian Lehrer: On the one hand she wants credit for helping to kneecap the social spending bill. On the other hand, maybe I don't want to be seen too much having voted for Biden's infrastructure bill. Interesting dilemma for Malliotakis who national review should get primaried for voting for this bill. Jonathan, let me throw in one other thing. Another way that the local and national politics intersected on election day, that many of our listeners may not even know yet.

On election day, the New York state ballot proposals to allow same-day voter registration and to permanently allow mail in voting for anyone who wants it. You don't need an excuse like being out of state. Both of those things got defeated and that's in Blue New York. Now the pro-Trump or stamp out non-existent voter fraud movement by limiting mailing ballots and limiting voter registration. It even won the day here in New York. What do you make of it?

Jonathan Lemire: That was surprising to some Democratic party leaders that I have heard from and just political observers. We, of course, the access to the ballot has become under incredible scrutiny in the last year, year-plus since the unproven allegations of voter fraud from then-President Trump during the 2020 campaign and after the 2020 campaign, obviously. That was the claim that fueled the insurrection of January 6th.

We have seen Republicans across the countries where they control state legislatures tightening access to the ballot and making it in many people's estimation much harder for people to vote and causing some on the left to say, "This is the exponential threat of our time, not just to the Democratic party's ability to win the election but also to the democracy itself."

It was surprising to see measures meant to increase the access to the ballot go down to defeat in a blue state like New York, but we saw an intense lobbying movement from New York Republicans coming out against this. They pushed for it. This was obviously a very low turnout election on the whole.

Certainly, Eric Adams won big in New York City, a Democrat but it did not capture the public imagination elsewhere across the state. They were watchdog groups divided on it and we had simply just more energy from the conservatives, from the party itself, and other outside interests to bring it to defeat.

Brian Lehrer: The Republicans mobilized around this more effectively than the Democrats. I'll leave as an open question, whether the Republicans won on Long Island plus a few extra New York City Council District because the GOP mobilized on these anti-voting items, and the Dems didn't really mobilize for them as actively, rather than other reasons that are being given like the bail reform law.

We leave that as an open question with Jonathan Lemire. Now POLITICO's white house bureau, chief, and host of the appropriately titled Way Too Early on MSNBC from 5:00 to 6:00 AM. Jonathan, always appreciate it. Thanks for coming on after your shows this morning.

Jonathan Lemire: My pleasure. Hope to do it again soon.

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.