[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC. Is bipartisanship suddenly breaking out in Washington? The answer seems to be yes and no. In this era of gridlock and stalemate, there have been two announcements in the last 24 hours of bipartisan deals between Democrats and Republicans. One is on a police reform bill from negotiations between Republican Senator, Tim Scott of South Carolina, and Democratic Congresswoman, Karen Bass of California. The other is on infrastructure involving five Democratic and five Republican senators and President Biden himself.

President Biden: Let me be clear, neither side got everything they wanted in this deal. That's what it means to compromise and it reflects something important, it reflects consensus.

Brian Lehrer: The infrastructure deal and the consensus that exists comes with a catch. The president says he won't sign his own compromise unless another bill that Republicans are not agreeing to also gets to his desk.

President Biden: Not just signing the bipartisan bill and forgetting about the rest that I have proposed, I proposed a significant piece of legislation in three parts and all three parts are equally important.

Brian Lehrer: Now, on the basis of that statement by Biden, an article in the conservative National Review this morning calls the compromise announcement a charade. It says, "Imagine if, in 2017, Donald Trump and Senator Mitch McConnell announced a bipartisan deal with Democrats on some tax-reform provisions that they agreed with, then pass the rest of the Republican tax bill anyway and called it bipartisan tax reform. It would be viewed as absurd, and rightly so. Such is the case, this time around." That from National Review.

With us now to explain all this further is New York Times Washington correspondent, Emily Cochrane, who is covering this and contributing to a news analysis this morning called On Infrastructure, Biden Tests the Limits of Having It Both Ways. Hi Emily, thanks for the time. Welcome back to WNYC.

Emily Cochrane: Thank you for having me.

Brian Lehrer: Let's talk first about the content of the compromise part, there's a traditional roads and bridges aspect. We probably don't have to go into that in too much detail. One new thing is infrastructure related to climate change. Can you describe some of what's in that?

Emily Cochrane: The plan would put billions of dollars into waterways and coastlines that are facing some rising sea levels. It would also put money towards electric vehicle charging stations, which the president has all prioritized. This is, however, in mostly traditional infrastructure deals. This is physical public works projects, not some of these other more so-called human infrastructure. That's what Democrats have been calling it, proposals like home care, childcare, and paid leave.

Brian Lehrer: Who are these 10 senators who came up with these compromise outlines, five Democrats, five Republicans?

Emily Cochrane: This is a bipartisan group of moderate senators. They've come up before in many, many news cycles because they don't always toe the party line and they want to cross the aisle, especially in a moment of pretty raw gridlock. They want to cross the aisle and work together, so Rob Portman of Ohio, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, Joe Manchin, Susan Collins. This is a group that has quietly been working together even before President Biden took office on the COVID relief deal, and they picked up the reins again to sort of shepherd a smaller bipartisan deal through.

That being said, the deal is a long way from becoming law. We haven't seen legislative text, so it's not necessarily going to become law next week.

Brian Lehrer: Is the President's proposal for a human infrastructure for elder care in the compromise? Because that was supposedly part of the jobs bill, not part of the other human infrastructure bill. I know this can be confusing, but I think the eldercare infrastructure was in the bill that there's now a version of that both parties might agree to. Is that in this?

Emily Cochrane: It is not. It is not. Again, the deal that was struck this week focuses mainly on physical public works project that you will see construction crews, ultimately building these roads, bridges, highways, and whatnot. That being said, Democrats are planning to move ahead with a very technical sort of wonky process that would allow them to provide for childcare, for home care, some of these other promises that were left on the cutting room floor and do it without Republican votes. It's a very complex process, but they have said they will not take up this bipartisan bill without a guaranteed process towards acting on some of these other promises.

Brian Lehrer: There's pushback on the left, not just on the right, like in that National Review article I cited, right?

Emily Cochrane: Yes. There are some liberal Democrats who are concerned that this bipartisan deal is the only infrastructure legislation that Washington will act on. I think that's why you're seeing the president, Speaker Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, the Majority Leader, take this stance and say we will not formally pass this bipartisan deal until we see progress and have the votes for a bigger, broader bill that has home care, childcare, paid leave more climate proposal, all of these key priorities that liberal Democrats want to see enacted into law.

Brian Lehrer: That National Review critique I quoted from at the top said, again, "Imagine if, in 2017, Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell announced the bipartisan deal with Democrats on some tax-reform provisions they agreed with then pass the rest of the Republican tax bill anyway and called it bipartisan tax reform. It would be viewed as absurd," the article said. Is that a fair analogy?

Emily Cochrane: I think it's different in one sense because changing the tax code is so much more of a polarizing issue. That was a red line in these bipartisan negotiations. The president said I don't want to raise taxes on the middle class, and the Republicans said, we don't want you touching the 2017 tax law. Infrastructure is such a bipartisan issue traditionally. I think that is the one prevailing moment where Republicans would say, at least some of these moderate Republicans would say, you know what, yes, you're going to go ahead, but I want to have my name on these really important projects for my community, for my state.

Yes, I think there is some discomfort with the idea that perhaps this bipartisan deal, once it's drafted and written, may sit on the president's desk and not be signed until this bigger bill comes their way. There's certainly some discomfort with that suggestion, but infrastructure is such a bipartisan issue. I think there is a lot of hope that Republicans will still move along with it.

Brian Lehrer: Well, if I'm a Republican, why wouldn't I walk away from this deal if the rest of what I objected to is going to go through anyway?

Emily Cochrane: I think that's a fair question. I think we should first look to the pandemic relief bill that passed earlier this year. There were a lot of programs in that bill that Republicans supported, but they ultimately didn't vote for that final package because they had issues with the overall scope and other provisions in there. Since then, we've seen Democrats hammer Republicans for touting specific parts of that package, for example, the Restaurant Relief Fund, and say, how can you go out and talk about this fund when you didn't even vote for it earlier this year?

There is some benefit to be for them to say, I didn't support this broader human infrastructure bill, I thought it was too far. I thought of, I'm concerned about the national debt, but I did support the physical infrastructure projects that will make your life easier in your community. There has been an argument made that bipartisanship is important and to keep that going, and particularly, after the events of the 6th, to show that there is the ability to work together on some issues, not just to the country, but abroad. That's an argument I've heard from both sides.

Brian Lehrer: Listeners, Republican listeners, progressive wing Democratic listeners, anyone else? Deal or no deal in your opinion, from what you're seeing of the new infrastructure compromise from five Democratic and five Republican senators and President Biden now signing on? 646-435-7280, or any questions you have about it for New York Times, Washington correspondent, Emily Cochrane, who's covering it, 646-435-7280, or tweet a question @BrianLehrer.

Let me come back to one thing in the compromise infrastructure bill that you mentioned that might be really notable, the electric vehicle charging stations. This is a Biden proposal that I think would fund the creation of 500,000, is that the number, half a million electric vehicle charging stations around the country to really try to compete with the gas station infrastructure to help the proliferation? I think eventually they hope dominance or even dominance of electric vehicles, maybe even the obsolescence of gasoline-powered vehicles in not too many years. Was that a hard thing for Republicans to sign on to?

Emily Cochrane: I think it was perhaps not the easiest thing for them to agree to, but compared to the scope of some of the other climate provisions that the president has proposed, this was an easier one for them to accept, compared to, for example, clean electricity and energy standards and some of the much more broader initiatives that Democrats want. I think the biggest challenge in striking this bipartisan agreement, and again, there's a long way to go before this becomes law, was how to pay for it. That has been a long hurdle for infrastructure legislation for quite some time, and that remained the case for this negotiation.

Brian Lehrer: Let's talk about how this would be paid for. One thing you described in the Times is IRS enforcement. What does that refer to?

Emily Cochrane: The idea is to give the IRS more money, so they can better enforce tax law and bring in billions more in unpaid taxes and use that money to help finance the projects. There's still some numbers I think that need to be worked out, but essentially, the idea is to help the IRS better force the tax code and ensure everyone pays the full amount of the taxes they owe.

Brian Lehrer: They also unspent COVID relief money. Biden also referred to some of that in his anti-crime bill proposal this week, unspent COVID relief money. Is there so much unused COVID relief money sitting around that they can fund both transportation and criminal justice infrastructure with that?

Emily Cochrane: I think the idea specifically for the infrastructure proposal we've seen is to take some of the unemployment money. We've seen some Republican governors end these expanded unemployment benefits. I think the idea is to take some of that, those programs will be ending early for those states, so to take some of those funds and redirect them toward infrastructure. It's going to be a complex thing to write so we don't have the specifics of how that would work, but I believe that's the general contours of what they were working with.

Brian Lehrer: The National Review critique said the paying for it part is still much less specific than the what they would like to buy part. True?

Emily Cochrane: Yes, and this is the common case with Washington. It is a lot easier to say how you expend money then and how you would pay for it.

Brian Lehrer: We'll continue in a minute with Emily Cochrane in Washington from the New York Times, as we talk about this bipartisan infrastructure compromise that the president himself announced yesterday. I also want to get more into the part that there isn't compromise on and why there is in compromise on it, the so-called human infrastructure or American Families Plan that the president will still try to push through in a Democrats-only manner if he can get the 51 votes. I'm going to be curious to get your analysis, Emily, of why this isn't popular on the Republican side of the aisle.

It seems to me that there's so much demand for childcare in this country, and there's so much need among women, no matter what party they're in, no matter what color they're in unless they're very well off, and even then sometimes, for childcare infrastructure that we saw so exacerbated in terms of gender disparities and just pressure on families during the pandemic that's not going to go away. I'm going to ask you why that doesn't have bipartisan support and whether Biden could go on tour around the country and drum some up over the heads of the Republican members of Congress. We'll take phone calls for Emily Cochrane at 646-435-7280, right after this.

[music]

Brian Lehrer: Brian Lehrer on WNYC with New York Times congressional correspondent, Emily Cochrane, 646-435-7280. Deal or no deal, listeners, for you on this bipartisan compromise announced on infrastructure but with this whole other piece not compromised on. Emily, I framed the question before the break that I want to ask you. The other part, the part that did not engender a compromise so far, the American Families Plan, a lot of childcare in there. I would think that's of universal interest. What are the politics of that?

Emily Cochrane: I think it just comes back to Republicans are after spending so much money to address the pandemic and the toll that I took, they're going back to being concerned about the national debt and concerned about the scope of the federal government and its policies. They are just looking to cut down on spending and cut down on the scope of what Washington is doing across the country.

Brian Lehrer: If the Republican base is a lot of working-class white people, aren't they feeling the pressure on childcare and eldercare, the parts of that got cut out of this bill? Couldn't the president go on tour and make this clear? Maybe they don't even know about these parts of the bill because they're not following a lot of Washington news really closely unless they're big cable TV watchers. Couldn't the president make a successful case here? Do you have any news analysis of that?

Emily Cochrane: I think, if Democrats are successful in passing this legislation without any Republican votes, the way they did with the pandemic relief bill earlier this year, you will see the president redefine bipartisanship and make it more not about the votes on Capitol Hill, but more about the support from the local officials and the voters. Traditionally, bipartisanship means that both Republicans and Democrats voted for a bill and you saw the president make it more about the support he was getting from Republican officials and from Republican voters. I think you can expect him to do the same thing if this second package does make it through Congress.

Brian Lehrer: I think Jane in the Bronx has a question right to this point. Jane, you're on WNYC. Thanks a lot for calling.

Jane: Yes. Great topic. Listen, I don't understand journalists who talk about this as if the Republican-elected officials have individual free will, that they are-- In other parts of your same newspaper, you talk about how they are very, not you personally, but the Times does, and others, they are completely or very much beholden to their donors. I think these articles and the journalism that just pays attention to what Republican X says, or Republican Y says, without looking at who funds them. Why is it in the interest of the donors to support or not support various parts of the infrastructure legislation that's being proposed, or any bill, frankly?

We've got to get to where the real power lies, which I think increasingly is from the donor class. It's not the elected officials or just somewhat of a mirage that keeps our eyes focused on them and the real stuff is happening behind the scenes. I hope that the journalists can continue to do a really good job of doing what we in the public have a hard time doing, which is finding out what the real story is. Thanks a lot. I'll listen on the air. Thanks so much for your reporting.

Brian Lehrer: Jane, thanks a lot for your question. What about that in relation to the care infrastructure that the Republicans are rejecting, are there donor interests involved with that?

Emily Cochrane: I don't think we quite yet have a sense yet because of how much focus has been on the bipartisan deal and the physical infrastructure first, because that is the legislation that has or the framework rather, that has emerged first. I think once we actually see Democrats start to draft the specific language of the care provisions, of some of these human infrastructure provisions, we will have a better understanding of maybe specific industry objections to this.

Certainly, I think there are business groups that are very supportive of the physical infrastructure package and it's a little more nebulous what specific proposals will make it into this Democratic, the second Democratic package. It's something we're going to keep an eye on. I do think a big factor is the specter of concerns about federal spending and the debt, that's something that Republicans typically have brought up a lot more under Democratic administrations than Republican administrations. I think that is a big factor here. We didn't see these kinds of concerns as vocally during the Trump administration and they are coming back. They are coming back now that President Biden is in office.

Brian Lehrer: Xavier in Jersey City, you're on WNYC. Hello, Xavier.

Xavier: Hi, Brian. Thanks for having me on. I absolutely agree with both components of the legislation. I'm not particularly happy with the compromise, but I think in terms of taking a longer-term view, redefining what infrastructure is could be problematic, especially if there's a shift in Congress. What happens when Republicans take over and they say, "You guys defined infrastructure with this, by these components," what's to stop them from having something that is more nefarious or that's nefarious in general?

Brian Lehrer: Yes, maybe the assault weapon infrastructure.

Xavier: Yes, and get it done through reconciliation. I think even though I'm slightly disappointed, I think from a long-term perspective, it may not be a bad idea to not have human infrastructure be incorporated with physical traditional infrastructure.

Brian Lehrer: Xavier, thank you for that. Maybe it's worth explaining this process of reconciliation as it's called. Probably some listeners to the show know this, a lot of listeners to show may not know this. When you say the word reconciliation, that sounds like something that's bipartisan. The two sides of reconciling their differences, but it's actually just the opposite of that. Certain kinds of bills can go through via reconciliation without the filibuster, other kinds can't. Can you break that down for us?

Emily Cochrane: Absolutely. It's a process that works both in the House and the Senate, but it's primarily important in the Senate because, as probably many listeners know, the 60-vote filibuster threshold is still in place, but for reconciliation, you only need a simple majority. For Democrats right now, they just need those 50 votes and the vice president to break the tie. The catch of going around the filibuster is that it has to adhere to the very strict budgetary rules. The legislation has to reconcile the spending and the tax from both sides.

Any policy that's in there has to have some sort of budgetary impact. That's part of the challenge for this process because there's a lot of wishlists. There's a lot of things Democrats and Republicans when they're in control, want to get through unilaterally, but if it doesn't meet the strict rules as overseen by the Senate parliamentarians, they will be removed from the bill. For example, during the pandemic relief bill, the federal increase to the minimum wage was taken out of the pandemic relief bill because the parliamentarians said this does not have enough of a budgetary effect. This is a policy change, this is not a budgetary change.

I hear the concerns from both sides about taking this too far and setting precedent, but these are very strict rules. As we've already seen this year, the parliamentarian is very, very particular about how those rules are enforced. It also is a very lengthy process. Both chambers will have to pass a budget resolution, just setting up the rules, just the guidelines, how much they're going to spend, how much they're going to tax, just basic instructions even before they pass the actual legislation that becomes law. That's why, for this second package, that may not become law until September because it just takes so long for these very, very complex pieces of legislation to not only get through but also meet the strict criteria of the Senate rules.

Brian Lehrer: This is WNYC FM HD and AM New York, WNJT FM, 88.1 Trenton, WNJP 88.5 Sussex, WNJY 89.3 Netcong, and WNJO 90.3 Toms River. We are a New York and New Jersey public radio. Few more minutes with Emily Cochrane who covers Congress for the New York Times on these couple of instances of bipartisanship breaking out, sort of, in the last 24 hours. Rory in Queens, you're on WNYC with Emily Cochrane. Hi, Rory.

Rory: Hey. I just wanted to comment on, I'm fearful of the bipartisan section of that [unintelligible 00:25:31] and then after the fact, us forcing through or managing to use reconciliation to get the rest of the things in the right path past because I think if we've learned anything over the last few years, anything that we do, I'm almost fearful that it will be used against us in the future if we lose the very tiny majority we have in the Senate and it will backfire against us.

Additionally, the comments on the idea that Republicans are going to be able to go around and say, we signed on this but we don't agree with anything else on these other things, I feel like if it'll be exacerbated later on and used against us very strongly. My mother is a Republican, she voted for Trump twice and she's a lower-middle-class working adult. I can't even have political conversations with her anymore because she's so misinformed and so far out there where she gets her information from that it's-- I'm afraid that it's going to backfire.

Brian Lehrer: Right, so we've got two issues here. One is that we need a political family therapist for you and your mom, clearly. The other one is something that always comes up when they talk about compromise, I think. If you compromise, this is one of the obstacles to compromise in general, right, Emily, that if you compromise by giving away things that you really want in order to get to yes with another side, if you really think those things you're giving up are important, then you don't make the compromise, you use the parts you agree on as leverage to get more because otherwise, you're leaving these other vital priorities by the side of the road, and you may never get them back again. That's where suspicion of compromise comes from. Correct?

Emily Cochrane: I think there's some of that. I think there's also, with the reconciliation process, there's a timeframe for that. That's one of the rules. It can be undone the next time there's an opposing majority. I think that concern about things being weaponized against a lawmaker politically is in part what drove these centrist lawmakers together to prove that there was something that both sides could get on board so they could deliver on just some basic needs across the country without necessarily weaponizing it.

There is always a political calculation to this, but that is just a part of how this goes, but at a certain point, there are lawmakers who step up and say it is worth it, it's worth it. I think that's in part why the pandemic relief bill passed with just Democratic votes. All the Democrats agreed that the policies that ultimately made it into that bill was worth doing unilaterally, whether or not that's a consequence for them in the midterm remains to be seen.

Brian Lehrer: What you call weaponizing it is I guess, taking the risk that you can build a bigger congressional majority for your party by using the issue rather than taking the compromise and letting everybody out there think things are okay, and maybe voting for a status quo Congress and having a similar gridlock take the issue and run on the issue and try to build a bigger majority for your party so that you can get more of what you think is really important. I guess that's part of the political calculus.

As we run out of time, let's touch one more compromise framework that got announced yesterday. I know you've been covering infrastructure. You'll tell me how much you can tell me about this. We have Republican Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina and Democratic Congresswoman Karen Bass of California saying they have a framework for a bipartisan deal on police reform. What is known?

Emily Cochrane: I don't think we actually have a lot of details of what that framework is. The Senate just left for a two-week, 4th of July recess. I think the biggest takeaway from that announcement is that they're going to continue working on the issue. I think more details are needed before we assess how much progress they've made and whether legislation will emerge that everyone can vote on.

It is like the infrastructure framework, Biden announced the deal, senators announced the deal, there still hasn't been a vote in either chamber. There's still a ways to go. I think that the police reform discussions are in a similar place where they've agreed perhaps on some broad outline, but we don't have a lot of detail. Until we have that, until we see the vote, it's a long way out.

Brian Lehrer: Is it an indication of any bigger change in the wind that these two compromises, infrastructure and police reform, got announced the same day?

Emily Cochrane: I'm not sure they coordinated, but certainly, I think the lawmakers who have been eager to work together and get the sign-off from leaders in both parties are a little emboldened and are going to keep working at the issues.

Brian Lehrer: Emily Cochrane covers Congress for the New York Times. Thank you so much for coming on with us.

Emily Cochrane: Thank you for having me.

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.