Bipartisan Gang Wants More Time On Infrastructure Bill — So, What Now?

July 22, 2021
WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 21: Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) boards an elevator during a procedural vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill at the U.S. Capitol on July 21, 2021 in Washington, DC. Schume... WASHINGTON, DC - JULY 21: Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) boards an elevator during a procedural vote on the bipartisan infrastructure bill at the U.S. Capitol on July 21, 2021 in Washington, DC. Schumer scheduled the vote on the nearly $1 trillion infrastructure legislation for Wednesday in hopes of moving negotiations forward while some Republicans have requested a delay on the vote until Monday. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) MORE LESS
|
July 22, 2021

As expected, the procedural vote on the bipartisan infrastructure deal failed on Wednesday, with Republicans blocking the chamber from starting debate on the bill.

The bipartisan group of senators sent out a statement seemingly timed to the vote’s failure, vaguely promising progress and asking for more time. Emphasis on the “vaguely” here — they pledged they’d be ready to advance the legislation “in the coming days.” A group of 11 Republicans promised Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that they’d vote to proceed to debate (notably, not to pass the bill) on Monday.

It would be reasonably easy for Schumer to swap in the finished text of the bill as an amendment — he changed his vote to “no” yesterday specifically so he could bring it up for a vote again in the future. The devil will be in the details here. Both Democrats and Republicans in the group want more time; Schumer is wary of Republicans trying to drag out the process and eat up the clock. And some Senate Democrats outside the group are getting impatient — Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) told a group of us on Tuesday that given her druthers, she’d assign the group a deadline of this week.

We’ll be watching what Schumer does next. Relevant Democrats are still plugging away at what will become the reconciliation package. It’s not clear yet when they’ll have consensus within the caucus, and the 50 votes needed to move it forward. But at some point, if the bipartisan deal is toast, they’ll need to wrap hard infrastructure into it too.

More Less

As expected, the procedural vote on the bipartisan infrastructure deal failed on Wednesday, with Republicans blocking the chamber from starting debate on the bill.

The bipartisan group of senators sent out a statement seemingly timed to the vote’s failure, vaguely promising progress and asking for more time. Emphasis on the “vaguely” here — they pledged they’d be ready to advance the legislation “in the coming days.” A group of 11 Republicans promised Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) that they’d vote to proceed to debate (notably, not to pass the bill) on Monday.

It would be reasonably easy for Schumer to swap in the finished text of the bill as an amendment — he changed his vote to “no” yesterday specifically so he could bring it up for a vote again in the future. The devil will be in the details here. Both Democrats and Republicans in the group want more time; Schumer is wary of Republicans trying to drag out the process and eat up the clock. And some Senate Democrats outside the group are getting impatient — Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) told a group of us on Tuesday that given her druthers, she’d assign the group a deadline of this week.

We’ll be watching what Schumer does next. Relevant Democrats are still plugging away at what will become the reconciliation package. It’s not clear yet when they’ll have consensus within the caucus, and the 50 votes needed to move it forward. But at some point, if the bipartisan deal is toast, they’ll need to wrap hard infrastructure into it too.

80
Show Comments

Notable Replies

  1. The labor movement made the middle class. The anti-labor movement is meant to destroy it.

  2. When people study stratification and social status levels, an aspect which is sometmes not emphasized is the tendency of individuals to misjudge their actual position in the American social class distribution, usually erring on the side of putting it higher than it is.

    When you combine that with certain other dynamics (including racism), what you get is a lot of people voting for the Republican Party who have no business doing so.

    Only individuals above a certain level in the social class system would have any really valid reason to pull the lever for the GOP.

  3. An example of negotiating with a Racist Party that lies and doesn’t bargain in good faith. As Biden said the GOP shook hands on the deal and now are demanding changes and delaying. I really can’t stand Manchin and Sinema.

  4. I think they either think they are higher…OR…they are victims and much lower.

    I also think a big part of what drives this behavior is the weird belief that they may someday be a millionaire. It’s the “Beverly Hillbillies” Syndrome.

    And then there’s American exceptionalism…tax everyone/anyone EXCEPT me.

  5. I know that Manchin isn’t a TPM favorite, but here at least he’s talking a bit of sense: the reconciliation package has to go through all kinds of committee mark-ups before it even reaches the full Senate.

    Let’s see what he’s saying in a couple of weeks, especially regarding coal and tax rates (he wants lower rates than what’s been bandied about), before we slag him on this. And I’ll happily join in if he hasn’t come around.

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

74 more replies

Participants

Avatar for discobot Avatar for cabchi Avatar for zandru Avatar for sysprog Avatar for Lacuna-Synecdoche Avatar for sniffit Avatar for danny Avatar for donnyyoung Avatar for gr Avatar for left_in_washington_state Avatar for vlharpley Avatar for fiftygigs Avatar for khyber900 Avatar for greysea Avatar for tindalos Avatar for 19tibekius6 Avatar for bcgister Avatar for jwbuho Avatar for jackofalltirades Avatar for trustywoods Avatar for emiliano4 Avatar for Hatmama Avatar for PicMover Avatar for geographyjones

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Deputy Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: